Tag: review

Wow, I haven’t seen a movie in nearly forever, but I did finally go see the new Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace,” over the weekend. This one picks up shortly after the end of “Casino Royale,” where Bond is out for vengeance against the people responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd. It’s a search that takes him all over the world, from Italy to London to Bolivia, with excellent (as expected) car chases, fight scenes and explosions. What else could one want from a Bond movie?!

Well…a little bit more than that… I have a few qualms with this movie, and while it was quite good, I don’t regard it as good as the previous outing. First of all, I appreciate the use of “shaky cam,” as it gives you the feeling that you’re chasing/being chased with the main character. This is the same problem I had with “The Bourne Identity,” where the “shaky cam” was used almost exclusively, leading to closer fight scenes where you couldn’t see the action from a very good view. The later iterations of the “Bourne” series pared that down a bit and got a good mix, but in all the fight scenes where I’d like to actually see some of the action, I think they could have zoomed out a bit with the camera.

Secondly, Bond movies aren’t exactly well-known for their stories, but I thought “Casino Royale” actually had a somewhat decent one (again…for a Bond movie…). This one really seems abstract to me, where the “villain” is a bad guy, but not really bent on “world domination” or “world destruction.” He wants to make some money off third-world countries. It just doesn’t seem like he and Bond really have any connection. Like he’s “just another guy.” You could make the same “just wants to make money” claim off Le Chiffre from “Casino Royale,” but in that case, at least the money was being used to fund terrorist organizations. I guess I just wanted a bit more of a connection between the guys than simply “he is bad and I should stop him.” It doesn’t seem like there’s any anxiousness to the situation, where Bond could take him down at any time: there is no countdown clock to the end of the world.

Finally, the general story that these two movies seem to follow. Old school Bond movies are good about having a single story arc taking place in a given movie, with very little tie-in to the previous movie (at least, of any significance). “Quantum of Solace” is a direct sequel to “Casino Royale,” so theoretically, it should significantly move the story forward from where it was, as opposed to being “stand-alone” as traditional Bond movies are. This one feels like it’s more “stand-alone” than “sequel” in the way the story is set up in that it takes the lead off the previous movie reminds us of some of the questions we had at the end…and then continues on to not answer those questions. At the end of “Quantum,” we actually get the opportunity to have them answered…only to have Bond walk off into the dark, cold night without telling us. Seriously? If anything, more questions are now put on the table alongside the existing ones. If you’re going to do a true sequel, you’d better wrap up the previous story line, or at least parts of it, before you go on adding more and more questions to the pile.

That said (and those are my three qualms…while relatively big, they aren’t all _that_ important in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think), the action sequences were still top-notch, Daniel Craig still gets the award for “most beat-up looking Bond of them all,” and the ladies are as lovely as ever. A “pass” can be given on the story, but again, since when is “story” the important part of a Bond movie?

In short, “Casino Royale” is a better movie overall, but this one is still a fun ride and likely the best action movie you’ll see this holiday season.

Let me get this out of the way right now: I wasn’t a huge fan of “No Country For Old Men,” let alone other Coen Brothers classics like “Fargo“… “Burn After Reading” is their recent effort, a movie that Brooke (of course) insisted on seeing (but since the Moolah serves beer and lets you sit in leather couches, I wasn’t going to argue much…) and contains many of the best actors of our time, including Clooney, Pitt, McDormand, and Malkovich.

The basic idea of the movie is that Malkovich works for the CIA, gets canned, and decides to write his memoir. The CD containing his draft(s) gets lost at a local workout studio, the workers (McDormand and Pitt) discover it and try to make some money by blackmailing Malkovich. All this time, Clooney and Malkovich’s wife are having an affair, but since Clooney is (apparently) addicted to sex, he also gets with McDormand…tying all these parties together… Get it?

Nope…you probably don’t…and this is typical of a Coen Bros. movie… Seriously…what the heck…

Regardless, as compared with “No Country,” this movie was actually pretty funny…and while it didn’t make much sense, the plot did actually come “full-circle” and make sense…there was a beginning, middle and end…and the end made some kind of (twisted) sense.

I can’t say this movie was the best I’ve seen all summer (yes…it’s still summer until Sept. 22nd), but it wasn’t bad, either. And seeing it with a beer in your hand is never a bad thing.

Arguably the most anticipated movie of 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the next installment in the Batman “re-boot” that started with 2005’s “Batman Begins.” After the last set of four movies descended into campy ridiculousness (Mr. Freeze, anyone?), “Begins” brought Batman back to his roots with an excellent origin story that brought some great actors, and a great story, back to the franchise.

This is a dark movie, much in the same vein as “Empire Strikes Back” or “Temple of Doom,” where we have the characters established, but the authors/producers feel like it’s time to hurt them a bit. Bruce Wayne is settling into his role at Wayne Enterprises, the criminals are on the run, due in part to efforts by Batman, but also because of Lieutenant Gordon and the new D.A. Harvey Dent. Wayne sees Dent as the “bright light” Gotham needs, as someone that can bring justice and order to the streets without resorting to vigilantism and the wearing of a mask. The entry of the Joker, however, changes things in that he seeks to bring as much chaos to this “new order” as possible. He views the Batman as his equal, as the only person that can fully compliment his destructive capabilities. The Joker even says “you complete me” to Batman during an exchange later on in the film.

I try not to use the word lightly, as it tends to be over-used in movie and video game reviews, but I would describe “The Dark Knight” as a “visceral” experience. I only say this because, unlike many other superhero movies out there, I think I felt the sheer terror of what the Joker represents, and the pain that the protagonist (and the other characters, for that matter) experienced as the movie goes on.

The movie is complete with its usual special effect goodness, is top-rate acting from its strong cast, and a very, very intricate plot-line that ties things up very nicely throughout. There are things that occur earlier in the film that lead on to surprises later on, allowing for a story that, while 155 min. long, keeps you engaged throughout as you want to see what finally happens in the end.

My analysis ends with “The Dark Knight’s” place in the annals of superhero movies. This year alone, another strong movie, “Iron Man,” came out and blew audiences and critics away. Certainly, there are two other franchises (“Spider-man” and “X-men“) where, by most accounts, the second movie in the franchise is where their respective trilogies peaked. I think, in my opinion, the jump in quality between “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” exceeds that which we saw in “X-men” or “Spider-man.” Both of those two series had much stronger stories than their previous outings, and the characters were established allowing for much more expansive themes to hit upon, but “The Dark Knight” succeeds where those two series didn’t by the “visceral” experience you feel while watching it. You really get the sense of pain that the main characters experience through the investment you have in them. There is genuine surprise in the events that unfold throughout the film, making you want more and more.

It could very well be the greatest superhero movie of all time. Not just because it’s Batman, and certainly not just because Heath Ledger provided his last, great performance. But because it’s just a damned fine movie.

For our anniversary last week, Brooke and I did the “dinner and a movie” thing and went to see “Get Smart.” Let me preface by saying that Mom and Dad didn’t let Kristen and me watch sitcoms back in the mid-90s…as “Seinfeld” and “Married…With Children” weren’t deemed “appropriate.” Thus, we watched a lot of Nick at Nite, back in the golden age when the shows included “Bewitched,” “Dragnet,” “I Dream of Jeannie” and, of course, “Get Smart.” So yeah, I’ve kinda got a fond place in my heart for the characters in that show and was hoping this movie would be handled with the care it deserves, as opposed to other old TV franchise reboots (I’m talking to you, “Dukes of Hazzard” and “Starsky and Hutch“).

So, despite my worst fears, I must say that it was a really fun movie. It’s more of an “origin story,” so we’re learning how Maxwell Smart becomes Agent 86, meets up with Agent 99, etc. Essentially, Smart is an analyst for Control, a secret government organization doing Cold War-style battle with the evil KAOS. Somehow, KAOS gets ahold of the list of undercover Control agents and starts knocking them off, leaving Smart as one of the few agents that can be called into service, as his records are unknown. We then follow 86 and 99 as they traverse the world trying to stop KAOS from getting ahold of nuclear weapons that they can distribute to other terrorist organizations, thus saving the world.

The story itself is relatively predictable, and many of the gags are only truly “funny” if you are familiar with the original show (one with Bill Murray in a cameo as Agent 13, hiding in a tree…), but it still has plenty of hilarious moments for those that don’t remember the show so well. There aren’t that many special effects, but when they’re in there, it isn’t too obvious (i.e. no obvious green screen shots or CGI explosions…). The acting was pretty good, of course, and there were plenty of people I’ve actually heard of playing in the main roles.

Overall, I think it was a pretty good movie. The story was simple, yet entertaining. The gags did not completely rely on knowledge of the old show (yes, the shoephone makes an appearance…), and I was certainly laughing out loud for most of the movie. I think, so far at least, this is the best comedy I’ve seen in 2008 and will have wide appeal for most people this summer.

Now, I was one of many (or few?) that saw 2003’s “Hulk” in the theater…and I was rather disappointed. We were just getting started with the “super-hero/comic book” craze in films and there were high hopes for this movie, especially because it had a high-profile director in Ang Lee directing it. It was, of course, an origin story where we see Bruce Banner test gamma radiation on himself, leading to his transformation into a large, green monster…but that’s just about all we got. We saw him transform into the Hulk a few times, and he fought some monster dogs…and the military…and, well, I personally got bored. The movie just wasn’t interesting. It had a decent plot to it, but it didn’t have much “movement,” as many would expect in an action film.

Apparently some execs agreed and made this new movie, “The Incredible Hulk,” a reboot of the franchise, with different actors, a different director, and a different direction. This one takes place a few years following the previous outing, where Banner (played by Edward Norton this time) is hiding out in Brazil trying to find a cure for his…”problem.” The US military finally tracks him down and sends a team to apprehend him, only to find out that they’re of little match for the Hulk. One of the military team, played by Tim Roth, decides to work with General Ross to bring down the Hulk once and for all by volunteering himself to take part in “super-soldier serum” research, making him as powerful and nimble as the Hulk is. Of course, as one can imagine, he decides to go a bit too far, goes a bit nuts, and the movie ends as expected…

This movie does everything right that the previous one didn’t. It has many more action scenes, with the Hulk fighting the military in Brazil, on a college campus back in the US and in NYC for the finale. Also, this iteration of the Hulk, an all-CGI effect, is much more convincing than the previous one, likely because of the 5+ years further advancement in CGI technology that movie makers now have to work with. While you could very easily tell that the CGI Hulk in the first movie was computer generated, this one was much more fluid and interacted with the surroundings in a much more convincing way (i.e. it didn’t look like Liv Tyler was standing in front of a green screen having everything else filled in around her…). Finally, the movie seems to have a stronger focus. Where the previous one seemed to focus more on Banner himself and his inner conflicts, this iteration splits between Banner and the Hulk, allowing for that “split personality” to be on the forefront…which is the whole reason people read the Hulk comics for so many years in the first place.

So yeah, it’s a good movie. Is it better than “Iron Man?” Probably not…but this movie does justice to the characters where the previous movie really didn’t…that, and it’s really sweet to see the Hulk throw tanks at helicopters… 😉

Rightfully considered the first true blockbuster of 2008, Iron Man was released this past weekend and already raked in over $100 million in ticket sales. As per usual, when a Marvel superhero movie comes out, I had to go see it! It was even worth the 35 minute drive to Chesterfield to go see it on the Mega Screen… And overall, I thought it was pretty damned awesome…

The story centers around billionaire Tony Stark, who runs the weapons developer/manufacturer Stark Industries. While in Afghanistan giving a demo of his new missile to the U.S. military, he gets kidnapped by terrorists that want him to build the missile for them in a cave. During the course of the kidnapping, he gets some shrapnel caught in his body that will kill him once it reaches his heart (eh?) – he then develops a mini electromagnet to prevent this from occurring and save his life. In order to escape from the terrorists, he builds an iron suit from left-over missile parts, powered by the generator now in his chest. After escaping, he realizes the error of his ways and decides to do good for humanity, mostly buy building an even better generator and an even better suit to help combat evil around the globe.

The acting by Robert Downey, Jr. is excellent. As many other reviewers have said, and as I thought when his casting was first announced, Downey was born to play Tony Stark. It’s one of those things where there is no one else alive who could possibly play this role. Besides him, the acting amongst the other players was pretty good, but it all pretty much relied on his portrayal of Stark…and he succeeded admirably. The effects, of course, were also top-notch (as should be expected from the first true blockbuster of the year). It was good enough that you knew it was mostly computer generated, but it wasn’t all that easy to tell when Downey was in the suit, or whether the suit was actually CGI.

The thing that gets me about this movie, however, is the story… When I look back on movies like “Spider-man” and “X-men,” you can point to the “origin” aspects of the story, and then the “villain” part of the story. In the case of “Spider-man,” the first half of the movie is spent with Peter Parker figuring out his powers and what he’s going to do with them. The last half has him meeting up with the Green Goblin 3 or 4 times, culminating in a last battle leading to ultimate victory. So far as “X-Men” goes, there wasn’t as much “origin” to the story, but at least there were interactions with Magneto throughout the entire film, making that last scene where he’s defeated much more intense…

“Iron Man,” however, seems to follow the “Fantastic Four” formula of relying mostly on origin story, and then finally having a “boss battle” at the end of the movie…with no real interaction between the protagonist and ultimate antagonist until the very end (by “ultimate,” I mean the guy Iron Man eventually battles…even though he interacts with the villain throughout the movie). “Fantastic Four” was similar in that they coped with their powers for most of the movie, and finally fought Dr. Doom in the last scene…which made me dislike “Four” to an extent.

I think “Iron Man” does a better job of bridging the gap between “origin” and “villain” relatively well, but not as well as “Spider-man” did. So, to that end, I don’t think “Iron Man” is as good a movie, but I still think it was really good and I’ll grab the DVD…

…mostly because “Iron Man 2” has already been green-lit… 😛

So, I was a big fan of Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle. It wasn’t reviewed terribly well, but it was arguably the funniest comedy I’d seen in years. As in, I’ll usually go to a comedy and chuckle a bit, or maybe laugh out loud some…but White Castle was to the point where I couldn’t breathe for half the movie. (No Mom, you wouldn’t find it funny…not your kind of humor… :-P)

Therefore, we went and saw the second iteration, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay this weekend, which picks up right as the previous film lets off. The basic premise is that, at the end of “White Castle,” Harold finally kisses the girl of his dreams, but promptly finds out that she’s off to Amsterdam. So…Harold and Kumar, being the stoners that they are, are all about getting on a plane and heading off…

Well, the crazy old white lady on the plane sees our Indian (read: Al Qaeda) and Korean (read: North Korean) protagonists, gets freaked out, comedy ensues, and the Air Marshalls send the two off to Guantanamo. After a brief stay (as in, like, 2 minutes), they escape and make it to Florida with a boat of Cubans. Anyway, the pair go through all kinds of shenanigans as they make their way to Texas to clear their names…

In all honesty, I’m glad I saw the movie, but it wasn’t as good as the first one. It still had breathless funny moments, but it wasn’t quite half the movie…maybe a quarter, this time. The cameos alone are hilarious, as Ed Helms, Rob Corddry, David Krumholtz, Beverly D’Angelo, Christopher Meloni, Jon Reep (of “Last Comic Standing” fame), George W. Bush (yeah…that George W. Bush…) and, of course Neil Patrick Harris.

This isn’t the kind of movie you see for the acting (which was good, of course), or the special effects (there weren’t any), but it was quite funny and worth the money…especially if you liked the first one.

And yeah…watching a George W. look-a-like smoke weed and speak ill of his parents isn’t funny…I don’t know what is…

‘Tis fitting, perhaps, that my 50th review on this so-called “blog” be for “Cloverfield,” a movie by J.J. Abrams, who is also doing the new “Star Trek” movie opening on Christmas Day, 2008….but more on that later…

The idea is that Abrams, on a visit to Japan with his kid, noticed that Godzilla is a major part of Japanese culture, but America doesn’t really have a “Godzilla”… “King Kong” was kinda close, but not the same… Abrams set out to make his own “Godzilla” movie, and certainly in his own way.

The film is set during a party for Rob, who’s leaving for Japan for his new job. Hud is charged with videotaping people’s “farewell” wishes for Rob. Suddenly, the party-goers feel what they think is an earthquake, but soon find out that “something” is attacking New York City, only a few blocks from where they stand.

The movie goes on from there, with a small group from that party setting out to get off the island and save their friends that are still trapped. The entire movie is told from the perspective of this group, and visualized through this “handicam”. It looks very much like “The Blair Witch Project,” except that this movie is a). better financed, and b). actually good. So, as such, those of you that get a little queesy with the “shaky cam” views during movies may have some difficulty, but the movie sure seemed to be a bit more steady than “Blair Witch” was.

I thought it was really good, and provided more suspense than I expected walking into it. Considering that the movie is told entirely from this small group’s perspective, you wouldn’t expect to get good views of this giant monster attacking the city (and initially you don’t!), but Abrams and his director (Matt Reeves) cleverly allow the audience to catch glimpses, and then a full-on view at the climax. The effects were quite good and, most surprisingly, the sound was awesome. Frequently in sci-fi movies, you’ll have surround sound, but not like this! Since you were seeing the movie through the eyes of this camera, that also means that you heard everything that the camera heard, meaning that you feel like you were the one holding the camera the whole time. Thus, if you hear something behind you, the camera has to turn around and look. Since you don’t have that 3rd person view (ever!), you (the viewer) are more likely to identify with Hud, the guy holding the camera.

The other neat part is that the story unfolds for this group wandering through Manhattan, so you never really know what the “creature” is, why it’s there, where it came from, etc…and honestly, you don’t care. You identify with the characters (completely unknown actors, all of which do a great job) and find things out as they do. Sure, there are questions at the end, but nothing that really must be answered. If you see it, however, pay attention at the very beginning to the text on the screen – there were some idiots in the theater that didn’t read it at the beginning and were surprised at the ending.

So yeah, the movie was good. If you don’t get queesy watching the “shaky cam” for 1.5 hours (and it isn’t all shaky!), then this is worth your time.

Edit: Apparently, in the very last shot of the movie (Rob and Beth on a ferris wheel), there’s something in the water behind them…likely kinda hard to see… If you see the movie, watch for that and tell me what it is! I didn’t know about this when I saw the movie, and thus wasn’t watching for it…grrr…

On a side-note, the teaser trailer for “Star Trek XI” precedes the movie…and believe you me, I won’t mind bypassing my presents on Xmas morning to make sure I’m in line for the first showing… The teaser is awesome and it’ll be up here as soon as a good copy of it is available (YouTube has a really crappy quality version right now…).

It’s a good year to be a geek 🙂