Tag: review

Brooke, with her occasionally odd taste in movies (“No Country For Old Men,” anyone?) decided she wanted to see Tim Burton‘s “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street,” starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. In actuality, I think she wanted to see it mostly because it was featured prominently in Kevin Smith‘s “Jersey Girl,” which she enjoyed quite a bit.

In all honesty, I kinda wanted to see it, too. I very much liked “Sleepy Hollow” a few years back, also by Burton and starring Depp, and a). reviews were quite good for it, and b). who knew Depp could sing? Well, he can…and surprisingly well.

The movie centers upon one Benjamin Barker, a skilled barber, who is wrongfully imprisoned by a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) that fancies Barker’s wife. Barker returns 15 years later to find his wife dead, his young daughter now grown up and being raised by the judge, and he wants revenge. He begins to cut hair (and throats) in the old building he used to work in, now owned by Carter’s character, Mrs. Lovett.

Now, this is not your typical musical. The score is beautiful, yet haunting. The characters sing to each other, but there are no dancing choruses in the background. Brooke tells me, from what she’s heard, the musical numbers were changed rather dramatically from the stage version, yet the this one has the blessing of its author, Steven Sondheim. (note: if you find that article, Brooke, post that for the folks…) So yeah, the singing is prominent, yet not as in other musicals. The singing is almost spoken, in some ways, but there’s definite melody to each song. Kinda hard to explain…you’ll just have to watch… 😛

I thought it was pretty good, in the end. It had a few twists and turns, and quite a few…”quirky”…moments (as per other Tim Burton films…), the acting was solid, and the cast did surprisingly well with their singing. It was kinda hard for me to understand the words in some of the earlier songs (with the thick olde English accents…), but once they got into their groove, it was very easy to follow.

I will warn you, however, that it was quite bloody. Not really “gore,” per se…more like fountains of red… I’m sure this aspect is similar to the stage version(s), but Tim Burton likes to be “over the top” with such things. It was also rather disturbing to listen to the woman sitting behind us laughing every time Johnny Depp killed someone and dropped their bodies down to the sewers…

It’s worth seeing, especially if you like Tim Burton/Johnny Depp movies… Otherwise, it’s a nice change-of-pace from your typical fare out this time of year. Depp will likely be nominated for Best Actor awards for this one…and it’s easy to see why…

We went ahead and saw “Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem” today, fully knowing it probably wouldn’t live up to its predecessor, “Alien vs Predator” (which is saying a lot, as the first one wasn’t all that good, anyway…). This one picks up where the previous left off, with a “Predalien” (Predator/Alien hybrid) taking over the ship, causing it to crash-land on Earth in Colorado. Then, as one could surmise…the Aliens and Predators fight it out and a lot of people die with lots of explosions…

The acting was better than to be expected, and the effects were decent. In all honesty, I would have preferred more elaborate fight scenes. Much like the previous iterations, the action took place in darkness, so any fighting was somewhat difficult to see.

Overall, the movie was decent, and about as good as the previous one. That, and the “Predalien” was pretty badass… 😉 If you liked the other one, this one’s likely worth your time. If you are expecting the thrills and chills of better fare, such as “Alien,” “Aliens” and “Predator,” you may want to rent the DVD(s).

We went and saw “National Treasure: Book of Secrets” in Columbia this weekend, as Brooke and I both wanted to see it, and so did the rest of the family.

This one picks up awhile after the previous movie, and after briefly explaining what essentially transpired between the two films, this one jumps into the idea that the ancestor of Ben Gates (played by Nicholas Cage), Thomas Gates, was a co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. As a result, Ben enlists his father (Jon Voigt), his friend, ex-girlfriend (or is she?) and mother (Helen Mirren) in tracking down the crucial evidence to return honor to the Gates family name.

Now, I thought the first one was surprisingly good, despite what reviewers had to say about it. The puzzles were pretty engaging, the chemistry between actors was convincing, and the story was surprisingly fun to follow. Personally, I don’t think this one was quite as good, but if you liked the first one, you’ll still like this one. The puzzles presented were a bit “too easy,” especially as compared with the previous one. While the original film seemed to focus a bit more on the search within our nation’s history for certain artifacts, with clues left in the craziest of places (i.e. the $1 bill, the Declaration of Independence, etc…), this one did the same…but with greater ease to allow for more interaction between the multitude of great actors (Ed Harris was the bad guy in this one, but Harvey Keitel was still around in a supporting role).

In short, the movie was good and worth seeing, especially if you liked the original. Personally, I would have liked to see more “history” (which, admittedly, is not quite accurate…) and a little less focus on the interaction between the main characters, but it was still fun with plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and suspenseful sequences. It had significantly less depth than the previous iteration, but then again, if you want a fun time at the movies in the holiday season…does it really matter how much “depth” is there?

“I Am Legend” is (loosely?) based on a book written by Richard Matheson in 1954. According to the Wikipedia article, the book is essentially written about the daily life of Robert Neville (in the year 1976) as he deals with his daily activities, which consist of “mak[ing] repairs to his house, boarding up windows, stringing and hanging garlic, disposing of vampires’ corpses on his lawn and going out to gather any additional supplies needed for hunting and killing more vampires.”

In the book, a bacterial strain unleashed a pandemic on the world population, leaving Neville alone as the apparent “last man on Earth.” The bacteria induced vampire-like symptoms, and it were these effects that Neville sought to understand (i.e. why don’t they like garlic or sunlight?) and hopefully cure.

You can read through the Wikipedia article if you want, but the book, apparently, is pretty dissimilar from the 2007 movie (there are other movies based on the book, including 1964’s “The Last Man on Earth” and 1971’s “Omega Man“). Apparently, none of the movies have really hit the points that Matheson did in his book, but oh well…

In this version, Will Smith plays Dr. Robert Neville, a military scientist that stayed behind in New York City, “ground zero” for a newly airborne virus that was originally designed to cure cancer. After the virus spreads, it has a 90% kill rate: 1% are immune (including Smith) and the other 9% take on vampire-like symptoms…that then go on to eat the other 1%… He’s working to cure the disease, while at the same time trying to find out if he is really the last human alive. He spends his days hunting deer in New York City (and driving around a nice Shelby Mustang GT500…) and capturing vampires to test his treatments on, frequently with little success.

The movie itself is pretty good, I thought. It was an hour and forty minutes long, which was perfect…didn’t drag on too long (kinda like “Cast Away” seemed to, sometimes? Will Smith doesn’t have many people to talk to in this movie…) and had some truly suspenseful moments throughout. His performance was rather stellar, and he kinda carries the movie in that regard. The effects were interesting as well… The animals (e.g. deer, lions, vampire dogs…) were all CGI…and you could tell…but, they filmed parts of the movie in New York City with no people around. How exactly they faked grass growing in the cracks of concrete along the streets (CGI or plastic?), I’ll never know…but it looked really good…

My one complaint goes with the story, though… I read the Wikipedia article before seeing the movie, which perhaps was a mistake. There are certain plot elements in the book with regards to the vampires and how similar they are to humans that are pretty integral to the story, yet the movie touches on them briefly…and so briefly as to make me think they shouldn’t have been brought up at all. They mention these aspects fleetingly and you kinda wish that they’d develop them a little further…or not even mention it… One or the other…

Anyway, I thought it was pretty good. I won’t be buying the DVD, as I’m not sure it has much replay value, but it’s very much worth seeing. If you’re looking for a decent movie to see in the theaters this Winter Break, I’d consider checking it out…

First of all, let me piss off a few people: I wasn’t all that impressed with “Fargo” or “The Big Lebowski.” Much like the Smashing Pumpkins are for music, while I can appreciate the artistry and interesting stories, I just didn’t think they were as awesome as everyone else thought they were.

That said, Brooke, the Molitor brothers and I went to see the new Coen Brothers film, “No Country for Old Men,” based on the 2005 novel by Cormac McCarthy. The film centers generally on Llewelyn (Josh Brolin), who stumbles upon $2+ million and tries to keep it. The guys who lost it in a drug deal gone bad want it back, so the hunter chases after the hunted. Tommy Lee Jones is peripherally involved, one step behind Brolin and his hunter, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). The rest of the supporting cast is rounded out by Woody Harrelson, Stephen Root and Barry Corbin.

Brooke wanted to see the movie because she’d read it was something of a modern western, and indeed it was. It takes place in 1980, but all the elements of classic western films were there. The bad guy dressed in black, the good guy(s) with white cowboy hats, etc. In all, it was a well-acted, well-made movie…but…

…I didn’t “get it.” Brooke liked it, and I believe Adam liked it (unsure about Matt…), but I’m not sure. I can’t really explain why I feel this way, as doing so would give away the ending of the movie (note: don’t read the Wikipedia article on the movie unless you want to read spoilers about it). I think Brooke got a little annoyed with me as we talked about the film because I was trying to find meaning in it all. I think I simply missed the point, or perhaps there wasn’t a point. It makes me wonder what the book was about, and/or how faithful the Coens were to its pages. It’s in limited release, I think, so if any of you see it, lemme know what you thought…

On the Wikipedia article regarding the movie, however, I did find a few critical opinions that have helped me out, and I’ll leave you with those:

“Like McCarthy, the Coens are markedly less interested in who (if anyone) gets away with the loot than in the primal forces that urge the characters forward… [I]n the end, everyone in No Country for Old Men is both hunter and hunted, members of some endangered species trying to forestall their extinction.”
— Scott Foundas, The Village Voice

“The movie demonstrates how pitiful ordinary human feelings are in the face of implacable injustice.”
— Roger Ebert, the Chicago Sun-Times

Dang, I haven’t been to the movie theater in a loooooooong time… Needless to say, I’ve been studying a lot recently and took this opportunity to escape the confines of my little room upstairs and went to see “Beowulf,” the new Robert Zemeckis film based on the classic epic poem.

Now, when I say “classic,” I mean it… At least according to the Wikipedia article, it dates back as the oldest written manuscript in the English language (AD 1010) and, as Mrs. Rahm and Mrs. Grupe in 10th grade were kind enough to point out, it holds nearly all the elements that we modern folk consider as “the hero story.” A hero that comes to save the people of the land from giant beasts when others can’t, and does it for glory. Also, and perhaps more important to Rahm and Grupe, the Beowulf character also included a “fatal flaw,” something that translates into nearly every modern hero tale. Every hero has his/her weakness.

I guess what I’m saying is that this is, perhaps, the original “hero” story…unless you count Gilgamesh, but who can read Cuneiform script, anyway? (…besides Liz, of course…) 😛

Anyway, so the movie was decent… In all honesty, watching the movie, I thought they added stuff to the end that wasn’t in the originally epic poem, but according to Wikipedia, it was in there and I just forgot…oh well… Either way, the effects were borderline spectacular – there were instances where I forgot I was watching a pseudo-animated movie. Some things, like galloping horses, could have been done a bit better, but for the most part the movie was a wonder to behold. The acting was pretty strong, overall, and of course, the story included most elements of the epic poem. There were certainly some liberties taken with certain details, but it made for an entertaining movie…

Something about it didn’t sit well with me, however…and I sadly can’t figure out what it is… I think I expected a little more action than I actually saw. They played up the “hero” character beautifully and stayed true to the story, but seeing as the movie was being compared with “300,” maybe I thought it’d have a few more action scenes. Don’t get me wrong, there was action in there, but the only “WOW” action sequences were at the end between Beowulf and the dragon. The movie was just about 2 hrs long, which was perfect…I didn’t look at my watch until the very end (usually a good sign), so I wasn’t bored, per se…but I still felt like something was missing… Maybe if any of you see it, you can enlighten me…

Regardless, you can’t fault the story. Any story that’s lasted 1000 years has got to have some merit…and considering that nearly every super-hero movie/comic/etc. is based in large part on Beowulf, you’ve gotta respect it. I still have a lingering feeling that I wanted something more, but oh well… It’s at least worth the rental, if not the theater visit…

Well, I saw the third (and likely final) installment in the “Bourne” series, following “The Bourne Identity” and “The Bourne Supremacy.” For those that remember, Matt Damon plays Jason Bourne, a CIA assassin that is still recovering from amnesia and trying to piece the remainder of his life together. For the previous two movies, the CIA was out to get him and take him out, as they a). weren’t sure what he remembered about how they screwed him over, or b). just wanted to close the door on a bad chapter of their operations overseas.

“The Bourne Ultimatum” picks up generally after “Supremacy” with Bourne inching closer and closer to the truth behind what he did for the CIA and why they were after him. Of the trilogy, I think this one is by far the strongest. The first one was very cerebral, and got kinda boring occasionally… I just watched “Supremacy” again yesterday and, as I remembered, it was a bit more fast-paced and more interesting to watch. “Ultimatum” really brings in the best of both the previous films, where it shows Bourne staying a few steps ahead of his predators, while also getting information he needs to really bring them down once and for all.

I won’t say much more about the story, as you probably shouldn’t know if you’ve seen the previous films. It’s almost required that you at least see “Supremacy” before seeing “Ultimatum,” but “Identity” is still worth watching. The action, on the other hand, I will comment on…and it’s rather awesome… The complaint I’ve always had about the “Bourne” films is that the fight scenes are very close-range, as in, you’ll be focused in on Matt Damon’s shoulder and fists during the scene, and you wish they’d just zoom out a bit to get a better feel for what’s going on. I think “Ultimatum,” while still not quite the way I’d like it, was better than the previous ones in that regard. Everything was well choreographed and a pleasure to watch, like they were dancing through all the dodges and punches.

So yeah, Rotten Tomatoes has “The Bourne Ultimatum” ranked at 93% (as of 8/12/07), and it’s pretty well-deserved. If you like spy movies and action, check it out. Matt Damon, again, proves what he’s capable of…

…now, if only Ben Affleck had some talent…

So for those who didn’t hear my story of woe, I tried seeing “Transformers” on the 4th of July at the Des Peres Wehrenberg Theater. There were a few “projector issues” at the beginning (of course, after sitting through commercials and previews…), but the movie got started about 10 min late. Then, about 2 hrs into the 2.5 hr movie, it died. And by “died,” I mean that screwdrivers and wrenches were coming out in the projection booth. Needless to say, we were not pleased with this development, but were given passes to see it again at another time…

…so we saw it again last night, but this time at the Wehrenberg Galaxy theater, where they have digital projection and a “Mega Screen” (not as big as IMAX, but noticeably bigger). Now, this is the way to watch a special-effects ridden movie, lemme tell ya… It’s like the jump from 25″ standard-def and TV speakers to 50″ high-def with THX-certified surround…

Oh yeah, so the movie itself was quite good, even with having to see the first 2 hours twice. The story (simplified) is about bad-guy robots that are after information a guy contains, and then good-guy robots (nearly all of which come from General Motors vehicles…) are protecting him. There’s plenty of comedy (you know, when your car starts chasing you and helping you get dates…things like that…) and plenty of action, whic is to be expected. The story itself makes a general amount of sense, and translates relatively well from the 1980s television show to the big screen.

The special effects have been described as “the best ever” for a movie, and while I’m not sure if they’re the absolute best, they come damn close… The acting, on the other hand, I’m unsure about. The main character, Shia LaBeouf, was really good and makes me excited for “Indiana Jones 4,” where he’ll play Indy’s son. A few other bit part actors were alright, but then there were others that seemed to either “call in” their performance, or were just given crappy lines…including Jon Voight, Anthony Anderson, and John Turturro. It’s not like they were acting badly, but something seemed a bit “off” about their performances…amongst others…

Anyway, it was a great action movie with damned incredible special effects…to the point that, frequently, the Autobots looked very realistic. It was only in that last climactic fight scene where I really started noticing the CGI effects, when you’re getting really close in with the actors and the robots… Still looked good, but wasn’t perfect…

If you plan on seeing the movie at all, you need to see it in the theater… Otherwise, you can borrow the DVD from me when I buy it in a few months… 😛

We saw the new Michael Moore flick, “Sicko,” last night at the Chase Plaza Theater. A guy played an organ before the movie started and I could buy a beer at the concession stand…and after the matinee movies started, they brought out the full bar for mixed drinks… I think we’ll be going back there… 😛

The movie itself is a documentary about the health care “system” here in the United States, about corporate profits and buyoffs of government officials, about how people in the middle class that had insurance were denied claims, and about how socialized health care (i.e. Canada, France, England) isn’t the evil that the right-wing wants us to believe.

Personally, I thought the movie was really, really well done. The main criticism of the film, however, is that it’s “one-sided” and that the health care industry as a whole doesn’t have the opportunity to rebutt. In my opinion however, after seeing what was presented in the movie, I find it hard to believe that an argument against these claims even exists. One is that socialized medicine will mean longer waits and less choice over doctors. Moore goes to Canada and shoots that one down quickly (20 min to 1 hr waits at any hospital). One is that, due to socialized medicine, you get higher taxes. He goes to France and shows a couple that makes the equivalent of $100,000, pays their taxes, and still travels all over the world (i.e. Sri Lanka, of all places…), has a new plasma TV, leather couches, etc. Another criticism is that doctors don’t make as much in Canada or England as they do here. Yeah…they still drive Audis that sell for $50,000 here…

Also, the movie isn’t all about health care. For much of the movie, he discusses other socialized systems in goverment. For example, in France, if you have a job, you get 5 weeks off a year minimum. That’s full-time or part-time. It’s required. If you’re sick, you get to take time off…paid… 65% from the government, 35% from the business. A guy had cancer, took three months off and went to the south of France…and was paid the whole time. It’s just a different mentality over there, and they’re all about preventative care.

So yeah, it was good, and I think the arguments were well thought-out and thoroughly established…let alone the fact that it was a highly entertaining and funny movie, too. It was also pretty depressing. Without explaining completely, let me just say that Moore takes some sick people to Cuba…and they get better treatment…and cheaper drugs… The examples of what people have to go through here, and that living somewhere else (and not necessarily in poverty) gets you better health coverage, is simply sad.

Thus, I ask you…see if you can find some rebuttals to this movie (whether you agree with them or not), ’cause I’m rather curious what could possibly shoot down what I saw. Sure, I bet Moore did some picking and choosing as to the examples he showed, but obviously we aren’t getting the whole story from our government (i.e. crazy right-wing Republicans) or the media (i.e. FOX News)…

Edit: CNN ran a little blurb about the film bringing up “fudged” facts… For those that care, Moore got to respond to it to Wolf Blitzer right after it aired, and then posted a full retort on his website later. Moore’s response to Blitzer is somewhat entertaining in the beginning, but his response on his website includes full citations for his claims about the report CNN ran just before his interview. If you have concerns about Moore’s statistics, it’s worth a read.

First of all, I’ve only seen the original “Die Hard” and neither of the other sequels, but I went and saw the fourth installment, “Live Free or Die Hard” anyway… (note: that title, by the way, seems to make very little sense given the plot of the movie…)

The movie centers on a group of hackers that are trying their best to bring down the entire U.S. infrastructure, and take advantage of the confusion to get rich. The only thing that stands in their way? Bruce Willis. And, for a guy that may be 80 years old by now, he still kicks crazy ass… Justin Long (whom you know from the “Mac and PC” commercials) is also quite entertaining as Willis’ plucky young side-kick, and Timothy Olyphant (he’s been in a few movies, including the up-coming “Hitman“…) is the crazy bad guy… The acting was perfectly fine, but I was really only there to see Bruce kill people and blow stuff up…and, by golly gee whiz, he sure did… (note: Kevin Smith also has a nice cameo…glad to see that genius is keeping busy…)

I was also rather impressed about the effects, in general. The only thing that was obviously CGI was the F-35 they sent after Willis…which he subsequently destroyed… All the rest looked like it involved old-fashioned pyrotechnics and guns, which is always welcome in today’s more “modern” action films…

Overall, the movie is a big explosion fest, with an ample amount of comedy interspersed, to boot. If you’re a fan of the series, I’m sure you’ll love it…and if you have never watched the others, this one will still be more than entertaining enough for you… Don’t expect anything Oscar-worthy, but then again, I’d imagine most fans of the “Die Hard” series (or action movies, in general…) couldn’t care any less…

Go buy some popcorn and see it… Then go see “Sicko“… 😉