Tag: review

So, if you’re read any reviews for “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” you’ve seen that they’re somewhat mixed, and honestly, I think I agree.

While the acting and effects were just as good as either of the previous iterations, the story was all over the place, to the point that I really didn’t know what was going on for half the movie…and when a movie is nearly 3 hours long, that “half the movie” quickly becomes 1.5 hrs. I don’t like being that confused for so long… As other reviewers have stated, much of this confusion comes from the fact that you don’t really know who’s on whose side until the very end of the movie…and even then, it isn’t completely clear… Then again, the double/triple-agents amongst each side are to be expected, as we are dealing with a movie about pirates…

But then again, there were plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and at least some of the charm of the original made it through the second movie and into the third. I think the trouble for me comes in deciding whether this movie was better than the second one or not. Many were disappointed by the ending in the second movie, especially after following a mostly stand-alone first movie (and in my review of “Dead Man’s Chest,” I correctly compared this series to what was done with “The Matrix”…), and I can’t say that this third movie leaves me feeling all that much better. In all honesty, I still wasn’t completely satisfied with the ending of this one – but if you want some peace in your life, wait until after the credits for one additional, and useful, scene…

So, did I generally enjoy the movie? Yeah, I guess… Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD to complete my collection? Absolutely… But was it better than “Spider-Man 3?” Nope…

So, if you’re read any reviews for “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” you’ve seen that they’re somewhat mixed, and honestly, I think I agree.

While the acting and effects were just as good as either of the previous iterations, the story was all over the place, to the point that I really didn’t know what was going on for half the movie…and when a movie is nearly 3 hours long, that “half the movie” quickly becomes 1.5 hrs. I don’t like being that confused for so long… As other reviewers have stated, much of this confusion comes from the fact that you don’t really know who’s on whose side until the very end of the movie…and even then, it isn’t completely clear… Then again, the double/triple-agents amongst each side are to be expected, as we are dealing with a movie about pirates…

But then again, there were plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and at least some of the charm of the original made it through the second movie and into the third. I think the trouble for me comes in deciding whether this movie was better than the second one or not. Many were disappointed by the ending in the second movie, especially after following a mostly stand-alone first movie (and in my review of “Dead Man’s Chest,” I correctly compared this series to what was done with “The Matrix”…), and I can’t say that this third movie leaves me feeling all that much better. In all honesty, I still wasn’t completely satisfied with the ending of this one – but if you want some peace in your life, wait until after the credits for one additional, and useful, scene…

So, did I generally enjoy the movie? Yeah, I guess… Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD to complete my collection? Absolutely… But was it better than “Spider-Man 3?” Nope…

So, as of right now, “Spider-Man 3” is ranking something like 62% at Rotten Tomatoes, indicating that the feelings of critics are somewhat mixed…largely, they’re comparing the third iteration of the franchise to “Spider-Man 2,” a movie that garners 93% at the same site.

After seeing the movie myself, I can understand some of the criticisms. Yes, there are a lot of characters and a lot of villains, and these don’t have the depth that the characters did in the previous two films. Yes, it is a little long, clocking in at around 2.5 hrs. And yes, the overall moral and point of the story can get somewhat muddled (but really isn’t that hard to discern)…

But to these, and others, I confidently reply: so what? Personally, after waiting 3 years for another “Spider-Man” movie, I wasn’t disappointed. I didn’t look at my watch until 2 hrs into the film, which is pretty good. I was able to follow the storyline(s) pretty easily, and didn’t feel like much more was needed for each…except for Venom, of course… The action sequences were still top notch, and the acting was just as good as the previous movies. There were even more comedic breaks throughout that had the entire theater laughing. For those of us wanting to see Spider-Man swing across the big screen again, you won’t be disappointed.

Now, don’t get me wrong…the movie wasn’t perfect… Sam Raimi (the director) said recently that the entire “Venom” story line should have been broken up into two films: get with the black, alien, costume…get rid of it after you find out it’s evil…give it to Eddie Brock…then have another movie where you deal with the new enemy (i.e. Venom). Raimi was “strongly encouraged” to include Venom in this film by the movie studio, and it shows – more could have been done with Venom as a character, with lots more development. He’s really only in there in that final fight sequence as an afterthought, but at least the sequence was relatively bad-ass… The entire Sand Man character was set up and he did his thing, but he wasn’t terribly necessary… And the New Goblin was a necessary evil, I think, to tie up that thread that started way back in the first movie. Really, I would have just done away with Sand Man and stuck completely with Venom…yet then again, it may have been best to have Sand Man in this one and develop Venom, but not actually fight him until the fourth movie… Either way, something different probably should have been done between those two villains, yet they were still fun to see…

So yeah, in the end, I thought it was pretty good. As good as the previous two? Probably not…but certainly not as bad as some reviewers make it out to be. If you liked the previous ones, or you’re a fan of the comics, you’ll enjoy seeing Peter’s turn to the “dark side” with the black costume, as many of us have waited for since the beginning… And in the end, the movie isn’t left hanging for a fourth, yet there are enough “open doors” available to make it worth doing. Then again, if Raimi will just get messed with again, do we really want another one done?

Just look at the Batman franchise (pre-“Batman Begins“)…

In short: 300 was bad-ass…

The movie is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller (of Sin City fame…), which was based on the Battle of Thermopylae where King Leonidas of Sparta led 300 warriors into a hopeless battle against hordes of Persians led by King Xerxes, eventually paving the way for a more united Greece to defeat Persia in the Battle of Plataea.

Much like Sin City, 300 was styled like a comic book, but to a lesser degree. This story had a coherent plot that flowed through the duration of the film (unlike City). The effects effortlessly transitioned between all-digital and all-real, yet relied heavily on a green screen for the majority of the movie. The acting was rather good, despite having very, very few “big name actors”…actually, there were people you’d recognize, but certainly no one I knew by name… Either way, the fight scenes were very cool, using the obligatory “slow motion” fights frequently, but not that often… It was certainly a violent movie, but that wasn’t unexpected.

The thing that grabbed me the most was the sense of “legend” that the movie evoked. To many Greeks who heard of the battle later, they were inspired to fight for their freedom and democracy as they never had before. Hence, you could imagine that some “details” were exaggerated to a certain degree. For example, Xerxes was noticeably taller than Leonidas. As in…giant-sized… The elephants and rhinos were ten times the size of real ones. You get the idea that, in describing the battle to later generations, the details got a bit more glorious and heroic…and the movie is based more on the exaggerations rather than what actually may or may not have happened. This is how legends are born, after all.

My one complaint was that the Queen seemed like she was used a bit more heavily than she should have been. She was close to Leonidas and stayed behind to try and rally support amongst the Spartan elders, to get more soldiers sent to help Leonidas. I guess her character was being used to try and connect Sparta with the battle, allowing for breaks between the fight scenes…but in the end, her efforts just seemed to be kinda useless… I’m not really sure what her purpose was in the whole deal, besides making some connection between the politics in Sparta and the battle at hand.

So yeah, it was pretty awesome, methinks…well-deserving the $70 million (est.) it took in on opening weekend. If you like action movies, this’ll fit the bill quiite nicely.

So, I haven’t gotten to see any movies, since Casino Royale…and that was many months ago… Anyway, I’d been looking forward to a good escapist story at the theaters…yet I’m not sure I can say Ghost Rider is what I was looking for…

The story is based on the relatively popular Ghost Rider stories from Marvel Comics where a man, Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage), sells his soul to the devil to save his father’s life… The devil betrays him (surprise, surprise…) and Blaze gets rather pissed… Anyway, in selling his soul, he now has to do the devil’s bidding to get his soul back. In the movie, there are some power hungry fallen angels who want souls on Earth, so the Ghost Rider is called upon to take them out.

…predictably…

As in, there are four baddies, each of which has a different elemental power, of sorts. So do all four attack the Rider at once? Nope. He fights one while the others get away. He fights another one, while the others get away. The final two find out that Blaze has a girlfriend, kidnaps her, then lures the Rider to the climactic battle at the end of the movie.

So yeah, the movie wasn’t surprising in the least, which wasn’t really unexpected, but at the same time, I would have liked to see a bit more creativity in the story. The effects were relatively decent, but the CGI flaming skull that replaced Nic Cage’s head just looked fake the whole time. Perhaps lighting his head on fire for real would have been better? 😛

Anyway, the movie wasn’t terrible, and was alright to see in theaters, but I certainly won’t be buying it. It was a formulaic story with halfway decent acting and effects. Nothing to write home about…

…guess I’ll just have to wait for TMNT and Spider-Man 3… w00t!

So, I haven’t seen many movies in theaters recently… Before “Marie Antoinette,” the last movie I’d seen was “Pirates of the Caribbean 2,” and that was months ago… I guess I just hadn’t really been excited to see anything that has come out, until now that is…

“Casino Royale” is, as you know, the latest movie in the James Bond film franchise, and features a “back to the beginning” story along with a new Bond, Daniel Craig. The idea is that our hero is given “Double ‘O'” status for the first time and is investigating an organization that is funding terrorism, centering largely on Bond’s duel with the main baddie in a high-stakes game of Texas Hold ‘Em at the Casino Royale. There’s a lot of action involved and Craig seems to be involved in more “active stunts” when compared with Pierce Brosnan… At least, I believed this guy was very believable in the role, and isn’t a guy you’d want to be in a bar fight with…

Overall, I thought the movie was quite strong. It isn’t simply a “good Bond movie;” it’s a good movie, in general. Daniel Craig brings a very refreshing feel to the character, still being suave and sophisticated, yet a bit rougher around the edges. Personally, I think he makes the “James Bond” character more believable. He isn’t relying on gadgets nearly as much, limiting the video effects and props a great deal, in the process serving to get rid of distractions from earlier movies. We get to delve into the character, not all the shenanigans that come along with it.

The story was pretty strong, but got a bit confusing at the end. Granted, it’s a 2.5 hour long movie, and there wasn’t much “wasted time,” but there were still lots of elements kinda thrown together at the end, tying up the loose ends, etc. Don’t get me wrong, the story was still very good…I just think the ending could have been wrapped up a bit more “cleanly.”

So yeah, go see it. You won’t be disappointed. Daniel Craig is a bad-ass and, as in the tradition of “Batman Begins,” this re-invention of the franchise is well worth your time.

Brooke was itching to see a movie at The Tivoli last night, and “Marie Antoinette” was showing, the new Sofia Coppola film starring Kirsten Dunst. It essentially recounts the rise (and fall) of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI, from her marriage to him in her late-teens to their deaths during the French Revolution. Supposedly, the movie has some amount of historical accuracy, but I really have no idea what was true and what wasn’t. It’s actually kinda interesting to watch it in terms of the all-powerful “celebrity,” in that Marie Antoinette is made out as a sort of Paris Hilton of her time…partying all the time and oblivious to everything going on around her (or outside her palace, at least).

While I can appreciate the craftsmanship of the film, I can’t say I was a big fan. Sure, there were plenty of gorgeous landscapes actually filmed on the grounds of Versailles (prounounced in French, not in Missourian…), and unbelievable costumes and decorative detail… The music was more modern (a la “A Knight’s Tale“), which was pretty interesting and not terribly detracting… Unfortunately, it’s a 2+ hour movie with maybe 1 hour of dialogue. It really just felt like an extended music video…mostly with music I’ve never heard (I think I recognized one song out of, like, twenty…).

So yeah, this is one of those movies I can “appreciate,” and by that I mean that it’s a well-done movie that is very beautiful to watch…but so’s Niagra Falls…and who can really sit in a chair and watch Niagra Falls for 2+ hours?

So, picture the end of “The Matrix Reloaded” and you’ve basically seen the whole of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest“…well…not exactly…? (note: let me preface by saying that, unlike many, I thought “Reloaded” had many merits and was overall a decent movie, yet could have been executed a bit better.)

“Dead Man’s Chest” starts off a little while after the original flick and we find Elizabeth and Will Turner about to get married…until they’re both arrested for setting Capt. Jack free in the first movie.? Will, in exchange for Elizabeth’s and his own freedom, is charged with finding Jack and bringing “an item” (that I will not elaborate further upon) to the new baddie in town, Lord Cutler Beckett of the East India Trading Company (amongst others).? And then we get lots of sea battles, land battles, funny moments, and even a few sad ones…

…but, perhaps, what’s most key is that, in the end (without spoiling much), you’re set up for a third movie.? Sound familiar?? Where “The Matrix” could stand on its own, “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” must be viewed in tandem.? They were even filmed back-to-back, the same with “Dead Man’s Chest” (and the upcoming “At World’s End” next summer).

So, overall, I thought the movie was pretty good with top-notch effects and acting…even a decent (albeit long) plot.? Johnny Depp certainly fit into the role of Capt. Jack Sparrow like a glove fits on a hand, and was certainly a joy to watch, and the screen time was more evenly distributed between Depp, Knightly and Bloom this time around.? My only complaints, really, consist of the aforementioned “Matrix treatment” of the trilogy and the length.? The movie’s 2.5 hrs long.? Remember how long “Reloaded” seemed at points?? Same with this one.? There are plenty of scenes that could have been shortened to half their original length and still get the same effect…that, or cut out one or two digital effect shots to shave a minute or 15…

So yeah, if you liked the first one, you’ll probably need to see this one.? On the other hand, if you’re looking for a movie trilogy that has many of the same characteristics, but is already out on DVD, check out “The Matrix”…