Here is state of the art animation and wonderful voice acting in an apocalyptic story that is very dark and dismal. I was fooled by the titles and when I saw Tim Burton in big letters, I assumed he directed this. He was one of the executive producers. I can’t complain about the animation, it is great, but I wonder what it would have looked like if Burton had done it with models and stop motion photography. That would be ungodly expensive today, but there’s something about that style that brings things to life in a way even the best animation doesn’t. The little characters are interesting and well portrayed by a number of well known actors. The story is really like the Terminator franchise. Skynet is created and the machines take over. Don’t look too deep though. Just enjoy the animation and voices. If you try to make sense of the story or question what happens in the aftermath, you’ll be left scratching your head. It’s merely a cartoon afterall.
I didn’t hear anything about this movie before I saw it and wasn’t expecting much from it. I found it rather entertaining for an action film and it had some intriguing ideas presented too. It has its roots firmly in movies like Death Race 2000 (1975), Death Race (2008) and The Running Man (1987). We have a framed man fighting his way through a corrupt “game” and we cheer him on through various grisly encounters. This movie adds a new element that shows a dark side to our current infatuation with all forms of social media. It took me a while to recognize Gerard Butler as our hero, because I didn’t see any previews and he wasn’t dressed as a comic book Spartan. He gives a solid performance and you empathize with his plight. There are some gritty run and gun scenes with tricked out G-36’s and all manor of other rifle platforms. The ending is a bit disappointing and anti-climactic, but overall worth a matinee showing or DVD/On demand viewing.
I was expecting the humor. I was expecting the cartoon-like over the top graphic violence. I was expecting the quick and clever dialogue. I wasn’t quite expecting the visual splendor and drama Quentin puts in this film. The opening scene is so tense and dramatic. I didn’t think Tarantino would take a scene that seriously. He shows he can get great things out of the actors and one wonders what he could do if he chose to direct a “serious” movie. There are the classic Tarantino elements we come to expect: The complex storyline that we know will bring together seemingly unrelated sub-plots and a sound track that fits like a glove. It happens almost subconsciously. Here is a movie set in WWII occupied France and the music is from the 1970’s through today, and it just works beautifully. The cast is great, though Steve Buscemi seems to be missing. Brad Pitt is actually very good, and for once over acting helps the performance. The standout is naturally the main antagonist, Colonel Hans Landa played by Christoph Waltz. He is just brilliant. There must be an Oscar nomination for him. He is hysterical one moment and really scary the next. The women are the usual smart, strong, beautiful femme fatale’s and especially elegant due to the 1940’s clothing. As in most Tarentino productions there is an homage to a genre and the post-war war movie gets the Quentin effect here. There is a bit of The dirty Dozen(1967), Kelly’s Heroes(1970), and Peckinpah’s Cross of Iron(1977). I’m sure there are allusions to other European war movies as well, including the Italian movie that has the same title, actually titled Quel maledetto treno blindato(1978). This is a very good movie and immensely entertaining. It shows that Quentin Tarantino is maturing and evolving as a director, but still has a unique style that is not like anything coming from the usual studios.
When you have a small budget and no big names to draw attention to your project, you just may have to rely on originality and a good story to carry the day. For $30 million dollars you can get an amazingly entertaining film with all the thrills and action of mega blockbusters whose 2 A-list actors may have cost $30 million and have a promotional budget of the same amount. Quality ain’t always about the money. In District 9 we have what starts out as a standard stranger in a strange land theme similar to Alien Nation(1988). The setting of South Africa and Johannesburg brings out many allusions and metaphors the viewer can process as he pleases. The use of humor is excellent. There is a very dark theme running throughout and black humor that discharges some of the tension that builds up in various scenes. The acting is very good. Unfamiliar actors are often less distracting and draw us into a character a bit more. I would have had a different reaction, I think, had the main character been Christian Bale or Johnny Depp. In this movie we have a story. We aren’t told everything right away. We have to figure things out. The audience is engaged in the story, not merely dazzled with eye candy and effects. I was engrossed with the visuals and the story from beginning to end. The buzz and clever selling of this film is a lesson for future promotions. Compared to Sci-Fi films with huge budgets like Transformers, or Terminator: Salvation, this production is head and shoulders above them. I hope more original projects come from this. District 9 has rekindled my love for good science fiction films once more.
Look to the small independent film makers for good movies these days. The Hurt Locker is not a war movie in the normal sense we’re used to. It is really a character study of a unique personality type driven by adrenalin and danger. It could be the portrait of a Nascar driver, free-style rock climber, or big wave surf boarder, but this character happens to be a soldier trained for explosive ordinance disposal (EOD). There are scenes of incredible tension and suspense that will make your hair stand on end. The main and supporting characters are well developed and the acting is superb. Filmed mostly in Jordan, you get a realistic portrayal of life in a war zone. There are naturally some clichés such as the hoorah Army Colonel and behind the lines psychologist who just doesn’t get it. There are some implausible scenes that just don’t seem to fit, but overall the story is engrossing, the dialog believable, and the action scenes exciting. The real art in this movie is the thought put into the main character portrayed by Jeremy Renner. You are engrossed in him and spend the entire movie trying to figure him out. Is he a real hero or a simple redneck? You really don’t know what to expect or how things will turn out. This makes some folks uncomfortable and many will not enjoy this movie. I really enjoyed this welcome change of pace. I believe there will be an Oscar nomination or two stemming from this production and it will be well deserved. The Hurt Locker is one of the best films so far this year.
I enjoyed reading the first Harry Potter book and thought the first movie was entertaining. I have not read the other books and have seen a couple of the other films on TV. I knew I was taking a chance on seeing this movie with out a thorough grounding in the total storyline, but I thought a good movie might stand on its own and bring even folks unfamiliar with the Potter world satisfactorily up to speed. Well, I was wrong. If you aren’t versed in books 1 to whatever, you will be lost in this movie. It assumes the audience knows what has already happened and what will be happening. Fans may like this, strangers will certainly feel left out and wondering what the hubbub is all about. Obviously the franchise is not looking for new audiences and is quite willing to suck the profits out of the existing fan base. I found the movie rather boring with little intrigue or suspense. I talked to others, my father for one, who is a fan and read the book and couldn’t wait to see the movie. He was almost as disappointed as me and wondered why so much exciting stuff was left out and new scenes inexplicably created. So, another summer lackluster blockbuster. Are we done with these movies yet? I hope so.
There is nothing special about this movie. The story is embarrassing and makes hardly any sense. I really didn’t care about any of the characters and found myself kind of rooting for the Decepticons or whatever their name is. Why was Megan Fox even in this movie? Why is she in any movie? Shia’s parents are the best part of the movie and even they are superfluous time fillers. The acting is adequate if uninspiring. The action is old hat and nothing imaginative. The transformations are so fast and blurred you feel they are hiding the fact they can’t make the transformation from car to giant robot look believable. The toys actually do transform and you can see how each part moves from function to function, so why can’t they make a computer rendering work that way? For kids and maybe adults who love the toys and the cartoon series, the movie may seem worthwhile. I was thoroughly unimpressed with this film.
The lives of outlaws have always been romanticized from the Arabian Nights, Robin Hood, Billy the Kid, Jesse James and naturally the 1933-34 heyday of the mobile bank robbers depicted in Public Enemies. There have been a number of movies made about these characters, some better than others. This one is better than most. The acting is top notch. Johnny Depp is near perfect as John Dillinger. History reports his charismatic character and cockiness which Depp easily incorporates. Christian Bale plays the less glamorous role of Melvin Purvis (a great name for anyone but an FBI agent). There are many story lines wrapped around this movie. The personal lives of the outlaws are fascinating. The ineptness of the early Bureau is depicted. Hoover is actually shown in a better light than was probably the case at the time. The facts are largely intact in this movie. This isn’t Bonnie and Clyde. (A great movie, but not a documentary by any means.) There is lots of action and the weapons appear to be period. Lots of 1911’s, Thompson’s and BAR’s. Visually the film is wonderful. The colors and costumes stand out. There is a sense of style that reflects the era. Mann knows how to keep the movie flowing, but there are not all those quick cuts that were distinctive (and distracting) in his earlier films. I’m a fanboy of the era. I’m reading the book now and have Melvin Purvis’ son’s biography of his father, Vendetta, on my nightstand. This is an epic film and one of the most entertaining so far this summer.
I like Larry David. Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm have been ground-breaking in their style and content. Woody Allen has to be respected as a writer and film maker even if his more recent works are not my cup of tea. So, I was hopeful when this film was showing in my area. Larry David plays a miserable older man and that should be right up his alley. Allen wrote the script and he has a lot to say. David says every word and it seems he’s rushing to get every syllable out of his mouth. David is not a great actor. He is a writer and former stand-up comedian. His character is quickly seen as one dimensional and the performance lacks any life. You seem to be watching Larry David reading the lines of Woody Allen. Then we come to the content of the movie. Allen appears to be obsessed with older men and young girls. Weird huh? He kow-tows to various liberal Hollywood cliches where conservative church going women ‘find’ themselves and enjoy threesomes and the stuffy husband and NRA member discovers his latent homosexuality. Maybe this would have been clever 30 years ago, but it seems tired for 2009. I usually like dark and cynical humor, but it just goes on and on in this film. Allen appears to be advocating a type of hedonistic nihilism for his characters. Happiness is found by doing whatever works at the moment to relieve the misery of life and that is usually some form of sexual expression. If you are a fan of Woody Allen and his style of writing, directing and film making, then this movie might work for you. Whatever Works didn’t really work for me.
Here’s a remake of a 1974 movie. That tells you the studio isn’t looking for something new or innovative and wants to try and cash in on a prior success with a new generation of movie goers. Let’s take everyman Denzel Washington and put him in an extraordinary circumstance and see if he succeeds or fails. The story is not bad and the script is decent. The characters are well crafted and the performances solid. Denzel plays the ordinary guy kind of like Clark Kent. He even has the glasses. You get the feeling early on he has some super hero in him and in the end he performs well beyond the powers of mortal men. John Travolta is the antagonist and he seems to relish playing bad guys. Too much is never enough when you’re the bad guy and he goes over the top from the beginning. The only problem is when you try to make an anti-social personality sympathetic. Don’t try to make him more complicated with some noble motives or back story elements that made him this way. Technically the crisis intervention stuff was fairly accurate. John Turturro plays a police negotiator who coaches Denzel and it’s apparent someone gave the writers advice in this area. Would that the continuity folks and tactical team advisors were able to assert themselves a bit more. No SWAT team member or tactical operator is going to ‘accidently’ discharge their weapon because a sewer rat bites them. Fingers are nowhere near the trigger until the decision to shoot is made. Especially snipers whose main job is observing and reporting.The other glaring mistake in continuity is when Denzel is shown a Walther PPK and told how to work the safety. This weapon is a hidden gun he can access if things go wrong. Well of course they do and he pulls out what is clearly a Kahr pistol that has no safety at all. OK, I might be one of the few who would notice that, but it takes me out of the movie and it’s hard to get back into it. Most folks will think this a decent drama with solid performances by the cast. A typical formula movie where the the ordinary guy becomes a hero and the bad guys get what they deserve. And the original 1974 movie? Pretty much the same. Walter Matthau is the good guy and Robert Shaw is the bad guy. Interesting to watch just for the 1970’s clothing and dialog. I wish the studios would greenlight more original productions, but they’re in business to make money, not take risks for Art’s sake. We the public need to support independent films and we might see the bigger studios follow suit.
I’m a fan of the original Star Trek, not a Trekkie, but a fan of the series and Roddenberry’s vision. The scripts for some of the episodes came from some of the now classic Sci-Fi authors of the time. So, I tried to watch this film without too much bias. It is a pretty good action/Sci-Fi movie. The effects are impressive. The space vehicles fun to watch and plenty of explosions. The story of James Tiberius Kirk and the U.S.S. Enterprise is a bit like putting together Star Wars with Master and Commander. You can hardly go wrong with such a combination. All the regular characters are introduced throughout the movie and it’s difficult not to make judgement on them. Uhura is hot and more involved than was culturally possible in the 1960’s. Doctor McCoy is a caricature of the original and seemed a little forced. Chekov and Sulu play their secondary roles well, but Simon Peg is the best as Scotty. You feel the spirit of James Doohan coming out. Spock is of course the main co-star and is the most developed character we see, besides Kirk. Fans will love all the requisite catch phrases and references from other Star Trek movies and there is a good looking green girl too. Eric Bana plays a great bad Romulan that keeps the story moving. No Klingons in this one. I’m sure we’ll see them in another Star Trek movie in a few years. The Star Trek franchise has been reborn. The director, J.J. Abrams, has given himself a blank slate now and can boldly go…where no man has gone before.
This story of the origin of Wolverine, the greatest X-Man without a doubt, was a good start to the cinema blockbuster season. There is a good story, lots of interesting characters and plenty of special effects magic. Naturally, there are rogue military assets doing bad things and love interests that just don’t work out. Mutants, mutants everywhere! They just need the proper guidance. Hugh Jackman might want to do other roles, but after Australia and the Oscars, Wolverine is what he does best. The college girls in the theatre were oohing and ahhing over his frequent half naked escapades. The comic book archives will have many origins of the X-Men, and this story may not jibe precisely with the drawn history, but it is a good action film on all levels. Strong script, very good performances, and exciting effects and CG. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a good Spring/Summer movie roll-out. X-Men has set the bar fairly high.
Disney knows how to film nature and has a long tradition of animal stories. Earth shows slices of life in the wild kingdom around the world in all seasons. The visuals are stunning and had to take immense resources to acquire. The aerial shots are spectacular and the underwater photography pretty amazing. Earth wants to tell a story and stories need drama. Nature has plenty of drama in the life of any animal and its regular environment. The struggle to survive is universal and lends itself to typical movie themes. Wolves are antagonists and prey upon the slow and weak. Lions look tough, but are no match for elephants for the most part. The Geat White shark is a killing machine, yet no blood is shown as a seal is taken. Disney seemingly sterilizes nature to minimize the symbiotic relationship between prey and predator. Only the poor endangered Polar Bear stands out as a true victim in this film. Of course, Man is the biggest predator and the cause of Global Warming. Disney promulgates the myth of disappearing arctic ice and the poor daddy Polar Bear is the only main character who lies down and dies because he had to swim too far looking for food, or that’s what our narrator, the authoritative voice of James Earl Jones, wants us to believe. The narration is really not needed in this film. Nature speaks for itself. Earth is a sight to see, it just needs a mute button.
Bad politicians, Evil defense contractors (Blackwater mayhaps?), deranged combat veterans, money motivated media corporations, grizzled old school reporter and idealistic ‘cub’ blogger, did we leave anything out? Oh yeah, the young dead girl having an affair with a married politician. The only thing worse than the convoluted cliches is the acting of Ben Afleck. Maybe the director asked for a wooden performance, or perhaps it was a conscious choice Ben made for his character. It could be his best scenes were cut out. Russell Crowe gives some credibility to the film and you can at least believe his character. There are also some decent cameos by Jeff Daniels, Jason Bateman and Helen Mirren. The twists and turns in this almost thriller may keep you occupied until the not so shocking end, but I felt I was played by State of Play.
This film was shot in the Pittsburgh area and mostly at our famous local amusement park Kennywood. The time is 1987 and this is the story of various college kids working their summer jobs at this park. There were no real adventures and maybe that was the point. These kids, young adults I should say, spent most of their time whining about their sucky middle class suburban lives, college, graduate school, and smoking weed. Smoking dope and drinking seemed to be the major past time for the youths. I didn’t get it. The film had few laughs and the love story wasn’t very compelling either. Was it supposed to be a commentary on the 1980’s? Depressed dope smoking college kids are were apparently the norm. Funny, I graduated from college in 1984 and didn’t see this stereotype much at all. So, I don’t know what this movie is trying to say. All I can say is it was not an adventure for me. If yinz’r from the area and like to see Pixburgh on the big screen, you may see some sights you know.
