Viewed in
2007
Premise
The rise and fall and redemption of Frank Lucas, successful black American mobster.
Who should watch
Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington fans. Those who like crime dramas that are about character over action.
Thoughts
When nearly three hours felt like only two, you know you're watching some good stuff. This was one of this year's best 'Big Hollywood movies'.
The first reason this film worked was because of the remarkable story. Even though he was a drug dealer and murderer, I rooted for him, because in a twisted way, we was fighting American racism. Image is not everything, but it still tells something about you as a person. The big twist that I loved was how Frank Lucas and the man that brough him down helped each other bring down one of the most corrupted police forces in America. That redemption packed a nice emotion punch.
The other reason to watch this film was because of the superb acting. While this was no 'Malcolm X' level acting, I could not keep my eyes off of Denzel because of his presence. Russell had the less glamorous role, but he held his own with a great, subtle performance. But the scene-stealer was Josh Brolin as a corrupt cop. He had help from his 'I am evil' moustache, but man, he oozed with nastiness. There was solid acting all around. There was this great moment when Ruby Dee as Lucas' mother confronted him about his actions. One does not need to speak to tell a story.
Another aspect that must be appreciated was the visual detail by the film makers. At times, it felt like a period piece. There was a lot of 1960's and 19770's America tapestry that filled out every corner of the film, as well as being a minor character in the story.
Watch this film for the great story and acting. It does not matter how big the budget and names are in a movie, when it's done like this, it's just great film.
Two random notes. I was happy that John Hawkes from 'Me and You and Everyone We Know' got a nice supporting gig. And if you stayed all the way to the end, you got to see Denzel shoot you in the face, just like the trailer.
What I would change
Nothing.
Showing posts with label 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2007. Show all posts
Atonement
Viewed in
2007
Premise
In 1930's aristocratic England, a young girl's misunderstanding causes her older sister and her lover to be separated and he is forced into fighting World War II.
Who should watch
Those who like epic romance type of movies, but with a strong stomach for the war scenes.
Thoughts
Note: I have not read the novel.
The last act with Vanessa Redgrave totally saved this movie from mediocrity. I could not fathom all the accolades it has received. In terms of epic, separated-by-war love stories, 'A Very Long Engagement', was much more interesting and emotional and romantic.
The most annoying part for me was the music. Except for a handful of exceptions, a score should never stand out. Throughout the movie, sounds from the story, such as the typewriter would 'blend' into the score. While my film maker persona thought it was clever, my film watcher persona found it pretentious and distracting. I think because of that, I also disliked the 'Rashomon'-like and time-jumping storytelling.
I did find two things I really liked. James MaCovey ruled. He was completely convincing as a leading man, and I look forward to seeing more of his future acting. The other gem in the movie was the twist in the last act with the great Vanessa Redgrave. I didn't even know it was her. Her performance and presence flipped the film upside down and caused me to forgive the rest of the story. Almost.
What I would change
Not sure.
2007
Premise
In 1930's aristocratic England, a young girl's misunderstanding causes her older sister and her lover to be separated and he is forced into fighting World War II.
Who should watch
Those who like epic romance type of movies, but with a strong stomach for the war scenes.
Thoughts
Note: I have not read the novel.
The last act with Vanessa Redgrave totally saved this movie from mediocrity. I could not fathom all the accolades it has received. In terms of epic, separated-by-war love stories, 'A Very Long Engagement', was much more interesting and emotional and romantic.
The most annoying part for me was the music. Except for a handful of exceptions, a score should never stand out. Throughout the movie, sounds from the story, such as the typewriter would 'blend' into the score. While my film maker persona thought it was clever, my film watcher persona found it pretentious and distracting. I think because of that, I also disliked the 'Rashomon'-like and time-jumping storytelling.
I did find two things I really liked. James MaCovey ruled. He was completely convincing as a leading man, and I look forward to seeing more of his future acting. The other gem in the movie was the twist in the last act with the great Vanessa Redgrave. I didn't even know it was her. Her performance and presence flipped the film upside down and caused me to forgive the rest of the story. Almost.
What I would change
Not sure.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke star was two brothers who decide to rob a jewelry store, to tragic results.
Liked
The acting.
Hated
The unnecessary time jumps.
Thoughts
The acting was quite superb, especially the four main players, including Hawke, Hoffman, Albert Finney as their father. Not only did Marisa Tomei put in a strong performance, she put on an eye-poppingly awesome sex scene at the start.
Unfortunately, I found the entire movie to be quite dull. The main culprit was the superfluous, fragmented flashbacks and time-jumping, exacerbated by the amateurishly/hilariously bad transitions to those jumps. I was flabbergasted that it was directed by the great Sidney Lumet. It was a heart-breaking story, but once the tragedy was revealed in the first act (and implied by the trailers), it simply became a string of sad and sadder family strife. Nothing was gained by non-linear story-telling, and instead caused me to not care what happens next to these star-crossed characters.
Bottom line, the performances very well-done, but the story-telling killed the mood. Perhaps if you never saw any trailers, you might have enjoyed it better than I.
What I would change
Told the story linearly.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke star was two brothers who decide to rob a jewelry store, to tragic results.
Liked
The acting.
Hated
The unnecessary time jumps.
Thoughts
The acting was quite superb, especially the four main players, including Hawke, Hoffman, Albert Finney as their father. Not only did Marisa Tomei put in a strong performance, she put on an eye-poppingly awesome sex scene at the start.
Unfortunately, I found the entire movie to be quite dull. The main culprit was the superfluous, fragmented flashbacks and time-jumping, exacerbated by the amateurishly/hilariously bad transitions to those jumps. I was flabbergasted that it was directed by the great Sidney Lumet. It was a heart-breaking story, but once the tragedy was revealed in the first act (and implied by the trailers), it simply became a string of sad and sadder family strife. Nothing was gained by non-linear story-telling, and instead caused me to not care what happens next to these star-crossed characters.
Bottom line, the performances very well-done, but the story-telling killed the mood. Perhaps if you never saw any trailers, you might have enjoyed it better than I.
What I would change
Told the story linearly.
Beowulf
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Based on the poem, Robert Zemeckis continued with his love for motion-capture animation.
Who should watch
Teenage boys who can afford IMAX 3D tickets.
Thoughts
This was only worth it if you watch it in IMAX 3D. The action and animation in 3D made it an enjoyable experience.
As expected, the animation was top-notch. The actors were more than a voice and handled the motion-capture technology seamlessly. The uncanny valley will always be there, but I got used to it. I was a bit surprised by how much nudity was explicit and implied throughout the film, and I don't mean just Angelina Jolie. Speaking of her, I wonder what she thought of her luscious, computer-rendered body?
Everything else about it pretty much blew. There was not enough story to make it nearly two hours long. At times it bordered on WWE or 'Shrek' or 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' territory, and that was not meant as a compliment.
If it wasn't for the IMAX 3D experience, this would have been a poor American challenge to Japan's 'Final Fantasy Advent Children'. If you want to see where motion-capture-computer-animation can take you, check that out.
What I would change
I would have given it an R rating. There was too much computer-rendered gore, dismemberments, nudity and disturbing images.
2007
Premise
Based on the poem, Robert Zemeckis continued with his love for motion-capture animation.
Who should watch
Teenage boys who can afford IMAX 3D tickets.
Thoughts
This was only worth it if you watch it in IMAX 3D. The action and animation in 3D made it an enjoyable experience.
As expected, the animation was top-notch. The actors were more than a voice and handled the motion-capture technology seamlessly. The uncanny valley will always be there, but I got used to it. I was a bit surprised by how much nudity was explicit and implied throughout the film, and I don't mean just Angelina Jolie. Speaking of her, I wonder what she thought of her luscious, computer-rendered body?
Everything else about it pretty much blew. There was not enough story to make it nearly two hours long. At times it bordered on WWE or 'Shrek' or 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' territory, and that was not meant as a compliment.
If it wasn't for the IMAX 3D experience, this would have been a poor American challenge to Japan's 'Final Fantasy Advent Children'. If you want to see where motion-capture-computer-animation can take you, check that out.
What I would change
I would have given it an R rating. There was too much computer-rendered gore, dismemberments, nudity and disturbing images.
Blades of Glory
Viewed in
2007
Premise
A Will Ferrell movie about figure skating.
Who should watch
Will Ferrell fans. Figure skating fans.
Thoughts
Even if you are not a Will Ferrell fan, you should find it entertaining. I laughed the most here than in any of his other movies. What it lacked was a great, hilarious and memorable scene, like the knife scene in 'Talladega Nights' or the fight scene from 'Anchorman'.
Figure skating fans should get a kick out of all the cameos.
What I would change
No Michelle Kwan?! How dare they?!
2007
Premise
A Will Ferrell movie about figure skating.
Who should watch
Will Ferrell fans. Figure skating fans.
Thoughts
Even if you are not a Will Ferrell fan, you should find it entertaining. I laughed the most here than in any of his other movies. What it lacked was a great, hilarious and memorable scene, like the knife scene in 'Talladega Nights' or the fight scene from 'Anchorman'.
Figure skating fans should get a kick out of all the cameos.
What I would change
No Michelle Kwan?! How dare they?!
Bourne Ultimatum
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Jason Bourne tries to find his past in the allegedly finale to the trilogy.
Who should watch
Fans of the first two films.
Thoughts
This was one of the most satisfying endings of any movie trilogy.
Everything that made the first two work was on display in this film. There was plenty of mystery-solving, fight scenes, nostalgic old-school car chases, and Jason Bourne just being a badass spy. I liked all the new characters and actors that fit into Bourne's past.
If this was the finale, there was no letdown. I liked how the opening shot was what happened immediately after the ending of 'Bourne Supremacy'. For those who had the first two films in their minds, there were some nice tie-ins and references. What was interesting was that not all the loose ends were tied, yet it felt like a complete trilogy. Julia Stiles' character's twist was subtly awesome.
While Jason Bourne will never reach the immortal James Bond, I was glad Hollywood was able to make a cool, brainy spy series.
What I would change
Reduced Bourne's invincibility. There were a couple of car crashes when he walked away without a scratch, which was a bit different than the first film. This was the same thing that happened to the 'Die Hard' series.
2007
Premise
Jason Bourne tries to find his past in the allegedly finale to the trilogy.
Who should watch
Fans of the first two films.
Thoughts
This was one of the most satisfying endings of any movie trilogy.
Everything that made the first two work was on display in this film. There was plenty of mystery-solving, fight scenes, nostalgic old-school car chases, and Jason Bourne just being a badass spy. I liked all the new characters and actors that fit into Bourne's past.
If this was the finale, there was no letdown. I liked how the opening shot was what happened immediately after the ending of 'Bourne Supremacy'. For those who had the first two films in their minds, there were some nice tie-ins and references. What was interesting was that not all the loose ends were tied, yet it felt like a complete trilogy. Julia Stiles' character's twist was subtly awesome.
While Jason Bourne will never reach the immortal James Bond, I was glad Hollywood was able to make a cool, brainy spy series.
What I would change
Reduced Bourne's invincibility. There were a couple of car crashes when he walked away without a scratch, which was a bit different than the first film. This was the same thing that happened to the 'Die Hard' series.
Breach
Viewed in
2007
Premise
The telling of how the F.B.I brought down the worst spy in U.S. history, Robert Hanssen.
Who should watch
Chris Cooper and Ryan Phillipe fans. Those who enjoy subtle acting.
Thoughts
This was a wonderfully acted film. Ryan Phillipe held his own playing opposite one of the greatest underrated actors of my time. Chris Cooper deserved a nomination for best actor. He was threatening and enthralling. It looked like his Hanssen character could read your mind.
The espionage story was well written and easy to follow. In terms of spy movies, it was pretty simple, but that was because this was not a spy movie. It was a great acting character film within a spy setting.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
The telling of how the F.B.I brought down the worst spy in U.S. history, Robert Hanssen.
Who should watch
Chris Cooper and Ryan Phillipe fans. Those who enjoy subtle acting.
Thoughts
This was a wonderfully acted film. Ryan Phillipe held his own playing opposite one of the greatest underrated actors of my time. Chris Cooper deserved a nomination for best actor. He was threatening and enthralling. It looked like his Hanssen character could read your mind.
The espionage story was well written and easy to follow. In terms of spy movies, it was pretty simple, but that was because this was not a spy movie. It was a great acting character film within a spy setting.
What I would change
Nothing.
Bridge to Terabithia
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Two adolescent outcasts deal with their problems in their own world.
Who should watch
Everyone but little kids.
Thoughts
Shame on Disney for misleading us with their marketing this film as a fantasy movie. This is a great film, but it is not a kiddie wannabe of 'Lord of the Rings'. This is above that.
This is a wonderful story about adolescence: trying to maintain your inner child while reality eats away at it. It's the conflicting experience everyone gets: parents, siblings, bullies, teachers, school crushes, and of course friendship. You will get emotional!
The only flaw is the plot is very similar to a certain family movie. My girlfriend sniffed it out halfway through.
What I would change
Changed the marketing. I repeat, this is a great family drama, not a fantasy.
2007
Premise
Two adolescent outcasts deal with their problems in their own world.
Who should watch
Everyone but little kids.
Thoughts
Shame on Disney for misleading us with their marketing this film as a fantasy movie. This is a great film, but it is not a kiddie wannabe of 'Lord of the Rings'. This is above that.
This is a wonderful story about adolescence: trying to maintain your inner child while reality eats away at it. It's the conflicting experience everyone gets: parents, siblings, bullies, teachers, school crushes, and of course friendship. You will get emotional!
The only flaw is the plot is very similar to a certain family movie. My girlfriend sniffed it out halfway through.
What I would change
Changed the marketing. I repeat, this is a great family drama, not a fantasy.
Charlie Wilson's War
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Based on real events, a common U.S. Congressman covertly works with the CIA to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union invasion in the 1980's.
Who should watch
Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman fans. Those who like well-produced drama with a lot of humor and historic insight.
Thoughts
I was never aware of this interesting page in U.S. history, and how these events played a part in the 2000's. Obviously, some parts were fictionized, so I might have to do some research just to see how much impact these people actually affected the course of history.
Nevertheless, as a film, the story was fascinating to watch. It was quite amazing how a harmless U.S. representative could make such a difference in the Cold War. Personally, I have trouble following political dramas, but this was so well-written I easily knew what was happening on screen.
This may seem oxymoronic, but I felt this was an ensemble acting effort, but at the same time, I believe Tom Hanks deserved a best actor nomination. He was so good, I instantly believed him as a flawed, charming politician. While Philip Seymour Hoffman got the flashy scene-stealing role, Hanks carried this film effortlessly.
I highly recommend this film for the story and acting.
What I would change
The studios tried to market this film as a comedy, but it was more of a drama with a lot of funny moments and dialogue.
Random
I liked how Charlie's hot secretaries were called 'Charlie's Angels'.
2007
Premise
Based on real events, a common U.S. Congressman covertly works with the CIA to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union invasion in the 1980's.
Who should watch
Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman fans. Those who like well-produced drama with a lot of humor and historic insight.
Thoughts
I was never aware of this interesting page in U.S. history, and how these events played a part in the 2000's. Obviously, some parts were fictionized, so I might have to do some research just to see how much impact these people actually affected the course of history.
Nevertheless, as a film, the story was fascinating to watch. It was quite amazing how a harmless U.S. representative could make such a difference in the Cold War. Personally, I have trouble following political dramas, but this was so well-written I easily knew what was happening on screen.
This may seem oxymoronic, but I felt this was an ensemble acting effort, but at the same time, I believe Tom Hanks deserved a best actor nomination. He was so good, I instantly believed him as a flawed, charming politician. While Philip Seymour Hoffman got the flashy scene-stealing role, Hanks carried this film effortlessly.
I highly recommend this film for the story and acting.
What I would change
The studios tried to market this film as a comedy, but it was more of a drama with a lot of funny moments and dialogue.
Random
I liked how Charlie's hot secretaries were called 'Charlie's Angels'.
Delirious
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Steve Buscemi plays a paparazzi who befriends a homeless actor kid, who crosses paths with a female pop star.
Liked
Some of the celebrity society comedy/insight.
Disliked
The unfocused story-telling.
Hated
Motion-sickness.
Thoughts
It's got some good stuff, but meandered too much.
I liked the cast: Steve Buscemi was Buscemi, Michael Pitt was believable as the puppy-eyed kid, Alison Lohman was sexy and likable as the pop star, and there was the forever-gorgeous Gina Gershon.
Some of the comedy was insightful and funny, such as the paparazzi slice of life, Buscemi's disapproving parents, and satire of today's pop culture. One of the funniest moments was two publicists having a political war over the phone on which client gets to walk on the red carpet first. Buscemi's rules of life was a hilarious running gag.
One problem was that it was all over the map, from offbeat buddy comedy, to tender puppy love, to entertainment parody, to the darkness of jealousy. I could not tell what the movie was about, which was the main storyline, and even who the main character was. While I appreciate creativity, such as an unconventional plot arc, but it has got to make sense.
Lastly, I hated getting nauseous from all the hand-held camera work.
There was some funny paparazzi-oriented humor, and good performances, but I wished they used tripods and a better story.
What I would change
Tripods. Tripods. Tripods.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Steve Buscemi plays a paparazzi who befriends a homeless actor kid, who crosses paths with a female pop star.
Liked
Some of the celebrity society comedy/insight.
Disliked
The unfocused story-telling.
Hated
Motion-sickness.
Thoughts
It's got some good stuff, but meandered too much.
I liked the cast: Steve Buscemi was Buscemi, Michael Pitt was believable as the puppy-eyed kid, Alison Lohman was sexy and likable as the pop star, and there was the forever-gorgeous Gina Gershon.
Some of the comedy was insightful and funny, such as the paparazzi slice of life, Buscemi's disapproving parents, and satire of today's pop culture. One of the funniest moments was two publicists having a political war over the phone on which client gets to walk on the red carpet first. Buscemi's rules of life was a hilarious running gag.
One problem was that it was all over the map, from offbeat buddy comedy, to tender puppy love, to entertainment parody, to the darkness of jealousy. I could not tell what the movie was about, which was the main storyline, and even who the main character was. While I appreciate creativity, such as an unconventional plot arc, but it has got to make sense.
Lastly, I hated getting nauseous from all the hand-held camera work.
There was some funny paparazzi-oriented humor, and good performances, but I wished they used tripods and a better story.
What I would change
Tripods. Tripods. Tripods.
Enchanted
Viewed in
2007, 2008
Premise
A Disney-like animated princess is exiled to 2000's New York City and becomes a real person-princess.
Who should watch
Those who want a light-hearted satire on animated princess fairy tales.
Thoughts
This film was so cute and funny. When I saw the trailer for the first time, I thought it would be a lame movie. I was wrong.
My favorite things about the film were the charming acting and funny jabs at the genre. There were plenty of predictable scenes of confusions between the animated world and real world, but I still found myself laughing. The best scene ever was when the princess calls out to the local wildlife to help her with housecleaning, and ends up with pigeons, rats and roaches.
No matter how corny or how sharp the jokes were, they were all enjoyable because of Amy Adams as the princess and James Marsden (Cyclops from X-Men) as her prince. I loved how they played it straight and with full of zest. Their over-the-top acting was the perfect tone for the silliness of it all. The actress who played the little girl was super-cute too, even if she was forcing it a bit. Great of Disney to bring back Alan Menken to contribute some songs.
Unfortunately, like many other movies, the story lost steam in the last act and was pressured into making an unecessary special effects spectacle of the climax. Also, I could hardly recognize Susan Sarandon as the evil witch. Nevertheless, I laughed more than enough times in the first two-thirds of the film to let it pass.
If you've seen plenty of princess fairy tale movies, you and your family should get a kick out of this film.
What I would change
Take the money spent rendering a CGI dragon and put it into the writers' hands to make a funnier, smarter climax.
Also, I wished some of the Disney 'princess' cameos and references were more obvious. I don't think even the above-average Disney fans will know the names of Paige O'Hara or Jodi Benson. Granted, I wouldn't want it to be cluttered with inside jokes, but this was as much a tribute as is a satire of Disney animated princess movies.
Random
Poor Timothy Spall is getting type-casted as the bumbling antagonist henchman.
Also, in the scene when his character pretends to be an Italian waiter, only the front of his head is in disguise. It's subtle, but hilarious.
2007, 2008
Premise
A Disney-like animated princess is exiled to 2000's New York City and becomes a real person-princess.
Who should watch
Those who want a light-hearted satire on animated princess fairy tales.
Thoughts
This film was so cute and funny. When I saw the trailer for the first time, I thought it would be a lame movie. I was wrong.
My favorite things about the film were the charming acting and funny jabs at the genre. There were plenty of predictable scenes of confusions between the animated world and real world, but I still found myself laughing. The best scene ever was when the princess calls out to the local wildlife to help her with housecleaning, and ends up with pigeons, rats and roaches.
No matter how corny or how sharp the jokes were, they were all enjoyable because of Amy Adams as the princess and James Marsden (Cyclops from X-Men) as her prince. I loved how they played it straight and with full of zest. Their over-the-top acting was the perfect tone for the silliness of it all. The actress who played the little girl was super-cute too, even if she was forcing it a bit. Great of Disney to bring back Alan Menken to contribute some songs.
Unfortunately, like many other movies, the story lost steam in the last act and was pressured into making an unecessary special effects spectacle of the climax. Also, I could hardly recognize Susan Sarandon as the evil witch. Nevertheless, I laughed more than enough times in the first two-thirds of the film to let it pass.
If you've seen plenty of princess fairy tale movies, you and your family should get a kick out of this film.
What I would change
Take the money spent rendering a CGI dragon and put it into the writers' hands to make a funnier, smarter climax.
Also, I wished some of the Disney 'princess' cameos and references were more obvious. I don't think even the above-average Disney fans will know the names of Paige O'Hara or Jodi Benson. Granted, I wouldn't want it to be cluttered with inside jokes, but this was as much a tribute as is a satire of Disney animated princess movies.
Random
Poor Timothy Spall is getting type-casted as the bumbling antagonist henchman.
Also, in the scene when his character pretends to be an Italian waiter, only the front of his head is in disguise. It's subtle, but hilarious.
Encounters at the End of the World
Viewed in
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
Werner Herzog visits the Antarctic.
Liked
The amusing characters.
Hated
The score
Thoughts
That was pretty interesting.
While Herzog intended to document the frozen continent, he discovered that the people who inhabit the bases were just as fascinating as the landscape itself. Pretty much everyone there was quirky with unique stories to tell. Apparently, it takes a certain mentality to want to work in such a desolate location.
I was enlightened to see that Antarctica was more than ice and penguins, as the film captured its different environments, natural and man-made. The scenery at the bases were interesting, not just because of the eclectic collection of employees, but also because of all the different experiments that were happening. If you have seen enough shows about this place, most of the nature footage would not be anything new, but the accumulation did paint a clear picture of what Antarctica's surprising diversity. My favorite scenes were the frozen towers of steam spiking out the sides of an active volcano.
While Herzog was never onscreen, he was as much character in this film with his meandering narration. Sometimes he went on some random diatribe, completely irrelevant to what I was looking at. His stream-of-conscious manner of describing his subjects were hilarious, especially when he got impatient with how his subjects were telling their own stories.
I could not put my finger on it, but I found the score to be incredibly annoying. Perhaps the music choices were trying too hard to manipulate the footage to greater heights?
Overall, I enjoyed this documentary thanks to some cool footage, but mostly thanks to unexpectedly interesting characters.
What I would change
Chose more subtle background music.
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
Werner Herzog visits the Antarctic.
Liked
The amusing characters.
Hated
The score
Thoughts
That was pretty interesting.
While Herzog intended to document the frozen continent, he discovered that the people who inhabit the bases were just as fascinating as the landscape itself. Pretty much everyone there was quirky with unique stories to tell. Apparently, it takes a certain mentality to want to work in such a desolate location.
I was enlightened to see that Antarctica was more than ice and penguins, as the film captured its different environments, natural and man-made. The scenery at the bases were interesting, not just because of the eclectic collection of employees, but also because of all the different experiments that were happening. If you have seen enough shows about this place, most of the nature footage would not be anything new, but the accumulation did paint a clear picture of what Antarctica's surprising diversity. My favorite scenes were the frozen towers of steam spiking out the sides of an active volcano.
While Herzog was never onscreen, he was as much character in this film with his meandering narration. Sometimes he went on some random diatribe, completely irrelevant to what I was looking at. His stream-of-conscious manner of describing his subjects were hilarious, especially when he got impatient with how his subjects were telling their own stories.
I could not put my finger on it, but I found the score to be incredibly annoying. Perhaps the music choices were trying too hard to manipulate the footage to greater heights?
Overall, I enjoyed this documentary thanks to some cool footage, but mostly thanks to unexpectedly interesting characters.
What I would change
Chose more subtle background music.
1408
Viewed in
2007
Premise
John Cusack takes on 'an evil [bleeping] room'.
Who should watch
John Cusack fans. Those who want psychological horror instead of gory horror.
Thoughts
I'm not saying it was Oscar-worthy, but this was John Cusack's 'Cast Away' performance. For a large part of the film, he was acting by myself. But instead of thinking 'Hey, Tom Hanks is on an island', the thought in my head was 'What will happen next?'. I credit Cusack's natural acting abilities for immersing the audience into this mind-bender.
I liked the fact it was trying to be more Hitchcock than a gore-fest. However, the key to Hitchcock mastery was the elongated, torturous waiting that let the suspense fester and grow. Here, the film unleashed the spooks and weirdness frequently. I admit they were quite effective as scaring the audience. It helped that the daughter looked had Shelley Duvall eyes.
Bottom line: I recommend it for John Cusack's performance and for not being a stupid teenage slasher movie.
What I would change
Ending seemed kind of a cop out.
2007
Premise
John Cusack takes on 'an evil [bleeping] room'.
Who should watch
John Cusack fans. Those who want psychological horror instead of gory horror.
Thoughts
I'm not saying it was Oscar-worthy, but this was John Cusack's 'Cast Away' performance. For a large part of the film, he was acting by myself. But instead of thinking 'Hey, Tom Hanks is on an island', the thought in my head was 'What will happen next?'. I credit Cusack's natural acting abilities for immersing the audience into this mind-bender.
I liked the fact it was trying to be more Hitchcock than a gore-fest. However, the key to Hitchcock mastery was the elongated, torturous waiting that let the suspense fester and grow. Here, the film unleashed the spooks and weirdness frequently. I admit they were quite effective as scaring the audience. It helped that the daughter looked had Shelley Duvall eyes.
Bottom line: I recommend it for John Cusack's performance and for not being a stupid teenage slasher movie.
What I would change
Ending seemed kind of a cop out.
Ghost Rider
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Live action movie of the comic book.
Who should watch
Comic book fans. Nicolas Cage fans. Fans of Eva Mendes' cleavage.
Thoughts
It was entertaining. The movie helped me understand the appeal of the Ghost Rider character. His badass-ness reminds me of the Undertaker from WWE.
Nicolas Cage perfectly balanced the dark edginess with the absurdity of the movie. Sam Elliot was also perfectly casted as a cowboy-like character. Peter Fonda was a hoot as the villian. Somehow he was able to wink at the camera by just playing it straight.
I also liked the special effects. Fire is one of the hardest computer images to render, and it was believable throughout the movie. Occasionally, Ghost Rider's head looked smaller in proportion to his body, but that was pretty much the only flaw.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007
Premise
Live action movie of the comic book.
Who should watch
Comic book fans. Nicolas Cage fans. Fans of Eva Mendes' cleavage.
Thoughts
It was entertaining. The movie helped me understand the appeal of the Ghost Rider character. His badass-ness reminds me of the Undertaker from WWE.
Nicolas Cage perfectly balanced the dark edginess with the absurdity of the movie. Sam Elliot was also perfectly casted as a cowboy-like character. Peter Fonda was a hoot as the villian. Somehow he was able to wink at the camera by just playing it straight.
I also liked the special effects. Fire is one of the hardest computer images to render, and it was believable throughout the movie. Occasionally, Ghost Rider's head looked smaller in proportion to his body, but that was pretty much the only flaw.
What I would change
Nothing.
Golden Compass
Viewed in
2007
Premise
Based on the book series, 'His Dark Materials', in which a little girl begins an epic journey involving talking creatures and fighting polar bears.
Who should watch
Fans of the book? Those who like expensive, cgi-laden fantasy epics.
Thoughts
I have not read the books, so I have no idea how the movie compared.
The movie had some interesting ideas. I liked the gimmick that in this universe, a person's soul exists as free-will, accompanying animal. One cannot live without the other. Due to this gimmick, there was tons of very cool special effects of all sorts of different, talking creatures running amok throughout the movie.
In yet another example that everything in Hollywood comes in two's, this movie starred an excellent young actress named Dakota. She was a strong presence. Her fellow child actors were surprisingly bad, as they appeared to be pretending too hard to be kids.
Most of the characters were boring, except for the disgraced, fighting Polar Bear, voiced by Sir Ian McKellan. The movie kicked into high gear (from boring to slightly interesting) when he finally appeared.
I think the problem was in the story and execution. I never understood what was happening on screen, especially all the political stuff. Yes, all the media buzz already warned me that there were some anti-Church themes embedded in the story, but they were not presented clearly enough in the movie even make a stink about.
Granted that this was supposed to be a series, so not everything had to be explained. So, my opinions about my plot confusion may be moot later on.
What I would change
More fighting polar bear stuff!
2007
Premise
Based on the book series, 'His Dark Materials', in which a little girl begins an epic journey involving talking creatures and fighting polar bears.
Who should watch
Fans of the book? Those who like expensive, cgi-laden fantasy epics.
Thoughts
I have not read the books, so I have no idea how the movie compared.
The movie had some interesting ideas. I liked the gimmick that in this universe, a person's soul exists as free-will, accompanying animal. One cannot live without the other. Due to this gimmick, there was tons of very cool special effects of all sorts of different, talking creatures running amok throughout the movie.
In yet another example that everything in Hollywood comes in two's, this movie starred an excellent young actress named Dakota. She was a strong presence. Her fellow child actors were surprisingly bad, as they appeared to be pretending too hard to be kids.
Most of the characters were boring, except for the disgraced, fighting Polar Bear, voiced by Sir Ian McKellan. The movie kicked into high gear (from boring to slightly interesting) when he finally appeared.
I think the problem was in the story and execution. I never understood what was happening on screen, especially all the political stuff. Yes, all the media buzz already warned me that there were some anti-Church themes embedded in the story, but they were not presented clearly enough in the movie even make a stink about.
Granted that this was supposed to be a series, so not everything had to be explained. So, my opinions about my plot confusion may be moot later on.
What I would change
More fighting polar bear stuff!
Great Debaters, The
Viewed in
2007
Premise
During the American Great Depression, an all-black Texas university debate team strives to be the best in the country. Based on a true story about professor Melvin B. Tolson.
Who should watch
Those in the mood for an emotional racial triumph story. Fans of Denzel Washington or Forest Whitaker.
Thoughts
I really liked this film. It was full of wonderful acting and a story that made me fill up with hope.
While Hollywood does churn out a blacks-overcoming-racism-underdog movie every six months, this was very well done. Some parts were predictable, but they were executed flawlessly or had a new twist. I do not know how truthful the writing was, but it sure made me feel giddy when the film was over. During the film, I never thought 'Denzel directed this movie', which is a compliment.
Even if you are tired of 'we shall overcome' stories, the acting should win you over. Denzel and Forest. Both legends grabbed me by the heart and never let go. I also liked the minor character actors in the film. Nate Parker was most excellent as the scarred, rebellious member of the team.
For me, I found myself swept away by the emotional impact of the film, especially in the second half. There were numerous painful and courageous moments. Maybe because I am not black, but the lynch scene did not hit me hard. However, the aftermath of the characters as a result of that was one of my favorite moments of this film.
Please check out this film for two legendary actors and the small, amazing page of American history.
What I would change
Blame it on my squeamish stomach, but I thought the shots of the lynch victim was a bit R-rated.
Random
I guess it was cheaper than computer graphics movie extras, but the credits mentioned a company specializing in inflatable extras.
James Farmer Jr was played by an actor by the name of Denzel Whitaker. No, he is not related to Forest. Yes, he was named after Denzel.
2007
Premise
During the American Great Depression, an all-black Texas university debate team strives to be the best in the country. Based on a true story about professor Melvin B. Tolson.
Who should watch
Those in the mood for an emotional racial triumph story. Fans of Denzel Washington or Forest Whitaker.
Thoughts
I really liked this film. It was full of wonderful acting and a story that made me fill up with hope.
While Hollywood does churn out a blacks-overcoming-racism-underdog movie every six months, this was very well done. Some parts were predictable, but they were executed flawlessly or had a new twist. I do not know how truthful the writing was, but it sure made me feel giddy when the film was over. During the film, I never thought 'Denzel directed this movie', which is a compliment.
Even if you are tired of 'we shall overcome' stories, the acting should win you over. Denzel and Forest. Both legends grabbed me by the heart and never let go. I also liked the minor character actors in the film. Nate Parker was most excellent as the scarred, rebellious member of the team.
For me, I found myself swept away by the emotional impact of the film, especially in the second half. There were numerous painful and courageous moments. Maybe because I am not black, but the lynch scene did not hit me hard. However, the aftermath of the characters as a result of that was one of my favorite moments of this film.
Please check out this film for two legendary actors and the small, amazing page of American history.
What I would change
Blame it on my squeamish stomach, but I thought the shots of the lynch victim was a bit R-rated.
Random
I guess it was cheaper than computer graphics movie extras, but the credits mentioned a company specializing in inflatable extras.
James Farmer Jr was played by an actor by the name of Denzel Whitaker. No, he is not related to Forest. Yes, he was named after Denzel.
Hairspray
Viewed in
2007 (x2)
Premise
Movie adaptation of the musical based on John Water's cult classic movie.
Who should watch
Fans of 'Hairspray'. Those who want something cheerful.
Thoughts
It started with Nikki Blonsky's bright, infectious charm. From the beginning to the end, I had a smile on my face non-stop.
This was a great musical film. It was full of energy, music and dancing. The dark themes of race was idealistic, but it fit the tone of the film. I also liked the subtle use of special effects. Unlike some recent musical movies, the filmmaker did not use his style to takeover the spotlight over the performances. Guess it helps when the director was the choreographer.
There might not be a weirder onscreen couple than John Travolta and Christopher Walken. Travolta was hilarious and adorable as the fat mother. Michelle Pfeiffer was a delicious, bigoted villain. All the characters were just plain likeable. Fans of the original got a kick out of cameos by Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller, and John Waters as the flasher. In fact, there were many references to the original that added a nice touch.
Comparing the two 'Hairspray' films, both were very funny in their own way. The 1988 version had a darker, twisted sense of humor, while the 2007 version had an infectious good feeling. Personally I liked the newer one better because it had great musical numbers and a cast I could relate to more.
What I would change
Nothing.
2007 (x2)
Premise
Movie adaptation of the musical based on John Water's cult classic movie.
Who should watch
Fans of 'Hairspray'. Those who want something cheerful.
Thoughts
It started with Nikki Blonsky's bright, infectious charm. From the beginning to the end, I had a smile on my face non-stop.
This was a great musical film. It was full of energy, music and dancing. The dark themes of race was idealistic, but it fit the tone of the film. I also liked the subtle use of special effects. Unlike some recent musical movies, the filmmaker did not use his style to takeover the spotlight over the performances. Guess it helps when the director was the choreographer.
There might not be a weirder onscreen couple than John Travolta and Christopher Walken. Travolta was hilarious and adorable as the fat mother. Michelle Pfeiffer was a delicious, bigoted villain. All the characters were just plain likeable. Fans of the original got a kick out of cameos by Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller, and John Waters as the flasher. In fact, there were many references to the original that added a nice touch.
Comparing the two 'Hairspray' films, both were very funny in their own way. The 1988 version had a darker, twisted sense of humor, while the 2007 version had an infectious good feeling. Personally I liked the newer one better because it had great musical numbers and a cast I could relate to more.
What I would change
Nothing.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Viewed in
2007, 2009, 2011
Formats
3D IMAX, DVD, Cable TV (w/ commercial w/ deleted scenes)
Premise
In the fifth installment of the popular book/movie series, Harry feels isolated as he has bad dreams and the rest of the school does not believe his story about Voldemort's return.
Liked
The comedic timing of the actors.
Thoughts
It was not a bad movie, but not of my favorites.
Unlike most adaptations, the problem was there were not enough story changes. Blame goes to the new screenwriter and director for not having the balls to make necessary shortcuts to make it an entertaining movie.
When I saw the trailers and heard about the short length, I was afraid they were going to try to cram every chapter in. Unfortunately, I was right. They even tried to keep the same dialogue. So there were literally three seconds long chapters. The audience had no time to laugh, cry, scream, wonder at any scenes. I felt like I was watching a Cliff Notes version of the novel.
The one pleasant surprise was making Ginny's presence a bit larger than in the book. Those who have read the next novel know what this is setting up.
I also enjoyed the 3D IMAX, the glasses were not cumbersome but also easily fit around your eyeglasses. The 3D quality was very well done. It would have been nice to have it through the entire movie instead of just the last 20 minutes.
What I would change
Long answer: Focused more on certain aspects such as Harry's relationship with Sirius Black and Harry's lack of contact with Dumbledore. Taken out: Dudley, Grawp and Hagrid.
2007, 2009, 2011
Formats
3D IMAX, DVD, Cable TV (w/ commercial w/ deleted scenes)
Premise
In the fifth installment of the popular book/movie series, Harry feels isolated as he has bad dreams and the rest of the school does not believe his story about Voldemort's return.
Liked
The comedic timing of the actors.
Thoughts
It was not a bad movie, but not of my favorites.
Unlike most adaptations, the problem was there were not enough story changes. Blame goes to the new screenwriter and director for not having the balls to make necessary shortcuts to make it an entertaining movie.
When I saw the trailers and heard about the short length, I was afraid they were going to try to cram every chapter in. Unfortunately, I was right. They even tried to keep the same dialogue. So there were literally three seconds long chapters. The audience had no time to laugh, cry, scream, wonder at any scenes. I felt like I was watching a Cliff Notes version of the novel.
The one pleasant surprise was making Ginny's presence a bit larger than in the book. Those who have read the next novel know what this is setting up.
I also enjoyed the 3D IMAX, the glasses were not cumbersome but also easily fit around your eyeglasses. The 3D quality was very well done. It would have been nice to have it through the entire movie instead of just the last 20 minutes.
What I would change
Long answer: Focused more on certain aspects such as Harry's relationship with Sirius Black and Harry's lack of contact with Dumbledore. Taken out: Dudley, Grawp and Hagrid.
Highlander The Source
Viewed in
2008
Premise
In the fifth installment of the series, immortal Duncan MacLeod searches for something called 'The Source'.
Who should watch
No one, not even 'Highlander' fans.
Thoughts
Arguably the worst movie I had ever seen.
You know a franchise is dead if the fourth sequel needs to explain the rules of the game at the beginning. While it was fun to see Duncan, Joe and Methos in brooding leather once again, that fun died very quickly.
The following was a quick list of badness: visual and editing style akin to a high schooler's first stab at directing, a nonsensical 'Mad Max'-like story, cheesy special effects, half-ass designed props, and lame covers of Queen's 'Princes of the Universe' and 'Who Wants to Live Forever'.
That is all I have to say about that.
What I would change
Never made this boring turd.
2008
Premise
In the fifth installment of the series, immortal Duncan MacLeod searches for something called 'The Source'.
Who should watch
No one, not even 'Highlander' fans.
Thoughts
Arguably the worst movie I had ever seen.
You know a franchise is dead if the fourth sequel needs to explain the rules of the game at the beginning. While it was fun to see Duncan, Joe and Methos in brooding leather once again, that fun died very quickly.
The following was a quick list of badness: visual and editing style akin to a high schooler's first stab at directing, a nonsensical 'Mad Max'-like story, cheesy special effects, half-ass designed props, and lame covers of Queen's 'Princes of the Universe' and 'Who Wants to Live Forever'.
That is all I have to say about that.
What I would change
Never made this boring turd.
Hot Fuzz
Viewed in
2007
Premise
A London super-cop is assigned to a boring rural town, but mysterious deaths appear.
Who should watch
People in the mood for some action movie satire, British-style.
Thoughts
Once again, I blame the marketing department for giving me the impression that 'Hot Fuzz' had action-satire throughout the entire movie. Sadly, the shoot-outs that appeared in the ads occurred only in the last half hour.
There were some funny moments in the first 90 minutes, like satirizing flashy action movie camera tricks and editing styles. But overall, it was quite boring. I liked the appearances by Martin Freeman and Bill Nighy, however, they were sadly limited in screen time. Timothy Dalton was quite funny, looking like an evil Magnum P.I. While there were some fancy, gory special effects of the murder victims, I don't think this was necessary for a comedic satire.
Finally, when the last 30 minutes come, the movie kicked into high action and high comedy. Those who have seen plenty of cop/buddy action flicks should get plenty of laughs out of the shout outs and and parodies.
Bottom line is if you do not have the patience, fast-forward until Simon Pegg gets kicked out of town.
What I would change
Cut back on the Michael Bay style to prevent over-doing the gag, and added better action at the beginning.
2007
Premise
A London super-cop is assigned to a boring rural town, but mysterious deaths appear.
Who should watch
People in the mood for some action movie satire, British-style.
Thoughts
Once again, I blame the marketing department for giving me the impression that 'Hot Fuzz' had action-satire throughout the entire movie. Sadly, the shoot-outs that appeared in the ads occurred only in the last half hour.
There were some funny moments in the first 90 minutes, like satirizing flashy action movie camera tricks and editing styles. But overall, it was quite boring. I liked the appearances by Martin Freeman and Bill Nighy, however, they were sadly limited in screen time. Timothy Dalton was quite funny, looking like an evil Magnum P.I. While there were some fancy, gory special effects of the murder victims, I don't think this was necessary for a comedic satire.
Finally, when the last 30 minutes come, the movie kicked into high action and high comedy. Those who have seen plenty of cop/buddy action flicks should get plenty of laughs out of the shout outs and and parodies.
Bottom line is if you do not have the patience, fast-forward until Simon Pegg gets kicked out of town.
What I would change
Cut back on the Michael Bay style to prevent over-doing the gag, and added better action at the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)