Viewed in
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
A movie (loosely) based on the famous Baker Street robbery, used as a government blackmail cover-up.
Liked
The twists in the story.
Disliked
Too many characters.
Thoughts
A film with a much more entertaining second act.
What I really liked about it was the cool plot twists after the bank heist. It became a slick cat-and-mouse affair with multiple pursuers in a giant spiderweb of consequences. Instead of a brainless shootout, I enjoyed observing the characters outsmarting each other to survive the fallout. Those expecting a Jason Statham action flick might be disappointed by that.
Speaking of Statham, he was rock solid in the lead, with his gruff, kick-butt presence while being more brains than brawn. The rest of the cast were mostly unfamiliar British actors, but they were likable and solid as well. Shame on me for missing the Mick Jagger cameo.
When you think Statham and English heist movies, you think Guy Ritchie flicks. Here, you could see director Roger Donaldson doing his best to restrain from emulating that frenetic, kinetic style. There were some slick cinematography to give it a cool vibe, but he managed to keep them from distracting the moment. Donaldson's vision of the 1970's was pretty fun, especially in terms of fashion, music, and bountiful bare breasts.
My biggest issue was that the film makers put too many minor characters into the story. It was a pain to keep track of all these people. There was probably way too many coincidences in the plot to make it believable, but it sure made it entertaining as hell when all the dominoes began to topple.
This film was enjoyable thanks to the battle of wits between charming characters in the second half. We will not know until 2054 whether a government coverup was actually part of the robbery, but in terms of making an entertaining film, I would like to believe it was true.
What I would change
Nothing.
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008. Show all posts
Batman Gotham Knight
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Six anime-styled short stories about Batman, taking place between 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'.
Who should watch
Those needing a Batman fix.
Thoughts
Basically, it was like the 'Animatrix' of Batman.
The best thing about it was the hearing Kevin Conroy reprising his role as the voice of Batman/Bruce Wayne. I also liked the last three stories; they had a darker Batman-like style, and the stories linked to each other.
As for the first three, they were OK. The first was the worst, mainly due to the annoying dialogue.
Other than that, it was a just quick way to whet my Batman appetite, while waiting for 'The Dark Knight'.
What I would change
Written better stories for the first three.
2008
Premise
Six anime-styled short stories about Batman, taking place between 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'.
Who should watch
Those needing a Batman fix.
Thoughts
Basically, it was like the 'Animatrix' of Batman.
The best thing about it was the hearing Kevin Conroy reprising his role as the voice of Batman/Bruce Wayne. I also liked the last three stories; they had a darker Batman-like style, and the stories linked to each other.
As for the first three, they were OK. The first was the worst, mainly due to the annoying dialogue.
Other than that, it was a just quick way to whet my Batman appetite, while waiting for 'The Dark Knight'.
What I would change
Written better stories for the first three.
Be Kind Rewind
Viewed in
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
After wiping out all the VHS tapes of a floundering rental store, Jack Black and Mos Def try to replace each title by re-shooting the movie by themselves.
Liked
The charming characters and story.
Thoughts
I was a little surprised by how likable and earnest it was.
Black, Def, and director Michel Gondry were very winning with their exuberance onscreen. I loved the montages of remakes, or "Swedes", in the film. Those moments perfectly captured the pure joy of movie-making.
What was interesting was that there was hardly an ounce of cynicism in the story or the characters. The main plot was rather cute, with a sincere subplot of building community.
The biggest knocks on it were that it was implausible at times, and Danny Glover's subplot meandered.
Overall, I enjoyed this fun little film thanks to its contagious enthusiasm.
What I would change
Removed some of the Danny Glover scenes.
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
After wiping out all the VHS tapes of a floundering rental store, Jack Black and Mos Def try to replace each title by re-shooting the movie by themselves.
Liked
The charming characters and story.
Thoughts
I was a little surprised by how likable and earnest it was.
Black, Def, and director Michel Gondry were very winning with their exuberance onscreen. I loved the montages of remakes, or "Swedes", in the film. Those moments perfectly captured the pure joy of movie-making.
What was interesting was that there was hardly an ounce of cynicism in the story or the characters. The main plot was rather cute, with a sincere subplot of building community.
The biggest knocks on it were that it was implausible at times, and Danny Glover's subplot meandered.
Overall, I enjoyed this fun little film thanks to its contagious enthusiasm.
What I would change
Removed some of the Danny Glover scenes.
Black Magic
Viewed in
2008
Premise
A documentary about the impact of black colleges, their coaches and players on basketball.
Who should watch
Anyone who cares about the history of basketball.
Thoughts
An incredibly in-depth documentary.
The best part of the film was all the amazing, untold stories. I was enlightened by the prolific coaching tree and pioneering influence of the late great John McLendon. Turns out fans of 'Seven Seconds or Less' was derived from his basketball philosophy.
I learned about McLendon (including a weird chapter with George Steinbrenner), Ben Jobe, 'Big House' Gaines, Bob Love and Pee Wee Kirkland. I got to know better Jon Chaney and Earl 'The Pearl' Monroe. Lastly, I was saddened by the lost career of Cleo Hill.
Another great reason to watch this was the vintage footage from the 1940's to present day. My favorite was Monroe being a god among men on the court. Based on I would argue that he is the most underrated great player.
My recommendation is to watch this in two or three sittings. Not only was it nearly four hours long, but the documentary was told in that fashion. So there were some repeating clips and narration.
Anyone who claims to love basketball need to do two things. Read Terry Pluto's 'Loose Balls' and this film.
What I would change
Reduced the time spent on well-known stories, such as the Willis Reed game, since most basketball fans are aware of those. This made the documentary a little meandering.
2008
Premise
A documentary about the impact of black colleges, their coaches and players on basketball.
Who should watch
Anyone who cares about the history of basketball.
Thoughts
An incredibly in-depth documentary.
The best part of the film was all the amazing, untold stories. I was enlightened by the prolific coaching tree and pioneering influence of the late great John McLendon. Turns out fans of 'Seven Seconds or Less' was derived from his basketball philosophy.
I learned about McLendon (including a weird chapter with George Steinbrenner), Ben Jobe, 'Big House' Gaines, Bob Love and Pee Wee Kirkland. I got to know better Jon Chaney and Earl 'The Pearl' Monroe. Lastly, I was saddened by the lost career of Cleo Hill.
Another great reason to watch this was the vintage footage from the 1940's to present day. My favorite was Monroe being a god among men on the court. Based on I would argue that he is the most underrated great player.
My recommendation is to watch this in two or three sittings. Not only was it nearly four hours long, but the documentary was told in that fashion. So there were some repeating clips and narration.
Anyone who claims to love basketball need to do two things. Read Terry Pluto's 'Loose Balls' and this film.
What I would change
Reduced the time spent on well-known stories, such as the Willis Reed game, since most basketball fans are aware of those. This made the documentary a little meandering.
Bolt
Viewed in
2008
Premise
An action movie star dog breaks free into the real world.
Who should watch
Those who like cuddly computer animated creatures running amok, especially in 3-d.
Thoughts
Cute!
It was like a non-creepy cross of 'Truman Show', 'Last Action Hero', 'Cars' and (insert kid-loses-pet-who-wanders-home movie here). Speaking of 'Cars', the opening short was awesome and hilarious, and in 3-d. It might have been too topical, once the Tokyo drift-racing is no longer in fashion.
If I could get past the cuddly and energetic animation, there probably was not much of a story underneath. But somehow I found the whole thing irresistible. Most of the characters were likable and/or super cute. I loved the hilarious fan boy hamster. Kudos for trying to stay away from the 'Goodfeathers' from 'Animaniacs' with the New York pigeon characters.
Like a bouncing puppy, this was cute, fluffy and mostly harmless entertainment for the family. I especially recommend it in 3-d.
What I would change
Eliminated the extra Hollywood-ish subplots, such as the agent and network executive. The story was simple enough to get it rolling without those boring characters who might confuse younger audiences.
2008
Premise
An action movie star dog breaks free into the real world.
Who should watch
Those who like cuddly computer animated creatures running amok, especially in 3-d.
Thoughts
Cute!
It was like a non-creepy cross of 'Truman Show', 'Last Action Hero', 'Cars' and (insert kid-loses-pet-who-wanders-home movie here). Speaking of 'Cars', the opening short was awesome and hilarious, and in 3-d. It might have been too topical, once the Tokyo drift-racing is no longer in fashion.
If I could get past the cuddly and energetic animation, there probably was not much of a story underneath. But somehow I found the whole thing irresistible. Most of the characters were likable and/or super cute. I loved the hilarious fan boy hamster. Kudos for trying to stay away from the 'Goodfeathers' from 'Animaniacs' with the New York pigeon characters.
Like a bouncing puppy, this was cute, fluffy and mostly harmless entertainment for the family. I especially recommend it in 3-d.
What I would change
Eliminated the extra Hollywood-ish subplots, such as the agent and network executive. The story was simple enough to get it rolling without those boring characters who might confuse younger audiences.
Bottle Shock
Viewed in
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
A movie about a 1976 wine-tasting contest that pitted the French wineries against the underdog American wineries. Starring Alan Rickman, Bill Pullman and Chris Pine.
Liked
Rickman and Pullman.
Disliked
Pine's ugly hair.
Thoughts
I guess it was not bad of a movie.
The story was pretty interesting, since it was based on real events. Though, if you peel away the layers of lyrical love-making to wine through dialog and cinematography, it's pretty much like any sports underdog flick. The characters were likable, especially Rickman's fish-out-of-water arc, and Gustavo's (played by Freddy Rodriguez) racial subplot.
I have a feeling if I was a fan of wine, I might have liked it more, and would be more forgiving of the predictable plot, as well as the miscasting of Pine. He was too hunky to pass as a hippie slacker lead. Whoever decided to put that radioactive mop on Pine's head should be flogged for how ridiculous it looked. Lastly, the overuse of the theme score was super annoying.
The late, great George Carlin once railed on how horrible the use of the word "nice" is. Unfortunately, I'm about to use it to summarize this film. It had some engaging moments about wine, and I'm a fan of Pullman and Rickman, but there was nothing memorable about it. But at least it was never boring either. It was just a nice little film to kill time with.
What I would change
Recast Chris Pine with someone who could pull off a better slacker performance.
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
A movie about a 1976 wine-tasting contest that pitted the French wineries against the underdog American wineries. Starring Alan Rickman, Bill Pullman and Chris Pine.
Liked
Rickman and Pullman.
Disliked
Pine's ugly hair.
Thoughts
I guess it was not bad of a movie.
The story was pretty interesting, since it was based on real events. Though, if you peel away the layers of lyrical love-making to wine through dialog and cinematography, it's pretty much like any sports underdog flick. The characters were likable, especially Rickman's fish-out-of-water arc, and Gustavo's (played by Freddy Rodriguez) racial subplot.
I have a feeling if I was a fan of wine, I might have liked it more, and would be more forgiving of the predictable plot, as well as the miscasting of Pine. He was too hunky to pass as a hippie slacker lead. Whoever decided to put that radioactive mop on Pine's head should be flogged for how ridiculous it looked. Lastly, the overuse of the theme score was super annoying.
The late, great George Carlin once railed on how horrible the use of the word "nice" is. Unfortunately, I'm about to use it to summarize this film. It had some engaging moments about wine, and I'm a fan of Pullman and Rickman, but there was nothing memorable about it. But at least it was never boring either. It was just a nice little film to kill time with.
What I would change
Recast Chris Pine with someone who could pull off a better slacker performance.
Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian
Viewed in
2008 (2)
Premise
Based on the C.S. Lewis book about the four siblings returning to the Narnia to find it oppressed by a new regime.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, my memory of the book fails me, so I cannot compare that aspect.
The special effects were very good, and I was glad to see the original cast back. There were some cool action fantasy sequences of battles between large armies of men and beasts. Also, I enjoyed Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard), although he sometimes reminded me of Puss In Boots from the 'Shrek' movies.
Unfortunately, it was not much of a story. I do not know if I should blame the book or the adaptation. Overall, it felt like an elongated action flick with little plot or character development. It got bogged down with the political subplots. Lastly, this movie lacked the sense of wonder and magic compared to the first film.
I still like the series, but this movie was a disappointing. Nevertheless, I would recommend this fans of the first film, just to see some cooler fight scenes, and the return of characters.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
Was this a passing-of-the-torch movie between the great Warwick Davis and Peter Dinklage?
2008 (2)
Premise
Based on the C.S. Lewis book about the four siblings returning to the Narnia to find it oppressed by a new regime.
Who should watch
Fans of the book.
Thoughts
Unfortunately, my memory of the book fails me, so I cannot compare that aspect.
The special effects were very good, and I was glad to see the original cast back. There were some cool action fantasy sequences of battles between large armies of men and beasts. Also, I enjoyed Reepicheep (voiced by Eddie Izzard), although he sometimes reminded me of Puss In Boots from the 'Shrek' movies.
Unfortunately, it was not much of a story. I do not know if I should blame the book or the adaptation. Overall, it felt like an elongated action flick with little plot or character development. It got bogged down with the political subplots. Lastly, this movie lacked the sense of wonder and magic compared to the first film.
I still like the series, but this movie was a disappointing. Nevertheless, I would recommend this fans of the first film, just to see some cooler fight scenes, and the return of characters.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
Was this a passing-of-the-torch movie between the great Warwick Davis and Peter Dinklage?
Cloverfield
Viewed in
2008
Premise
'Godzilla' meets 'Blair Witch Project'.
Who should watch
Those who like monster movies and motion sickness.
Thoughts
This was a cool twist on the monster movie genre. I liked how the story was through the point of view of a select group of character. The lack of information, experiencing the chaos from ground up at ground zero gave a geniune sense of action and suspense. My favorite scene was when the main characters walk down a street, and suddenly, a fight between the monster and soldiers literlly blows by them like a storm. You know nothing and everything at the same time.
There was too much handhead camera going on. I appreciated what the film makers were accomplishing, but you never want it to get in the way of the audience's ability to experience the story. Thankfully, I was warned, so I sat in the last rows without much trouble.
The other flaw with the film was the film's implausibility in terms of human physiology and digital cameras. While the characters were not charicatures and had decent subplots, their arcs seemed predictable to me. I think the film could have been even more exciting had it been more realistic with the human characters.
This was a great example of the importance of sound. Obviously, the lack of movie scores helped create a sense of realism. Funny how despite no score, there was a ton of songs in the credits due to the party scenes. Lastly, the only score that played in the credits was great 'Godzilla' shoutout music.
What I would change
Less motion sickness.
Random
I found it amusing that they depicted New York as a child-less city, mainly because of regulations regarding night shoots and work hours for children actors.
2008
Premise
'Godzilla' meets 'Blair Witch Project'.
Who should watch
Those who like monster movies and motion sickness.
Thoughts
This was a cool twist on the monster movie genre. I liked how the story was through the point of view of a select group of character. The lack of information, experiencing the chaos from ground up at ground zero gave a geniune sense of action and suspense. My favorite scene was when the main characters walk down a street, and suddenly, a fight between the monster and soldiers literlly blows by them like a storm. You know nothing and everything at the same time.
There was too much handhead camera going on. I appreciated what the film makers were accomplishing, but you never want it to get in the way of the audience's ability to experience the story. Thankfully, I was warned, so I sat in the last rows without much trouble.
The other flaw with the film was the film's implausibility in terms of human physiology and digital cameras. While the characters were not charicatures and had decent subplots, their arcs seemed predictable to me. I think the film could have been even more exciting had it been more realistic with the human characters.
This was a great example of the importance of sound. Obviously, the lack of movie scores helped create a sense of realism. Funny how despite no score, there was a ton of songs in the credits due to the party scenes. Lastly, the only score that played in the credits was great 'Godzilla' shoutout music.
What I would change
Less motion sickness.
Random
I found it amusing that they depicted New York as a child-less city, mainly because of regulations regarding night shoots and work hours for children actors.
Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The
Viewed in
2009 (2)
Premise
Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story about a man who grows younger as he grows older, starring Brad Pitt.
Who should watch
Those who like long sprawling movies, in which the journey is more important than the destination.
Thoughts
There was a lot to like about this film.
There was great acting all around, especially by the great Cate Blanchette. Also, the special effects and makeup were amazing in achieving the aging tricks of the characters.
My favorite thing was the screenwriting. Most short story-inspired movies end up with little substance ('How the Grinch Stole Christmas' comes to mind). Props to the film makers for creating an intriguing story full of memorable characters and heart-wrenching scenes.
When you're watching a three hour movie that did not feel like three hours, you're watching a an excellent film.
What I would change
Made the credits longer. These hard-working people deserve to have their names read and appreciated. Instead, I barely read half of the names before the next page is shown.
Spoiler!
Was it necessary to have it take place right during Hurricane Katrina? I don't think there was a need to explain the story's disappearance. That could have trimmed off 20 minutes from the length.
2009 (2)
Premise
Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story about a man who grows younger as he grows older, starring Brad Pitt.
Who should watch
Those who like long sprawling movies, in which the journey is more important than the destination.
Thoughts
There was a lot to like about this film.
There was great acting all around, especially by the great Cate Blanchette. Also, the special effects and makeup were amazing in achieving the aging tricks of the characters.
My favorite thing was the screenwriting. Most short story-inspired movies end up with little substance ('How the Grinch Stole Christmas' comes to mind). Props to the film makers for creating an intriguing story full of memorable characters and heart-wrenching scenes.
When you're watching a three hour movie that did not feel like three hours, you're watching a an excellent film.
What I would change
Made the credits longer. These hard-working people deserve to have their names read and appreciated. Instead, I barely read half of the names before the next page is shown.
Spoiler!
Was it necessary to have it take place right during Hurricane Katrina? I don't think there was a need to explain the story's disappearance. That could have trimmed off 20 minutes from the length.
The Dark Knight
Viewed in
2008 (4), 2011, 2012
Formats
Movie theater, IMAX theater, Blu-Ray, HDTV (w/ ads)
Premise
The Joker challenges all of Gotham to cross the line.
Loved
Everything about it.
Thoughts
Sick. In a great way. This was one of those films that I'd rather not say much and let you discover its greatness on your own.
This film was intense for many reasons. Obviously, the late Heath Ledger was the MVP. There aren't enough superlatives to describe this legendary performance. For lack of a better phrase, he made the beloved Jack Nicholson's version look like a clown. From scene one, Ledger's Joker grabs you by the balls, refusing to let go. He was frightening in his loud moments, terrifying in his quiet moments. A true agent of chaos. Perhaps the only drawback was that it became difficult to truly praise the rest of the excellent cast.
The action and score also kicked it up a notch. The centerpiece set was the insane tunnel scene as the Joker picks apart a convoy of armored police vehicles, but they paled compared to the debut of the Batcycle. I had rarely heard such gasps of exhilaration and applause when it takes on the eighteen-wheeler. Especially in IMAX. Once again, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard delivered another great score, this time rife with distressing dissonance deserving to accompany Ledger's creation.
The Dark Knight started off as a slick comic book movie, turned into a sprawling crime drama, then blindsided me with emotional and mental intensity of rarified stratosphere. Granted, I was staggering out of a midnight showing, but I don't know of another film where I actually staggered out from the sheer experience.
Random
Comparing the differences between regular theater, IMAX and Blu-Ray was quite amusing. In IMAX, it was sometimes distracting for shots to go from wide screen to full-blown full screen intermittently. In Blu-Ray, the IMAX scenes were actually further back, not cropped. So the shots switched between wide screen and letterbox. Unfortunately, since the IMAX scenes were further, they (like the famous truck scene) lost a bit of the 'oomph' factor. On the flip side, I think I could see more clearly in Blu-Ray than in IMAX. Still, my favorite experience was watching in IMAX. When I become rich and famous, I will need to install an IMAX in my mansion.
2008 (4), 2011, 2012
Formats
Movie theater, IMAX theater, Blu-Ray, HDTV (w/ ads)
Premise
The Joker challenges all of Gotham to cross the line.
Loved
Everything about it.
Thoughts
Sick. In a great way. This was one of those films that I'd rather not say much and let you discover its greatness on your own.
This film was intense for many reasons. Obviously, the late Heath Ledger was the MVP. There aren't enough superlatives to describe this legendary performance. For lack of a better phrase, he made the beloved Jack Nicholson's version look like a clown. From scene one, Ledger's Joker grabs you by the balls, refusing to let go. He was frightening in his loud moments, terrifying in his quiet moments. A true agent of chaos. Perhaps the only drawback was that it became difficult to truly praise the rest of the excellent cast.
The action and score also kicked it up a notch. The centerpiece set was the insane tunnel scene as the Joker picks apart a convoy of armored police vehicles, but they paled compared to the debut of the Batcycle. I had rarely heard such gasps of exhilaration and applause when it takes on the eighteen-wheeler. Especially in IMAX. Once again, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard delivered another great score, this time rife with distressing dissonance deserving to accompany Ledger's creation.
This reminded me of Vertigo, not in terms of style or plot, but in terms of having an experience. In both films, there came a point in which the filmmakers flipped everything upside down and blew my mind away. There were times in the surprise third act when I thought to myself "I can't believe I'm seeing characters doing these insane things to each other". Both masterpieces took me to wonderfully dark places I never thought possible in cinema.
Random
Comparing the differences between regular theater, IMAX and Blu-Ray was quite amusing. In IMAX, it was sometimes distracting for shots to go from wide screen to full-blown full screen intermittently. In Blu-Ray, the IMAX scenes were actually further back, not cropped. So the shots switched between wide screen and letterbox. Unfortunately, since the IMAX scenes were further, they (like the famous truck scene) lost a bit of the 'oomph' factor. On the flip side, I think I could see more clearly in Blu-Ray than in IMAX. Still, my favorite experience was watching in IMAX. When I become rich and famous, I will need to install an IMAX in my mansion.
Day the Earth Stood Still, The
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Remake of the 1951 classic about a mysterious alien appearing on Earth with an unknown agenda.
Who should watch
Keanu Reeves fans. Those who want to watch the original, but hate black-and-white.
Thoughts
Apparently, I liked to more than most. Perhaps because I had just seen the original, and liked all the references to it.
To my surprise, Keanu Reeves was believable as the human-looking alien. I was able to take him seriously, unlike, say the 'Matrix' movies. My other favorite part was how much the the story stuck to the original, with some nice little twists and shout outs.
In some ways, this film was superior to the original. Such as the believability of the situation and how Klaatu behaves.
If you only had time to watch one, the original is still the must-see classic.
What I would change
Saved some budget by reducing the number of gratuitous CGI scenes.
Random
I found it amusing that Jaden (Will Smith's kid) was literally following his father's footsteps by driving through a deserted New York City, a la 'I am Legend'.
Speaking of the Big Apple, what's up with the slew of deserted NYC scenes, such as these two films and 'Vanilla Sky'?
Spoiler!
My favorite twist was the cemetery scene, in which the kid asks Klaatu to revive his father. I was fine without the famous speech, mainly because that would have been too idealistic of a scene.
On the other hand, I wished the resurrection scene was kept, but I understand it wouldn't have fit in the context of the plot. And they should have sneaked in a 'Klaatu barada nikto' in there.
2008
Premise
Remake of the 1951 classic about a mysterious alien appearing on Earth with an unknown agenda.
Who should watch
Keanu Reeves fans. Those who want to watch the original, but hate black-and-white.
Thoughts
Apparently, I liked to more than most. Perhaps because I had just seen the original, and liked all the references to it.
To my surprise, Keanu Reeves was believable as the human-looking alien. I was able to take him seriously, unlike, say the 'Matrix' movies. My other favorite part was how much the the story stuck to the original, with some nice little twists and shout outs.
In some ways, this film was superior to the original. Such as the believability of the situation and how Klaatu behaves.
If you only had time to watch one, the original is still the must-see classic.
What I would change
Saved some budget by reducing the number of gratuitous CGI scenes.
Random
I found it amusing that Jaden (Will Smith's kid) was literally following his father's footsteps by driving through a deserted New York City, a la 'I am Legend'.
Speaking of the Big Apple, what's up with the slew of deserted NYC scenes, such as these two films and 'Vanilla Sky'?
Spoiler!
My favorite twist was the cemetery scene, in which the kid asks Klaatu to revive his father. I was fine without the famous speech, mainly because that would have been too idealistic of a scene.
On the other hand, I wished the resurrection scene was kept, but I understand it wouldn't have fit in the context of the plot. And they should have sneaked in a 'Klaatu barada nikto' in there.
Definitely, Maybe
Viewed in
2008, 2011
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
A father tries to explain his impending divorce and past relationships to his young daughter.
Liked
The charming cast.
Thoughts
I found it surprisingly good.
For a romantic comedy, it had some smart, realistic characters with funny dialogue. Even though we always know it's a happy ending, kudos to the screenplay for giving the story that hides that inevitability.
The other thing that made this fun was the excellent acting. I've never seen any Reynolds' movies, but I found him very charming and likable (and looking too much like a clean-cut/super-cute version of Jason Lee). Abigail Breslin was very cute. I was glad the filmmakers did not overdose us with her cuteness. Everyone else was solid as well. Shockingly, I did not recognize the great Kevin Kline in a very funny role.
When I first saw Isla Fisher in Wedding Crashers, I thought 'she's hot!'. When I saw her in The Lookout, I thought 'she's versatile'. When I saw her charming performance in this film, I thought 'she is my new celebrity crush!'
Lastly, how in the world did the filmmakers conclude that the awesome Clint Mansell was the choice for the score? I mean, he did fine. But when I think of romantic comedy, I don't think of the guy who made the badass music for Pi and Requiem for a Dream.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Interesting that they bothered to use computer graphics to include the twin towers in the skyline in the 1990's flashbacks.
2008, 2011
Formats
Movie theater, DVD
Premise
A father tries to explain his impending divorce and past relationships to his young daughter.
Liked
The charming cast.
Thoughts
I found it surprisingly good.
For a romantic comedy, it had some smart, realistic characters with funny dialogue. Even though we always know it's a happy ending, kudos to the screenplay for giving the story that hides that inevitability.
The other thing that made this fun was the excellent acting. I've never seen any Reynolds' movies, but I found him very charming and likable (and looking too much like a clean-cut/super-cute version of Jason Lee). Abigail Breslin was very cute. I was glad the filmmakers did not overdose us with her cuteness. Everyone else was solid as well. Shockingly, I did not recognize the great Kevin Kline in a very funny role.
When I first saw Isla Fisher in Wedding Crashers, I thought 'she's hot!'. When I saw her in The Lookout, I thought 'she's versatile'. When I saw her charming performance in this film, I thought 'she is my new celebrity crush!'
Lastly, how in the world did the filmmakers conclude that the awesome Clint Mansell was the choice for the score? I mean, he did fine. But when I think of romantic comedy, I don't think of the guy who made the badass music for Pi and Requiem for a Dream.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
Interesting that they bothered to use computer graphics to include the twin towers in the skyline in the 1990's flashbacks.
Doubt
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Based on the play, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams play two nuns investigating whether the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) had inappropriate relationships with a student.
Who should watch
Fans of the cast.
Thoughts
While I had not seen the play, I expected top-notch acting from the cast, and it delivered.
I liked the story, as Streep and Hoffman played cat-and-mouse. Amy Adams continued to impress me with her acting chops, despite playing the occasional third force in this psychological warfare.
Everything else in the film was well-done. However as a whole, it lacked that certain quality to make it great.
I loved the awesome acting, but not so much the film.
What I would change
What's with camera tilting every once in a while? That's so college student-like.
Random
I was surprised to see the kid who played Speed Racer's annoying little brother in this film, playing... an annoying little boy.
2009
Premise
Based on the play, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams play two nuns investigating whether the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) had inappropriate relationships with a student.
Who should watch
Fans of the cast.
Thoughts
While I had not seen the play, I expected top-notch acting from the cast, and it delivered.
I liked the story, as Streep and Hoffman played cat-and-mouse. Amy Adams continued to impress me with her acting chops, despite playing the occasional third force in this psychological warfare.
Everything else in the film was well-done. However as a whole, it lacked that certain quality to make it great.
I loved the awesome acting, but not so much the film.
What I would change
What's with camera tilting every once in a while? That's so college student-like.
Random
I was surprised to see the kid who played Speed Racer's annoying little brother in this film, playing... an annoying little boy.
Elegy
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Sir Ben Kingsley plays an old American college professor who falls in love with a much younger student, played by the ravishing Penelope Cruz. Based on a novel that I never read.
Liked
The strong performances, the contrast of character maturity.
Thoughts
A well-acted drama with a lot of relationship observations.
The most interesting part of the film was how clueless Kingsley's character is, especially compared to Cruz's character who was 30 years younger about love and lust. Despite his wizened looks, his behavior was much like a virgin teenager, requiring guidance. We saw the psyche of not just a dirty old man, but a scared old man. During certain parts of the film, Kingsley and Dennis Hopper's characters reminded me of the story of Benjamin Button, as these elderly men regress into adolescence and even childhood.
There was a lot of interesting dialogue about true love, the meaning of monogamy, and the acknowledgment of impending death for elderly people. To put these observations onscreen required vulnerable performances, and the cast was excellent at it. Kingsley was handsome, unshakable on the outside, but clearly time had not taught his character all the lessons of the world yet and was about to learn the hard way. Obviously, voice over monologue helped achieve that character. Cruz's vulnerability was more physical. Her numerous nude scenes were sensual, but also a point of contrast. The late great Dennis Hopper put in a fine performance as Kingsley's partner in crime, but more wary. A scene between Kingsley and Patricia Clarkson was very touching. I very much enjoyed Peter Sarsgaard as Kingsley's estranged son, especially the twist of unintentionally following his footsteps.
Despite the painful human relationships and wonderful acting, I ended up liking the film, but not loving it. I think it had to do with the fact that the beginning of the film felt creepy. Not just because of age difference, but because a "wise old man" was falling for the same teenage fallacies of possessiveness and jealousy. It was interesting, but ugly. I was not completely emotionally vested when the the third act kicked into full gear with all sorts of human strife.
Nevertheless, it was thoughtful, painful, truthful film, thanks to wonderful characters and vulnerable performances.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Sir Ben Kingsley plays an old American college professor who falls in love with a much younger student, played by the ravishing Penelope Cruz. Based on a novel that I never read.
Liked
The strong performances, the contrast of character maturity.
Thoughts
A well-acted drama with a lot of relationship observations.
The most interesting part of the film was how clueless Kingsley's character is, especially compared to Cruz's character who was 30 years younger about love and lust. Despite his wizened looks, his behavior was much like a virgin teenager, requiring guidance. We saw the psyche of not just a dirty old man, but a scared old man. During certain parts of the film, Kingsley and Dennis Hopper's characters reminded me of the story of Benjamin Button, as these elderly men regress into adolescence and even childhood.
There was a lot of interesting dialogue about true love, the meaning of monogamy, and the acknowledgment of impending death for elderly people. To put these observations onscreen required vulnerable performances, and the cast was excellent at it. Kingsley was handsome, unshakable on the outside, but clearly time had not taught his character all the lessons of the world yet and was about to learn the hard way. Obviously, voice over monologue helped achieve that character. Cruz's vulnerability was more physical. Her numerous nude scenes were sensual, but also a point of contrast. The late great Dennis Hopper put in a fine performance as Kingsley's partner in crime, but more wary. A scene between Kingsley and Patricia Clarkson was very touching. I very much enjoyed Peter Sarsgaard as Kingsley's estranged son, especially the twist of unintentionally following his footsteps.
Despite the painful human relationships and wonderful acting, I ended up liking the film, but not loving it. I think it had to do with the fact that the beginning of the film felt creepy. Not just because of age difference, but because a "wise old man" was falling for the same teenage fallacies of possessiveness and jealousy. It was interesting, but ugly. I was not completely emotionally vested when the the third act kicked into full gear with all sorts of human strife.
Nevertheless, it was thoughtful, painful, truthful film, thanks to wonderful characters and vulnerable performances.
What I would change
Nothing.
Forbidden Kingdom, The
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Jackie Chan and Jet Li in an Americanized version of 'Journey to the West'.
Who should watch
Fans of Chan and Li.
Thoughts
A disappointing chimera of 'Journey to the West' + 'Wizard of Oz' + 'Karate Kid'. The whole American kid in China premise kills the story. Broken English does not help either.
Two scenes really stood out that did not make the movie an entire waste of time. Both involved two kung fu legends. The first was the exciting duel between Jackie Chan and Jet Li. Unfortunately, there was only one fight, and stunt doubles were probably used. The other part was a comedic scene in which the two characters beat up the American kid while attempting to illustrate which animal-based technique was better.
The excitement of seeing Chan and Li in the same scene is equivalent to Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in 'Heat', too bad the rest of 'The Forbidden Kingdom' sucked.
What I would change
A straight-forward epic in Chinese of the story would be nice.
2008
Premise
Jackie Chan and Jet Li in an Americanized version of 'Journey to the West'.
Who should watch
Fans of Chan and Li.
Thoughts
A disappointing chimera of 'Journey to the West' + 'Wizard of Oz' + 'Karate Kid'. The whole American kid in China premise kills the story. Broken English does not help either.
Two scenes really stood out that did not make the movie an entire waste of time. Both involved two kung fu legends. The first was the exciting duel between Jackie Chan and Jet Li. Unfortunately, there was only one fight, and stunt doubles were probably used. The other part was a comedic scene in which the two characters beat up the American kid while attempting to illustrate which animal-based technique was better.
The excitement of seeing Chan and Li in the same scene is equivalent to Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in 'Heat', too bad the rest of 'The Forbidden Kingdom' sucked.
What I would change
A straight-forward epic in Chinese of the story would be nice.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Viewed in
2008
Premise
After his actress girlfriend dumps him, a distraught man escapes to a Hawaiian resort, only to bump into her and her new beau.
Who should watch
Those who like the Judd Apatow-style romantic comedies, and can handle Jason Segel's whimpering character.
Thoughts
Film critic Richard Roeper declared it one of the funniest films of the decade. While I didn't think it was, it was not underwhelming, despite is over-hyping of the film.
I laughed a lot and there was much to like. All four of the main characters were believable, even during the silliest of scenes, as I cared for them. The raunch was in good taste, if that makes any sense. I also enjoyed the cameos and minor characters, as each were also well-written and had their chance to shine. Jack McBrayar was especially funny as the virgin groom on his honeymoon, as it hits close to home.
As for the nudity, I am sure Jason Segel's penis got huge reactions from the audience, but not from me. Maybe it was because I was already warned about it, or I just do not consider nudity as taboo as most Americans. Actually, my favorite moment of nudity was when his character bends over in tears, while the camera does not flinch.
To be honest, it was unfair for me to compare this to Judd Apatow's films, as he was only a producer. Nevertheless, their was a similar style in that it was raunchy, but it served to enhance the well-written story with charming characters. Thus, if you liked Apatow-style films, you should like this one.
Oh yeah, and the girls were hot in this film.
What I would change
Nothing.
2008
Premise
After his actress girlfriend dumps him, a distraught man escapes to a Hawaiian resort, only to bump into her and her new beau.
Who should watch
Those who like the Judd Apatow-style romantic comedies, and can handle Jason Segel's whimpering character.
Thoughts
Film critic Richard Roeper declared it one of the funniest films of the decade. While I didn't think it was, it was not underwhelming, despite is over-hyping of the film.
I laughed a lot and there was much to like. All four of the main characters were believable, even during the silliest of scenes, as I cared for them. The raunch was in good taste, if that makes any sense. I also enjoyed the cameos and minor characters, as each were also well-written and had their chance to shine. Jack McBrayar was especially funny as the virgin groom on his honeymoon, as it hits close to home.
As for the nudity, I am sure Jason Segel's penis got huge reactions from the audience, but not from me. Maybe it was because I was already warned about it, or I just do not consider nudity as taboo as most Americans. Actually, my favorite moment of nudity was when his character bends over in tears, while the camera does not flinch.
To be honest, it was unfair for me to compare this to Judd Apatow's films, as he was only a producer. Nevertheless, their was a similar style in that it was raunchy, but it served to enhance the well-written story with charming characters. Thus, if you liked Apatow-style films, you should like this one.
Oh yeah, and the girls were hot in this film.
What I would change
Nothing.
Frost/Nixon
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Based on the play about David Frost's interviews of Richard Nixon after resignation from the Watergate scandal.
Who should watch
Those who enjoy great dialogue and verbal warfare.
Thoughts
This felt like a political thriller but without any confusion.
I thought the entire story was just the interviews, but there was a lot of background and set up in the beginning that was interesting and informative to that chapter in American history. This helped me understand what was at stake for Frost and Nixon.
The most surprising aspect was how funny and entertaining the film was. It was a joy to watch these two vastly different characters play mind-games with each other. I was afraid I would get lost in a sea of words, but it was very easy to tell when someone was winning the battle. I give credit to the great dialogue. My favorite line was from Nixon, in which he asked Frost 'Did you fornicate last night?' five seconds before starting the interview. It was more a series of debates than interviews.
Frank Langella's performance was spell-binding. He was far from a caricature, and created quite a memorable character. Obviously I am too young to know Watergate, but I could not help but be entranced by Langella's Nixon.
I highly recommend this mind-stimulating, and surprisingly entertaining film.
What I would change
Gotten rid of the superfluous hand-held camera style in the beginning.
2009
Premise
Based on the play about David Frost's interviews of Richard Nixon after resignation from the Watergate scandal.
Who should watch
Those who enjoy great dialogue and verbal warfare.
Thoughts
This felt like a political thriller but without any confusion.
I thought the entire story was just the interviews, but there was a lot of background and set up in the beginning that was interesting and informative to that chapter in American history. This helped me understand what was at stake for Frost and Nixon.
The most surprising aspect was how funny and entertaining the film was. It was a joy to watch these two vastly different characters play mind-games with each other. I was afraid I would get lost in a sea of words, but it was very easy to tell when someone was winning the battle. I give credit to the great dialogue. My favorite line was from Nixon, in which he asked Frost 'Did you fornicate last night?' five seconds before starting the interview. It was more a series of debates than interviews.
Frank Langella's performance was spell-binding. He was far from a caricature, and created quite a memorable character. Obviously I am too young to know Watergate, but I could not help but be entranced by Langella's Nixon.
I highly recommend this mind-stimulating, and surprisingly entertaining film.
What I would change
Gotten rid of the superfluous hand-held camera style in the beginning.
Get Smart
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Based on the spy-parodying TV series.
Who should watch
Those in the mood for an action flick with quite a few laughs.
Thoughts
It was entertaining.
Steve Carrell was very funny with his dry, straight-faced delivery and Anne Hathaway was hot. As for the supporting actors, there were a ton of cameos and guys you might recognize from commercials and stuff, and they all pretty much get one or two funny lines or scenes. My favorite was WWE wrestler called 'The Great Khali' as a henchman.
I never saw a full episode of the show, but I could tell there were some funny references to the original series. It seemed to me an episode was 80% comedy and 20% action. Here, it felt more like 50-50. Also, I felt the comedy in the series was more dialogue-based, while the comedy in this film was more slapstick and physical-based.
To be honest, I do not know if fans of the series will like this film or not. As a summer movie, this was funny and entertaining, and a nice change of pace from the slew of pure action flicks during this season.
What I would change
Cut out one action scene and eliminate the double-agent angle to speed up the pacing of the film.
2008
Premise
Based on the spy-parodying TV series.
Who should watch
Those in the mood for an action flick with quite a few laughs.
Thoughts
It was entertaining.
Steve Carrell was very funny with his dry, straight-faced delivery and Anne Hathaway was hot. As for the supporting actors, there were a ton of cameos and guys you might recognize from commercials and stuff, and they all pretty much get one or two funny lines or scenes. My favorite was WWE wrestler called 'The Great Khali' as a henchman.
I never saw a full episode of the show, but I could tell there were some funny references to the original series. It seemed to me an episode was 80% comedy and 20% action. Here, it felt more like 50-50. Also, I felt the comedy in the series was more dialogue-based, while the comedy in this film was more slapstick and physical-based.
To be honest, I do not know if fans of the series will like this film or not. As a summer movie, this was funny and entertaining, and a nice change of pace from the slew of pure action flicks during this season.
What I would change
Cut out one action scene and eliminate the double-agent angle to speed up the pacing of the film.
Goal II: Living the Dream
Viewed in
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
In the sequel to Goal! The Dream Begins, Santiago is transferred to Real Madrid for the Champions League.
Hated
The second half.
Thoughts
As expected, a disappointing sequel.
The best part was the comedy relief between old chums Santiago and Gavin due to Kuno Becker and Alessandro Nivola's chemistry. One visual upgrade was the much improved production value, with over-use of high-speed cameras, CGI, and music-video style camera tricks.
One issue with this movie was that it was harder to root for the protagonists, because everything that needed to be told about Santiago was already in the original. Without that drive to make a team, the movie makers forced obstacles in attempt to create drama. Then it jumped the shark with a car chase. Afterward, I was out, and everything that followed became laughably bad. I'll let you guess if there was a rock ballad over a melodramatic montage.
Another unintentionally funny part was star-studded roster of Real Madrid, with gratuitous shots of David Beckham and Zinédine Zidane. Thankfully they none of them had speaking parts. Even funnier was choosing a team that were vilified by the rest of the world, with players that everyone rooted to fail, and attempting to pass them off as the good guys in the movie.
I liked the original, but stay the eff away from this contrived, stupid, sappy sequel, unless you just like seeing Beckham shirtless.
What I would change
Not bothered making this.
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
In the sequel to Goal! The Dream Begins, Santiago is transferred to Real Madrid for the Champions League.
Hated
The second half.
Thoughts
As expected, a disappointing sequel.
The best part was the comedy relief between old chums Santiago and Gavin due to Kuno Becker and Alessandro Nivola's chemistry. One visual upgrade was the much improved production value, with over-use of high-speed cameras, CGI, and music-video style camera tricks.
One issue with this movie was that it was harder to root for the protagonists, because everything that needed to be told about Santiago was already in the original. Without that drive to make a team, the movie makers forced obstacles in attempt to create drama. Then it jumped the shark with a car chase. Afterward, I was out, and everything that followed became laughably bad. I'll let you guess if there was a rock ballad over a melodramatic montage.
Another unintentionally funny part was star-studded roster of Real Madrid, with gratuitous shots of David Beckham and Zinédine Zidane. Thankfully they none of them had speaking parts. Even funnier was choosing a team that were vilified by the rest of the world, with players that everyone rooted to fail, and attempting to pass them off as the good guys in the movie.
I liked the original, but stay the eff away from this contrived, stupid, sappy sequel, unless you just like seeing Beckham shirtless.
What I would change
Not bothered making this.
The Good, the Bad, the Weird
Viewed in
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
A Korean steampunk western about three fighters (guess their traits) who battle for a treasure map.
Loved
The action eye candy.
Disliked
The lame writing.
Thoughts
A fun movie with lots of flair.
The best part was the complicated action sequences. I was impressed by the production value and how well director Ji-woon Kim hid the computer graphics. Very much in the vein of 300, it was full of complex action sequences in which characters and camera seamlessly leaped from set to set, shot to shot. It was rather fun seeing what kind of Asian cowboy twists they could invent in these superfluous and expensive shootouts and horse chases.
In the vein of Snatch, Kim also employed countless fancy trick shots and slick cinematography to keep the energy going during the non-action scenes. Given the whole context of the movie, it was cheesy, but still fun.
However, his attempt at creating quirky crooks with quirky dialogue a la Guy Ritchie fell flat. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but the comedy came off as trying too hard and stupid. While the three leads were distinguishable in looks and attitude, the jailbreak of colorful minor characters just created mass confusion for me. Insert "all Asians look alike" joke here.
Having so many inconsequential characters going in all these directions caused the story to suffer immensely. Not only was I confused most of the time, but it fatigued me to the point of not caring for any of the three main characters and their flashbacks. Even when I knew this was more style than substance, I was very much annoyed by the last act, of how every person in Manchuria knew where the treasure was, when very few laid their eyes on the map itself.
As the title implied, this was a tribute of Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood's classic. Too bad it came off as amateurish imitation. The characters and performances were nowhere as memorable as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And watching it copy some of those famous scenes just made me miss the original even more.
If 300 and Snatch had a baby while watching The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Korean, this is what you get. The writing sucked and it was way too long, but I greatly enjoyed the eye candy in the form of gun fights and chase scenes. Kudos for helping me pass the time while recovering from the cold.
What I would change
Not sure.
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming (Xbox 360)
Premise
A Korean steampunk western about three fighters (guess their traits) who battle for a treasure map.
Loved
The action eye candy.
Disliked
The lame writing.
Thoughts
A fun movie with lots of flair.
The best part was the complicated action sequences. I was impressed by the production value and how well director Ji-woon Kim hid the computer graphics. Very much in the vein of 300, it was full of complex action sequences in which characters and camera seamlessly leaped from set to set, shot to shot. It was rather fun seeing what kind of Asian cowboy twists they could invent in these superfluous and expensive shootouts and horse chases.
In the vein of Snatch, Kim also employed countless fancy trick shots and slick cinematography to keep the energy going during the non-action scenes. Given the whole context of the movie, it was cheesy, but still fun.
However, his attempt at creating quirky crooks with quirky dialogue a la Guy Ritchie fell flat. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but the comedy came off as trying too hard and stupid. While the three leads were distinguishable in looks and attitude, the jailbreak of colorful minor characters just created mass confusion for me. Insert "all Asians look alike" joke here.
Having so many inconsequential characters going in all these directions caused the story to suffer immensely. Not only was I confused most of the time, but it fatigued me to the point of not caring for any of the three main characters and their flashbacks. Even when I knew this was more style than substance, I was very much annoyed by the last act, of how every person in Manchuria knew where the treasure was, when very few laid their eyes on the map itself.
As the title implied, this was a tribute of Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood's classic. Too bad it came off as amateurish imitation. The characters and performances were nowhere as memorable as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. And watching it copy some of those famous scenes just made me miss the original even more.
If 300 and Snatch had a baby while watching The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Korean, this is what you get. The writing sucked and it was way too long, but I greatly enjoyed the eye candy in the form of gun fights and chase scenes. Kudos for helping me pass the time while recovering from the cold.
What I would change
Not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)