9/9-
I understand that Greengrass took some interesting methods while directing this picture. First of all, he used all unknown-actors and made sure that they did not associate with each other during shooting. This was to give the characters a feeling that they are all strangers to one another. This really came through as the normal individuals collaborated together to foil the plot. Greengrass also shot takes that lasted up to thirty minutes without cutting and allowed for improvisation from the actors. This made the dramatic hijack scenes more flowing and always on the edge. Greengrass has certainly created a haunting depiction of real events, but fails to follow-up with them. We learn the names of about one or two of the individuals onboard the flight, but that is it. Furthermore, we receive no indication as to what makes any of these characters unique in personality or other characteristics. World Trade Center provided personalities and even some background stories for its victims. But of course, this time we are dealing with several more characters all of whom cannot receive explanations. But as a consequence, we can’t attach ourselves to these relative strangers, and thus can hardly feel worried or saddened for them. Yet one of the greater strengths of the film is the complicated depiction of the air traffic controllers and air defense centers who can’t seem to get their facts straight on which if any flights had actually been hijacked. The highlight of the story has to be the dead silence when air controllers at the JFK airport tower simultaneously witness the second plane hitting the Trade Center. These are the cold feelings that us citizens remember ourselves and resonate when we see them. The scenes from the ground provide us with what we remember, while the scenes from the air provide us with what we don’t really know. More than anything else, this film serves as a question-answerer. Nobody really knows exactly what happened on flight 93, but through all of the research that went into the making of this film, what happens is likely a rather accurate answer to that inquiry. While the film is to be commended for its commitment to accuracy and desire to tell of heroism, it lacks the real emotion of how the audience should feel due to having individuals without introductions, nor conclusions for that matter, as the heroes. Though the final shot in the film is of the last few seconds the plane was in air, the cliffhanger causes the audience to walk away answered, but not sentimental. I recommend this film for any individual who can watch a dramatic reenactment of the tragic 9/11 hijacking events without utter discomfort, if they wish to learn, but not to feel uplifted. Paul Greengrass has told of a great American story in an objective way. What to make of these events is for the viewer to decide. Stars: 3 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound
Brief Review: Akeelah and the Bee Akeelah and the Bee is another wholesome family film about the competitive world of children's spelling bee competitions. Though the plot is strongly formulaic, it does conclude with somewhat of a different ending and provides a more realistic cast of characters.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Actress Keke Palmer, Supporting Actor Laurence Fishburne Note: I've decided to do "breif reviews" when either I don't have enough time for a full review, or I don't have enough to say about it, or if I suspect there isn't much interest in the film.
My Most Anticipated Films for Fall  5. Casino RoyaleThough I have never really considered myself to be a big fan of the James Bond franchise, I feel optimistic as a result of all of the positive hype surrounding the rejuvenation of the world’s most famous spy. Casino Royale is meant to be a prequel to all other Bond flicks and is based on how Mr. Bond first got into the 00 business as he once again tracks down a group of terrorists. As is characteristic of every 007 ride, there is a new Bond girl, this time played by Kingdom of Heaven’s Eva Green. She’s a rising star, and makes me glad to see that they avoided putting some bigger name actress in the film as they were planning with Charlize Theron among others. And unknown Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen plays the coveted role of the Bond villain. Dame Judi Dench will once again return as M. Again, though not a Bond fan, I suppose I’ll check this out seeing as how prequels that explain the origins of iconic characters have done well at the theater the last few years (Batman Begins, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, etc.) So I certainly hope that this installment will do great things for the never-ending franchise. Casino Royale will be in theaters November 17. Watch the teaser trailer here.  4. The Pursuit of HappynessI think that America is overdue for a feel-good movie like this, and just in time for the holiday season. Will Smith stars as an intelligent and gifted single-parent who can’t seem to find a job and pay the rent. Yet through all of his hard work he manages to stay close to his only son (played by real-life son Jaden Smith). This really looks to be like a modern-day Jimmy Stewart film. Nobody makes feel-good achievement films like this anymore which makes me so happy to see one. Will Smith also looks to take a great career move by playing a down on his luck father type instead of the hip renegade he often is. That could help get him his second best actor nomination. And I certainly hope that this will make the holiday season even more joyous. The Pursuit of Happyness hits theaters December 15. Watch the trailer here.  3. Stranger Than FictionI’ve always liked quirky abnormal situation modern-day comedies. The best of these are often produced by either the Coen brothers (The Big Lebowski) or Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Surprisingly neither has produced this quirky comedy about a normal lonely guy named Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) who suddenly begins hearing his day narrated in his head by a novelist (Emma Thompson) who happens to be writing about Harold Crick. What an unusual idea for a picture, and only director Marc Forster (Finding Neverland) and first-time screenwriter Zach Helm could have imagined. Of course quirky comedies are never complete without a cast of random characters. In this case, it is Dustin Hoffman as an easily-distracted psychiatrist, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as a heavily-tattooed anarchist baker. How do you even begin to come up with characters like this? Fiction should be an enjoyable surrealist story for anybody who loves originality. Stranger Than Fiction hits theaters November 10. Watch the trailer here.  2. The PrestigeChristopher Nolan, the master of such dark and psychologically significant films as Memento and Batman Begins takes on another project before filming the next Batman installment: The Dark Knight (and by the way, the rumors of casting Heath Ledger as the Joker, Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin, and Ryan Phillipe as Two-Face…how about some actors that were not in last year’s best picture nominees?). Anyway, The Prestige takes place in 19th century England where two companion magicians (Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale) become rivals as they both attempt to create the most spectacular magic trick imaginable, with dangerous consequences. As is characteristic with Christopher Nolan films, this appears to be of a dark and haunting nature. And it includes a talented cast that also includes Michael Caine, Scarlett Johanson and Andy Serkis. Perhaps this could finally be the film that gets a Nolan film an Oscar for once. The Prestige opens October 20. Watch the theatrical trailer here.  1. The DepartedOne word: Scorsese. Sure most of my personal hype surrounding this picture is about the unlikely but essential possibility that Marty might get the Oscar that he should have won about five times by now. But the film still holds its own. The two sides of the law: the cops (including Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin) and the mob (including Jack Nicholson and Ray Winstone) are at war so they each stick a spy in the other side. Leonardo Dicaprio plays a cop secretly infiltrating the mob, while Matt Damon plays a mobster secretly infiltrating the police. I like the complicated overlapping setup. Not to mention that this also sounds like a large blooming cast all of whom should do their part to contribute a strong performance to the film. Yet we all know the scene-stealer, like always will be Jack Nicholson, who will likely end up with his thirteenth nomination. And the best factor working in favor of this film is simply the fact that Martin Scorsese always delivers. I have faith that he will once again give us a picture for the ages. The Departed opens October 6. Watch the theatrical trailer here. Likely to be disappointments: Marie-Antoinette, The Good German, Charlotte’s Web, A Good Year Undecided: Apocalypto, All the King’s Men, The Fountain, Flags of Our Fathers
Review: Snakes on a Plane I’ll give you three guesses as to what Snakes on a Plane is about, and if you get it wrong then, as Samuel L Jackson would say, “You’re a mother-f***ing idiot!
I understand that when the filmmakers heard of how hyped this movie was becoming, they went back and re-shot some R-rated scenes including a couple joining the mile-high club, some pretty disgusting attacks involving snakes biting pretty much every external organ imaginable, and Sam Jackson dropping the F-bomb in the internet-induced line: “I’ve had it with these mother-f***ing snakes on this mother-f***ing plane!” This being an interesting example how internet talk and hype can actually influence the making of a film. But these extra scenes did make the film more intense and turned it into the intense chaotic mayhem that the audience was certainly expecting. Though some of the personal relations between on-flight characters seem tacked on for plot, and they are, are still essential for a film that would otherwise have nothing more than gross deaths. Yet this unfortunately lead to an unnecessary ending scene with Sam Jackson surfing on the beaches of LA. As if people came to see Snakes on a Plane to see surfing. I was so waiting for a huge snake to pop right out of the water then. Furthermore, you would expect the intense climax to be something along the lines of Jackson wrestling with a giant anaconda or something. Instead, they make it the clichéd climax of attempting to land the damaged and pilotless aircraft that we’ve already seen in films like Airplane, Executive Decision, and Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. So basically the only problem with Snakes on a Plane is that there aren’t enough snakes. I wanted more snakes, and I wanted a few more to be real instead of the obvious CG ones. Yet when all has crawled out of its skin, the picture will certainly satisfy all of those internet bloggers counting day and night until the opening of this picture. For those without any sort of phobia whatsoever, and don’t mind seeing a little boy’s skin cut open from three inches away, will receive exactly what they expect to see. Snakes on a Plane is all about snakes on a mother-f***ing plane, and it’s kind of fun. Stars: 2 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: none
Review: World Trade Center The tragic events of September 11th 2001 are likely the most sensitive subject upon discussion today. Thousands were killed and millions were affected. Any attempt to capture the events on film would be a career-risking move. Yet, in spite of the rest of his career, director Oliver Stone handles the subject with the utmost dignity and respect, and accurately depicts the events from the view of two PAPD officers and the heroism and courage that followed in his film World Trade Center.
Meanwhile the officers’ wives Donna (Maria Bello, practically unrecognizable with blue contacts) and Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal) are coping with the worry and misinformation of not knowing whether their husbands are alive, or whether they even went to the scene. Yet the most interesting phenomenon is how humans are most selfless during times of tragedy. As is what really happened on this day, individuals gathered from across the country to do what they could, whether it was helping to search through the rubble, providing medical assistance, or comforting others. This is a great revelation for Oliver Stone. After seeing Stone’s films Born on the Forth of July, Platoon, and Natural Born Killers, I didn’t want to see anymore of human behavior at its worst. But finally, Stone does the exact opposite. Instead of trying to get riles and controversy from his work, Stone decides to respect those who gave so much and put their lives on the line. The film comes to an uplifting climax as Jimeno and McLoughlin are pulled from the rubble and reunite with their families. Though the film is hard on the soul for the first several acts, it finally uplifts the spirit when these selfless acts of humanity are shown that give us hope as a united country. Though the film may be to some degree inaccurate in portraying every individual as selfless, you must understand that the filmmakers had to portray all real life individuals in such a way if they wanted to avoid getting slapped with numerous lawsuits, a likely outcome as a result of such a significant and recent subject matter. Should this film be nominated for best picture of the year, a likely outcome, I would certainly like to see the real John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno present at the awards ceremony. It will help go to show that this is a film not about disaster, but about people and both the horrible and noble tasks that they can accomplish. Though I find this to certainly be the best-made film of the year, I put out an advisory and not recommend it for everybody. I am an individual who was 15 years old in 2001, a resident of the mid-west states, and with no relational connections to the eastern states, and yet the subject was still hard for me to watch at times. Therefore, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this for individuals for whom the subject matter is very close and difficult to bear. But for everyone else, this is a film worth seeing for fully understanding the strength of the American citizen. I got many things out of this film, but the most surprising one: a new found respect for Oliver Stone as a filmmaker. Well done, sir. Stars: 4 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Picture, Director Oliver Stone, Actor Nicolas Cage, Supporting Actor Michael Peña, Supporting Actress Maria Bello, Supporting Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, Original Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
Review: V for Vendetta The legend of Guy Fawkes, the Englishman who attempted to blow-up the British Parliament and was hung for it, is still celebrated in England today. Celebrated enough that DC comics created a superhero of similar ideals. His name is V and in the movie V for Vendetta, based on the comic, V accomplishes the same task Fawkes dreamed of, yet in a futuristic sci-fi world. Yet the very nature of those ideals are what holds this movie back from being enjoyed by this patriotic American.
Natalie Portman, though quickly becoming one of the most talented actresses in Hollywood, gives an underwhelming and disturbing performance as a formerly innocent young woman who is driven through torture and psychological manipulation by V to perform heinous acts of violence. Not to mention that her English accent is even less impressive than the one she used for Queen Amidala. And I don’t mind her shaving her head, but it could have been done for a more worthwhile role. Vendetta was written and produced by the Wachowski brothers who helmed the Matrix trilogy, and it has their signature for graphic and dynamic action. But when the audience expects to see an action movie, they are given a lecture on liberal politics. Not to say that the film doesn’t have some artistic merit that includes some fine dynamic editing to the likes of Michael Bay as the revolution appears to be falling into place. Yet the reason why I simply cannot recommend this film is simply because I can’t help but get the feeling that it is supporting if not glorifying terrorism. In the film, V is called a terrorist, admits to being one, and meets all of the qualifications for being one. He blows up national landmarks, he assassinates people in their sleep, and he tortures those closest to him to make them support him. And yet the audience is supposed to like him? In this day and age, that’s just asking too much. Now I’m sure you can make the argument, how can I support the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars, but not V, since they are both in similar situations. The key difference is the methods. The Rebellion might blow up the Death Star because it is a serious threat, while V will blow up Westminster Abbey simply because it is a symbol. There is a big gap between rebellion and terrorism. For political reasons and more, V for Vendetta is a film that really cannot make privileged Americans feel any better, because they are not in this situation. I understand how such a film might appeal in third-world countries, but not here. V believed in freedom. I believe in the freedom to find a better film. Stars: 1.5 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: None
Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Yo ho yo ho, a pirate’s movie for me. And I would suggest for you too. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is an exciting high seas voyage nearly as entertaining as its predecessor Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, but suffers from a mild case of “middle-film-itis.”
The plot is in every way as complicated as the original Pirates which involves Jack, Will, and former-Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport) each working to find the heart of Davey Jones for their own purpose which concludes with one of the most cleverly-designed sword fights ever to appear on screen, and I’m picky when it comes to good sword fights. I always say that there aren’t enough fights involving three individuals each fighting for themselves, and there certainly aren’t enough fights on top of giant rolling mill wheels. Like the original, the plot is complicated enough that it might require a second screening to fully understand the nuts and bolts of it, yet it wouldn’t be so hard if the details were not explained by a character with such an unnecessarily strong accent (Naomie Harris). While getting bogged down in the complications, there do appear to be a few technical errors that I simply cannot stand (why was the monkey still cursed?). However, I must admit that the overall artistic aspects of the film outweighed the complexities of the plot. The dark ship of the Flying Dutchman is beautifully realized as are its zombie-like crewmembers that appear to be crossbred with various sea creatures in a design that will certainly earn the film nominations for both visual effects and makeup. And though Bill Nighy, an otherwise talented actor, was underwhelming as the dry-character Davey Jones, the artistic design of Jones, which included a beard of octopus tentacles, a big crab claw, and a wooden leg limp was creatively imagined and remarkably realistic. Though the film is a strong and loyal continuation from the original, it does face the problem that many films that are second out of a trilogy face. It leaves the audience wondering if that is all they get because it is inconclusive. In fact, it might be the most inconclusive film ever on screen seeing as how it concludes with a big surprise (which I hope will be explained more thoroughly in the third film) and one of the biggest cliffhangers ever on film. Clearly this was done because the writers were one hundred percent certain that there will be a third film, (seeing as how they are filming films two and three at once) therefore having no risk to concluding with a cliffhanger. While it makes the audience eager for the third film (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End will be released May 2007), it makes the audience not even care about how good this second film was, and thus you forget it soon after. Though it is probably the closest thing Disney has ever done to an R-rated film, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest makes a great family film, and serves well as a backbone for the Pirates saga. Stars: 3 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Art Direction, Costumes, Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
Review: Superman Returns Superman returns for another escapade after a nearly twenty year absence from the big screen, and perhaps it would have been better had he stayed away. America has changed, but the superhero has not and therein lies the problem.
The other characters don’t seem to be fitting. The new man in Lois’s life (James Marsden) is such a great husband and father, yet he stole Lois from Superman, we don’t know whether to like him or not. The villainous Lex Luther (Kevin Spacey) is dynamic but his not particularly insane state of mind doesn’t really explain why he would enjoy killing billions of people. And Luther’s whiney cutout villainess Kitty (Parker Posey) seems better fit in a 30’s gangster movie. The problems don’t stop there. From then on, the film simply gets into a pattern of danger, rescue, danger, rescue, danger… This proves my theory of what makes Superman such an uninteresting superhero. He lacks something very important: challenge. Superman possesses flight, strength, x-ray vision, invulnerability, and a load of other powers. So is it ever that hard for him to save the world? Most superheroes have limited powers, thus there is a challenge and it makes it interesting. Superman’s only vulnerability comes from a rare rock found only on a now-destroyed planet or in an exhibit in a heavily guarded geology museum. So, it is practically impossible to take down Superman. Where’s the conflict? And where are the great action sequences? Even that plane crash scene seemed too easy. And where are the laws of physics? If Superman is lifting up a humongous island, he would be exerting millions of pounds of pressure on an area of his two hands. Logically, that kind of pressure would push him right through the easily-shattering island instead of lift it. Eventually, every time something falls off a building, you can assume he’ll be there to catch it. Is he really so perfect that he doesn’t let a single person die? Seems all too easy. And there are too many questions leaving the audience scratching their heads. Why does the Kryptonite sometimes hurt Superman and sometimes not? How did he manage to come back to life? What’s the deal with Lois’ son, and what did Superman do to him? The writers thought this all seemed symbolic, but didn’t think it through. The dialogue tries to be simple, and overdoes it. Routh had fewer lines than Schwarzenegger did in any of his movies. He just flies around and looks good. But then he’ll make a necessary “Goodnight Lois” and that’s pretty much it. And where is the humor? Every superhero movie has at least one line that makes you chuckle if not laugh out loud (“I’m the Juggernaut, bitch!”). This film literally had zero funny moments. Bryan Singer, previously one of my favorite directors for bringing the X-Men into the real world, decided to sacrifice surprise and suspense for classy images of the hero flying above earth as if the audience just wants to see a pretty portrait of the man. He let’s down the audience by giving them what they expected, and not the kind of reinvention they were hoping for. Superman worked for an age in America when the country felt super. Yet in this age when we begin to analyze who people really are, we are given an invulnerable layerless man in a cape. Stars: 1 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing
At work the other day, a co-worker made a bet that less than 1% of movie sequels are better than the original, I differed and claimed that 30% would be more accurate. This got me questioning: how often are sequels really better than the original? I decided to run a scientific study to find out. First of all, I cut the subject pool down by limiting it to the last 10 years (movies that have come out in ’97 up through today). In that 10 year span, I counted 78 movie sequels have been produced (the actual number is likely a little higher, but I only counted movies that have made enough money to be considered well-surveyed). I then did two forms of ranking: audience liking and critics liking. For the audience liking, I used the IMDb.com user movie rating system where anybody can give a movie a score between one and ten, and the average is calculated for that film. Each movie usually has tens of thousands of votes. The IMDb formula and top 250 audience-ranked films can be found here. For the critics score I used the Rotten Tomatoes.com approach to taking in hundreds of critics’ reviews, and assigning each film a score between one and a hundred based on the average of those reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes formula and top critics-ranked films can be found here. I then compared the ranking, both audience and critic, of each sequel, and compared it to it’s predecessor. If the sequel was within 2%, I count it as being equal. I then tallied up the total of improvements, nose-dives, and equivalents. The results are as follows: Audience Rankings Sequels better than the original: 11.5% Sequels worse than the original: 62.8% Sequels about the same as the original: 25.6% Critics Rankings Sequels better than the original: 19.2% Sequels worse than the original: 64.1% Sequels about the same as the original: 16.7% I think what this shows is that critics are more comparative, and therefore do not prefer to give the same ranking to sequels as their predecessors. This is something to consider when you go see Superman Returns and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest in the next couple of weeks. The only sequels in the last ten years where audiences and critics agree to be an improvement are: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Mission: Impossible 3, Scary Movie 3, Spider-Man 2, Star Wars Episodes II and III (over episode I), and X2: X-Men United. What most of these films have in common is being big-budget action movies that are geared mostly for a youthful audience. That’s something to consider for film producers. Well, that’s my study, and I hope it has given you something to think about.
Review: Cars In today’s society, who doesn’t own an automobile of some kind? Furthermore, who hasn’t treated their car like a member of their family? This humanization of a machine has given rise to the question: what would cars do if they could talk? Well, some television ads for Chevron answered that question a few years ago, but I think writer/director John Lasseter and Pixar have answered it much better.
Owen Wilson voices Lighting McQueen, the fasted rookie race car making a road trip to California to win the coveted Piston Cup. He hits a detour on route 66 and ends up in Radiator Springs, which he accurately calls “hillbilly hell.” The small, lack-of-business town contains an eclectic mix of car characters that include the voices of Bonnie Hunt, Cheech Marin, and George Carlin. While under custody for his reckless driving, Lightning learns about the importance of this small community and friendship in general. Furtherfore, he learned from a former Piston Cup winner car, voiced by Paul Newman, the age-old lesson that fame and success don’t bring happiness. It is only through others that you can be truly happy. As is characteristic with all Disney/Pixar films, this one is enjoyable for both kids and adults. Though not as hilarious as Toy Story 2 and not as action-packed as The Incredibles and not as sentimental as Finding Nemo, it still packs in strong enjoyment and spirit lifting. And the real scene-stealer is the rusty, redneck, “tractor-tipping” tow-truck named Mater voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, who managed to squeeze his signature line, “Git ‘er done,” into the context of the film. This shouldn’t have trouble becoming the best animated film of the year. It’s aided with some stunning visuals of both the race stadium and the depiction of the long lost Southwestern town. And the film flows well to Randy Newman’s score that combines fast-road action with hillbilly jug band themes. And as an advisory: make sure you stick around until the very end of the credits. It has some good additional footage up until the end of the reel. It’s not too often I say this, but this is one movie where I’m sure you’ll leave the theater happier and have more respect for your car while driving home. So I say go to this movie and “git ‘er done.” Stars: 3.5 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Original Screenplay, Sound, Sound Editing, Score, Animated Film
Review: X-Men: The Last Stand Being one of the biggest fans of the first two X-Men movies, I had high expectations for the third one. Fortunately those expectations were more or less satisfied.
Director Brett Ratner took over for X-Men: The Last Stand replacing Singer who left to do Superman Returns. Ratner stayed very true to Singer’s vision of the heroes in the real world. What he added was some great action and effects (Magneto moving the entire Golden Gate Bridge was literally earth-shattering). The premise of this installment surrounds the discovery of a “cure for mutation.” This causes Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen in another strong-wielded performance) to finally begin his war between mutants and humanity. Professor Xavier (Patrick Stuart) must rally his X-Men including Hugh Jackman as the always-entertaining and enraged Wolverine and Halle Berry as the unnecessary large-roled Storm. One welcome addition includes Kelsey Grammar as the hairy blue Beast in an ingenious casting choice that I give great kudos to. The X-Men must also cope with the return of Jean Grey (Fanke Janssen it a strong performance as well) as the Dark Phoenix. I emphasize that I really enjoyed this film almost as much as the first two. And you’ll love the flashback scene with a young Xavier and Magneto as friends when they first meet a young Jean. But since I expected it to be great, all my points consist of small dissatisfactions. This include Halle Berry receiving too large of role as a result of her ego, and some points that I’ll discuss in the following spoiler paragraph that shouldn’t be read if you haven’t seen the film yet. Warning: Spoilers in following paragraph Seriously, don’t read this paragraph if you haven’t seen it yet. Anyway, I was certainly disappointed by the death of Cyclops, and the premature death of the professor. It’s obvious that these two were eliminated so as to let Storm rise to be the leader of the X-Men and give Halle Berry a larger role that she doesn’t need or deserve. Seriously, if you are dissatisfied with this film in any way, send all of your hate mail to Halle Berry. And regarding Rogue (Anna Paquin), I am somewhat disappointed she took the cure. Throughout the saga, her character is the one who struggles the most to accept her power. So in the end all of that struggling proves unnecessary when she takes the cure. Not that well done. And finally, since this is supposedly the final X-Men film (expect for a spinoff of just Wolverine) I was hoping the ending would be a little more conclusive, but they left a couple of unnecessary cliffhangers. It makes you think that there will be another one, but there will almost certainly not be one. Despite how much I love this saga, I’d rather there not be one because I think it ended well. (end of spoilers) So I definitely recommend this movie to anybody, but I also recommend watching the first two beforehand in an X-Men marathon (something I did and have done with previous trilogies like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings). It has got the most entertaining action packed with intense drama and reflection of culture. The best film I’ve seen all year. Stars: 3.5 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Visual Effects, Makeup, Sound Editing
5/28- Review: The Da Vinci Code Being one of the few occasions when I had actually read the book before the release of the film, I was quite eager to go and see The Da Vinci Code. What I saw was somewhat tedious, but nonetheless satisfying.
Being a religiously controversial film, and myself being a Christian, I enjoyed this film on the level of being fictional. Nonetheless, when presented with hours of religious history, it does become difficult to separate the true from the false in a frustrating way. In fact too much of the movie is used up through unnecessary history lessons as well as character flashbacks. And similar to Mission: Impossible 3, it does have one too many unexpected twists for the brain to handle. Yet the overall experience is entertaining if you don’t mind the attached fictional education. And if there is one saving grace it is Sir Ian McKellen’s enjoyable scenery chewing as the holy grail-seeking historian Leigh Teabing. From the first moment you hear his voice over the intercom, you wake up and are pleased to hear the first cheerful character in the film. In fact, I agree with the review that I posted earlier and believe that this performance could land McKellen his third Oscar nomination. If the competition is weak enough and the academy courteous enough, they might give him his overdue win as well. Another strong (but not Oscar-worthy) performance comes from Paul Bettany as the murderous, self-mutilating, self-believing-prophet albino monk Silas. General rule for this film, if you enjoyed the book, I’m fairly certain you’ll enjoy the film as well. Stars: 3 (out of 4) Oscar Contention: Supporting Actor Ian McKellen, Adapted Screenplay
5/12- Review: Mission: Impossible 3 During my last night at Wash U before heading back home in Chicago, friends and I decided to catch a late night screening of Mission: Impossible 3. Not a bad way to end a tough semester.
The picture isn’t without its thrilling scenes including a well-planned heist to infiltrate the Vatican, kidnap Philip Seymour Hoffman’s heavily guarded character, and then fake his death, which included what appeared to be Tom Cruise disguised in a Hoffman mask (but later turned out to just be Hoffman playing the role himself). Yet it doesn’t say much of the audience’s intelligence when such a complicated heist is carried out perfectly flawlessly. Not very realistic. Furthermore, the constant explosions, both chemical and emotional, grow tiresome as the audience tries to figure out whether the insider is Billy Crudup or Laurence Fishburne in what was one too many plot twists for the brain to handle in one film. The biggest conversation that riddled us film-goers in the car ride home was: what happened to Tom Cruise’s acting talent? Once upon a time, he could act, lest we forget Born on the Forth of July, Rain Man, and Magnolia. Since the new millennium, he has yet to put in a performance that doesn’t involve him jumping around and staring at everybody with a threatening face. And the question that many are likely asking is: how is the talented Philip Seymour Hoffman as a super-villain. Actually, he played it pretty well for not having a lot of screen time (along with many other supporting characters I would have liked to see more of). Hoffman creates a character that remains so self-confident even in the face of defeat that it’s haunting. In the end, MI3 could be considered satisfying for anybody who enjoys random violence and well-planned cons, but not intelligence and stopping to catch breath. One more thing, Tom Cruise’s reported $100 Million paycheck: not worth it. Stars: 2.5 (out of 4) Oscar contention: Sound Editing
3/14 My Most Anticipated Summer Films  5. CarsThe final installment in the 10+ year string of films from the partnership between Disney and Pixar should hopefully promise all that the previous six films offered (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, etc). When computer animation has become the standard technology for animated films, most of which are now written for children and not for whole families, it's good to know that Disney/Pixar still provides us with unbeatable visual technology, and humorous stories that are just as much fun for adults as they are for children. Cars carries the Disney/Pixar trademark of actors who are big, but not too big, in this case helming Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, and Larry the Cable Guy (also John Ratzenberger who has lent his voice to every Disney/Pixar film made). Yet I maintain some skepticism simply because following in the footsteps of some great Disney/Pixar films, Cars has an awful lot to live up to, and the studio is somewhat overdue for an eventual flop. Hopefully, I'd like to see the newly-broken partnership go out with a bang. Cars will be in theaters June 9. Watch the theatrical trailer here.  4. Superman ReturnsThough I always love the good superhero movie, I was never much a fan of Superman as a superhero. In order to be interesting, the hero must struggle to a certain degree. Therefore, he cannot be invincible. And Superman always seemed like the most invincible superhero, thus his job just seemed to easy for him. Therefore, I turned my attention to more vulnerable heros like Spider-Man, and the X-Men. Therefore, I maintained my skepticism. Then I heard that Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects and the first two X-Men movies) was attached to direct. This got me interested. Singer has a unique form of direction that can take utterly abnormal situations and integrate them into realism that we can believe. He took the X-Men out of the comic book and integrated them into a real world (something the Spider-Man movies didn't do). Therefore, I believe that Singer can do great things for Superman Returns. He can make this magical superhero into an actual human being that be can believe. The cast looks to be well organized including an always-impressive Kevin Spacey as villian Lex Luthor. Brandon Routh, making his feature-film debut, plays the man of steel, in a role-assignment that looks driven entirely by a physical appearance similar to Christopher Reeve. There's a lot at stake here, and has the potential to be the biggest film of the year. Let's really hope they don't blow this saga like the last Superman did. Superman Returns hits theaters June 30th. Watch the teaser trailer here.  3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's ChestI was one of the many movie-goers utterly blown away by the thrilling blockbuster that was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl and Johnny Depp's hysterical and deservingly oscar-nominated performance as Captain Jack Sparrow. However, in an age where it seems that if an action/adventure film does moderately well at the box office, and is well set-up for a sequel, then a sequel MUST be made. At the end of the first film, I realized that I enjoyed this so much that I didn't want them to make a sequel so that they wouldn't risk ruining the series. I thought it ended well, and there was no need for a sequel. Clearly, they didn't listen. Luckily, the team of Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski seem to be taking every precaution to ensure this piece is every bit as entertaining as the first. The same cast returns including Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, newly-nominated Keira Knightley, and even Geoffrey Rush (likely only appearing in flashback sequences). New additions include Stellan Skarsgård (Exorcist: The Beginning) as the long-lost father Bootstrap Bill Turner, and Bill Nighy (The Constant Gardener) as the legendary Davey Jones (the pirate, not the Monkee). I assume that the producers would not film Pirates 2 and 3 back to back if they knew they had terrible scripts on their hands. Therefore, I'll hope for the best for this memorable saga. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest hits theaters July 7th. Watch the teaser trailer here.  2. The Da Vinci CodeLet me first say that I am a practicing Christian, and that I do not believe any of the superstitions that this book brings up. That is why I enjoy this story as a "fictional story." I read the book two years ago for my English class and couldn't easily put it down. Though I discount all that it says of the Christian religion, I still enjoy the thrill of the mystery surrounding the ultimate secret. Upon reading books I often like to do my own role-casting. Surprisingly, two of my choices ended up being the studio's choices as well: Audrey Tautou (A Very Long Engagement) as the French daughter of the murder victim, and Jean Reno (The Pink Panther) as the French police detective (clearly type-cast). The remaining cast seemed to fall into place quite well. Tom Hanks as the cryptologist Robert Langon, Paul Bettany as the albino monk assassin, and Sir Ian McKellen (one of my favorite actors, and long-overdue for an oscar win) as Sir Leigh Teabing. And of course, the masterful Ron Howard sits behind the camera. What's going to fascinate me most about this picture is what will be happening outside of the theater. How many, if any, protests will be stages outside the theaters? If this is one of the best-selling books ever, then will it be one of the highest-grossing films ever, or are book-readers more open to controversy than movie-goers? But now that we seem to have entered an age where controversial films soar (particularly at the oscars), this film could do wonders. The Da Vinci Code opens May 19th. Watch the theatrical trailer here.  1. X-Men: The Last StandWithout question, this is my favorite franchise in cinematic history. Though famililar with them, I was never a fan of the X-Men comics or television show. It wasn't until I saw X-Men the movie in 2000 that I was utterly blown away. It happened again in 2003 with the release of X2: X-Men United. While expecting it to merely be the cartoon characters on screen, it wasn't. Thanks to the glorious direction of Bryan Singer, this team of heros and victims of prejudice were brought into the real world. This film was totally real and made it all the better. Much to my delight, the same actors are back playing their iconic roles. But I'm somewhat disappointed in the lack of Nightcrawler who had one of the best action sequences in film. Patrick Stuart returns as the mind-controlling Professor Xavier. Hugh Jackman once again rips up the screen as Wolverine. And one of my favorite actors Sir Ian McKellen (clearly having a bountiful year) returns as Magneto in what will be yet another revolutionary performance out of this talented actor. New inclusions include Ben Foster (Six Feet Under) as the flying Angel, and a brilliantly-casted Kelsey Grammar as Beast. While the plot of this chapter follows what's known as the "Dark Phoenix Saga" as Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) resurrects as the evil Phoenix, it also contains a plot involving a cure for mutation that causes Magneto to start his war on humanity. This chapter (the final one according to the studio) promises the biggest bangs and the most epic and dramatic scale. Nonetheless, I have two suspicions. First, sadly Bryan Singer could not return to direct seeing as how he was working on Superman Returns. Brett Ratner (Rush Hour, After the Sunset) takes over the job, and I can only hope that he brings as much realism to the saga as Singer did. My other problem, it is clear that Halle Berry as Storm has been given a significantly larger role (and probably pay as well), and this has caused a certain unexpectancy in the series (I read it online, and I won't say what it is because it's too big of a spoiler), which could ruin the film. So let me just say this now: if there is anything slightly wrong with this film, it can be blamed entirely on Halle Berry and her ego. X-Men: The Last Stand opens May 26. Watch the theatrical trailer here. Likely to be disappointments: Mission Impossible 3, Over the Hedge, Click, Miami Vice Undecided: Poseidon, Lady in the Water, Apocalypto, World Trade Center
|
