- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Now that I'm back home from Hong Kong and Yangshuo in Gungxi Province, Mainland China, I've repopulated my Netflix queue, and Elite Squad arrived today. Released in 2007, b Elite Squad /b , or as it was called in Brazil, b Tropa de Elite /b , is about the Rio slums or favelas, and an elite squad of police called BOPE, whose mission is not so much law enforcement as it is the eradication of the drug lords that rule the favelas. br br br br This is not a film for the sensitive or the faint hearted. From the extreme fire-fights in the streets of the favelas, to the brutal interrogation methods employed by the BOPE officers, to the downright excessive boot camp training of the BOPE candidates in which it is a good year if three out the 25 make the cut - the intensity level of this film starts at strong, and soon goes through the roof with hardly any down time at all. br br The main character is Captain Nascimento played by b Wagner Moura /b . He's married, with a kid on the way, and he is one mean-ass cop. He's doing his best and his wife wants him out of BOPE and into a less demanding and less dangerous line of work. Unfortunately, his line of work is more dangerous than almost any other because by the time BOPE is called in - things have already spun out of control. br br He's got two guys who are already cops but they're trying to get into BOPE. Neto is played by b Caio Junqueiro /b , has been assigned to supervise the motor pool after a disastrous night on the streets when his quick trigger finger got another cop or two killed by the drug crew. Only the motor pool is out of funds. One car is cannibalized so another might run, and headquarters hasn't any money for him. So he has to steal a payoff to get some cash to fix the cars. You won't believe who the money that he intercepts is intended for. br br Matias played by b Andre Ramiro /b is a cop and is also trying to become a lawyer. He joins a group of students in a favela, and his girl friend Maria ( b Fernanda Machado /b )is living in the same neighborhood as one of the most brutal of the drug lords, Baiano played by b Fabio Lago /b . He hasn't told her that he is also a cop. Once the secret is out - people will start dying - and in ways almost too brutal to describe. br br Both Neto and Matias make the cut for entrance into BOPE. So there's your set up. Three cops and a drug lord and his minions of street retailers of drugs, look-outs, and the gunmen that back them up. Directed by b Jose Padilha /b , the film is dense, claustrophobic, as well as noisy. There's a lot of action at night, and the dialogues overlap, plus there is a grainy effect at night. Those things along with the jittery hand-held cameras that are utilized during the raids and ensuing fire-fights make the film a bit of work for the viewer. br br But the payoff comes in the tension, the pressure, and the excitement. While some of the police were corrupt and in the pockets of Baiano and his ilk, and the residents of the favelas were living in an area where desperation and danger lurked around every corner created there by poverty, the murderous drug business, and the firefights with the BOPE. Director Padilha has left the beauty of the Copacabana and Ipanema beaches out of the film. We will see Sugar Loaf Mountain only so very briefly, and we don't see Christ the Redeemer standing tall above Rio from his perch atop Corcovado at all. The film isn't about Rio's highlights - instead it about the places where visitors are unlikely, or rather shouldn't go to. br br There was a bit of controversy about this film. Many people felt that the BOPE tactics were as criminal as the activities of those who were their targets. Others said that the film sort of made those BOPE officers heroic while Nascimento was just as good at killing as Baiano and that was hardly heroic. You'll have to see the film yourself in order to decide what is the right answer to that question. br
Tarsem Singh’s name doesn’t necessarily strike recognition among most audiences, but his use of aesthetics in all of his films is quite distinguishable, whether it’s the nightmarish subjective world of a serial killer in The Cell or the beautiful landscapes of a constantly changing fantasy story in The Fall . And truthfully there is nothing different about his visual tapestry in his latest film Immortals , which showcases his signature framing and blocking, unique sense of costuming, and his definite eye for beautifully designed sequences. But that is where the praise for Immortals ends as the splendor of the imagery begins to fail at distracting us from the fairly basic plot and narrowly defined characters. There seems to be a drastic disconnect from the complexly handled attention to detail in the visuals from the script’s feigning substance of character that is both hollow and monotonous. The plot is, of course, strained for originality much like all other big budget films these days. However, what is most damaging is the rather loose, even alien, interpretation of Greek mythology merely taking the Athenian hero Theseus and muddling his origin, his mythos, and taking drastic liberties with the Greek characters surrounding him. This isn’t to say that everything is poorly interpreted considering the rather inventive costumes, sets, and exaggerated violence seem incredibly inspired from a director that has a truly unique vision. But unfortunately it isn’t enough to keep you distracted from the laughable dialogue (that is to be expected though), the slow pacing and droning in between high octane graphic violence, and the overall lack of coherent Greek mythological concepts that ultimately make the film undeniably generic. What’s really unfortunate though is that you are seeing the remarkable scene construction of a visionary caught in the confines of amateur night. Sometimes true artists and the Hollywood formula don’t mix. The film Immortals is following the latest trend trying to lift the Swords & Sandals genre from obscurity with the likes of the graphically bloated 300 , the abysmal remake of Clash of the Titans , and a rather unsubstantial television series entitled “Spartacus.” And despite taking some liberties with the core Greek mythology making for an unoriginal plot that has zero characters of any true substance, Immortals compares surprisingly well with the strangely admired plot-less 300 in its use of violence, its stunning visuals that actually use sets and locations, and an unquestionable intensity. The choreographed violence, either digital or real, meshes well with the chosen sets that are usually never brought to life via a computer. Instead the varying outdoor locations are incredibly vibrant and the in-door sets are impressively designed. Mix this with the colorful costumes, fantastic use of blocking and depth of field, and a camera use that is as graceful as it is diverse and you have a film that is spectacular for a viewing experience. But as the plot sluggishly drones on, introducing characters upon characters whom you don’t necessarily care for and who become increasingly simplistic as the movie continues, the visuals just become a couple of nice, in-tact paintings in a lackluster, unattractive home. Those venturing to the theaters looking for a movie that contains brutal and graphically poignant violence in a plot that doesn’t strive to make you bother using your brain then you will feel truly welcome in this home. But those looking for an intelligent adaptation of Greek concepts of free will, fate, or the Gods vs. man or dynamic, epic characters that grab your interest and inspire you as they do the people on the screen (think Gladiator or Braveheart ) then you will be truly unsatisfied with the starved and basic plotline that becomes the antithesis of Tarsem’s visual substance. What seems to be apparent is that Tarsem has a difficult time focusing on giving a plot the intricate details or due diligence that he utilizes with his visual planning. This was one of the biggest weaknesses in his debut feature The Cell and only slightly so in his second feature The Fall , though that explored an intriguing use of constantly changing plot based on mood and perception. The film Immortals as a blockbuster big budget action feature is incredibly typical of its breed, which includes strained dialogue, an uninventive and predictable plotline, and a lack of an intelligent conceptual arc. Some audiences seek out this substandard, immediately satisfying genre because of their devotion to thrills fed to them in loud and CGI plagued action sequences. Others want to be connected with who they are following and make sense of the fantasy world around them, either in relevant concept or sympathetic dedication. But truth is told when it’s said you could do a lot worse than Immortals when it comes to lackluster action filled films. Tarsem’s unique style of design and use of camera is simply unchallenged in this venue and makes Immortals artistically pleasing in vision despite a lack of complimentary elements in story or character that diminishes the film’s overall delivery. Perhaps Tarsem’s talents could be useful in other ways, maybe as a cinematographer or art director, instead of helming project’s that seem to have a disconnect with plot and relevance. But that might be a presumptuous conclusion for he might not have had a choice in the bland script he was given. There is no doubting his abilities to deliver truly unique visuals that are designed to complement every bit of detail, but there is a seed of doubt in his ability to follow a story in a way that makes sense or has characters that have substance rather than being like puppets moving for no purpose other than their master’s intentions.
Yes, Real Steel is a movie about boxing robots. It takes place in the future, and anything is possible in the future, so why not fighting robots? There isn’t anything super original about the premise of the film. It’s another boxing movie, just one that doesn’t use humans as the fighters as most movies would. So obviously it requires some good special effects to pull it off. And the special effects are very good here. People have gotten to see big robots square off in the Transformers films already, so they had to do something different here. Putting them in a boxing ring does make them come off more strategic and tactical. And in this case, the robots don’t have a mind of their own. They’re being controlled by humans. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a former professional boxer himself, who now operates boxing robots. So he is the brains behind each movement that his machine makes in the ring. This is important so that the movie gets you invested in the human characters which is a lot easier than simply just rooting for giant pieces of steel. In fact, this is exactly what makes the movie work. Charlie starts off as a no-good has-been boxer who will do just about anything he can for money. He’s never really been in his son’s life either. So when certain circumstances cause Charlie to take care of his son for the summer, things slowly begin to change. It’s the reacquainting and eventual bonding with his son that carries the film. The boxing robots are their mutual interest that brings them together. Whoever chose the look of the robots did a good job here. They picked exactly the right-looking robot to play the big underdog that Charlie and his son train, called Atom. There’s something in its (robot) eyes that almost seems to convey emotion. It’s as if the robot itself bonds with the son too throughout the training. And you really do root for Atom when it takes on the more massive and superior looking robots in the ring. Really the film has a “Rocky”-like quality to it, with the whole underdog theme and all. And the end of the film will actually have some people getting teary-eyed. For me though, the ending is a bit overdone and cheesy. It seems like it’s trying harder than ever to get you to cry or stand up and cheer, and also like it’s ripping the pages right out of other boxing movie scripts – like Rocky and others. But it’s a fun ride to at least see how they get there. It’s rock’em sock’em robots for the future and winds up being fairly entertaining.
Captain America: The First Avenger, amusingly only called First Avenger in South Korea, is in some ways the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It almost could have been the first film, telling the titular heroes story while setting up the later Iron Man and Thor installments, and of course leading into 2012's Avengers. It opens with a strange ship found in the arctic, inside of which is the frozen Captain America. Hence, any non-comic fans immediately know that this hero’s story ends in tragedy. Flashback t0 1941, where Johann Schmidt A.K.A. the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) is introduced. Schmidt is the head of Hydra, the Nazi deep science division. Hydra raids a town in Norway in search of a Tesseract, a cube (in the comics called the cosmic cube) of immense power, apparently tied to Viking mythology. This item allows for fantastic weapons and vehicles later seen in the film. This scene is reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and even has a backhanded reference to it as Schmidt mocks Hitler for looking for “trinkets in the desert.” His final fate is also reminiscent of Indy films. Cut to New York, where through some interesting special effects, actor Chris Evans plays 90 pound weakling Steve Rogers. Due to his size and a score of health problems he is rejected by 5 different recruiting stations. Steve has strong moral convictions and desperately wants to join the war effort. He sees the Nazis as nothing more than bullies that need to be stopped. He’s also upset that his friend James Buchanan “Bucky” Barnes not only has joined the Army, but is in the 107, which Roger’s father was in when he died during World War One. His moral courage gets the attention of escaped German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine, who gets him into a secret super soldier project. There he meets later love interest agent Peggy Carter, who is British for some reason, and Colonel Phillips played by Tommy Lee Jones. Phillips is naturally skeptical of Rogers and doesn’t respect him, but Erskine realizes that Rogers is the correct choice because he is “a good man.” Rogers is selected and, with the help of Howard Stark, Tony Stark’s/Iron Man’s father, goes through an experiment that transforms him into a muscular semi-superhuman specimen. He’s not invulnerable and not as strong and fast as ,say Superman, but he’s more athletic than any human, able to throw people good distances, is fast, can jump fairly high etc. Rogers is intended to be the first of many super soldiers, but a Nazi spy blows up the lab and kills Erskine, leading to Rogers first action scene. It’s not really explained why the formula can’t be replicated, but in the comics Erksine memorized much of it, hence didn’t leave notes. The film drops the ball on that though. Much to his humiliation Rogers is turned into a propaganda tool to sell war bonds across the country, accompanied by songs and USO showgirls. Here he gets the name Captain America, with a goofy looking outfit reminiscent of the actual serial film made of Captain America in 1944, and the triangular shaped shield he had in that era. Ironically he also films a few movies. We also actually see first issue of the Captain America comic book, which also appeared in Iron Man 2. Interestingly the comic was first published in 1941, 7 months before Pearl Harbor. In this world it was apparently published afterwards. After a show in Italy before an uninterested audience of battle weary G. I.s, Rogers learns is friend Barnes is behind enemy lines. He goes out on his own to rescue him and other soldiers, and has a great first encounter with the Red Skull. From here he leads Barnes and other soldiers in a special unit specifically made to fight Hydra. One of the interesting features of this movie is we don’t see all of his adventures. It’s understood that he went on many missions but we don’t see them all. This leaves room for more sequels and other tie in items set in this period, like the video game Captain America: Super Soldier for instance. The crux of this film is Rogers morality and determination. This plays into his recruitment, his conviction to go through the painful experiment, and his desire to lead men in battle. Even his final fate in the war is not so much an accident as in the comics, but another example of his moral courage. Naturally there’s plenty of action, probably more than the Iron Man’s, Hulk and Thor actually. It does capture it’s period very well. Some of the CGI background effects looked obvious, but I think it led to a certain feel that they were purposely trying for. One point of contention among fans is the lack of Nazi symbols. The swastika appears real big in a scene in a movie theater, but aside from that it’s hidden. A few Nazi officers have tiny Swastika pins, and they have the armband, but the swastika on their arm band is never in view. It makes sense story wise that Schmidt uses Hydra to strike out on his own, even one upping the Nazi salute with a “Hail Hydra” accompanied by two fists in the air (as opposed to the Nazis salute of one open hand raised). Hydra has it’s own symbol and the uniform for their troops is reminiscent of Star Wars storm troopers, who in turn were designed after Nazi soldiers. Still, to go so far out of the way to hide Nazi symbols is a testament to the strange sensibilities of our day. The Indiana Jones series, which this film sought to emulate, took no qualms about showing the swastika in all it’s evil glory. Howard Stark is fun to watch, clearly the predecessor of his son, and also Roger’s weapons man A.K.A. the Q to Evans’ Bond. I would have liked to have seen more of the soldiers, but there simply wasn’t enough time. Rogers relationship with Carter is even more light than the romance in Thor, and based around the fact that she’s the first girl that bothered to talk with Rogers, who has no idea how to talk to women. Captain America covers a lot of ground in it’s two hours, maybe more so than it’s predecessors, but it’s a fun ride. 8/10. Minor Marvel Movie-verse Spoilers. The tesseract is hidden in a carving of the world tree from Viking mythology, and is said to be the jewel of Odin’s treasure room. In the comics, I always thought it was awkward that Thor, a Viking God, had such prominence in the Marvel Universe, especially given the amount of mythological heroes available. In the Cinematic Universe it actually makes more sense. Captain America connects us to the Nazis, who in real life were into Viking mythology. A whole sub genre of science fiction is based around Nazi super science/Nazi occultism (Like Indy). So in a superhero world it would make sense to have Viking mythology be real/the superheroes/villains of their time. So I really liked that. Rogers and Barnes have a double date to the Worlds Fair, which is similar in design to the Stark Expo in Iron Man 2, and has similar music too. At one exhibit Professor Horton’s synthetic man is in full display. This was the original Human Torch from the comics. (Not the later Fantastic 4 Human Torch, ironically played by Evans) Cap’s circular shield is made of the fictional metal Vibranium, but it’s not said where it came from. We don’t hear the name but the men Rogers leads are the Howling Commandos, led by Nick Fury in the comics. One addition they have is James Falsworth, who in the comics becomes British hero Union Jack. Howard Stark tries and fails to find Rogers in the arctic. He does find the cube, which presumably will be the basis for Arc Reactor technology. Barnes dies and that scene comes really fast. At the very end Captain America is told that he was asleep for nearly 70 years. I wish they just said “a long time” or something like that. As the movies continue, they will always be presumed to be set in the present, so that will get dated fast. There’s not really an extra scene after the credits but instead an actual trailer for next years Avengers, which is filming right now. I run a fansite for the Marvel Cinematic Universe at http://marvelmovieworld.webs.com .
Cowboys and Aliens is a cross genre film based off a graphic novel, starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Craig’s character wakes up not knowing who he is, or how he got a strange metal object attached to his wrist. He soon gets captured and learns he was a wanted outlaw. As he’s about to be taken away spaceships fly through the night sky and start attacking the town and abducting people. At this point he realizes the device on his hand can fight the aliens, and joins the townspeople in trying to get their loved ones back. The neat thing about this movie is it’s a cowboy movie first, and a science fiction film second. It has all the tropes of a western, Cowboys, Indians, bandits, saloon brawls, etc. It also has the beats of the UFO phenomenon, alien abduction, lost memories, cattle mutilations, but also the aliens methods (they basically lasso people to abduct them) and their overall plot fit in perfectly with western mythology. Along the way there are nice character beats for the various townspeople, including the dorky saloon owner and his search for respect. Despite the somewhat goofy title the premise is played completely straight. My sole complain is that, while it has some suspense, it should have/could have been outright scary. One really interesting thing to me was that, unlike most movies of this type, it left no room for a sequel. It has a definitive ending, and is a neat experiment in cross genre film. 8.5 out of ten.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the 5 film series of the 1960s/70s, which in turn was based off the 1963 French Novel. This film sets out to tell the very beginnings of the Ape revolt. It starts with San Fransisco scientist Will Rodman researching a cure for Alzheimers, which has stricken his father (John Lithgow). He tests a drug on apes made to repair brain cells. Through a series of circumstances Will ends up raising a baby monkey at home who displays heightened intelligence. Will’s father, who was a cultured man in life, names the monkey Caesar. Years later, the course of events lead Caesar to being kept in a shelter with other monkeys, where he is not accepted at first. He’s very depressed and lonely, until he comes to attain leadership among the captive apes. Unlike what’s considered “typical” summer franchise flair, Apes is primarily a character piece. We follow Will and his despair over his ailing father, who Lithgow plays wonderfully. We also see his ethical struggles and the conflicts that come from the business side of medicine. The strongest part of the movie is Caesar himself. We follow him through his joys and his despair, share his concern when he wonders to Will if he’s a pet, and ultimately cheer for the Apes as they revolt against, well us. Rise of the Apes is perhaps the only movie with a CGI character (not counting full CGI movies like Toy Story or Shrek) that I truly cared about. He was definitely a better character than say, any of the Transformers or Star Wars characters of the last ten years. Action comes at the end as we see the Apes outsmart the humans on the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a great scene that shows in one shot why Caesar will become a mythical hero to be remembered by the Apes for all time. It’s interesting to see that the Apes don’t intend to rule the planet, (In fact even in combat Caesar is purposefully non-lethal) and that it’s not necessarily the Apes that wipe humanity out. For Easter egg specialists one of the humans who mistreats the Apes says that line “Get your hands off me you dam dirty Ape,” which is what Charlten Heston said in the original film. Also there’s passing reference to the Icarus space ship, which is from the films and original novel. Apparently in this movie it had a manned mission to Mars and gets lost. That’s all I know of as I haven’t seen the old films. Rise of the Apes is one of the better reboots made, which hopefully will lead to a great film series. 9.8/10.
Screenwriter/Director/Producer/Auteur Luc Besson is no stranger to armed and dangerous females - we've seen his participation wearing those mantles in such films as Leon: The Professional , la Femme Nikita , and The Fifth Element . We know Director Olivier Megaton from his previous film Transporter 3 as a guy who can deliver high octane action. Well these two have partnered up and have brought us Colombiana which opened today. Starring Zoe Saldana ( Avatar ), Colombiana has a simple premise: a 9 year girl (played by Amandla Stenberg ) witnesses the drug cartel's assassination of her mother and her father in Bogota, Colombia. In an excellent chase sequence, nearly as good as any you've seen in the Bourne films, young Cataleya manages to barely escape from the hired thugs. She has a passport to freedom using the info her father provided for her and by turning this over to CIA station chief in Bogota. Her father also provided her with some family connections in Chicago who will take care of her. 15 Years later, Cataleya, now played Zoe Saldana is now a kick-ass hired gun. She can shoot, rig explosives, make parkour moves, and can outthink, outsmart, and outfight any of her targets or pursuers. She's as close to invincible as it gets. She does contract killings but along with that she's been finding and doing in, one by one, the gang that killed her parents. Her name might be Cataleya, she's been named after a specific orchid flower, but beyond her name, she is a warrior. She's driven by revenge and she's very fierce. If you thought last winter's Hanna was the latest and best of the new action heroines you'd be right. Cateleya is Hanna now all grown up with an even bigger chip on her shoulder. As was once said about a certain Terminator - Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Well, Catelya is an upgrade over the robotic Terminator in terms of looks, and she's human. Other than that, the motivation is almost the same. Okay - I hear the protests - another female revenge film, ho-hum. Another film where shell casings accumulate like overturned buckets of pop-corn. Been there. Another film with a female action hero that must have her strip down to bra and panties. Done that. What else is new? Just because it isn't new doesn't mean it can't be good people. Besson and Megaton have given us an exciting film that may not have any new ideas - but the trade off is that it does a extremely good job of being exciting and pays homage to some of the best action films ever. Cataleya - Jason Bourne: same/same Final attack sequence at the drug lord's mansion. We saw that in Scarface. You see it again here. Bullet Ballet? First we had John Woo's Hard Boiled , then we had The Matrix . Now we have Colombiana. Parkour chase scene/Rooftop chase: The District 13 films, Bourne chasing across roof tops as he did Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry and now we have a chase to equal that with a little 9 year old fleeing for life. You want more: cartoonish cops, over-the top villains, a heroine who always seems to have necessary passports, arms, and munitions at her disposal, a smarmy evil CIA operative, and oh yes - one good cop. There's not much in the way of humor, and there is a hand to hand fight sequence which was hurt by the intentionally choppy editing, but was just as fierce as the fight Bourne had with the 'asset' in Morocco. There's even a knife through the hand that I believe we saw in Black Rain , among others In summary: it is a trade off - you'll have to live with the nothing new aspect of Colombiana, and the fact that there's really not a lot of suspense, but the pay-off is that you get an movie that is has plenty of thrills and lots of superb action set pieces which you definitely will admire and enjoy.
RATING 4/10 Bottom Line A couple of cool action moments exist in this film, but overall, the execution of this story is quite silly, with the aliens that look like ‘good looking teenagers’ barely providing much charm or believability. The Good Based on a teenager’s science fiction novel, “I Am Number Four” does not waste its time explaining its backstory about a group of nine teenagers, who are actually super-powerful and gifted aliens, that have come to Earth to escape conquerors of their own planet. They are the last of their kind, and are being hunted down one by one by the evil Mogadorians. As the title suggests, we follow the fourth of these teenagers, John Smith (Pettyfer), who has to keep moving from town to town with his protector (Timothy Olyphant) to avoid being noticed by the bad guys. There is a lot of the requisite teenage angst, particularly when John makes friends with the locals, in particular Sarah (Dianna Agron) who comes to discover the truth of John’s existence. All of this is for nought however as the coolest moments in this film relate to the action and suspense scenes. The opening sequence where ‘number three’ is killed is effective, largely because much of it is done without showing much. The last third of the film is perhaps the best, when John starts utilising his powers against the Mogadorians with the help of the very tough ‘number six’ (Teresa Palmer). Perhaps the character that generates the most empathy is John’s dog, which turns out to be a shape-shifting pet that saves him in the action scenes by turning in to a huge nasty animal capable of taking on another huge nasty animal that the Mogadorians have brought along. The teenage origins of the story from the novel are definitely present in this story, and are translated in to this film to varying degrees of success; on some levels, the film does work as teenage escapist fantasy. The Bad The film is silly, very silly. The Mogadorians are the best place to start, both with their design and their manner of speech. They do not elicit any sort of menace, but they do draw out a chuckle. From their muffled speech to over emphasis on their extra nostrils, the execution of the Mogadorians almost alone brings this film down. Another problem is the central characters; they look exactly like humans, which is fairly big conceit in this day and age. But even if you could get past that, the teenage characters do not generate much empathy, save for Dianna Agron who puts in a decent performance as the semi-outcast at the high school and proves to be the perfect girlfriend for John. Factor in the mostly uninspired cast, silly presentation of the bad guys and just a general lack of interesting direction, and you have a film that will lose your interest fairly quickly.
Transformers 3 achieves something possibly unprecedented in the history of the film franchise. It is the third entry in the series, and it is better than the first two. Often the third entry of a series begins the decline in quality, but thankfully not in this case, as the first two Transformers movies were so infamously scorned. I hated the first Transformers movie (in 2007 I hated almost every movie). I almost walked out of that scene where the Autobots were at Spike’s house (who was completely unlikeable), because I didn’t pay 8000 won to see a dog pee on Optimus Prime. I refused to see the second one in the theater, and only rented it because a friend was an extra, and I wanted to see that part where they walk out of the Smithsonian Institute and into the Nevada desert. So I had no plans to see the this movie, but then I saw the ads. Wait, this looks good! How could this be? On to the review. Transformers 3 opens with the only film sequence I’ve seen worthy of being in 3D (I saw Avatar in 2D). It is a battle on Cybertron and it looks fantastic. Cut 1961, when the US discovers an alien ship has crashed on the moon. JFK (who is shown on screen but looks a little off, we also see Nixon and Obama) then orders a moon mission, hence we have a secret reason for the space race. Cut 1969 with actual news footage of Walter Cronkite as the moon mission is underway. What is not televised is the secret recon mission to investigate the alien space ship on the moon (Later revealed to be the Ark, which was in the cartoon). So far the first two scenes of this movie are better than the entire first two movies put together. Then we get to Sam, who is frustrated as no one knows he’s saved the world twice, and is struggling to find a job and feels the pressure from his parents. He has a new girlfriend, the impossibly hot Carly, who was his girlfriend in the cartoon. However, she’s not an M.I.T. student as in the cartoon and sounds British for some reason. Spike’s dealings with the Transformers put a strain on their relationship, as she has lost a brother who served in the military and is worried for him. Spike is also jealous of her hot shot car collecting boss. Now this relationship is hardly one of the silver screen’s great romances, but it has a tiny bit of dept to it, which is much more than what he and Megan Fox had. Next we get the real reason behind the Chernobyl incident, as the villains unveil their plot. It involves growing a rift between the humans and the Autobots, hence the villains live up to their name of Decepticons. There’s a betrayal part way in, but that left me wondering why said plot didn’t happen sooner. Leonard Nimoy does a voice of a Transformer, and there’s a few Star Trek jokes, and a clip of he old show, apparently it’s the one where Spock “goes nuts.” There’s also a neat scene where Megatron takes the giant Lincoln statue in Washington off its seat, and sits in the seat himself. Megatron did that in one episode of the old cartoon. Thankfully there’s not jokes about pot and masturbation like the first two. Spike’s mom makes a joke about his manhood, but it’s real fast and subtle. Also one of the Autobots almost says clusterf&*k. The problem this one has, is a similar problem for the whole series. We don’t get much of the Transformers personalities. Shockwave appears and has no personality, he’s just another grunt, not the cold logical warrior. (Maybe Nimoy should have played him instead) He also has this big tentacle thing, I couldn’t tell if this was a Decepticon being or just some weapon. Bumblebee still hasn’t had his voice repaired yet, how long has it been now? Finally the big action scene at the end mostly has the humans fighting the Decepticons. Now I like seeing some of this, and I like knowing humans can take them down, but we’re paying to see robots fight. For instance we get told that a bunch of Autobots got captured, but we don’t see that happen at all (And one part where Optimus fights actually looks like it’s framed wrong). It’s strange because most fx movies that fail do so because they focus on the fx and not the characters, but with this franchise the fx are the characters. Still it is an incredible improvement over previous entries. It leaves us with a sense that the series could end here. Looking back, it’s so disappointing how the series turned out. There’s such a rich mythology to this franchise. To me it always made perfect sense to have the first movie on earth, the second on Cybertron, and the third have Unicron, the giant robot planet. I don’t know what the future holds for this series. Maybe in 5 years it will be rebooted into something greater. (Personally I’m hoping for a Hasbro Cinematic Universe similar to Marvel’s, with Transformers, G. I. Joe, M.A.S.K. and Inhumanoids, but that probably won’t happen.) No matter what happens, we’ll at least have this one. 8/10
So the first of the "BIG" summer movies has hit our wintery shores. X-Men: First Class promises to give us all the low down on the origins of our favourite band of mutants, what it does instead is alter our past and provide a decent set of actors the opportunity to "Act" the part (see the pictures above and below). Set at the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis in the early 60's, our young Professor X and his good pal Magneto set about collecting mutants for the CIA to help stop Kevin Bacon from starting World War 3 in his attempt to wipe out the human race. Oh and Kevin Bacon is a mutant too (who knew?) If the film had spent far less time providing fan service and self referencing the previous films and more time on focusing on the actual stories behind the mutants, which lets be honest, is the only reason you go to see an X-Men movie, this could have been quite a contender. Instead it is an overly long, overly loud and overly convoluted comic book movie that puts otherwise good talent to waste. Still, it is not as bad as X-Men 3.
RATING 6/10 Bottom Line While nowhere near as bad as the previous two films in the Pirates franchise, “On Stranger Tides” is at best an average affair that only half-heartedly tries to recapture the magic of the original film. The Good One of the best things about this fourth entry in the Pirates franchise is that it jettisons the convoluted, clumsy, and directionless narratives of the second and third films. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) seems more like himself again as he is pulled in to a quest to find the fountain of youth, with evil pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and the feisty Angelica (Penelope Cruz) thrown in to the mix. With Sparrow now front and centre in this film with both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley not returning for this outing, it allows for his iconic character to take centre stage, and quite rightly, the filmmakers have realised that this is a good thing as in the previous films he seemed to be a shadow of his former self. There are many intriguing sequences in the film, with the mermaids’ scenes being quite fascinating and scary all at the same time, or the well-executed first escape scene where Sparrow evades the King’s officers in London. Aside from Johnny Depp having his usual fun as Sparrow, Geoffrey Rush is likewise relishing his character of Barbossa, and in many ways, is a good protagonist in this film and a change of pace for the character. Penelope Cruz is effective as Angelica who seems to be more than a match for Sparrow’s crafty behaviour. “On Stranger Tides” may have been better served as the second film in the franchise as it clearly a step above the poorly executed previous sequels. The Bad This film does not make much of an effort to recapture the magic of the first film. It is dark, and almost bland in its nature. Blackbeard is not particularly scary or formidable, aside from when he waves his hands and fireballs blow out of the front of his ship. A tragic romance between a mermaid and a missionary is dramatically unrealised, and in the end feels tacked on to account for the absence of Orlando and Keira. The film does not look particularly good in 3D at all, with a number of images being way too dark. At the end of the day, there was only one good Pirates film, and this one is just another attempt to cash in on the good will of that film.
"Tell Billie for me. Bye, Bye Blackbird..." So ended gangster John Dillinger' s life. According to Special Agent Winstone, Dillinger uttered those words with his dying breaths and asked the agent who shot him (one of a several FBI agents who had a hand in gunning him down) to pass them on to Billie Frechette . The fact that this, the closing scene of the Michael Mann film, Public Enemies (2009), was totally fictional shouldn't bother you as a viewer, After all, that was an elegant tear that fell from Billie's eye. Billie, of course, was portrayed by Marion Cotillard . Mann has fashioned a gangster film wrapped inside of a love story. Here, the gangster is neither demonized or glamorized. For certain, Johnny Depp 's Dillinger is not a heroic character. He may be mythic in the sense that in real life, Dillinger took on the G-Men, when the country was in dire shape. But that is different than heroic. The Michael Mann / Johnny Depp take on Dillinger was that he was fearless. He didn't fear confrontation with the FBI. Nor did he expect to be turned down by Cotillard's Billie, which she did at first. When Billie protested that she wasn't going to run off with a man she barely knew, Dillinger laid out all his cards as well as a brief summary of his life so far ... I was raised on a farm in Moooresville, Indiana. My mama ran out on us when I was three, my daddy beat the hell out of me cause he didn't know no better way to raise me. I like baseball, movies, good clothes, fast cars, whiskey, and you... what else you need to know? So Dillinger and friends robbed banks, just like Bonnie and Clyde . In fact, a question comes to mind. Did Mann pay homage to that film? I think he did. Dillinger died in hail of bullets, and he fell in slow motion. I think Mann was acknowledging Arthur Penn 's visual conception of the Bonnie & Clyde ambush. But Penn romanticiized his characters to a degree, and Mann did not. Yes Public Enemies did a good job with the Frechette/Dillinger romance. Their glorious passion and love was there for all to see. But we never got to know much about Dillinger and Frechette did we? Another view is the Mann reprised his theme of the obsessed hunter and hunted that he brought to the screen in Heat . DeNiro 's Neal McCauley has now been updated, or maybe I should say backdated to Depp's 1934 Dillinger. Vincent Hanna, played by Al Pacino in Heat, has resurfaced as Melvin Purvis , G-Man extraodinaire, played for the most part by Christian Bale in a one-note style. Though Bale looked great in his vested suits, suspenders, overcoats, and fedoras, we learned nothing about him during the film - which was clearly an extended chase, or hunt throughout the film. Purvis was obsessed in bringing down Dillinger. He chafed under the iron grip and protocol as laid out by Hoover and Tolson . When Purvis asked to import some good men from Texas and Oklahoma. Hoover's response was, "I can't hear you..." But Hoover was trying to make a name for himself, and would. The FBI came to life during this period. Somehow Purvis did get the kind of men he wanted. Most notably portrayed by Stephen Lang , as Special Agent Winstone. I can't decide if it was the combination of his gray hair and blue eyes that made it impossible to not notice him. Or maybe it was his steely determination and his utter fierceness which was matched on screen, not by Bale's Purvis but only by Depp's Dillinger. The action was deadly throughout the film, someone always got shot. This was so much the case, that the bank jobs themselves seemed almost an afterthought. While the film was extremely violent, it seemed that most of the violence was displayed on the shooter's side. The rapid-fire machine guns, or Tommy guns as they were called. The muzzle flashes. It was so exciting. The alternatives? Dillinger and cohorts planning a job - or divving up the money. The G-Man setting up their ambushes. The negatives - the over reliance on closeups. Sometimes I felt I was watching Cary Grant on Mt. Rushmore clamboring over those stony presidential faces in Hitchcock 's North By Northwest . Only most of the time it was Bale's stonefaced Purvis. The lack of depth to the main characters. The fact that quite often we didn't get an introduction to the latest member's of either Purvis squad or Dillinger's gang. In short it was hard to follow. Michael Mann's Public Enemies was 'okay' to quote my brother. 'But it wasn't as good as Bonnie and Clyde' he said. The Penn film preceded Public Enemies by 42 years. In fact, Mann's flick wasn't as good as Public Enemy No. 1 - the French gangster flick directed by Jean-Francoise Richet which I reviewed earlier this year.
RATING 7/10 Bottom Line Flashy and thrilling, Unstoppable is a solid film with a likeable cast, but somehow Tony Scott’s visual and dramatic style is becoming stale, with this film seeming like scenes from one of his other films rather than being memorable in its own right. The Good Loosely inspired by a true story, Unstoppable depicts the events surrounding a runaway freight train which is accidentally set off with no one at the controls. With dangerous chemicals on board, and the train set to pass through populated areas, a recipe for disaster is created. Veteran rail engineer Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) and rookie conductor Will Coulson (Chris Pine) inadvertently end up in the centre of this looming disaster when the train they are controlling ends up on the same track as the runaway train. This film could potentially have been not that interesting, but Scott’s flashy visual style and sense of drama make this quite a thrilling ride. The threat in this film is human error, and there is no bad guy, although there is an attempt to make the rail bosses look callous and irresponsible during scenes where they are discussing the possible share price fallout of the disaster. Washington and Pine seem to bounce off each other reasonably well, and suit their polar opposite characters quite well. The story arc in this film belongs to Pine, but Washington seems to get the more plausible motivations, particularly when he bites back at rail bosses who threaten to fire him if he does not do what they say: “you already fired me! 90 days with half benefits.” It was a good moment in the film that put everyone in their place. Unstoppable is a fast-moving thrill ride that will keep you entertained until its obligatory happy ending. The Bad Although the film is well made, there is something about Tony Scott’s style that is becoming too predictable, to the point of becoming stale. This film feels like an extension of one of his other action films, where it feels like there is nothing that this film can do to stake a claim as being memorable in its own right. It does not help either that his usual star Denzel Washington is headlining the film, and other alumni such as Rosario Dawson also feature. Coulson’s back-story feels a little contrived, particularly given Pine’s youthful look and the obligatory happy ending when he becomes the big hero in an over-the-top finale which seems him jump aboard the cabin of the runaway train at seventy miles per hour despite being seriously injured. Perhaps Tony Scott should take a look at his approach and come up with something new.
Please note: this is a review for the 2000 anime film, not 2009 live-action movie. Set in 1966, somewhere in America, Blood: the Last Vampire tells the story of Saya (voiced by Youiki Kudo), a vampire slayer told to go undercover as a schoolgirl to kill the vampires that lurk about within the school premises. According to IMDb, Production I.G. wanted to make a three part anime series but due to budget and time restraints, they only had the money to make one installment and so they chose this, being the middle one and released it as a stand-alone film. It could have had a more simple storyline but the pity with Production I.G. is that they let Blood: the Last Vampire ’s unfinished feel show. We get little insight into both the film’s characters and storyline. For example, characters are barely developed and the film finishes just when we gain a little bit of insight into the protagonist, you know, when we start to find her interesting after about 40 minutes ! It’s a pity Production I.G. didn’t do enough work on the script in order to make the film’s short 40 minute running time (excluding end credits) more satisfying. The film could have been a little more simple and I don’t know why Production I.G. didn’t bother to do so. If I had another flaw to pick fin this film, it would be the voice-acting. Some of it sounds quite dull. This particularly shows in the final scene where Saemi Nakamuri, the voice of Nurse Amano, sounds convincingly like she has been replaced with a computer. No, I am not exaggerating. Yes, that bad. And feel free to call this a cheap shot but Youiki Kudo - the voice actress for Saya - sounds a little constipated. With all this said, it would be hard to say that I wasn’t entertained. The fact that I wanted more from this film made me want to watch it more. It is very fast-paced; the character of Saya, whilst not incredibly interesting, she is at least likeable; the atmosphere is unnerving; and the vampires look quite gruesome. This film is also known to be one of the first mix 2D and 3D animation together and although it is not as “groundbreaking” as it was back in 2000, since it is more common to see it in anime today, it still looks as good as it used to. Blood: the Last Vampire is very short and undeveloped, but at least it’s fun, looks good and does not outstay its welcome. However, I hear there is a TV series called Blood+ , which is supposed to be a longer version and apparently it’s good.
2012 - Directed by Roland Emmerich, starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Woody Harrelson - Rated PG-13 Destruction is nice and all, but the rest is a bit weak. "This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." Director Roland Emmerich would whole-heartedly disagree with T.S. Eliot on that point. Emmerich destroys the planet in the loudest possible way he can and when he's showcasing the planet's destruction, 2012 works and is entertaining. When Emmerich tries to build characters and emotional connections; not so much. 2012 takes the ending of the Mayan calendar (12/21/12) and shows the doomsday scenario that some people believe in (though most everything I read or watch concerning the date now try to stray away from claiming the apocalypse is near). If you've seen the previews, you know what you're in for: mass destruction and a bunch of close calls for John Cusack and company. Cusack is trying to get his ex-wife, two kids, and their stepfather across the world to China in the hopes of catching a ride on some kind of ship being built by the world powers. Of course he's always just one step ahead of the spreading destruction. His escapes (especially the one featuring a limo) are quite ridiculous, but they look great for the most part. Emmerich, after Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, has become quite good at staging destruction. Destruction scenes are nice and all, but it helps if you actually care about the characters running away from the danger. I didn't care one way or another about them (which is the problem I had with The Day After Tomorrow, along with the awful CG wolves in that film). I normally don't like John Cusack in anything he makes, so that didn't help matters for me. It also might have something to do with the fact that I've seen all of this before. The characters seem like they didn't make the cut for Independence Day. Of course Cusack is divorced, but there still seems to be something between him and his ex (Amanda Peet). His son kind of hates him, but if the end of world can't bring father and son together, what can? Forming the government/science side of the characters are Chiwetel Ejiofor (a waste in such an effects driven movie) as the scientist with a code of honor, Oliver Platt as the scientist without it, Thandie Newton as the president's daughter, and Danny Glover as the president. All standard doomsday movie characters, but Woody Harrelson, as the conspiracy nut, stands out and makes his short but sweet scenes genuinely fun. The rest of the film is a series of tearful goodbyes, missed opportunities to reconnect, and characters saying variations of, "I think you should see this." Seriously, count how many times a character says a line like that, it's insane. I wanted to yell at the screen, "Hey, just stay in the room with the guy because something is probably going to happen every five minutes!" I guess it's all to be expected in a film like this and maybe the emotional scenes will actually work for some people, but it was all lost on me. One thing that wasn't expected, though, was the running time. This film lasts nearly two hours and forty five minutes. It basically pounds you into submission before letting you go with this formula: destruction, tearful goodbye, destruction, minor character death, destruction, tearful phone call, etc. It's just tiring and I was glad to leave the theater. I suppose 2012 never really had a chance with Emmerich behind it. He made a fun summer movie with Independence Day but his latest two films don't allow for much fun. Comic relief or light hearted moments just seem wrong in a movie featuring the deaths of billions of people. How can you root for a Russian trophy wife's tiny dog to survive when you know people are dying all around? It just doesn't work, but hey, it looks impressive and it's all just a movie. It just made me want to watch Independence Day again. But it was better than The Day After Tomorrow, so that's something, I guess.
» = New Post(s)