Gambitt Reviews

Eternals (2021)

There's a good movie in here somewhere

[5/10 · 22 January 2022]

Somewhere in this long, plodding mess, a good movie is buried. I actually think the core plot and themes of Eternals is pretty good and interesting. But the following problems, listed in reverse order of importance, really cripple the film and make it one of the weakest entries in the MCU.

First off, what is the deal with the color and light balance? I watched this movie on Disney plus at home; perhaps the experience is different in other settings, but I constantly struggled to make out what was happening in the many low-light settings. I actually had to rebalance the video settings on my tv. I've seen plenty of dimly lit shows and movies before, and I've never had to resort to changing my settings. From time to time, I also noticed issues with the audio balance too. Ie, the voice of the celestial was strangely muted.

Secondly, the movie is way too reliant on CGI, and it's not very good CGI. This is particularly a problem for movies where the baddies are 100% rendered. The whole thing feels plastic, like watching a cartoon or video game cutscene.

Thirdly and most importantly, this movie falls into the classic trap of presenting upfront a superhero team without any precursor development. I thought the whole point of the MCU was to avoid this? The Eternals are a group of ten(10!!) heroes that we've never seen before. How can ten protagonists possibly be given proper treatment in one film? The group as a whole (already established at the movie's onset) is also brand new to audiences. By contrast, the origin of the team was precisely the plot of the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

What is the result of this? *Exposition*. Grueling, in-your-face plot exposition told through montages (which are further deadened by the aforementioned CGI), monologues and flat conversations. The movie compounds this by springing back and forth through time (10s or 100s of years at once) in order to sprinkle in tiny bits that are supposed to add dimension and color to the characters; the payoff is never worth the break in flow caused by these excursions.

There are a lot of comedic quips, many that fall flat and many that probably will age very poorly, but those are not enough to blow life into what often feels like an overly long trudge.

The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018)

Misleading advertising

[4/10 · 10 June 2019]

From the movie previews, the House with a Clock in its Walls appeared to be a adventure-thriller comedic family movie. It starts out feeling like that-- it frankly feels like a Harry Potter knock-off for the first 30 minutes--, but basically morphs into a haunted house horror movie with a fair amount of creepy imagery.

It probably should have been rated PG-13, not PG. I think most middle schoolers could handle the movie, but children younger than that should look elsewhere. To give you an idea, the main baddie is several ticks more frightening than Voldemort. And some of the images and effects remind me of movies like Silent Hill.

Unfortunately and confusingly, the writing and plot nevertheless feel targeted towards grade school kids, in depth and in quality. So either this is a kids movie that is a bit too intense for many kids, or its a mediocre adventure horror movie for everyone else.

Justice League (2017)

Zack Snyder does it again

[4/10 · 4 May 2018]

Imagine you are tasked with creating a superhero team movie. The seemingly obvious way to do this is have your individual heroes meet up and then jump into showing the newly formed team facing obstacles together. Justice League is a case study in why this is actually a terrible way to produce a team-up movie.

A better way would be to build up the individual team members, and the relationships between them prior to the actual formation of the team. And if you're already on a tight timeline, because, say, you're trying to catch up to the competition, all the more reason to make good use of whatever few prequels you might have access to. So the fact that Zack Snyder squandered Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman on incoherent action sequences and epic slo-mo glamour shots really takes a toll on the misbegotten Justice League.

Furthermore, a good team-up movie isn't really so much about the team facing the world, but rather all the dynamics within the team itself. What little attempt there is to show this in Justice League is equal parts superficial, cliched, and dull.

Justice League was already going to be a heavy lift considering all this, but the basic film-making flaws complete the disaster.

As with Snyder's other DC movies, the pacing is awful. The script is lifeless and flat. The CGI is absolutely terrible, a problem compounded by its reckless overuse. The action is loud and underwhelming.

The low production value of Cyborg is inexcusable in a movie of this scale. He looks like something you might see in a arrowverse spinoff on CW (which in spite of its cheerful cheesiness, produces characters with way more spirit and chemistry than anyone in Snyder's DC-verse).

There seemed to be a lot of critical commentary that Ezra Miller's Flash was a rare bright spot in the movie. I have to disagree with that. His character and his lines felt just as forced and predictable as everyone else.

Then there is Jason Momoa's Aquaman. All I can say is that I hope the makers of the Aquaman film move away from the lord of the brocean interpretation here.

Finally there is the villain, Steppenwolf. Sweet jesus, where to begin with Steppenwolf. Creating a solid villain has always been a challenge for super hero movies, including Marvel films. But it feels like in Steppenwolf, Snyder went out of his way to perfectly model every single complaint about poorly made super villains.

I give Justice League a generous 4 / 10. The good news is that its lousy box office performance might force Warner Brothers to reconsider the direction of these movies.

The Defenders (2017)

Pretty terrible

[4/10 · 1 September 2017]

Defenders is an improvement over Iron Fist, but not by much. Here's a rundown of some of its biggest flaws.

1. The script is weak. It's not per se horrible but it features some of the flattest, most forgettable dialogue among the many super hero TV series produced in recent years. As you listen to the many, many, many drawn out conversations, you'll notice that often lines could be interchanged among characters with zero effect on the plot.

2. The fight choreography is pretty terrible. It's slightly better than in Fist, but in general you'll see scene after scene of mediocre fisticuffs. As with Fist, they've interspersed a lot of camera cuts in a vain attempt to mask how sub par the choreography is.

3. The plot just isn't very good. The overarching plot is generic, not all that different from the bland world-ending trope in Suicide Squad. Many times the sequence of events just doesn't make much sense. The main characters waste time arguing over trivialities or acting irrational. These are typically signs of poor writing.

4. The plot exposition is mind deadening obtuse. Over and over, the characters gather in a room to talk about: what just happened, what will happen, what's happening, why it might be happening. Sometimes two characters will recap an event, and then two other characters will recap the same event in the next scene. Sure, it's nice to keep your audience informed, but the execution here is so ham fisted and inefficient. To make matters even worse, they do the same thing on the other side: the bad guys gather to talk ad nauseum about their generic evil plan and generic evil legacy.

5. The characters are wasted. Most of the side characters from prior series are brought in, but serve little more than props and occasional sounding boards (with all the same conversational flaws noted above). It's almost as if the creators felt obligated to plop them in (because afterall this is a franchise!) but absolutely nothing more.

6. The villains are anti-climatic. I partially blame this on Fist, which watered down whatever potency the Hand had left. But Defenders worsens the problem by involving "the big bosses" too often and too superficially. They end up appearing just as useless and redundant as their henchmen.

Ultimately, watching Defenders just felt empty and generic. It's a shame considering where the series began.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Strong start; flat ending; good for some chuckles

[6/10 · 23 December 2016]

Ghostbusters is a moderately amusing action comedy, starring Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones as an all- female team of haunter huntresses.

How much you enjoy the movie (assuming you can get over any predispositions) depends mostly on whether you like Director Paul Feig's style and writing. I personally like the cheeky sense of humor intermixed with gags and visual humor.

Having said that, the movie becomes a bit too heavily dependent on slapstick towards the end, and forgettable CGI action sequences do little to enhance the experience. Which is a shame, because the introduction and build up of the team is pretty well done.

All in all, Ghostbusters is not going to win any awards or birth a beloved new franchise. But much to the disappointment of its many detractors, it's not nearly as bad of a movie as they hoped. It's certainly fun enough for an evening's entertainment.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

A perfectly competent action film

[6/10 · 22 December 2016]

Star Trek Beyond is a perfectly competent space-adventure, action film. That may seem like faint praise, but in this day and age, we have plenty of examples of big-budget action movies that are borderline unwatchable due to sloppy, sprawling plots.

The film starts well but it crescendos dramatically a bit too early and its uninspiring ending simply can't live up to the build-up. The result just feels a little too generic and forgettable.

The cast performs relatively well, and the cinematography is solid. With this movie, Director Justin Lin again shows that he can tell a coherent story and can present creative, entertaining action sequences. I just wish he had been given a script that wasn't so flat.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Explosive dumptruck of justice

[4/10 · 26 August 2016]

About 30 minutes into Batman v. Superman, I was thinking "Oh, come on, this isn't that bad. Maybe a 5 or a 6." Forty minutes later, it was definitely not a six, and near the end of the movie, I weighed whether it was a 3 or a 4.

The biggest problem is that the most critical part of the film, the conflict between Batman and Superman, was desperately contrived and clumsily engineered. To be fair, hero v. hero plots in comic books are typically weak, but the final product in BvS is an especially shoddy job. The core plot is convoluted and incoherent (see the Honest Trailers plot cliffnotes on youtube for an accurate description of the ludicrous plot).

The pacing is horrendous. Cuts are poorly managed, and there are simply way too many useless scenes. The tie-ins to future movies are too frequent and too long. Also, Snyder needs to work on sustaining a simple linear plot. Get that down, and then maybe he can try more "advanced" techniques like dreams and flashbacks.

The movie is oppressively dark and grim, even unnecessarily gory at times. The script is flat and lifeless; jokes are not readily identifiable as jokes.

Batman is a murderous psychopath. But I'm okay with that. Snyder and Affleck can make their own version of Batman. But unfortunately that's not the worst of it: Batman is also a complete idiot in this movie, which is unforgivable. There are a lot of idiots in this movie. Which is usually a sign of a lazy script.

The final fight with the ultimate badguy ("DD") feels empty and tedious because there was, once again, no development. The DD comic book was pretty simplistic in its build-up to the final battle, but BvS doesn't even come close to achieving that. Really this entire plot line should have been saved for one or two movies down the road.

As for Eisenberg's Lex Luthor, a villain's quirkiness can work on screen, as we saw with Heath Ledger, but only if there is substantive character development that the oddness builds on. There was no development at all of Lex Luthor, so Eisenberg's twitches and mumbles came off as slapped on and gimmicky.

Ultimately, I give BvS a 4 out of 10. I think that's a bit generous. But I recently gave Transformers Age of Extinction a 3 out of 10, and I don't think BvS was quite that bad.

Adoration (2013)

vacuous, but pretty

[5/10 · 10 January 2015]

Imagine if someone gave you as a writing prompt, a basic plot of two hot mommas with two hot sons who all decide to go criss-cross-applesauce on each other. You have exactly five minutes to scribble down a movie script. You would write this movie.

Notice I said 5 minutes, not 10, because with 10 you'd probably write something at least a bit more interesting and creative than this dull, unimaginative, predictable, somnambulant movie. The flat, occasionally corny script yields a contrived movie with flat, uninteresting characters.

But oh yes, all the raves about the gorgeous scenery are true. So definitely watch this movie if you like to look at pretty pictures of sun drenched beaches, and shots of photogenic people staring blankly at those beaches.

The Wall (2012)

Isolation

[7/10 · 4 March 2014]

This contains a *spoiler* but I think you should read it anyway.

In The Wall, a woman finds herself stuck and isolated in a remote part of the Austrian mountainside while vacationing with friends. Her captor is the wall-- literally an invisible wall that surrounds her. Now here's the spoiler: the movie never explains what the wall is exactly.

I feel like it's important to get that out of the way, because the title and the description on Netflix may lead many to believe that this is a sci-fi exploration of how this fantastical wall interacts with the world. You'll be sorely disappointed and distracted if that is that is the ride you were hoping for. The Wall, rather, focuses on the evolution of the woman as she struggles to cope with her situation.

I overall enjoyed the movie, but the stream of consciousness narrative can be hard to follow at times. The movie has rich visuals, and it's great for animal lovers, though the queasy should be warned that suffering and death are depicted as well.

Taken (I) (2008)

Finding Nemo meets Dirty Harry

[7/10 · 13 July 2013]

In Taken, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is a retiree and father who takes helicopter parenting to a whole new level. Mills comes across as an ordinary, likable joe who likes to barbecue in the backyard with his pals, except that he also harbors lethal ninja reflexes from his former job as a federal agent with a murky resume.

He's also been a bit abused by the system, having undergone a divorce and having to feebly tolerate the endless whips and scorn of his conniving, superficial ex-wife and constant financial humiliation before the disgustingly rich sockpuppet who replaced him, as husband to his wife and as guardian of his daughter. But they are living the high life now, and Mills is left behind like an obsolete relic, a drag on the party.

But then, due largely in part to everyone's failure to listen to his better sense of the world, Mills' daughter is taken. She is snatched away into oblivion by dark spirits thousands of miles away and an ocean apart. So just how far does a father's love go?

It all sounds a bit hackneyed, even dated, but nevertheless the movie rides Neeson's performance as the scrappy, determined, and shockingly brutal hunter-tracker who charges through all obstacles, human, physical, societal, or logical, to rescue his daughter. In spite of having been featured prominently in a number of action movies, Neeson looks like a doting daddy, not a tough-guy assassin and I think that is why these types of roles for him result in such appealing, entertaining movies.

Taken is a fun, action-packed thriller in which Miller efficiently delivers just dessert to all of the nasty fiends scuttling along the supply line leading to his daughter. It's a bit of a throwback to older revenge and justice fantasies, in which White, middle-class westerners lash out at swarthy ethnic people who are out to exploit and wring dry western civilization. I can see why some would feel that the movie cultivates fear, distrust and xenophobia; I'm actually a bit impressed with how boldly the movie, like Miller, dives headfirst into these thorny situations.

Skyfall (2012)

Fun Action Movie Dulled by Plot line Absurdities

[5/10 · 9 July 2013]

There's a lot to like about Skyfall: the entertaining and fairly creative action sequences and the beautifully shot videography. I particularly enjoyed the first third of the movie, which indeed had the look and feel of a traditional Bond film-- a high-speed, globe-trotting, action-packed adventure. I generally have no problem with Daniel Craig's tougher, beefier Bond.

However, once we meet the villain, Silva (Javier Bardem), the film is forced to flesh out its plot and things deteriorate quickly. There are numerous plot holes and contrivances in Skyfall, but I'm willing to overlook most of them except the two glaring ones that are central to the movie.

Firstly, the movie has an Aha-He(Silva)-planned-it-ALL moment a bit over halfway through the movie. A movie can do this, so long as the plot leading up to this fits. But considering that Skyfall up to that point was a sequence of seemingly arbitrary, fortuitous events, this strains credibility and indicates sloppy, contrived writing.

Secondly, Bond hatches a devious, cunning plan to counter Silva in the final Act of the movie. Except it's not devious. It's a horrible, illogical, arbitrary plan, put in place only because the writers wanted to shift the movie's setting. Lazy writing like this only serves to undermine the characters.

Skyfall is not a bad movie, but the plot problems make it feel like a "stupid" movie-- one that was a written for an unthinking audience. I don't require that movies be impeccably realistic, but I do hope that writers take the time to address the most logical and obvious questions that are likely to pop into the viewers head.

On a side note, the movie actually seems more chauvinistic than its predecessors. All the female characters are portrayed as unreliable and error-prone, as dependent on male counterparts, or ultimately as mere sex tools. Perhaps this is what the critics were talking about when they raved about Bond getting back to its roots?

X: First Class (2011)

Disappointed by disjointed pacing and lack of development

[5/10 · 9 April 2013]

After being immensely disappointed during my initial viewing, I took it upon myself to give X-men: First Class a second chance, in light of how well others have regarded it. Sadly, my impression did not improve.

X-men: First Class, a reboot of the X-men franchise, provides a background story on the team's origin. The movie starts with the early upbringing of Charles Xavier (Prof. X) and his eventual nemesis, Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) during World War II, and then jumps forward to the 1960s, when the X-men are formed.

The biggest problems in First Class were the disjointed pacing and woeful lack of development of the characters. Scenes unfold rapidly, and then cut abruptly. Relationships are implied without any actual foundation. Xavier catches the recruits partying up like brats after their first evening with each other; he sternly tells them he is disappointed in them. Why? He literally just met them a day or two ago. Shortly afterwards, we are supposed to be riveted by a loss and a betrayal, but again nothing is at stake because these characters have barely been introduced.

Yes, there is some character development for the two main protagonists, but it's hindered by an overall weak and superficial script. For example, when we first meet Prof. Xavier as a young man, every other line mentions mutants or genes. Ah-ha! He is an expert in mutation, see? We are constantly reminded by these shallow little references. Throw in a couple "groovies" to remind us of the time period. It all feels like lines an improv comedian would rattle off if told to impersonate a biogeneticist in the 1960s.

The movie also exhibits other hallmarks of sloppy and lazy writing. There is a grating scene in which the new mutants each shows off his or her own power and then provide names. It's the height of telling rather than showing. Later on, in the final showdown, two navies standoff while the X-men attempt to stop the villains' diabolical plan. Like any mediocre action movie, all the officers and crew of the world's two great superpowers stop acting or responding and instead join the audience, standing by idly while the main characters do all the heavy lifting.

Prof. Xavier and Magneto, for the most part, are simply portrayed as chums, without much development as to why they are close, particularly in the first half of the movie. It's not until about halfway through that we begin to see real dialogue between them, but even those lines are dull and predictable.

Unfortunately, the criticism leveled at January Jones is warranted. She's just not strong enough of an actress to overcome her miscasting. And although I grant the movie makers broad leeway in straying from the comics, I agree with criticism that some of the characters changes are so drastic that there really isn't at any reason to have used that character at all.

All in all, I am disappointed by the missed opportunities. The movie could have delved much deeper into the psyche of Xavier and Magneto and the issues surrounding mutation. Instead, we are given cardboard cutouts and the dilemmas are presented in black and white terms. It's not the worst X-men movie, but that's only because The Last Stand was truly atrocious.

War of the Arrows (2011)

Gun fights, but like with arrows

[5/10 · 24 June 2012]

War of the Arrows is a somewhat mediocre entry into the swollen ranks of Asian action-adventure war epics. In Arrows, a disgraced Korean archer must rescue his sister and brother in law from ruthless invaders from the North. The odds are ugly, and he may have to go Braveheart to prevail.

Arrows is entertaining, but shamelessly cliché, never bothering to try to explain or apologize for its over the top melodrama. For example, early on in the movie, Manchurian raiders burst in and begin slaughtering villagers left and right. And yet throughout the prolonged attack, most townsfolk are shown still engaged in their day to day business apparently oblivious to the massive army of horsemen stampeding through their town until the very moment they get chopped down. Even the main characters at a wedding, who are depicted as perceiving the attack relatively early on, are still standing around like Christmas trees by the time the enemies actually reach them.

And the battles, at least in the first half, are laughably one sided. During the village ambush, the raiders trample every single feeble Korean warrior in their path. The casualties appear to pile up at about a 20 to 1 ratio. Yet later, during an insurrection, those same pathetic Koreans (now unarmed and in a weakened state) are apparently invincible while the Manchurians drop like stormtroopers.

The arrow duels are entertaining (but still not all that original). The skirmishes have the feel of a John Woo gun fight. I almost expected the characters to stand off at four feet, each gripping a loaded bow in either hand.

One thing I did particularly like was the costume design. In particular, the elite squad of Manchurian death hounds looked fantastic. They appeared to be a mash-up of shao-lin, samurai, ninja, archers-- somehow it all worked and ended up being one of the more memorable aspects of the film.

Paper Clips (2004)

Great subject matter. Dull movie

[6/10 · 21 June 2011]

I have a couple of nits to pick with Paper Clips. As commendable as the actions of the students and teachers were, the movie was simply not very interesting. I would have preferred that the film at least try to challenge the viewers, considering the complexities of modern race matters.

Instead, we receive a brief introduction to what the school set out to do, and then we are treated with 45 minutes of teary eyed commemorative speeches and dedication ceremonies. The movie feels like 10% journey and 90% destination celebration.

Also, the movie is described as an experiment about the Holocaust, leading to a miracle. There wasn't really any experiment (more of a project), and what happened was hardly a miracle. What was achieved was the product of hard work, dedication, and perseverance of all involved. Calling it a miracle actually cheapens their work.

Religulous (2008)

Funny but won't change many minds

[7/10 · 8 February 2011]

Mahar's Religulous is a scathing and usually hilarious look at how billions of people can accept the inanity of religion with a straight face. Mahar forces people all along the religious spectrum and up and down the hierarchy to face the irrationality of talking snakes, voices in heads, and imminent rapture.

What I like most about the film is how Mahar picks the craziest religions with the silliest, most childish beliefs, and then demonstrates that mainstream religions are not really any less bizarre.

And in case anyone thinks that Mahar is just a liberal, anti-Christian basher of evangelical conservatives, have no doubt that he is an equal opportunity atheist. He goes after Judaism as well, and his pummelling of Islam is merciless.

However, the movie is "mahared" by plenty of cheap stunts. As others have noted, Mahar picks on easy targets, even ordinary folks who just happen to be on the street. He generally picks people with bizarre, colorful backgrounds rather than those with the knowledge to counter his thrusts. And he exploits editing and camera tricks to make his subjects appear especially stupid or dumbfounded. I consider myself a fairly rational, reasonably educated person, but if I were jumped on the street by a theist who was "out to get me," then surely I would appear ignorant or irrational at some point.

Finally, like many atheists, Mahar criticizes faith generally. IMO, there is considerable faith in science as well, and ultimately human knowledge is limited and uncertain. Mahar makes that point himself, though I'm not sure he's fairly applying it to the non-religious as well.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Dark, different, but still fun

[7/10 · 20 December 2010]

As entertaining and fun as it was, I liked Toy Story 3 less than its predecessors. It simply lacked the sweetly poetic and soulful touch that made the first two instant classics.

The artwork, animation, music, and voice acting are all superb, as we've come to expect. Toy Story 3 is much darker, even downright creepy at times, a welcome change from the first two. Like Up, Toy Story 3 does not adhere as tightly to a central theme as prior Pixar movies. However, unlike my experience with Up, I did not come away inspired and moved by the adventure and the characters. Instead, the movie felt like it bounced all over, sampling from themes already explored in Toy Story 1 and 2, nibbling on a few new ideas, but never really delving too deeply in any one direction.

My bigger issue is that Toy Story 3 relies more heavily on visual slapstick, referential gags, and audience familiarity with the first two movies. In short, it feels much more like a Dreamworks movie. True, Dreamworks movies are fun, but Pixar has always made superior films by sticking to bold and fresh characterization, clever jokes, and sincere, masterfully woven messages.

But the end result is still a 7 out of 10. Even when stumbling, Pixar still makes very good movies.

Dan in Real Life (I) (2007)

Simply terrible

[4/10 · 30 August 2010]

Dan in Real life was a shallow, contrived, and unfunny disappointment. The characters were cardboard clichés and the plot was forced and absurd.

I am baffled by other viewers' references to "adult" humor or "mature" comedy in Dan in Real Life. If Dan in Real Life reflects "adult" humor," then I hope I never grow up, because the jokes were obvious, predictable, and above all not funny. And frankly, not very mature. Are masturbation jokes more sophisticated when made by older, white people in a middle-class setting? Does cruelly teasing a person's physical appearance constitute highbrow humor because an entire family joyfully engages in it?

The final crime in this movie is the director's insistence on use of the musical montage. No need to actually write meaningful dialogue that develops the characters and builds relationships. Instead, just play hokey music while showing them moving their lips and gesticulating with interlaced images to show the passage of time. Guess what, folks? This is a SCAM of a movie. It's vacuous and lazy movie-making. It fools the viewers into filling in the void and inventing the characters in their own minds.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

Lord of the Crouching Hellboy Hidden X-Men in Black

[6/10 · 7 January 2010]

Hellboy II: The Golden Army will please fans of the first by continuing its nice visuals, colorful characters, and decent action sequences. Otherwise, the film doesn't break much new ground and hurts itself with somewhat unorganized plot lines.

In HB II, the Prince of a hidden race of elves seeks a magical crown that will enable him to command an army of mechanical soldiers with which to conquer mankind. Hellboy, with his pals Abe and Liz and newcomer Johann Krauss, must aid the elf Princess to thwart his dastardly plan.

This is a decent core plot for an action movie, but I could do without the multitude of subplots that clutter the film between shots. Thematically, this movie is all over the place. Here is a sampling of the themes that HB II touches upon: authority and discipline, love and family, personal sacrifice, prejudice and racism, environmentalism and conservationism. Yikes! That's a lot for one movie, let alone an action movie. Some of those are touched upon for literally one or two minutes and then never mentioned or resolved again. HB II almost feels like one issue of a series to be continued later-- which is perfectly understandable considering the source material, but a movie really should be edited to be free standing.

Also, many scenes in HB II very distinctly feel like other movies. At times, you will feel like you are watching a chapter from: Men in Black, X-men, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, most of Jet Li's movies.

Speaking of Jet Li, HB II continues the slightly annoying trend of making random characters and creatures into kung-fu martial artists, like the shaolin vampires in the Blade series. Sure, del Toro's version of "elves" is entitled to his own interpretation, but it still feels slapped on and pandering, sort of like how so many movies try to captivate their western audiences with a generous helping of ninjas.

HB II's great strength is in its nicely styled visuals. If you are a fan of del Toro's works or other films with a mythical yet modern look (ie The 5th Element), then you should enjoy the settings and creatures del Toro presents in HB II.

All in all, I give Hellboy II a 6. It could have used some editing, but it's definitely worth watching.

Meet the Robinsons (2007)

The incredibles jurassic jimmy neutrons family

[4/10 · 7 March 2009]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy this movie was fast fast fast and never stopped and it was about the future and the present and the past and all the characters, of which there were a lot, talked really really fast and the action never stopped and the themes involved family and togetherness and belonging and never giving up and letting go and always moving forward forward forward and it was kind of all over the place all the time every where and things popped in and then out and there was a lot of zow and bammy and boing and zap and slapstick and dinosaurs and lots of musical montages to speed the time but hey that'll keep our attention in this fast-paced world even though a movie that goes so fast fast fast makes me bored bored bored.

Cloverfield (2008)

Like totally SWEEET! 12 stars out of 10!!

[4/10 · 21 November 2008]

I gotta admit, man, when I saw those ads, I was all like dude this is gonna RAAWK! And my bro Fiz was like "its all whacked!" and I was like "No fool! this is for real!" And then their were these leaked clips on the Net and I was like: man, they didn't want us to see these leaked clips but now i seen them and I gotta see this movie cuz it's gonna BLOW my mind and Totally RAWWK!!

Anyway, the movie was all about ROb and his bro and New York and the monster. Like Rob starts out with Beth, but at dis party Beth is with Ben, who doesn't like ROb and Rob doesn't like him, but Rob is going to Japan and Rob still likes Beth but so, I felt so like I could relate to Rob and Beth. And Hud and Rob's bro's girl. I so cared for them. They were SUCH great characters. Really profund people. Like me.

And then the MONSTER attacks and man is it WICKED!! He smashes everything and the ARMY comes to in to waste him and they can't cuz he RAWKS! And ROb is like, we gotta save Beth and the others are like no we can't. And Rob is like YES we IS.

And then the chick Marlena who Hud likes (Hud is the one with the camera(and he is like serious friends with Rob (Hud is like so funny, man, because he's like slow and dumb!))) Anyway, Marlena is attacked by a monster spider and is bitten by the spider monster and she totally completely EXPLODES! When I saw that, I stood up and was all like "AW YEA!" until the peeps behind told me to sit down and shut up.

Anyway, the movie is filmed with a hand-held cam, just like I have for Youtube and the Internet! It's SOO real and new and I feel like I can relate because I am part of the Youtube generation, and I'm all like, yea that could be me in the movie-- they are just like ME. The WHOLE TIME we're all like, what is going' on?--this is SO COOL! It was just plain hands down AWESOME!!

And for those of you all sayin that this is just like Blair Witch movie, you're DEAD WRONG, man!! Blair Witch was Completely different. Blair Witch was about a witch. Cloverfield is about a MONSTER! Blair witch was in the woods, which is not New York city, except for the part where they are in Central Park which is sorta like the woods except fewer trees.

My only downfall was like how it was only 85 minutes long. They could of got like at least 3 hours more of this. An I have no idea what the monster really was.

So anyway, here's the deal: THIS movie RAWKS and I would definitely recommend it. If yur a cool dude like me (YEA!) and you dig EXTREME flicks, then you'll Definitely love Cloverfield. 12 stars out of 10 stars, man!

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Die more harder than ever

[5/10 · 10 November 2008]

In each Die Hard, the feats become more outrageous as the scope of the movie expands. Die Hard 1 took place in a single building. McClane walked barefoot over broken glass, jumped off exploding rooftops, and single-handedly took down a dozen armed henchmen. Die Hard 2 upped the ante by expanding the setting to an entire airport. Finally, in Die Hard 3, McClane had to race all over New York City to prevent a massive theft of gold.

In "Live Free or Die Hard," the action takes place all along the East Coast. McClane hops all over the country, from NYC, to DC, to West Virginia, to Maryland. What worked in a single building in DH1 simply looks absurd and childish on a national scale.

In Live Free, a covert group of cyber terrorist takes over everything that can be hacked. In a blink of an eye, they take over traffic control, law enforcement communications, the stock markets, private corporate files, federal disaster alert systems, cellphone networks, satellite communications systems, and apparently ANY system that makes use of a camera.

The potential breadth and ease of such a cyberattack is already difficult to swallow for a skeptical audience, but the movie turns this leap-of-faith on its head by arbitrarily designating certain computer systems as "closed circuit." Yep, notwithstanding the power of these magical hackers (who by the way, can apparently infect your computer with exploding viruses), there are certain systems that can be accessed only by physically storming the facility with thugs toting guns. It's like how Superman's one weakness in the universe is kryptonite, which just happens to be under every rock in Smallville.

In DH1, McClane did his best to work with incompetent local police and the FBI. In Live Free, the entire nation is apparently handled by one man, an FBI director played by Cliff Curtis. Forget the President, the NSA, the CIA, the entire military. Those silly feds left the fate of the country of one man, who must always handle matters personally.

Disbelief permeates Live Free at the ground level as well. Maggie Q's character is apparently enhanced with steel reinforcements. McClane plows into her with a large SUV and slams her through about five walls. She emerges from the mess as lively as ever, ready to swap kicks with McClane.

Lastly, I don't think genius-hacker Justin Long used a single Mac in this movie. Should someone inform Apple of this harsh betrayal?

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

A bit absurd, but still enjoyable and relevant today

[7/10 · 5 November 2008]

In "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," a U.S. senator suddenly passes away, and Mr. Smith is tapped to fill the position. Unbeknownst to the honest, decent Smith, he is intended merely to be a puppet of the powerful forces that already control the state's governor and its other Congressmen. Smith collides head-on with these forces and must fight to save himself and his values from destruction in the public arena.

"Mr. Smith," directed by Frank Capra, is not meant to be very realistic. The basic plot and characters of Mr. Smith are borderline ridiculous. Smith goes beyond naive, to the point of appearing ignorant and lacking in common sense at times. He seems to have the civics education of a 2nd-grader. Everything in the movie is exaggerated to the extremes.

Capra's D.C. is likewise a caricature. The U.S. Senate is a united front of entrenched cronyism. They move as one nonpartisan mass, always supporting each other in their mutual corruption. The media is easily herded into line, an interpretation that probably strikes closer to truth, although that system today has been undermined by the Internet.

Still, if the true Washington is not quite as fraudulent as Copra's version, there's no doubt that it is probably perceived that way by many Americans today. The film touches upon real issues that affect modern politics. It's amazing how relevant certain lines and scenes remain after all these years, perhaps more so today.

What did bug me about the film was its shamelessly idealistic view of small-town American heroes like Mr. Smith. Like a Bruckenheimer movie where Billy boy and Jim Bob from the ranch save the planet, "Mr. Smith" sometimes comes off as a self-congratulatory pat on the back to the common man. It rails against the elitism and special interest of Washington, a popular sentiment today.

This might not bother me so much except that this country is just coming off an extended experiment of putting a "commoner" in a government seat of critical importance and things didn't turn out so hot. As nasty, cold, and dirty as it may seem to place a compromising politician into DC, that may be preferable to putting an "oh shucks, well, golly gee, I dunno" kinda guy into a position of major responsibility.

This country has a low tolerance for corruption. It has an even lower tolerance of incompetence.

I Am Legend (2007)

That's it!?!

[5/10 · 8 October 2008]

I had heard some fairly positive buzz over "I am Legend," so I was looking forward to finally watching the DVD. Some of my friends warned of a disappointing ending, so I did brace for a corny twist ending.

The movie begins with a promising, although unoriginal plot: much of the world's population has been wiped out by a horrendous virus and Will Smith's character is one of the only survivors. Smith will have to contend with surviving on his own in a world where many people have mutated into vicious zombie-like monsters. This is nothing new, but I decided to see where the movie makers would run with it.

And then . . . nothing happened. Nothing unexpected happened. Nothing unique happened. It was one of the most forgettable, ordinary post-apocalyptic movies I've ever seen. There are violent fight scenes. There are heart-pumping flight scenes. There is a conclusion at the end, but it's hardly a twist.

There was hardly anything that was not already done in "28 Days Later," which was a more interesting movie, made five years before Legend. How did Legend do so well in the box office? Was it simply the Will Smith factor again? Ultimately, I give "I am Legend" a generous 5 out of 10, mainly because of a stupendous performance by the dog.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)

Ask why

[7/10 · 8 May 2008]

"Ask why" was Enron's enormously ironic marketing slogan for many years preceding its collapse, even as company officials ignored, shut out, and denigrated the few analysts, reporters, and employees who paused to ask why and how exactly the company was making money claimed in its earnings reports.

The film will make you shake your head at the gall of Enron, from its self-assured, overly confident executives to the merciless conduct of the energy traders bred within the company's cut-throat culture.

The film discusses the casualties of the Enron fallout, from its employees, its stockholders, retirees who held Enron shares, the entire state of California and Gov. Gray Davis himself.

The film provides a scathing criticism of capitalism unleashed, an aspect that I believe is most overlooked in the wake of Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco. The film, as did most media reports, focused on the personal conduct of the key players, the high-power executives now mired in civil and criminal proceedings: CEO Jeffrey Skilling, CEO Kenneth Lay (now deceased), and CFO Andrew Fastow.

While the conceit and deceit of these executives cannot be over-stated, so much emphasis on their individual culpability distracts from the overall culture of communal greed and reckless hype that saturated all of society during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

In the film, Sherron Watkins, a former Enron VP considered by some to be a whistleblower, commented: "Enron should not be viewed as an aberration, something that can't happen somewhere else . . . It can happen again."

Right now, we still live in the shadow of Enron, with heavy-handed oversight and finger-wagging politicians. The real challenge will be 10 or 20 years from now, when the country is experiencing its next major economic boom. Will analysts do their job and demand to see proper balance sheets? Will regulators turn a blind eye to questionable accounting practices? Will shareholders even care that puppetmasters may be manipulating the skyrocketing numbers?

Will ANYONE care so long as gobs of money are being made, until its too late? We humans have a very short memory, and history tends to repeat itself.

I would rate the documentary higher, except that I found much of the inserted pop-culture clips to be unnecessary, distracting, and gratuitous (five minutes of strippers?).

Burning the Future: Coal in America (2008)

Candid look at coal's dirtier underbelly

[7/10 · 7 May 2008]

Most people are aware of the global impact of our dependence on coal and other carbon-based energy sources. In recent years, concern over climate change has finally gone mainstream, with even energy companies starting to admit that perhaps global warming is a real and serious problem.

"Burning the Future" takes a look at the environmental impact of coal at a level that receives much less press coverage: the damaging and dangerous effect of strip mining on its surrounding environment, communities and local residents in West Virginia.

Coal companies have been resorting to strip mining rather than traditional tunnel mining because it is less labor intensive and overall more "effective" in extracting the coal that powers our residences and businesses. In strip mining, mountaintops are literally blown up into debris to reach the valuable coal seams embedded within. The debris is dumped into rivers and valleys, and later pushed back into piles that resemble the former mountain.

In "Burning the Future," local West Virginians discuss the destructive impact strip mining has on their immediate communities. The lush landscapes they grew up with are being replaced with brown heaps of rock. More neighborhoods have been devastated by sudden flooding that residents insist never occurred prior to strip mining. Residents showcase their drinking water, which is often murky with black and brown silt. A rise in serious health conditions is believed to be caused by the contaminated water.

The film addresses many difficult questions surrounding coal in West Virginia, where communities, many of them poor, are dependent on the coal companies for public funding, schools, and jobs. The coal companies offer funding and support in return for permits to build waste depositories. The companies successfully navigate state and national politics, while pitting environmental and labor groups against each other. In communities where nearly everyone has a family member who was a miner, neighbors are pitted against neighbors in this resulting clash of values and priorities.

The film provides a good look at the more immediate effects of our coal dependence on people who are often overlooked and who have no voice in the modern debate over global warming.