jeev7882 Reviews

Haywire (2011)

Terrific Tension At All Times

[7/10 · 4 September 2012]

Haywire was a much different movie than I was expecting. In a good way. Not to say there aren't weaknesses: the plot is contrived and the elevator-like music during the otherwise thrilling action sequences is absurd. Those give way to the tension in the chases followed by the brutal hand to hand combat sequences. Newcomer and retired MMA fighter Gina Carano more than holds her own in a cast littered with talent. She gets to kick some all star ass in a very convincing manner. The way she throws punches and kicks is different than the way a typical actor would. There are cool moves here and there, yet, it's not at all stylized.

The movie centers on Mallory Kane, a contract black ops agent who suddenly finds herself hunted by everyone she comes across – seemingly like all thrillers of this sort. Unlike others in this genre, Mallory hasn't seemingly done anything to deserve this. We're never led to believe she knows too much or was too nosy. Many reviewers have called this an inferior version of the Bourne movies. I think it's better than all but the original Bourne, largely thanks to A-list director Steven Soderbergh. The comparisons beyond that are moot.

In many ways Haywire is a nonstop action film. There's terrific tension at all times because we know right from the beginning that Mallory is being hunted. There's nothing new about the "show me the middle of the movie first" structure, but it's hardly this well utilized. From her first uneasy meeting with Aaron (Channing Tatum in his best acting turn yet), we're in her shoes. We don't trust anyone. There is a particular long chase scene where Mallory is simply trying to get away from the scene by walking down the street. Her glances spot her tail across the way. She doesn't just start running. She continues walking and waits until she turns a corner and has the upper hand to break into a sprint. She's also not dumb enough to look back until she thinks she's in the clear.

That's what seems to separate Mallory and the rest of Haywire from lesser action thrillers. Mallory is smart. She knows when to snoop. She knows when to walk. She knows when she's in over her head and is more than willing to run instead of fight. Perhaps this is her first separation from her male protagonists that typically dominate the genre. She's patient, calculating. Is she a bad ass capable of taking out two swat officers at the same time? Sure, but she'll wait until she really has the advantage to do it.

In terms of more raw action, there are a few one-on-one fights with men where we never question if she can hold her own. None of the fights are the same. She faces adversaries that are either young and athletic, polished and professional, or more comfortable behind a desk. Thank God for once the desk job guy doesn't have some secret fighting ability that he's been hiding the entire time for some reason. Her friends and foes are played by the likes of Channing Tatum, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Ewan McGregor, and Michael Fassbender. That's as well rounded a cast as you'll ever see in a movie like this.

The not-so-subtle name Mallory has an etymology meaning "bad," which is ironic as Mallory isn't a contract killer. She carries out jobs requiring a high level of military skill. She believes the work she is doing is good. The first job we follow her on is a hostage rescue. The next is to be eye candy with an MI6 agent. Of course, neither turns out to be as it seems at first, but that's what they are in her eyes.

For more reviews like this one as well as other movie musings, go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Monumental film capping off the best film trilogy ever made

[9/10 · 21 July 2012]

The Dark Knight Rises is a monumental film capping off the best film trilogy ever made. More Batman Begins than The Dark Knight, the film isn't at a constant climax. Nolan invokes some short flashbacks from the first film, but aside from mentions of Harvey Dent there's very little from TDK. There is a deliberate pacing that takes us from a peaceful, boring Gotham with a retired Batman to the greatest city in the world on the brink of annihilation.

Unlike the first film in the trilogy, TDKR isn't quite as centered around Bruce Wayne or Batman. The screen is shared by a flurry of characters. Bane, Catwoman, Miranda Tate, Luscious Fox, Detective Blake, and the always welcome Alfred all get a considerable portion of screen time. Lesser important characters who should have been scrapped also push the running length to 164 minutes, though it never feels like it. The film centers around the masked terrorist Bane's plans to bring Gotham to its knees much like Ra's Al Ghul's plans in the first film. Bane's antics force both Bruce Wayne and Batman out of retirement to try to save his beloved city.

Let's just get this out of the way: there's no Joker or equivalent thereof here. There's no performance like Heath Ledger's, but TDKR is a much better film than TDK. It doesn't connect the complex plot points as masterfully as its predecessor. What it does masterfully is inject some much needed emotion into the fight for Gotham. We gladly trade our jaws dropping in a "cool! how'd they do that?" moment for our eyes watering wondering "does Batman love his city so much he'll actually die for it?".

Don't get me wrong, the action scenes are phenomenal. Between the Bat, essentially the new flying Batmobile, and a Bat Pod that shows off even more features, there's no shortage of cool technology. Bruce Wayne even has a little remote to make sure the paparazzi don't get in his way.

Even with the new gadgets, the fist fights are greatly improved from the first two films. Bane is physically superior to Batman and on par mentally. Tom Hardy has bulked up for this role. There's no six pack on Bane, he's got some flab, but it just adds to his mass. This guy is huge and terrifying. Throw in Hardy's incredibly expressive eyes and you've got a true force of evil. Hardy also seems to have a unique ability to act during his fight sequences. We can see the speed of his punches and feel his punches when he pummels Batman.

While he's the least interesting of the three major villains, TDKR spices things up with some much needed estrogen with Catwoman and Miranda Tate. Anne Hathaway is exceptional, gracefully pouncing around Gotham and dealing some punishment in some very tall heels. Catwoman has always been a good guy/bad guy who lives by her own moral code, and Nolan's version stays true to the heart of the character in the comics. Miranda is a beautiful, strong millionaire who is drawn to Bruce through his philanthropy. She comes to his aid and rescues Wayne Enterprises after one of Bane's terrorist acts at the stock exchange.

I've heard some complaints about how Bane's antics are too reminiscent of the times, playing much to the Occupy crowd. I think that's ludicrous and anyone that has seen the other two films will certainly agree. Bane's antics at the stock exchange hearken back to Batman Begins where The League of Shadows admitted to using economics to send Gotham spiraling out of control. Beyond that event the death toll in Gotham is catastrophic. Bane blows the city half to hell and releases prison inmates immediately after breaking the morale of Harvey Dent's supporters. It's anarchy as the rich are ripped from their homes, the police are trapped, and no one is safe anywhere.

The second half of the film comes to an unforgettable climax that is the most enthralling cinema in a long time. The significant amount of IMAX footage makes the action scenes as epic as can be and Nolan's refusal to use 3D means we get to see it in a proper high resolution format whether you're in an IMAX setting or not. TDKR isn't without it's faults. The music blares inappropriately quite often. There's some pretty poor exposition in the script at times (a little puzzling why backstory wasn't worked in better in this long a movie with such exceptional writers). And, the plot twists are quite predictable for those loyal to the comics. Even despite all that, TDKR is the movie everyone wanted and then some. It doesn't have the innocence and humor that made Batman Begins the best of the trilogy, but it does up the ante in terms of scale and emotion. It is easily the best movie this year so far and perhaps the best conclusion a trilogy has ever had.

For more reviews like this one as well as other movie musings, go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/

Brave (2012)

A Brave New Film From Pixar

[7/10 · 24 June 2012]

There's quite a bit about Brave that has marked it as a departure from Pixar's typical fare. The most memorable trailer was one of the best scenes from the movie, with Merida protesting her marriage by shooting for her own hand. That scene alone showcases the detail and quality of animation we've come to expect from Pixar. No other studio has managed to come near what they do. The motion of the characters is natural. Merida's gorgeous curly red hair is distracting in its details only at the perfect times. And, most impressively, when Merida holds her breath to shoot her last arrow the audience holds its collective breath as we watch her arrow shoot away in slow motion and in a beautiful use of depth of field that reminds us why 2D is still highly preferred to 3D.

That's not to say Brave is quite as visually astonishing as Sully's fur in Monsters Inc., the magical underwater world of Finding Nemo, or a landfill laden Earth in Wall-E. But, in some ways, it's not meant to be. We're dealing with a primarily human cast for once, and ones meant to look very different than the ones in Up.

Beyond the animation, the story is somewhat flat. The trailers do an excellent job of concealing the twists, but the twists are all easy to see well ahead of time. The story revolves around Princess Merida who is continually at odds with her Mother, Elinor. At the center of their arguments: marriage. Merida is to be married to the first born of one of the leaders of the other three clans. She'll have none of it as she'd much rather ride off on her own and perfect her archery skills than sit at home and be a proper Princess. In her more childish qualities, she's like her father: an overgrown warrior child who also happens to be King. It's not a bad story, but it's certainly a little too basic. Most people will most likely find the lack of creativity in the script's details the biggest disappointment in Brave. There's no moments where we marvel "how did these guys come up with this?"

It's a pity because Merida is one of the best protagonists Pixar has been blessed with. She's likable and hate-able in all the right ways. She has quite a bit of bratty teenager in her - as evidenced by the lack of morality she displays in trying to change her mother's mind about her upcoming betrothal - and yet heaps of bravery - as she shows when confronted with what she's done to her Mother. The best part about Merida and the story is that she's the one continually driving it forward and making the choices. That proves vital as the film doesn't really have a villain. This isn't a good vs. evil battle like all their other movies not named Finding Nemo.

Brave falls somewhere in the middle for Pixar. It's great that it's original (especially with Pixar selling out and giving us Monster's Inc. 2 and Toy Story 4 shortly), it's great the protagonist is female and so well rounded, and it's great the animation is somewhat subdued for once. I can't help but feel that Brave lacks some of the magic and creativity that really separate the upper echelon of Pixar's best work from the rest of it. Of course, that'll still probably be enough to make it the best animated movie of the year.

For more reviews like this one as well as other movie musings, go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Missing all the intrigue and light hearted fun of its predecessor, Game of Shadows is quite a mess.

[6/10 · 13 June 2012]

Missing all the intrigue and light hearted fun of its predecessor, Game of Shadows is quite a mess. While fun at times with plenty of jokes and little things to like here and there, it never seems a cohesive whole. More importantly, it never seems like a Sherlock Holmes movie.

From the start (actually, before the start) we know who our nemesis is: Professor James Moriarty. A fiendish name accompanied by a wonderfully devilish performance by Jared Harris. That's no problem. What is the problem is that his duel with Holmes seems geared more towards action scenes than a well paced mystery. Holmes fights in slow mo, dodges cannon shells in a forest, is skewered by a large industrial fish hook, and survives a flurry of machine gun fire in a train. This movie is a victim of sequelitis: it knows it has to be bigger and badder, but doesn't know how to do it while keeping the core content the same.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/ to read the complete review!

Prometheus (I) (2012)

The most amazing sci-fi film in a very long time

[9/10 · 10 June 2012]

Prometheus is a brilliant visual sci-fi marvel. Ridley Scott has given us an epic film that survives independent of the Alien movies even if it is somewhat of a prequel to the series. The look of the film is arresting from the onset. The opening sequence, presumably on Earth, sweeps through a massive lake and waterfall, up the cliff face and to a single living being. The being is human-like, but not quite human. He drinks something that causes him to decompose rapidly. Eventually, his DNA ends up in the water where it seems to recombine and, again, presumably, become human DNA.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/prometheus/ to read the complete review!

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

A much needed action packed kick start after the disaster that was John Woo's MI2

[8/10 · 7 June 2012]

Cruise's first movie to open after his Oprah chair hopping debacle – which somehow lost him more fans than Brad Pitt's cheating on his wife debacle – was TV mogul J.J. Abram's big splash as a silver screen director. After the disaster that was John Woo's MI2, the MI series needed a kick start and that's exactly what it got in the action packed MI3.

All the familiars return including Cruise, Ving Rhames, and wise cracking Simon Pegg. Thrown into the mix is a fiendish Philip Seymour Hoffman as resident terrorist Owen Davian. The plot is simple enough with no real big twists like the original had. But, this is more a summer action fest than DePalma's methodically paced thriller.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/category/all-movie-reviews/ to read the complete review!

The Raid: Redemption (2011)

Easily the best action movie of this young millennium

[9/10 · 7 June 2012]

This little Indonesian action flick is easily the best action movie of this young millennium. This movie is a game changer in the world of over stylized and detached CGI action that has come to dominate action movies these days. Here's a film on a meager $1.1M budget that has excellent cinematography, sound, choreography, and soundtrack – by Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park fame for lucky Western audiences. It understands the importance of building tension and then realizing the, often magnificently bloody, payoff. This isn't just a guy's gore-fest of an action movie. No. There's actually not much gore. Plenty of blood though. The brutality is there so you feel every shot, punch, and stab that anyone dishes out.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/category/all-movie-reviews/ to read the complete review!

The Avengers (2012)

A simple, fun, well-made summer movie

[6/10 · 7 June 2012]

Here's a simple, fun, well-made summer movie. It's not great by any measure, nor does it ever try to be. What it does have is a director who understands that the source material is essentially comic book fluff. None of these characters have the depth that Batman or the X-Men do, but they do have cool powers and cool personalities that make for a decent story and some great action set pieces.

The most epic of these sequences takes place in – you'll never guess, never, not in a milllion years – New York City! While the scene lacks originality in location, it does make up for it in sheer excitement. Iron Man goes rocketing around town in spectacular aerial battles with the Chitauri, who are as disposable as the Foot Soldiers from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Hawkeye sits on a perch on top of a building and casually snipes more Chitauri out of the air with his bow and arrow. The Hulk, well, he smashes. His chaotic leaping and random crushing of the puny aliens is spectacular to watch. Oh, and, a few of our good guys end up battling Loki at random points as well.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-avengers/ to read the complete review!

John Carter (2012)

Nice visuals and cast, but short on real substance

[5/10 · 7 June 2012]

John Carter isn't anywhere near as bad as everyone has made it out to be. It's not good. Not by a long shot. There are many lines that elicit painful memories of the Star Wars Prequels. Still, it does have its redeeming qualities including the voice talents of Samantha Morton, Willem Dafoe, and Thomas Haden Church, as well as an easy-on-the-eyes newcomer in Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris: Princess of Helium. There are also extremely impressive visuals. They aren't visuals that make you go "oh, wow, that was really cool." Instead, they are visuals that blend into the film and make Barsoum (a.k.a. Mars) a very real place. Andrew Stanton, who also directed Wall-E and Finding Nemo, lets the story and sequence of events live or die on their own. Sometimes they live, sometimes they die.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/category/all-movie-reviews/ to read the complete review!

Bridesmaids (I) (2011)

One of the best comedies of the 21st century

[9/10 · 7 June 2012]

Bridesmaids is one of the best comedies of the 21st century along with Borat and About A Boy. What carries it above most comedies is that it's actually well written. Our main character, Anne, played by the comic genius Kristen Wiig, has many flaws. Being an out of work baker, her life is in a tough spot so she takes her Maid of Honor duties quite seriously. Being Lillian's (Maya Rudolph) best friend is the best thing she has going. When bridesmaid Helen (Rose Byrne) tries to steal the spotlight at every turn, Anne tries to compete and ends up risking her friendship in the process.

Go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/bridesmaids/ to read the complete review!

Body of Lies (2008)

Not A Run-Of-The-Mill Political Thriller

[7/10 · 8 October 2008]

Finally an above average political thriller that is effective and surprisingly politically neutral. That's not to say it won't irk those on the far reaches of either aisle in addition to the always irritable Iranian government. But, Body of Lies is a plot driven espionage thriller that demonstrates the basics of what Western intelligence has done right and wrong in the post 9/11 era without being preachy or shoving too much at the audience.

The movie follows Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), an operative trying to gather intel on Islamic terrorist cells to get to the head: Al- Saleem. He works closely with local contacts wherever he goes, only to find that his boss, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) finds them useful but disposable. After losing such a friend in Iraq, Ferris travels to Jordan to head up the U.S. Intelligence operations there. In Jordan he befriends Hani (Mark Strong), the head of Jordanian Intelligence, who places more value on patience and trust than speed and technology.

Anyone who read the title of the movie can guess the basics of what happens next: Ferris gets caught in a web of lies, some created by him, some by his boss, and he struggles to do the right thing and break free from all he has constructed. The lies are actually relatively simple and easy to keep track of. There isn't betrayal upon betrayal which so many movies get caught up in these days, but the pacing does suffer due to a plot that forces itself to be intricate when it would be better served by simplicity.

There is a point about halfway through the movie where Ferris comes up with the idea to construct a fake terrorist cell to challenge the cell they are going after. The idea isn't all that bad, but it basically restarts the plot instead of building it. The pacing of Body of Lies is suspect with plenty of these moments. Ferris doesn't seem to learn much from the err of his ways until the very end, so the characters, while compelling, are also stagnant for most of the movie.

Still, the performances are excellent if not extraordinary. DiCaprio has established himself as the best young actor out there for quite sometime now. His command of different voices, different languages (I've never heard a southerner speak Arabic as well as he does in this movie), and different mannerisms make him a consummate professional. Crowe, in my opinion one of the top few actors working today, is underused in what is really a smaller role than what the trailers showed. I guess every Ridley Scott movie just has to have Maximus in it. The two biggest standouts are Mark Strong, who plays the Jordanian Intelligence Head just serious and slick enough to make you wonder what his interests really are, and Golshifteh Farahani, who is the first Iranian born actress to appear in a Hollywood flick since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Incidentally Mrs. Farahani can't return to her native Iran until the court sees the movie and then decides what to do with her passport.

Admittedly, the love interest of Aisha played by Farahani seems a bit forced. Are Ferris' feelings for a woman really the only thing that can humanize him and realize that maybe he hasn't been doing things the right way this whole time? Body of Lies does such a good job of injecting emotion into it's storyline unlike so many recent political thrillers (think Syriana, Munich, The Constant Gardner, etc.), that it is disappointing to see it resort to such means in an attempt to humanize Ferris and give his life some real meaning.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Boring, but much better than the book

[5/10 · 13 June 2006]

Grade: C The best way to sum The DaVinci Code up is: boring. The movie plots along with our characters rushing from point to point, much like the book. The only difference is that director Ron Howard and his crew are much better filmmakers than Dan Brown is a writer. Unfortunately, the source material is so bland that the resulting film has a climax that is about as jarring as finding out whether a flipped coin landed heads or tails.

The plot of the movie stays relatively close to the book. Few changes are made, and none of them are significant enough to mention. Robert Langdon is invited to the Louvre by French Police Captain Fache to help solve the murder of the curator. He soon learns that he is the main suspect for the murder. French cryptographer Sophie Neveu rescues him and together they go on a long, long, long journey with many, many, many clues that leads to a discovery that contradicts major Christian beliefs.

As you may have already guessed, the movie was too long. The pacing for the 149 minutes is painfully slow. Even the beginning, which was the only reason I read the book in the first place, turns out to be passive. It's as if Howard wants to skip the initial event and jump right into the mystery. Not a bad idea, but it's not executed well.

Howard does a good job of translating the scholarly historical information (remember, it's fiction, a.k.a. fake, a.k.a. made up) into eye popping visuals. In the same manner Howard showed us the way Nash saw the world in A Beautiful Mind, he shows us how Robert Langdon solves puzzles by just looking at them. Sadly, Langdon isn't Nash. Langdon is a character without flaws, except maybe for sporting the always fashionable mullet. Once one of the great actors of his generation, Tom Hanks has apparently taken to the one-dimensional main characters (remember Viktor Navorski from The Terminal?). There is a ton of talent wasted here from the adorable Audrey Tautou to the always incredible Jean Reno. Why did all these famous and talented actors waste their time on a movie like this?

Luckily, Sir Ian McKellen saves the day as usual. His upbeat and complex portrayal of Sir Leigh Teabing gives the movie the swift kick in the ass it needs before falling flat on its face. Before Teabing, our characters plot along from location to location, clue to clue. A good mystery shows the audience the finish line so the audience can give a damn about what is going on. If it doesn't do that, it gives us characters we should care about along each step of the way. The DaVinci Code does neither. Teabing leads Robert and Sophie on a quest that has an end in sight, even if we don't know exactly what it is. He gives the movie a much needed structure and his short lecture really sets up the mystery (even if it is about half-way into the movie).

Now, what about the big controversy about what the movie is about? Quite frankly if you're somewhat educated and you think that this movie is anything but fiction, you're probably going to die tripping over your own feet sometime very soon. I understand the controversy because the controversial "facts" are presented as just that: facts. I don't want to spoil anything by getting too into the specifics, but it deals with Jesus and whether or not he had a wife. Those who are poorly educated (which is a large part of the worldwide movie going population) can mistake what the movie presents as actual fact. Thus the movie has been banned in countries like India and China and edited beyond recognition in others.

At the end of the day the movie will be successful because the book was successful. Millions of people gobbled it up because it was "entertaining." I ask for a little more from entertainment than a fake history lesson. Heck, it would have helped to at least be a good fake history lesson.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

disappointing, but exciting

[6/10 · 13 June 2006]

Billed as the third and final chapter of the X-Men trilogy, The Last Stand is a different kind of movie than the first two. Fans of the comics and fans of the previous films will be united in their disappointment in what really isn't a bad movie. The biggest problem with X3 isn't the plot but the execution and pace. There are two ways to look at the film: (1) this movie should be a good movie on it's own, independent of the previous two (which it is not on any accounts), or (2) this is the third act of one big epic movie (ala Lord of the Rings), and in this way it is very successful.

The plot is relatively simple: there is a cure for mutancy, and a debate rages over whether or not such a cure is ethical. Magneto and his brotherhood of mutants find that the source of the cure is a mutant child who is housed in Alcatraz (hence the ripping of the Golden Gate Bridge off it's hinges in the preview). The X-Men aren't really for or against the cure, but they don't believe that destroying the cure and waging a war against the humans is the right answer. During all this Jean Grey comes back as Dark Phoenix and wreaks havoc on those who oppose her.

New director Brett Ratner seems scared to touch on any of the serious issues that his predecessor, Bryan Singer, introduced and explored. There's often a beginning and an end, but no middle, no substance. Rogue's role is diminished to answering one question: should she take the cure so she can finally touch and kiss her boyfriend (and anyone else for that matter)? Now that's a deep, serious question to answer. The problems is that the depth of exploration is limited to one speech from Wolverine, and her final decision. In a movie that runs a trim 103 minutes (a whole 30 minutes shorter than the previous film), you would think that a little more time could have been devoted to the characters and the issues that face them. Instead there is a great deal of time spent on things that go boom.

That being said, the things that go boom are breathtaking. Not only are the action sequences visually astounding, but so is the rest of the movie. Almsot every second of every scene is infused with an air of mysticism and visual beauty that is rare in movies today. In the gigantic action sequences, Ratner does a great job successfully tugging on our heart strings as many of our beloved mutants either lose their powers or lose their lives. I was on the edge of my seat during the entire last action scene where Magneto rips the Golden Gate Bridge off its very hinges and crashes it down on Alcatraz.

In all, X3 is a highly entertaining movie that uses its visuals very effectively, but it falls short on becoming a great movie like X2 because it shies away from aiming from greatness. An X-Fan like myself can't help but be at least a little disappointed.

By the way, you should stay for the short (really, really short) clip at the end of the credits. It's well worth the wait.

King Kong (2005)

The Worst Movie of the Year

[2/10 · 11 May 2006]

Grade: D-

Poorly written, poorly edited, big, expensive, loud, and often tedious. Naomi Watts' performance is the only bright spot in the three plus hours of film. The screenplay is so terrible that it is hardly adequate to qualify for as a novice screenwriter's first draft. One dimensional characters, actions without reason, unrelated subplots, loose ends on all plot lines, and cheesy dialog are among the many reasons that Peter Jackson's Kong falls flat on its face. The special effects (except those on Kong) were ridiculous. This is the kind of movie everyone will look back at in a few years and go "really? we believed that looked real?"

In short, the first twenty minutes of setup are incredible, the last three hours are embarrassing.

Hostel (2005)

Better than expected, truly frightening

[6/10 · 11 May 2006]

Grade: B-

Not as gory as you might expect, but more psychologically disturbing than anything in recent memory. The first thirty or so minutes play more like a porno than a horror movie (though I suppose the two could often be confused for lack of quality) as three college kids pursue sex and drugs in, where else, but Amsterdam. The very idea behind Hostel is terrifying enough to keep the viewers attention. Once the torture begins, director Eli Roth doesn't stop. To say he creates tension is inaccurate. This isn't Hitchcock. Still, Roth focuses more on the anticipation of pain than in the pain itself. Often he shies away from showing us the torture: we don't see the drill going into the flesh, we don't see the ankles being slashed, but we know what's happening and that is even more terrifying. Hostel is still a horror movie with bad dialogue and useless characters, which is why giving it a "B-" is a little generous. It gets the grade because I left the theater thinking about the images and the situation: people being Kidnapped on vacation to be torture subjects for those who can pay for it. That's enough to keep me from backpacking Europe anytime soon.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Too much bad to go along with the good

[6/10 · 11 May 2006]

Grade: B-

Brokeback Mountain is a brave and daring movie that wisely doesn't focus on its controversial nature. This is a story about an unconventional love. The movie is quiet and simple, like its main character Ennis Del Mar. The biggest problems are that the performances and characters are the strongest points of the movie, not the screenplay and plot. Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams both give great performances well worth of the praise they are receiving. Jake Gyllenhall is very underrated. His character, Jack, is more outgoing, not as subtle or complicated as Ennis. The first act of the movie, until Ennis and Jack get together, is very slow. There are numerous shots and scenes with no purpose that really detract from what the movie could have been. All in all, Brokeback Mountain is good, but it's certainly not the best movie of the year.

Silent Hill (2006)

Absolutely Horrendous

[1/10 · 23 April 2006]

Grade: D- (2 out of 10) Only if the movie were as good as the poster.

Only if the movie were as good as the poster. Silent Hill does about as much wrong as a movie can do. Really, the only good things I remember are the cinematography and the music. The acting is horrendous, and I'm judging on a horror-movie level here, so it was really bad. Radha Mitchell is one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. She was horrible in Man on Fire, and she's even worse here. She doesn't even have a chilling scream. Isn't that the prereq for getting a part in a horror movie? Her saving grace was that everyone else was so bad, so after a while I just got used to it.

Here's a plot overview: There is a kid that is a little bit crazy. She runs off in her sleep and says "Silent Hill." Mom, Rose, takes kid to creepy ghost town called Silent Hill that she found on the internet (damn you internet and damn you mapquest). Things go very wrong in the ghost town.

That's really all I understood from the plot. If you're like me and haven't played the games, you won't understand a single thing in the movie. From what I've gathered, even if you have religiously played the games you'll be pretty confused. Silent Hill cops out by using 10 minutes of exposition towards the very end to try to explain the entire movie. The problem is that by that point I really didn't care, it still didn't make sense, and the movie could have dropped hints along its excruciating two plus hour running length to make the rest of it more bearable. The strange thing is that by the end I wanted less explanation and more...well, I really just wanted it to end.

The entire first hour and a half could have easily been condensed into about thirty effective minutes (and that's being generous with the time). It didn't help that there was a completely useless subplot involving Chris, Rose's husband. The only reason Chris was added in the first place was because the screenplay initially had no male characters in it. Great job Hollywood producers: green-light a crappy video-game-based movie, and then find ways to make it even worse. Bravo.

Granted the screenplay, especially the dialog, is downright laughable. Horror movies always have bad dialog, but usually its bad and funny. In Silent Hill, not so much. For example: Cybil: "They say this place used to be haunted." Rose: "I'd say they were right." I admit, I did giggle at that one, but there is much worse. In fact the dialog might be the only thing scary enough to make you jump out of your seat. There isn't a single jump-out-of-your seat fright or, more importantly, moment of tension in the entire movie (unless you find break dancing zombie-like things frightening). There are some loud noises, lots of darkness, and some neat special effects, but that's about it. There's plenty of violence and gore for the horror fans, but almost all of it is towards the end. Though there is a part towards the middle where a young girl has her skin ripped off her body that woke me up along with the rest of the theater...and I'm not even a fan of gore.

The movie was so bad that the people sitting next to me passing comments at the movie were much more entertaining than the actual movie. Don't get me wrong, I think that talking in a movie is a cardinal sin punishable only by the most powerful, deepest, darkest hellfire. These people deserve praise, not punishment, for entertaining me for free because I surely wasn't being entertained by the movie I paid $7 for (heck, $14 if you count my bored out of her mind girlfriend).

From what I hear, the game requires a quick trigger finger, but also a good amount of brains and puzzle solving skills. Ironically the movie is a brainless puzzle that isn't worth solving even if there is an answer. I can guarantee this will be on my bottom five of 2006 list; through April it's the worst I've seen yet.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Entertaining, but not insightful

[6/10 · 18 September 2005]

Grade: C (6 stars) I have mixed feelings about this movie. One one hand, it's well acted, relatively well written and directed, and overall it's entertaining. On the other hand, I rolled my eyes about a dozen times because the movie failed to convince me that Emily Rose was anything but a psychotic schizophrenic country girl whose condition could only be interpreted as spiritual by the Roman Catholic Church.

No offense to Catholicism in general (especially to my Catholic and Christian friends), but I often find that events involving God or the devil on Earth are never looked upon rationally by Catholic religious leaders. That being said, I found it strange that Father Moore was tried for negligent homicide and not Emily's parents. Father Moore's intentions seemed to be noble even if he was mistaken. Emily's parents were the ones who didn't just take her to the hospital to be cared for. They agreed to cease her being fed. They watched their daughter deteriorate in their own home and they did nothing about it except entrust her care to a priest whose only real solution was to attempt an exorcism which then failed.

As you can tell, I had somewhat of a bias towards this subject going into the film. I'm not saying that I do not believe in demonic possession, but I think with our knowledge of psychological disorders these days it is very hard to justify such a claim. There are a million and one question marks surrounding the validity of a demonic possession claim such as Emily Rose's. Let's apply Ockham's Razor (in a nutshell: when faced with two equally valid alternatives, choose the simpler) to her situation as presented in the movie. The evil all powerful devil decided to possess a basically useless 19 year old country bumpkin, or she was schizophrenic? The Virgin Mary (don't even get me started on that one either) visited this girl and gave her a choice to go to heaven or stay on Earth so people would believe in the spiritual realm, or, again, poor Emily was hallucinating due to her deteriorating psychological condition? Movies like this usually have trouble balancing science and faith. Emily Rose is heavy on the relevant scientific testimony in the courtroom, but easy on the spiritual testimony. The movie clearly wants us to believe Emily's story, but all the spiritual elements are treated very lightly. Dr. Adani, a defense witness who was supposed to create a relevant link between the scientific and spiritual worlds, gives a ridiculous and over the top testimony that would have been appropriate for a stoner hippie in some low brow comedy.

In the end, I did say that this movie is entertaining. It's a little long, and some of the scenes should have been cut shorter, but the flow and structure are tight. We always know where the movie is leading us. Emily Rose is predictable, but it knows where it wants to go, which, these days, is very refreshing. Laura Linney fills her shoes well as the confident attorney (though she seems to be the same person in every movie she is in) and Tom Wilkinson is the rock of the movie. It made more sense to me for Father Moore to be the main character because he had a stronger tie to Emily, and he had a more believable character arc as well.

In the end, I'd say if you have to see it, at least wait for DVD. After all, an evening show movie ticket costs about $10 these days. Factor in the gas money and the quality of a movie (especially for a "dinner and a movie" date) is increasingly important.

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

Exactly what it pretends to be: pretty good popcorn entertainment.

[5/10 · 21 July 2005]

Grade: C+

Fantastic Four is nothing more than it pretends to be: a big, loud, popcorn movie with cool special effects and an incredibly hot Jessica Alba showing off some cleavage. Just a note for my fellow males, you do get to see Ms. Alba in her undergarments, but only for a few seconds. The highest grade a movie with such low aspirations can possible achieve is a B. So, I found Fantastic Four to be entertaining, but not that entertaining. It could have, and should have, been better. It tries to follow the recent successful trend in exploring the origins of a superhero (or heroes in this case), but the problem is that is just keeps exploring for no apparent reason.

I've never been a fan of the Fantastic Four comic books because they were very light and fluffy. As far as the movie, it's not quite as lowly as Hulk (another comic book that I wasn't particularly fond of), but no where near the same league as the X-Men films either. The special effects are just okay. The Human Torch looks pretty good, but Mr. Fantastic looked very fake any time he stretched a limb. Visually the movie is very pedestrian. No cool camera angles, action sequences, or visual themes. The script is no work of art, but the poor direction brings the film down even further.

Like I said before, the biggest problem about FF is that it's not really about anything. There's no plot, nothing to keep looking forward to. The entire movie is about the four getting their powers and trying to get rid of them. That should have taken about half-an-hour tops before really diving into some kind of forward moving plot. Only one of the four, Johnny Storm a.k.a. The Human Torch, actually embraces their powers. If you had any of the four's powers, don't you think it would be fun to experiment a little instead of staying cooped up in an apartment all day? The casting was also questionable. Jessica Alba is hot, but I sure don't buy her as an uber-genius scientist. I did not buy her as a blond or a big sister either. She worked as The Invisible Woman, but her acting skills are definitely limited. I also was a little annoyed by Ioan Gruffudd (Reed Richards a.k.a. Mr. Fantastic) even when he was not supposed to be annoying. The other two of the four were casted well. Michael Chiklis was great as Ben Grimm a.k.a. The Thing. His character is the only one with a story worth exploring. He is also the only one we ever feel sorry for because his appearance has permanently changed into a man shaped rock. I think The Thing should have been a lot bigger and more intimidating, but that's something the director probably screwed up. Chris Evans, Johnny Storm, gave the movie some much needed comic relief. The way he took life so casually, trying to hook-up with every hot girl he saw, was a perfect counterbalance to the seriousness projected by all the scientists.

All in all I had fun watching the Fantastic Four. Would I watch it again? Probably not. It's very blah. But, its not so bad watching it once in an air conditioned theater for a couple of hours on a hot summer day.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Truly frightening and gripping.

[7/10 · 21 July 2005]

Grade: A-

War of the Worlds is an incredible movie that shows why Spielberg is the best director alive today. The overall plot is relatively simple: aliens invade earth, family tries to survive. But, it's the way that Spielberg handles everything that makes this movie what it is.

WOTW wastes no time getting started. We see the tripods (the aliens vehicles) within the first 10 minutes, and we know their intent almost immediately. The first action sequence is gripping, among the best I've ever seen. The tripod death rays come within inches of Ray, vaporizing everyone around him as he sprints though human ash. This scene sets the tone for the movie which is darker and more frightening than anything we expect from Spielberg (except Schindler's List).

The visual effects, especially the gargantuan tripods, take the frightening feel of the movie to another level. But, the most spectacular visual sequence of the film does not have any visual effects in it at all. It's something I've come to expect of Spielberg now. The most spectacular shot in Minority Report, a movie filled with dazzling CG, is where John and Agatha are holding each other, their faces in opposite directions, while the propose opposing ideas. Similarly, in War of the Worlds, there is a sequence where Ray and his kids are speeding down the freeway, and the camera seamlessly moves around the vehicle without being dizzying (Ala LOTR).

The decision to make this movie from the point of view of Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) and his two kids, as opposed to Independence Day which chose multiple points of view, is the right decision. We get personal with Ray, Rachel (Dakota Fanning), and Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and so we care what happens to them in every second of every scene. Ray's fight to save his children is even more gripping and Rachel's terrified screams even more piercing. Additionally, the movie transitions between the loud and the quiet scenes extremely well. The moments Ray has with Rachel and Robbie are just as important and entertaining as when the Tripods wreak havoc.

A lot of people have a problem with the ending, saying that it came to suddenly. It did not come out of the blue for me, but then again I've read the book. However, my friends who had not read the book felt the same way I did. The only real problem I had with the ending is that even though it fit with the plot, it didn't tie in with the theme very well. All in all, forgivable for what is otherwise such an entertaining film.

I think many people had trouble in the quieter scenes because they had issues with Mr. Scientology and his ridiculous publicity stunt romance with Katie Holmes. Once the lights went down, I was able to forget about Tom Cruise and instead watch Ray Ferrier for the entire running length. Cruise has always been one of my favorite actors and he gives another great performance here. Nothing award deserving, but effective nonetheless. He can be as crazy as he wants off the screen as long as his work on the screen continues to be this good.

There is also the "it kid" of the moment, Dakota Fanning. If you've ever wondered why there's so much talk about how talented this 11 year old girl is, watch this movie. Dakota is able to truly become a character better than most actors, regardless of age. If you don't believe me, then watch War of the Worlds and then watch Man on Fire. If you still, don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Denzel Washington, who said, "Twice in my career I can remember doing a scene and finding myself just watching that other actor. Once was with Gene Hackman, and once with Dakota." Now that's a hell of a compliment.

War of the Worlds is the second best movie of the year after Batman Begins. It doesn't strive for the level of perfection that Batman does, but it is incredible in it's own right as a film that's much more than just great popcorn entertainment.

Batman Begins (2005)

Batman Begins is quite simply the greatest comic book movie ever made

[10/10 · 21 July 2005]

Batman Begins is quite simply the greatest comic book movie ever made, and one of the greatest films ever made. With the trilogy now completed, it's appropriate and easy to look back and realize the full brilliance of the film. The introduction of Ra's Al Ghul and The League of Shadows as the villains allowed the final chapter to feature Bane in a plot that came full circle. To know Bruce, Alfred, and Gordon at the beginning of their careers allowed us to appreciate Bruce transforming into Batman, Alfred's growing father figure role, and Gordon's climb to commissioner.

The plot is complex. When Bruce witnesses his parents' death, he travels to Asia to learn about the criminal underworld. Along the way he meets Ducard and The League of Shadows who train him in the ways of ninja. Bruce escapes The League after learning of their plans to destroy Gotham. He returns to Gotham and takes on the alter ego of Batman to fight crime and return Gotham from the cesspool of criminals that rule the city.

The hero origin story has been seriously overplayed over the past 10 years. They're a dime a dozen and follow the same arc. What makes Batman more compelling than the others is that he's just a human that actively acquires his powers. He wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider, or shipped off from Krypton, or born as the God of Thunder. He's a tortured soul who finds relief in this alter ego he creates. The story of Batman isn't about Bruce Wayne, it's about Batman.

Batman Begins does the best job of showcasing the central character whereas TDK focused heavily on The Joker and TDKR on Bane and Lieutenant Blake. Christopher Nolan's touch is on every element of every frame. There's a scene after Bruce returns to Gotham where he has to act like he's having fun running around town in his sports car with European Supermodels. Leaving a party at a hotel, he runs into his oldest friend, Rachel Dawes. He tries to convince her that what she sees isn't him, but it's all for naught as the women in the background yell "We have some more hotels for you to buy." Nolan decides to drown out the sound, choreographed perfectly with the visuals as the sharp focus is on Bruce's tortured face, with the car and women heavily blurred in the background. It's one of the greatest shots ever captured.

Director of Photography Wally Pfister deserves much of the accolades. He frames Gotham in an almost sepia hue without the Instagram cheesiness. It works to showcase this the poverty and depression of the city yet give it a very comic book feel. This may be a realistic version of Batman, but it is still Batman. Much has been made of the action sequences being the largest weakness of the film. I agree that the hand- to-hand combat scenes are disappointingly weak. They're shot too close and edited too choppy. The rest of the action, mainly the Batmobile chase sequence, is skillfully handled. The fear in Bruce's voice channels to the audience as Rachel fades further and further from reality after being blasted with Scarecrow's fear toxin.

For the aforementioned chase, Nolan relied on no visual effects, even as the Batmobile flew across rooftops and through narrow underground roads. Nolan found a sort of empty playground in Chicago's upper and lower Wacker Drive that allowed for the chase to come to life as realistically as possible.

Much of the realism is thanks to the incredible cast. There's no over the top scene stealing actors here. There is terrifying amounts of talent. Christian Bale is the perfect choice to play the dark, brooding Batman and emotionally detached playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne. One of my favorite actors, Michael Caine, plays his butler/confidant/father figure, Alfred. Caine is so detailed that he gives Alfred just a slightly different tinge of his cockney British accent so as to be more appropriate for a butler. The cast is filled out with pitiful lesser actors like God, a.k.a. Morgan Freeman, perennial bad ass Liam Neeson, accent chameleon Gary Oldman, and ol' blue eyes Cillian Murphy.

Aside from the action scenes the biggest complaint has been the casting of Katie Holmes. After seeing TDK, I'm sure a lot of people wanted Mrs. Holmes back. The truth is that much of her negative press was centered around the Tom Cruise Scientology scandal. The character of Rachel Dawes was one of the weaker points of the first two films. Holmes isn't to blame. If anything she held her own against some of the greatest names in the industry.

Begins plays much like a great gangster film with all the right hints of comic book fantasy. Even if TDK and TDKR were never made, Batman Begins exists fully in its own skin. There is the Joker cliffhanger at the end, but you don't feel like the rest of the movie was setting you up just for the cliffhanger like every other big blockbuster these days. It's these subtle differences and detailed touches that make each frame of this movie such an absolute wonder to behold.

For more reviews like this one as well as other movie musings, go to http://thethreeacts.wordpress.com/

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Disappointing Visuals and Poor Directoral Decisions.

[5/10 · 21 July 2005]

I did not have high expectations going in because the trailer did not look that great to me. Still, I was disappointed by Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. There were some funny moments, decent visuals, and Johnny Depp was incredible as always, but at the end of the movie I just did not feel anything.

First of all, and for the bazillionth time, this is not a remake of the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They are both inspired by the same novel from Roald Dahl, but this version claims to be more faithful to the novel (which it's not). There is a lot I disliked about the movie, so here's a quick, yet descriptive, list of things: 1. Willy Wonka was "given a point." However, Charlie says "Candy doesn't have to have a point. That's why it's candy." Along the same lines, Willy Wonka doesn't need to have a point, but director Burton and writer August felt the need to make him more human for some reason.

2. The Oompa Loompa's were all one person (Deep Roy). They were creepy instead of cute and fun. There was no reason to have them all look the same.

3. Along those lines, the songs (except the Willy Wonka theme song) were horrendous. They were all like short acid trips. Then again, everything after the first 25 minutes was like a long acid trip.

4. It was visually bland for a Tim Burton film. It doesn't even look as good as the 1971 film. Everything looked like sets out of a Disney ride like A Small World. What happened to the guy that directed Batman and Edward Scissorhands? I'm not saying use CGI, but get a better set designer at least.

5. At the beginning the narrator declares that the story is about Charlie, and the movie is called CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory. It turns out that Willy Wonka is the main focus and Charlie is just there to guide Wonka along his character arc. In fact, Charlie doesn't have any character flaws at all. I cannot recall what is flaw was in the book, but in the original Charlie and his Grandfather disobey Wonka and have the fizzy lifting drinks. It is Charlie's basic good nature that then redeems him for his misbehavior.

6. Danny Elfman, what happened man? Normally a fine composer, this score ranks as one of the worst I've heard in recent memory.

So, by now you're probably wondering, why did he give this movie a C+ instead of a D? Well, there were a few unexpected saving graces in the form of Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore who plays Charlie. Charlie is the main character through the first 25 or so minutes of the film, but once we enter the chocolate factory Burton chooses to keep Charlie at an arm's length for some reason. Luckily, Highmore, who was great with Depp in Finding Neverland, is a good enough actor to keep us intrigued until he finds the golden ticket.

Once in the factor, Charlie virtually disappears beside Johnny Depp's much publicized creepy Michael Jackson imitation a.k.a. Willy Wonka. Aside from the high pitched voice and the pale face, there's really no Michael in this Wonka. Depp is famous for giving us memorable oddball characters and this one is no different. Is he creepy? Sure, but he's supposed to be. Wonka's weirdness is the only thing that kept me sane in the chocolate factory.

At the end of the day I was most dissatisfied because there was no magic. Every good kid's film needs to have something magical about it. I don't just mean that warm ooey gooey feeling inside from a happy ending, I mean that feeling you have after seeing movies like Beauty and the Beast or more recently, Finding Nemo. I realize that a live action children's film lives by different rules than animation, but that didn't stop movies like A Little Princess or even Willy Wonka from becoming classics.

If you have to see this movie, at least wait for it on DVD. There's no reason to go to the IMAX or your local neighborhood theater and empty your wallet for something as hollow as this.

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

Terrible

[1/10 · 10 December 2003]

Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.

But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.

Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.

In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.

The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.

The Last Samurai (2003)

The Best Film of the Year

[8/10 · 1 December 2003]

Where to start? Well, lets scratch the surface by talking about the obvious commercial draw of the film: Tom Cruise. This is Cruise's best film in a long career filled with great films. Here, Cruise is able to utilize his unparalleled action skills and showcase his underappreciated acting talent as Captain Nathan Algren. I have always believed Cruise to be one of the best actors in Hollywood; he is the only action star to put so much effort into each and every scene he does. In Samurai, he is surrounded by an equally talented cast headlined by Asian cinema star Ken Watanabe. Watanabe's performance as Katsumoto is one of the best this year and his chemistry with Cruise is incredible. Katsumoto is a man who demands respect with his looks, but obtains it through his actions. Lets put the performances aside for just a second. The overall look of the film is beautiful. Granted, to most western audiences any movie set in the Orient has beautiful scenery, but Samurai doesn't try to just showcase Japan's grand landscapes. Instead, the scenery flows effortlessly into each and every scene and compliments it. Even further complimenting the look of the movie are the simple yet beautiful sets. I cannot comment on the historical authenticity of the sets having only been to Japan once, but regardless the small, simple Japanese homes are adorned with vastly different personalities in each individual room. The transition between the simple Samurai life and the hectic battle scenes is perfect. Some will complain about the shakiness of the camera at times and that the shots are cut to quickly. Even I had that complaint at small parts here and there, but that's how a battle is: hectic, random, and unpredictable. The battles are among the most epic ever filmed, paralleled only perhaps by those in Braveheart. There are a few fight sequences that had the audience, including myself, applauding afterwards. The most well choreographed in terms of swordplay is one that will have the nerds inside many of us bubbling with joy. Just know this: Ninjas vs. Samurai. Usually when you have a western actor in a role that requires eastern skill (ala Keanu Reeves as Neo), there is huge disappointment among the masses. In this case a man like Cruise has worked his ass off so much that his mastery of a katana blade is as good as Watanabe's or anyone else's. Granted, I'd still put my money on someone like Watanabe in an off screen skirmish, but onscreen the two are equals as warriors. Reverting back to the Ninja vs. Samurai scene, the music is similar to the fast drum beats of Yo-Yo Ma in the first fight sequence of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. At the end of the scene my pulse was as high as ever and my jaw was wide open. The quickness and ferocity of the show that Zwick and the fight choreographers will not back down just because this movie is meant primarily for mainstream America. Almost as if to poke fun at that, there is a short but equally heart-pounding sequence where Algren kills a number of Japanese agents with swords. Initially, the scene is showed in real time, but it pauses after, goes back to the beginning of the sequence, and shows everything in slow motion. It actually means to show Algren's reflection or recollection of the fight that just occurred, but the fact that it works on the two aforementioned levels is even more inspiring. The inevitable final battle sequence is just as good mainly because it doesn't follow any of the common clichés found in other epic war films. Enough about the battles, the real brilliance of this film comes from its short and sharp dialogue and its patient but captivating pacing. The biggest surprise I found was that there were not corny dialogues or lines in the entire movie. Usually movies that showcase words like "honor" in their trailers have a cheesy scene somewhere in the movie. In Samurai, ideas and themes like honor and courage are practiced, not talked about. There are no speeches, only dialogues. Characters we don't like strike a chord as much as the protagonists. There is a point in the movie when Algren is leaving to go back to the Samurai when his commanding officer (Col. Bagley) asks him "what is it about your own people that you hate so much?" There is no answer from Algren, which makes the question and the point it tries to make all the more chilling. The most impressive dialogue is that written for the Japanese characters, particularly the samurai. Japanese characters consistently talk to each other in Japanese, and Algren eventually learns Japanese instead of vice-versa. The samurai dialogue never lapses into the typical "dumb foreigner" dialogue that just about every Hollywood movie showcases these days. Instead, the script, penned by John Logan and Marshall Herskovitz, treats Japanese just as importantly as English, and the Japanese just as important as the Americans. A few things both in and out of the screenplay that I appreciated about the film were the realism of injury and the patience and confidence to let the story unfold by itself. At about an hour-and-a-half, Samurai isn't a second too long or a second too short. It owes this to gorgeous editing and directing which allows the movie to start slowly and then take off when Algren reaches Japan. I mention the realism of injury because our main characters are constantly stabbed or shot and actually take time to heal. Algren himself is nearly killed in the initial encounter with the Samurai, and he is shot and stabbed numerous times in the final scene. A substantial part of the movie deals with his rehabilitation at the Samurai town. So, do I have any complaints at all? No. Upon second viewing maybe I'll find something that could have been a little better. Maybe the beginning could have been a little more interesting. Maybe the action could have been just a little less choppy. I don't know, but for now The Last Samurai is as great as epic filmmaking gets. It represents everyone at the top of their game with the utmost confidence in their artistic abilities. Cruise shows why he has consistently been Hollywood's leading man over the past two decades, and the cast of Asian stars and unknowns doesn't flinch for a second. Most people cringe to mention any movie as comparable in brilliance to Kurosawa, but Samurai places itself in those lofty ranks. This isn't just the best movie I've seen this year, it is one of the best movies I have seen from the past decade.

Grade: A+ (only one every few years) IMDB Rating: 10/10

X2 (2003)

Flat out incredible

[9/10 · 16 May 2003]

Grade: A

There's so much to talk about in a two-and-a-half hour movie that it's absolutely overwhelming. The movie starts with a highly original special effects sequence; something of a rarity in today's copycat special effects market. This sequence involves Nightcrawler's assassination attempt on the President where he takes out all of the Secret Service Agents in the White House. This "poof" special effect used for Nightcrawler's teleportation is one of the many wow-factors in this movie. Unlike most films, the opening sequence here is a good indicator of things to come. On a side note, director Bryan Singer makes an excellent decision to not mimic any special effects from The Matrix. X2 succeeds in the one department it's predecessor fell short in: special effects. Not only does it succeed, it's one of the few movies each year that effectively utilizes special effects (Minority Report and Harry Potter 2 were the only two from last year's effects filled pics).

Beyond the first sequence the movie flows effortlessly through it's plot points. The only complaint I really have is that the editing was not as good as it could have been. The scene-by-scene editing was fine, in fact I would have more than gladly stayed in the theatre to watch a 5-hour version of X2, but the in-scene editing could have used a little work at times. The storytelling is all but forgotten with a director like Singer aboard and with screenwriters that seem to know all the beloved characters inside and out. Fans of the series are given tastes of characters like Colossus, Jubilee (for about a second), Shadowcat, and most exciting is the preview of Jean's Phoenix character which I will mention later. This movie uses a perfect balance of characters from the first film while adding just enough to keep it interesting and not convolute it. I'd love to see Apocalypse, more Sabretooth, Morph, Beast, Gambit, and a whole lot of other characters in the next few films, but I can wait for them as long as the movies are of this high quality.

I didn't expect much from this film because of all the problems that were rumored during production (the most prominent was about some or all of the actors storming off a set when they, the director, and the producers all had some disagreement). But, most of the cast is absolutely flawless. Halle Berry and James Marsden (Cyclops) are the only weak links in the chain. Cyclops' crying scene towards the end drew quite a few chuckles from the crowd and besides her Oscar winning turn in Monster's Ball (which she did deserve), Berry has been one of the worst actresses in Hollywood. This time around her character has about the same number of lines, but none of the lines are as ridiculous as her "do you know what happens to a Toad..." line from the first movie. Besides, Storm kicks some major ass in this movie, especially in the tornado sequence where the Blackbird escapes two ensuing F-16's in breathtaking fashion.

What I liked most about his film was that even though it was PG-13, the characters even more closely resembled their comic book origins. Wolverine finally got to go absolutely berserk and actually stab people. When the mansion is invaded by government agents, Wolverine is shown stabbing a whole lot of them. Needless to say, this was one of the best moments in the film for me. Wolverine's character in the first installment was done as well as possible for the first film in a series, but in this movie his character will please the fans a lot more. The use of mutants' powers was so creative that I smiled even when I knew what was coming. Even when I knew who the shape shifter Mystique morphed into, I was able to appreciate the way Singer and his crew were able to use the camera in such a way as not to disappoint. My favorite use of mutant power has to go unmentioned because it is somewhat of a surprise, but in short: Magneto detects the iron in someone's body and extracts that iron to form balls which he uses to propel as bullets. I hope you can ignore the run on sentences, because after a midnight showing of such an incredible film, I'm definitely on a energy high.

Now, I haven't even mentioned the names Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, or Patrick Stewart yet. Then again there's also Brian Cox, Famke Janssen, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Anna Paquin, and Alan Cumming. In a summary of cast praise, the newcomers are all great with Cumming being the standout, and you get what you expect out of the cast from the first movie. I've said this before and I'll say it again: no actor has ever nailed a comic book character as well as Hugh Jackman has nailed Wolverine. Jackman is probably the most fortunate last minute casting change in movie history.

The character development is as good as it can be in a movie with so many people. I'm really unqualified to comment on how well the movie developed the characters because I new everything about them coming in to the film. Still, my friends who were not X-Men comic veterans didn't seem to have a problem grasping anything at all (another plus on Singer's resume). That being said, they also weren't fully able to appreciate the meaning behind the glimpses of Jean's full power. Everything from her nightmares in the beginning to her decision in the end is indicative of things to come in the next movie. Now, I can't comment for sure, but my bet is that the next movie will be about The Phoenix Saga. The last scene in the movie scans over the water where the damn burst with a running narration from Jean. Under the water we see a glowing firey object flying though the water just before the closing credits roll. What an absolutely incredible tease of an ending. The movie concludes in itself, but like all other great sci-fi/fantasy movies, it gives a glimpse of things to come.

All in all I can't say enough about X-Men 2. The action and story are incredible; when they are interlaced with a highly capable cast and jaw-dropping effects, it all makes for one of the best summer movies I have ever seen. This movie is exactly what the box office needs right now: a good movie that will have people rushing out to the multiplexes in the weeks to come. By the end of this movie if you don't find yourself debating which mutant's powers you most desire, I think it's safe to say your imagination is completely dead. I hope I don't have to wait another three years for X3 (a.k.a. The Phoenix Saga?). So, which mutant do you want to be?