stryker1121 Reviews

Zombieland (2009)

American 'Shaun' doesn't work

[15 February 2010]

"Zombieland" can't help but stand in bloody parallel to another horror-comedy road movie about two unlikely survivors of the undead apocalypse. Both "Zombieland" and "Shaun of the Dead," the former's ostensible overseas cinematic twin, are unapologetically crass, viscera-strewn studies of two lovable losers who must make their way in a terrifyingly changed world.

This rough plot sketch is where the similarities between the two films end. "Zombieland" replaces "Shaun's" charmingly English wit and creativity with an attempted skewering of American hubris and excess. The resulting effort is oddly flat in tone and surprisingly unfunny in execution.

There's just something missing in the relationship between "Columbus" and "Tallahassee," the heroes of the piece. The two wanderers, who go by their cities of origin instead of real names, meet on a vehicle-snarled highway in an unspecified time well into the zombie apocalypse. They are a predictably unalike duo—Columbus is a virginal nebbish whose obsessive-compulsive personality has kept him alive, while Tallahassee is more of a seat-of-his-pants free spirit with a penchant for fast cars, fast food and heavy weaponry.

Eisenberg and Harrelson are game enough in their respective roles, but their on screen chemistry is just not in evidence. Eisenberg's twitchy awkwardness is amusing, although he will draw inevitable and not unfair comparisons to the silver screen's current Mayor of Awkwardtown , Michael Cera. Eisenberg's snakeskin suit-wearing counterpart, meanwhile, oozes Southern charisma and is not afraid to chew the scenery. However, the two actors are not funny together, and are largely relegated to Eisenberg reacting nervously to Harrelson's deftly delivered put-downs.

The pair is also saddled with some contrived, "only-in-a-movie" character traits. Harrelson's Twinkie obsession struck me as pointless and should not have been a driving force behind the narrative. Eisenberg's phobias feel similarly phony, especially has terror of clowns. What are the odds our boy overcomes his fear and kills a zombie clown during a pivotal point in the movie? What do you think?

These plot devices feel forced, as does a particular catchphrase director Ruben Fleischer drops three separate times with the apparent hope of some kind of future cult recognition. Go to any frat party in the next few years and you may hear drunken rabble-rousers advising their buddies to "nut up or shut up" before doing a keg stand. F*** You very much for that Mr. Fleischer.

Emma Stone as con artist cutiepie "Wichita" injects some life into the proceedings, but not enough. The film really starts to flail during a weird, extended cameo by a certain comic actor. Hey, I like the actor in question, and the director obviously loves him, because he gives the guy ten minutes of screen time and heavily references several of his most popular works. It's just a strange meta moment that took me entirely out of the experience, for whatever it was worth up to that point.

Sadly, not much really works in "Zombieland." There are a few fun scenes here and there, and I enjoyed the clever deployment of "Columbus's" strict rules for survival in zombie hell. Sadly, those bits are scattered like shotgunned zombie brains against a gas station wall. I think I'll just go watch "Shaun of the Dead" again.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Worst entry of the series by far

[14 December 2009]

McG is the hamfisted directorial version of the Terminator…an unstoppable franchise destroying force who with "Terminator Salvation" may have managed to kill John Conner without firing a shot.

Salvation is a dull, cheerless exercise with not one character I cared about and not one line of dialogue that rang true. The man responsible for "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" has managed to take all the heart and emotion from James Cameron's efforts (and even the little left over from the mediocre "T3") and create an arch, clichéd, plot hole ridden, and above all boring Terminator film. How do you make killer robots boring? McG deserves a hearty smack for that inauspicious feat alone.

For all its numerous explosions, Salvation feels slight and hollow. Ostensibly good performers such as Christian Bale, Anton Yelchin and Bryce Dallas Howard don't fare well here. Sam Worthington, as a former death row inmate who's the victim of a hideous Skynet experiment, is the only player who has anything interesting to do. However, his character, like everyone else's, is so grossly underwritten that his actions later in the film have zero emotional impact.

Bale in particular is a disappointment. He channels his gruff Batman voice to make John Conner an angry, unlikable prick (Ah, the irony). Yelchin does a good Michael Biehn impression, but the circumstances in which his Kyle Reese are placed are ridiculous and cannot be ignored by even the most forgiving, disbelief suspending film fan. Put simply, if Skynet knows Reese is the father of the man leading the resistance, why not just kill him straightaway instead of capturing him?

This question is never answered, and the lack of explanation is just one facet of the lazy film-making on display. Another issue is one that plagues many wannabe apocalypse films, at least those made by untalented hacks. That is, while these people have been fighting for the existence of humanity for 15 years, many of them still look like they've stepped out of a Clairol ad. The nuclear holocaust must come with a great dental plan, because most everyone has perfect teeth. A small gripe perhaps, but reflective of the uninspired "blockbuster" nature of the proceedings.

Murderous machines or no, these plucky fighters have also managed to build a high-tech air force and a super cool submarine command center, while helicopters flit through the sky and buzz bomb unsuspecting robo-assassins. Remember that scene from T2 where Skynet's Harrier- like hunter/killer aircraft overpower the resistance's puny jeeps and outdated weaponry and the terminator robots actually seemed menacing? All of that sense of menace and danger is missing here. Not only do the good guys have awesome weapons, they also possess communications technology that allows one man to broadcast via radio to freedom fighters all over the country, if not the world. The horrifying, hardscrabble future portended in the first two Terminator movies is not so bleak after all, it seems.

The future of the Terminator series is cloudy, although McG has said he wants to make T5, and the end of Salvation certainly leaves things open for another sequel or two. My hope is that Cameron, finally finished with "Avatar," brings his storytelling vision back to the franchise, while McG goes back to making music videos.

A Serious Man (2009)

Good flick, very "Coen brothers" if ya take my meaning

[15 October 2009]

"A Serious Man" begins with a quote from biblical scholar, Rashi: "Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you." Writer/director tandem Joel and Ethan Coen's Judaism- injected black comedy also seems to ask the age-old question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

The Coens' cynically simple answer is, "Because they can."

Such is the lot of Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a seemingly stereotypical middle age Jewish nebbish whose comfortable, if routine life as a physics professor in the suburban Midwest of 1967 is beset by all matter of calamity – familial, job-related and otherwise. As Larry's status quo dissolves, so does his grip on life. The apple cart is upset, and the poor schmuck has no idea how to right it. Larry's family is no help: His wife wants a divorce, his daughter wants a nose job, and his pot-smoking son is busy studying for his bar mitzvah and ducking the neighborhood bully. If that's not enough tsuris, Larry's live-in n'er-do-well brother is dealing with some problems of his own.

The tortured family man's attempts to extricate himself from his multiple predicaments only make up part of the Coens' smartly self-contained tale. For Larry, the "whys" of his increasingly nightmarish existence become even more important than the "hows." Larry's desperation leads him on a darkly comic quest for solutions to life's tragically ambiguous questions. Our Jewish "everyman" learns that we cannot know everything, and that, in the end, not even God owes us the answers we seek.

Stuhlbarg, a Tony Award-nominated New York stage actor with several TV credits, infuses a fragile dignity into a character that could have simply been a whiny, Woody Allen-like schlemiel. Even Larry's moments of panic are tightly controlled, so much so viewers may feel a little bad for laughing at his troubles. Other cast standouts include the velvet-voiced Fred Melamed, whose rather inappropriate sympathy to Larry's crisis lend the movie its funniest moments. "A Serious Man" is one of the Coens' "quieter" efforts. While it lacks the "oh-no-you-didn't- just-go-there" dark comic insanity of "Fargo," its subdued, sardonic style works within the subject material, even if a few moments fall a little flat.

The Coens' latest is also is their most "Jewish" film to date. The morally complicated plot is full of Jewish flavor, and a prologue is set in a Polish shtetl where an unsettling folk tale plays out completely in Yiddish.

The prologue establishes a dreamlike tone. Happily, the film's hauntingly disassociative atmosphere stays mostly grounded in reality, and doesn't devolve into the impenetrable wonkiness of several of the brothers' previous movies.

"A Serious Man" doesn't deliver any easy answers, and maybe that's the point: Sometimes you have to figure things out on your own, even when the solutions are painful.

Superman/Doomsday (2007 Video)

Smart, edgy animated action

[10 August 2009]

Take heed, Hollywood..THIS is how you make a superhero epic. Superman: Doomsday is one of the best animated features I've seen in a great while. Action and pathos are smartly mixed in this gritty tale based loosely on the famous "Death of Superman" story arc, wherein the Big Blue Boy Scout is "killed" by an alien monstrosity accidentally unleashed by Lex Luthor's minions.

It's not spoiling anything to reveal that the world may be prematurely mourning its caped hero. Superman's return from the grave may not surprising, but the tightly woven plot and smart dialogue (along with a few well placed twists) surrounding this inevitable event elevate the feature above most of its action-heavy animated brethren. There's plenty of fun and inventive punchy-kicky-smashy here as well, but these scenes are well paced and don't overwhelm the affecting narrative.

The strong story is perhaps Doomsday's happiest surprise: Characters are given room to grow, and don't just stand as placeholders for the next big fight scene. Voice acting is down-the-line excellent, with standouts including Anne Heche (Lois Lane) and James Marsters (Luthor). Marsters is particularly superb, giving the megalomaniacal magnate a darkly comic twist (he also gets the movie's best line).

The PG-13 offering is mostly bloodless but contains a fair amount of violence. People get killed, some of them shockingly so. Nothing gratuitous, but surprising for a mainstream animated feature about Superman. The chaos never feels forced or out of place, and only adds to the edginess of the proceedings.

Superman: Doomsday is a must for anyone who enjoys narrative-driven superhero action. There are quite a few young "hack packers" in H-wood (i'm looking at you Bay and Ratner) who could learn from its "less is more" template.

Star Trek (2009)

JJ (almost) does it again

[6 July 2009]

Full disclosure: I am not a Trekkie.

I don't remember much from the original series besides campiness and hammy acting. I have fleeting memories of blue-skinned alien girls in beehive hairdos and spangled eye-shadow; spaceship interiors that looked like Hugh Hefner's den (velour furniture, purple wall sconces); Spock mind-melding with a paper-maché creature that resembled a moldy pizza (that was a weird episode); and red-shirted ensigns being gruffly pronounced "dead, Jim" by Leonard "Bones" McCoy.

The classic show led to numerous spin-offs, and while I have my nerdish leanings, I'm not a fan of "hard sci-fi," a term that sounds pornographic, but unfortunately is not. All it means is the writers of "Deep Space Nine" and "The Next Generation" got the theoretical science right when it came to explaining the intricacies of warp drives and particle accelerators. I went to summer school for high-school algebra for Spock's sake, so crazy moon-man talk about quantum physics fried my non-math-understanding synapses.

All I wanted out of J.J. Abrams's "Star Trek" reboot was an intelligent, character-driven sci-fi/ action movie, a scarce multiplex commodity in these dark days of Bay, Ratner and Emmerich.

Abrams did not have to march lockstep with the franchise's much obsessed over canon to make me happy, and truly, the red-hot "Lost" creator does his damndest to make the movie his own while (hopefully) keeping even the crotchetiest Trekkie pleased. The result is an ambitious, well-cast, but ultimately imperfect sci-fi experience.

The story smartly twists the origins of the famous USS Enterprise crew. Abrams contrives an alternate "Trek" universe that uses the series' beginnings as a kind of pushing off point. The result is an all-new film cosmos that recognizes the origin story while remaining free of that story's sticky narrative constraints.

Unfortunately, Abrams makes his solid if clichéd time travel/revenge plot less important than the re-introduction of the Enterprise crew. Abrams knows how familiar fans are with these mainstays, and ensures most everyone hits their stock catchphrases and shopworn character moments. Chekhov mis-pronouncing "V" words with "W?" It's in there. McCoy grouchily insisting he's a doctor, not a physicist, dammit? That's there, too. Young Kirk hooks up with a blue alien babe, and there's even a "red-shirt moment" (Ah, Chief Engineer Olson, we hardly knew ye) for particularly nostalgic fans.

I understand the necessity of offering such filmic signposts to help re-launch a foundering franchise. However, this new "Star Trek" has almost too much of a prologue feel.

A game cast of virtual unknowns elevates the proceedings, and gives me hope for the inevitable sequel. Chris Pine gets Capt. Kirk's brash arrogance just right without having to do a William Shatner impression, while Zachary Quinto's Spock is all simmering emotion under that placid Vulcan exterior. Karl Urban's McCoy channels a bit too much from DeForest Kelley's original-series performance, but it's still a dead-on imitation. The only cast member who suffers is Eric Bana, whose villainous Romulan ship captain doesn't get enough screen time to be a daunting presence.

My tiresome hair-splitting aside, I recognize that "Star Trek" is in talented hands. From his work on "Lost," "Alias" and the fun monster flick "Cloverfield," Abrams has shown he knows how to craft a smart, action-packed product. A meatier plot for the sequel will ensure his new franchise both lives long and prospers.

(For more film reviews, visit clevelandsportstorture.blogspot.com)

Little Children (2006)

One strangely affecting flick

[6 July 2009]

At first glance, "Little Children" seems to be just another cinematic tale of suburban ennui, where the bored housewife has a feverish summer affair with the hunky, henpecked househusband. What I did not expect was this grim, darkly comic, even bizarre tale of lust amid the lush, tree-lined streets of post-9/11 suburbia.

"Little Children" begins with a somber, outraged news report about a registered sex offender moving back to his old neighborhood after being released from prison. The tone of suburban paranoia and provincialism is set as we meet our two lovelorn protagonists- "boyish," bushy-browed Sara, whose colorless world is rocked after she catches her horny husband in a compromising position, and sexy "prom king" Brad, an ex-jock who humbly takes orders from his bacon-bringing (though aloof) documentarian wife.

Sparks fly when the soon-to-be sinners meet at a neighborhood playground... Their desperately passionate affair is just one aspect of this strange, oddly affecting film, made even weirder by an omnipotent narrator whose sonorous voice is reminiscent of PBS documentaries about the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa. The couple's hidden life crosses over with the similarly secretive existences of the ostracized sex offender and a bitter ex-cop for whom the "pervert" is his obsession.

None of these characters are particularly likable, but that's OK. They're just a shades-of-gray reflection of the human race. Ultimately, "Little Children" is a movie about people. Self-indulgent, greedy, confused little us. Just like real life, this film provides no easy answers to the questions that keep us up at night.

Lakeview Terrace (2008)

Thought provoking flick loses steam

[10 February 2009]

It's been a decade since Neil LaBute made "In the Company of Men," a scathing social satire that was by turns ugly and fascinating in its unblinking look at the dark side of human nature. The movie broke cinematic taboos in a way the makers of the pandering "Crash" could only dream about.

LaBute has made a few movies since "Company" – with the awful "Wicker Man" remake being his nadir. In "Lakeview Terrace," however, LaBute once again twists the social mores that make up the bedrock of American life. Here, a young couple moves into a tony Southern California cul-de-sac. Chris is white, drives a Prius, and listens to Public Enemy without irony. Lisa is black, wears pink harlequin glasses and sips wine at poolside. Together they are yuppies with a capital Y.

Their neighbor is Abel Turner, a black cop with a conservative mindset and a not-so- progressive outlook when it comes to interracial dating. Abel dislikes Chris on sight, and goes out of his way to make his new neighbors aware they are not welcome. The uncomfortable banter between aggressive Abel and getting-p!ssed-but-trying-to-be-civil Chris will certainly make the socially conscious viewer squirm.

Samuel L. Jackson chews scenery as the malicious if conflicted Abel. Meanwhile, Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington avail themselves quite well as the likable young couple. The duo shares a natural chemistry in a relationship that carries its own tensions and secrets.

In fact, much of "Lakeview Terrace" is quite tense, as it makes you think how you would react in such a potentially prickly situation. It's easy to dislike Abel for being such a macho, racist jerk, but his attitude stems from the despair he feels in the face of a changing society. His new neighbors represent a world Abel is obviously not ready for.

Ah, if only LaBute stuck to his socially cynical guns and didn't "go Hollywood" on us with a tacked on "thriller" ending! The last 30 minutes present pseudo-scary situations filmgoers have seen hundreds of times before. This blandness is all the more disappointing considering the thought-provoking 90 minutes preceding it.

Wanted (2008)

Rubbish...that's all I have to say about that

[1/10 · 31 January 2009]

Wanted is a dull exercise in guns, blood, ridiculous vehicular stunts, and mediocre CGI. I appreciate the film's unapologetic, in-your-face attitude, but the experience is overwhelmingly generic. There's your usual bullet-bending, Matrix-style action hackishly combined with a story about a nebbishy CPA who discovers he's the son of an assassin.

McAvoy is unremarkable in the lead role...I actually found him quite grating and unlikeable and never really believed he was some badass killer. There's some star power here as well w/ Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie's lips...they are adequate but not really given much to work with. And anyway, the actors take a backseat to the bloody action and mayhem, which I've seen done better in some of the ultraviolent Asian action flicks this movie is so obviously trying to emulate.

Stay away from Wanted, filmgoing public. Stay away!

The Wrestler (2008)

Aronofsky, Rourke serve a brooding meal that's not for everyone

[27 January 2009]

The Wrestler is a hard movie to watch. A patina of doom and desperation shellacs every scene in this story about washed out, sad eyed professional wrestler Randy "The Ram" Robinson.

This is no uplifting Rocky-like tale. Nor does it follow the rise-fall-redemption template of the recent spate of musician biopics. The Wrestler is about a man who's hit bottom only to discover there's nowhere else to go but down. Watching that negative trajectory play out on screen is an exceedingly uncomfortable experience.

Part of that discomfort stems from Darren Aronofsky's directing style. Several scenes resemble a documentary with a hand-held camera shakily following a shambling Mickey Rourke around the New Jersey hinterlands as he readies himself for a match. The bouts are held not in the packed arenas of The Ram's 1980s heyday, but in the bingo halls and high school gyms of the low-paying indie circuit.

The wrestling action is intimately filmed; the camera tightens around the two performers as they wince from the real pain of pulled punches and chairs to the head. An ECW-style hardcore match is especially difficult to watch. Here, Aronofsky unflinchingly shoots The Ram and his opponent brutalizing each other with lamps, thumbtacks and barbed wire. He then shows us the cringe-inducing backstage aftermath of medics removing glass shards from the combatants' scarred, blood-covered bodies. The latter is something you will not see during the average episode of Monday Night Raw.

What's especially sad is that The Ram takes these beatings for essentially chump change, and must rely on a concoction of prescription pain medications to push him to his next minuscule payday. Memories of past glories keep him going, as does the reverence of younger wrestlers and the adoration from the rabidly vocal group of fans who attend his small-scale shows. Ultimately, however, he keeps wrestling because there's nothing else he knows how to do.

The punishment Aronofsky heaps upon The Ram is not just physical. The former star lives at the poverty level in a trailer pathetically decorated with newspaper clippings of his heroic past. His relationships with other people, meanwhile, are tangential at best:

During the week he works at a grocery store, where his mean-spirited jerk of a boss humiliates him with cheap jokes. He spends much of his money on a hot-but-aging stripper, played by the still very gorgeous Marisa Tomei. Nor does he have a relationship with his teenage daughter, whom he deserted long ago. All of this adds up to a lonely, beaten-down existence with little hope for something better.

This sad circumstance is wholly embodied by Mickey Rourke, whose own demons have been well-publicized in the months leading up to "The Wrestler's" release. Simply put, this movie wouldn't work without Rourke's pained presence. His straggly, peroxide-blond hair and craggy moonscape of a face are disturbing wonders to behold. Physical and psychic pain surround him like some weird dark aura. It is hard to separate the character from the man, a fact that only strengthens the gravity of Rourke's performance.

Rourke's work makes it easier to overlook the cliché-ridden elements of the narrative: The machinations of The Ram's attempt and ultimate failure to reconnect with his long-lost daughter, for example, are trite and predictable. Tomei is solid as the stripper-mom with a heart of gold, but there's very little chemistry between her and Rourke, making her actions toward the end of the movie rather unbelievable.

All that said it is morbidly fascinating to watch Rourke's take on a man of a bygone decade where people listened to Ratt without irony and considered pro wrestling a legitimate sport.

I also admire Aronofsky for not bailing viewers out with an easy-to-digest message or feel- good resolution. His grim vision scarcely gives viewers a chance to breathe.

300 (2006)

Comical

[6 July 2008]

Do you like to watch thickly muscled beefcake slicing swarthy enemies to ribbons under a copper colored sky? Then '300' is for you. Otherwise, stay far away from this cornball pseudo-epic that falls flat in nearly every facet.

This is a flick that takes itself way too seriously while shamelessly borrowing from superior movies; among them 'Braveheart' and 'Lord of the Rings.' From the opening scene viewers are besieged with hollow speechifying and colloquial dialogue. Forget about any history lesson, '300' is all about the spectacle of slow motion CGI bloodletting, makeup effects, and the fine art of facial piercing.

Cardboard characters predominate the green-screen, er,landscape...plot twists are as subtle as a spear to the gut. It's hard to care about these Spartan warmongerers when there is nothing to a well-toned deltoid interesting about them. Meanwhile, the evil "god king" Xerxes wears purple lipstick and is about as threatening as Prince during his "Purple Rain" era. (Great album, though. Listen to that instead of watching this.)

Yes, there are a couple of cool fight scenes. The best early on when the Spartans literally push a horde of enemies into the sea. However, any political subtext, i.e. "freedom isn't free," is lost in the rest of this silly excuse for a war epic.

I Am Legend (2007)

Hollywood ending

[14 April 2008]

Try to conjure Manhattan as a ghost town; a vast, lonely chasm. Streets once teeming with people are now gridlocked by rusting vehicles and overrun by wild deer. Dusty skyscrapers lean toward the street like drunks, their broken windows leering like blinded eyes. There's no sound but the wind whistling through the spaces between these abandoned buildings…at least until it gets dark. Another sound grows as the sun disappears…an inhuman shrieking…

Scary, no?

Such is the post-apocalyptic backdrop of "I Am Legend," the fascinating, ultimately frustrating story of a man who believes he may very well be the last person on earth, although he desperately hopes otherwise. Will Smith plays Neville, an army scientist holed up in his fortress-like home searching to cure the plague that killed off most of the world's population and turned everyone else into something…unpleasant. The story begins 3 years after the apocalypse; Neville hasn't had any human contact in that time, and his only companion is his dog.

The first two-thirds of the film are all Smith's. He is excellent—perhaps the best he's ever been—as a man driven half-crazy by loneliness amid a decaying city. His life is driven by desperation and terror and a drive to "fix" a situation beyond his control.

Pretty heavy stuff…at least until the filmmakers lose their nuts and add an element unfound in Richard Matheson's ultra-bleak novel. This was a Christmas-time "tentpole" for Warner Bros. after all, so no downer endings here. We do get some pablum about faith and belief that have nothing to do with the brooding meal that was served over the previous 90 minutes. Too bad, because "I Am Legend" should have been a sci-fi classic; the watered down ending makes it a good film, but not the great one it could have been.

21 (2008)

Try your luck elsewhere

[12 April 2008]

The true story of six MIT kids who try to fleece Vegas is embellished to say the least in "21." There's lots of added drama, a heap of unintentional campiness, plot twists you can see coming down the Strip, and a love story thrown in for the hell of it. This flick was made for the MTV set...the mechanics of how these kids actually count cards to beat the system is explained quickly but not well. I'm probably an idiot (and I haven't read the book upon which the movie is based) but I still don't get it. This movie makes the "how" not really matter anyway. Why explain boring old math when you can have montages of our ethnically diverse group of spoiled geniuses bar hopping and shopping at Louis Vuitton? If you've seen the trailers than you know 21...there are no surprises here. There is a long running time that makes the last 30 minutes of the film agonizing. There's a few ham-fisted plot twists and double crosses and I kept expecting the movie to end...then WHAM, another scene of our lead character back at the tables in a cheesy disguise and more slow motion shots of the dealer flipping cards.

Sturgess is barely passable as Ben...he doesn't quite have the magnetism to pull off the various emotional shadings required of the role. There are parts where he underplays emotion and parts where he overplays them...he never really finds a medium. "21" would have been great ten years ago; give me Giovanni Ribisi in the Ben role and you have something cooking. But Sturgess is pretty blah...so is Kate Bosworth, who looks a lot like Priscilla Presley and nothing like a college student. The only two actors worth a damn here are Spacey, the acerbic ringleader of the young card counters, and the underused Jacob Pitts, who helps recruit Ben into the group.

21 does well to show the all-night-long decadence of Vegas, and there are some beautiful shots of the Strip at night. Otherwise the flick is by-the-numbers garbage.

Blade: Trinity (2004)

Uh...no

[22 January 2008]

I'm not a huge fan of the Blade series. After the innovative opening fight scene in the original Blade there's not much to recommend, unless you like your action movies loud and stupid. Blade III is the worst of the bunch—a disastrous combination of MTV-style cinematography and horrible writing. Not to mention Ryan Reynolds…dear Lord did I want to see him get butchered in some fashion.

The filmmakers were obviously trying to attract a young audience with the addition of hunky Reynolds and the hot Jessica Biel. Neither of them comes off well here. Reynolds's profane snark gets old after about two minutes; Biel's beautiful but doesn't have the chops to pull off a "dark" role like this. So she's "edgy" cuz she downloads trip-hop onto her iPod before a fight? Yes, there's not one but two scenes of Jessica futzing with her iPod. The film is filled with this kind of heavy-handed pandering toward moody teenage My Chemical Romance fans with black-and-purple bordered MySpace pages. Even Dracula, the main villain this go- round, looks like a douchey Eurotrash model when he's in human form.

The Blade series has always been a bit cold and sterile ¬– part three is just plain bad.

Cloverfield (2008)

Yes, it lives up to the hype

[17 January 2008]

The marketing buzz around the monster-takes-Manhattan movie "Cloverfield" has been compared to that of "The Blair Witch Project." The movies are similar in some ways, both on screen and off: In both flicks no-name actors run for their lives under the eye of a shaky hand-held camera. In each case the footage is supposed to be a tape "found" by authorities in the aftermath of some horrific event.

Off-screen both movies received tons of hype under the guise of a "media blackout." I remember some dopey "Blair Witch documentary" where locals in the town of Scaryville or wherever the fake footage was "found" were filmed drawling, "Ayuh, I heard tell of the Blair Witch" while eerie music played in the background. For "Cloverfield," the marketing blitz was of the viral variety, as film fans trying to find out about the movie ended up at a series of fake websites set up containing cryptic clues to other websites.

"Blair Witch" was an enormous box office smash. It was also a pile of dogcrap in this reviewer's humble opinion. I don't know if "Cloverfield" will find the same success as "Blair Witch." But I can tell you now that it's the better movie by leaps and bounds.

Of course, "Cloverfield," produced by "Lost" creator J.J. Abrams, is a much more ambitious undertaking, using all of Manhattan as a playground of destruction. It starts off in a posh loft where a going away party is being held for (I think his name is) Rob, who is leaving for Japan (the cinematic birthplace of the city-smashing giant monster) for a job. The party is being "documented" with a hand-held video camera by Rob's best friend, Hud. The shindig is disrupted by what partygoers think is an earthquake. (It ain't) Then the real fun starts.

And "Cloverfield is a good time. It's pretty intense, and at times quite comical. The film strives to be "a monster movie for the YouTube generation," as its director states. In that account "Cloverfield" mostly succeeds, but it does help to suspend your disbelief a bit. For example, why does our amateur documentarian continue to lug around that camera while the city crumbles? "People are gonna want to see this," he says by way of explanation. I can live with that. In this shrinking Web 2.0 world, where you can access public video sharing websites and watch Saddam Hussein get executed, it's no surprise someone wants to record the end of all things.

Believe the hype boys and girls. "Cloverfield" is an exciting ride all the way through.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Emo Spidey and the Three Villains

[24 December 2007]

The first real misstep in Sam Raimi's heretofore superb Spiderman franchise. SM3 suffers from an affliction that plagues many action sequels—the misguided necessity to make each successive movie bigger and louder. Apparently using this logic, Raimi shoehorns three bad guys into a messy plot filled with lame contrivances and thinly sketched characterizations. Sandman and Venom don't get the screen-time needed to make them affective or interesting enemies. The two baddies join forces near the end of the film in a scene so superfluous I had to laugh. James Franco is the only one who stands out among the black hatters. He's excellent as the tormented new Goblin. I would have loved to see the entire film built solely around his and Peter's crumbling relationship.

There's plenty of speechifying and sappiness in SM3. Poor Peter and even Goblin, Jr. get their ear bent a few times. There's a lot of crying as well, but all this emotion and drama falls very flat, unlike the first two films which largely managed to avoid the maudlin and obvious. Peter's transformation after he's infected by the evil outer space gunk is also handled curiously. How can you tell Peter's "bad?" Well, he leers at women on the street, wears his bangs over his eyes, and makes the landlord's cute daughter bake him cookies. Ooh, how dark and edgy! Oh yeah, and evil Spidey dances, too. Gave me chills, man.

Extras (2005–2007)

Mix of drama and comedy that doesn't always work

[17 December 2007]

As a fan of "The Office" I wanted to check out the latest offering from Ricky Gervais. (Of course The Office and Extras are different entities so there's no comparing them.) I recently watched the first season of Extras and was a bit underwhelmed. The first two episodes had some hilarious moments, but the last four offerings concentrated on pathos and melodrama more than laughs. Nothing wrong with that...it's just that the show overall didn't seem to know where to go at times..the comedy and drama did not always mix well.

As far as the stunt casting of various celebs--some of it worked for me, some of it did not. As an American I must admit I'm not very familiar with the work of Ross Kemp and Les Dennis, but having Ben Stiller act the ass is nothing new if you've seen any of his films.

Batman Begins (2005)

Disappointing

[7 September 2007]

Batman needed an infusion of new blood after Joel Schumacher turned the franchise into a candy-colored nightmare in the '90s. "Batman & Robin" is likely the worst superhero movie in cinematic history. I wanted to like "Batman Begins," and it certainly arrived with an impressive pedigree. Nolan's "Memento" was dark and intriguing. Bale was impressively nasty in "American Psycho."

So what happened? Why was BB such a bore?. I'm all for a "darker" Batman, but where "Batman and Robin" was campy and stupid "Batman Begins" is plodding and pretentious. It took itself way too seriously. There were some cool individual scenes—Batman stalking bad guys in the shipping yard, Bale facing (and embracing) his fear of bats in the soon-to-be Batcave—but the last half hour was one long action set piece we've seen 100 times before.

Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman has zero charisma, which came as a surprise coming from such an impressive actor. And what was with that gravelly voice Bale used while in costume? I know Wayne's trying to protect his identity, but it just sounded goofy to me. The worst casting choice was Katie Holmes. First, she looks 17, and second, she doesn't have the gravitas to pull off this role. If she's an assistant DA than they might as well have cast Pauly Shore as Batman.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Enjoyable if you're a fan of the show

[5 August 2007]

It seems late in the day for a Simpsons movie. The show can still be counted on for some hit-or-miss laughs, but obviously it's not as good as it was during its heyday a decade and more ago. The movie is a reflection of the current state of the show. For longtime fans, there's certainly some chuckles to be had. But there's not a lot of belly laughs to be had, and for that I was a bit disappointed, if not surprised.

I found myself smiling nostalgically more than laughing throughout the 90 minute running time. There's some good sight gags and various amusing Homer-related moments. I didn't even mind Groening and Co. taking the family out Springfield. However, the biting satire which separates the Simpsons from the Family Guys of the world is not quite as sharp as I'd like. Again, this sad fact mirrors the Simpsons recent small screen efforts, but I wanted to love this movie and I did not. It's fun, it's enjoyable, its The Simpsons, just don't go expecting "Homer Goes to College"-era hilarity from our favorite cartoon family's first movie.

Alien 3 (1992)

Bleak sequel hasn't aged well

[1 August 2007]

The last time I saw Alien 3 in full and unedited was about 10 years ago. At the time, I considered the sequel to be a dark, brooding, mostly satisfying follow-up to Aliens. I dug the film's bleakness, and while it wasn't as elegant as the first film or as action-packed as the second, I still considered Alien 3 be a fitting (if depressing) end to Ripley's dark journey.

I recently read about the studio cut of the film, so I decided to revisit it via Netflix. The longer studio version (not a director's cut—as I understand it Fincher had nothing do with it) offers an altered beginning and ending, as well as several extra scenes that flesh out a few secondary characters and fill a few plot holes (like what happened to prisoner Golic). Unfortunately, the longer cut only serves to exacerbate flaws that weren't readily apparent to me upon that first glance a decade ago.

(MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD)--It pains me to write this, but Alien 3 is largely an incoherent mess. The first 30 minutes are OK, as we see Ripley mourning the loss of her surrogate daughter and adjusting to her potentially dangerous new environs. Sigourney Weaver is fantastic as she was in the first two films, so no problems there.

The plot begins to unravel after the beast's first appearance. The last 90 minutes consist of the alien (only one creature this time, like in the first flick) picking off the prison population, an interchangeable band of bald, white, English guys. Only a few characters stand out, and one of them is inexplicably killed halfway through. The final elongated action scene is particularly wonky, as we get alien POV shots as it chases its victims through the prison complex's dank corridors. After awhile it becomes difficult to tell who's getting eaten and who's not, and frankly, it doesn't really matter, as these characters were so thinly sketched in the first place. And the final-scene cameo of a certain actor from the previous film simply makes no sense.

Plot's not the only problem: I remember reading about the various script changes during the long hiatus between Aliens and Alien 3. That instability shows here...particularly towards the end of the film when the dialogue becomes ridiculously vulgar. I'm no prude, far from it, but all the f-bombs seemed forced and unnecessary. Again, Weaver's quite good, but there's only so much she can do with garbage lines like, "They think we're crud." Alien 3 isn't a complete waste of time...and it's better than Alien:Resurrection ...the special effects aren't great, but not as bad as some IMDb reviewers contend. The sets and costumes are industrial and gritty, and I still enjoy the movie's overall bleak atmosphere, which at least sets this film apart from its predecessors. However, Alien 3 does not give me the kick that it once did. That makes me a little sad.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Fun but forgettable action sequel

[5 July 2007]

Live Free or Die Hard is pure action movie fluff, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's not much of a good thing either. After all these years the franchise feels a bit played out and generic. High-tech gadgets, over-the-top stunt sequences, CGI cars flipping around like tiddly-winks, henchmen dying elaborate deaths--some of this stuff is pretty cool, but none of it is terribly original. Action fans have witnessed these same scenes innumerable times since the first Die Hard kicked out collective asses with its genre-bending awesomeness. Unfortunately, the genre is watered down to the point where this fourth iteration is indiscernible from the hundreds of films that copied and expanded the first Die Hard's template.

LFoDH is not terrible by any means...Willis is still cool at 52 and Justin Long makes for an amusingly snarky sidekick. It's just that the movie feels strangely "safe." The action sequences are fun but you probably won't remember much about them once you leave the theater. The lead villain is a bit bland as is his plot to disrupt America through cyber-f@ckery. The strongest epithet our profane hero gets to use is "jerk-off." And as for McClane's famously vulgar catchphrase? Forget about it, cuz this is the land of PG-13.

By the end, there's no defining moment that separates this film from others of its kind. That's more a reflection of a dying genre than a bad movie. We've seen it all before.

Casino Royale (2006)

"Royale" without cheese

[30 April 2007]

The moribund Bond series gets a much needed shot in the gut thanks to Daniel Craig. Gone are the bland pretty boys with their tepid sexual innuendos and corny one-liners. Craig brings a nasty and cold-blooded jolt to the usual tux-and-martini shenanigans, officially resuscitating the corpse that was cinema's longest-running franchise.

Craig's steely intensity brings weight to a typically thin Bond plot. Following a brilliant chase scene, the film is slowed by several prolonged card-playing segments that bloat the proceedings to an overlong 144 minutes. What's more, the movie's convoluted finale is rather predictable and unsatisfying.

However, thanks to Craig's stirring 007 turn, these flaws can be somewhat forgiven. Thankfully, the new Bond isn't the same as the old Bond.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Pirates 2 rides on Depp's sexually ambiguous shoulders

[15 February 2007]

Pirates 2 is Johnny Depp's show...his eyeliner wearing, rum-soaked Cap'n Sparrow has fun even when selling out his friends to undead fish people. Depp is truly the most interesting thing about the movie, a bombastic, CGI soaked affair with some impressive special effects and solid action scenes.

The biggest problem with Pirates 2 lies with Depp's supporting cast. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley are both very pretty, but neither comes close to matching Depp's charisma. Bloom in particular may look good in knickers, but for all his swashbuckling and hero-making, his performance is as bland as dishwater. The film's physically unappealing secondary characters are much more interesting. Pintel and Ragetti are strangely likable, Davy Jones is satisfyingly grotesque, and I found myself weirdly attracted to Tia Dalma.

Pirates 2 is very dark for a Disney flick—along with the requisite pirate-y betrayal and (figurative) backstabbing, there's some relatively nasty PG-13 deaths (including throat cuttings and hatchet hackings) and I know if I was six I'd be terrified of Jones and his scaly crew. Older viewers won't be bored by this film, but unless they're huge Depp fans, they won't be that thrilled, either.

The Departed (2006)

"Departed" left me cold

[15 February 2007]

Hack movie critics treated to expensive press junkets gushingly referred to "The Departed" as a "tour de force!!" This film is certainly that: An ensemble cast of A-listers chew up the scenery in put-on South Boston accents amid a twisty plot and plenty of Martin Scorsese-brand stylized violence.

It works..for awhile. But as the film wears on and the body count piles up, the twisty plot becomes formulaic and predictable and the Southie accents ("fahk you ya queeah!" is a common turn of phrase for example) start to grate on the viewer's (well, this viewer's) nerves. After 2 hrs and 30 minutes of bloodshed and screamed curse words, by the end I was left cold and unmoved by the spectacle, and left wondering why this thing was nominated for an Oscar.

Resident Evil 4 (2005 Video Game)

Love this game

[26 January 2007]

RE4 is an immersive, incredible experience that outdoes its predecessors in almost every aspect. Tank-like controls (I'm looking at you, RE:Zero) have been replaced with a behind-the-back camera system that works very smoothly. There's no strafing, but the controls allow you to do a 180-degree turn while your back is to the enemy. It takes some getting used to--after a time the maneuver becomes quite natural. Aiming is much more precise as well...you'll find yourself blasting kneecaps with the laser sight just to save ammo. This is no hell-for-leather shoot-em up like Halo or Black, although you can upgrade your weaponry throughout the game. There's some very cool firepower on display which deliver satisfyingly nasty death animations.

There's also combination button strikes that allow you to perform various maneuvers in combat or in other precarious circumstances.. The button combinations are switched up so the action does not become too easy or repetitive. Seasoned RE fans will be happy to know that the annoying ink ribbons have been dispatched for a smarter save system. Graphically, there is no GC game that stacks up to RE4. I'd argue that the graphics are better than some next-gen titles. The disparate backdrops where Leon finds himself are effectively moody and atmospheric. Lighting effects, water effects, and enemy design are all above board.

But where RE4 truly shines is the gameplay. Put simply, this game will kick your ass. Do yourself a favor and play it at medium difficulty at the very least, and without the help of a guide. (Why anyone would use a guide for any game is beyond me, but that's neither here nor there). While RE4 is largely bereft of cheap "boo" scares prevalent in past RE incarnations, you will sweat it as swarms of fast-moving enemies chase you down. No joke—my heart was pounding during the farmhouse shootout sequence. It's rare for any game to deliver an almost constant feeling of eeriness and unease-- this game manages to do just that. I've read some complaints on these pages about the boss fights being "too easy." I disagree. I found the boss battles challenging; each one has a different wrinkle and you will not get bored.

The single player mission clocks in at a good 20 hrs. If you need a complaint I guess the story is rather convoluted. It's not completely idiotic but some of the plot twists don't make much sense. And while the voice acting is decent, there's still some cheesy dialogue. Nothing on par with the infamous "master of unlocking" quote from PS1, mind you, but you'll still find yourself chuckling at some of these clunkers. These complaints are trifles, however. RE4 is not just the best survival horror title out there, it's one of the best console games ever made.

Superman Returns (2006)

For fanboys only

[15 January 2007]

The kindest thing I can say about Superman Returns is that it's an earnest attempt by director Bryan Singer to pay homage to the original films. That's also the movie's biggest problem. There's nothing really new here, and what's on screen fails to distinguish itself.

Appeasing fanboys seems to be Singer's goal here. Title graphics and music are the same as the Reeve films, Marlon Brando is resurrected in voice over, Lex Luthor is the villain, etc. But look deeper and that's pretty much all there is to it. This movie is all surface. The special effects are great, sure, but lots of movies have great special effects. SR is another one of those big, expensive summer "blockbusters"—all style, no real substance, unlike, say, Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies, which offer both style AND substance.

Brandon Routh is actually pretty good as Supe, but he lacks the clumsy, boyish charm of his predecessor. There's very little chemistry between Routh and Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane. And I hate to say it, cuz I love the dude, but Kevin Spacey is miscast as Luthor. Spacey's Luthor is more annoying than evil, and his plot to take over the world is lame.

I'm not a huge Supe fan, so maybe you'll like Superman Returns if you're feeling nostalgic for the originals. There's really not much else to recommend it.