aqua_swing Reviews

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

A fine piece of cinematic history, kind of like Re-Animator

[8/10 · 18 August 2006]

The thing about Snakes is that people forget it's not all in the name. Everyone is in on a joke. Everyone wants to tell you the joke as fun as possible. This is is the movie in a nutshell.

Nobody cares about the plot holes, or even the most insanely crazy snake vision thing (yes, I said green-tinted snake vision). Nobody cares about the main characters besides Samuel L. Jackson, or the fact that we only see Eddie Kim (guy who puts snakes on plane) at the start of the movie, or the fact that some of the people on the plane are just as hilarious as Jackson's continued one-liners.

Besides Sam Jackson, the flight attendants, and a few other random people, some of the other main characters have maybe two lines in the whole film, which I find kind of funny. There are LOADS, LOADS of one liner quotes throughout the ENTIRE film, some of them laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Director David Ellis knew what he was doing. He knew exactly what crowd he was looking at for this movie, he knew exactly where to put the T and A. He knew where to put the jokes. He knew that having snakes bite people in obvious places would get viewers to laugh instead of cringe, and he knew how it would change the characters in the end.

And you know, as bad as some people might say this movie was, that was kind of the whole point of the thing. But the difference between a terrible movie and a good B movie is that everyone associated with the film knows it's bad, and they end up having fun with it, which, in turn lets the viewer in on the joke.

That's where it really counts. If you had seen a trailer and were not blinded by the internet fandom, thinking this might be some kind of serious film, re-think your options. This is campy and hilarious, the kind of movie it was supposed to be in the first place.

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

Avast! Craploads of characters, but Jack keeps some of it in check.

[8/10 · 7 July 2006]

Ah, Pirates. The movie of the summer, I'd imagine. Regardless of whether this thing is going to get good or bad reviews, people are going to go in droves to this thing, and they should.

The best parts of the movie were self explanatory, really. For me, and for most people it was Depp again, but I saw that coming. This seemed to be another one of those "The movie is alright but his performance makes it grand" thing, only not so much as say Secret Window or the Ninth Gate where he was 'making' those movies completely good. This one had a strong cast, but at the same time had a whole huge load of a supporting cast, and could make anyone paying half attention to the story easily confused (like the person sitting beside me).

It had some great CGI things with the evil pirates from Davy Jones' ship, and the little story involved with Will Turner and Bootstrap Bill was introduced quite well, because it gave both the viewer, and the people involved that "out of nowhere" feeling, so it was easily identifiable. They do tend to pack a whole crapload into the first hour or so, just to have that 'wrapping up' feeling to make sure that you're following along from the previous film, which seemed to be the same as the first hour of Superman Returns (which was only 4 minutes longer. Howabout that!). But like Superman Returns, the rest of the movie following that hour is smooth sailing until it's hang-ending that you can see coming from a mile away if you're paying full attention to the film and not just staring at Captain Jack and waiting for him to do something funny. Oh, and Keira Knightley's in this movie too. I forgot that. She's cute, and mostly lost in the shuffle behind all of the other massive amounts of characters that are there as a seemingly effortless (but actually not quite) plan of wrapping everything up in the third film.

The one thing I do like above everything else about number two is how much darker it was. It wasn't the happy, almost always sunny movie the first movie was, this was something a bit darker, a bit scarier, and a bit uglier. That's how it should be, and they pulled that off beautifully, savvy?

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

The most disappointing.

[6/10 · 27 May 2006]

When comic books turn into movies, there's always an element lost in translation, a storyline that gets touched upon, parts that get torn out or missed, or even completely ignored. It's part of the whole formula that makes it cater to broad audiences that don't read comic books, that always have fans of whatever series is coming to the screen upset that specific parts are left out.

And that's where X3 leaves me. When I'd heard that they were visiting the Phoenix story in this film, I wondered how exactly they would be able to fill a whole movie with the story, and not let most people down.

The basics of the story are covered, sure, but the character issue is there, that half of the things that would be important had they been signed on for more than three movies are completely and utterly tossed aside.

Now, I can live through that. But what I can't live through are the lines given to Halle Berry. She said she wouldn't sign on unless she had more lines, they say. It's funny, because the lines they've given her are almost exactly the kind of terrible one-liner clichés that she'd had throughout Catwoman, and I found myself shaking my fist every time she came to the screen.

So terrible, so very terrible.

On the other hand, there were some really great parts. Beast (Kelsey Grammar) was fantastic, Logan was great, Shadowcat (now that she has LINES!) was great, and Magneto was also fantastic. The rest of the characters were boring, silly, stupid, and not very much fun to watch.

This my friends, is the worst of the three movies. Plot flies by with nary too much weight, story lines don't develop very well, and some of the fight scenes are boring.

Sad to think that when I'd told people I'd seen this movie that I was more excited seeing the trailer for Snakes on a Plane, than actually talking about the movie.

Man with the Screaming Brain (2005)

Bruce knows why we like him.

[8/10 · 13 May 2006]

Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.

For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.

The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.

With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.

If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell?

The Libertine (2004)

A bunch of Eh.

[5/10 · 13 March 2006]

The Libertine is that kind of movie where you watch and go "eh". You laugh at some parts and you smile at some parts and some parts amaze you, but all in all it's not really that great. It resembles Secret Window, kind of, where Depp carries the movie, and where you go into work the next day after thinking about the movie and you say to yourself "There was a lot of really strange stuff in that movie. It's okay. It's not bad. But there were so many large phallic symbol items!" I'd recommend seeing it if you're a Depp fan, because he is as he always is. His face, even when he's doing the smallest things on screen beg you to look at it. But overall it kind of drags in many spots, and flies all over the place. You never get the feeling that there are many characters outside of the Earl of Rochester in the movie. Everyone else is playing a significantly smaller role.

There's no doubt it's about Rochester, but to have a stronger associated cast would've probably made all of the immensely weird portions more bearable, and sensible, even.

Robin and Marian (1976)

More fun to watch than anything Costner ever did.

[7/10 · 9 January 2006]

There have been many film versions telling the tale of Robin Hood and Maid Marion. This is my second, and favorite, so far. It's a much better telling of the megathon that starred Kevin Costner, because it seems more down to earth than the other. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn are a fantastic screen duo playing the pair, as if their chemistry had been borne much beforehand. The story follows the Merry Men much later in life, re-visiting the roots that brought them to where they are, bringing back the band of old folks, and fighting again for glory against the same old enemies, and though the plot never dictates to follow anything but a few main characters, and that's okay by me.

A strong outing all around.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

A good starting place for new fans to Hepburn

[6/10 · 6 January 2006]

This is about the fourth or fifth movie starring Audrey Hepburn that I've had the pleasure of watching. Charade was really what turned me on to her brilliance, and some of her other roles just had me hooked. Strange then, that I was keeping this for a little later, as I've only ever been told that this is her masterpiece, this is the movie that everyone knows her by, this is the movie that will really make you believe? Unfortunately, for me I found myself a bit disappointed. Unlike her earlier roles in Sabrina and Funny Face, where she was treated as a child, she would hardly act as one. But I'd found that Breakfast was really a childish type movie, trying too hard, you know?

And this movie really is all about Hepburn. She is the focus of the complete film, and everything pretty much revolves around her, but it seems to be just a little bit out of focus. As if everyone's running around with heads chopped off to make it seem better than it could be.

I would have probably enjoyed it more had it been earlier in her career. But with all of the movies surrounding this one that were released (pre and post), it just seems like a disappointing middle-part.

Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

A fun movie about making a movie that looks more fun than fun can be.

[7/10 · 4 January 2006]

Interesting summary? I haven't seen many films that include people making a film, where the ideas that come out of the making of the film, go into making the actual film. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've seen any kinds of films like that.

This is a fun movie. It's a fun movie because Holden and Hepburn make it so. It's a sound plot idea, but could have had so many outs into being terrible with the wrong people acting in it, but the whimsical nature of both stars here make it an entertaining romp through Paris.

And I do believe it's one of Hepburn's more underrated movies. She's as fantastically drawing here as any of her other roles. One of the only actresses that I can remember in my history of movies that you end up just ogling on the screen, your eyes never leave her, because she makes you feel everything she's going through so well, that it's effortless.

A great movie to sit at home and watch on a lazy summer Sunday.

River of No Return (1954)

Stalwart Mitchum makes the best out of the bits

[4/10 · 4 January 2006]

I must admit it to myself and everyone else, that I've always found Marilyn beautiful. Who hasn't? She's a poster child for everyone who's come along since. But up until now I actually hadn't seen one of her films.

And on that note I must say, that it's not a very good place to start. Co-Starring Robert Mitchum, this movie is slow on most counts, which is kind of odd to say for a movie that doesn't actually hit the 2 hour mark. It's drudge though, is at least paced by the regular, strong performance that Mitchum's put through in every movie I remember ever seeing him in.

Marilyn however, is the death-piece to this film. Besides her mouthing the songs to pre-recorded tape, and strumming a guitar along with no notes that's the high point, her acting is nowhere near someplace that a person can believe, and is quite sub par. It drags the movie down to the depths and just when you think that it's about to get even worse, Mitchum and Tommy Rettig (the child) bring it back to life.

If this is the best of the bunch for Marilyn, I'd be hard pressed to watch another one.

Walk the Line (2005)

Plot line issues slow the film

[7/10 · 6 December 2005]

When my mother and father came home from this movie, I asked "How was it?", expecting the real deal from people who remember some of the events portrayed in this movie. Besides my dad's opinion of how great Joaquin Phoenix was, they basically didn't tell me too much besides that. On their word, I was thinking that it's probably going to be a great movie.

And so when I sat down with a friend to watch this movie, I was entranced by it. The performances of the main actors (Phoenix, Witherspoon), and a great supporting role with Robert Patrick were far and away the highlights of this movie, and merit going to see the film on just this.

But the problems with the movie are the timing. There's a whole slew of things that just didn't make sense, was put together in a fast-forward fashion, and some scenes completely pointless. In this, it reminded me of the Doors movie, which also had great acting by the leads and some of the cast, along with a very important childhood event, but overall, the plot was what killed it.

Don't get me wrong, Phoenix and Witherspoon save the plot enough because you're so entranced with their performances that most of it doesn't matter, but the fact that some of the other people are looked over (the Tennessee Two - and then Tennessee Three by far here, have no explanation), and some people are added to the movie for no specific reason (Waylon Jennings. Played by his grandson).

Basically you're getting the cream (and the dirt) of a five to eight year period in Cash's life (I'm not even discussing the children part) with no real conception of time, and no thorough glance at any specific song.

When you leave the theater and actually think about the film, you realize that they're basically just throwing things at you hoping they're going to stick, plot wise. And though a whole lot of it does, the overall feeling of it is not as good as I'd hoped.

The Killer Shrews (1959)

Dogs and shrews and Bruce Campbell

[3/10 · 2 December 2005]

Do yourself a favor before going on. Read the whole plot line, and ask yourself the following question: There's a doctor, trying to shrink humans on a remote island. He somehow, by accident (while testing on shrews), creates giant, dog-like (in that they're dogs dressed up) shrews.

This is the first in a string of laughable ideas.

Shrew-Dogs digging through cement or bashing through walls. A hero that reminds everyone in the know of Bruce Campbell's character in McHale's Navy. A professor with a beautiful daughter who screams for no reason.

Isn't it sad that I've described a bunch of B-rated horror movies that are still being released? There is nothing special, or remotely fun about this movie that doesn't involve making fun of it.

And so I guess that's not all that bad.

Nosferatu (1922)

Still has great staying power

[8/10 · 2 December 2005]

There are many things that place this film in your "see before you die" category. It's a priceless, fantastic piece of work, from start to finish, and it has beautiful staying power, even now. But there are a few things that work against it. The music to the film lends neither good, nor bad to it. Understandably, this is very early film, and perception of people watching the film in the twenties was probably vastly different, but seeing as this could be considered one of the earliest horror movies, the music from this film could very much have been better used in a silent drama, or comedy.

On that note, Max Schreck is perfect. Much has been said about his ability to capture the character so perfectly (as in Shadow of the Vampire), and it's true. Though it's in no way comparable to Bela Lugosi as a character, this movie is still a very important piece in cinema, and I'm honored to be able to say that I've had the opportunity to sit down and enjoy a brilliant work of early cinema.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

Everybody likes Andy.

[8/10 · 29 August 2005]

After years of writing some of the funniest things on the Daily Show, Steve Carell takes to his own, this beast that he and director Judd Apatow penned together, The 40 Year Old Virgin.

We've had a lot of gross-out humor movies come and go in the past few years that have had decent parts to them, but very few (Old School, Something about Mary) have ever been complete films. So many just dig directly for the jugular and try to just make you completely forget about an actual storyline that people can look at and identify with, in the least. But Virgin achieves this. It's character development in Andy, the main character is good, along with all secondary characters trying to help this guy get out and let it all hang out, to find that one who's going to get the years of frustration out of him.

Catherine Keener is a steady love interest in this movie, too. Whenever it seems to slow down or the movie comes to a point of eye rolling, the chemistry between Keener and Carell save it, and bring you back around again for another round (of well placed) silly jokes, including that scene that everyone's seen on the commercial, the done-in-one take chest waxing. Why would Carell do that? Because, he wants Andy to be real, he wants the audience to cheer on his dorky forty year old through all of his action figure collecting quirkiness, and by the film's conclusion, there isn't a person in the house who doesn't like him.

The Aristocrats (2005)

If poo jokes get a rise out of you..

[7/10 · 29 August 2005]

"A family walk into a talent agency," is all you have to remember. The Aristocrats is a documentary(of sorts) based upon an old inside joke with comedians. It centers around a family of people who have this act, and basically is the amalgamation of disgustingly terrible things that happen during the act. When the agent asks the name of the act, you get "The Aristocrats".

So now that you've got a basis to work on, let's give you a bit of this movie, which is basically a 90 minute telling of this very joke in different forms by some of the world's top comedians that even includes the Smothers Bros. It doesn't border on disgusting, it's TERRIBLY disgusting, but that's what makes it hilarious. It's so outlandish and far out for almost every version, that bringing it back around to it's almost mundane punchline is far too perfect.

Some of my associates didn't exactly think so, and I don't blame them. This isn't the kind of movie to bring your mom to see, unless she likes jokes about people peeing on each other, incest, bestiality, and scatology. That's right, I said all of that in the same line. There's not much one can review about for the movie other than saying that it's rated 18A for a reason, and I'm surprised it actually even was received in as many theaters as it did. But that's not taking away from how funny I thought the movie was, even though I know a lot of the people that see this movie that don't already know what it's about when going into it are going to be caught completely off guard and wonder what the hell they're getting themselves into.

With every funny movie that crosses boundaries, there are standouts and letdowns. Though you're not going to believe me, I'm going to tell you that the best comedian in this movie is Gilbert Gottfried's version of the joke when he was losing the crowd at Hugh Hefner's Comedy Central Roast. Props go as well to Andy Dick, Bob Saget, Sarah Silverman, the mime, and the guy who does the card trick version, as the best versions of the joke, but there are other people in the movie that I dislike who were even making me laugh (besides Drew Carey. I cannot find that guy funny ever), which was fun. And that's what makes the documentary type feel of this movie go so well. It's fun to watch all of these comedians try their luck at the same thing.

So go spend your hard earned money on a movie that will definitely make you laugh, as long as you can find poo funny.

*** of *****

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Consistently weird, Consistently Good

[7/10 · 21 July 2005]

Who doesn't get excited about Depp/Burton projects? If you don't, there's something wrong. From the beginning of their combined efforts until the next (Corpse Bride), there's always something in the air at theaters that makes you giggly, because even if parts of the movie are terrible, Burton's fantastic vision of scenery, and Depp's.. Depp-isms will save it somehow.

And that's exactly where we place the Chocolate Factory movie.

Much has been said (by Gene Wilder and reviewers) about the need for this movie, but in Hollywood's lack of ideas, well, it was probably going to get done again soon enough, and at least they have something working for them: the writer of the script had never seen the first film until after he went back to the original books and wrote this movie. That means ladies and gentlemen, that you're not getting a movie based upon a movie as so many people are trying to tell you, but you're getting something that goes back to the source material (kind of like the three War of the World films that came out this year), and a new view on everything. It's not knocking Wilder or the insane midgets that scared me as a child, it's creating a new vision.

On we go pretending that you haven't heard this before: The story revolves around a young Charlie Bucket and his escapade through a tour in the museum that has just been re-opened by Willy Wonka. And right from the start of the tour, every little episode that looks awry also is silly, and perfect. From the fire set by the puppets, to the trained squirrels, everything looks so elaborately pretty. It's eye catching, it's the kind of thing that brings the kid out in you. You want to walk through that screen and dive into the chocolate waterfall, or eat the grass, so they say.

And amid few problems, the acting is decent in that "light comedy" way. It's never too boring for the older crowd with it's sometimes silly jokes that kids won't necessarily understand (beatniks and cannibalism!), or even it's Three Stooges comedy that caters to everyone. And no, Johnny Depp does not remind me of Michael Jackson. His Wonka is far from it really, but just because he's extra pale, talks with a high voice and is hanging around with kids, well that's enough for everyone else.

The best thing this had going for it to me besides the continued on screen awkwardness of Depp's strange man Wonka, and a fantastic performance (again) by Freddie Highmore, is that contrary to the commercials, I was not completely annoyed by the film as television has me believe. There's lots more to it than you're getting. They've saved all the good parts for the film (what trailers don't normally do), and it's fun. I left with a smile on my face afterwards, like many other kids will, and isn't that really what matters?

Sabrina (1954)

Staple of love

[6/10 · 6 July 2005]

Through Bogart's laid back cool, to Holden's outlandish car driving and overlooking of the woman that secretly loves him, this is another prime example of Audrey Hepburn's method acting. She's sweet, young, and outgoing as Sabrina, the girl over the garage who falls in love with both sets of brothers who are played as two completely different people. One (Bogart) who resembles more of a father figure, and the other (Holden) acting 25 but looking 42. This movie has turned into a remake with Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear, and though I haven't seen it, I could certainly see it during the movie. It was a very strong film that wasn't the kind you would catch yourself "ooh" ing over, just your classic staple of a confused love story.

How to Steal a Million (1966)

A beautiful staring contest with the television

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

Have you ever wanted to delay the inevitable, have you ever wanted to make a movie longer than it was, just to make sure the friends you make on screen stay a little longer? That's the curse(Curse?) of Audrey Hepburn. She's dazzling, beautiful, awe inspiring, and somehow always fit with the perfect man in capers like these. It wasn't so much that the story was fun, or the acting was great, or her father looked creepy on closeups, or even that I recognized the chief of police from Hepburn/Grant's Charade, but every single time she was on screen, I could not stop smiling and feeling anxious. It's easy to fall in love with her, especially on movies like these. That wasn't much of a review, was it? The movie still gets good points, see?

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Court drama set to laugh

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

The James Stewart vehicle continues. It's a movie with a plot that could be ripped from any headline in any era, the killing of a man after the raping of a woman. But the problem with this story is not only that it drags on and on and on, but the District Attorney's side of the trial is a complete mockery. It makes all points moot, and a really boring trial scene, which takes up half the movie. Had it not been for Lee Remick's part beautiful, part slutty role, this movie would have probably fallen apart, if released within the last twenty years. But being released as it was, it turned into a big hit for everyone, and trapped somewhere in here, I could see it just a little bit, but not enough to stay interested for too long.

Hopscotch (1980)

Fantastically fun, partially angering.

[8/10 · 6 July 2005]

What a thriller. It's Matthau being funny, cunning, and the best part about this movie, beside his partner, Glenda Jackson who seems to just be along for the ride and watch him go. The man destined to chase him down (a young Sam Waterston) looks tired, beat down, out of it, and not really into being the guy that brings down his former mentor, which in itself was kind of fun to watch. Matthau's serious but silly 'one step ahead' role couldn't have been played by anyone else so well. But I believe the biggest and only problem I had with this film was the amount of unnecessary swearing by the CIA agents that were after him. It was incomprehensible and only made me dislike the movie, along with strange overdubbing on specific scenes that didn't really belong there. Other than that, a flawless action/spy movie that could still hold up in today's standards.

Bang the Drum Slowly (1973)

What entails a good Sports movie

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

Good sports movies are hard to come by. Sure, there are a lot that are pretty decent, the ones that truly strike a chord seem to have been made mostly in the 70's, and this one is included. DeNiro plays a struggling catcher on the Yankees who finds out hes's dying, and Moriarty plays the pitcher. They're two completely different characters who form a bond with each other throughout the last year or so of the catcher's life. And though it still somehow gets centered mainly on Moriarty until the pivotal points of the movie, DeNiro still amazes, as the slow witted catcher with a problem that he doesn't want to tell anyone, so as not to get pity. This is real story with baseball as the backdrop, and that's how it should be done, to get real sports movies.

An Affair to Remember (1957)

Fun after the boring

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

Cary Grant dazzles again, and Deborah Kerr is a sweetheart in this movie. It's a bit on the long side (damn that middle part for being so sketchy and long, as if it was never going to end.), but the ten minutes of tension towards the end of the movie and the subsequent ending is all worthwhile. There's not much I can say that isn't said by watching the film, really, which is terrible for a review but basically the thing speaks for itself. It's the fact that the love should be strong enough to get through all of the "crap", as they're trying to figure out whether they're going to fall into one another again that has you thrilled. Go watch it already, you'll enjoy yourself, as long as you can sit through the gray middle.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932)

Quirky is right.

[5/10 · 6 July 2005]

For a movie like this made by a famous director for his other film (King Kong), TMDG has a lot going for it, and against it. In the for section, Leslie Banks' Count Zaroff is an evil character whose hunting trade is of people, and he is the best part of the film. His campy demure and facial expressions, topped off with a silly accent and fine lines, make the movie go quickly and effortlessly through it's just over 60 minutes. But Fay Wray's performance coupled with Joel McCrea's lead character of a hunter turned hunted, is slow moving and sometimes laughable, which makes rooting for the bad guy in this film so much easier. Had it not been for a silly demented man-hunter, this movie would have crashed all the way from the beginning.

Bewitched (2005)

The witches rule.

[6/10 · 5 July 2005]

This was a hard movie to watch. Not that it's as terrible as everyone says, but when I was watching this movie, many things were obvious to me:

1. Nicole Kidman always seemed to be trying too hard, in a good way. Her being cast in this movie was perfect. She's soft, elegant, silly, and funny. She's never had the problem of being difficult to watch (except maybe.. Eyes Wide Shut), and her grace even in a fun role is evident.

2. This was a Will Ferrell and his friends movie. It's kind of like Anchorman, only not as funny in that way. Remember the scene in Anchorman, with all of the fighting? You just kept laughing at all of the cameos? This movie is like that, but more with completely pointless ones. The only funny cameo is Steve Carell.

3. The witches folks rule. In Michael Caine, and Shirley MacLaine, as witches. Makes sense right? Right. Even just their presence makes it fun to watch, and I've already mentioned Kidman. If there weren't as many of these witches, well heck, I might have packed up and left early.

4. Will Ferrell is funny, but not the right funny. Don't get me wrong. I like him. But in this kind of movie, his comedy is only about 50% on.

I guess, since my mother came away happy, and seeing as that made me happy, here's my final say. Go see this with your mother. You'll crack a few smiles, but then in leaving, you might wonder when someone will find the right role for Ferrell to fit into, because this really isn't it.

Land of the Dead (2005)

Fun gory!

[7/10 · 2 July 2005]

George Romero has been giving us movies that are gory and fun and thought-worthy for a long period of time, and though there are years (and decades, even) between the installments, the proposed last one in Land of the Dead is no different.

Land of the Dead stars a strange bit of actor in that they're reminiscent of "Hey, I recognize that person" type of movie, and you're never worried about it, because it's expected that most of these people are going to die anyway, right? The storyline this time around is that finally, after all these years, the zombies are starting to remember, starting to act more human, and in such case, starting to terrorize the living in more interesting ways. It's set in present day in a nameless American city that's guarded itself by having a town on it's own island, away from the zombies. But when they start figuring out how to do things, it gets out of hand. The gore factor isn't set to high, it's set to abnormally fun levels of high (Save one scene that made me grit my teeth, nothing big, just a woman scraping fingernails where they all fall off. AGH!), and you're either frightfully disgusted, or giggling like a teenager the whole time.

The dialogue is not strong, it holds many one liners, but that's consistent to all of Romero's Dead movies, and what makes them so fun to watch. It's like watching fifteen people try to be a Bruce Campbell type of hero, only they're not getting across so well, so you're doing a combination of laughing at them, and with them, as they go about their day.

This is what makes a zombie movie. This is fun, gory, but smart. It makes you think, instead of rolling your eyes and having the same sight gags hit you in the face one hundred times in two hundred movies. Though not very close to the (original) Dawn of the Dead in the "good" factor, it is still a fitting way to cap off all of the years of fun terror, right where it began.

Batman Begins (2005)

Erase the past by creating a new future

[9/10 · 21 June 2005]

Everyone knows about the previous incarnations of Batman, and if you don't, you're lucky. The Batman series of films has been sitting on the shelf since the terribly icy (ha-ha) "Batman & Robin" starring George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, which was pretty much a kick in the face to any fan of comic superheroes, although just a teeny, tiny bit better than the Captain America movie.

But the new series of Batman (I say that because it's planned to have a three part series) has something the earlier versions (save the first film) did not. They were made for grown up audiences, with a good script, a fantastic director, and a landscape for Gotham that had never been introduced before. Many things about this movie are comparable to previous incarnations, and yet more than anything differ. Present are the always corny lines that pop up in every single comic book to movie ever made, but they work here, because there's not as much emphasis on trying to make them stand out jokes. Here they're placed gracefully and said with conviction.

And what I mean by that is that this is the best casting of any Batman film. You might not like Bale's Batman, or Katie Holmes' Rachel (rumors are rampant she won't be in the next one because of all the Cruise etcetera), but with the rest of the stellar cast, they make it easy to forget (even Liam Neeson's terrible mustache!). Extra credit to Michael Caine's Alfred, whose character, as always played like a sidekick/father to Bruce.

The film follows Bruce Wayne dealing with the death of his parents (as always), and how he came to be Batman, kind of like a "Year one" nod from the comics, only done well enough so as not to throw off the non dorky comic people like myself. It's a fetchingly dark movie that does not let up and has a strong plot as well, which isn't surprising from the director of Memento and The Following. The graphic shots of flying, and the fantastic effects that have to do with the Scarecrow are awesome, showing the viewer that you don't need too much CGI, just bits and pieces enough to make it look better, and I'm not even going to talk about the gawking Batmobile Scenes. Whoa.

The one faith I have in these new Batman movies is that they (please, can you?) restore the sanity in Batman and it's character where the two of four had previously stripped (yes, I'm talking to you Val and George), as well as the Bane character that was ruined in Batman & Robin. A character from the comics who was so strong and smart that he'd broken Batman's back and pretty much reigned Gotham for a short time was lowered to shitty sidekick for Poison Ivy and it makes me more angry about that than any other terribly made comic - movie I've ever seen.

Batman Begins is a movie that could be considered a normal movie with a strong lead character to some, in the same way with Spiderman. It takes a super-hero and brings a struggle to get a sense of normalcy back into a person who is so far down at one point that it makes Bruce Wayne easy to identify with. It's the ups and downs in the life of a regular person who's just trying to do the right thing that makes this movie such a winner.