Change Your Image
Lady_Arwyn
Reviews
The Finest Hours (2016)
Slow to start, but grows into a great action-disaster flick
This movie approaches perfection in disaster films. The acting was superb, the special effects amazing and the story unbelievable - but true. My heart was in my throat - and I already knew the whole story from earlier research of the true-life incident - who lives and who dies. They actually skipped some elements of the day's work for the Coast Guard, probably because no one would believe it.
The only weakness I saw with the movie was that it was a bit slow in the start, too much romance in the beginning and not enough exploration of our four Coast Guard heroes. We only really meet and get to know Webber (Chris Pine), and it spends too much time exploring his romance. The movie makers attempted to shove some strong female characters into the story - beyond a brief introduction to establish Webber's motivations and history, they really didn't belong in the story.
But in the end it was worth it because the scenes of the crippled, broken SS Pendleton are edge-of-your seat stuff, and once Webber and his crew get in their little 36-foot motor lifeboat and head out into 60-foot seas, you're in for the ride of your life.
Red Tails (2012)
Missing something, but it will be history classroom classic
I had no idea what to expect of a Lucas movie based in reality. Lucas is known for science fantasy, a bit of camp, and a lot of showy special effects, but little content.
Red Tails isn't like anything Lucas has done before. He steps into a very different realm - reality. He does it very well, but there is something missing.
Lucas' tale of the Tuskegee Airmen, which in most films ends when they graduate from flight school, takes the tale of the African-American pioneers to the war, to the actions that made them one of the most decorated American units in WWII. It tells a tale not often heard in the history classroom, and I predict that it will become required viewing in many history classes, like Schindler's List, Codetalker, and Saving Private Ryan.
The only thing that holds this film back from reaching the epic proportions of those other films is the inexperience of the director, Anthony Hemingway, leaving the film just a little hollow. There was something missing that I could not quite put my finger on, but it was not such a large hole that it gets in the way of the experience.
The locations are beautiful and authentic, acting was solid, though not spectacular, and the special effects were excellent. I couldn't tell when they were using real aircraft, and when it was CG. At times the writing was decidedly Lucas in style, but it fit well with the storyline, and with the characters, who were completely believable. I was especially impressed with actors Nate Parker, who played the tortured, alcoholic flight leader, and David Oyelowo, his impulsive, angry wingman.
The script and direction felt right for the period. I was convinced we were in WWII, from the demeanor of the characters to the language they used. There was some strong language, but not the filth we often hear in modern war films. No F-bombs, no strings of cuss words, just an occasional "damn" and similar, something you might have expected to hear from angry, frustrated soldiers during the 1940s.
I admit I'm easily lost during major dogfight scenes, I can't follow the action, and simply wait for the payoff. The complicated dogfight scenes were deceptively simplified. I was able to follow the entire fight in this film, which is a major accomplishment for the filmmakers.
This is a movie I would recommend.
Transformers (2007)
An excellent homage to an 80s classic
As a young teen in 1984 I was a major fan of Transformers. So, when I learned it was coming out as a movie I was psyched, but worried that movie makers would screw it up and leave it unrecognizable.
I was there opening night, with my kids, ready for anything. What I saw on the screen was quintessential Transformers and I was Pleased. Even though it was updated to reflect the 12st Century, this was the Transformers I knew.
I would have liked to see more character development for the Transformers, and less for the humans. Much of the Transformers characterizations relied on knowledge of and referred to the original cartoon, such as Megatron's seemingly non-sequitor comment to Starscream regarding Starscream's repeated failures.
The good side to this is that for fans of the original Transformers, there were many references to the cartoon. The nature of the Transformers arrival was changed, as was their reason for being on Earth.
Transformers is NOT a movie for kids. I saw at least one mom taking her child (age 5?) out of the theater after repeated "colorful" language and violence, including many graphic scenes of human death, and overt sexual innuendo. Even the cartoon of the 80s was rather dark, one of the few cartoons where characters, human and Transformer, actually died in battle.
300 (2006)
Epic fantasy history, a new classic
I just got back from seeing 300 in a sold-out theater.
They got the culture of the Spartans right: Boys are taken from their families and serve in the military with only minor contact with their families until they are 30. They are often married in absentia, visit their wives for short overnight visits. They sometimes didn't know their sons, as sometimes the sons turn 7 before the fathers reach 30 - the lives of young trainees and soldiers didn't cross. The great leaders stay on in the military as generals.
The rights granted to Spartan women were a source of friction between Sparta and Athens, Spartan women could inherit land and speak in the Assembly, mostly because the men were so busy being soldiers there was little other choice. They even had a "Women's Olympics" and trained the women in defensive fighting - a rather realistic people they were, the women could defend themselves if they have to. Sparta's treatment of women was highly uncharacteristic of the time or region.
I thought the film was a great comic-book re-telling of a historic battle. They went a little overboard with the "make the enemy into monsters" thing, rather literally. It was more LotR Orc-type fantasy than history, but it worked for the story.
Gory. Way, way gory. But somehow all those half-naked Spartan soldiers with the incredible pecs and six-pack abs never got any blood on them. Unless of course the storyline calls for it.
300 has an epic fantasy feel to it, the filmmakers never bothered to try to make it look real, it is a comic-book come to life. It is not a film that cares about details, the Persian Army is a mass of distant figures and lights and tents. It is bigger than life, and grittier than dirt. 300 is a film that is about the big picture. The distant Persian Army is massive, so massive it's numbers and individuals don't matter. All that matters is these few Spartan soldiers who stand between the Persians and their home.
The Astronaut Farmer (2006)
Fun story, but don't take it too seriously
Billy Bob Thornton plays an ex-astronaut trainee, now a Texas rancher, who never made it to space, so he builds a rocket in his barn. When he is almost ready and tries to buy rocket fuel the government steps in, meanwhile he's about to lose his farm to the bank.
Bruce Willis has a small role as the best friend from the astronaut program who *did* make it into space, and JK Simmmons is good as the head of the FAA. Bruce Dern's role as Fermer's father-in-law is disappointing. For a while it's unclear as to exactly who he is in relationship to the family.
The Astronaut Farmer pretty decent, if you can suspend your disbelief a little. The science of launching a rocket from an old wooden barn without burning down the barn is rather, ah... questionable at best. However, this is *not* a movie about science, it is a movie about people.
This film is pretty heavy on the relationship angle, my 9 year old daughter was bored during large sections, and getting ancy. Finally there were some good action scenes and she got interested again. I'd say children under the age of 12 wouldn't be very interested in this movie, but there isn't anything inappropriate. No sex, drugs or violence, and very mild language.
If you're just going for the entertainment value, it's wonderful. It has some great laughs, especially a dig on the CIA's ability to locate weapons of mass destruction. And it has a hilariously accurate running commentary on small-town life. If you've ever lived in a small town (I mean a really small town) it is a riot.
The Astronaut Farmer will probably remind you of the 1979 made-for-TV family-night mini-series "Salvage 1", about a junkyard owner who builds a rocket from parts in his salvage yard. This one is far better, even if it does have enough similarities to make you wonder if it's a smarter, cleaner remake.
Night at the Museum (2006)
Finally, a real family film
What a cast! Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, Dick VanDyke, Mickey Roney, Bill Cobbs...
I'm not a Stiller fan, but in this one he was really great, he steps out of his usual shtick to really anchor this movie. For once he doesn't seem to be trying too hard and avoids overdoing it.
This is one of Robin Williams' better modern roles, he's toned down but still quintessentially Williams. It was nice to see him in a role that he can both take seriously *and* have some fun with it.
Owen Wilson is still awesome, basically reprising his Shanghai Noon character, but with a cute, rather unexpected twist.
Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Bill Cobbs are classic, they haven't lost a step. Rooney is still the little bantam rooster with the attitude! Van Dyke clearly anchors the trio. Cobbs wasn't given much to work with for his character, but his quality shines through. These veteran comedic actors bring a bit of class and legitimacy to the film.
The movie is well paced, jumping almost directly into the action, with plenty of laughs. From Rexie's puppy-dog antics to the war between Old West Cowboys and Roman Centurians, there is something around every corner.
The only stinker in this film is the kid. He's totally under-utilized for the storyline, they could have improved the storyline by either leaving the kid out of the movie entirely, or by giving him something to do. The pseudo-love-interest, too, should have either been played up or left out.
This is an entirely enjoyable family film. My 87 year old grandmother-in-law loved it, as did my 9 year old daughter and my teenage sons! Truly something for everyone.
Happy Feet (2006)
A Freethought film for kids, and "An Inconvienent Truth, Junior Edition" SPOILERS
SPOILERS warning. DO not read any more if you don't want to know!
A young penguin, Mumble, is born "different" from the others. The visible issue to the kids is that he dances, while all other Emperor Penguins sing. The less visible issue is that this is a little freethinker. He hates being different, but is not willing to deny himself just to fit in.
There is a penguin religion, the great penguin in the sky controls everything from weather to the food (fish) supply. And the fish are not around anymore. The Great Penguin must be angry at them. The old penguins (who act like a cross between an old priest and the annoying old man who lives in the apartment upstairs) are concerned about this child who is "different" and predict that he will be the downfall of the entire colony.
Mumble can't sing, so he can't take part in Penguin School, and feels very left out. He was also hatched late and is late maturing. When all of the other young penguins are ready to graduate and go off to the feeding grounds by themselves, he is denied the ceremony. He follows them anyway and ends up separated from the group.
Somewhere in here (I forget when) Mumble gets a clue that there is a real-world source for the fish shortage. Something is happening to them, but what, he has no clue.
Then he meets a group of smaller penguins. They lead him to their colony and he discovers *gasp* that not all penguins do as his colony does! They actually collect rocks instead of sing! This confuses the poor young penguin.
This new penguin colony has a religious leader who can answer any question. Think Holy Roller (a strong physical resemblance to Rev. Al Sharpton) with six pack rings stuck around his neck (a gift from the gods, he says, and the source of his powers). He answers everyone's questions (basic stuff) until he gets to our young freethinker, who quickly figures out that the nonsense that this penguin is spouting is not an answer and calls him on it. Which gets Mumble kicked out.
So, Mumble returns to his colony with a plan. His initial plan fails, but he manages to get all of the penguins dancing and wins the heart of his girl. However, the priestly penguins are horrified, certain that this upstart will bring the wrath of the Great Penguin down on their heads. It doesn't help when Mumble starts trying to use reason to explain that the fish are disappearing due to an earthly problem, not a godly one.
So, Mumble is exiled from his colony and the real adventure (and environmental message) begins.
I won't tell you any more, the story is pretty decent. The kids might or might not see the whole freethinker v religion theme, but it's worth it to have a movie that has a theme where reason and investigation (science) triumph over superstitious beliefs.
There are also strong environmental themes in Happy Feet, mostly int he second half of the film. Occasionally we're hit over the head with it, but it doesn't detract much from the storyline.
Some scenes it's hard to believe it's animation, it looks real. The Orcas are especially convincing. Some scenes are very intense, possibly too scary for a young child. I would recommend that children younger than 6, or sensitive 8 year olds, might not handle parts of this film well. It is rated PG, not G, for a reason. There is also a distubing section of the film where a penguin is visibly and graphically slowly choking to death.
If you are a freethinking person/parent who accepts responsibility for the damage humans do to the Earth, this is a great film for you and your kids. YOU will love the music, the kids will enjoy the movie. If you're religious or aren't convinced that the world has massive human induced problems, you might want to skip this one.
Eight Below (2006)
Emotionally powerful family film
My kids and I went to a sneak preview of Eight Below this evening. The show was sold out, we got lucky seats when the ushers made everyone scoot together to make more room.
Premise: the members of an Antarctic scientific team at a small base camp are evacuated due to a combination of injury and major storms approaching. The team's sled dogs are left behind, chained in place (and I assume well-fed), with the assumption that the pilot would be back in a few days to retrieve them. However, the team is not able to return and the dogs must fend for themselves in an Antarctic winter.
Eight Below is the story of the dogs and of their handler, who would doanything to go back for his dogs, even if only to give them the respect they deserved in death.
The dogs are the main characters but there are no corny CG animated doggie faces. Although it is somewhat difficult to tell them apart at first, they give us enough clues to figure it out later on. The dog that plays "Max" is quite the doggie actor, as well as the lead dog (I forget her name).
It's not too gory, although a beached orca carcass is pretty nasty. This is a family film. Semi- sensitive kids may want a nearby parent for comfort for a few scenes. If you have a sensitive child you may want to wait for the DVD release, it's less "there" on a TV, and you can turn it off if you need to. My daughter started crying as soon as she realized what was going to happen to the doggies as the team leaves the base. For a Disney movie this one's pretty intense.
This is a two-boxer. Do NOT attend this movie without a supply of tear-absorbent material. It starts you crying about 1/3 of the way through the movie and never really lets you recover.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Sticking to science slows the movie down, but...
Yesterday NPR (National Public Radio) interviewed two climatologists from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) regarding the science in The Day After Tomorrow. The main question was "Is the science in the movie at all realistic?".
The short answer was yes, but sped up. The movie takes place over a few months. The NOAA scientists took the long route to state that while everything in the movie was basically correct, it would take months, not weeks, for things to develop. They said that, unlike "Armageddon" and the recent TV movie "10.5", this movie was Science Fiction, with the emphasis on science more than fiction. They were actually quite impressed with the scientific accuracy the movie makers presented. It will never be used to teach climatology, but the science wasn't rendered unrecognizable by the moviemakers.
So I looked in the paper for reviews, the movie received three of four stars. Usually blockbusters like this only get two stars. So last night I grabbed the boys and my hubby and we went out to see the movie.
Well, the theater was packed for the 7pm showing, people were laughing and talking about suspending their disbelief for an evening. They were clearly expecting something along the lines of Armageddon and the recent "Core", a fun adventure with laughable science.
By the end of the movie I was a little disgusted by the overt political/environmental message, they could have gotten the point across without the heavy handed preaching at the end. I was unimpressed with the CG (a pack of wolves is done very badly, the tornado's in LA overdone, the rest is standard for modern special effects but nothing special), with occasional editing problems. There were clearly several scenes cut, probably at the last minute because you could tell that something was missing.
The acting was so-so. I wish they hadn't used Dennis Quaid, he was OK, but I got the feeling that this movie would have been better with all unknowns. Quaid was only one of two actors I recognized, but I bet some of the teenage leads were probably known to some folks. I didn't much appreciate the lead teen male, but probably because I simply thought he was ugly.
The time-line of the movie is a little confused. It feels like only a few days from start to end, the whole thing feels like it happens in less than a week. But if you pay attention to clues, it actually takes place over a few months. Dennis Quaid doesn't walk 40 miles in snowshoes in a day or two, as it appears, it's closer to a week.
I was satisfied with the basic science of the movie, and impressed with the storytelling. They didn't make the teenagers "scream machines", only there to be rescued, for once, the lead teen was actually very level headed and simply did what needed to be done. And rather realistically, he was motivated by hormones.
There were only two scenes that I felt were unnecessary, both were in the previews, the scene where the climatologists' camp was right on top of the crack when the ice shelf breaks off (I felt it would have worked just as well if they had been back further and just felt the rumbles and cracking and watched the ice shelf break off from a distance, and the wolf chase scene. They didn't really need the wolves, the scene could have been played a little more realistically, but at lest the people were smart and used their brains to solve the wolf problem,not relying on someone's last second heroics. The bad wolf CG really didn't help the scene along.
I was rather impressed that they didn't feel the need to turn it into a "violent orgy of death and destruction" every minute of the movie. They actually spend some "quality time", which less mature viewers would view as boring parts, dealing with the science of the disaster, people and something resembling reality. They actually acknowledged that if you drop an unconscious person off a roof, he's going to get injured.
There were a few good digs on President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the characterizations of them (they weren't specifically Bush and Cheney but it was clear they were meant to be) , and there were some really ironic-funny scenes of the US/Mexico border being closed, by the Mexicans, and illegal crossing of the border... of Americans headed south!
On a scale of 10, I would give this movie a 7.5, and I do recommend it.
Hidalgo (2004)
"True story" claim un-needed and unwelcome
The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 10 is the fact that they try to claim that it's a true story.
Why? This movie doesn't *need* support from such spurious claims. The cinematography is spectacular, the horses are awesome eye candy (and Viggo isn't too hard on the eyes either), and the locations are wonderfully exotic. Who cares if the story is true or not? As it is, many people are refusing to see what is otherwise a highly enjoyable film due to the rediculous claims.
I do question the casting choice for Moretensen, I don't think he was convincing as a Souix half-breed (come on, he's blond! Can't they at least have dyed his hair?) but otherwise, while the acting wasn't spectacular, it wasn't bad either.
The comparisons between the Bedouin and the Native Americans was interesting, and between Mustangs and Arabians. In the end there was a definate "moral to the story" (ie, saving the Mustangs, saving the Souix, etc), but it wasn't as blatant as they could have done. Otherwise this great horse movie could have turned out to be a gagger.
Brother Bear (2003)
Typical Disney Fare
Disney movies are always watchable, but sometimes just mediocre. I don't think I've ever seen a Disney major release that really stunk, and a few of them (such as Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) are simply stellar.
Brother Bear is pretty much an average Disney animated flick. The animation is the usual visual treat and the cultural background of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest pretty decent, but Brother Bear's potential is lost with the storyline. The best I can say is that it's bland. It totally lacks the sparkle that Disney's better animated movies display.
Joaquin Phoenix does well as Kenai, but Jeremy Suarez the voice of the young bear (Koda) is terribly irritating, the viewer gets the impression that the actor portraying the voice is far too well known, even if you can't figure out who the voice belongs to. Getting past the voice to see Koda's character is difficult. I believe this to be a casting error rather than poor acting.
The humor and Phil Collins' music are the high points of Brother Bear.
Overall, take the kids. You won't suffer, but neither will you be thrilled.
One More Mountain (1994)
A good replay of the old story
While this story has been repeated many times already, this one does offer something new. Meridith Baxter plays Margaret Reed, wife of James Reed, a primary financier of the Donner Expedition.
A wealthy family, the Reeds set out with a huge number of wagons, most carrying their worldly goods, driven by hired help, while the extended family rides in relative comfort in a huge, oversized custom built Connestoga passenger wagon.
Soon their stuck-up, overbearing ways get them in trouble with their fellow passengers and gradually they find themselves in the same "shoes" as their fellow travellers. When James kills another member of the party (self defense?) he is banished from the party, and goes ahead to California, able to travel much faster than the wagons.
And of course, they are trapped on Donner Summit.
One More Mountain is probably more historically accurate than many other variations on the story of the "Donner Party" that have been made in past years. It was a made for TV movie, and suffers the usual TV pacing and production qualities.