kevnar Reviews

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Pretty good, once it got started

[6/10 · 20 September 2007]

Okay, the movie is called "Pearl Harbour" not "Some guy screws his buddy's girlfriend". Sheesh! get on with the frickin' story. This movie is basically a really cheesy chick flick disguised as a war movie for the first 1/2 of the film.

It's not just that this is a chick flick... it's not even a very good one. The characters do stupid things and react in shallow ways to the situation, and we're supposed to "feel" for their predicament. Sorry, dude. I'm not a 14 year-old girl.

And don't get me started on how the 1940s women were carrying on like a bunch of bone-hungry sexually-liberated women of the 1990s. That was beyond nauseating.

But once the actual story gets started, about 90 minutes in, this movie is pretty good. Very dramatic, very intense visuals, lots of heart. It does what every war movie should: paying tribute to the courage of the brave and noble, while trying to find meaning behind the actions of "the bad guys".

If not for the whole romantic "subplot" which pretty much dominates most of the film, this would have been nearly a classic. As it stands, I was sitting there with my testicles retreating for cover from the barrage of estrogen-fueled "feelings" and wondering if Mrs. Bay was the one who really directed this thing.

When I watch the DVD, I start it from the morning of the attack and it's a perfectly fine movie.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Take it for what it is

[9/10 · 6 May 2007]

Spiderman comic fans are trashing this movie. Film buffs and movie critics are trashing this movie. The only people who aren't are people who just like to go see an action blockbuster and be entertained. So there's a few details and characters they skimmed over. Big deal. They got the main message across. They entertained people.

The only criticisms I have of it is that the character of Mary-Jane was kind of annoying. Here Spider-man's saving the whole city and she's mad at him because he's not paying enough attention to her. Then in the end, all she does is get rescued. She never really contributes anything except problems. It would have been nice to see her actually do something in the story line. They probably could have completely left the Sandman out of the movie too, and it wouldn't have suffered one bit, but he did add a whole lot of excitement and drama in the end.

Other than that, it was an entertaining action blockbuster. If you were looking for Schindler's List or Shawshank Redemption and were disappointed by Spider-man 3, that just makes you an idiot. Rate this Movie for what it is, not what you thought it should be.

Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin (1997 Video)

A fun little adventure for children and their parents.

[10/10 · 16 May 2005]

This is a great movie that both my children watched extensively as toddlers. It has good messages for kids, as all Winnie the Pooh cartoons do, and the animation and voice acting are top quality. It's also got some great lines that make me laugh no matter how many times I hear them.

"Look at the biceps on that bear! I'm not worthy to dangle from the same precipice." - Tigger.

"Never trust that thing between your ears. Haven't had a need for mine in years." - Rabbit.

"What's up, buddy bear?" "Piglet is up, Tigger." - Pooh, pointing a Piglet in the top of a tree.

"Jump down, Piglet! We'll catch you, likely as not!" - Tigger.

"End of the line. Nothing to do, and no hope of things getting better. Sounds like Saturday night at my house." - Eeyore.

"There's no difference between falling ten-thousand feet to the jagged rocks below, and tumbling out of bed. Except for the splat at the end, they're practically similar." - Tigger.

I find it hard to believe that people would actually criticize this movie negatively. It's a kids' movie for crying out loud. If you've got nothing better to do than watch and criticize kids' movies, you really need to get a life.

I gave it a ten. I can't think of anything that could have made it better.

The Bermuda Depths (1978 TV Movie)

Creepy when I was a kid

[7/10 · 27 March 2005]

* minor spoilers, if it really matters I saw this movie when I was about six or so. I don't remember much about it, but that it freaked me out as a child. I remember the two kids carving their names onto the turtle's shell. I vaguely remember somebody drowning, getting snagged and dragged down by the turtle or something, and I remember the scene at the end where the girl shows up on the boat with her eyes all glowing. I really want to see this movie again, but have never seen it anywhere, not even in a bargain bin.

I know I'd probably be disappointed, but it would fill in a lot of holes in my memory about it.

G.I. Joe: Valor vs. Venom (2004 Video)

Very Cool

[19 March 2005]

I happened upon this movie on TV while channel surfing with my boy one Saturday morning. At first I thought it was a kids' show, but after a few minutes I realized, this is way too good for a kids' show. It turned out to be a feature-length movie, and I was impressed.

There were Ninja fights, sword fights, gun fights, ground battles, rooftop battles, air battles, and it all jumped from one scene to another in a seamless flow of action.

I also noticed that there was character behind it all. The characters, though their motivations may have been one-dimensional, were actually believable in their pursuits of them, and that's exceptional for kids' entertainment these days. They were somewhat unique as well, fighting over the radio on the the way to a battle and such. It made it interesting to watch.

Afterward, I went to the computer and just had to write about it. I thought it was very cool. The guys who are complaining about it must have seen a totally different movie. At least it seems that way to me.

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Still a cool action adventure movie

[16 September 2004]

I remember seeing this movie when I was about 10 years old. My cousins and I rented it from the video store and watched it over and over and over, over the course of one weekened, until we had just about the whole thing memorized. "I am Subotai!" It was cool then, and it's still cool now, even by today's standards.

I rewatched it tonight, for nostalgia's sake, half expecting it to be a groaner that only an early 80's kid would enjoy, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it a pretty cool movie.

All a movie needs is essentially a good story. Some movies become timeless classics, while others, though they were popular for a while and made a lot of money, are inevitably forgotten and are resigned to late-night nostalgia TV and Wal-mart bargain bins.

Forget about acting, set design, sound and picture quality, and all manner of special effects. The difference always seems to be the story. Interesting characters taking action in exciting circumstances. If a movie has these simple elements it will become a timeless classic, if it doesn't, it will be forgotten, no matter how much money is spent on it.

When I'm watching a movie, I'm looking for a good story as defined above. Special effects, star power, epic battles, love scenes, romance, comedy, and all other "Movie Magic" elements are bonuses, but they can't carry a movie that is missing its essential heart.

Conan The Barbarian had these elements. Star Wars(1977) had these elements. Willow had these elements. Indianna Jones' movies had these elements. Shrek, Matrix(I), LOTR, and Kill Bill had it. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Troy (2004)

The Critics are idiots

[4 August 2004]

Okay first things first, if you've read any criticisms of this movie whose chief argument is that the movie makers changed the original story, go ahead and disregard them like so much chaff in the wind. To those critics all I can say is, why do you even bother going to movies if you seem to idolize books so much? Keep your nose in the books and us movie-lovers will keep ours turned to movies. Comparing the two is always going to be apples and oranges, unless you feel like going to see a movie that ends up being two weeks long.

Such criticism are more based in the critics desire to brag about their vast knowledge of the source material anyway, rather than any problems they had with the movie as a movie, in and of itself. Go brag to your fellow egg heads and leave the rest of us to enjoy the movies that are made from these classic stories.

Having said that, I'll get to my comments on the movie itself. It was a great movie. I've seen it twice.

The movie had a great story. Whether it followed the source material or not is really irrelevant. The characters moved and changed. The plot twisted and turned. Actions had consequences, which led to more actions, which built and built to an intense conclusion. I found myself actually caring about the characters, even though they were people from 3 thousand years ago, they were still human beings. It was everything a good story is supposed to be.

The acting was nothing to complain about either. There wasn't a single actor in the entire movie whose performance took me out of the movie's world. There wasn't even a single moment on screen that did that.

The battle scenes and special effects were cool too - very intense and entertaining, and isn't that what we go to movies for in the first place? The sets and costumes were impressive as well. All of these things worked together to create a world that I had never seen before.

My only criticisms really were the fault of the theater I'd gone to see the movie in. The sound was atrocious, burbling like a 1950s classroom projector through the whole thing, and a couple of idiots' cellphones went off and they actually answered them and started talking right in the middle of the movie. (Honestly, if theater owners can enforce a "no outside food or drink" policy, why can't they force people to check their cellphones at the door or something?)

All this is beside the point though. Troy was a quality production which I will no doubt purchase on DVD when it comes out.

Often an Orphan (1949)

"Do you know where to get a Labrador?"

[10/10 · 22 July 2004]

"No? Well then shut up!"

LMAO! Ten Stars right there. So exquisitely irreverent. You have to see it. Between this cartoon and Awful Orphan, Charlie the Dog is one of my top three favorite Looney Tunes Characters. I even like him more than Bugs Bunny who simply comes across as cocky and arrogant - someone who I wouldn't like very much if he were a real person.

Charlie the dog has meaningful motivation behind his actions - to find a home, and he doesn't always win in the end. He and Porky Pig have a non-stop banter that goes back and forth through the entire cartoon, combined with hilarious action, and sight-gags that crack me up every time.

If you get a chance to buy, rent, or catch either of these on TV, make sure you do.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

More heart than any other film, ever.

[21 December 2003]

Those who have criticized this film harshly have shown themselves to be the utmost of cynical, self-absorbed blowhards, without so much as a heartbeat to betray any evidence of emotion in their stone cold hearts. Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, but to hear some of the complaints people had about RotK merely reminds me of the old adage about "opening your mouth to remove all doubt".

Yes, this movie has its flaws. Yes there are a few details that didn't seem to "work" for some people, but when you look at the entire scope of the project, look at what has been accomplished in this trilogy, and when you ask the critics if they could have possibly done a better job were they in Peter Jackson's chair, the din of nit-picking is drowned out beneath the sound of applause from those who truly know a masterpiece of film when they see it, if more in heart than in technical perfection.

This movie has raised the bar for me in terms of what I expect from a movie's heart in all future films I see. I will no longer be wowed by mere flash and special effects. I will no longer be wowed by meaningless battle sequences full of violence for the sake of violence, no matter how grandiose they seem. What I will be looking for is the heart behind the story, the characters, the direction, the performances. This is what RotK delivered to me. This is what I saw, because this was what I was looking for, and I wasn't disappointed. The critics, it seems, could not hear the heartbeat of the film beneath the din of their own egotistical opinions.

If this movie does not win Best Picture at the Academy awards next year, I will boycott the Oscars forever. The Oscars will no longer have any meaning for me. If this movie does not win, every other performer in Hollywood who has ever won one might as well throw it in the trash, for it will be about as meaningful as an also-ran ribbon in a grade school track meet, compared to the performances delivered in all aspects of the making of this film.

I do not bother to give this movie any number of stars. It is above that, and can not be compared to other such "movies". The movie industry is so caught up in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. I fear I shall enjoy any other movies a little less now that I have seen this one.

In conclusion, if you have not seen this movie yet, go see it, not because of the hype, but because it has a heartbeat underneath all the flash and bang. Listen for it, and if you hear it, you will recognize the criticisms for what they are, verbal flatulence from a mind bereft of any sort of discernible life.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Brilliant, with a few forgivable flaws

[22 November 2003]

The Two Towers was an astonishing movie. I sat through most of it with my mouth open and my eyes gaping, unblinking at the screen. To be honest I haven't read the books so I was seeing the story for the first time with Fellowship and Towers. I was not disappointed.

My only complaints would be as follows:

Gimli, a very cool character in Fellowship, was turned into a bumbling oaf in the Towers, the butt of jokes that I felt robbed him of his dignity in the story.

Arwen, who apparently was not even in the books, was tacked on to give Liv Tyler a role in the movie, perhaps to add a little more star power. It was not necessary, and I felt her scenes in Towers dragged the movie down a bit.

There was a certain feel to fellowship that was lacking in Towers. There was a sense of gradiose adventure in Fellowship, with the Kracken, and the trip through the mines of Moria, the various battles here and there. In Towers the closest we came to such adventure was the attack of the wargs, which seemed to be over as soon as it begun (once again with Gimli bungling about, contributing only cheap laughs to the scene).

There were also many very touching scenes in Fellowship that made me walk out of the theater deeply moved long after the movie was over. The death of Gandalf, the death of Boromir, Merry and Pippin taking a brave stand in his defense -against impossible odds, and finally Samwise marching into the water and almost drowning, refusing to let his friend go on without him. There were all very powerful scenes in Fellowship. Towers was lacking in any of this heart. The closest it came was the scenes where the people were preparing their hearts for the battle of helm's deep. There was Aragorn leading the elves into battle after the wall explodes. There was Gandalf leading the horsemen down the mountainside in the end of the battle. This was an amazing scene, but a little too short to be considered perfection. There was also Sam's speech about heroes at the end. These were all awesome, but not as powerful as anything in Fellowship.

Apparently the Special edition DVDs remedy a lot of these concerns of mine. I can't wait to see it.

These few flaws are all forgivable of course. They by no means ruined the movie for me. The action of Helm's deep was breath-taking and the struggle of Frodo with the ring was gut-wrenching, particularly when he attacks Sam, and I won't even get started on how cool Golem/Smeagul was. All-in-all, I'd say Two Towers is on the list of my top 5 favorites of all time.

I give the Two Towers a 9, whereas Fellowship Gets a 10. I'll no doubt change this to a 10 after I've seen the Special Edition.

The Ring (2002)

More hype than anything

[11 December 2002]

This movie isn't even all that scary. I suppose it would be scary for a 14 year old girl perhaps, but for anyone who's seen a lot of movies in their time, there's nothing new here. It was just a bunch of cheap shot scare gags, and horror movie cliches. It seems they were trying to go for the "I don't know what's going on, but it sure is scary!" type of fright, but it didn't work for me. I knew what was going on: The director was trying to scare me. I couldn't lose myself in the movie because the scares were being forced upon me instead of drawing me in.

The scariest movies are the kind of movies that show you a dark place and let you wander in of your own accord. This movie just kept sticking stuff in my face and saying "Boo! Scary, huh?"

I'm not a 14 year-old girl. That kind of stuff doesn't work on me. Sorry.

I probably would have enjoyed this movie more if not for the hype it got. "The scariest movie ever! I couldn't believe it!" I went in expecting too much I guess. If I would have heard nothing about it I could have at least judged it on it's own merits. But hey, whether or not it lives up to the hype is irrelevant. I paid to go and see it. That's all that matters to them in the end.

The Hitcher (1986)

A Classic, ahead of its time.

[11 December 2002]

I just watched this movie again last night and it was just as good as I remember. This movie happily bides by the philosophy that what you don't see, and what you don't know is way scarier than what the director shows you.

John Rider is one of the coolest movie villians ever. Though his character seems under motivated, Rutger Hower plays him so well that you are still convinced, and he is very scary.

C. Thomas Howell is great to as a every-kid type of character thrown into extrodinary circumstances and forced to deal with it. A great performance on his part.

This movie has one of the greatest car chase sequences of all time too, for those of you who love action.

I also like the way this movie's setting stuck to the microcosm of the desert hiways. Other than the cars and a couple haircuts this movie is completely undated. It could easily have been made last week.

There are questions as to John's motivation that arise through out the movie. At one point Jim asks, "Why are you doing this to me?" and John replies, "You're a smart kid. You'll figure it out." I suppose the simple answer is that he just likes to kill people, and Jim Halsey becomes a playmate for him. He wanted to be stopped, and Jim stopped him. From that point on Jim becomes a challenge, or perhaps merely a human toy that John has decided to play with. An interesting diversion in a boring string of hiway murders. Or perhaps John really does want to be stopped and he feels that Jim is the only one who can stop him, but he must be compelled to do it. If John messes with his life enough eventually Jim will find a way to kill him, even if it means hijacking a police truck and chasing down the prison bus to make sure he's dead. That's just my opinion though. Perhaps it's more interesting if you have no idea what's going on.

Overall I'd give this movie an eight out of ten. My only complaints are some of the minor events seemed a little extraneous. John Rider just shows up out of nowhere and messes up Jim's life for no reason over and over again. It works in some places, but other times it seemed a little forced, like they were beating it over the head too much. The cops were a little too one-dimensional also, automatically pinning the murders on Jim, without even considering other options, even though Jim's story seemed completely viable. These are only minor complaints though, and you don't really notice these things unless you are looking for them.