midnighttheater Reviews

Jurassic World (2015)

Decent but more a pale imitation of Jurassic Park and The Lost World than anything original or fresh.

[5/10 · 18 August 2015]

Semi decent sequel picks up the story back at the original island 22 years later with a fully functional " Jurassic Park" that needs a new attraction to bring in new crowds of customers. Unfortunately, the newly created dinosaur has an agenda of it's own and breaks out of captivity in order to prove once again that man should not mess with nature. 

The movie is OK, with some decent jump moments and great set pieces, unfortunately we have seen all of this before with the first two films of the series (The first Jurassic Park and The Lost World) and those  were done much better and much scarier as well.  Not to mention the fact that the characters of those films were much more compelling and more fleshed out and had better original stories to work with. Chris Pratt tries his best with a flat headed character and brings some gravitas to the movie but he's lacks a compelling cast of characters to work with and the script is riddled with one cliché after another.   Bruce Dallas Howard is stuck with a cliché of a women's role and agree with the opinion that it's sexist and very badly written. The rest of the cast of characters are really not worth mentioning because they really did not add much to the film at all other than canon fodder for the rampaging dinosaurs at the park. 

The movie is a good afternoon movie to sit through and thank heavens better than the weak and disposable Jurassic Park 3 but it pales considerably against the first two Steven Spielberg directed films, The Original Jurassic Park and Spielberg's own sequel The Lost World. If there shall be another film, let's hope it at least finds some Interesting characters and a better premise that at least tries to be original and not a pale remake of what came before.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Has it's heart in the right place but it's with a doubt the weakest entry in the series.

[4/10 · 8 July 2015]

It's hard to really put this movie down cause despite it's problems and there is many, it has it's heart in the right place. The aim I guess that the people behind the scenes were aiming for was a family movie with a bit of suspends and while there is a family movie to be had here, it also tries to be a Jurassic Park film and unfortunately it fails as both to a degree.

It fails as a family movie cause the script is not strong enough to support the story. Despite the venom thrown at William H Macy and especially Tea Leoni, both are very appealing actors and they do work hard to make it all work but the script just handicap their efforts to make it possible. It fails as a Jurassic Park film cause it lacks the tension, suspense and the story points that made the first two films in the series ( Jurassic Park And The Lost World) so well made and memorable. Not to mention the fact that they felt like fully formed movies with a beginning, middle and end. Jurassic Park 3 just feels like a Saturday morning serial. Not bad but nothing like the other films in the series. There is one scene in the film that almost manages to bring a little tension which is the bird cage scene but even that ends up flat compared to any of the scenes in the other films of the series. The other major problem is the fact that While Sam Neill works his ass off to make this film watchable, the script does the most disservice to the character of Alan Grant, whose happy ending from the original Jurassic Park was not only ruined thanks to this movie but has his character dumb down in order to fall for the dumb stuff that happens in this film. Despite all of this, Sam Neill is working overtime to make you care. Too bad the script did not.

As I said before, it has a lot of heart thanks to it's actors but thanks to a bad script, Jurassic Park 3 is with out a doubt the weakest entry in the series.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Definitely the second best entry in the Jurassic Park series.

[9/10 · 8 July 2015]

Very good sequel to Jurassic Park finds Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblem) in a race against time to save his girlfriend(Julianne Moore)and stop Ingen from taking dinosaurs off the island in order to take them state side for their own Jurassic Park. While the wow factor is gone from the first movie, the intensity is up considerably with some of the best action, tension and humor of the series. Goldblem once again commands the screen as the audience guide and it's voice of reason and the special effects manages to even out due the first movie by leaps and bonds. The late Richard Attenborough and Pete Postlethweite rounds out the cast in this very worthy follow up. Its definitely The second best entry in the Jurassic Park series and the best follow up to the original Jurassic Park

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

A yellow brick road worth following if you are able to avoid the huge potholes, which unfortunately is not always avoidable.

[9/10 · 6 March 2013]

Unbalance prequel to the classic "The Wizard of Oz" has a lot to offer thanks to the directorial grace of Sam Raimi and the game performances of both Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Unfortunately, their efforts are almost torpedoed thanks to a bland script that needed a lot more heart and the shocking miscasting of two of its major roles.

First we should start with the look of the film, which is to my surprised tame considering the gluttony of CGI in today's films. Sam Raimi gives an old school feel to this film that manages to balance the right tone of epic nostalgia and childlike intimacy with a hint of Raimi's signature manic style of energy. It is a beautiful film to look at and it is very inviting. The character's looks all represent their personalities and the CGI animated effects for the imaginary characters match the feel and look of the film. From the childlike wonder of China Doll to the scary fanged flying baboon, Raimi manages to let them connect on a visual level with their environment and not for once that they over power the seamless look of the film. It is a beautiful, visual affair and that is all thanks to the grace that Sam Raimi and his ability to let the audiences feel their way around this beautiful world. Unfortunately, while this movie is beautiful to look at, not even Raimi's efforts are enough to cover over the fact that the movie's script is as bland as a stale cracker and some of the performances are just flat out bad. The story lacks punch and its barley passable as a narrative. The character's motives are flimsy at best and a hint of irony and complexity could have added a lot more to the film. It is only through the efforts of the movie's best actors (Rachel Weisz and Michele Williams) that give this film the fun, irony and complexity that the script does not manage to even give itself. Unfortunately, while Weisz and Williams are bring more than humanly possible to their perspective roles, both James Franco and Mila Kunis look like they rather not be there are all. The bad part is that both Franco and Kunis are so miscast that it makes you question the mentality of the casting agent who though that they were good choices for their roles.

This leads me to the acting of this film, which is disjointed to say the least. James Franco has done good work in past films but here he just looks like he just does not care about his fellow actors or his performance. He looks like someone who just wants to cash a check and just cost by on what little he can do. He lacks charisma, charm and presence in the role of Oscar Diggs and the bad part is that he is the movie's lead character. Franco's attitude is well displayed on screen and it hurts the film and you end up wondering on why he was even cast in the first place. The same goes to Mila Kunis, who tries a bit harder than Franco on her performance but ends up almost as bad. She just does not have it in her to pull off the role of Theodora, who becomes the Wicked Witch of the West and her performance on screen shows that she is well aware of that. Therefore, she just gives up half way and leaves both Weisz and Williams to fend for themselves. This is not a bad thing when you think about it because both of them manage to hold the film above water while the script just falls flat, Franco continues to not care about anyone but himself and Kunis just does not bother.

This leads me to the best parts of the movie, which are the performances of Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, who both should get overtime pay for keeping the film from self-destructing. Both actresses are probably the best we have working today and in this film, it shows. Weisz plays the oldest sister Evanora, who is the villain of the film and let me tell you, she is so much fun that its criminal and her performance is the best of the film. She gives the character of Evanora such a sassy, fun presence that you do not need Kunis to transform into the Wicked Witch of the west to get a charge, because Weisz does more with less and gets the job done. Her performance keeps the movie afloat and the viewer is more than happy to follow her, which is strange because she is the villain of the film and has more charisma and charm that the hero himself. The second best is Michelle Williams who plays Gilda, the good witch and manages to keep her character from going way too far with the sweetness and have a bit of an edge as well. Williams brings humanity to her performance and the film and gives a perfect foil to Weisz's evil Evanora. If Disney had any sense, a sequel or prequel to this film would have just both Weisz and Williams and leave out Franco and Kunis but I seriously doubt it.

You should follow this yellow brick road just to see Sam Raimi give his all to this beautiful world and see on how good actors Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are in their roles but this road has potholes (Which are the script and the performances of James Franco and Mila Kunis) that cannot be avoided. Let's just hope you have good wheels to go around them to get to the good this film has to offer.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Much better than it had any right to be thanks in part to its two lead actors (Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz), who work acting miracles with a poor script.

[6/10 · 6 August 2012]

Questionable follow up to the Bourne trilogy that has the right pieces in place but lacks the conviction to justify its existence. Taking place almost at the same time of the climax of the third Bourne film (Ultimatum), this film deals with the fall out of the exposure of "Operation Blackbriar" and how an another agency with in the government is trying to cover up their program in order not to be caught up with the coming scandal create by Jason Bourne. "Outcome", the program in question is an offshoot of both "Treadstone" and "Blackbriar" but with a huge difference, they are tabbing into science to create super agents that are faster and stronger than any other agent before them.

In order for me to tell you what is good about this movie, I have to explain what is wrong with it and that is the fact that you get the feeling fifteen minutes into the film that there is no reason for it to exist. The last film (Bourne Ultimatum) pretty much closed the book on the series, with little to no wiggle room for an encore. This movie feels like a studio trying to milk dried what was good from the original trilogy in order to make more sequels. The bad part is that they did it in the most unbelievable way, so much so that you really need to forget what you saw in the last three films in order to believe what was going on in this movie. Tony Gilroy (Who wrote the first three movies) directs and writes this one but falls flat on his face with halfhearted explanations that try to justify this movie's existence. Not to mention the fact that the villain of the movie is a lightweight compared to what came before him plus the glaring fact that Edward Norton's performance as the heavy is pretty much phoned in. He does not have the confidant arrogant swagger that Chris Cooper's character had in the first film nor the desperate menace of that Brain Cox's character brought to the second. Norton's character is more in line with the villain of the third, who was played by David Strathaim (who has a cameo in this film). However, Strathaim's character had a sense of justifiable menace that drove him, while Norton's character just seems like a man trying to justify his actions for the greater good, making him more of a government shill than a villain. The science fiction angle that comes up is insulting to what the last three films were, not to mention the fact that the direction here lacks the kinetic energy that Paul Greengrass brought to the last two movies of the series. Say what you may about the shaky camera work but he knew how to stage a thrilling action piece of pop art. Gilroy's motorcycle chase towards the climax is decent but lacks kinetic spark. He is however very good in staging small intimate moments within this movie but that is more a compliment to the A + cast (Mainly his two lead actors) than the terrible script that they are forced to working with.

Jeremy Renner is a talented actor with serious range and complexity. However, the character he plays is not much of a character and the script that he has to work with is riddled with cliché after cliché. He can do anything a secret agent can do but better but the character is not very compelling or interesting to say the least. Jason Bourne was a compelling character that needed to find himself and through that journey in the original trilogy, we saw complexities that were compelling and thoughtful. He was a conflicted man whose drive was dictated by an inner sense of redemption. The character of Aaron Cross is a cartoon character compared to Jason and that is the main problem of the script for this movie. It is though Renner's efforts as an actor that we care about the character of Aaron Cross and that is one of the few bright spots this film has. Renner injects likability and vulnerability to this character and because of it, we want him to succeed in beating the bad guy and save the girl but Renner is working with a script that goes against itself and we are left with a half fast story that deals with supermen than a human story about survival. It is through Renner's efforts as an actor that we see humanity and conflict in this character while the script itself does not give that sort of detail and Renner is working overtime to accomplish that. Renner would have done wonders with a compelling character like Jason Bourne, unfortunately that is not found with the character of Aaron Cross.

Rachel Weisz is one of the most versatile, gifted and complex actors working today. An actor's actor in every sense of word but like Renner, she does not have much of a character thanks to the cliché script they both have to work with. Her character is on the run with Cross through out the film and acts as his doctor and object of protection. It is through Weisz's amazing strength and range as an actor that we are able to witness levels of complexity and humanity in the character of Dr Marta Shearing that we really do not get from the script. Because of that, we are not only able to care and identify with her but Weisz actually makes her character more complex and interesting than Aaron Cross himself. You can tell that Weisz was working overtime in achieving that and her efforts pay off ten fold, which is a blessing considering that most of the characters outside of her and Renner come across as cardboard cutouts.

It is a shame because Renner and Weisz try their best and for the most part succeed despite all odds but they like the fans deserved better.

I Am Love (2009)

Beautifully surreal but don't expect anything above soap opera material.

[4/10 · 28 June 2010]

Its a very beautifully shot film and you have to give credit to Tilda Swinton for her efforts to be truthful to the material and her character but the film plays more like a day time soap opera than a art film that tries to be daring. We have seen all of this before and its pretty cliché. Tilda plays a woman trapped in a life she does not want and has to decide if she's daring enough to venture out of it. The ending is the best part of the film and that's because it breaks out of its cliché mold during the final minutes of the film but by the time you get there, you are already half a sleep during what was going on before to to even care. it could have been so much more if it tried to be at least daring with its subject matter but it fails to bring anything new other than the last fifteen minutes of the film.

Wait for Cable.

Sweet Home Alabama (2002)

Very good old fashion fun.

[10/10 · 2 June 2003]

I was very surprised by this film. I thought that this would be just a silly chick hick flick but I was wrong. It's an intelligent and touching film about faith and home that just pulled at the right heart strings. Reese Witherspoon Is wonderful as well as the rest of the cast, and it has just the right sense of hope and fun to bring you out of a bad mood. I can't recommend it enough.

Spider-Man (2002)

The best comic film since the original Superman.

[10/10 · 2 June 2003]

Stylize and faithful adaptation of the Marvel comic hero is nothing short of breathtaking. Sam Raimi does the classic Marvel Comics hero justice with a powerful and touching film that will be a hallmark for comic books films to come. Tobey Maguire is perfectly cast as Peter Parker, The tragic young hero who learns about responsibility the hard way, and Willem Dafoe is perfect as the villain, whose sacrifices every thing to achieve personal power. The movie is a slick reminder on how comic book movie should be made, and it does it with the right combination of heart and fireworks. The rest of the cast is just as fine and the special effects really do pack a hell of a punch to the senses.

Can't wait for Spidey 2.