wintertwister Reviews

Casino Royale (2006)

Best Bond

[9/10 · 24 November 2006]

This is to the spy genre what the Spiderman movies are to the super-hero genre. Or even like "Batman Begins." This maybe the best Bond movie. Daniel Craig is excellent at Bond in acting and action. This Bond actually has some great fighting moves that the typical martial arts movie lacks--the moves look real. And Craig definitely looks like he could hold his own in a real fight. The pace of the movie is steady but not frantic. Having said that, there are lots of great fast moving scenes. The gadgets in this movie actually are real life types of things for the most part--no bizarre jet packs for no apparent reason here. These gadgets blend in to Bond's mission and do not stand out as gadgets for their own sake. There is also a dark side to the movie as human life actually seems to have dignity and people aren't killed for the sake of killing. There are many killings though, but there are reactions to their deaths and some level of accountability. This Bond lacks camp--which is a good thing to lack. Some of the other Bonds were similar to the 60's Batman series. This movie shows the dirty nature of his work and the grit of his world. However, he doesn't have the total unreal relationships with women like previous Bond movies--those in which Bond has a new woman every 15 minutes. There is a small point that seems to drag a bit. But then it picks up the pace again. I was hungry when I saw the movie so I got a bit antsy in that part. I was soon rewarded for my brief patience. The locations also add to the effectiveness of the movie. The atmosphere of the Casino Royale drew the audience in to the scene. It was as if we were all there in the casino. There are many other locations and all of them are well selected. Don't wait for the DVD--the sites and sounds are magnificent on the big screen.

The War of the Worlds (2005 Video)

At least it was free for me.

[1/10 · 10 August 2006]

A friend gave me a copy of this movie. I should charge him the time it took to watch it. Acting? It was fair. The actors did not always convey the emotion of the situation but a few did a good job. The problem may be with the directing. It seemed as though some of the folks were not giving it their all in each scene. Production: What were they thinking? Most people do not like watching others run and run and then walk and walk through fields and the woods unless something is right there chasing them--something the movie-goers can see or perceive. Why was all this not edited? Then there are unsynchronized sequences in which one group of people are in the mid-day sun while another group seems to be in darkness. At first I thought that it was just because one group was in a collapsed house but no, it was because it was not synchronized. At least get rid of the long walks and useless dialog. Graphics: either make a cartoon or a movie. unless this is Roger Rabbit, you should not mix the two. Horrible special effects.This is not the early 20th century, so we need effects that look like they are half-way believable. At least the one actor could have grown his own actual mustache. They also used the same people over and over. I could go on but that would be like the movie itself. It could have been OK,maybe, but it is not. Watch the Tom Cruise version or the 1953 version. Both are very good.

King Kong (2005)

Stunning! See it today!

[10/10 · 25 December 2005]

Just some rambling thoughts about King Kong. It is King! I think anyone who has seen the previous King Kongs or the ads for this movie must realize that King Kong climbs the Empire State Building. What you get by going to the movie is a whole lot more. People have carped at Jack Black for being in this movie. My advice is to get over yourself. You don't need to sound like a critic by attacking Jack Black. Yes, he is a comedian but he did an good job with his character. Everyone did an excellent job. Jackson out did himself with this movie. From the smallest creatures to the larger, everything seems real. There are some very disturbing scenes in the movie. However,the real magic is in the subplots and character development of not only Kong, but all the surrounding creatures and people. This movie is beyond special effects. Jackson did not rely on special effects and he tells actual tales. The special effects are excellent. Andy Serkis is excellent as Kong. The movie was stunning. Don't wait for it to come out on DVD--see it now.

The Pledge (I) (2001)

Nonsense

[1/10 · 11 August 2005]

When I saw this at the cinema, I was so mad at the ending that I stood up and yelled," what was this (nonsense)?" Here I was, asked to believe that a retired detective would take such a foolish pledge upon a matchstick cross. Then he spends all he has to live in a town, set up a little girl as bait,all while wooing her mother.At least we could be shown why he would do that. Perhaps a past case in which he became over involved or something. And why would a SWAT team from another city stake out the woods with little evidence? Just too many unbelievable things going on for the ending that it has. Acting? Good, but what good is it if the story is stupid? The story was unbelievable, I didn't buy the line and if you do, that is up to you. But I expect some good reasons to buy in to such a strung out story like this one. I say to you, don't waste your time watching this nonsense. It didn't last long at the cinema for good reasons.I don't see it jumping off the shelves at the stores either.

War of the Worlds (2005)

This movie has heart.

[10/10 · 7 August 2005]

I went to this movie expecting to see great special effects and to see acting that sort of fleshed out a basic story. I did not expect the great acting of Tom Cruise and the story to make the special effects secondary aspects of the movie. There are a few similarities between the 1953 movie and this one. Amusingly enough, they both show all earthly machines to stop functioning then have one item that somehow works. In the 53 film, after everyone is astounded that nothing works, a police car with siren pulls up to the square dance. In both,it could be that only the machines that were running (watches,cars,etc) became affected by the alien's influence.This could explain the item in the 05 movie working as it did. This movie focused on how people dealt with the insane situation given to--naturally--Tom Cruise's character, Ray Ferrier. Some people I know who also saw the movie commented that the whole dysfunctional family thing was a cliché'. Yet dysfunctional families are all over. What isn't a cliché' anymore? Spielberg wove this tapestry of horror before our eyes with this family's attempts to stay alive. This movie has heart.The interaction of the family members with themselves and others, Cruise's display of every kind of emotion and their hellish adventure made this movie. His character matured through the movie as he attempted to keep his children safe while struggling to travel to a place he hopes is not destroyed. He is forced to do horrible things which you know Ray Ferrier would not normally do or even consider. No special effects were needed although they were excellent and horrifying. Especially if you are a parent. Spielberg almost always gets the best from his actors and does so here. Spielberg has excellent special effects on top of a heater-skelter nightmare. What he does with the story, though,is even more frightening as what is not seen is just as scary as what is seen. He uses the effects to make bad situations worse. The ways that people are killed by the aliens are horrifying in themselves. As in the first movie, you wonder if anyone is going to survive. Even if you've read the book (which is a social commentary),heard the 1938 radio broadcast, and seen the 1953 movie, predicting who will survive is guess work. Sure you can lay odds that the star will survive--but will he? The result of all this was an out of control ride. Survival is the name of the game and the humans cannot make the rules. There is no way the humans can fight back and so there is no feeling of control or when and how this will end.Some who demand a solid plot may not like this movie for that reason. Nevertheless, I recommend this movie to all able-bodied humans and aliens. You will feel what the characters are feeling and you may wonder how you would do yourself.

Windtalkers (2002)

Too much Gas

[6/10 · 21 June 2005]

The Navajo men who helped America defeat Japan get some much needed credit by this movie, but they deserved better than this. The problems with this movie include bad special effects, an in-cohesive story, clichéd ideas and lack of strong climax. I've seen some explosions from artillery and it doesn't look like what is presented in this movie--unless of course the Japanese soldiers where all hauling cans of gas with them in the jungle. Most large explosions were very gaseous in nature. Big flames and lack of explosive intensity mark the typical boom in this movie. The story was all over the place. Was it about the sarge (Cage) or was it about the code-talkers? It should have been about the code-talkers, but Enders was a huge distraction to the story line. It wasn't Cage's fault. They could have played him as that type of character without digressing from the code-talkers. Also, there were some good battle scenes but the Marines had many heroes and not just one guy doing everything in each battle. Since they were showing the battle of Saipan, why not at least show what the Japanese civilians did? Many of them,taught that the Marines were savages, tossed themselves off of cliffs in effort to avoid Americans. Already, others have discussed the clichéd lines and scenes. There are many. Enough said. The climax was predictable.In case you want to see the movie, I will just say it was weak because of the problems in the story development.This is not the worst war movie there is. It was OK if you ignore Cage's character as much as possible and give attention to the code-talkers. That is a challenge, but at least you would learn something about them.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Thumbs up

[9/10 · 21 May 2005]

The Kingdom of Heaven tells the story of a man who becomes a better man whilst tossed into the always politically unstable Jerusalem. This I think is plain as advertised. What isn't plain is the dialog, the acting, the attention to the details of life as a soldier in those days and the cinematography. What more could you want? The story line was not as tight as it could be but then maybe that was a good thing. Life is not as tight as it could be. It is full of contradictions and change. The story line is how a man became greater and greater. It isn't about the Crusades nor is it a love story. Yet it contains those things. I think it can be very daring to not have a plain black and white story line ala John Wayne (no knocks but a good example nonetheless). The dialog and the acting were the keys to the movie. You can peer into the hearts of the characters and their actions did not contradict the characters. Yet their actions were not predictable. Their actions made sense with the characters. The movie itself is beautiful with many great vistas of different parts of the Meditteranean world featured in different seasons. Also the weapons of antiquity were very interesting. The movie was also fair to all people and religions. Some Muslims who were there shared that view as they were talking during their exit. The film showed the good ways and bad ways that people use religion. There were a couple of early scenes depicting some physically improbabilities but nothing too big to hold a grudge.

For those who want black and white answers and yes or no questions, I would say that you will be disappointed. For those of you looking for a good story, this movie will give it to you.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Equals the first three

[10/10 · 19 May 2005]

Finally a prequel that is the equal to the first 3. The first was a little blah the second was better but this prequel is easily the best. The action, characterization and results make this the equal to the first three. First, the weakness. In my opinion the one weakness in the movie is the script. It is adequate but could have been a lot better. The lines were high school level. Then again this is an action movie and there wasn't a whole lot of time left for pretty language. The dialog was good enough and explained adequately what was happening. The characterization was much better than the first prequel and better than the second. For an action movie, you can understand why these people do what they do instead of fight for no reason. The results. Well everyone knows what is going to happen if they've seen the original trilogy. However how the results occur were satisfying. The action was superb and what else could you expect? The action made logical sense in that the characters reacted to the technology very naturally. Things made sense. The things that are there do more than make interesting scenes (although they do that too). The plot--who doesn't know what's supposed to happen? Are the 6 movies now one? I think so, but I will let you decide how much so. Go see this one at the cinema.Stand in line or buy your tickets online which is what I did. Get caught in the hoopla! I think it was worth it.

Patton (1970)

Exciting war biography

[10/10 · 4 February 2005]

Patton is one of the few movie biographies that hits the nail on the head. Although it deals with only a few years of Patton's life--all during WW2--it paints a compelling picture of the famous general. To say that Patton was controversial would be an understatement. Patton's nickname before the war was The Green Hornet:given because he had a reputation for sudden harshness. In fact, during the 30's uprising in Washington DC by WW1 veterans, he beat the veterans with the broadside of his sword. The movie captures Patton's intensity and mood changes. In the famous scene where he strikes a soldier (historically, he struck 2 in different places and both were suffering horribly from malaria) he had just shared some kind words and gestures with some others. It also captures his real thoughts of his superiors. In one particular scene, he is badmouthing a general who then walks into his room. He instantly changes his mood. Besides that, the movie captures Patton's genius in conducting war as well as the respect he had amongst the Germans. It also shows Patton's keen knowledge of history and how it translated to victory in his battles. The battle scenes can be a touch graphic for its time but can be considered mild today. Karl Malden plays an excellent role as General Bradley and complements the brashness of Patton. Patton the man had his faults, but the movie does not.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Pay no attention to the Otherfool

[10/10 · 7 January 2005]

I reviewed the negative comments and was amazed at the lack of insight given by the current first commentator on this sight. It is not about a bunch of people going on an adventure like so many folks going out to pick wild berries.That's the sort of adventure that Pippin and Merry seemed to think it was at first. This particular book, the series and the Hobbit have been imitated in various ways by many different authors. This is a great story. The story is about a group of people out to save the world. How many times has that been done? Countless. But few have been done as well as this. The dialog is excellent. The acting is excellent. I liked how the hobbits each began to appreciate the difficulties they faced and the gravity of the situation. Merry and Pippin don't seem to get it until the next movie but they are learning in this movie. When Strider tells the hobbits that they are not scared enough, you can see the gravity of the situation settle on them but at varying degrees. The camera work and computer work are excellent. Sweeping vistas, panoramic views, dark forbidding caverns and enchanting forests fill the screen.The background music excites the mind as you view the adventure that unfolds before you. Many college bands now play that music at football games for that very reason. You will not see a better adventure movie trilogy.Not even Star Wars--as great as it is--can match it. Bored with the movie? Either you are a very stuffy person or you need to go to your doctor and get some Ritalin because you probably have ADD.

Shark (1969)

Shark in small letters

[1/10 · 22 December 2004]

Not much to this movie. Not really about sharks. Was re-released in the mid 70s during the Jaws craze. The shark attacks are at the end of the movie. They should throw this movie to the sharks. Is a very early Burt Reynold's movie but he lacked the panache which he demonstrated in later movies. In fact this movie lacks anything of interest. The acting is flat, the story line is weak and the shark action is sparse. The big shark scene is looks fake even though real sharks were used. The photography fails to draw the viewer into the drama partially because the filming was far away from the action. It also fails because the sharks seem incidental--they just happened to be there with no build up of excitement to the scene. Tragically, some poor soul died making this movie so if you watch it, watch it for his sake. If you like bad movies try this. Try Deliverance instead if you want to see Burt Reynolds.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Pearl Harbor Bombed Again

[1/10 · 3 December 2004]

What direction would the movie called Pearl Harbor take? How about the Battle of Britain? No? How about a sappy contrived romance? No? Let's hurry up and do Pearl Harbor then go to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor before we venture to the Doolittle Raid. But first let's do the Battle of Britain. This movie ran all over the place. Add poor lighting (many scenes were so dark it made me wonder if lightbulbs were new inventions in the 1940s) speechifying (Roosevelt standing up) poor script with a "duh" romantic triangle and you have a bomb. Did anyone notice that the machine guns were replaced by painted broomsticks before the Doolittle Raid? Then, in the dark, one of the B-25's managed to shoot up a squad of Japanese soldiers without hitting their own men while traveling over 200mph--with broom sticks! The attack on Pearl Harbor was well done and some of the shots of the Japanese carriers were very accurate (yes the islands were on the left side of those carriers) except the one shot of a modern US carrier. Also, they portrayed actual Japanese aircraft for the most part instead of T-6 Texan trainers like every other WW2 movie uses for both German and Japanese aircraft. But that was spoiled after these two guys, after fighting the Japanese in the air, gave blood then mustered enough energy to dig thru thick steel on the USS Oklahoma.

Watch Tora Tora Tora instead.

The Searchers (1956)

Not your average western

[10/10 · 15 November 2004]

An excellent western that exceeds the average shoot em up. Lots of great characters which contribute to the development of the story. Thrown together are colorful, dark and enigmatic characters with those that provide a more passive genre. Wayne is a troubled and bigoted Southern civil war veteran who does what he needs to do--or what he thinks he needs to do. Jeffrey Hunter plays opposite Wayne as a quarter Cherokee man and tries to keep Wayne's character as civilized as possible--yet he reveals great passion when confronted with decision. For several years, these two search after a little girl kidnapped by a roving band of renegade Comanches. The end is fast,furious and unpredictable. Will Wayne kill the girl he thinks has become Comanch'? Will Jeffrey Hunter stop him? Only by watching will you know.