Change Your Image
zsanctuary
Reviews
War of the Worlds (2005)
Tom Cruise learns that aliens are mean and we learn that scripts are important.
Okay coming right into this review I'll admit that I have only a passing knowledge of the original War of the Worlds novel by H.G. Wells. I'll also admit that I know virtually nothing about the radio broadcast that apparently scared thousands of people by convincing them that aliens were actually attacking. Luckily for me this remake is specifically tailored for the average explosion hungry moviegoer.
This movie has everything that makes a great (yet mindless) summer blockbuster. You got your mammoth budget, big stars (in this case pretty boy Tom Cruise and the inhuman Dakota Fanning), sparkly special effects and of course your mind numbingly loud explosions. However simply calling it a blockbuster is a bit rude, War of the Worlds is above other films of its type in many ways. The mediocre plot (no I'm not insulting H.G. Well's writing, I'm sure the book had a lot more to it than this dribble) is simply a tether that holds together impressive action scenes and a bit of interesting artistic vision compliments of Steven Spielberg.
"Artistic vision in a summer blockbuster! Has he lost his mind?" No, I haven't. Spielberg very wisely puts everything in the perspective of Tom Cruise and his family. In other words, we see what they see. A perfect example of this would be a scene in which the military fights the invaders along a formerly scenic hillside. This is sure to be a fantastic sight but we don't actually get to see anything other than explosions stretching just above the horizon. It causes us to miss much of the spectacle but also manages to distinguish this as an honest attempt at quality film-making.
Since I already opened the dreaded can of worms that is "artistic vision" I might as well further cement my statement. War of the Worlds isn't afraid to be dark and really wants to be an Oscar worthy masterpiece. We are greeted by images of people fleeing in terror, trampling each other as they desperately try to escape. A scenic river becomes a site of horror as a few dozen human bodies float by. Giant alien war machines gracefully drift across the horizon; their beauty shrouded by the inevitable destruction of everything that surrounds them. These are great images complimented by great special effects and very tasteful direction. Unfortunately the movie's mood shifts very drastically at about the 2/3 point and let me tell you this change is not for the better.
Throughout the movie everybody is running, always running. Even the great action hero Tom Cruise is running like a little baby. Then at 2/3 the movie remembers it's trying to please the average moviegoer and abruptly adjusts Tom Cruise's character so that he is a hero. I won't spoil what he does, but I will say it's too much too soon.
As you can see, this film has a very interesting style. It tries really hard to please everybody and as a result it seems extremely uneven. I didn't even mention the attempts at philosophy in the second act via Tim Robbins who turns in an interesting performance that is unfortunately mutilated by poor writing. This character constantly switches between being a rebel and a coward. He talks big then either hides or acts upon his actions without explanation, you could just say he's crazy but again, that's poor writing.
It's not just this character either; the whole movie suffers from an alternating level of writing. Some parts come across very nicely while others are an exercise in mediocrity. We did not need that huge boat scene, it did nothing for the plot and nothing for the characters. That brings me to the basement scenes. There's two of them that are almost alike; combining these two scenes would tighten the pace of the film (hey then maybe act 2 wouldn't drag so much) and actually make both of them more logical. I won't spoil the specifics but I'll say that what happens at the end of the first basement scene would give a good reason for what happens at the end of the second.
I suppose you're getting mixed feelings by now. "Does he like the film or does he hate it?" Well I can tell you right now it's a good movie and well worth watching but only if you can handle a few dozen flaws. It evens out in the end and is quite entertaining but I for one prefer movies that rise above average and this one only decides to do so periodically. Worth a see, perhaps maybe even a DVD purchase but it's one we'll probably forget about next summer when we're once again bombarded with a series of big budget extravaganzas. Oh, and for the record I hated the design for the aliens in this, hell they were playful of all things. Almost makes me wish the kick ass tripods were on autopilot.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=warworlds
The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005)
Like a sick mind in the right place.
As we all know the sub-genre of sex comedies is pretty crowded. Simply being excessively raunchy isn't enough anymore. I've seen and heard so many disgusting jokes and actions that a sex comedy really needs to have other positive points to appeal to me these days.
Coming into the 40 Year Old Virgin I knew basically what to expect; I did see the commercials after all; "is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?" What I didn't expect to find is a heart and honest attempts at character development. There's still the weird "off-the-wall" characters that we see so much in Adam Sandler movies and there's still enough inappropriate language to sink Noah's Ark but somehow the movie has a worthwhile love story and yes even a message.
The main character Andy is (unfortunately for me) a person I can relate to. In the first shot I see that he even shares my love for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (he has a poster for the movie on his wall) and throughout the movie we get to see his really neat collection of antiquities. Andy also has plenty of video games and a working knowledge of films and technology. Andy doesn't want to buy a car because he prefers his bike. Most importantly of all; Andy is a nice person, he doesn't swear and he respect women so much that he stays away from them. Combine all these factors and everybody begins to think he's a serial murderer. It's like my life story.
The other characters each have funny little stories to go along with their slightly exaggerated personalities and they all work on a certain level but not the way Andy does. I felt that it was sort of distracting in a way since Andy and his girlfriend Trish are really the only truly human characters in the entire movie.
I suppose since I mentioned one flaw I might as well bring the other noticeable one to light. The story is clever but too predictable and as far as romances go; it's quite simple. It deals with Andy's relationship with Trish for a long time and we all know what's going to happen in the end. Sure its final detour is a bit different than we may expect but you know what's going to happen in the end, and I assure you it does. These are definitely small stains on the movie but there's so much good here that I can easily ignore it's few faults.
When I say "good" I mean "bad" of course. This is a sex comedy and it wants to be bad. For the most part I think it succeeded. There are so many hilarious scenes such as Andy trying to get rid of an erection after refusing to have sex with Trish. Or the scene where Andy goes with his Trish's daughter to a sexual education class where he ends up asking more questions than anybody else. Ah and we must not forget the soon to be classic chest waxing sequence "Ooh! Como se llama!" An interesting little note about that scene; the actor Steve Carell actually did wax his belly and the pain shown is real. Of course they only did one take but it was still a very brave thing to do on his part.
Actually since we're talking about Steve Carell, I'd like to say that he has now risen on my list of respected comedians which is sort of odd since I didn't even know who he was prior to seeing this film. I was just so impressed by his writing, acting and timing that I now really want to keep an eye out for his future roles. This man has talent it The 40 Year Old Virgin proves that.
To be honest I had doubts about this film but early word was positive and I knew it was something I was eventually going to see. I'm glad that I did too since it's probably one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time and it doubles as something you feel is worth watching. It's not simply a series of sex gags lumped together rather it's a series of sex gags entwined with a very worthwhile character and a truly touching romance. Now excuse me while I go puke my guts out; I can't believe I just wrote that...
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=virgin
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Only pleasing in the most unpleasant of ways.
The Devil's Rejects is Rob Zombie's follow up to House of 1000 Corpses. The film is dark, morbid and almost as clunky as its predecessor; I liked it more that's for sure yet I still can't help but to feel it was a mixed bag of greatness (as far as horror films go) and mediocrity. At times I would roll my eyes while at others I'd be staring at the screen in disbelief (a good thing).
Unlike most people I came into this movie expecting more violence than plot. This will cause the general viewer to call the film pointless and sick. Well it is sick but I wouldn't say it's pointless. What we have here is an extremely intriguing struggle between good and evil. The sheriff wants revenge for his brother's death and the Devil's Rejects are actually convinced that they're from Hell doing Satan's dirty work. The interesting part is how the sheriff goes about getting his revenge. It's basically a role reversal yet you're rooting for the sheriff merely because he is the hero. I was quite impressed by this since it's really hard to get me to root for somebody while they're torturing the villains and chasing them around with an axe.
I think this works because of how the Devil's Rejects are developed. Rob Zombie spends a lot of time showing just how evil they are and by the end of the movie you really do want them to die. This sort of validates the sheriff's actions and really makes the whole thing more believable.
In fact everything in this film looks real and probably could happen (well except for the one member of the family that looked like Freddy Krueger; that was a bit goofy). Sure the gore was unrealistically over the top but it's not really what makes the film so sick and real; It's how the villains treat their victims, the suffering and torture. I even felt that this was pushed too far and that's coming from a guy who smiles all the way through Day of the Dead's finale. Well I mean "too far" in the sense that even I had trouble watching. The thing is criminals go that far and often even further. This is more realistic than common slashers like Scream and Friday the 13th , no Hollywood heroes or impossible stunts. Nope the Devil's Rejects is unrelenting, unafraid and horrifyingly realistic.
Ah but not all is well with this film. As I mentioned it's clunky much in the same way House of 1000 Corpses was. The plot often takes pointless turns or distracts the viewer with bizarre camera tricks. I also found a severe lack of character development. We know everybody's motivations but they are far too simple and there are a few too many stereotypical redneck personalities running around.
The acting is passable but not really fabulous in any way. I really liked Ken Foree's performance but that's probably because I was so excited to see him in the film. The people playing the victims also did very good jobs with their simple characters but only because they weren't annoying. That may sound weird but one must remember that at its heart (however black it may be) this is a slasher flick. A sub-genre where women are constantly screaming and often these screams are at headache inducing pitches capable of breaking all the windows in your house. I much prefer the soft whimpering in Rejects.
The Devil's Rejects also falters a lot in the originality department. Sure each of the villains is interesting and there are a few clever scenes here and there (the final highway scene is especially cool) but everything else has been done before.
As you can see I really don't know what to make of The Devil's Rejects. I know I'd never watch this film again yet I know it's a good movie. It entertained me (sort of) for its running time and now I've seen what it's all about. I know it has problems but it also has many strengths. So I guess I'll recommend it to those who like this sort of thing. It's definitely not going to please everybody but those with a strong stomach and a sick mind should find it at least mildly entertaining.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=rejects
The Cave (2005)
Bleh.
I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.
So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.
Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.
I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.
Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than "run!" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.
Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.
So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=cave
Saw II (2005)
Meh.
A while back I found myself in English class trying to read some King when a nearby group's conversation gradually changed the topic to horror movies. That's when I first heard about Saw and how it's apparently one of the scariest and goriest movies ever made. I was skeptical and took my sweet time getting to it. After the initial watch I was a tad bit disappointed since Saw was not a horror movie. It had horror elements but it was supposed to be more of a mystery and on that ground it failed miserably. The ending was totally out of the left field and quite frankly I don't think it was even all that realistic.
I gave Saw some time and it grew on me a bit, not one of my favorites but I am now able to respect it for what it is. Saw II on the other hand was definitely a few steps down. Coming into the movie we know how Jigsaw sets up games of torture to test his victims. We know that there are going to be clever traps that involve people turning against each other and I guess we now know that there's going to be a dumb implausible twist at the end (though I admit it's a bit better in this one).
Saw II really does suffer from a "been there, done that" attitude. It also suffers from being too much like a horror movie. The first film at least tried to be smart; this sequel is just a brutal slasher flick. Hell they even have a stereotypical axe murdered running around at one point. With better writing this content would work but almost everything on display has been done before.
Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on this film. Most sequels do suffer from being too familiar. That's not to say it's all bad, in fact there are quite a few clever little scenes that impressed even me. The pool of syringes was memorable and Jigsaw was an interesting yet slightly familiar character (was it just he or did he give off a weird Hannibal Lecter vibe?) So as you can see, a lot of things have been changed for this sequel unfortunately these changes are not the ones that needed to be made. Rather than trying to expand the formula they should have made an effort to fix the things that were wrong with the first one. The camera work for instance. It tries to be "cool" by being wild and all over the place with nifty rock music blaring but it just seems silly to me, same with the car chases that were sped up, I actually laughed out loud during these scenes.
Another thing would be the acting. I know it's a horror movie and they never have good acting but it was just so bad. I not once felt for any of these characters, well except Jigsaw who was very well portrayed by Tobin Bell. Yet again, Jigsaw was the villain, we're not supposed to care about the villain.
I suppose my review may be a bit misleading considering how little good I have to say about the film. I'll admit it's not that bad when compared to other slasher flicks and there's probably enough to keep you entertained for it's running time, just don't expect it to blow your socks off.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=saw2
Red Eye (2005)
Nearly perfect.
Wes Craven used to be quite the director back in the day; A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Hills Have Eyes are some of the most popular horror films ever made. Unfortunately the man has produced nothing but dribble since the Scream trilogy ended and I was starting to hope he'd just give up. I guess I'm eating my own words now that I've seen his latest film Red Eye. It's an improvement for sure yet you could also say dirt is an improvement over crap. Just how much better is Red Eye than Craven's last film Cursed? I think I can safely say that it's a lot better. Red Eye is undoubtedly a great film and I enjoyed it from start to finish yet I'm still unsure just how high to rate it. You see from watching the film I feel as if it's perfect. I don't mean it's the best film ever or anything like that but it does exactly what it sets out to do and doesn't seem to take a single wrong turn. I can name dozens of better movies out there but very few with less flaws than this one.
Red Eye is a thriller (with some horror) that knows just where it's going and how fast it wants to go. We get about 15 minutes of character development with a bit of foreshadowing thrown in for good measure then it's nonstop suspense until the credits. Some may argue that too much time is spent on one set (the plane) but I thought it balanced perfectly with the other two acts and the way it led up to the city scenes was pitch perfect. The final bit in the house was probably the most expertly directed slasher scene I've ever seen and yes I'm serious; it was suspenseful and tight with no lag whatsoever.
Ah but it's not just pacing and direction that make this thing perfect, heck no. Rachel McAdams does a fantastic job portraying fear while not breaking into annoyingly excessive crying or mind busting screaming fits. I particularly liked how her character tried to right her wrongs while not becoming your typical movie hero. Cillian Murphy who impressed me as Scarecrow in Batman Begins (and to a lesser extent Jim in 28 Days Later) turns in another extremely interesting performance here as the villain. Instead of hamming it up Murphy does sort of a calm relaxed villain who wants to scare Lisa while trying not to rise the suspicions of the other passengers. The various supporting performances were mostly small and forgettable but these characters don't really seem like they need to do anything other than their jobs and I think it works fine.
That's all fine and dandy but I think Red Eye's greatest strength was its intelligence and wit. It has a lot of little details (often foreshadowed much in advance) for those who like to think yet the actual story is simple enough for your average moronic moviegoer to enjoy too. Red Eye also avoids being cliché even if the story is very similar to films like Phone Booth. Lisa is smart, Jack is smart and they do smart things to do what they want done. Sure their whispering may be loud enough for others to hear but you need to take into account that this is a movie and we need to hear what they're saying ourselves without it seeming like they are wearing microphones.
So I guess there's really not a heckuva lot more to say about Red Eye, My review is completely positive and I'm almost certain that this film is perfect yet I still can't say it's special in any one way. I don't even think I could call it a must see film but I highly recommend it especially if you like suspense. Hopefully this film wasn't a fluke and I wish Wes Craven the best of luck with his next project.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=redeye
La marche de l'empereur (2005)
Lovely.
Review of US version.
March of the Penguins is a documentary about Penguins. Think National Geographic: the motion picture. This is the only way to summarize the film and based on what I just wrote I doubt even half of the people reading this review will even consider watching this movie. Sure penguins are cute and cuddly but do we really want to spend money to watch an hour and a half-long film about birds? Isn't that what PBS is for? Well yes but that's no excuse not to watch March of the Penguins.
The story (if you can call it that) revolves around how emperor penguins find their mates, breed and raise their children. It may sound boring (and at times it is) but the whole cycle is actually pretty interesting if not a bit too complicated. Basically they come out of the water, march in a line all the way to their sacred breeding grounds, find mates, spend weeks guarding an egg then throughout the next few months the male and female penguins take turns walking all the way back for food. I can't find it in myself to understand why they just don't "do it" by the water where the food is or at least a little bit closer anyway. I know they mentioned the thick ice and the cliffs to block the wind a bit but they looked pretty damn cold as it is so how much harm could a bit more wind do them? Alas I'm rambling about the reasoning power of a few thousand feathered bipeds.
March of the Penguins is crammed full of many interesting facts. I think I know just about everything about penguins having seen this film. They are interesting birds and this movie shows it. I admit it lags a lot in the middle when the birds continue going back to the ocean but I really didn't expect them to glamorize a real life breeding cycle just because it's a theatrical release. Other than that I was awake the whole time and much more I wasn't bored. This may have been aided by the fact that the film is narrated by Morgan Freeman. Between this and War of the Worlds I have to say that the guy is a natural. His voice matches the monotone National Geographic feel though it almost demands you to stay awake...I sure hope I'm not over-analyzing this.
If you haven't already guessed March of the Penguins is a very well put together documentary. I don't mind saying that since there's really nothing wrong with it and in some ways it's really quite amazing. The filmmakers have captured so many fantastic images. At some points I was wondering if it was real or just really good CGI. I just find it really hard to believe that none of this film was doctored even a bit. Take the underwater footage for example. We can clearly see multiple shots of penguins whizzing through the water like torpedoes and we also see a seal catch one in it's mouth. This is some truly amazing stuff.
So I guess there's not a heck of a lot more to say about March of the Penguins. Sure I could go on and on about the facts I learned but knowing those would ruin your enjoyment of the film greatly. Speaking of enjoyment, I'd very much like to recommend this film to everybody but that's just not going to happen. Penguins aren't "cool" and neither are documentaries. There are a lot of cold people out there who can't find it in themselves to swallow their pride and watch a documentary about penguins. Nothing I say about this film will get people to watch this movie which is really quite a shame since they don't know what they're missing.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=penguins
Land of the Dead (2005)
Romero hits it out of the park.
Boy this one has been a long time coming. I've been an avid Romero fan since the age of 12. Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead have all been horrifyingly good times and a fourth installment could be nothing but good news right? Well in this case, yes. I'll come right out and say that Land of the Dead is the best time I've had in a movie theater since the last Jurassic Park movie. Just the thrill of seeing Romero's monsters lumber across the screen for the first time in 20 years is enough to warrant a watch but the film itself is so well crafted that you'd be crazy not to see it at least once.
With Romero it has always been about the story. In just twenty minutes of film he manages to create a mostly believable post-apocalyptic society. We clearly see the characters' motivations and from that point on it's all about two things, violence and social commentary. Some people would argue that tons of gore doesn't necessarily make a good film. They're more or less right but with Romero it's all about the gore.
The modern horror fan wants to see people die, they crave it. They want more than anything to have the screen literally drip with blood, I'm happy to report that Romero knows this and despite the R rating he delivers us the most intense gore since Peter Jackson's Dead Alive. People are shot, beheaded, torn open and blown up all in graphic detail. I'm actually shocked how much Romero got away with but that's not to say I'm complaining.
The gore is complimented by mostly spectacular visuals. The zombies look phenomenal and the "feeding scenes" are clear, crisp and bloody. The only stain in the visuals would be a bit of clumsy CGI use. Some of it works very well (Cholo shooting a dart through a zombie's head is seamless) while other effects wouldn't look out of place in a low budget direct-to-video effort (the priest zombie, blech).
The other major staple of Romero's zombie films has been the hidden social commentaries. Land has a lot of particularly intriguing insights about the working class being distracted by media (presented via the "sky flowers") and terrorism (thrown right in your face courtesy of Dennis Hopper "We do not negotiate with terrorists!") however it seems a tad bit obvious. Romero would have been wiser to blend it in a bit more yet again it's not terribly distracting.
The acting is pretty good in general but Dennis Hopper (Kaufman) and Eugene Clark (Big Daddy) turn in the best performances. Hopper is especially fun to watch as he stands on the line between being a real person and a cartoon character.
So how does this rank with the other movies in the series? I honestly couldn't tell you. Each of Romero's zombie films have had completely different feelings to them and this one is no exception. I can't quite decide whether I should compare it to the others at all. It's so obviously Romero yet at the same time it seems so fresh and different.
What I can tell you is that this is better than any recent zombie movie and that's saying a lot since so many of them have been good. In the end I feel as if Romero's extra dash of personality has given this film so much uniqueness that you can't help but to smile. I love how each zombie has it's own personality and moves in a slightly different manner it adds such an interesting layer of detail that makes this film so easy to watch again and again.
So in the end I guess Land of the Dead is an extremely worthy addition to a spectacular series that succeeds in both entertaining the audience and expanding Romero's world. It's slightly flawed but the overwhelming charm and originality (yes a charming horror movie
) make up for whatever little problems it may have. George A. Romero remains my favorite director and his marvelous zombie series remains unharmed, good job.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=landofdead
King Kong (2005)
Watch is awe as a giant ape attempts to court an actress that's only a fraction of his size.
Back in the 90's Peter Jackson's name was most commonly associated with horror; in fact he directed Dead Alive which is arguably the goriest movie ever made. A few years later this man took the reigns of the Lord of the Rings adaptation and is now one of the most well known directors around. I was genuinely excited when he announced that he was going to remake King Kong and really hoped that I wouldn't be let down.
I just got back from the theater and am happy to say that this is a fantastic movie. It takes everything that made the original so great while still creating its own unique feel. It's epic yet not without a heart. Scary yet not without humor, it's truly a sight to behold.
The movie itself is very obviously split into three acts. You got a great opening that takes place in Manhattan during the thirties which is both a great period piece and a good opportunity to be introduced to the main cast. The next act is an extremely brutal and relentless trek across Skull Island followed by the exciting climax back in Manhattan.
I'm usually not a fan of three act structures but it works really well here. My only complaint would be that the third act is much less involving than the second. Kong swatting planes from atop the Empire State Building is impressive but there was just so much more to see on Skull Island. The T-Rex fights were extremely well done and the bug scene actually gave me the willies.
Speaking of the willies; this is not a movie to bring children to. I don't care about the rating this movie was violent and often quite scary. The skull island natives in particular were horrifyingly grotesque and wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie. In fact I think I heard one of the kids behind me say they wanted to go home. Fine with me seeing as the kids' constant babbling was annoying as hell.
Since I'm writing this review, I'd really like to take this opportunity to stress that you watch this movie at the theater (preferably at a time in which little kids are at school or in bed). It almost seems to be made for the big screen and I can't guarantee it will come across as well on DVD. There's just so much of an emphasis on visuals and sound. Even quiet scenes try very hard to incorporate majestic scenery and interesting camera work. Unfortunately the visuals are not without a few tiny flaws. The most noticeable mistakes would be found in the stampede scene; it almost seems as if the actors are not sharing the same space with the dinosaurs. I may be mistaken but it was terribly distracting. I also noticed that a few of the creatures such as the Apatosaurs and bats seemed far too much like cartoon characters when compared to the extremely realistic Kong.
The film isn't just about the visuals though; the characters are very well portrayed despite the bizarre casting. Jack Black in particular was entertaining. He done a great job being serious while still being able to crack a joke every so often, he also got the best line in the movie. Naomi Watts is also impressive as the damsel in distress and Adrien Brody makes a neat hero, the problem is that their romance seems hollow. Watts is supposed to be in love with Brody but we never see why. We see that she respects him and that he loves her but never does she actually state her love for him. It's not a big quarrel since you know what's happening, it just seems a bit underdeveloped.
Quite frankly I feel that's the only thing that's underdeveloped. Everything else comes across perfectly and the movie is pretty believable which is saying a lot considering we're watching a movie about a giant gorilla trying to court an actress. Yet again they had plenty of time to develop things at just over three hours running time. It may sound like a long movie, and it is, but like the Lord of the Rings, it doesn't seem long at all. The pacing is nearly perfect (the beginning is a bit stretched and the later Skull Island scenes begin to drag a bit) and there's always something exciting to see.
So how does this stack up with the original? Well the thing is you can't compare the two. This movie outdoes the original in almost every way yet again it doesn't exactly do anything new in a visual sense while the original was a ground breaking film in almost every way. I predict that this movie will never be a classic like the original but it will always be remembered as the remake that did the original justice and Peter Jackson should be proud of what he has done here. This is a spectacular film and I highly recommend seeing it at the theater for it's an experience like no other.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=kingkong
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Good morning, starshine... the earth says hello!
Over the years Tim Burton has shown time and time that he has a knack for dark and morbid movies. He's also shown that he's not afraid to do something a bit different. Just look at Ed Wood; it's a movie about the worst director of all time. Or Mars Attacks? That was actually based on a series of trading cards. So why the hell is this guy doing a remake? Well here's the thing; he's not.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is NOT a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It's actually an adaptation of the original novel. The only problem is that the Gene Wilder version is a cherished classic and one can't help but to make comparisons.
The film's plot follows the same basic path as the previous version while also including things from the novel that couldn't have been done before (the squirrel room for example). For those who don't know the story is basically it's about Wonka the famous candy maker inviting five children to his factory for a tour where they are picked off one by one through their character faults. The plot really doesn't hold many surprises if you're familiar with the first movie and even fewer if you've read the book but that's always the case with adaptations/remakes so succeeding in other areas of film-making is a prerequisite for success.
Luckily this film does succeed on many fronts. The most notable strong point would be the visuals; they're marvelous but not from a technical standpoint. In fact I say that the CGI is rather clumsy most of the time and you don't believe the effects for a second but the way these effects are used is breathtaking. Simple things such as the Bucket home are highly stylized with trademark Tim Burton flair. I was also quite impressed by the many different rooms in the factory which each sported a wonderfully unique look. Most impressive of all would be the room with the chocolate waterfall. Along with great set design we also have clever green screen effects which are used to duplicate actor Deep Roy hundreds of times per shot. His dance numbers are an extra special visual treat complimented by unbearably catchy songs.
Well now that I've mentioned Deep Roy's songs I might as well comment on the film's other music. It's dark yet cheery and used perfectly. I'm not kidding either, if this film got anything right it's the music. It might not be perfect but I have so many tunes stuck in my head from this film that I can't help but to commend Danny Elfman for his fantastic work.
Ah and now for the big question: how's the acting? People may argue that it's not very important in a film like this but I've seen Cheaper by the Dozen and I can't bear to see those kids running around in a Tim Burton movie. I'm happy to say that all the kids do a great job as do their "parents". Of course I doubt many people went to this film to see children and no-name adults perform (well except for Christopher Lee in a great role as Wonka's dentist father); no they came to see Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. I personally found his performance to be a mixed bag that mostly leans to the genius side. He's definitely no Gene Wilder but then again nobody is and the fact that Johnny Depp doesn't just crumble under the pressure shows that he is a very talented man.
Johnny Depp actually plays it very smart by acting in a manner that is much different than Gene Wilder yet he's still playing the character of Willy Wonka. He's sort of a creepy game show host mixed with a bit of Michael Jackson (though I admit I only think that because of the obvious resemblance). I was actually quite impressed with this character even if he's played a bit too much like a comedian. I suppose the extra coldness to him even provides a bit more of a reward in the end.
Charlie in the Chocolate Factory is a wonderful family movie that is just as likely to appeal to adults as it does to children. I'm not sure if it will ever become a classic like the Gene Wilder version but it stands on it's own as a really great movie and to be honest that's a lot more than I was expecting.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=charliechoc
Batman Begins (2005)
The adventures of the darker dark knight.
Batman has always had a massive presence in the film industry. From Adam West to George Clooney these movies have always been box office hits. Unfortunately the series' quality has been spiraling downwards since Batman Returns. Sure Batman Forever had it's moments (most of which belonged to Jim Carrey as the indispensable Riddler) but everything was just so much more kid friendly and that's where things went wrong. Batman is meant to be dark and Gothic. Images of death and violence are commonplace in the better films, cartoons and comics.
After Batman and Robin I puked my guts out, and after that I started to worry if Batman would ever be serious again. My prayers have been answered with Batman Begins.
I'll say right now that I'm not a huge Batman fan. I don't exactly rush out to the theaters to see the movies or even buy the comics for that matter but I do have a basic knowledge of the series and luckily that's all you need for Batman Begins. What we got here is a new beginning. We see how Batman is born and we see how he learns to use fear as a weapon.
The story was really very interesting and the combination of great acting and flawless visuals made this into one of the best films of the year. Just one glance at this film and your eyes are stuck to the screen. Everything is just so dark and moody.
It's not just the visuals either; everything about this movie is dark. This is not one to bring your nephew to and if you scare easily best not bring yourself either. It's all about fear and some scenes reach horror movie heights. The Scarecrow for instance is the scariest Batman villain yet and the funny thing is that he's just a Jeffrey Combs impersonator with a potato bag on his head. However the way he toys with the minds of others by utilizing a bizarre hallucinogenic drug makes him into an extremely sick and frightful monster. This is most evident in his final scene but I can't bring myself to spoil what happens, you'll just need to watch the film.
Sounds good huh? I assure you it's the best Batman movie ever made but the reasons mentioned above are only part of it. The big thing is Batman himself. For once I was just as interested in Batman as I was in the villains. I wanted Batman to have screen time; I wanted to see him take down the villains in the end. Why? Simple, for once they developed him properly. We fully understand Bruce Wayne's struggle and his choice to become Batman is for once shown logically.
This movie takes the time to build characters and build the plot. Like Spiderman 2, this is a superhero movie for people who don't watch superhero movies. It can appeal to action fans, horror fans and drama fans and that is a pretty wide range if you ask me. It even has a few well-placed jokes to help lift a bit of the darkness.
Well now that I mentioned the action, people are going to want to know how much there is. Batman has always been filled to the brim with stunts, fights and chases. This movie has a bit more emphasis on the dramatic aspects (a wise choice indeed) but it also delivers the action. An impressive car chase is probably the highlight but early scenes also feature plenty of sword fights and the final battle inside a speeding train is extremely exciting.
It's true, Batman Begins has a little something for everybody. It also accomplishes the difficult feat of being both an honest attempt at film-making and being a summer blockbuster at the same time. I highly recommend that you at least give this film a chance even if you're not generally a Batman fan for this movie has the power to make you one.
My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=batmanbeg
Gojira: Fainaru uôzu (2004)
Big, loud and cheesy as hell...I wouldn't change a thing.
Fifty years ago Toho made their first Godzilla movie. It was a very dark and symbolic movie. Despite its age the film still has an eerie quality to it. Godzilla slowly marching through Tokyo leaving nothing but death and destruction to this day sends shivers down my spine. This fantastic film was the first of 28 movies to feature the monster Godzilla. The thing is, over the years Godzilla movies have become a genre of their own. No longer are they dark or violent, rather they are fun and cheesy. This has somehow worked for fifty years and Godzilla is now cemented as a cultural icon.
That brings me to Godzilla Final Wars. This movie is meant to be Godzilla's last film for at least ten years. Toho has never spent so much on a film and they have never allowed so much madness to make the final cut. This film is essentially a "best of Godzilla" finale. Toho took everything they thought was "cool" about Godzilla and crammed it into two hours of almost nonstop action.
I'll say right now that this movie is not well made. It's never going to win any awards for acting or originality. Heck I doubt it will ever amount to anything other than being one hell of a good time. This film has city destruction, martial arts, monster battles, aliens, motorcycle chases, aerial dogfights, shootouts and even gratuitous gore.
Does it have a plot? No, not really. Do I care? Not one bit. Godzilla Final Wars is all about fun and it succeeds in every way. The monster battles are however the main highlight here. They are extremely short but their spectacle can't be denied. I was shaking with excitement each time Godzilla met face to face with one of his foes. Each battle presented a different type of fighting and they all wind up being extremely memorable.
The sheer brilliance of the battles is perhaps amplified by the fact that many of these monsters haven't appeared since the 60's yet here they are in all their redesigned glory. Gigan's redesign is especially impressive since he's always been one of my favorites.
Another factor that contributes to the spectacle would be the visuals. They're not necessarily the best around but are top notch as far as Godzilla movies go. What we have here is a combination of CGI and monster suits that works extremely well together. The power beams, death rays and flames created by these monsters have never looked better.
Monster battles have always proved to be the highlights of past Godzilla films however the best movies were the ones that struck a balance between cool monster fights and interesting human scenes. Final Wars delivers what may be the best human scenes around. These scenes are essentially uninspired Matrix rips (the main character even bears more than a passing resemblance to Mr.Reeves) but they work so well with the movie's mood. They're cheesy fun and I even found a few of them to be genuinely well thought out. These are entertaining scenes and couldn't have been better even if they were taken seriously.
So basically what I'm stressing here is that Godzilla Final Wars is not a good movie by Hollywood standards, however when watched in the right state of mind you'll find yourself having as much fun as you possibly can with a movie. If this is the last Godzilla movie I can proudly say the big G went out in style. If not well, all I can say is bring it on.
My review from Frider Waves. http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=godzillafinal