Meet The Robinsons
March 31, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Disney has two divisions making computer-animated movies these days, Pixar and Walt Disney Feature Animation. Pixar is a tough act to follow, but the other division’s first theatrical complete-CGI debut, Chicken Little, was impressive.
Now comes the even more impressive Meet the Robinsons.
Instead of the usual Disney single-parent kid, this time the protagonist is an orphan, hoping to get adopted by a family so he can leave his orphanage. He’s also a genius inventor, and he’s readying his latest invention for his school’s science fair.
Enter two time travelers from the future, a kid who wants his invention for good, a bad guy who wants it for evil. It’s like a less violent version of The Terminator.
Eventually our hero gets catapulted to the future, where he meets the future-kid’s eccentric family in their equally eccentric house. They’re something like the science fiction version of the family in Frank Capra’s You Can’t Take it With You.
Little kids are going to like this for the 3-D and the slapstick. Older kids will be able to actually follow the convolutions of the time travel plot. I’d think that there might be an age range in-between who are left a little bewildered by it though.
The voicework is nicely done, without being overpowered by trying to get too many recognizable voices.
A lot of Pixar’s movies are movies for adults that can be enjoyed by kids. This is the reverse, it’s definitely a kid’s movie, but there’s plenty of humor which adults will enjoy.
And the animation is stellar. On many screens this is being released in 3-D, not just in IMAX theaters. The 3-D is very impressive; special glasses are still required, but they’re a far cry from the old red-and-green lense glasses.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Zodiac
March 23, 2007 | Leave a Comment
David Fincher is one of my favorite directors so I had decent hopes for this movie when I sat down in the auditorium… Unfortunately those hopes were dashed against the rocks about 30 minutes into this snoozer. That being said let’s get to it.
Set mainly in 1970’s San Francisco this movie is about the writing of the best selling novel ‘Zodiac’ by cartoonist turned author, Robert Graysmith. Robert (Gyllenhaal) was a cartoonist that worked for the San Francisco Chronicle during the times of the Zodiac’s reign of terror, but when the case stalls out and the cops can’t find the guy he became obsessed and takes it upon himself to do what no one else could, and solve the case himself. Working behind the scenes with famous San Francisco Police Inspector, David Toschi (Ruffalo) and crime reporter for the Chronicle Paul Avery (Downey), Graysmith goes places and interviews witnesses in locations beyond Toschi’s jurisdiction, and since he isn’t a ‘reporter’ like Avery they’re willing to open up more – which ultimately leads to better leads for everyone.
The Zodiac’s killing ground covered a good portion of northern California so there were multiple law enforcement agencies working the case and sharing of information wasn’t as common, which made working together difficult. Since each County/City had citizens killed by the Zodiac, each one of them wanted to catch the Zodiac on their own. Back in the day it was a let them know what they need to know type situation, but don’t let them know all we know, and because of that no one was any closer to catching him. Graysmith having never told anyone he was a reporter, and having sold himself as nothing more than a writer was able to convince the various departments to let him pick through the files of all the agencies, which gave him a full spectrum of the evidence and angles (major spoilers) no one else involved would think to look for.
Long story short Graysmith takes all he discovers and rolls it into a full profile and timeline that leads the police to a very solid suspect Arthur Allen, but due to incompatible hand writing analysis they can’t hold him. In case you know little of the Zodiac, he was famous for sending cryptic letters to various newspapers bragging about his crimes and daring the cops to catch him, so the handwriting was the most crucial part of the police’s investigation. That sums up the basics of the film and had it been about an hour shorter it probably would’ve been a good movie, but as it was nearly 3 full hours it was just to danged long.
The acting from Gyllenhaal is uninspiring and as exciting as a bowl of old wet noodles. Downey on the other hand is excellent and in my opinion the only bright spot in this whole crappy movie. I read the book a long time ago and it was pretty good but as it turns out, a movie filmed at the same pace just doesn’t work. There are plenty of other movies out there that you should spend your cash on so if it was my $10, I’d wait until DVD… at least that way you could break it up over a couple of days which might ease the suffering.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Shooter
March 22, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Shooter is a combination of action movie and thriller starring Mark Wahlberg. Who would’ve figured Marky Mark for an action hero when he was dancing around in his underwear with the “Funky Bunch” singing “Good Vibrations”? Not us, but he’s really becoming money in the bank and producing some great movies. Shooter follows an intense performance in The Departed and, although not quite on the same level, is quite entertaining.
In Shooter, Wahlberg plays Bob Lee Swagger, a former Marine Corp sniper. Swagger retired after a mission went bad. But he is soon talked into just one more mission for his country and being the good patriot, he cant resist. However, he’s double crossed and finds himself shot up and the subject of a nationwide manhunt. To clear his name, he must take revenge on some of the most powerful men in our nations goverment.
The thriller storyline isn’t bad as you always wonder how he’s going to get out of the next trap. But the really cool thing here is a sniper and his rifle. He’s shooting Dinty Moore beef stew cans at a mile out. He obviously doesn’t hate the stuff as much as we do, we’d never give it a mile head start and instead would bust a cap at point blank. Beware though, if you eat it, it fights back. The fun part here though is he doesn’t just shoot at cans of stew. You’re gonna see lots of head shots and pink mist. The JFK footage is nothing compared to what happens to a skull when hit with a 50 calibre.
So what you have here is your basic guy gets ticked off and goes for revenge against butt heads who really deserve a gruesome death. And the movie delivers on that promise by letting the bodies hit the floor repeatedly. Our only gripe is they could’ve also used that R-rating to show us some very lovely breasts instead of just teasing us mercilessly with bra shots. They did work in a chase, good explosions, lots of blood and of course tons of gun play. If we could’ve had a few laughs and boobs, this would’ve been the perfect guy movie.
We’re giving it a 4. It flirted with a 5, but there is one part of the movie that kept rubbing us the wrong way. There’s a somewhat less than subtle anti-government message in there with digs against U.S. involvement in places like the Persian Gulf. If you’re sensitive to that kinda thing, or Michael Moore movies make you throw things at the TV, you may wanna skip Shooter. However, if you can just roll your eyes and wait for the next exploding skull, you’ll enjoy this movie.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Borat
March 20, 2007 | 2 Comments
Watching the preview for Borat you’re likely to come to the conclusion that it’s a one trick pony. You’d be right, but it’s a really good trick.
The premise is simple; Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is a TV reporter in Kazakhstan who is given the task of traveling to America to make a documentary about American life in the hopes that such learning will help his native countrymen create a better life for themselves. This story is the thread that’s used to put Borat into situations with NON-ACTORS and film what happens. This the the true genius of the movie, rarely have I seen an actor/comedian who so completely becomes his character that he never hints that it’s all an act. No smiles, no grins.. I’d hate to play poker with Sacha.
As I said there really isn’t much to the plot. Borat makes it to New York and promptly begins to unpack his belongings.. in the elevator. Once he’s convinced that’s not his room and he sees where he’s really staying, he’s ecstatic at the size (it’s an average room of course.) That evening after learning about the magic of a remote controlled TV, he stumbles across a rerun of Baywatch and promptly falls in love with Pamela Anderson. Instant plot device,Borat must meet this Pamela and make her his wife. We’ve seen his current wife, it would be a hell of a trade up for him.
Along the way to California he asks some black guys for fashion advice, gets a pet, learns social graces from a southern charm school (and practices at a dinner), shops for antiques… and nearly gets himself killed at a rodeo. Let’s also not forget his fun at a religious tent meeting…
I’ve noticed a sense of apathy here among the MFG staff regarding this movie. Regardless of how much I rave about how good this movie is I get a resounding “eh” and a “I might watch it eventually, but I doubt it.” I know I’m not alone in loving this movie, just look at some of the other reviews! Borat is an instant classic, and I’m giving it 5 stars.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Eragon
March 20, 2007 | Leave a Comment
When I’d read that the runtime for Eragon was a bit under two hours, I immediately lowered my expectations to just above nil. Which was a shame since I’d read the book and quite enjoyed it. It was penned by a 16 year old kid who writes far beyond his years and, while it was certainly no “Lord of the Rings”, it was pretty decent epic fantasy. Unfortunately, after viewing only the first 15 minutes of the movie, I realized that “just above nil” was far too high.
Peter Jackson knew a thing or two about epic fantasy – namely that you can’t squeeze 4+ hours of material down to less than 2 and have it be any good. Unfortunately, the studio execs don’t give a damn. Nevermind that the LotR series made MEGA bucks despite the extremely long runtimes and subsequent fewer screenings per day at the theater! Whoever made the call on Eragon obviously had little faith in the material or the chosen director (sfx Golden Boy, Stefen Fangmeier in his directorial debut) and decreed that this epic story would be squeezed into a normal Hollywood run time.
Poor Mr. Fangmeier was given a great big shit sandwich and he gamely tried to eat it. But you can only hit a baseball so far with a wiffleball bat. Great chunks of the story from the book which took weeks to unfold are accelerated on screen in only a matter of minutes…and in one painful example, near instantaneously and with no explanation. And if the critical elements of the story are being crunched like this, you can imagine what has happened to the history and color of the world created by teen author Christopher Paolini. They are quite simply left out entirely.
If you haven’t read the book at all, however, the movie won’t piss you off quite as bad because, as the saying goes, you won’t know what you’re missing. It still won’t be a great movie (hence the two star rating), but you might be able to dismiss it as a too-fast paced mediocre fantasy movie with pretty good special effects.
If, however, you did read the book or bought it on Audio CD, you will loathe this movie with every fiber of your being. For me, I haven’t hated a movie this much since Highlander 2.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Babel
March 19, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I hate these kinds of movies. It’s easy to pan a badly made movie, but it’s not so easy to do it to a well-made flick. There is no doubt, however, that Babel is well made. Creative integrity, something that is a bit of a commodity outside of the indy market, is maintained from beginning to end here and that, ironically enough, is part of the problem.
The crux of the problem, though, is that the concept, while intriguing at an intellectual level, doesn’t make for very exciting movie watching. Essentially speaking, this seems to be a visually documented “proof” that a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of the world can spawn a hurricane on the other side of the world. Again, a neat premise, but when it unfolds on the screen, it’s with the dispassion of a nature documentary and ends up being rather boring. The story involves 4 families spread across the world – Japan, Morocco, Mexico and the U.S. – each connected by a previous and very innocent event.
The only real emotion and life in the film that I could connect to was the story of Chieko, a deaf mute schoolgirl living and enduring adolescence in Tokyo. Of course, she’s quite desperate for some monkey lovin’, has a hot body, and isn’t afraid to show it off so that may be the reason I liked her screentime. But I’m afraid that horny japanese schoolgirls in uniform can only help so much.
Cate Blanchett, one of my very favorite movie gals, is completely wasted here. I think it would have been SO much better had her position been swapped with that of her husband (played adequately by Brad Pitt) since not nearly as much would be going to waste. The rest of the cast is made up of relative unknowns and, while reasonably good actors, I sometimes got the feeling that I was watching a bizarre reality show on the National Geographic channel.
If you’re really wanting a good movie experience, don’t waste your time with this one. If you are intellectually curious and think you can stomach 2-star quality, then you can certainly find worse ways to kill two and a quarter hours. Getting bikini waxed comes immediately to mind.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Casino Royale
March 17, 2007 | 2 Comments
Ok, who are you and what have you done with James Bond?!?
That’s the question I wanted to ask during the opening minutes of Casino Royale, the umpteenth James Bond adventure to make it to the big screen. But by the closing credits, I really didn’t care what happened to the old James Bond.
Director Martin Campbell decided to shake things up for his second Bond picture (he directed 1995’s Goldeneye) and he paid no honor to the sacred cows of Bond-dom. Casino Royale goes back to the very beginning of Bond and the opening scene (which is NOT a mega-action spectacle) shows our man James earning his “00″ status.
From there out, things get gritty, sweaty, and downright nasty. Gone are the cute one-liners. Gone are the one-night stands w/ beautiful women (though there is at least one close call). Gone is Q and his wonderful gadgets. And gone are some of the most beloved Bond cliche’s. One of the more notable changes is that Bond, at least his early days, had no preference for how to mix his martini.
But in place of these missing institutions of Bond are some things that we’ve only been able to wonder about for years and now they are finally revealed to us. For instance, now we know how he got that fabulous 1964 Astin Martin to drive. And we also get to meet that one woman that we only got hints to in the other Bond movies.
The action is great, but the grandiose special effects are gone. In their place are some very frenetic scenes performed mostly by stunt men instead of computers. And let me just say that they are DAMNED ballsy stunt men, too. No disclaimer is needed to prevent you from wanting to try those stunts at home!
There are a couple of nits to pick, but thankfully they are only just nits. Firstly, the movie is a bit too long. At 2 hours, 24 minutes, I could have benefitted from about 15 minutes of trim work. Secondly, the actual villain and his story are a touch weak. But then again, you wouldn’t expect M to throw her newest “00″ agent into world-shattering situations, either. You’d expect her to start a new “00″ off with a couple of somewhat important missions but certainly nothing TOO huge so, as disappointing as that was, it shouldn’t be too unexpected.
Overall, however, it gets a very solid 4 stars from me. If you like Bond, go see this new incarnation. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Sublime
March 13, 2007 | 1 Comment
Sublime bills itself as a sexy horror movie, just look at that DVD cover. In addition it’s “unrated” which is guaranteed to make you think there will be all kinds of tasty treats inside. Lastly, on the box summary is states “graphic, bold, sexual and utterly horrifying.” The hell it is! Graphic? Nope. Bold? Hardly. Sexual? Some quick humping, but you see nothing. Utterly Horrifying? Oh please, maybe if you were a teenage girl, and young one at that! But all is not lost, the movie has moments of beauty and some fine camera work, and the story isn’t all bad. The only problem is with expectations… just don’t expect a horror movie and you might enjoy it.
The movie starts out with George having a dream, a dream about falling. We’ve all experienced this, so when he’s seen distressed sitting on the edge of his bed we can relate. It’s just a dream, but damn is it asucky feeling. It also happens to be his 40th birthday so his wife surmises that it’s just stress about getting older and reminds him of the theory that if you hit the ground in a falling dream, you die. He didn’t hit the ground though and quickly proves this with a morning marital romp… we see nothing.
George is a bit stressed though as he has his first colonoscopy scheduled for the next morning and apparently he doesn’t like hospitals very much. He also has a big birthday party planned that night so there’s a lot to get ready for. Wait… he scheduled acolonoscopy for the day after his birthday party?! Obviously this would never happen in real life, the story acts like there’s some magical moment where you body knows it turned 40 and that if you don’t have your colon checked IMMEDIATELY you’re gonna die. So incredibly stupid, but it serves the story so that’s what happens.
When checking in for the procedure we first meet his nurse Zoe (the stunning Katherine Cunningham-Eves) and he experiences the only true horror of the movie, a hospital patient name mix-up. Georges last name is Grieves and there’s another patient named GeorgeGreaves who is also scheduled for surgery that day and is on the same floor. Nothing good can come from this.
George’s fears are born out when he awakens alone in a recovery room (er… that would never happen) and discovers a cut on his side that’s been stitched up. At least Zoe is still his nurse and is quite helpful in calming him down. As expected the surgeries were mixed up and to make it worse, there have been complications.
Are you feeling the “fear-drenched psychological thriller” yet? Me neither.
Unfortunately I can’t talk more about the plot as it would give away what few secrets this movie holds. If you don’t see at least the general direction of the ending within the first 15 minutes of the movie then you just haven’t been paying attention.
A more important question remains, if I was so disappointed then why give it 3 stars? Well, except for not being what I expected, I really liked the movie. The acting is darn good, the story somewhat interesting and the imagery the film presents is excellent. Plus, Zoe is amazingly fine and while we don’t really get to see her naked we do get a glimpse of what’s there. It is a bit long though and the ending was way too transparent so 3 stars is all I can honestly give it.
It’s worth watching if you’re in the mood for a story that could have been a Twilight Zone episode (even says that on the box), just don’t expect more than that.
Popularity: 22% [?]
Dukes of Hazzard – The Beginning
March 10, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Apparently the recent Dukes of Hazzard movie made enough money that it sparked a sequel.. er.. a prequel. But even that’s not quite right as this prequel is for the television series and makes ZERO sense if you’re trying to relate it to the movie. It’s also a straight to tv/dvd release, which considering the smell that’s coming from my stack of DVD’s was the right move.
Bo and Luke are cousins living in different counties, but they both tend to get themselves into a heap of trouble with the authorities. Bo likes to drive fast, but he’s not very good at it yet. Luke’s pleasure is blowing things up.. any problems can be solved with the right combination of explosives by his line of thinking. When the law has had enough and is about to throw them both in juvie, Uncle Jesse convinces the judges that they’d be better off working their tails off on the Duke farm over in Hazzard county instead. Obviously, the judges agree.
Jesse makes his living making and running moonshine, the farm is just there for appearances I suppose, and when things take a turn for the worse the boys volunteer to run the shine for their Uncle so that he can have enough time to make more of the blindness inducing potion for them to sell. There’s this whole “we’re gonna lose the farm” storyline that I’m just skipping here, you don’t care.. trust me.
I didn’t expect any high-brow humor from the movie, I just expected a little bit of mindless entertainment mixed in with some boobs and fast cars. All of that was present, but the overall package was so incredibly stupid that it was painful to sit though. Where to start the complaints..
The production values, the attention to details, the little things that make a movie work.. none of that was present with this movie. For example, many times in the movie when the subjects (Bo and Luke, Daisy, Uncle Jesse, etc.) were more than 10 ft from the camera you can tell that their voices are being dubbed into the movie. This happens in all movies when the actors dialog wasn’t clear enough, but in this one they weren’t even moving their lips! Yep, apparently one of the ways to switch this one between “tv friendly” and “unrated” was to make sure the characters were voice dubbed when cursing or saying things a bit off color. It comes off like a badly dubbed kung-fu movie.
Another thing… Cooter is gay, or at the least he’s bi-curious. When he’s first introduced he actually says something like “I’ll try anything once, except man on man actions. Nah, I’d try that too” as he’s looking fondly at Luke. This is just WRONG and was quite annoying every time Cooter was in a scene.
Uncle Jesse wasn’t gay, but he’s certainly a dirty old man. When a couple of hot girls walk by the boys after he’d just told them not to drink moonshine, he points the girls out to them and says “.. but there’s a couple of hot girls looking for a romp in the hay, you’ve got my permission to give it to them. In fact, Duke them one time for me!” Oh please, that’s just pathetic.
And lastly, Daisy never shows us her boobs. April Scott is smokin smokin SMOKIN hot and to tease us with that body and not give a payoff, it’s a crime. There are plenty of other naked girls to look at though, so the sting isn’t as bad as it could have been. In fact, the shear number of boobs and the presence of the General Lee are the only reason I’m giving this movie 2 stars instead of 1.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Hard Candy
March 10, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Hard Candy has the reputation of being an edgy movie due to it’s subject matter, but I didn’t really see that. It’s a good tense thriller that happens to revolve around pedophilia, but it’s not like we see any sexual situations with a minor. The “edgy” part is nothing but marketing, but this is an excellent movie in any case.
Hayley is a 14-yr old girl who’s flirting with a 30-something guy on the Internet. He’s a photographer who happens to specialize in shooting young models, and she’s just learning about how to tease a guy… some back and forth chats, and next thing you know they’re meeting for coffee. After some conversation she convinces him (he didn’t need much) to take her back to his place so she can listen to a recording he has. He brings her some water to drink, she playfully wants something more interesting and proceeds to make some screwdrivers.. they drink.. she starts to pose for some pictures, and he passes out.
Now the story gets interesting. Seems that Hayley isn’t such a sweet little girl after all, she’s a psycho bitch that wants to teach a pedophile a lesson, a serious lesson. What’s her motive? She’s got reasons, but you’d be better off learning this from the movie instead of a review. I’m also not going to talk about what she has in mind for our child loving friend… *shudder*.
What makes this such a good movie is the acting, when Hayley explains herself to Jeff (the horn dog) it comes off like a young female Hannibal just telling it like it is. Likewise, Jeff’s reactions to what he’s being told and what’s happening to him.. *shudder*… we feel his anguish, no doubt about that. Everyone else? Well, there really isn’t anyone else, just a few bit players now and then. Not a complaint, the two stars are just that.. stars.
So with all the praise why didn’t I give it 5 stars? I’m not quite sure actually, but maybe it’s because it’s the type of movie you’ll want all of your friends to see but you won’tparticularly want to sit down and watch it with them. Think of it like The Sixth Sense, it was great the first time and you said YES when someone asked if you liked it, but you didn’t want to jump in the car and head back to the theater to sit while they learned what it’s about.
Be my friend and watch this movie, but you’re gonna watch it alone.
Popularity: 16% [?]
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gun Play
Blood & Gore Car Chases T&A Chuckles |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
