I enjoyed this film, and I think mostly because it was a new twist on an old tale. I thoroughly enjoyed the musical score, and the raw sense of a brutal, almost uncivilized England (both in climate and the peoples that lived there). I am not saying it is accurate (because I have no idea whatsoever), but I found it tasteful and entertaining. I was intrigued by the inner battles that Arthur had to fight, the war between his faith and his intuition. More climatic was the struggle with the Roman Church and common sense. I like the gravity that Lorenzo De Angelis added for Alecto's character, although I felt he was a bit too wise beyond his years. But someone had to say what he did. I like how Keira did Guinevere; I do not recall Guinevere being such a warrior, or even Woad for that matter. I also found it interesting that they scripted Merlin as such a... almost normal person; I did not see any magic, nor special powers or anything, just a savage leader of a savage people.
There were some things I did not like. Galahad and the other kid seemed a bit too young. I mean, Clive Owen is 11 years older than Hugh Dancy, yet somehow their characters are supposed to both be finishing their 15th year of service at the same time? Also, all the Church people, with the exception of Alecto, seem hell-bent on Crusading and visiting the punishment of sin everywhere. Come on, aren't there a few other bishops who are not quite as brain dead? Finally, the point where the Knights escort the caravan across the ice; what idiot is going to lead such a heavy load out into the middle of the ice, especially when you hear it cracking beneath you?!? Duh, where is the ice the thinnest?
Overall, a good movie. Not perfect by far, but entertaining. I almost blacklisted this movie because I do question how much replay value it has, but I think the film might have "it".
30 August 2007
Matchstick Men, 2003 movie
Within the first few moments of this show, I had a nagging feeling it was familiar. Then the second time I saw the ceramic dog where Roy Waller stores his money, I knew I had seen this movie before. I should keep a record of which movies I see so I do not see repeats....
This movie was utterly forgettable; dull, slow and dry. It has some humorous moments, and Roy's daughter brightens the screen a little. But I was not exactly digging Nick Cage's style for Roy. I could not even stand to watch the whole movie this time.
This movie was utterly forgettable; dull, slow and dry. It has some humorous moments, and Roy's daughter brightens the screen a little. But I was not exactly digging Nick Cage's style for Roy. I could not even stand to watch the whole movie this time.
29 August 2007
Fantastic Four, 2005 movie
I had heard that this movie was not so great, and I have finally confirmed the rumors. Yes, there were some good points, and I will briefly cover them. Ready?
The car wreck on the bridge was riveting and fun to watch. The plot line stayed mostly true to the comics (with some notable exceptions). Some of the special affects were well done (Sue Storm's force field) and the accompanying eye candy was ... candy.
What was wrong with the movie? Well, even for the above pros, there were many things that detracted. Chris Evans' Johnny Storm was a bit immature and testosterone-pumped; I think Evans did a good job portraying someone's idea of who Johnny Storm was, but I have a hard time understanding why Stan Lee was gushing all over him. All the actors for that matter. Alba's Sue Storm was a bit too sexy; the comics made her out to be a little more conservative which is what I wanted to see. Some of the special affects were just plain bad. Many of the scenes when Reed was stretching were just too cartoonish for live-action; at one point when he was restraining Ben Grimm (aka "Thing"), you could see his shoulders and arms and it did not present a cohesive picture. The CG for the Torch and Invisible Woman/Girl were dated; is that the best we can do with today's technology? Silver Surfer is going to be exactly the same thing, unfortunately.
I expected Reed's lab to be a lot more hi-tech. The comics made Reed out to be unbelievably advanced and perhaps set the bar a bit too high. Reed's lab in this movie looked too much like a stage filled with props. Michael Chiklis did an excellent job acting as Ben Grimm, but the suit he had to wear was ridiculous. Please! I wanted something that looked more like a stone golem, not a fat suit with rubber ridges.
And Von Doom, the guy we love to hate, and sometimes hate to love. I think Julian McMahon is probably a good role for that guy. However, I did not realize that Doom had a metalic-based power-plant body. Where did that come from?
I do not have a good feeling about the Marvel movies. It will be interesting to see if the rest are worth it or not. I feel saddened by the previews of Silver Surfer; while they look cool (can't beat passing through objects like that), it simply is not the Noran Radd of the comic fame. And what about Galactus?!? =)
The car wreck on the bridge was riveting and fun to watch. The plot line stayed mostly true to the comics (with some notable exceptions). Some of the special affects were well done (Sue Storm's force field) and the accompanying eye candy was ... candy.
What was wrong with the movie? Well, even for the above pros, there were many things that detracted. Chris Evans' Johnny Storm was a bit immature and testosterone-pumped; I think Evans did a good job portraying someone's idea of who Johnny Storm was, but I have a hard time understanding why Stan Lee was gushing all over him. All the actors for that matter. Alba's Sue Storm was a bit too sexy; the comics made her out to be a little more conservative which is what I wanted to see. Some of the special affects were just plain bad. Many of the scenes when Reed was stretching were just too cartoonish for live-action; at one point when he was restraining Ben Grimm (aka "Thing"), you could see his shoulders and arms and it did not present a cohesive picture. The CG for the Torch and Invisible Woman/Girl were dated; is that the best we can do with today's technology? Silver Surfer is going to be exactly the same thing, unfortunately.
I expected Reed's lab to be a lot more hi-tech. The comics made Reed out to be unbelievably advanced and perhaps set the bar a bit too high. Reed's lab in this movie looked too much like a stage filled with props. Michael Chiklis did an excellent job acting as Ben Grimm, but the suit he had to wear was ridiculous. Please! I wanted something that looked more like a stone golem, not a fat suit with rubber ridges.
And Von Doom, the guy we love to hate, and sometimes hate to love. I think Julian McMahon is probably a good role for that guy. However, I did not realize that Doom had a metalic-based power-plant body. Where did that come from?
I do not have a good feeling about the Marvel movies. It will be interesting to see if the rest are worth it or not. I feel saddened by the previews of Silver Surfer; while they look cool (can't beat passing through objects like that), it simply is not the Noran Radd of the comic fame. And what about Galactus?!? =)
Fun with Dick and Jane, 2005 movie
I enjoyed this movie, but the reason I am blacklisting it is because I do not want to see it again; once was enough.
One of the big reasons is that Jim Carey is being ... too Jim Carey, if that makes any sense. His over-the-top comical side needs a breath of fresh air. It was fantastic when Carey first awed us, but now years later it gets kinda old. To a slighter degree, I could say the same thing about Téa Leoni, but her style is a little more enduring (and bearable).
But I like the way the show was scripted and directed. It was entertaining and flowed along pretty well. You do not see many wives like Jane Harper who stick with their hubby through thick and thin, rain or shine. That in itself was refreshing. Of course, the fact that they (and other recently unemployed GlobalDyne couples) take up the darker side of capitalism is not exactly endearing of virtuistic morals, but the comedy was good. And darn it, they try really hard to do the Right Thing, and I give them all kudos for that.
One of the big reasons is that Jim Carey is being ... too Jim Carey, if that makes any sense. His over-the-top comical side needs a breath of fresh air. It was fantastic when Carey first awed us, but now years later it gets kinda old. To a slighter degree, I could say the same thing about Téa Leoni, but her style is a little more enduring (and bearable).
But I like the way the show was scripted and directed. It was entertaining and flowed along pretty well. You do not see many wives like Jane Harper who stick with their hubby through thick and thin, rain or shine. That in itself was refreshing. Of course, the fact that they (and other recently unemployed GlobalDyne couples) take up the darker side of capitalism is not exactly endearing of virtuistic morals, but the comedy was good. And darn it, they try really hard to do the Right Thing, and I give them all kudos for that.
28 August 2007
Get Shorty, 1995 movie
I picked this up last night, just to give it a whirl. I did not have any expectations, but it was entertaining. Even though I thought it was good, I also thought it was forgettable as it had no "WOW" factor.
Some big names on the screen, and they all bring something different. I have never really been a big Danny DeVito fan (for some reason, he always seems over-the-top), but I enjoyed the roll he played. Travolta's Chili character was good; my only complaint is that I wish Travolta would stop holding his cigarette in such a dramatic way. You could see the ending a mile away, but nonetheless, I appreciated the build up. Dennis Farina ("Bones") does a good job, except when Travolta bangs him up, then he acts like a little girl which is totally messed up.
Entertaining once, but not twice.
Some big names on the screen, and they all bring something different. I have never really been a big Danny DeVito fan (for some reason, he always seems over-the-top), but I enjoyed the roll he played. Travolta's Chili character was good; my only complaint is that I wish Travolta would stop holding his cigarette in such a dramatic way. You could see the ending a mile away, but nonetheless, I appreciated the build up. Dennis Farina ("Bones") does a good job, except when Travolta bangs him up, then he acts like a little girl which is totally messed up.
Entertaining once, but not twice.
21 August 2007
Warcraft III, 2003 PC game by Blizzard
I have always enjoyed Blizzard's stuff. And the Warcraft series is no exception. I played it a little back when it came out, and decided to buy it 4 years later. While I like the game, I forget how 4 years of technology moves on and that it has no chance what-so-ever to compete graphically with any current titles. Oh well.
After playing the earlier Warcraft games and Starcraft, I have noticed some obvious trends in the way the games are laid out, trends I wish I could change. For instance, does this sound familiar; "Ultra-high tech race is wiped out by savages; ultra-high tech race comes back with 1 hero, builds an army, wipes out savages; savage hero escapes and haunts ultra-high tech race." Whatever. Another annoying thing is that there is so much similarity across the Blizzard universe; peons gather resources (some form of money, and some form of combustible), there are always 2 or 3 unit-producing strutures, 1 or 2 town defense structures, and about 8 different unit types ranging from the guy who sticks his finger up his nose to the guy who shoves a stick of TNT up yours. Also, you are limited to selecting (and thus grouping) about 8 units at once, and the max number of units is usually around 100. "Total Annihilation" was a game from the 90's and was never encumbered by such immature obstacles (but it had other problems).
I do like how the Blizzard team threw in some twists. The Hero unit is a nice addition, able to carry items and gain experience. I wish all the units gained experience. In addition, some of the special Hero abilities have some nice eye-candy, and some abilities are actually quite useful in battle (Invincibility, Blink, Storm of Blades, summon creatures, etc). I appreciate how there are different races that try to alter the "status quo" a little; the Burning Legion and Night Elves let you assign 5 peons and basically soak up the gold without traveling back and forth; the Night Elves structures are mostly all mobile (and can attack!), and the Naga are water-based (but amphibious). I am still finding it hard to shake off that feeling that this is Warcraft 1 just in prettier clothes.
After playing the earlier Warcraft games and Starcraft, I have noticed some obvious trends in the way the games are laid out, trends I wish I could change. For instance, does this sound familiar; "Ultra-high tech race is wiped out by savages; ultra-high tech race comes back with 1 hero, builds an army, wipes out savages; savage hero escapes and haunts ultra-high tech race." Whatever. Another annoying thing is that there is so much similarity across the Blizzard universe; peons gather resources (some form of money, and some form of combustible), there are always 2 or 3 unit-producing strutures, 1 or 2 town defense structures, and about 8 different unit types ranging from the guy who sticks his finger up his nose to the guy who shoves a stick of TNT up yours. Also, you are limited to selecting (and thus grouping) about 8 units at once, and the max number of units is usually around 100. "Total Annihilation" was a game from the 90's and was never encumbered by such immature obstacles (but it had other problems).
I do like how the Blizzard team threw in some twists. The Hero unit is a nice addition, able to carry items and gain experience. I wish all the units gained experience. In addition, some of the special Hero abilities have some nice eye-candy, and some abilities are actually quite useful in battle (Invincibility, Blink, Storm of Blades, summon creatures, etc). I appreciate how there are different races that try to alter the "status quo" a little; the Burning Legion and Night Elves let you assign 5 peons and basically soak up the gold without traveling back and forth; the Night Elves structures are mostly all mobile (and can attack!), and the Naga are water-based (but amphibious). I am still finding it hard to shake off that feeling that this is Warcraft 1 just in prettier clothes.
The Bourne Ultimatum, 2007 movie
I heard a lot of good things about this flick, and a friend who is almost over the tipping point of being fanatical, highly recommended it. I quite enjoyed it. There were a lot of good things, and then...
First off, the drama part of the story (Jason Bourne has no idea who he is, looking for his identity) is intriguing. For me, it helps the story move along through the series. One downside is that even though he finds little bits of pieces here and there, you never get the sense that Mr. Bourne is quite satisfied with what he has found. Even when you find out his name, there is no "Aha!" moment.
The action scenes are spectacular! I do not know if Damon did all his own stunts or not, but I impressed with the ones that were obviously him. I even believed that Damon would be sweating after going hand-to-hand with one of his foes, breathing heavy; I believe that as an actor, it was a hard, demanding scene to do.
On the downside with all those action scenes, Bourne just becomes more and more unbelievable. He is shot, banged up, car wrecked and clubbed alongside running, driving recklessly, running, fighting and running. And has the finesse to make calm-voiced, calculated phone calls and somehow take showers throughout? *grin*
Where does Julia Stiles' character fit in? I felt like they just threw her script in at the last second, with some mysterious forbidden romance to help make it a little more palatable. I think Stiles is a good actor, but her part was wimpy.
I am glad I saw this on the big scree; big sound, lots of action, good stuff. I have heard that the books are really good as well. Do I trust Ludlum? Guess we will find out.
First off, the drama part of the story (Jason Bourne has no idea who he is, looking for his identity) is intriguing. For me, it helps the story move along through the series. One downside is that even though he finds little bits of pieces here and there, you never get the sense that Mr. Bourne is quite satisfied with what he has found. Even when you find out his name, there is no "Aha!" moment.
The action scenes are spectacular! I do not know if Damon did all his own stunts or not, but I impressed with the ones that were obviously him. I even believed that Damon would be sweating after going hand-to-hand with one of his foes, breathing heavy; I believe that as an actor, it was a hard, demanding scene to do.
On the downside with all those action scenes, Bourne just becomes more and more unbelievable. He is shot, banged up, car wrecked and clubbed alongside running, driving recklessly, running, fighting and running. And has the finesse to make calm-voiced, calculated phone calls and somehow take showers throughout? *grin*
Where does Julia Stiles' character fit in? I felt like they just threw her script in at the last second, with some mysterious forbidden romance to help make it a little more palatable. I think Stiles is a good actor, but her part was wimpy.
I am glad I saw this on the big scree; big sound, lots of action, good stuff. I have heard that the books are really good as well. Do I trust Ludlum? Guess we will find out.
14 August 2007
The Children of Húrin
I really love Tolkien's universe; the mythology is so rich, complex, vast and comprehensive. It simply blows my mind that J.R.R. Tolkien thought up all these characters, languages and places, not to mention the hierarchy and history.
The Children of Húrin is really good, in that it is another piece in the "Middle-Earth" puzzle. It takes place during the "Second Age" (before we even get wind of Hobbits, Aragorn, etc), and tells the story Húrin's doomed family, mostly concentrating on Túrin. I think Christopher Tolkien did a great job bringing the vast amount of partial texts into one flowing, continuous story.
The Children of Húrin is really good, in that it is another piece in the "Middle-Earth" puzzle. It takes place during the "Second Age" (before we even get wind of Hobbits, Aragorn, etc), and tells the story Húrin's doomed family, mostly concentrating on Túrin. I think Christopher Tolkien did a great job bringing the vast amount of partial texts into one flowing, continuous story.
02 August 2007
The Last Mimzy, 2007 movie
Another "children's" movie. As I feared, all the special effects were shown in the trailer (well, mostly). I wanted more sci-fi and was disappointed it was not that all. I had a hard time getting into the plot. Especially since the whole thing revolves around a stupid little stuffed rabbit. That was a bad move. I do not even remember what the Mimzy (the rabbit) was sent back in time to collect. The little, hi-tech AI thingamabob got a tear from little girl empowered with telekinesis and somehow telepathically coerced the little gee-whiz kids to use their combined super-powers to send it back into the future. Yes, I realize that is sci-fi. It was a very unbelievable brand, with very little eye-candy.
Some of the hi-tech gadgets were kinda cool. The generator was so abstract that you never really knew what it was supposed to look like, other than a glob. I liked how they branded Intel at the nanotech level in the rabbit (the only good thing the rabbit had going). I didn't quite get the iridescent flash card, other than that it helped the kid teleport a can of pop. I think it helped him see other-dimensional lines, but it was not well used.
All in all, a forgettable movie.
Some of the hi-tech gadgets were kinda cool. The generator was so abstract that you never really knew what it was supposed to look like, other than a glob. I liked how they branded Intel at the nanotech level in the rabbit (the only good thing the rabbit had going). I didn't quite get the iridescent flash card, other than that it helped the kid teleport a can of pop. I think it helped him see other-dimensional lines, but it was not well used.
All in all, a forgettable movie.
Bridge to Terabithia, 2007 movie
I was interested in this movie from the fantasy angle. Unfortunately, there was not much fantasy involved; kicked in at the end, but little else besides. Overall, I thought it was a good movie, but nothing to write home about (funny how we write everything in blogs, though, right).
The children actors did a great job. The scene were the main character gets really upset at his little sister comes across a bit canned, unbelievable. Other than that, I think his interactions with his father were excellent, portraying a very clear passion for his father's love and attention, yet almost spurned, withering under the expectations of being the eldest. The girl playing opposite him was interesting; I think there was a combination of over-acting or over-confidence on her part, but also the director and script writer making her character a little too big, too good, too smart. Hence, I had a hard time believing her. Also, the bully was a mixed-case as well. I think she did a good job, but her part was a bit too extreme, swinging from being overly bad (in a very unrealistic way, IMHO) to overly emotional. However, her character was useful to help show how the fantasy realm tied in and made it more relevant.
I liked how the story portrayed an imaginative place where fears, doubts, hopes and dreams could be dealt with in a constructive and more physical format. This is something we all do in one form or another. I was hoping the movie would dive into that place a little more forcefully, especially earlier, but alas.
The children actors did a great job. The scene were the main character gets really upset at his little sister comes across a bit canned, unbelievable. Other than that, I think his interactions with his father were excellent, portraying a very clear passion for his father's love and attention, yet almost spurned, withering under the expectations of being the eldest. The girl playing opposite him was interesting; I think there was a combination of over-acting or over-confidence on her part, but also the director and script writer making her character a little too big, too good, too smart. Hence, I had a hard time believing her. Also, the bully was a mixed-case as well. I think she did a good job, but her part was a bit too extreme, swinging from being overly bad (in a very unrealistic way, IMHO) to overly emotional. However, her character was useful to help show how the fantasy realm tied in and made it more relevant.
I liked how the story portrayed an imaginative place where fears, doubts, hopes and dreams could be dealt with in a constructive and more physical format. This is something we all do in one form or another. I was hoping the movie would dive into that place a little more forcefully, especially earlier, but alas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)