Men Who Stare At Goats, 2009

I had heard that this was a good show. From someone. I think it turned out to be an utter waste of time and insanely stupid. There is quite a cast of notable actors, and I have a really hard time swallowing the fact that they all agreed to do this show. Maybe as a farce? Obviously, I just didn't get the punchline.

On this rare occasion, I turn to other reviewers to see what in the world they got out of this. Some are like me. A very small group of folks seem to think that this film points to the smoking gun of the idiocy that goes on inside the US military and political clowns. I can buy that, but this film did a poor job of pointing that out - very immature IMO.

Sherlock Holmes, 2010

I wonder how many times Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's story has been retold in the cinemas. I enjoyed this retelling, although Hollywood took some excessive license with our well-known hero. Call me slow, but it just dawned on me how similar Gregory House (House, M.D.) is to Doyle's main character.

I like Robert Downey, Jr. as a swash-buckling, egotistical almost-megalomaniac Hero. I am not so sure it comes off well as Sherlock Holmes; he gets the intelligence and the wit down pat, but some of the buffoonery comes off as sheer incompetence as opposed to absent-mindedness sometimes associated with a great intellect. I do in particular like the well-thought out premeditated scenes (most having to do with fights); to counter that, all that slapping stuff was just stupid.

Great characters all around, good casting (not great, not horrible). Good show. Passable.

The Green Zone, 2010

I actually saw a "behind the scenes" clip off Tivo before I even heard about this movie; Matt Damon did a good job taking this bull by the horns and I love how he gets into character.

My only major complaint is that I utterly detest shaky cameras. Yeah, I know it is supposed to help the viewer feel like he/she is part of the action, but it totally kills the connection for me. I mean, you can't see anything!

So aside from that, great plot (with excellent twists along the way), excellent action, acting, direction.. all around, very good.

As this is a movie, and not a Michael Moore documentary, it really does make you wonder how much of this stuff could reflect reality. Especially in terms of the politics involved. I already do not trust the government as it is, and I am fully aware that the normal average joe is getting screwed over by large Corps and Big Money. The whole fiasco with MWD was (and still is) underplayed. (As an aside for robots that look for "common keywords", MWD = Microwarp Drive in Eve Online *grin*) It makes me sick that folks in high positions get away with so much crap and are able to side-step the normal checks and balances that restrain the rest of us mere mortals. This extends throughout large government and even down into the police force.

I liked Freddy a lot! Aside from his believable performance, he was given some very key lines and for me, as an otherwise ignorant American, gave me a picture for what I believe the Iraqi heart might look like. Americans really need to stop sticking their nose in other countries. This whole idea of "democracy" as put forth by politicians (especially those in power) is a farce and has already exacted a huge toll on the global society.

The Book of Eli, 2010

I was at first worried that this was going to be too much like Cormac's "The Road"; the whole post-apocalyptic, anarchy, dog-eat-dog thing going on. There was a bit of that enmeshed into the story, but not quite to the same degree.

I am not a big Gary Oldman fan, and after this feature I am even less so. Hard to tell how much of it was his fault vs the screenwriter; just a wee bit too obsessed on a friggin' book and nobody knows why. Eli alludes, mysteriously, to how it might have started the war, but that's all we get.

The obvious religious tie-ins were intriguing, and I especially appreciated the twist at the end. However, the loopholes nag at me. Eli was travelling for 30 years?!? And never got lost? How is it that he not only learned Braille, but was able to retain and regurgitate the entire King James Bible? How come more people did not live near the coast? In a world where water is such a precious commodity, you only have a small population living on a freak of an island?

Overall I enjoyed this film. The soundtrack was very good and I enjoyed the direction of the film. I was not crazy about the high-contrasted, muted colors though. I realize the color palette and lighting effects were added to help it feel post-apoc, but still... in my own words, I would call it "too artsy".

The Last Airbender, 2010

Apparently, my expectations for this movie were a bit too high. I guess the fact that there were kid actors should have clued me in. Granted, that sounds harsh for young, talented actors - my biggest beef with this film was the horrible script. While it dealt with some excellent topics like "responsibility", most of the dialog was horrid and some of it just down right asinine. I was also supremely pissed off when the last few scenes were an obvious jumping-off point for a sequel. I will not be seeing the sequel, thank you very much.

With so many Asian influences (including the middle-eastern flavors of the Fire Nation), I just could not understand why Katara and Sokka were cast as white Americans.

This really was a young teen's movie, I think. Unfortunately. Not much for an adult to draw from.

WALL-E, 2008

This was a really cute movie; great for watching with little ones. I really enjoyed the "over-the-top" roboticness; arms and manipulators that go through 720 degrees of motion, panels that slide and peel like onions, never-ending motion that results in a very simple action. The contrast between the stark hospital purity (aka, sterility) of the "future" robots and the grit, the run-down, energy-inefficient clumsiness of the older (WALL-E) was very well done. The team that wrote, designed, automated and directed WALL-E was ingenious; so many small details, so many idiosynracies, so many things that could be "real".

Two particular problems I had with the story (and Pixar to a degree). While so much attention is given to the landscape and WALL-E, the humans look like plastic toys. Ok, forget that they are enourmously overweight, so many of Pixar's humans look so unreal. Ok, now back to the story, it is just ridiculous that every single human is obscenely obese; where are the health nuts? The Tree huggers? And what's with every single person being so disconnected from reality that they do not even notice the "world" (ship) around them? If that was the whole point, the storywriters did well to go above and beyond to make it. But it just felt.... out of place. And the robot "Hospital Ward" was done up more like an experimental lab from a horror movie, only with bright shiny lights and pastel colors.

The romance was light-hearted and heart warming. The pixelized facial expressions of the white robot (EVE) were great; interesting how they were so retro, as well. I enjoyed the complete facial swipes as EVE attempted to find a language that WALL-E would understand.

Terminator Salvation, 2009

I had an opportunity to watch this flick for free - did not want to waste the money to rent it. The whole Terminator series has gone down hill in a big way. The time travelling just throws the whole thing off. The lastest film capitulates on the impossible war against the superior machines, and there are so many holes that the story could be a strainer for pasta.

I love all things hi-tech; I like robots, spaceships, futuristic settings, etc. The only reason I even agreed to watch latest incarnation of Terminator was for the special effects and the robots. While I enjoyed the soundscape and various technology-oriented themes, it was mostly a disappointment. It seems that the machines have gotten dumber and weaker instead of smarter and stronger. They have at least gotten bigger; the monstrous, 60-foot tall bi-pedal mech had the cool touch of including mechanized, autonomous killer bikes. Although for all their technologocial superiority, they still were immobilized very easily. Likewise, the machine slave transporter included cool assault drop ships.

Seeing a complete CGI redo of Schwarzenegger was awful. Why bring that back? Of all the kooky things, it seems that the new model's skin is exceedingly tough - the flesh was not even scratched with another Terminator smacked him upside the head. That is some impervious skin. Too bad the metal underlying the skin is so brittle.

Angels and Demons, 2009

It is interesting how Dan Brown (the author of these stories) focuses so much on religious corruption and super-secret socieities, mixing in much myth, legend and old-school fables.

I like Tom Hanks for these films. It is possible others could have filled his shoes (maybe), but I like him in what he did. I am not so sure I liked the pairing of him with the obligatory "good girl" scientist Vittoria - I did not find her believable at all. I felt that the Catholic population was well cast, even though I had strong doubts about Ewan; but he pulled through.

The story is a good bit of entertainment. I think I might be fed up with all the hooplah surrounding The Illuminati and such, between Dan Brown's stories and "National Treasure". However, the twist in this one is a good one. Overall, good flick but would not see it again.

Duplicity, 2009

Like Doubt, this one left too much up in the air. Not quite as bad. Unfortunately, I do not like the main leads (Clive Owens and Roberts have done a number of flicks together now, and I do not like their clashing smashups at all).

The director did pull some of the loose threads together, which I appreciated. The "twist" at the end even comes across as intentional, instead of a poorly done movie. One line I did not quite get, out of the many I did not get, was when Claire (Roberts) says to Ray (Owen) during one fun kissing scene is "We still do not trust each other". Sure, I get that in the espionage business, the key is never to trust anyone. But they did trust each other. I came away thinking that they direction allowed them to have too much bonding time with each other; if they truly did not trust each other, they should have been a bit more evil, cruel, conniving, manipulative. Don't get me wrong, plenty of that was going on, but it was feeling too much like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith".

Doubt, 2008

I am trying to decide what I liked about this movie. Not much. Part of it is that I do not care for Streep or Hoffman. In a way, that made everyone else stand out. =) Sister James (Amy Adams) was a good character, charming for all her naivete, but a little too childish in some ways.

I realize the premise of the movie is Doubt. And I think it makes a good point that even in varoius pursuits of religious sincercity and faith, everyone has doubts. That being said, what was the point? What was the audience to walk away with? A movie capitalizing on the topic of doubt should not leave so much up in the air, I think.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 2009

I am torn if I would elect to see this movie a second time or not. Usually this is what I use to determine between my "blacklist" and "whitelist". I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and found it entertaining, but would I see it again? I think not.

The movie's special magic is really appreciated in the larger scope of the story, since it cannot possibly stand on its own (just like the books). I am a visually-oriented person, so seeing the book played out on the big screen is very satisfying to me. I grant the obvious alterations Hollywood chose, and for the most part, I am just going to ignore them. However, how the movie portrays spell-casting (and subsequent spell-based battles) is a bit perplexing. How is it that some spells come out of the wands like streams from the GhostBuster's guns, even to the point that such streams can meet in the middle and war with each other? That's not what spells do. Some spells have special affects (the obvious green of Voldy's fav "Avada Kedavra"), while most spells get to their targets with no affects. Some (all?) spells can be deflected somehow and produce a visible white flash as if they hit a shield. I thought spells had to be counter-spelled, not merely deflected with a flick of the wand.

I like how the characters mature (physically, emotionally and not to mention the actors themselves are growing professionally and literally). The movies (and the storyline itself) get darker and darker, proving that these are not kids stories. I find it frightening that parents are brining young children into the the theatres to see this.

The special affects are well done, and the color/lighting is pretty good throughout. While I appreciate that there is only so much they can put into the movie, I do kinda wish there was more on Tom Riddle's background. I think.

Eagle Eye, 2008

I enjoyed the plot in this film; a good bit of suspense, not knowing who was directly Jerry and Rachel to do all those crazy things they would never do in real life. The twists and story branches are quite good.

The computer technology aspect is a bit of a double-edge sword. For entertainment value, it is intriguing to see a super-computer do so much, the possibilities of all the control it could exert over our lives. However, my belief was suspended a bit too thin and it became more of a gimmick for me.

Great acting all around. Rachel's kid Sam (Cameron Boyce) has the most engaging smile. =) Even those with small parts did a great job, IMO. I enjoyed the action scense, although by the end I felt like it was going over-the-top with the extent to which the AI could manipulate the world.

Babylon A.D., 2008

To be honest, the only reason I picked this dvd up was because it had Vin Diesel and things blowing up. =) And call me weird, but the title made me think of Titan A.E., to the point I had "Babylon A.E." in my head. Yes, I am messed up, I realize that. I guess there are distant and vague similarities, but...

And while I like Vin Diesel, I have not been overly impressed by his sci-fi roles. I like him as an individual in the Riddick series, but the story line did not do him any favors. He really stands out in the down-to-earth, honest-to-goodness, bang 'em up here and now pieces like Fast and Furious.

Back to Babylon. What the heck is the title supposed to mean?!? It was never really explained in the movie - if it was, I totally missed it. The not-so-distant future of eastern Europe/Russia and New York was appropriately "just enough to be possibly believable". I enjoyed the tantalizing mystery of who (or what) Aurora was, and I thought Mélanie Thierry did a great job portraying her. Interesting to see Yeoh getting some screen time on a sci-fi flick - I like her character as well. The whole whacked-out religious angle was bigger than I could chew, and did not get how the "virgin birth" would legitimize the so-called religion.

The ending was just horrid. I felt like an artiste was sitting at the potter's wheel and keeled over from a heart attack, and some entrepreneuring capitalistic snob sold the unfinished work as the masterpiece it was not.

Body of Lies, 2008

I was pleasantly surprised by DiCaprio; he is definitely maturing as an actor. For some reason I almost felt this film was flirting with Jason Bourne or Enemy of the State, maybe even a little of Cruise in Mission Impossible; CIA types playing games with their pawns. DiCaprio brings a strong sense of American overconfidence melding into his environment like a neon green jacket in a rain forest.

Russel Crowe, on the other hand, was the other extreme. Maybe his role was scripted poorly, or perhaps he was over-pompous. I did not like how he talked via phone-in-the-ear to his operatives everywhere he went - and here the American spy agency is tracking cell phone calls of people on the other side of the planet. Crowe's Ed Hoffman was too much of a dunce to be a jerk.

Another strange thing is that I expected more plot twists. With a title like "Body of Lies" and a movie about spy games, I didn't get much double-crossing or sleight of hands going on. However, I did thoroughly enjoy Mark Strong's Hani character, including his delightful sharp wit and no-nonsense approach - yes, even his manipulations of the political machine and his own pawns. In fact, I think that made the setting in Jordan all the more delicious, one-upping the US government at their own game.

Analyze That, 2002

For a film that is 3 years younger than Analyze This, That felt like it was shot the day after. And the crying just gets worse. And then to throw a musical on Deniro's character... that was just plain painful.

Analyze This, 1999

I was strolling through the library and found the Analyze duo. So, the first one was entertaining - not stupendous, not rolling on the floor, not side-splitting. I do not think I even got past a good grin. Interesting story-line, and Deniro delivered a solid, rough character type as well as most of the mafia guys. Except, and this is a big one, except when Deniro cried. Yeah, I realize it was supposed to be counter to his character, but he did a horrible job faking it. Wow.

I feel bad for Kudrow. She has this mannerism about her that she developed over the long years of shooting Friends, and now she cannot shake it - I see Phoebe everywhere she goes. For her sake, I hope she can break out of it at some point. Of course, Meg Ryan never really broke out of her own cast either.....

For a Billy Crystal film, I wanted more comedy, more wit. Am I that dense that I missed most of it? I am somewhat biased in thinking that I am not, but.... =)

And that's about it for This.

My Name is Asher Lev, by Chaim Potok

Reading this right after "The Chosen", I fooled myself into expecting some kind of parallel story, or some connecting thread, some bridge between the two. And really, there is none other than the backdrop of the religious Jewish background (which is significant, surely, in and of itself).

What I did enjoy was how Potok took the reader on a journey through an artist's eyes. And not just any artist, but a genius. I love how the little child has no idea how his works affect others, that he just does what he does because that is all he knows. Hence, the very understandable lapse while Asher was away at school, not really missing that piece of his life yet.

And that is where I stopped reading. =) I know, I am a bad person. I'll go back and get it from the library again. Some day. But with what I had read, I was just not pulled into it like I was with Potok's first book.

Alembical, by Lawrence Schoen and Arthur Dorrance

Not much to say about this piece. I realize it is a small collection of novellas, but the first two I just could not get into at all (didn't even finish them), so I gave up on the rest.

The 13th Warrior, 1999

For some reason, I had been wanting to see this film. I could have gone without.

I was first put off by the bad contrast - the night-time scenes have shadows that are way too strong and too prevalent. Perhaps a product of 1999 cameras? Next, I did not buy Banderas's rendition of an Muslim ambassador - the guy has a Spanish accent for crying out load. =) The cover of the movie makes him out to be this serious kick-ass dude, but for a large part of the movie, his voice seems way too childish, cannot hold a decent broadsword and "cries like a woman". And storywise, his character really did not do much at all.

Perhaps one of my favorite parts was the thoughtful transition from the Viking language to English; it showed intelligence and purposefulness. And.... that's about it.

The action shots were quite lackluster, especially the final battle. Wow. In some shots, it almost looked like someone was throwing a bucket of red liquid around - very unbelievable. And the showdown between the two "leaders" was pathetic.

I did not understand the Bear people at all. How is it that they have thrived so well and unnoticed? I mean, a legend has sprung up about a "serpent of fire" - that does not happen overnight. And they have basically sequestered themselves into a rocky ravine and cave like a hive of wasps (they even have a queen mother).

Bad entertainment.

The Road, by Cormac McCarthy

One reviewer compared this piece to a "lyrical epic of horror", in which I must whole-heartedly agree. And I am tempted to leave it at that. The story itself is horrible; grisly, ghastly, inhumane, indecent, morose, decadent. The writing richly delivers this phantasm with a powerful vibrance - hence my strong reaction to it. The sharp detailed storyscape is punctuated by a lame dialogue consisting mostly of "keep moving", "I don't know" and "Okay"; make no doubt, the stark contrast between the two accentuates the narrative unbelievably well.

I also picked up the audiobook, read by Tom Stechschulte. At first I was worried, but the narrator's thick gravely voice fit perfectly to paint a brooding stark picture that flirts with disaster this side of death.

I have a hard time grasping the idea that Cormac dedicated this work to his son. True, the writing is phenomenal, but the story is black. I cannot put the innocent luminosity of childhood next to this thing. It is a thing that should not be done.