Stop the Planet of the Apes... I want to get off

The Hunger Games (2012) - Gary Ross

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:00:00 +0000

The Hunger Games (2012)
Director: Gary Ross
Writer: Gary Ross (Screenplay), Billy Ray (Screenplay), Suzanne Collins (Screenplay & Novel)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Amandla Stenberg, Toby Jones, Dayo Okeniyi, Alexander Ludwig, Jacqueline Emerson, Isabelle Fuhrman, Willow Shields

When it comes to movies adapted from books, do you prefer to read the book first or see the movie first? When I have asked that question in the past I have found that most people prefer to read the book first. I find that I am one of the few people that prefers to see the movie version first. This film is a perfect example of why I feel this way.

When I watch the movie first, I can enjoy it on its own merits and then read the book and expand on a universe that I already know. Where as when I read the book first, I find it hard to judge the film on its own merits. I find myself questioning, "Would I have liked this more if I hadn't already read the book?" I find myself thinking, "They could have easily removed this unimportant scene and put in this other scene that would have explained certain things better."

When a book is adapted to a film, things need to be left out of the story. It is almost impossible to adapt a book to a film with 100% accuracy. I understand that but sometimes I find it hard to comprehend why certain things are cut out and certain things are left in. I had this same problem with the Harry Potter series. I read the book first and just had a hard time enjoying the films because of how much was left out. The Hunger Games is a great example of this for me.

While I think the movie was pretty good for the most part, I find myself missing things that were in the book, or wondering why they added things that weren't in the book. There were just a lot of things that weren't explained well in the movie. What was the significance of the Mockingjay Pin? Why did Cinna care so much about what happened to Katniss? Why did Haymitch suddenly just quit drinking? What was the significance of the career tributes? Why did the people of District 11 suddenly rebel even though they have been watching their children die in the Hunger Games for 74 years? What were the muttations that showed up at the end of the story and where did they come from? Maybe all of these questions don't need to be explained for the movie to make sense, but this is a lot of questions to have left unanswered. Or maybe I am just being hard on the film because I am such a fan of the book.

I will say I did enjoy the movie but kind of on the same level that I enjoyed the Harry Potter movies. It was cool to see some of the things I had read actually portrayed on screen but I never really felt like the whole story was being told. It kind of felt like a "best of" reel, where I was just seeing all the scenes that would look cool on screen.

The casting of the film was quite good for the most part. Jennifer Lawrence was great as Katniss. I was surprised by how effortlessly Elizabeth Banks slipped into the role of Effie Trinket. Woody Harrelson was one of the highlights of the film for me. He was perfect as Hatmitch. Amandla Stenberg did a wonderful job as Rue, I found her relationship with Katniss to be one of the better parts of the film. Stanley Tucci does chew the hell out of the scenery, but for the role he is playing this works perfectly. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth were passable as Peeta and Gale, given how little they were actually given to work with. Really, the only total misstep in the casting was Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. I just didn't buy it.

The direction could have been a lot better and I am glad they are looking for a new director for the sequel. Having a different director on board may make me actually want to see the sequel. Gary Ross's direction in this film wasn't terrible, it was just lazy. He told the story, he just didn't do anything unique with his story telling. The biggest error in his direction came during the violent scenes in the arena. He had to keep the blood off screen as much as possible to keep the PG-13 rating so he immediately fell back on the shaky-cam method of directing action. If people can't see exactly what is going on, they just assume that it is gory and violent. I understand these scenes would be difficult to shoot and keep the PG-13 rating, but resorting to shaky-cam is just a lazy way out. I am sure there could have been a more creative way to solve this problem.

I think my biggest problem with the movie though, was that I never really felt that Katniss was in that much danger. In the book, even though it is told in a first person perspective and you pretty much know she is going to survive, you still feel a sense of danger. The movie felt like Katniss had just gotten lost in the woods and had to camp out over night. I also never felt that the Career Tributes were all that menacing. As someone I know pointed out, "they seemed like the bad guys from The Karate Kid, they didn't seem like a real danger." In the book the Career Tributes were scary and there was a real sense of danger when Katniss had to go up against them.

So basically the movie was decent. Not as good as I had hoped but also not as bad as I had feared. I knew this was going to be a hard book to adapt into a movie but I had really hoped that it could have been done well. I will probably still see the sequel, depending on who they choose for the new director. The question is, will I run out and see it at the theater or will I wait and rent it from Netflix? I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Rating: 5/10

Fright Night (2011) - Craig Gillespie

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:23:00 +0000

Fright Night (2011)
Director: Craig Gillespie
Writer: Marti Noxon (Screenplay), Tom Holland (Story)
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Toni Collette, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco, Sandra Vergara

No, I tend not to be the biggest fan of remakes. However, I am a pretty big Doctor Who fan so the fact that David Tennant stars in this probably helped me decide to see it. It also didn't hurt that Shaw Girl thinks David Tennant is a total hotty and he spends a lot of the movie with his shirt off. Tennant isn't the only reason I saw this film though, the trailer actually made it look pretty good so I was at least a bit interested in how this remake would turn out.

I was pleasantly surprised.While it certainly did not outdo the original, it stood on its own as a pretty decent horror/comedy. I had a few problems with it but overall I was thoroughly entertained. The film pretty closely follows the plot of the original; a teenager finds out his neighbor is a vampire, no one believes him, he enlists the aid of a TV vampire killer, hijinks ensue.

The acting for the most part is pretty solid. No surprise that Anton Yelchin plays his part well, he has proven to be a pretty solid actor. Imogen Poots does a really good job playing a role that isn't your typical "damsel in distress" horror movie role. Christopher Mintz-Plasse does a great job as the comic relief and is actually less annoying than the similar best friend role in the original film. Colin Farrell manages to come off creepy enough, unfortunately he isn't really scary-creepy, he is more neighbor-you-think-might-secretly-be-a-sex-offender-creepy. Maybe that is what they were going for, but it didn't totally work for me. David Tennant completely steals the show as Peter Vincent though. He chews scenery for the entire movie but he does it so well and the whole film is better because of it.

Obviously the special effects have been updated since the original film. Some of them are pretty solid and some of them aren't. The effect of the vampires exploding into ashes was well done and looked very cool, on the other hand, the vampire makeup did not look good at all. It looked like way too much touch up work was with CGI in post production. It just looked like Colin Farrell face had been stretched and blown up in weird ways.

My one other problem with the special effects has to do with the fact that I saw it in 2D instead of 3D. There were just way too many shots that were obviously put in the movie just to take advantage of the 3D and they just looked cheesy when seeing the movie in 2D. Not that I am saying that you should see the movie in 3D, I would never recommend that.

So, overall it was a solid horror film that tells an interesting story and manages to make you actually care about what happens to the characters. It has a good mix of fun moments and scary moments and the pacing between those moments is well down. The acting is better than what you would get in most modern horror movie remakes. The special effects aren't always overly effective but they aren't distractingly bad either, except for the few "3D shots."

Rating: 6/10

Photos from the Museum of the Moving Image, Astoria NY

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:14:00 +0000


Me and the Mutoscope (pic by Shaw Girl).

A few weeks ago, my Fiancee and I went up to Brooklyn, NY for her birthday and to have our engagement photos taken. We had a great time exploring parts of the city. I hadn't been to New York since I was in high school and I really enjoyed the trip. We mostly stayed in the Brooklyn area, there was so much to explore that we didn't have to leave the area much. We ate at many great restaurants, explored Prospect Park, bought way too much at the Brooklyn Flea Market and I even got myself lost in a couple used books stores while I was there.

One of the things we did leave Brooklyn for was a trip to the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria. Even though it was her birthday she made sure to plan time for this because she knew I would love it (isn't she sweet?). It isn't a very large museum but it does have a great collection of film industry memorabilia. Their exhibits range from props and costumes to old cameras and projectors. They even had some old vintage video games there, including an original pong arcade game (which wasn't in working order) and an original Frogger arcade (which was working). It did make me feel kind of old when I ran across a Sega Genesis though. Nothing from my childhood should be in a museum.

I thought I would dedicate a post to just showing off some pics that I took while I was at the museum. I highly recommend going there if you are ever in New York. Apparently they do film screening on occasion as well. I'd love get up there for one of those some time. Perhaps on my next trip. I hope you enjoy the pics but keep in mind I am not the best photographer and these were all taken with my iPhone. There is so much more in the museum than what you see here though, so visit if you get the chance.


Ape Costume pieces from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Chewbaca mask from Star Wars and Jeriba mask from Enemy Mine.


Wig from Bride of Frankenstein.


Yoda puppet from the Star Wars series.

Props from Nightmare on Elm Street.

Tyrell Skyscraper miniature from Blade Runner. Amazingly detailed.
I honestly could have stared at this for hours.

Figures from Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Collection of original Star Wars action figures.

Edison Kinetoscope (top) and two other early film projectors.

More early film projectors.


Film projector from 1938.


Early film projector with sound (notice the turntable).


Technicolor film camera.

The Wraith (1986) - Mike Marvin

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:19:00 +0000

The Wraith (1986)
Director: Mike Marvin
Writer: Mike Marvin
Starring: Charlie Sheen, Nick Cassavetes, Sherilyn Fenn, Randy Quaid, Matthew Barry, David Sherrill, Clint Howard

Are you a fan of the 1973 Clint Eastwood film High Plains Drifter? Have you ever watched it and thought, "How could this movie possibly be any more awesome?" Have you then answered that question by saying to yourself, "well, some fast cars might make a tad bit more awesome." If you have had this small conversation with yourself then The Wraith (1986) may just be the film for you. After you get some professional help for that talking-to-yourself problem, I highly suggest checking it out.

Mike Marvin's The Wraith perfectly combines the the spiritual revenge story of High Plains Drifter with the exciting street racing of Death Race 2000 (1975). This combination creates the perfect movie for those that can't sit still for the slow pace of High Plains Drifter but still want to see a story about a spirit coming back from the grave to take vengeance on those that killed him. I really hope that isn't giving too much away, but honestly every description of the movie I have read pretty much gives away the "avenging spirit" aspect of the movie.

The film stars Charlie Sheen (long before he went bat shit crazy) as Jake the avenging spirit in a performance that I am sure would make Clint Eastwood very proud. Now instead of riding into town on a horse like Clint Eastwood, Jake rides into town in a souped up, one of a kind sports car and wearing some kind of racing suit that makes him look like a bad Doctor Who villain. Now I will say that the car is pretty damn awesome. It is sleek, fast and just down right cool to look at on screen and honestly, that sure as hell beats riding into town on some old horse.

If you need more evidence of just how wonderful this film is, I have it for you. For starters this movie stars Clint Howard sporting a haircut that he obviously stole from Henry in David Lynch's Eraserhead (1976). Now you can really tell that you are watching a high quality film if it stars Clint Howard and his brother Ron is not directing. Randy Quaid (again, before he went bat shit crazy) also makes an appearance as Sheriff Loomis who is trying to make sense of all the street racing related killings going on in his town. Seriously, how could it get any better than this?

Now, I know it seems that I have not taken this review very seriously, but in all honesty the movie was actually pretty fun. It is a fairly well told story even if it does borrow heavily from High Plains Drifter, which is one of my favorite westerns. The acting is passable enough for the type of film that it is. It has some pretty exciting car chases and some pretty funny moments as well. There is also a pretty decent romance at the center of the story. It may not be high art but it is a pretty entertaining film.

Rating: 6/10

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (1977) - George Barry

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:55:00 +0000

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (1977)
Director: George Barry
Writer: George Barry
Starring: Demene Hall, William Russ, Julie Ritter, Linda Bond, Patrick Spence-Thomas, Rosa Luxemburg, Dave Marsh

Last week a friend sent me a link to an A.V. Club video entitled Ridiculous Horror Movie Adversaries, which as you may guess is about horror movie villains that are way to ridiculous to be taken even remotely seriously. One of the movies mentioned in the video was Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (1977). Apparently after the movie was made, everyone involved with it pretty much forgot about its existence but through some showings of bootleg prints it managed to grab a small cult following over the years. It finally got an official release (on DVD) in 2003.

Now, as soon as I saw the A.V. Club video, I knew I would need to track down Death Bed and watch it. The concept sounded so ludicrous that I had to know how anyone could possibly get a full length movie out of it. George Barry managed to milk the implausible scenario for all it is worth though.

Death Bed is a bad movie, I mean a really bad movie. However, it is bad on a genius level. George Barry manages to not only turn this concept into a full length movie but he managed to actually take the idea of a bed that eats people completely seriously. There are a few site gags sprinkled throughout the film but over all the movie actually has pretty serious tone to it. In many ways it almost feels like Dario Argento's Suspiria. It has that same kind of dream like quality that Suspiria has.

That being said, you pretty much get exactly what the title says when you watch this movie. It is about a bed that eats people (and anything else that happens to get set on top of it). The titular possessed bed resides in an abandoned mansion. Every once in a while people will stumble across the mansion and find the bed and decide that this will be a good place to either sleep or have sex. At this point the bed will eat them by dissolving them with this weird foam and then digesting them. After the hardy meal the bed will then go to sleep... and snore. Yes, the bed snores.

There is some background information in the film about how the bed became possessed but honestly it is really muddled and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are also so explanations given for why people keep coming to the mansion and finding the bed but again the explanations make very little sense. Basically it is all just exposition used to lead people to the bed so that they can be devoured.

This is one of those movies that is really bad but it definitely worth seeing for just how bad it is. I watched it alone but I suggest getting a few friends together to watch it and having some fun laughing at just how ridiculous the movie is. I would suggest somehow involving liquor into the viewing of the film because that can only make it better. If you do see it, or have seen it, then please comment here because I would love to know what other people thought of the movie.

Rating: 3/10

Patton Oswalt does a bit about Death Bed on his Werewolves and Lollipops album.
You can listen to that here:

The Social Network (2010) - David Fincher

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:42:00 +0000

The Social Network (2010)
Director: David Fincher
Writers: Aaron Sorkin (Screenplay), Ben Mezrich (Book)
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song, Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella, Joseph Mazzello

Well I finally got around to watching David Fincher's The Social Network (2010). I am not sure why I put it off that long, I had read the book and even if it wasn't well written it still told an interesting story. I was pretty confident that Aaron Sorkin would be able to adapt the book into an excellent script that David Fincher would turn into an amazing film.

The film did not disappoint. I know a lot of people have been avoiding seeing this one, dismissing it as "that movie about Facebook." They don't know what they are missing though. Yes, the film does tell the story of the rise of Facebook, however that is not what the film is about. This is a film about the revenge and betrayal of a petty man who turned a small idea into a multi-million dollar business that, for better or worse, changed the way people communicate all over the world.

The film really shows how Facebook changed the way the world communicates. It shows us how much information about everyone we know is available to us at any time because of Facebook and the internet in general. It explores the emotional consequences of having such quick access to the personal information of other people. It explores how the founders of Facebook started the site only because they wanted to be part of an exclusive club, only to realize that they still couldn't force other people to like them.

The screenplay is quite excellent and very witty with fast paced dialog. As I stated before, I have read the book and it does tell and interesting story, it is just not particularly well written. Aaron Sorkin managed to make the story shine in a way that the book never did. His dialog is fun and interesting while still being believable. He makes the characters interesting and believable, where the book managed to make the characters seem very flat.

The acting in the movie is excellent all around. Jesse Eisenberg does an remarkable job with his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg. Eisenberg had never really impressed me before but he was on top of his game in this film. Armie Hammer gives an interesting and perfect performance as both the Winklevoss twins. Both Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake were excellent in their supporting roles. This is only the second time I have seen Andrew Garfield but I can see him having a promising career if he continues to be this good (and the new Spiderman film doesn't completely bomb).

David Fincher really pulled everything together to make one hell of a film though. He took what could have been a very simple story with simple characters and made it complex and interesting. While I haven't seen all of Fincher's films, I would expect nothing less from him. He has a very unique style and that style is part of what brings everything together to make this a great film. He keeps what could have been a dialog heavy, court room movie from becoming a slow, boring mess of a film.

If you haven't seen The Social Network yet and you are only avoiding it because it is "that Facebook movie," I highly recommend putting your expectations aside and giving it a shot. It really is one of the best movies of the year. Perhaps not my favorite of the year but it is certainly make my top five.

Rating: 9/10

Black Swan (2010) - Darren Aronofsky

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:42:00 +0000

Black Swan (2010)
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Mark Heyman (Screenplay), Andres Heinz (Screenplay & Story), John J. McLaughlin (Screenplay)
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder

As one of my two or three loyal readers, you may have noticed that I have not posted anything in quite some time. I have seen plenty of really good movies but just haven't had the energy to write about them. If you hadn't heard the news, I am getting married. Now, weddings are expensive so I decided to take a second job in order to help pay for it. I was able to take a job at a movie theater near where I live. One of the nice ones that shows independent and foreign films, not one of those giant multiplex deals. So far, I am really enjoying the job and one of my favorite parts is the number of people that stop and talk to me about the movies they have just watched.

One of the best comments I have heard so far was from a gentlemen that had just walked out of Black Swan (2010). He just looked at me as he walked out and said, "I no longer want to be a ballerina." I'm not sure why, but the comment made me laugh and really just made my day. Another times a woman came out of Black Swan and stopped to talk to me for a few minutes about the movie. Apparently she was a psychologist and was very impressed with how the film portrayed Nina's (Natalie Portman) descent into madness.

The best word she used to describe the film was "visceral." I honestly thought that this was a perfect description of the film. This is one of those films that you really need to just feel your way through. I don't see it as one that should be intellectually picked apart. It is one that you just need to allow to take you over emotionally. Sure, you could point out the flaws in the ballet or some of the weird special effects used when Nina is literally turning into a swan but that doesn't matter. This is a movie that succeeds excellently at hitting you on an emotional level and that is how it should be judged.

Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis both portray their characters perfectly. I was actually quite surprised by Mila Kunis, while I had never thought of her as a bad actor I never would have imagined that she would be able to keep step with Natalie Portman. There were several instances in the film where Mila Kunis completely stole the show because of how expertly she portrays Lily. They both put in very emotional performances that really helped to make Nina's journey seem that much more real.

Darren Aronofsky did an excellent job telling this story that was in many ways an update to the ballet, Swan Lake. There were many things in this film (such as Nina's literal transformation) that could have seemed hokey under another director but Aronofsky manages to make everything believable. He earned that Best Director Oscar Nomination that was announced this morning and I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a win.

Now, I can't say I am completely back to blogging on a regular basis. I am not sure how often I will have the time and the energy to write up a review. So for awhile my reviews may be few and far between, or they may be less in depth. I will continue seeing movies though and I will write about them when I have the time and the energy.

Rating: 9/10

The Prestige (2006) - Christopher Nolan

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:07:00 +0000

The Prestige (2006)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Jonathan Nolan (Screenplay), Christopher Nolan (Screenplay), Christopher Priest (Novel)
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Piper Perabo, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Samantha Mahurin, David Bowie, Andy Serkis

I'll be completely honest, the first time I saw Christopher Nolan's The Prestige I was not impressed. In fact I left the theater feeling pretty disappointed. Roger Ebert's review of the film pretty much summed up how I felt about it on my first viewing. However, even though it hadn't overly impressed me I still could not stop thinking about it.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized what Christopher Nolan was trying to do with the film and the more I began to believe it was actually a pretty good film. Of course, this made me want to see the movie again but I kept putting it off, afraid that it might disappoint me again. However, I recently decided to read the book and that led me to watching the movie one more time.

This will be less of a review of the film and more of a discussion of what caused me to change to change my mind on how I felt about the film. Because of the nature of my original disappointment with the film, this discussion will involve some pretty big spoilers. If you haven't seen the movie do not read on past the jump.

The first time I saw the film, I was actually really enjoying it up until a certain point. The rivalry between the Borden and Angier was a magnificent story but then suddenly things changed. It seemed like, without warning that it became a science fiction film. The movie was no longer about men trying to top each other with better illusions but about a man trying to create one of these illusions for real. It really felt like the sci-fi element was just shoe-horned into the movie because the movie had no where else to go. I love sci-fi as much as the next guy but not when it is forced into a wonderful character study such as this.

That being said, for some reason I could not get the movie out of my head. The sci-fi element had really taken me for a loop but I couldn't stop thinking about it. I started to think about why the sci-fi element was a part of the story and what Nolan was trying to say about these two men by using it. Because of my original disappointment with the film, it took me some time to actually get it. The film was not just about the rivalry between these two men but about the obsession that these two men had for being the best at their craft. The film became about just how much these two men were willing to sacrifice for their obsession.

The sci-fi element helped to show just how much of a sacrifice Angier was willing to make to become a better illusionist then Borden. Borden was so obsessed with his illusions that he hid the fact that he was two men, there by only allowing each man to live half a life. Angier on the other hand was so obsessed that he willingly allowed himself to die every night on stage. When he stepped into Tesla's machine he had no idea if he would become the man teleported or the man drowning below stage and he was willing to take that chance to be the best. Once I realized all this, I saw that the sci-fi element was not just shoe-horned but was actually necessary for the development of the story.

It really took seeing the film a second time for me to really understand just what Nolan was trying to say with the story. I actually found that I enjoyed the story much more the second time around I was able to see how Nolan had expertly woven the sci-fi into the story. It seemed much more natural this time around. This is definitely one of those films that I feel needs to be seen twice to fully enjoy. Like any good magic trick, once you know the secret to the film, it does seem rather obvious. However, seeing how Nolan makes the story unfold once you know the secret is rather amazing.

This, of course, is not the first time a second viewing has changed my opinion of a film. I am quite sure that it will not be the last time either. A lot of things can affect your enjoyment of a film, from your surrounding to your state of mind at the time of seeing it. Then sometimes a second viewing is just necessary to pick up on some aspects you may have missed the first time around.

Rating: 8/10

Rally to Restore Sanity

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 13:14:00 +0000

I usually make it a point to stay away from politics in my blog. I am mostly just trying to have fun writing movie reviews here. I may occasionally interject some of my political views into my movie reviews but I like to keep that to a minimum. However, I attended Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity this weekend and I felt like it was something I needed to write about. The Rally itself isn't what is inspiring this blog post though, the fact that the message of the Rally had already been lost in the shuffle by the end of the day Saturday is really what has inspired me to write this.

I will start off by saying that the Rally was a lot of fun. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were both very funny and the musical guests were great. Even if I do wish it were a little more comedy and a little less music. That is just me though, music isn't really one of the big loves of my life. Like most of skits on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, the comedy skits at the Rally mostly highlighted the complete absurdity that is the media and political discourse in this country.

Of course, there is no way the media in the country is ever going to understand just how absurd they are. Case in point, Keith Olbermann who tweeted "It wasn't a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the 'everybody on Thr cable is the same' naiveté" near the end of the Rally. Honestly Keith, that just comes across as you being angry that Jon included you in his montage of people that are adding to the problem. Whether you like it or not Keith, you are the Bill O'Reilly of the left. You feed on hate, anger and fear just like he does, you just do it from the other side of the isle.

Keith Olbermann later tweeted "I wish it were otherwise. But you can tone down all you want and the result will be: the Right will only get LOUDER. Sorry." I'm sorry Keith but there is this saying that I heard when I was very young and perhaps you have heard it as well, "Two wrongs do not make a right." Or perhaps another saying is a little more appropriate, "You don't fight fire with fire." When you scream just as loud as the other side nothing gets accomplished. You just make it hard to point out the flaws in their arguments because all they have to do is point at you and say "Look, he's yelling and screaming too, so why should we stop?"

Disagreements never get solved until someone finally steps up and says, "Ok, let's stop yelling at each other and understand that while we are different we can work through those differences and find some common ground." Finding common ground isn't what the 24 hours news media wants though. They don't want friendly political discourse because friendly political discourse doesn't bring in the same ratings as fear mongering.

Keith also retweeted a message from one of his Twitter followers that said "All Stewart really represents is the thought that if you are passionate about ANYTHING, you must be a radical." Unfortunately this shows that the point of Jon's statement has completely gone over people's heads. The fact that Keith retweeted this message just shows that he doesn't understand either. Jon's message is not that you can not be passionate about your views. Jon's message is now, exactly the same as it was when he went on CNN's Crossfire in 2004. That message is a very simple one; We can't solve our problems until we stop yelling and calling each other names. We can't grow as a country as long as the people with the loudest voices are spewing anger and hate. In order to move forward we need to find common ground and grow from there.

This country doesn't need people like Kieth Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly, this country needs people like Edward R. Murrow. He pointed out the problems during the McCarthy era without resorting to calling people racists and Nazis. Unfortunately no journalists have stood up recently to take the place of Murrow. The closest we have is a comedian named Jon Stewart that sees that there is a problem with the system and wants to try his best to fix it. Unfortunately the talking heads in the media are going to constantly drown him out.

Jonah Hex (2010) - Jimmy Hayward

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:27:00 +0000

Jonah Hex (2010)
Director: Jimmy Hayward
Writers: Mark Neveldine (Screenplay & Story), Brian Taylor (Screenplay & Story), William Farmer (Story), John Albano (Characters), Tony Dezuniga (Characters)
Starring: Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Michael Fassbender, Will Arnett

When I first heard that a Jonah Hex movie was going to be made I was actually pretty intrigued. I didn't know a whole lot about the comic, but from what I knew about the character I thought a pretty interesting movie could be made. Then they cast Josh Brolin and I just knew it was going to be an awesome movie. Then they cast Megan Fox and my hope dwindled. Then I just kept hearing more and more about the movie and my desire to see it completely vanished.

I really thought that with the character of Jonah Hex a good, somewhat mystical, western could be made in the vain of High Plains Drifter (1973) except with a little more comic book action. Unfortunately what this movie delivered was a slightly darker version of Wild Wild West (1999). The sad thing is, there is a good story in this movie, unfortunately they decided not to focus on this story and instead only touch on it in exposition and a few flashbacks. If they had made the entire movie about Jonah Hex's back story they would have ended up with a much more interesting story. Instead, this movie feels like the bad direct-to-DVD sequel of a much better film.

The potential that this movie had to be good is just one of the things that makes it so much harder to watch. Josh Brolin was actually really good has Hex but his performance doesn't manage to break free of the horrible script. John Malkovich seems to understand that the movie isn't going to be good and hypes up the camp on his performance to a somewhat distracting level. Megan Fox is... well... she's Megan Fox. We all know why she was put int his movie and it certainly wasn't her acting talent.

The movie was actually shot pretty well. There really are some beautiful looking scenes in the movie. Unfortunately the excessive editing makes it hard for any of this beauty to shine through. While watching the movie it is pretty evident that there was a lot of stuff edited out of the movie, most likely to take it down to a PG-13 movie. Granted, I don't think any of the stuff they edited would have helped the movie be that much better. The movie was just all over the place and I doubt there was much of anything that could have been done to fix it.

I will say, there is one good thing about this movie. It is only 87 minutes long, it may be awful but it is very short. With such a short running time you don't have to wait to long in between the action sequences, unfortunately the actions sequences just aren't that good either. They are rather choppy because of the editing choices made so they just aren't that much fun at all. Overall the movie is just pretty dull and the fact that it could have been so much better just makes me dislike it even more. Now I think I am going to go watch High Plains Drifter and pretend that Clint Eastwood has a gaping hole in his cheek.

Rating: 2/10

I'm Still Here (2010) - Casey Affleck

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:34:00 +0000

I'm Still Here (2010)
Director: Casey Affleck
Writers: Casey Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs, Antony Langdon

To begin with, I am not even sure what to really say about I'm Still Here (2010). Like almost everyone else, I had my suspicions that this was all a performance by Joaquin Phoenix and not a real breakdown. I just wish I had gotten the chance to see the movie before Casey Affleck made the official announcement that Phoenix's breakdown was not real.

Since I didn't see the film until after the announcement, all I can pretty much judge the film by is the performance by Joaquin Phoenix. It is one hell of a performance and in true Andy Kaufman style he really dedicated himself to it. He didn't just play this character in the movie, he played this character in his entire public life for nearly two years. He did this so well that no one really knew if he was having a mental breakdown or not.

What this movie does show is just how dedicated Joaquin Phoenix is to his craft. Which is kind of ironic considering how much he claims to hate acting in the film. Pheonix gave up two years of his professional life to make this movie. Two years that he could have been getting bigger roles with bigger paychecks. I am sure he passed on many opportunities in order to continue making this low budget film that probably will not make him a lot of money. Also, depending on how many people knew it was an act, he probably didn't make himself a lot of friends either. This was a risky movie to make, if things didn't go right it could have totally killed his career.

I did have one problem with the movie though. Because I knew that it was just a giant performance I kept asking myself through-out the movie, "Is that person in on it?" Every time something shocking would happen, or Joaquin would put someone in an awkward position, I couldn't help but wonder whether or not that person knew what was going on or not. This kind of took me out of the story that the film was trying to tell about this "character" having a mental breakdown.

Now, if we were to take this as a real documentary, it is actually really well made. It is also pretty heart-breaking to watch this character completely fall apart in the film. Once you accept the fact that it is a piece of fiction, the film has a way of making you feel for this character as his life completely spirals down the drain. I guess that is a compliment to both Casey Affleck's talent as a documentary film maker and Joaquin Phoenix's talent as an actor.

Overall I liked the movie, I think it was well made. I think it took a lot of balls on the parts of Casey Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix, and anyone else involved to actually make the movie. They very easily could have angered a lot of people but they managed to keep the charade going for the entire shoot of the movie without burning any bridges behind them. I do have one big and very important question about the film though: Did Joaquin wash his hair at all during the time they were filming?

Rating: 7/10

Enemy Mine (1985) - Wolfgang Petersen

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:39:00 +0000

Enemy Mine (1985)
Director: Wolfgang Petersen
Writer: Barry Longyear (Story), Edward Khmara (Screenplay)
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Louis Gossett, Jr., Brion James, Richard Marcus, Carolyn McCormick, Bumper Robinson as Zammis

A few weeks ago I was in the mood for some crappy '80s sci-fi action, so I turned to Netflix Instant Watch to see what I could find. I quickly stumbled across Enemy Mine (1985). I had never seen it and after reading the description it seemed like it would fit the bill nicely. Imagine my surprise when I started watching it an realized that it wasn't crappy sci-fi at all. It turns out that it is actually a rather well made and well written science fiction film. It doesn't overly rely on special effects and pretty scenery like many things that try to pass as science fiction. It actually has an interesting story at its heart and uses that story to say something about the modern world.

Humans have been at war with The Drac for quite sometime. Why they are at war is not important. All that is important is that they hate each other and want nothing more than to see the other species wiped out. However, when a Human and a Drac both crash land on the same planet, they must work together in order to survive. It is this situation that drives some very excellent character development. We see these two people who hate each other start to reluctantly work together, eventually trust each other and then even become friends.

This type of story really is what science fiction does best. The movie may have some minor problems but the story is not one of them. This is the type of science fiction that lets us examine the world around us by showing us something that is out of this world. By moving the story to an unfamiliar setting we are able to see things that we may overlook with a story that is set in our modern world. Hell, this is one of the main reasons that Rod Serling created The Twilight Zone, so that he could more easily pass meaningful stories through the studio censors.

Through the movie we are able to see the idiocy of hating someone simply because they are different or because someone has told us that they are evil. While you could easily show the same lesson by a movie set in the modern day, anyone that would need to actually see that message would find it much easier to dismiss or ignore. By hiding the message in a science fiction package, the story is more likely to be seen by a wider audience.

While the great story is the showpiece of this movie, the acting is also very well done. Dennis Quaid actually does a great job as Davidge, the Human that is stuck on this planet with an alien that he considers to be his sworn enemy. His performance is probably one of the most emotional and believable I have ever seen from him. Louis Gossett, Jr. is also amazing as Jeriba (Jerry), the Drac that must learn to trust a Human that has been waging war on his people. With only two characters on screen for much of the film, solid performances become even more important. Luckily both of these actors were able to deliver.

While this film is not heavy on special effects, the special effects that we do see are well done. The space battles hold up pretty well considering when they were made. The best of the special effects has to be the make up effects of The Drac though. Considering an alien character has a large amount of screen time, good makeup effects were essential for the film. The makeup used to turn Gossett, Jr. into the alien Drac stand up tremendously even after all these years.

My only real complaints about the film are about how the film was directed and edited together. There were quite a few parts of the movie where a voice over was used to tell us things that very easily could have been shown to us. This is most disappointing towards the end of the film. I don't want to spoil the film but during the closing narration of the film all I could think was, "Why aren't you showing me this instead of just telling me?" Of course, things like this were probably done to save on the budget but it still bugs me when directors seem to forget that film is a visual medium.

Rating: 7/10

Friday the 13th Part III (1982) - Steve Miner - 3D Blu-ray Review

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:51:00 +0000

Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
Director: Steve Miner
Writer: Martin Kitrosser (Screenplay), Carol Watson (Screenplay), Victor Miller, (Character), Ron Kurz (Character), Petru Popescu (Uncredited)
Starring: Dana Kimmell, Paul Kratka, Tracie Savage, Jeffrey Rogers, Catherine Parks, Richard Brooker

James Cameron was recently quoted as saying that making movies like Piranha 3D (2010) "cheapens the medium and reminds you of the bad 3-D horror films from the 70s and 80s, like Friday the 13th 3D." What Cameron fails to realize when he says this is that 3D is a cheap gimmick* and therefore works best in cheap gimmicky films, which is why it worked so well in Avatar (2009). Friday the 13th Part III (1982) may not be a great movie but it certainly knows how to make use of 3D as a fun gimmick and never takes itself as seriously as James Cameron takes himself.

When it comes down to it, Part III is one of the more middling entries in the Friday the 13th series. There aren't any particularly interesting characters in this one, in fact most of the characters seem to be purposely annoying. Most of the kills in the movie seem to be rehashes of kills that we have seen in the previous two entries of the series. The only things that make this film stand out from the rest of the series are the use of 3D and the fact that this is the film where Jason Voorhees obtains his famous, iconic hockey mask. Of course the ending of this entry in the series is pretty awesome, even if it has been done before.

The picture quality of the Blu-ray's 3D presentation is hard to judge because the use of 3D glasses does tend to dim the colors and cause a bit of ghosting that can't be blamed on the film's transfer. The picture quality of the standard 2D presentation is definitely an upgrade from the DVD but is not nearly as good as I have come to expect from blu-ray. While this is probably due to the condition of the original film negative, I am sure that a little more time could have been spend on some restoration. The picture quality of the Friday the 13th Part 1 blu-ray is much better and I don't see why this one couldn't have been just as good.

Screenshot from Blu-ray.com - Click image to see more.

While the Blu-ray picture quality is still better than the DVD, I am not sure if the price is worth the upgrade just for the better picture quality. However, the chance to finally see the movie in 3D is well worth the price of picking up the Blu-ray. The pure fun of getting to see the movie in 3D makes this mediocre film a lot more fun than it would be otherwise. This film just revels in its use of 3D taking any chance it gets to poke or shoot something out of the screen. That ridiculous yo-yo scene finally seems to actually have a purpose, even if it is just to show one more thing flying toward the audience (seriously, this is the most pointless scene when shown in 2D).

In my opinion, this is the perfect type of movie to use 3D, it is nothing more than a fun movie that takes full advantage of the fact that no one is going to take it seriously. Movies in 3D are not about trying to create a more engrossing experience for the audience, that is what story and character development are for. Movies in 3D are all about the gimmick and that is all they need to be. Not once have I ever seen a movie and felt that I would have been pulled more into the movie if it had been in 3D. Not once during Avatar did the 3D give me the impression of being surrounded by the movie as James Cameron intended.

*As I write this, I am fully aware that when sound was first introduced into film it was considered by many to be a cheap gimmick that wouldn't last. It is quite possible that history will prove me wrong, but I don't see that happening until 3D can be done effectively without glasses and without inducing headaches.

Rating: 6/10

The Expendables (2010) - Sylvester Stallone

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:37:00 +0000

The Expendables (2010)
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Writers: Dave Callaham (Screenplay), Sylvester Stallone (Screenplay), Dave Callaham (Story)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, Mickey Rourke, Charisma Carpenter, Steve Austin, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger

To put it pretty bluntly, The Expendables (2010) was a damn disappointing movie. That is pretty sad considering that I had minimal expectations for the film. I was really hoping for just an '80s style shoot-em-up action flick and it didn't really deliver on that front. Parts of the movie were pretty entertaining but the build up that led to those entertaining parts was pretty damn boring.

As a modern action flick I would say that it isn't a bad movie but it wasn't very good either. However, as a throwback to '80s action flick (which is how it was marketed) it failed miserably. The action sequences in the movie were pretty bad-ass, bloody and a hell of a lot fun, unfortunately they were few and far between. The movie spent too much time with exposition trying to explain the mission of these mercenaries. Honestly, I just didn't care, I just wanted to get to the big explosions. A good '80s action flick never would have spent as much time talking as this movie did. Trust me, no one was going into this movie to see these action start flex their acting muscles.

Stallone did manage to pull together a pretty impressive cast of action stars in this movie though. It was kind of cool to see them all fighting together in one action movie. Everyone managed to play there parts in the movie pretty well but honestly these are the same roles these guys have been playing for years. Dolph Lundgren's role was probably the one in the film with the most meat on it and he managed to do a pretty great job and he looked like he was having fun with the role. Of course he is one awesome S.O.B. though.

Mickey Rourke is fun to watch, as usual. He can be a really great actor but he also knows how to chew the scenery when it is needed. Eric Roberts is great as the bad guy, and honestly what kind of '80s throwback would this be if Eric Roberts wasn't the bad guy? Some of the funniest bits of the movie come either from Jet Li or at his expense so his character adds some needed comic relief. However, can someone please tell me who the hell Randy Couture and Terry Crews are? I've never heard of these guys before this movie.

My only real problem with the casting was how Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis were used. I understand they are busy guys and didn't have a lot of time for this movie so they needed small parts. However, the parts they played seemed like they were added to the script simply so Stallone could have cameos for these two stars. It was cool to see all three of them in the same room but it was a completely unnecessary scene and no one gets shot or explodes. Charisma Carpenter's character also seemed pretty pointless. I understand that they needed to have some kind of love interest in the movie but her character only serves to give Jason Statham a reason to get into a fight that has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Seriously, if you had removed all her scenes you could have added one more really awesome action sequence to the movie.

When it comes down to it, this is one of those movies that is worth seeing at least once just to see all these actors together in one movie. Wait until it comes out on DVD though, that way you can fast forward through all the talky bits and get to the fun actiony bits. If you are actually looking for a movie that is a decent throwback to '80s actioners see Rambo (2008). It is a pretty fun movie, with some awesome action and it never tries to be something that it is not. Maybe if Stallone does a sequel to The Expendables he will learn from the mistakes he made this time around.

Rating: 4/10

Most Memorable Movie Theater Experiences

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:01:00 +0000

As I have mentioned several times on this blog, I love seeing movies in the theater. Sitting in a theater with a group of people all sharing and enjoying the experience is the way that movies were meant to be seen. I know that sometimes the theater experience isn't all that fun. Sometimes people talk on their cell phones, talk to their friends, laugh loudly at inappropriate times, or just sit down in the seat in front of you with a freakishly tall hat on. However, when everything falls into place perfectly, there is not home theater that can beat the movie theater experience.

This is why I have decided to compile a list of my most memorable movie theater experiences, including one that changed my life forever. They all may be memorable for different reasons but they all are experiences that I will never forget.

6. Laugh Clown Laugh (1928) - Prince Theatre - Chestertown, MD

Laugh Clown Laugh is memorable to me for a couple reasons. The first being that it was the first silent movie that I got a chance to see with live musical accompaniment. If you have never seen a silent movie that way, you are missing out. I have since seen many more movies with live music but this one will always stand out as the one that started it all. On top of that it is a really great movie with a wonderful, and heartbreaking performance by Lon Chaney (Not to be confused with his son, Lon Chaney Jr. who played The Wolf Man).

The other thing that made this experience so memorable was the actual music. The keyboardist decided that the best music to use for the movie would be songs from The Beatles. Now, I have nothing against The Beatles but are they really appropriate for a movie made in 1928? The music he chose to play seemed to fit with what was happening on screen but it just seemed out of place. Sadly, the odd use of music is what was most memorable about seeing Laugh Clown Laugh at the theater.

5. Nosferatu (1922) - AFI Silver Theatre - Silver Spring, MD

Nosferatu was another chance to see a silent film with live musical accompaniment. This time it went much better though (I fully reviewed it here). I've actually gotten the chance to see this show twice and it was amazing both times. Silent Orchestra (as they are called) does a wonderful job with the music, as well as adding interesting sound effects that really add to the story. While not everything they do would have been done in 1922, it all seems to fit well with the tone of the movie. The film itself is one of the best horror movies ever made. It may not be scary by today's standards but it still has a really creepy and dark atmosphere to it that makes it great for a Halloween showing.

4. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - AFI Silver Theatre - Silver Spring, MD

If you have ever seen Lawrence of Arabia then you will understand why seeing it on the big screen would be so amazing. If you were to make a list of the most epic films ever made, Lawrence of Arabia would be pretty damn close to the top. Every shot in the film is amazing and takes full advantage of a giant theater screen. Not only are the locations epic but so are the characters and story. T.E. Lawrence was a larger than life character that led an interesting life that was captured with perfect style in this film. Even at four hours long the film stands out in my mind as one of the reasons that movie theaters exist in the first place, especially that giant screen at the AFI.

3. Ran (1985) - Landmark E Street Cinema - Washington, DC

I have actually seen Ran in the theater twice. Once at the AFI Silver Theatre and once at Landmark E Street. The showing at E Street stands out though because it was a more fully restored print and also because it gave me the chance to share my favorite movie with Shaw Girl. The 25th anniversary print that E Street showed was simply beautiful and really showed off all the vibrant colors that the film is known for. Also, the battle sequence in the middle of the film is one of the best battles ever put on screen and it was really amazing to see on the big screen. Also, did I mention that this showing happened right around my birthday and that Shaw Girl got me a Ran: 25th Anniversary poster for said birthday?

2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - AFI Silver Theatre - Silver Spring, MD

Much like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those movies that just needs to be seen on the big screen. It is another film that takes advantage of how films can really seem to be larger than life. It is also probably one of the most beautiful movies ever filmed. Seeing it on a theater screen really allows for the movie to pull you in to it in a way that just can't happen when watching it on a home theater. The only problem with seeing it in the theater is that during the long stretches of silence in the film you can hear just about anything that happens in the theater. When I saw it, I was actually able to hear people talking in the projection booth during part of the movie. Luckily they didn't talk long.

1. Superman II (1980) - Screen on the Green - Washington, DC

You may ask how a showing of Superman II can possibly beat out all the other movies I have mentioned for my top spot. The simple fact is, sometimes being a memorable movie going experience is less about the movie you are watching and more about the events surrounding the movie being watching. Let me explain, this screening happened on a Monday. August 11, 2008 to be exact, just about two years ago. Two days prior to this screening I had gone to a friends engagement party and met this beautiful girl that I just had to get to know better. When I found out that they were all going to see Superman II that Monday night, I jumped at the opportunity.

Now the thing is, I didn't even watch the whole movie. You see, that beautiful girl turned out to be Shaw Girl (you know, I've talked about her before) and during the movie we decided to get up and walk around The Mall (did I mention that Screen on the Green shows movies on the National Mall? pretty awesome, huh?). We walked around for a little while, talking and getting to know each other a little bit. We finally stopped walking and shared our first kiss and now we are celebrating two years together.

This is why a showing of Superman II that I didn't even finish stands out as my most memorable movie going experience. It is the only time that I have gone to a movie and it has literally changed the course of my life.

Inception (2010) - Christopher Nolan

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:51:00 +0000

Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas

If you are one of my regular readers (I know, wishful thinking on my part) you may have noticed that I haven't posted anything in nearly a month. Well it turns out that Christopher Nolan's Inception (2010) was such an awesome movie that seeing it twice during its opening weekend put me in the Hospital and I have been recovering ever since.

Ok, so the movie itself is not entirely responsible for putting me in the Hospital. Ignoring the chest pains I was having so I could see the movie twice is probably what did it. I loved the movie that much though, I just had to see it twice the weekend that it came out. Besides, my doctor doesn't have weekend hours so I needed to do something to kill time until I could go see him on Monday.

Now I may sound like a raving fanboy during this review but I will try to temper myself. Honestly though, Inception is one of the best movies that has come out in a long time. In fact, the last movie that so completely blew me away was The Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men (2007) and that was easily my favorite movie of the last decade.

With Inception Christopher Nolan manages to create a film that combines a psychological thriller with a fun action movie and perfectly works on both of those levels. He also manages to throw in a little bit of science fiction, not that it really jumps out at you. Nolan has a knack for hiding science fiction elements in films that don't really feel like science fiction. His last four films have all dealt with some pretty big science fiction elements but because he sets them in a world that closely resembles ours, we never really question what we are seeing.

The way Christopher Nolan combines the psychological elements of the film with the action is probably the most amazing part of the film though. The central mysteries of the film manage to be complex without being so complicated that they get confusing. With having so many levels of dreams within dreams the film could have very easily become very confusing. Nolan's story telling abilities are able to keep the audience from getting lost though. The film does require quite a bit of exposition to get the story across but it is always naturally added into the story. It always feels like information is being given to a character because they need to know. Not once does it feel like any of the characters are explaining things just for the benefit of the audience.

The action sequences in the film are both fun and inventive. By making two Batman movies, Nolan has learned how to shoot an exciting action sequence. I remember when Batman Begins (2005) came out and many people complained about the action sequences. It seemed many people just didn't think Nolan had it in him to create a well made action sequence. With Inception Nolan has completely proven himself to be a competent action director. Whether he is shooting a zero gravity fight scene in a hotel or a Jame Bond type shoot out in a snowy mountain fortress he manages to keep the audience glued to the film. Hell, he even manages to make a van falling off a bridge into the water below an exciting and suspenseful event.

The acting in the film is completely top notch from everyone. Leonardo DiCaprio is finally starting to get past his baby face and become believable in adult roles. While I liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 500 Days of Summer (2009) I can't say that I have ever really a fan of him. His role in Inception actually made me excited to see what he does next. If the rumors that he is going to be The Riddler in the next Batman movie hold true then we could be in for a pretty interesting take on that character. It was nice to see Ellen Page do something a little different than her normal angsty teenager role, I hope she continues to do more movies like this.

I don't normally touch on musical scores in movies because I don't really have an ear for music but Inception's score stands out as amazing. I really loved the way the film used the Édith Piaf's song "Non, je ne regrette rien" as a musical cue for the characters in the dreams but also in a slowed down version as the background musical score. It is such a subtle musical trick but it works so perfectly in the film. To see what I mean take a look at the embedded video to the right.

Oh, so I guess you want to know how those chest pains turned out. Well, since I am finally sitting down to write this review I obviously survived. It turns out that I had a collapsed lung. I had some surgery and spent a few days in the Hospital but all is well now. Apparently it is a pretty common ailment among tall, thin males. Now, you may ask, was ignoring those chest pains worth it to see Inception twice? Yes, yes it was.

Rating: 10/10

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Stanley Kubrick - Blu-ray Review

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:25:00 +0000

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Stanley Kubrick (Screenplay), Arthur C. Clarke (Novel)
Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Daniel Richter, Douglas Rain

A couple years back I got the chance to see a 70mm print of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) at the AFI Silver Theater. My first thought after seeing it the way Kubrick intended was "There is no way I will be able to watch and enjoy this movie on a TV again." The movie just looked so amazing on the big screen that I just didn't see how watching it on a small screen would ever be able to compare.

That being said, when I bought a Blu-ray player, 2001 was one of my first purchases. It sat on my shelf for quite awhile before I finally got around to watching it though. As much as I love the movie, it is one of those films that you have to set aside some time to watch. However, one day last week while doing some chores I decided that I would put the blu-ray on in the background so I could see how it looked. I had seen the movie enough that I thought I could watch it without giving it my full attention.

I was wrong. After the movie had been in for about ten minutes I was sitting on the couch, watching intently and ignoring the chores that needed to be done. The transfer on the blu-ray was just so impressive that I had to give the movie my full attention. A 40-inch television is no match for the 70mm print I saw at the theater but it was still impressive in its own right. There was one thing that watching it home had over the theater experience though. There was no one else around to make any noise and since a lot of this movie is so quiet, you can hear just about anyone talking in a theater, no matter how quietly.

Screenshot from Blu-ray.com - Click image to see more.

Movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey are the reason blu-ray exists. This blu-ray is one of the best high definition transfers I have seen thus far. You are really able to make out all the incredible details that Kubrick put into the movie. The special effects of space ships looks beautiful and unlike a lot of other sci-fi movies I have seen, the special effects of 2001 actually hold up to the scrutiny of the detail provided by a blu-ray presentation. Kubrick was a perfectionist and it really shows here.

While the dialog is pretty sparse, sound is extremely important to the film. The background music, which consists mostly of classical music that makes the space sequences seem almost like a ballet, sounds beautiful. The intense breathing that we hear while the characters are in the space suits is presented perfectly and really adds to the suspenseful feelings of those scenes. That eerie high pitched whine made by the monolith is completely ear piercing. That may not sound very pleasant but it was nice to see how well it was presented on the blu-ray.

As for the movie itself, what can I say? I know it certainly isn't a movie for everyone but it has always been one of my favorites. I don't claim to have a perfect grasp of everything Kubrick was trying to say with but I think I've developed a pretty good feel of just what the film means to me. It is a slow moving film but it is always intriguing. I manages to be a slow meditation on where humanity has been and where it is going and it will definitely leave you with something to think about.

With this film Kubrick was able to create a science fiction film that even after 40 years does not seem dated. By only showing representations of alien life and humanities next stage in evolution the movie manages to avoid a lot of the things that makes a sci-fi film seem cheesy when watching it years after it was made. Even though we are now 9 years passed the date in the title, 2001 still manages to be one of the most realistic interpretations of the future that has ever been put on film.

If you are someone that really enjoys the film I also highly recommend reading the book The Lost Worlds of 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke. The book tells the background of what went into making the film from Clarke's point of view. It also contains several chapters from early drafts of Clarke's novel that obviously would not worked for the film Kubrick was making but are interesting to compare to what actually ended up in the final versions of the novel and the film.

Rating: 10/10

The Descent: Part 2 (2009) - Jon Harris

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:32:00 +0000

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)
Director: Jon Harris
Writers: J Blakeson (Screenplay), James McCarthy (Screenplay), James Watkins (Screenplay), Neil Marshall (Characters)
Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Michael J. Reynolds, Jessika Williams, Douglas Hodge, Joshua Dallas, Anna Skellern, Gavan O'Herlihy, Krysten Cummings, Natalie Jackson Mendoza

The Descent (2005) is quite possibly one of the best horror movies of the last decade. It had a very claustrophobic atmosphere that was able to keep me scared even before the real scary stuff started happening. The Descent: Part 2 (2009) doesn't come anywhere close to living up to the original though. They seem to have traded the suspense and claustrophobia of the first for film for more gore, jump scares and gross out scenes.

The original had its share of gore and actually had quite a few jump scares but the film didn't rely on them to scare the viewer. The sequel relied solely on these techniques to scare the viewer and they really didn't work. This film didn't take anytime to let the audience get to know the new characters before just placing them in "kill zone" so to speak. If you don't give your audience a reason to care about your characters then there will be no real suspense because we have no reason to care if they live or die.

The original film was not just about the People versus the "Crawlers" that they go up against underground. While the Crawlers were certainly scary, the film is more about the people losing control in a tense situation than it is about them fighting the Crawlers. Hell, the Crawlers didn't even show up until the last half of the original film and the movie still managed to be intense the entire time. The sequel tries to have characters turning on each other to build suspense but it all seems so forced. In the end all the scares rely on the Crawlers jumping out of the dark and saying "Boo."

Most of the characters were pretty cliched anyway so I can't be too surprised that they didn't try to add depth. I mean, let's see, we have the idiot Sheriff who wants to be in control even though he knows nothing about the situation. This is the character that exists in horror movies simply to fuck things over for everyone else. He is so stubborn in his belief that he knows what he is doing that he refuses to heed the advice of the experts who know what they are talking about. Of course when you are dealing with horror movies, why is it that the expert in the current situation always comes across as a giant douche bag that know one really wants to know anyway? Oh, that's right, so the writers can move the plot along without needing any form of creativity.

Of course since the movie didn't rely on suspense and could only fit so many jump scares in, the writers decided that sometimes it would be cool to just gross out the viewer. I don't mean grossing us out with excessive gore, I have no problem with gore. Did we really need the "Crawler toilet" scene in the movie? What purpose did it serve other than to gross out the viewer? As awesome as the first film was, I would have thought this movie would have been above that.

On top of all of that, the first film had several layers of depth. Even the title "The Descent" has multiple meanings. Not only does it refer to the characters descending in the cave but it also refers to the Sarah's descent into madness. There are even several plausible theories about what exactly happens in the film and what may just be imagined. This sequel has none of that depth, in fact the very existence of the sequel kind of negates much of the depth of the first film by giving everything that happens a solid explanation.

And now one last problem about the movie and it is a huge spoiler so if you haven't seen the movie (or the original) you may want to skip this paragraph. I normally avoid spoilers in my reviews but this particular plot point really bothered me. How the hell did Juno survive what happened to her in the first movie? She didn't even seem to be injured in this movie. She just showed up out of nowhere, somehow managing to survive confronting a huge group of Crawlers after having been crippled by Sarah. I am sorry that just doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess in its own right, The Descent: Part 2 isn't a horrible horror movie but it isn't a very good one either. It had some pretty big shoes to fill and it failed to even come close. In the end this one just isn't that much different from any other horror movie out there today. Where the first film managed to create a story and characters with depth, the sequel was full of lazy writing and cheap scares.

Rating: 4/10

Ran (1985) - Akira Kurosawa (25th anniversay print at E-Street Cinemas)

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 16:49:00 +0000

Ran (1985)
Director: Akira Kurosawa
Writers: Akira Kurosawa (Screenplay), Hideo Oguni (Screenplay), Masato Ide (Screenplay), William Shakespeare (original "King Lear" play)
Starring: Tatsuya Nakadai, Akira Terao, Jinpachi Nezu, Daisuke Ryû, Mieko Harada, Yoshiko Miyazaki, Hisashi Igawa, Masayuki Yui

Last Wednesday (that would be June 09, 2010) I celebrated my 29th birthday. Now, by "celebrate" I mean that I took the day off work and sat at home and watched crappy movies. I'm hardcore like that. However, later in the evening Shaw Girl and I went over to E-Street Cinemas to see the new 25th anniversary print of Akira Kurosawa's Ran (1985). Personally I think it was very nice of E-Street to show one of my favorite movies on my birthday. Did I forget to mention that Shaw Girl got me an awesome Ran 25th anniversary poster as well? Because she did and she is getting it professionally framed now. How cool is that?

Now when I say that Ran is one of my favorite movies, I mean that I enjoy the movie so much that I have always had a hard time trying to review it without sounding like a rambling lunatic. I had seen Ran on the big screen once before but I was really looking forward to getting a chance to see this restored print. I am happy to be able to tell you that this print was amazing. There were still a few scratches here and there but the movie is 25 years old, you can't expect any film print to be perfect. This is probably the best looking that I have ever seen the movie though. It was simply gorgeous and I loved getting a chance to see it on the big screen again. I was also quite excited about sharing the experience with Shaw Girl. I don't think she loved the movie as much as I do but she enjoyed it... and really, who is going to love this movie as much as me?

For those that don't know, Ran is Kurosawa's adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear set in feudal Japan. It follows the story of a Lord that bequeaths his lands to his sons only to have them turn on him. Kurosawa manages to perfectly adapt the Shakespeare story into a Japanese setting. I have seen King Lear performed on stage once (with Stacy Keach as King Lear) and from what I can tell Kurosawa's adaptation is fairly faithful with just a few minor changes.

Kurosawa really manages to take the epic story and make it just as epic visually. The care and skill that went into creating sets and costumes for Ran is simply amazing. In some scenes there are hundreds of extras all fully costumed. The sets all look very realistic and while I don't know enough about history to judge their authenticity, I will say that they work very well for the story being told. There were no small set piece for this film. Kurosawa held nothing back in the design of this film and it really shows.

The whole movie is amazing but the highlight of the film is the battle for the Third Castle near the middle of the film. In my opinion, this is one of the finest battle sequences every put on film. Kurosawa manages to give the action such a large scale without ever making it confusing. Most of the battle sequence is shot in complete silence except for the background music. This allows the images of the gruesome battle to speak for themselves. There is nothing to get in the way of the audience seeing just how brutal this battle is. The way he chooses to reintroduce sound in to the sequence is just as amazing. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen the movie but it should definitely catch you off guard.

From the amazingly told story to the extremely colorful costumes and sets, Kurosawa manages to make an extremely engrossing film with Ran. There are a few parts in the last act where the story slows down a bit but because of how Kurosawa manages to pull me into the story I am not bothered by these moments. If you are a fan of Kurosawa or a fan of Shakespeare and you have not seen this movie than I highly recommend it. It is both my favorite Kurosawa film and my favorite filmed Shakespeare adaption. It is also one of those movies that just begs to be seen on the big screen, so find a theater that is playing it and get out there and see it. Of course not everyone can see it on the big screen, luckily Criterion did a great job with their DVD of the film.

Rating: 10/10

The Third Man (1949) - Carol Reed - Criterion Blu-ray

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:39:00 +0000

The Third Man (1949)
Director: Carol Reed
Writers: Graham Greene, Alexander Korda
Starring: Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Orson Welles, Trevor Howard, Bernard Lee

Last year I finally broke down and bought a Blu-ray player and I must say that so far I am loving it. There are so many movies that simply look amazing in high definition. One of the things that has surprised me is just how great a lot of older movies can look on Blu-ray. When properly restored, older movies can look just as great in HD as newer movies can. In fact I have seen The Third Man (1949) in a theater and on Blu-ray and I'd say the picture looked better on the Blu-ray. With the restored blu-ray print you don't get any cracks or dirt on the picture like you do with a print that has been making its way through the theaters.

Criterion's The Third Man (1949) Blu-ray is the perfect example of just how great an older film can look on Blu-ray. Carol Reed's extensive use of contrasting light and shadow are perfectly showcased on this Blu-ray. Criterion is known for putting a lot of effort into restoring movie for release and this is no exception.

Since the movie is in black and white there are no colors for the HD picture of work with but all of the contrast between light and shadow in the film is extremely enhanced. Carol Reed has a great understanding of how to use light and shadow to set the mood in a film and the lighting scheme in The Third Man is used to its full advantage. There is a crispness to the contrast between the dark and the light in this film that isn't shown to its full extent when watching in standard definition.

It is also obvious that great care was taken to restore the original film print for this release. There is none of the dirt or cracks in the picture that are normally associated with watching older films. However, they didn't go too far and remove the natural grain of the film like many blu-ray releases seem to do. Leaving the film grain in tact really helps with the gritty nature of the film and also avoids making the film look overly polished and airbrushed.

Other than just looking great, the movie is just one of those classic movies that really needs to be scene. In the booklet that comes with the Criterion Blu-ray, Luc Sante writes that The Third Man is "not merely a movie that would go on to influence myriad other movies but a construct that would lodge itself deep in the unconscious of an enormous number of people, including those who'd never seen" it. This almost describes what I saw the first time I saw the movie. As I was watching it, I kept picking up little things that I had seen before even though I had never seen the movie before.

The movie has been so influential and mimicked so many times that you can't help but recognize pieces when you watch it for the first time. In my opinion this actually adds to the viewing experience. While you are enjoying you also get small moments of personal connection with the film. You really just feel like one of those comfortable movies that you have seen many times before. The film still manages to surprise you with its twists and turns though. It is a strange contrast of feelings to have while watching a film and makes for a very unique experience.

The story itself is extremely well told and quite suspenseful. Joseph Cotton is extremely wonderful as a man trying to solve the mystery of his friend's death. The highlight of the film though is Orson Welles. His portrayal of Harry Lime is probably one of the most memorable characters in all of film history. Welles hams it up just enough to create a perfectly larger-than-life portrayal of Harry Lime. While Harry is not a reputable character, he manages to still be charming and it is almost hard not to like him.

Rating: 10/10

Kick-Ass (2010) - Matthew Vaughn

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:52:00 +0000

Kick-Ass (2010)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Jane Goldman (Screenplay), Matthew Vaughn (Screenplay), Mark Millar (Comic Book), John Romita Jr. (Comic Book)
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Clark Duke, Evan Peters, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong, Chloe Moretz, Nicolas Cage, Lyndsy Fonseca, Sophie Wu, Deborah Twiss, Stu 'Large' Riley

Well I finally broke down and watched Kick-Ass (2010). I don't have a really good reason for waiting so long to see it. I had heard really good things but nothing about the trailer really impressed me. I had planned on waiting until it came to DVD but I had some spare time and was looking for a movie to see. There wasn't much else at the theater that interested me at the time so thought I might as well check it out.

Overall I liked the movie. It was pretty good, it could have been a whole lot better though. At the beginning I was really getting into the movie. Seeing the main character, Dave Lizewski try to live out his dream of being a superhero was actually pretty interesting. I really liked that his journey to become Kick-Ass actually seemed to come about pretty logically and realistically. Nothing that the main character did really seemed to require that much suspension of disbelief. At least not for the first 20 minutes. However, after he meets up with Big Daddy and Hit Girl the movie begins a slow spiral into mediocrity.

I really didn't find the character of Hit Girl to be that interesting. I know a lot of people thought she was cool, and maybe this is a sign that I am getting old but an 11-year-old girl violently fighting crime and spewing swear words doesn't really do much for me. I am not in any way offended by it but it really just felt like the character only existed to be edgy for the sake of being edgy. That is what bothered me, they could have done so much more with the character if they had tried. Chloe Moretz does portray the character well though. I'd almost be interested to see her next role if it wasn't in the remake of Let the Right One In (2008).

Here you have a young girl that is being forced by her father to go through all kinds of extreme training so that he can live out his dreams of revenge through her. Doesn't this sounds familiar? How often does something like this happen in our society? Parents love to push their children into sports and academic fields simply to live out their own dreams. The movie presents us with an extreme case of this phenomenon but doesn't do anything meaningful with it. We just end up with a young girl that says things like "fuck" and "cunt" while slicing up bad guys. Like I said, maybe I am just getting old.

I also found the character of Big Daddy to be pretty annoying and not just because he forces his eleven year old daughter to become a crime fighter. I might have liked the character a lot more if anyone but Nicolas Cage had played him. I am just not a fan of Cage. I can tolerate him in a movie if I have other reasons to like the movie but I just find him to be a terrible actor. He did this thing with Big Daddy's voice that was funny for about three seconds and then it just got old. He based Big Daddy's voice on Adam West's Batman voice. I get why he did it, not only is it a nice homage to that TV series but it also kind of mocks Christian Bale's over the top Batman voice. This could have been interesting but he takes it too far and it just get really annoying, really quick.

The only other thing that really annoyed me was the fact that the movie starts out with a somewhat realistic tone and then slowly becomes a more sci-fi/fantasy type of film. I guess I knew that the film was going to be pretty over the top but the first 20 minutes gave me the impression that I might be in store for something else. I was really enjoying the almost realistic portrayal of Kick-Ass and then the movie completely changed gears and by the end it had lost all touch with anything even resembling reality. Maybe I was just expecting a different kind of movie or maybe I'm just out of touch. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, I just thought it could have been a lot better.

There was plenty to like about the film. The action was well shot and was over the top in an extremely fun way. For the most part the acting was pretty good, with the obvious exception of Nicolas Cage. The character of Kick-Ass was actually an interesting enough character. I actually cared about what happened to him. The story itself was pretty interesting and well told, I just felt like they missed some opportunities to give the story a little more depth.

Rating: 6/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - Samuel Bayer

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 18 May 2010 18:49:00 +0000

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Director: Samuel Bayer
Writers: Wesley Strick (Screenplay), Eric Heisserer (Screenplay), Wes Craven (Characters)
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Kyle Gallner, Rooney Mara, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Clancy Brown, Connie Britton

While waiting for A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) to come out I went through moments of both excitement and complete disappointment. At first I thought that it shouldn't be remade because I didn't want to see anyone other than Robert Englund in the iconic role of Freddy Krueger. On top of that, it was being made by the same studio that made Friday the 13th (2009) and we all know how much I hated that movie. Then I found out that Jackie Earle Haley was going to play Freddy and I thought that if anyone could take the role and make it work it would be him.

Well it turns out that I was right about how I would feel about the movie. There were some good things about it and there were some bad things (probably more bad than good). I will just begin by saying that I didn't enjoy the movie but if they hire some better writers for the sequels they may be able to conjur up a decent horror film in the future.

We'll start with the good. Jackie Earle Haley is actually really good as Freddy. He actually brings an intensity to the role that hasn't been seen with Freddy in awhile. he definitely isn't better in the role than Englund but Freddy had become a somewhat silly character in a lot of the sequels and Haley leaves all that silliness behind. He has his one liners just like Freddy has always had but he makes them come across as menacing and never silly. He was the one bright spot in the movie and he is the only reason I think a sequel could work if done correctly.

The makeup they used for Freddy also looked pretty damn good. I love the old look of Freddy but with this movie they went for a more realistic, burn victim look. He looks more like you would expect someone to look that had been burned alive. This is to be expected though. Technology advances and makeup effects get better. I mean, as much as I hate Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes (2001), I can't deny that the make up effects are far superior to those used in the original. However, I don't think they were going for realism in the original Nightmare, I think they were going disgusting and it worked.

Now, on to things that I didn't like about the film. That would be just about everything else in the movie but the thing that bothered me the most was the lack of character development. The original Nightmare did use mostly cliche, horror movie stock characters but the audience got to spend some time getting to know them before they started dying. The audience sees them interacting together, sees them having fun together, basically sees them living and enjoying their lives. You never see any of this in the remake. All the characters seem depressed and tired from the very beginning of the movie. They never really seem alive so there is no reason for the audience to care when Freddy comes to kill them.

There weren't many scary moments in the film either. I never once felt any feelings of suspense or dread while waiting for Freddy to attack. I was able to tell exactly when Freddy was going to jump out and try to scare the audience. The film makers didn't seem to put any effort at all into building up the suspense. This is the same problem I had with the Friday the 13th remake so maybe we just have a lot of film makers today that don't know how to make a scary horror movie. Overall there just isn't much in the movie worth seeing except Haley and for him alone I will at least check out the sequel when it comes out but I'm not expecting much.

Rating: 4/10

Iron Man 2 (2010) - Jon Favreau

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Tue, 11 May 2010 16:08:00 +0000

Iron Man 2 (2010)
Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Justin Theroux (Screenplay), Stan Lee (Comic Book), Don Heck (Comic Book), Larry Lieber (Comic Book), Jack Kirby (Comic Book)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L. Jackson, Clark Gregg, John Slattery, Jon Favreau, Paul Bettany, Garry Shandling

When you get past all the big explosions and fast moving action sequences, what is it that separates a good comic book/action movie from a bad one? Characters. No matter how great the action sequence in a movie are, if I don't care about the characters I am not going to like the movie. I don't care if it is just a fun action movie or not, having interesting characters is important.

When I saw the trailers for Iron Man 2 (2010) I was actually a little worried that they were going to overload it with characters and not give enough time to develop any single characters. I was pretty wrong on that assumption though. The movie actually did a really good job of balancing the time spent on the characters and developed most of them pretty well. Some were a little underdeveloped but you can't have everything.

While Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) was an interesting character in the first Iron Man (2008), this film managed to continue to develop the character and make him even more interesting. Tony is a flawed hero and it shows. He doesn't hide his pain under a calm vineer like Bruce Wayne, when he begins to have problems everyone knows about them. The film did a great job of portraying how hard it was for Tony Stark to deal with all the problems that come with being Iron Man, including how he decides to deal with those problems. As in the comics, Tony's chosen method of dealing with things is to drink... and to drink heavily. Tony manages to develop and grow as a character because of all these problems though.

Stark isn't the only interesting character in the movie though. While Obidiah Stane was kind of 2-dimensional, stock comic book villain in the first Iron Man movie, Iron Man 2 gives us a villain with a little bit of depth. Ivan Vanko (played marvelously by Mickey Rourke) is a man who believes that Tony's father stole the design for the arc reactor from his father and is out for revenge. That may sound like a one note villain, but without giving any spoilers I will say that not only does Vanko become an interesting villain, he becomes an almost sympathetic one. You may not agree with his methods but you can almost understand why he decides to do what he does.

Sam Rockwell does a great job as Tony Stark's main industrial rival Justin Hammer. The character doesn't have a lot of depth and mostly just serves to give Vanko the resources he needs to be the villain of the movie. You can tell Rockwell is having fun with the role though. He chews up just enough scenery the make the character enjoyable to watch. Scarlett Johansson pretty much shows up in the movie just to kick ass when needed. He character doesn't really have any depth at all but we don't care. She looks good in a skin tight, leather suit and she manages dispatch several villains in a pretty exciting fight sequence.

Overall, I think I may have liked Iron Man 2 slightly more than the first one. The action sequences were fast, exciting and a whole lot of fun. I have seen a few reviews complain that there wasn't enough action but I thought it managed to balance the action and story very well. The final battle may not have been as long and as epic as the battle in the first movie, but honestly I thought the final battle in the first movie was drawn out just a little too long. The special effects were done really well so the action sequences don't look at all cartoony and they are edited in such a way that you can actually see what is going on.

At just over 2 hours the movie is probably a few minutes longer than it really needed to be. However, it had a well told story, interesting characters and enough pretty explosions to keep the audience's attention for most of the running time. I only have one other small complaint and it is slightly spoiler-ish so if you haven't seen the movie you may want to stop reading now. I hope in the next movie we can get a villain that isn't just someone with their own Iron Man suit. Vanko was a great villain but in the end he had his own Iron Man suit just like Obidiah Stane did in the first movie. In the next movie I would like to see a final battle that isn't just one Iron Man versus another.

Rating: 8/10

Frankenstein Conquers the World (1965) - Ishiro Honda

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Thu, 06 May 2010 18:02:00 +0000

Frankenstein Conquers the World (1965)
Furankenshutain tai chitei kaijû Baragon
Director: Ishirô Honda
Writers: Reuben Bercovitch, Takeshi Kimura, Mary Shelley (Frankenstein Novel)
Starring: Nick Adams, Tadao Takashima, Kumi Mizuno, Koji Furuhata, Haruo Nakajima,

Imagine if you will that the Nazis managed to get their hands on the surviving heart of Frankenstein's monster (don't ask how it survived just go with it). Imagine further that the Nazis handed the heart over to Japan towards the end of World War II (again, just go with it). Now imagine that the heart was in Hiroshima when Allied Forces dropped the atomic bomb. Still with me?

Where, oh where, could this unlikely series of events lead? If you guessed "a giant Frankenstein's monster fighting a giant Godzilla like monster" you would be correct. I mean, would it even be possible for that series of events to lead anywhere else? It all just makes perfect sense, right? Oh, it doesn't? Whatever, just go with it.

I would say that as far as Kaiju movies go, Frankenstein Conquers the World (1965) is pretty enjoyable. It certainly doesn't have the depth that the original Gojira (1954) had. This movie obviously doesn't avoid making mention of the effects that the A-bomb had on Japan but it isn't as central to the plot as it was in Gojira. Let's face it though, if you are watching this movie you are probably doing so just to see Frankenstein's monster grow to an enormous size and take on another giant monster. The giant monster of this film happens to be Baragon, a giant, fire breathing, four legged dinosaur that would go on to appear in Destroy All Monsters (1968) and several other Godzilla movies.

Ishirô Honda, director of Gojira (1954), directs this film and manages to create a pretty interesting although very ludicrous story. The special effects in the film are pretty good for the time period. Kaiju films are known for their somewhat cheesy effects, obvious model work and guys in rubber suits. This movie is no exception but for the most part it works pretty well. The miniature work is actually done well enough to make it visually believable when Frankenstein's monster begins to grow.

The movie also does justice to the Frankenstein's monster character. He is mostly portrayed as kind and misunderstood. The only times he kills in the movie is when he has no other choice. I was actually surprised to see how well they portrayed Frankenstein's monster considering how convoluted the story was. It would have been very easy for them just to turn him into simple giant monster that exists only to fight other giant monsters. The fact that the movie actually takes time to give the character a little depth managed to impress me a little.

Now, I guess it is time to tell you what you really want to know. Just how awesome is it when Frankenstein's monster fights Baragon? I will say that it probably isn't the best Kaiju fight I have ever seen but it certainly isn't the worst either. For the most part is was a fun fight to watch but it really just went on a little too long and I can't really think of anything about it that stood out over any other Kaiju fight except that it involved one monster that wasn't in a rubber suit. Baragon does come across as just a cheap knock off of Godzilla and their is part of me that wishes that it was Godzilla in the movie. There would have just been something really awesome about seeing two of my favorite classic movie icons duking it out. Even without Godzilla I would say that this is worth seeing if you are a Kaiju fan.

Rating: 6/10

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009) - Niels Arden Oplev

noreply@blogger.com (Rick Bman) — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:20:00 +0000

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)
Män som hatar kvinnor
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Writer: Nikolaj Arcel (Screenplay), Rasmus Heisterberg (Screenplay), Stieg Larsson (Novel)
Starring: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace, Sven-Bertil Taube, Peter Haber, Marika Lagercrantz, Lena Endre, Björn Granath, Ingvar Hirdwall, Peter Andersson, Michalis Koutsogiannakis, Ewa Fröling, Gunnel Lindblom, Gösta Bredefeldt, Stefan Sauk, Jacob Ericksson, Sofia Ledarp, David Dencik

When I went to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009) I didn't really know what to expect. I hadn't read the book yet because I am a movie first kind of guy (I have since finished the book and loved it). I knew some very minor plot details, mostly that it involved the investigation of a murder case. Other than that I went in with a pretty clean slate, which I think is the best way to see a movie.

Because I didn't know anything about the movie before hand I was immediately sucked into the story. Honestly, I can't remember the last time a movie has pulled me into the story as completely as this one did. The 40 year old murder mystery that serves as the central plot was completely fascinating. The side plots for each of the characters are just as fascinating as the main story though. As great as the plot is, what really pulled me into this movie was the characters.

Every character manages to have a fascinating story. Mikael Blomkvist is a journalist that has been hired by Henrik Vanger to investigate the 40-year-old unsolved disappearance of his niece. Lisbeth Salandar is a hacker that is recruited to help Mikael solve the crime. What makes these characters great is that they are each given a very layered back story that really tells you who the characters are. In fact, before Mikael and Lisbeth met up I thought that each of the characters could easily be interesting enough to carry their own film.

Not only were the characters written as extremely interesting, the actors portray them amazingly well. I do not see Swedish movies that often so I was not familiar with Michael Nyqvist or Noomi Rapace but they both do amazing job playing their characters. Since the characters are both written and acted well the audience is given reason to really care about the characters beyond just wanting them to succeed because they are the good guys.

The movie also just looks amazingly beautiful. I have seen two modern Swedish films (this one and Let the Right One In) and both were amazing beautifully shot film. I am not sure if Sweden is just that beautiful to begin with or if both these movies are just that well shot. The cinematography is really wonderful though. The camera was really able to capture some beautiful albeit very dark imagery. That coupled with some wonderful pacing and editing made for a very wonderful and exciting movie to watch. I can say without a doubt that I am looking forward to the sequels to this movie.

If there is anything negative I could say about the movie it is that the ending drags out just a bit too long for my taste. Unfortunately this is a neccesary evil of setting up so many intricate back stories and side plots. While those things really helped to make the movie fascinating, having to tie up all the loose ends really made the ending come to a crawl. I was still intrigued by how everything was concluded but it just felt like it was taking a little to long.

Rating: 8/10