One tagline for this film reads “An epic comedy of absurd proportions.” While the journey the film recounts may very well be epic, the comedy isn’t quite as absurd as advertised. Nevertheless, The Gods Must Be Crazy is an enjoyable and endearing film.
There’s three parts to the story: an African bushman named Xixo embarks on a quest to rid his village of a trinket believed to have been sent to them by the gods (in actuality a Coke bottle dropped out of an airplane). At the same time, a bumbling research scientist develops a crush on the local town’s new schoolteacher. Finally, a group of terrorist-led guerrillas are on the run after they botch a coup attempt.
All of these plot lines intersect in a variety of humorous ways. There is no vulgar comedy here. Instead, The Gods Must Be Crazy draws laughs from fish-out-of-water slapstick, awkward everyman bumbling, a few over the top sequences and some good old-fashioned dry, witty one-liners.
Most notable about this film is the portrayal of the lead character Xixo. The part is played by a real bushman who had virtually no exposure to the “civilized white world” before working on the film. The director found him in the bush and liked his expressions and genuine curiosity with all the trivialities that “civilized” people get hung up on. This genuineness shows right through on film and the character grows on you quite a bit.
His curiosity and lack of knowledge of “civilized” ways leads to much of the humor and also serves as an amusing poke at what we call society. Xixo doesn’t understand much about white people and their peculiar ways and thinks much of what goes on is unnecessary and silly. It sort of hearkens back to a simpler time and does a fantastic job of showing viewers just how absurd we really are sometimes.
A number of people believe this film to be racist because of its depiction of bushmen as uncultured savages, as well as the fact that it was made and funded by a South African film company (at the time, South Africa was still ruled by the racist and segregationist apartheid system of government). Granted, the click language used by the bushmen is dubbed over by a much more simplified series of clicking noises, but I rather enjoyed the culture clash and portrayal of “white society” as being filled with things that, while designed to ease our lives, only serve to complicate things. I would say this film is mostly harmless in terms of its racial implications.
There are parts that drag on a tad too long, but the overall story is too unique to pass up. I guarantee that you will never find another film that evokes comedy and culture quite in the same way as The Gods Must Be Crazy.
What a silly, silly movie. Disaster flicks are notorious for being over the top and unbelievable, but The Day After Tomorrow aims for new lows (on a global scale no less!).
Take the absolute worst (and I mean apocalyptic) possible outcome to unchecked global warming, a process that would take a couple thousand years to play out, make it all happen in a matter of days, and you have The Day After Tomorrow.
Panned and criticized by nearly all respectable scientists and climatologists, the film oversteps its bounds and gets an overwhelming majority of its science wrong in the pursuit of flashy, computer generated destruction. As heavy-laden as this film is with CGI, you’d almost have to watch it on the big screen for it to look good. There’s something about CGI that doesn’t translate well over a normal TV screen.
I will admit that some of the destruction sequences are kind of cool looking, though watching it on a TV made the effects look a tad hokey. The problem is that The Day After Tomorrow doesn’t do enough to grab you and make you believe what you’re seeing could be real. This stems from the fact that the film wants you to believe that global warming can and will ultimately do this to our world. It is far too easy to stop yourself and say “that can’t possibly happen that way.”
Given all that we know about the natural sciences and weather phenomena, having the disaster sequences look cool isn’t enough. Gone are the days of sensational destruction via Mother Earth in films. Far too much of the general population has a good idea of how weather realistically behaves, even in the most extreme conditions. To try and pass off the overblown nature of these cataclysms under the guise of scientific plausibility is futile. Unless you check your brain at the door- a typical requirement of much of the fodder that passes for summer cinema- you’ll find yourself being pulled right out of the movie by the sheer absurdity of what you are being subjected to.
For example: Massive tornadoes ravage downtown Los Angeles. It’s a neat thought, but when was the last time you heard of a twister in LA? The atmospheric conditions are all wrong (but they explain it away by saying global warming totally altered atmospheric conditions everywhere). Furthermore, these massive twisters converge to create a single, gargantuan twister, in effect doubling its size, speed and destructive force. Cool notion, but it’s all wrong. Finally, this mega-twister completely guts a skyscraper, leaving just the concrete and steel skeleton. Cool visual, but it just wouldn’t happen.
Another example is the huge wave of water that bears down on the New York Public Library in tidal wave fashion. Yes, the New York Public Library faces a street (East 41st) that goes straight out to a water source, but this water source is minimal. Unless the surging water were high enough to completely plow through Long Island with very little resistance, the scene is impossible.
Aside from the environmental concerns, The Day After Tomorrow dishes out a few political jabs. The head-in-the-sand Vice President of the USA in the film looks very much like the actual Vice President at the time the film was released, Dick Cheney. The film also touches on the immigration debate. Virtually everything north of Texas is turned into a barren, frozen wilderness that is unsuitable for any living being. Thus, much of the American population ends up fleeing into Mexico, where the new temperate climate exists. It turns the tables on America by making them immigrants in a foreign land.
A similar impact is made on the rest of the world. The last shot in the film shows the whole earth where much of North America and nearly all of Europe has been frozen and rendered uninhabitable. This would force all the survivors to move into developing third-world countries. Now the citizens of many powerful states find themselves being taken in by those nations they were once reluctant to give much help to outside of food drops.
This can’t be a subliminal message, because it’s spelled out so clearly. The makers of this film are trying to send a message to all the wealthy powerful nations of the world, saying that our reluctance to stop global warming will be the end of our supremacy. The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
Aside from the overall message, the plot is pretty decent for a disaster flick. A climatologist warns everyone about the dangers of global warming but is brushed off. Suddenly his theory of world-wide devastation comes true but at an alarmingly expedient rate. His son gets caught in the brunt of the catastrophe and dad goes after him, risking his life. It leads to a predictable ending, but at least he’s a devoted father. That’s more than a lot of dads out there can say.
The strong family ties and commitment to survival is good and always ends up inspiring the viewer to some extent. I certainly wouldn’t want to face such conditions, but I’d like to think I could find a way to survive.
There is a secondary plot line involving romance between characters played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Emmy Rossum. They are longtime friends and he really likes her but she seems oblivious to his swooning. Before the super storm strikes, Gyllenhaal picks up some competition for the lovely Rossum’s affection at an academic Olympiad type competition. However, once the other guy sees how much Gyllenhaal cares for the girl, he tells him to go after her. How sappy and unrealistic is that?
My closing beef with this film is that, while it shows brief clips of destruction in other parts of the world, The Day After Tomorrow never follows up with the conditions the rest of the world. To me, this seems one-sided, as if America is the only country to blame, and that strikes me as lazy work. Yes, the main characters are Americans, so it’s important to show how America turned out, but there’s over 200 countries also being affected by this crazy weather and very little of it is addressed.
The disruption of climate patterns in one part of the world will set off a chain reaction of events across the globe, but The Day After Tomorrow doesn’t acknowledge this, it does not address this, and it does not portray this. This film has a target in mind and it hits it full force.
Had it not been so heavy-handed and preachy at times, The Day After Tomorrow could have been a smash hit 35 years ago. The only problems are that the computer effects didn’t exist back then and, at that time, everyone was worried about Global Cooling and the dawn of a new ice age.
While doing a little background research for this review on The Care Bears Movie, I had a little piece of nostalgia shattered upon discovering that the Care Bears were created solely for the purpose of making money. Originally appearing on greeting cards and then turned into a plush toy line, the creators of the Care Bears crafted a loose purpose and mission for their characters in order to fool consumers into buying their products.
But does this have any bearing on what I think of the movie? No. But I must say, this little bit of information proves, once again, just how disillusioning childhood can really be.
The Care Bears Movie is a harmless piece of fluff that promotes caring and understanding of other people. What’s not to like? It gives a good message to young viewers and it's easy for adults to sit through, breezing by in a quick 76 minutes. The animation is all pretty good, though I must admit that the songs can be quite cheesy. One negative about it is that it is cut into segments, as if pre-packaged for airing with commercial breaks, even though it was released in theaters.
The story is being told as a bedtime tale by the owners of an orphanage. It concerns the Care Bears from the magical world of Care-A-Lot, somewhere high up in the clouds. The Care Bears monitor the level of caring on Earth and step in from time to time to make sure people don’t forget about the importance of caring.
The Care Bears go down to Earth to help perk up a pair of orphans who feel that no one cares about them and they no longer see the point in trying to be happy. At the same time, a young loner, a magician’s apprentice no less, becomes enamored with a magic book that promises to give him powers that will make people like him. Fooled by the promise of acceptance, the young boy eventually loses his control of himself to the evil spirit in the book.
This all sets up a showdown between good and evil. The Care Bears have to band together to thwart the evil spirit, pulling together a tremendous display of courage and caring. The film also introduces us to the Care Bear Cousins, a variety of different animals with powers similar to their bear counterparts. There’s also a bit of a twist ending, but the twist isn’t that important and it’s fairly predictable.
While you may have a hard time keeping track of all the characters (as most of the Care Bears and Cousins are interchangeable), they all play a specific part in the success in their mission. This serves as a subtle message to kids that everyone plays a part and no one is unimportant. Maybe kids won’t even pick up on this message, but it’s there.
I’d only recommend this film to people who grew up watching the Care Bears. To those who have never watched the animated series, this film may seem trite and simple, but those who have seen the series will be taken down memory lane. Speaking of memory, I had forgotten what all happened in this film and had evidently combined this film and its sequel in my mind. I suppose this makes the film not as memorable, but I also hadn’t seen it in over 15 years.
Colorful, whimsical and cheesy, The Care Bears Movie does what it sets out to do. It entertains children while giving them a basic message about being nice to people. While nothing too spectacular on a cinematic level, it’s a piece of nostalgia for my generation. It may pull a few groans out of adult viewers who have grown cynical and sick of overly happy fluff in their years, young children will be glued to it like you wouldn’t believe.
I liked the original film in the Ice Age series. It surprised me with its uproarious humor and its overall lack of smarminess. It dealt subtle jabs to both the folk running around spouting off doomsday warnings of global warming (though in Ice Age it was global cooling they were worried about) and those who didn’t believe anything was happening whatsoever. Sadly, Ice Age: The Meltdown never tries to dish it out to both sides of the issue and throws its hat in with the doomsday crowd.
Our odd trio of friends from the first film (Manny the mammoth, Sid the sloth and Diego the saber-tooth tiger) are still palling around together. After what’s got to be the shortest Ice Age in the history of the universe (what, maybe two years, three tops?) global warming threatens the valley they have come to know.
A subplot involves Manny worrying that he is the last of the mammoths. He discovers that this isn’t true when the trio comes across a female mammoth (voiced by Queen Latifah) who thinks she is a weasel or ferret, or whatever it is that adopted her. She is juvenile and ditzy and makes for an annoying addition to our merry band of travelers. This subplot resolves itself conveniently and predictably by the end of the last reel.
There’s plenty of stupid humor, mostly revolving around the size of the mammoths’ rear ends, and antics that just aren’t as funny this time around. The good news is that the group dynamic is still there, though it is disrupted quite a bit by the new characters, and much of the same bickering and humorous infighting still exists, but it isn’t enough and isn’t as fresh as in the first film. But our familiarity with history’s most demented herd is enough to keep you mildly entertained.
The message of global warming gets a bit heavy-handed by the end, but oddly enough, nature takes its course and things turn out okay in the end. This conveys some unique mixed messages in a film trumping the dangers of global warming, doesn’t it?
All in all, the film lacks focus, which leads to its own meltdown. Neither the A nor B plots are fleshed out enough to satisfy and the laughs just aren’t as heartfelt as they were in Ice Age. It all leads me to wonder if they even really needed to make a sequel
The easy answer is no. But in the age of box office driven franchises, 20th Century Fox decided to capitalize on a surprise hit by milking it for all its worth. And sure enough, Ice Age: The Meltdown made enough money to justify a third installment, due out in 2009.
When the best thing about your film is the short vignettes involving a character who doesn’t even speak (Scrat, the saber-tooth squirrel and his masochistic struggle to find and hang onto an acorn), you know you have a problem.
The novelty has worn off, the humor isn’t there and quality writing seems to be extinct. In short, The Meltdown is a letdown.
After a career-revitalizing role in Pulp Fiction, John Travolta was thrust back into the limelight of Hollywood. All of a sudden he was a leading man again, and everybody was knocking on his door. Whether he was trying to cling to the aura of cool that he embodied in Pulp Fiction, or whether he was trying to play himself once more against his former squeaky clean, charming roles of old and some recent ones, Travolta takes to the silver screen as a conniving Air Force pilot bent on stealing nuclear weapons.
While Travolta’s physique is less than perfect, his co-star’s acting chops are even more suspect. While Travolta’s career was on the up-swing, Broken Arrow catches Christian Slater close to where his stardom and career sputtered out. Nevertheless, Broken Arrow spits out a fairly black and white good guy vs. bad guy action flick with predictable results and a handful of slick stunts.
Travolta and Slater play a pair of pilots running stealth bomber exercises over the Utah deserts with real nukes. Travolta has masterminded a plan to steal the nukes and ransom millions from the US government. Slater catches on to the plan, but just a tad too late, as he is jettisoned from the aircraft before he can stop his former partner. He does, however, manage to muddle up the delivery of the nukes by parachuting them off-target.
Slater teams up with a park ranger and they set off to do what the US government seems incapable of doing, despite their resources: find and stop Travolta.
There are lots of fancy stunts, fights and explosions in this hour-fifty action flick. Broken Arrow was John Woo’s second Hollywood film, and first big-budget film in the States. The martial arts influence is certainly present. The popularity of Woo and his compatriots led to a plethora of films featuring white guy action heroes saving the day via wicked kung fu moves. Unfortunately, the acting isn’t as slick as the action.
Travolta attempts to slide his character all the way to the extreme as the villain. He sneers and jeers and seems to have a genuinely good time playing a borderline psychopath. The problem is that he takes it too far. Travolta just isn’t believable as the unstable mastermind villain, which makes sense. It’s very hard to have a believable villain be both a mastermind and borderline certifiable. The combination of the two results in a jumbled mess. It looks like fun, but it doesn’t comprehend well in the mind of the viewer.
Slater, on the other hand, doesn’t come across as being smart enough to play the hero. His steady, confident delivery, piled on top of a Western-inspired hero theme tune, comes off as a goofy, modern John Wayne impression. I’m not a huge fan of the Duke, but the Duke he ain’t. Between a few lucky guesses and a few lucky breaks, Slater’s hero character ambles along the path to victory and doesn’t work out all too well either.
The plot has more than its fair share of plot holes and flaws (where was Travolta going to hide after getting away?) but enough dazzle and flair to satisfy summer audiences who check their brains at the door. It has the potential to be a fun movie, as long as you try not to think too much about it.
Given a casting change and a few more re-writes, Broken Arrow could have been better than average for an action flick. Instead, we get a guilty pleasure performance by Travolta and a taste of what the future would hold for Slater.
This movie serves as little more than a vehicle to provide Robin Williams with an age-appropriate role that provides him with the opportunity to behave in his tried and true zany manner. The problem lies in the fact that Williams’ performance comes off as a half-desperate attempt to prove he’s still full of life.
No one in their right mind could suggest that Williams has lost his knack for humor, but his over-the-top delivery seems out of place with his character. He plays a minister, Reverend Frank, who puts a young couple through hell in the form of pre-marital counseling.
The setup is pretty ridiculous and highly unrealistic. A young couple, John Krasinski and Mandy Moore, fall in love and get engaged, but due to Moore’s lifelong dream of getting married in her childhood church, the lovebirds face either a 2-year engagement or a three-week rush job.
Being a comedy, they naturally choose the latter option. Reverend Frank gives them all sorts of homework assignments that challenge the young couple including: abstaining from any more sex until the wedding night; seminars to highlight their differences and the quirks that bug each other; taking care of a creepy pair of robotic babies who do all the unpleasant things that regular children do, but to a decidedly more disturbing (though intended to be humorous) degree; and even trying to navigate each other down a busy street while blindfolded. In other words, it’s all a bit too much.
But License to Wed doesn’t stop there. Reverend Frank goes as far as to bug the couples’ apartment and has his young altar boy assistant follow them around, snooping on them and aggravating them into fights over seemingly trivial things. This all made me ask the dreaded question that can mean instant death for a movie: why? Why would a minister want to torment a couple that wants to get married to the point of unraveling their relationship? Why would a minister be so underhanded about all of his actions? Why would an altar boy take such pleasure at disrupting peoples’ lives?
None of it makes any sense and drives home the reality that this film goes too far in trying to pry a few laughs out of its audience. The situations; the approach; it’s all too much. The movie goes above and beyond what is necessary and reasonable to function as a comedy. Part of this is the fault of the writers for trying to manipulate viewer sensibilities for laughs and not respecting the limits of what can be funny and believable at the same time.
The flip-side of the coin is that audiences are getting dumber and the industry’s standards for humor have been in a downward spiral for quite some time. We really shouldn’t be surprised that toilet humor is commonplace and a means to an end in movies today because appealing to lowest-common-denominator laughs has made an obscene amount of money. Thankfully, License to Wed doesn’t sink to such Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler lows too often.
My other big complaint is with the smarmy, predictable ending. Moore decides to break it off and spends what would have been the honeymoon on vacation with her parents. Naturally, Krasinski goes after her and confesses his undying love, patching things up all squeaky clean. This sort of crap insults me. After the film was over, I leaned over to my fiancée and told her not to get any ideas.
Nearly all men, myself included, will not follow their woman of choice to a foreign country just to track her down and prove their love to them. First of all, we certainly don’t have the cash required to make such an expensive trek. Second of all, if we know you’re coming back, we’ll just wait. I really wish Hollywood would stop perpetuating this silly, idealistic fantasy version of love. It’s not real, and the fact that it keeps showing up in movies makes it all the more harder on girls when they realize that REAL love is nothing like the movies.
While this review may seem mostly negative, don’t think that I hate this film. I am merely indifferent due to its numerous shortcomings. License to Wed does connect with people who have either been in serious relationships, engaged couples, and those who have gone through pre-marital counseling. So, certain demographics can relate to the movie, which helps. Some aspects will ring all too true with some viewers, but these same people will be able to spot the ridiculous approach I have gone on about at length above.
In the end, License to Wed is your typical forgettable summer comedy that isn’t worth the price of admission.
Most people have never even heard of this film. The main reason I have wanted to see it for so long is that this is the film that Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (almost unanimously heralded as the greatest American film ever made) lost to for Best Picture at the Oscars.
In a way, this film rivals Citizen Kane in its boldness. While Kane was an all-out assault on the lives of corrupt media barons, How Green Was My Valley threw its focus at the opposite end of the spectrum: the working class. The film takes a very strong pro-union stance, vilifying the money-hungry mine owners in search of higher profits. Perhaps it was this statement that earned the film Best Picture. Of course it also helps that Citizen Kane was nearly unanimously despised when it was released. My, how times have changed.
It must be understood that this film hardly presents a fair portrayal of capitalist economics. Obviously, not all mines, factories, etc. were engaged in the shady practices on display here. It must also be noted that the film takes place in Wales at the dawn of the 20th century. Industrialization hasn’t been perfected yet, and is not a direct depiction of the quality of current (1940s) industrial workplaces, although the writers would like you to believe it does.
So there’s a fair share of political give and take going on behind the scenes and in between the lines, but if you separate yourself from the politics of the film, How Green Was My Valley succeeds at being a genuinely good film. Human emotion and family drama convey a strong sense of what it might have been like to be a struggling rural family.
Much of the focus is on young Huw Morgan, played by a pre-teen Roddy McDowall. His innocent perspective on the world can be heartwarming, but also serves as a vehicle to make the mine owners even nastier. Nothing gets people upset like seeing a child get hurt physically and emotionally.
Huw’s family works in the nearby coal mine, which over time degrades the quality of their picturesque town and their quality of life. The mine owners attempt to cut wages to make bigger profits and are met with resistance. A new minister supports those who favor unionizing the workers in order to preserve their way of life. The minister’s support causes a good deal of ruckus, as unions were thought to be evil and were preached as such from the pulpit by many a hard line minister.
Several tragic events occur, wrenching the lives of many characters and add a well rounded dramatic scope to the film. Though How Green Was My Valley is a solid film, it is also somewhat forgettable, as evidenced by the fact that very few people outside of film buffs and film historians even know it exists.
After the first 10 minutes, this was my favorite film in the Harry Potter franchise. After sitting through the rest of it, however, it’s now tied for last place.
A major credit to the filmmakers is the sense of realism on display in this film. We’ve finally begun to break away from the cartoonish settings and the caricatures that the muggle and wizarding worlds had become in the first four films. We finally see some genuine overlap between the two and their co-existence has begun to become believable. Granted, this has a lot to do with the fact that Potter author J.K. Rowling crafted this overlap in the book the film is based on. But, those first 10 minutes were just marvelous and not all credit is due to Rowling.
The opening is bleak- Harry sits in an abandoned playground that is showing its signs of age. The grass is all dried up because it’s the end of summer and it’s a hot one. The digital grading was also a nice touch- heightened yellow tones and a hint of graininess to the camera made the movie feel like high-grade indie stuff. It was just about perfect.
Finally, here was a Harry Potter I could believe in- a real boy stuck balancing a life in two worlds, neither of which is considerably friendly to him at the moment. For the first time I felt that both the Harry Potter character and universe could be real.
Then it all went awry.
One of the biggest issues plaguing this film is the pacing. The fourth installment, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, took a 600+ page book and turned it into a 2 hour and 40 minute movie. It gutted some of the extra stuff and kept more or less only the meat and potatoes. It worked very well.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix tries to take a book that’s nearly 300 pages longer than its predecessor and make the movie version 30 minutes shorter. It makes the action a little too frenetic. Instead of feeling like I was walking through the story, I got the sense that I was being pulled through at a needlessly faster pace. The first two Potter films were longer, so why can’t that be the case here? We’re dealing with an ultimately more interesting and engaging story than those early films, so why the rush? This could have been a three-hour film and no one would have noticed.
Here again, however, some blame is due to be directed at author J.K. Rowling. The story is a sprawling hodge-podge of subplots that never really goes anywhere nor adds up to a satisfying A-plot. Aside from being the target of new Headmistress Delores Umbridge, Harry faces no real central conflict. In place of a titular challenge (the Order of the Phoenix is only relevant for about half of the story) we are treated with an irrationally moody Harry Potter. He is bitter at his friends for something that was completely out of their hands to begin with, and he is mad at the world which doubts him and constantly ridicules his true account that Voldemort is back.
Umbridge hides the fact that she’s out to get Harry until the very end, so she fails as a central villain. Outside of awkward teenage romance and haunting nightmares (neither of which are original to begin with) this story has little going for it. Ultimately it feels like a formulaic, paint-by-numbers Harry Potter adventure. There’s Harry dealing with issues, his friends trying to help, and Harry surviving another attack by Voldemort in the end.
Despite several shortcomings, credit must be given for the stunningly gorgeous sets used for the Ministry of Magic, however. The dark green bricks and lavish architecture was a real treat for the eyes. Sadly, this visual splendor was undone by the horrendous CGI character Grawp, a two or three story tall giant. It’s been five years since the first Lord of the Rings film came out and yet the effects in Harry Potter 5 come nowhere close to matching its quality. A shame for sure.
It is also very much evident that John Williams has backed out of doing the music for the series. While the music is said to be based off the themes he wrote for the first three films, some of the musical choices are just too noticeably not on par with either Williams’ work or the music from HP4. None of the score grabs you and holds you. In fact, some of the music in the end credits is best described as noise- jarring high-pitched electric guitars that made my ears hurt.
As far as advancing the seven-part story of Harry’s youth, the Order of the Phoenix feels a lot like filler. The fact that it is rushed filler makes it taste even less satisfying. A few things happen that certainly shake up the tale (the death of Sirius Black is sad because it means the loss of Gary Oldman and his amazing acting abilities), but little is added to the mix that takes you by surprise. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix feels like a tease of a tale, designed to kill some time before the real action begins in the final two books. From an emotional and expositional standpoint, we’re still very much at the same place we left off at the end of Goblet of Fire, except now people believe Voldemort is back.
Maybe all this is a sign that Harry Potter mania is starting to fizzle out, or maybe this just wasn’t a very well thought out production. Either way, this latest Potter flick has lost much of its magic.
Mel Brooks’ spoof on all things Sci-Fi is a cult classic. While it shows its age through several of the pop-culture jokes and references, the lampooning of the numerous clichés and coincidences inherent to the science-fiction genre are spot on.
The only hindrance to this film’s success is the fact that it is being pitched to a specific audience. Films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein were more widely humorous because clichés are very often shared throughout the Western and Mad Scientist genres. You have to really know your sci-fi to appreciate all the jokes in Spaceballs. Otherwise, stretches of this movie will seem boring to you. I am a big science-fiction nerd, so I got nearly all of the jokes.
The fact that sci-fi flicks try hard to stand out from one another presents a problem for Brooks & company. Trying to cover all the widely different styles of sci-fi and wrap all the jokes around a cohesive story is a daunting task. Brooks does a good job, but it certainly alienates the casual viewer.
Despite the odds stacked so high against it, Spaceballs has entered the cultural lexicon (at least for the older portion of my generation and the one prior to it) with phrases like “Ludicrous Speed;” “May the Schwartz be with you;” and being able to identify Yogurt as something other than a snack food.
The best part about Spaceballs is that Brooks really goes all out. He not only pegs the goofy plots and groan-worthy dialog, but he also triumphs in the visual areas as well. The sets, props, and even the music all work in favor of Mel’s comedic purposes. He also covers more than just Star Wars and Star Trek (more spoofing of the former than the latter though)- he hits major films like Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Certainly not for everyone, but I recommend it if you have a love for sci-fi and an appreciation for satire.
This, the tenth overall Star Trek film and fourth involving the Next Generation cast, is the worst of them all. To be sure, the Next generation films were nothing more than ploys to capitalize on a popular TV series and struggled to maintain both legitimacy and respectability amongst an aging and ailing franchise, but Star Trek: Nemesis is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
To top it all off, this Star Trek film did something that I thought would happen more frequently throughout the series- it put me to sleep. That’s right, parts of this film are so trite, tedious and boring that it may put you to sleep.
The plot doesn’t make much sense, and in the end you wonder what all the commotion was about. All this over one guy? That’s it? Sure, there were ramifications for the rest of the known galaxy had the central villain prevailed, but if you didn’t expect the good guys to come out on top in the end then you’re either cynical or stupid.
Once again, too much time is spent on trying to make Data seem as interesting as Spock was in the original series. And once again, it didn’t work. Data is corny and probably the most annoying crew member of the Next Generation series. The filmmakers did throw us a surprise by ‘killing’ Data at the end of the film, but his memories we conveniently downloaded into an identical model before he sacrificed himself for his Captain.
Lots of boringness and silliness abounds in this movie, a clear indication that the franchise had run out of steam. Fortunately, this was marketed as the last Star Trek film for the Next generation cast, essentially ending the series altogether. (Did anyone really expect them to make a Deep Space Nine movie?) It should be interesting to see what JJ Abrams has in store with his upcoming Star Trek reboot.
This is an impressive movie. Not only is the acting superb, but the story itself is charming, tragic and wonderful. Johnny Depp plays J. M. Barrie, author of the children’s classic Peter Pan. In Finding Neverland, Barrie is struggling to create a successful play. He finds his inspiration at a local park, where he encounters several boys playing. Their imagination fuels his creativity and he begins to see them quite often.
In semi-biographical films such as this, I often wonder how much is actually true. Often times certain elements seem exaggerated and take me out of the film, but Finding Neverland keeps a hold of you pretty well. While I found several historical inaccuracies when looking up information on Barrie’s life, they are mostly amenable as creative and artistic liberties.
Probably the most enjoyable aspect of this film is watching all the little pieces of Peter Pan fall into place. Elements and themes that would make their way into Barrie’s play are noticeable throughout the film, be they subtle or pronounced. This accomplishes the film’s goal of showing two stories come together during the same film: the story of Barrie’s inspiration and the creation of Peter Pan.
Kate Winslet is always enjoyable and Johnny Depp’s performance seems downright normal for a change. I think it was a very wise career decision for him, as he is enabled to portray a quirky and sometimes eccentric character that is actually believable. Barrie is not a caricature or overzealous creation- he was a real man. Perhaps this causes Depp to restrain himself from anything over the top- had he gone too far, critics would have torn him apart. Maybe that pressure helped him.
Regardless, Finding Neverland is similar to Big Fish and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- there’s really not much out there that’s quite like it. I think it was a good choice as a Best Picture nominee, being a unique film with solid performances and a healthy range of emotions. Nicely done.
After two Next Generations movies I thought the Star Trek series would fall apart. I was actually surprised when I found myself enjoying the ninth installment of the franchise, Star Trek: Insurrection.
While nothing spectacular, the film plays out like a good episode of the Next Generation TV series. The story is focused enough that there are few plot holes, and there is a level of believability to what’s going on. Granted, the answers don’t come out until the very end of the film and some of the answers come out of left field, but just about everything is ties up at the end.
The visual effects were actually pretty good for a change. The Star Trek series has a history in underachievement in the visual effects department, but they did okay this time.
One thing that I have to comment upon though, is that the cyborg Data is annoying. The writers still seem to think he is every bit as cool as Spock from the original series, but he’s not. Far too much is done to include Data and his musings on human activity. Elimination of all future Data subplots will result in better Star Trek movies. I’m serious.
All in all, it’s pretty decent. I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say I’d watch it again, but it’s fairly enjoyable and avoids many of the pitfalls of previous Star Trek films.
At this stage in my movie-viewing life, the only comparison I have the sense of confusion, suspense and shock laid on by Children of Men is the storming of Normandy sequence in Saving Private Ryan. This movie is simply unrelenting. Just when you think things are working themselves out and order will be restored, director Alfonso Cuarón throws another monkey wrench into the works.
The film takes place 20 years in the future, where mankind has been subject to nearly two decades of infertility. No one knows how or why this came about, but it has wreaked havoc on the stability of nations and the global community itself. England has become a central destination for refugees from various nations, but is deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible in order to preserve the stability of their own faltering nation.
Clive Owen stars as Theo, who works a boring government job. He is approached by his activist ex-wife, played by Julianne Moore, who needs him to secure traveling papers for a young immigrant girl named Kee. Turns out she’s pregnant. The activist/revolutionary group Moore is involved with wants to get the girl to a group called the Human Project, who has been working to solve the infertility problem. They exist in secret and only communicate through a chain of messengers so complicated that no one is even sure if the group really exists, or where.
A few snags hit our merry band of wanderers along the way- they can’t trust the government because they’ll take Kee and use her for government propaganda purposes; the revolutionaries turn out to be just as bad, seeking to use Kee for pro-revolution propaganda; and then there’s the barrage of ambushes, murders, paranoia and fear jumping out from behind every corner and shadow.
Taking place in the future lends a slight science-fiction element to the story, but Cuarón doesn’t overdo it. All of the advanced technology is relatively believable, based on how quickly technology is changing and improving now. Apart from this, Children of Men is eerie because it feels so realistic, following its characters around with documentary style camerawork.
The visuals and sound are simply stunning. Everything is grimy and depressed where it needs to be, yet crisp and clean where appropriate. Cuarón really shows a mastery of filmmaking technique here and he is certainly one to watch out for in the future. Above all else that stands out in this film are the long, single-shot sequences. In case you’re not familiar with the term, it means an extended take where the camera does not cut away for over a minute or more. Children of Men features three distinct single-shot sequences- one is just over 3 minutes long, another lasts over 4 and the longest is nearly 8 minutes long!
Using these long takes adds to the suspense, because we don’t get to cut away and retreat to a safe-distanced long shot or jump ahead to the end of the situation. We are forced to follow Theo through the danger. We experience it with him, making us feel just as vulnerable as he does. It’s a very nerve-racking experience and helps make Children of Men a stunning piece of cinema.
I highly recommend that you see this film. It’s brutal and not for the faint of heart, but it is one I guarantee you will remember. I wanted to watch this film a second time before rating it, but I wasn’t able to. So for now, my rating is a temporary one until I can see it again, because I think that this film may deserve better.
Based loosely enough on the rise and fall of Diana Ross and the Supremes to avoid a lawsuit, this film tells the tale of a trio of young black women trying to break into the early 60s R&B music scene.
Dreamgirls was originally a Broadway musical and its film adaptation has been a long time coming. The stage show took Broadway by storm in 1981. Thanks to recent successful movie-musicals like Chicago and biopics like Ray and Walk the Line, Dreamgirls finally gets its day in the sun.
Through the first half of the film (the first Act of the show, really) we see the naïve and aspiring Dreamettes go from being not even a blip on anyone’s radar and playing local talent contests, to singing backup for a hit singer and eventually breaking through to the white radio markets on their own. During this process the writers treat us to little doses of history- payola, civil and racial unrest, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the difficulty for black artists to succeed due to poor copyright protection that allowed white artists to snag a hit from black radio and convert it for a white-friendly audience.
The sizzle and pop of the songs and the excellent set and costume designs made me wonder how on Earth the Academy failed to nominate this film for Best Picture. Then came the second Act.
Actually, the momentum died at the end of the first Act, where Jennifer Hudson’s Effie is disgruntled about no longer being lead vocalist (making Beyonce Knowels the ‘face’ of the group) and her bad attitude has finally cost her a place in the group. She discovers that she is being replaced and throws a diva fit, to which her manager and friends interject by singing their dialogue. Up to this point, all the songs had been performance numbers by the group or other artists, so when they began to unfurl their exposition and dialogue via song, my affection for the film dropped a notch. Sure, this sort of style works in movie-musicals from the 60’s and earlier, but now it just seems cheesy. The Academy fruitballs and the Broadway fruitballs can defend sing-songy exposition all they want, but it just doesn’t jive with me. At least not for contemporary films.
The second Act seems to drag, as Effie manages to drop off the face of the Earth for much of the time, and we are instead tuned into the struggle of the group and of Beyonce’s character. Updates on what Effie’s life has been like since the split are shown, but they don’t add to the roundness of the character. Another major issue with the second Act is the jump in time from the close of Act one. We go from the 60s to the 70s and very little compensation is given for the 8-year leap. Characters look no older and it seems that the filmmakers didn’t even bother trying to do so.
A lot of noise was made about Beyonce’s role in the film and many were buzzing early on about potential Golden Globe and Academy Awards nominations for her. She got nothing, which I find hysterical, because she didn’t deserve any in the first place. Beyonce does a good job playing the innocent, pretty, sweet-sounding singer, because she is one. She’s not an actress, so why did people think she was so great at a part she could play because it was barely a stretch from how she really is? Frankly, she’s forgettable, as Effie is a much more interesting character, and Hudson was rightfully recognized for her astounding performance (take that, American Idol).
Dreamgirls starts off as a tour de force, appealing to the eyes and ears alike. They aim for the fence and come out swinging for the home run, but the story progresses away from the most interesting character, only to bring her back in the final scenes to provide a standard sappy happy ending. It is still a very excellent film, but I can understand why the Academy did not nominate it for Best Picture.
Look for some head-turning performances by Hudson and Eddie Murphy, and a keen eye will spot Steve Urkel himself (Jaleel White) amongst the who’s-who ensemble black cast.
If it hadn’t been for The Departed, this would be your Best Picture winner. I say that now, still not having seen either Letters From Iwo Jima or Babel, but I get the sense that this film has all the makings of an Oscar winner. It’s sharp, balancing the dry witty humor I adore the British for with the heavy subject matter of Princess Diana’s death.
The Queen is a recreation and depiction of the days immediately before and following Diana’s death from the perspective of the Royal Family. The events and dialog presented are based off of the accounts given to the filmmakers by anonymous sources. There is also extensive use of real footage from news reports covering the accident, the outpouring of grief from the people of England, and even the funeral service itself.
All this in a trim 103 minute running time.
The amount of detail and careful documentation of everything is quite unique. If the filmmakers had chosen to take too many creative liberties, one can just imagine what Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers would have had to say! I think the fact that the real Queen approved of the film says it all. While I’m sure there are some parts of the film that aren’t true to life, The Queen manages to be one of the few docudrama/biopics that really excels at achieving its goal. Instead of playing it safe, the film takes chances and presents plenty of uncomfortable scenarios, and is rewarded for doing just that.
You really get a sense for how much the Queen and her husband disliked Diana and the cult of personality following she had. Sure, the woman did many good things for the world, but her visibility flies against time-honored traditions among the Royals. This is the other excellent aspect the film manages to include- showing the Queen’s struggle with what she knows from tradition and how it collides against the rapidly changing times she is living and ruling in.
Though parts of the film may be complete fiction, I felt like I gained a better understanding of Queen Elizabeth from watching it. I understand her distaste with Diana better, though I don’t completely agree with it. But that’s the point. The Queen is equal parts compassionate and condescending toward Elizabeth. In other words, it’s very real, which always helps when you’re making a docudrama or a biopic.
The acting is all very well done. Helen Mirren does a fine job in her portrayal of Elizabeth, and Michael Sheen is spot-on as newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair. James Cromwell creates a memorable character out of Prince Phillip, the Queen’s husband- the inclusion of Phillip, who goes more or less unnoticed by the press, was a refreshing jolt of cynicism and sarcasm complimenting the film’s overall dry tone. My only complaint is that the filmmakers didn’t get someone ugly enough for Prince Charles. Actor Alex Jennings seriously looks nothing like him- he’s too handsome.
The Queen is a classy film, which some may find boring, but if you are really interested in Princess Diana and/or the Royal Family I’d definitely recommend it. Concise and complete, I recommend The Queen and would have voted for it over The Departed, were I a member of the Academy.
I always seem to hesitate when it comes to watching a film involving faith and/or religious beliefs. I have come up with several reasons why-
First, faith and belief films are dangerous because it can be hard to tell when the filmmakers are merely throwing a viewpoint out there or are preaching to you in an attempt to convert the masses (discussion vs. propaganda).
Second, the faith or beliefs portrayed in a film could be factually or categorically incorrect.
Third and lastly, negative or positive reviews for the film can be controversial and people may claim your rating is based largely off of whether or not you agree with the beliefs on display.
I assure you, these kind of films can be difficult to rate. Some faith-based films are easily swept under the rug because they are simply not well done. Others are not so easily dismissed. Case in point: Conversations with God.
The film presents itself as a docudrama about Neale Donald Walsch and how he went from being a homeless man to a best-selling Neo-Christian author. Most of the film details how horrible his life was and the trials and tribulations he endured before God began speaking to him one night. The remaining 1/3 or so of the film shows his rise to fame, as he writes down everything God is telling him and he turns it into a series of books and some of the situations he faces based on the public’s perception of his ideas.
There is only a sprinkling of the content of Walsch’s books present in the film, which I felt was a strike against it. Judging from just the snippets of Walsch’s proposed changes to Christian thought (which may or may not have been divinely inspired) the film makes it look as if there was no controversy surrounding his series. I’m sure there had to be some uproar over this guy. Maybe not. Evangelicals may not have been as vocal back in the mid 90s, but I’m sure the filmmakers glossed over whatever controversy there was. Instead, we’re led to believe this guy made waves in Christianity and his ideas sparked some kind of small-scale theological revolution.
This is obviously not true, as I had never heard of the guy before, though seemed to vaguely recognize the title of his book series. And in this way, the film does kind of make a mountain out of a molehill. Sure, the guy made millions of dollars off his books, but the fact that he hasn’t made a big splash in the writing world since I was in middle school tells me something- either this film was made by over-zealous followers of Walsch who wish to spread his message, or there’s money involved.
Maybe it’s a little of each. Walsch was involved with writing the screenplay, which is understandable, because I wouldn’t want anybody mucking up my life story. This makes me wonder if he helped keep things accurate to reality or if some of the cheesy dialog was amped up at his request.
There are a number of parts in this film that, although they actually happened (to some degree), are undeniably cheesy and cliché. How depressing is it when a true story of overcoming hardship feels conventional? I think that’s more telling of us as a society than it is of the film’s quality, but that’s just a side-tangent. But yes, due to the over-saturation of sappy, feel-good, underdog stories in cinema and on such networks as Lifetime and the Hallmark Channel, one can’t help but roll their eyes at a situation that feels at least 60% familiar. Each feel-good story has its own unique elements for sure, but there is almost always the notion that we have seen something almost exactly like this before.
Beyond the fill-in-the-blank structure of this success story, there is enough product placement to pique your interest in what all Walsch says in his books and the film leaves just content out to make you actually want to go out and buy/borrow a copy. This is partly where the film crossed the line for me. Here it began to straddle the line between docudrama and infomercial. It has been 10 years or more since Walsch’s books hit shelves everywhere and his relative obscurity nowadays makes me think this film also was intended to spark new interest in his books. I felt slightly indignant about this, but there’s enough ambiguity in that court to avoid offending me out right.
The film certainly does do a good job at hammering home how wretched the man’s life was before his book series, but it stretches on for an almost uncomfortably long majority of the film. There’s a line between highlighting your protagonist’s misery and brooding in it, and I think Conversations with God may have crossed that line. An audience can only take so much sorrow and depressing environments before it either becomes too much to bear or borders on annoying. And I didn’t find that there was enough joy on the upswing side of the story to sufficiently makeup for all the wallowing that went on. Perhaps the story feels incomplete because Walsch’s success isn’t over now that we’re all interested in reading his books. Or maybe they were trying to keep the story humble. It’s actually a tad difficult to tell.
Finally, the acting isn’t so bad. Henry Czerny is believable as Walsch, creating a character who feels desperate and someone you can really sympathize for. He’s not your typical gorgeous Hollywood type. He looks like an average Joe, which helps him and the film. I must say, however, that Czerny’s performance involves a lot of staring and hopeless gazing. The last time I can remember someone acting so much through their eyes was Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. And no, that’s not a compliment.
Something about this film just feels off to me, and it’s not just the quasi-“new age” beliefs it seems to support (subjectivity in regard the religious content did factor slightly into the rating). Part of it feels fabricated and designed to make you want to read those books of Walsch’s, which seems dishonest. And also, how did Walsch know it was God talking to him? I don’t recall him ever questioning that, which seems odd. When people claim to be vessels of God’s wisdom, this reviewer grows a little wary.
Spider-Man 2 was on the cusp of greatness. The writing and acting were superb; it had the right amount of cheeky humor inherent to the Spider-Man comics; and the digital effects, though pretty dated and mediocre looking now, were adequate. Spider-Man 2 left me with high hopes for the third and (supposedly) final installment to the series.
Needless to say, I was let down. And none too gently. While Spider-Man 3 does grow in some areas, it falls short in too many other aspects to be considered a worthy installment in the series.
Some of the characters have matured and show more depth and range of emotions. For instance, Mary Jane Watson is no longer just a starry-eyed, melon-breasted girl missing the obvious affections of her pal Peter Parker. This time around, she and Peter are struggling to keep their relationship afloat. She has real needs, desires and demands.
Peter, on the other hand, has selflessly devoted most of his life to being Spider-Man and helping out the cops fight crime in New York City. He’s grown more adept at balancing his studies and scratching a living off photojournalism as well. Unfortunately, Peter has unwittingly let being Spider-Man go to his head and it is slowly destroying his relationship with Mary Jane.
MJ has become an up-and-coming starlet of the stage and struggles with feelings of inadequacy, especially with having her every move and nuance scrutinized by relentless critics that will either make or break her young career. Peter, being the nerdy guy that he is, attempts to help his girlfriend cope with all this by comparing it to how he is scrutinized as Spider-Man.
To be honest, I thought it was initially a very good comparison. Of course, up to that point we had seen very little of Peter Parker’s selfish and conceited behavior outside of putting on a show kiss as Spider-Man with the police chief’s daughter during a publicity event. Herein lies the first problem of the movie-
The filmmakers should have established Peter’s internal conflict as a more innocent battle against his own ego. Instead of shedding a bad ego, Peter/Spider-Man should be entering a new phase of growth in dealing with his dual roles in life. The problem truly is innocent at first- Peter, being the nerd that he is, just gets excited and embraces all his ups and downs as Spider-Man to try and help out. It’s the only part of his life that allows him to even be able to compare with Mary Jane’s quest for stardom, but she doesn’t even want to hear it.
Hearing one talk about their alter ego all the time would be annoying, but Mary Jane (and all women as well) need to be reminded that men are not psychic. If you’re having issues and the way we’re trying to help you cope isn’t working, tell us. Don’t leave things for us to try and infer based on a mopey face, teary eyes and a warbling voice. It just goes to show you that communication issues can plague any couple. Superhero/wannabe celebrity couples doubly so.
From here, the film descends into blandness. While the decision to make Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship struggles one of the centerpieces of the overall story (a pretty good idea in my opinion), it ultimately takes over too much of the film’s running time. New characters like Gwen Stacy, Sandman and Venom aren’t developed enough to make them anything but momentary distractions and obligatory subplot inclusions, as a stand-alone fractured romance tale would draw nothing but ire from comic book fanboys and those who have enjoyed the series thus far. Even series regular James Franco’s Harry Osborne/New Goblin role seems underdeveloped and misused.
The overall plot is Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship issues, but of course things just have to get in the way. A freaky alien symbiote falls to earth during a meteor shower and it follows Peter and latches onto him. It alters his mentality and his emotional status. He becomes even more arrogant and aggressive. He eventually rids himself of it, which results in a man named Eddie Brock becoming the next host and turning into the evil character Venom. He and Sandman cause a ruckus and Spider-Man ends up teaming up with the New Goblin, his former best friend Harry, to save the day.
The Sandman is Flint Marko, played by Thomas Hayden Church. He is an escaped convict that falls into a sand pit being used for some bizarre physics experiment, the purpose of which is never actually explained. The result is a complete alteration of his body’s composition, reducing him to nothing but particles of sand and silica dust which he can move and mold into any shape he wants. He can also control any other loose sand or dust in his vicinity. His goal is to rob banks so he can provide money to treat his terminally ill daughter. This creates a unique villain for the series, as he is not being selfish in his law breaking.
The one aspect of Sandman that I was concerned about is the slight retconning the history and making Marko responsible for the death of Peter’s uncle in the first film (a flashback reveals he was partners with the robber Peter let escape. That turned out better than I had thought it would, and in the end, Sandman and Spider-Man have a sort of heart-to-heart chat, in which Peter forgives him for his uncle’s death and he even lets Sandman go free. An interesting mutual understanding of troubled men with superpowers indeed.
Venom, however, is treated less admirably. Topher Grace plays Eddie Brock, a rival photojournalist to Peter Parker. Brock delivers seemingly incriminating photographs of Spider-Man robbing a bank, but Peter exposes his photos as fraud and Brock is fired. Later on, Brock sees Peter out on a date with Gwen Stacy, whom Brock was sweet on. This pushes him over the edge and when the symbiote attaches to him he goes on a frenzied rampage, hell bent on destroying Peter Parker and Spider-Man. This just seemed silly to me. I can see how he’d be miffed for being exposed as a phony, but the jilted lover twist was over the top.
I did some research and found that, in the comics, Brock turns evil over seemingly minor things as well. This still isn’t good enough for me though. The Green Goblin was psychotic and Doc Ock’s appendages had taken over part of his mind, so Venom needed to come about over more than just a few minor offenses. Or, the filmmakers should have shown us more of Brock’s instability, perhaps having his hatred for Peter develop over a few films instead of the first hour of this one. Also, the effects to create Venom’s toothy, grinning mouth weren’t all that great. He just didn’t look real enough. (Sandman suffered from this as well).
Speaking of visual effects, they just weren’t up to snuff this go around. There is a scene in which Harry, as the New Goblin, chases Peter Parker (sans Spidey suit) down a series of impossibly long and narrow alleys at high speed on his hover jet board. During this chase sequence the two periodically fight. There are plenty of jump cuts and fast action, leading to a lot of CGI work that failed to impress me. At times, everything on screen was computer generated, reminding me of the Smith vs. Neo CGI fest in Matrix Revolutions. I came to see a movie, not a video game, thank you. Also the flow and look of Spider-Man while swooping through the city has finally become passé. He looks to computery against a real skyline and even more fake when the skyline is digitally souped up.
Another major issue with the film is a matter of excessive goofiness. Spider-Man has always been a bit nerdy and the films have always included a dose of cheeky, silly fun, but Spider-Man 3 goes too far. Many dramatic sequences are ruined by a heavy-handed slap of silly that pulled me right out of the mood. For instance: after Mary Jane is fired from her acting gig she lands a spot as a singing cocktail waitress in a local bar. Peter (under the influence of the evil symbiote) decides to take the lovely Gwen Stacy to that bar specifically so he can rub it in MJ’s face since she dumped him not too long ago.
This scene is a brilliant concept and also kind of cliché at the same time. The fact that the symbiote is powerful enough to affect Peter’s better judgment and morality is fine too. But when Peter dons an emo/goth haircut and magically knows how to perform a saucy, naughty tango like a ballroom master, the film jumped to Ludicrous Speed. Some things just don’t belong in a Spider-Man film. A Latin dance number is one of them (but at least it’s not as bad as putting nipples on the batsuit).
I was also a little peeved about this misuse of the Gwen Stacy character. In the comics, Peter develops real feelings for her. Here, she is simply used as a piece of arm candy for revenge. Bryce Dallas Howard is both beautiful and talented as an actress and was severely misused in this film. If they do make a Spider-Man 4, I would hope they would bring her back and straighten out her role in Spidey’s world.
My final qualm is with the handling of the New Goblin. Sure, Harry has been plotting his revenge against Peter/Spidey for a while now, but it comes on so randomly in the movie it threw me off balance in a bad way. Then, as soon as it the assault starts, Harry nails his head on a pipe, leaving him with amnesia. For much of the film he gawks and smiles like a half-idiot, not remembering much from the last five years. Eventually a well-timed vision of his father (kudos to Willem Dafoe for coming back) sets him off again. But only briefly. He ends up joining sides with Spidey and sacrifices himself to stop Sandman and Venom. It’s all just a bit too chaotic and bi-polar to be very believable.
Overall, Spider-Man 3 does provide plenty of the effects and action that summer crowds tend to drool over, but it seems like the filmmakers gave up on making Spider-Man films stand apart from the rest of the summertime ilk. Spider-Man started out as a boldly smart superhero series but by this third installment, our friendly neighborhood web slinger has given in to convention. Comic books fans will find it more enjoyable than most due to the enormous amount of allusions to events and people from the comics, but for us regular folk, it’s a lukewarm melodrama with too much going on.
You’d think that there is nowhere to go but up with a potential sequel on the distant horizon, but I seriously have my doubts if a Spider-Man 4 could rise from the ashes of this marginally disappointing tale.
After finally seeing this film, I was surprised that it managed to win Best Picture at the Oscars. When I think of the Oscars I typically think of films like Gone With the Wind and Casablanca, or West Side Story and (sadly) Shakespeare in Love. Majestic in scope and in some cases artsy, these are the movies that seem to typify what is Oscar material.
The Departed, at first glance is anything but. This is such a guy movie it’s not even funny.
A tough, raw, intense police drama with a stellar cast (can any film with a Baldwin in it claim to have an all-star cast?) grabs you by the throat and won’t let go until it's done telling its story.
Okay, that’s a bit much. There are some slow scenes and it's not all action. In fact, there are some points where I found myself confused as to just what is going on. Fortunately, director Martin Scorsese straightens out this convoluted thriller come the final reel (and what a reel!).
This is a very smart film and treats its thinking viewers with a myriad of twists, turns and plenty of jolts along the way. I can almost guarantee that you will gasp and/or flinch at least once during this movie from all the drama. The Departed is simply a film that is very well put together. With this in mind, it really isn’t so surprising that it won Best Picture. It also helps that the Academy felt particularly bad this past year about neglecting Scorsese all this time.
The Departed certainly fits into the lexicon of Best Picture winners that are very well made, like Platoon, Rocky and The French Connection. Maybe it’s not quite the best picture of the year, but you’d have a tough time faulting the Academy for it.
And I guess that’s what The Departed boils down to- it may not be the greatest picture of the year, but it is one of the most complete in terms of its scope. The acting is brilliant and believable (notably only the third time I can honestly say that I enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio's performance); Scorsese and his crew work their magic with editing, the soundtrack and score; and the story itself is very well written. But that can’t quite make up for two hugely important factors- 1) This film is a remake of film from Hong Kong called Infernal Affairs, and 2) while the film has many strengths, it doesn’t quite have the staying power that other Best Picture winners have had.
While I have never seen Infernal Affairs, and although this American version was rewritten and likely differs in ways from the original, it’s impossible to escape the stigma that a film is a remake. Instead of Hong Kong, we get Boston. A newly graduated policeman (Leonardo DiCaprio) is hired to infiltrate a notorious gangster’s (Jack Nicholson) criminal empire. Along the way there is denial, deception and death. Things are never quite what they seem, which is the film’s key strength, but it is a bit of a slight to the mind of the viewer to realize that the premise did not originate from the filmmakers presenting it. This isn’t the first time this story has been told, and we have to wonder, has it been done better?
Whatever the answer to that question is, The Departed is undeniably one of the best films of 2006. Whether it was intended to be commercially successful or just appreciable from a film lover's point of view is irrelevant. It was a huge hit, but I doubt it will be remembered as fondly as many of Scorsese’s other works. It is, to date, Scorsese’s highest rated film on my list, but hardly the most memorable.
In the pantheon of Oscar winners for Best Picture, I have a feeling that The Departed is more likely to fall by the wayside like The Last Emperor or The English Patient rather than engraining itself in minds and becoming a commonplace reference in our culture like Forrest Gump, Rain Man or Silence of the Lambs.
With Captain Picard’s Enterprise-D being destroyed at the end of Star Trek: Generations, it was little surprise to see him piloting the new (and much bigger) Enterprise-E. (Seriously, the Federation must be loaded if it can afford a replacement Enterprise every couple of years) Picard and company are out and about when the Borg attacks Earth. For you non-Trek savvy folk out there, the Borg is a colony of cyborgs that capture living subjects and turn them into cyborgs with no individuality whatsoever and also adding the individual’s knowledge into their collective brain.
Instead of helping Earth, Star Fleet orders the Enterprise to stay in the neutral zone and make sure the Romulans don’t get frisky with all the hub-bub going on. Really, Star Fleet doesn’t trust Picard to fight the Borg. He was once assimilated by them but escaped and holds quite a grudge. In other words, it’s kind of a rehash of Kirk vs. the Klingons from the original series.
Picard defies orders and helps save the day. But, the Borg shoots a probe into the past in order to prevent humans from ever discovering warp speed travel. The Enterprise follows in hot pursuit and ends up orbiting a mid-21st Century Earth. The crew goes down to investigate any damage the Borg did and realize that the Borg has nearly altered human history. The crew then makes it their mission to make sure a loony scientist does in fact discover warp travel and makes first contact with extraterrestrial life. Meanwhile, those still on the Enterprise must face off against a faction of the Borg that beamed itself on board and are now assimilating the crew and taking over the ship.
While a standalone Picard vs. the Borg plot would have made for a boring movie (again, think Kirk vs. Klingons) the sub-plot of help ensure Earth’s first contact with extraterrestrials makes Star Trek: First Contact one of the most original films in the Star Trek series.
Sure, we’ve already done the whole ‘time travel with the fate of the Earth in our hands’ thing before, but the way they do it gets brownie points from me. And the fact that the two plots tie in well with each other makes it rather good. Instead of a flimsy deus ex machina kind of tie in, the fates of one group directly affect the fates of the other.
The visuals are actually pretty good, up until the end, where a level of the Enterprise fills up with a very poorly constructed cloud of CGI gas, resulting in some lousy blue screen work. The biggest fault of this film involves the cast. The crew of The Next Generation just aren’t as engaging as the original series bunch. I even grew up watching a few episodes of The Next Generation, but there just wasn’t as much chemistry. This was also fairly apparent in Star Trek: Generations, but I feel more strongly about commenting on it here.
Captain Picard is a joy to watch- he’s well read and very intelligent. Data is pretty much an annoying android version of Spock, except that instead of pondering the illogical behavior of humans as Spock did, Data actually strives to become more human. Sometimes it works but it usually comes off as being a little trite. Worf is kind of like Gimli from Lord of the Rings. He’s there to add that dash of extreme culture clash (being Klingon), but he never really manages to grow on you during the course of the film. The rest of the crew are just kind of there on the periphery and barely do anything memorable. It’s almost as if you’d need to watch the entire Next Generation series to understand where everybody is coming from.
Despite whatever shortcomings exist among the cast, the story makes up for it pretty well. There are some very cool literary allusions and some fine acting on Patrick Stewart’s part. The Borg actually do make for a good opponent as their bland features and emotionless state effectively creeps you out each time they’re on screen. A better cast dynamic and some better visual effects in certain places would put First Contact on even footing with the best films in the series (Star Trek II and III).
I still can’t quite figure this one out. Much in the same way that Star Trek IV straddled the line between clever and stupid, Star Trek: Generations wanders along the fine line between being endearing and just plain silly.
It starts off with Kirk, Scotty and Chekov being on hand for the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B Federation Starship. They are in their twilight years in service to the Federation and are merely on the bridge as a matter of ceremony. Along the virgin trip, a distress signal comes in and Kirk urges the new captain to spring into action. During the attempted rescue of two ships from a bizarre energy field, the Enterprise-B is damaged and Kirk lost into space. Among the survivors is Malcolm McDowell, a long-living scientist who plots to return to the energy field he had been stuck in.
Flash forward nearly 80 years and we’re smack-dab in the middle of Star Trek: The Next Generation territory. The Enterprise-D, under the leadership of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, receives a distress call from a science outpost. Sure enough, McDowell is the lone survivor of what appears to be an attack by the Romulans. But, McDowell is actually working with a rogue group of Klingons seeking his star system-destroying technology (seems old habits die hard with the Klingons).
McDowell is destroying star systems to lure this traveling energy field he was pulled from (called the Nexus) to a location where he can re-enter it. Picard tries to stop and ends up inside the Nexus as well. There he finds bliss and joy as he is able to live out everything he ever dreamed of. But he realizes this is all a lie and recalls that one Captain Kirk also happens to be caught up in the Nexus as well. They meet, team up and cross time and space to save the day. An interesting homage to the original series films is played out regarding Captain Kirk. That’ll make sense if you paid attention during the other films. Otherwise, enjoy the cheekiness this movie is full of.
The scenes with Shatner are juts odd. He certainly seems to be having fun with the part one last time, but some of the lines he delivers and actions he does (the horse scene anyone?) are just a bit too campy for their own good. There is a subtle theme of sacrifice throughout the movie, but it never really grabs hold and makes its presence felt enough to list it as an asset. The effects are more or less caught up with the times, but the whole package is still dumbed down to the level of aw-shucks-who-cares-if-it-looks-silly that has pervaded the Star Trek series from day one. Hardcore Trekkies will be able to overlook this stuff, but I’m a movie guy- it’s either there or it’s not. This time it’s not.
I wouldn’t say this film is much better than the last few Trek offerings, because it certainly isn’t much of an improvement on anything, but it does have a few redeeming qualities and enough feel-good fun to make it a perfect example of a sci-fi guilty pleasure movie.
One tagline for this film reads “An epic comedy of absurd proportions.” While the journey the film recounts may very well be epic, the comedy isn’t quite as absurd as advertised. Nevertheless, The Gods Must Be Crazy is an enjoyable and endearing film.
