Top 10 Movies of 2005
1) Batman Begins
2) Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
3) Syriana
4) Million Dollar Baby
5) Walk the Line
6) Munich
7) Memoirs of a Geisha
8) Shopgirl
9) Brokeback Mountain
10) Kingdom of Heaven and Wedding Crashers (tie)
Worst movie of 2005: A Sound of Thunder
Brokeback Mountain. The big, controversial Oscar nominated movie about two gay cow boys. It's not a bad movie but neither is it an outstanding one... the story follows two cow boys (Ennis and Jack) over twenty or so years of their lives after one torrid summer affair when they were younger. They go on and get married to women but never lose touch and never completely go with their feelings toward one another, mostly out of fear. A good story but it was hard to connect with the emotional core of the characters. At one point, Jack says he's wasted his life with this thing--and that should've made me feel bad for him but it didn't for some reason. I think, for one thing, the movie is a tad too long--perhaps a little editing here and there would've helped. A good movie but not outstanding... (Mar. 4/06).
Munich. A movie about the 1972 Olympics incident when a terrorist group took eleven Israeli athletes hostage and they ended up being killed. The story is "inspired by true events" which means that likely most of it is either made up or it's true but really, really embellished. At any rate, the story follows five Israeli men who are recruited for their various talents to form a black ops group and hunt down the men responsible for the Munich incident. The men seem rather unconcerned about the morality of their task at first--they are to find the men and kill them, as a message to the PLO and others that view Israel as weak. As time wears on, the men begin to start doubting their mission. Are they really doing good for their country? When they kill one terrorist, another rises to take his place... One of them believes that as long as he doesn't spill Jewish blood, his actions are moral while the others, including their team leader, Avner, aren't so sure. The movie is about the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict and how both sides actions continue a never ending cycle of violence where no one ever truly wins. Its a message that's been done before in movies several times but it seems like Munich does it very well. Also, John William's score is subtle and powerful--it works very well for this story. Recommended. (Feb. 6/06).
Walk the Line. The story of legendary singer Johnny Cash... the story starts with a defining moment of his childhood then moves through his humble beginnings to his drug problems and eventual rehabilitation. A lot of the story focuses on his love affair with June Carter Cash and how they eventually got together. It's pretty well done overall although I have a few minor nitpicks--Reese Witherspoon plays June Carter, who's supposed to be older then Johnny but her and Joaqium Phoenix (who plays Cash) look about the same age. The story has a lot of a hollywood feel to it--conveniently setting things up and then paying them off throughout the film--I think they did that a little too much personally. The acting was good--Joaquim Phoenix does Johnny Cash justice as do the other actors. Robert Patrick (aka the T-1000) does a fine job as Cash's father. I wasn't sure the movie would hold my interest but I actually found it to be quite well done and quite entertaining. Phoenix does all his own singing and sounds very good as does Witherspoon. Recommended. (Jan. 22/06).
Memoirs of a Geisha. A story about a young girl sold to a Geisha house when she's a child and her life afterward... Chiyo/Sayuri has to endure losing her only sister and cruel abuse from the older Geisha of the house as well as the house mistress. She's given a ray of hope in her life when she meets an older man, The Chairman, who is kind to her. She resolves to be the best Geisha she can be and meet up with her hero again later in life. A well acted movie with a lot of color in the scenery... the writing is fairly good--the movie containing many little tidbits of asian wisdom. Sayuri is a likeable character, who seems to know just the right things to say to a man, despite her not spending much time with them prior to becoming a Geisha proper (she's played by Ziyi Zhang--the all too familiar Asian actor from movies like Crouching Tiger and Flying Daggers. If you like watching her move around in a movie--and really, who doesn't?--this movie is for you). The ending seemed a little too hollywood for me, but otherwise, I feel this was a fairly interesting story and worth checking out if you can get around the subject matter. Recommended. (Jan. 17/06).
The Producers. A movie of a broadway musical that was originally a movie... I wasn't sure what to make of this when they introduced Leo Bloom (Broderick) and his odd-ball character. As the story progressed however, it seemed a good mix with the rest of the whacky characters and their respective places in the movie. I haven't seen the original version of this movie but apparently a lot of this one is different from it (although much of it retains Brooks' sense of humor). I also noticed a lot of light gay humor, which I suspect wasn't in the original version either. There is also singing. Lots and lots of singing--I've never been a big musical fan but I think it carries over well here (apparently the original movie didn't have songs either). Uma Thurman turns in a fun performance as the Swedish blond, Ulla... as evidenced by Kill Bill, she does comedic stuff well. There is a plot thing I didn't quite get in the movie--somehow, if the play was a hit, they'd go to jail but they were vague on explaining why (lots of movie producers skim some off the top. Movie studios constantly do "creative accounting" on shows... or was it that this was supposed to be a simpler time?) Anyway, that's just a minor nitpick. This one is a definitely worth a look if you like Mel Brooks' stuff. Recommended. (Jan. 9/06).
Syriana. This is a story of political intrigue, set largely in a fictious middle eastern country as well as other points around the globe. The story revolves around a merger between two oil companies and goes at it from different points of view, involving a CIA Agent, a financial broker, an investigating lawyer, politicians, the country's Emir and a Pakistani refugee. The movie takes about an hour to introduce us to everyone and weave how they all relate to one another together. Despite this, it's never boring and the acting is pretty good. Other then George Clooney and Matt Damon, you might notice Alexander Saddig as Prince Nasir (this is the second time this year I've seen Doctor Bashir in a movie--the other time being Kingdom of Heaven) and, of course, Christopher Plummer. It's hard to explain the story--you pretty much have to watch it to get what's going on. To be frank, this is a movie that does not paint America in a good light, showing the U.S. as being for it's own interests in foreign territory, first and foremost. Well done, thoughtful and worth checking out, if you like movies that aren't the usual hollywood schlock. Highly recommended. (Dec. 26/05).
King Kong. The latest blockbuster from director Peter Jackson is a remake of the classic 1933 movie about a movie crew that finds a giant ape on a mysterious island and brings it back to New York to show it to the world. The plot is what one would expect and there are some amusing moments throughout the show, both intentional and not (I laughed a few times while the theatre remainded starkly quiet. I think one line was something like "You can trust me--I'm a movie producer!") The acting is fairly good (I do like Jack Black's character and his slimyness) and Naomi Watts manages to carry her character well--even though most of her big scenes rely on her using her large eyed wistful look. The special effects are top notch, of course, as is the rest of the production. I have heard some people say that the movie is too long at three hours and I would tend to agree. I think they could've cut 10-15 minutes and done little harm to the story. There's SO much action that takes place on Skull Island and it could've used a bit of trimming here and there (also some pointless background characters development could've been cut too as it amounts to nothing). There was also some minor plot logic problems I had on the island--the whole part with the dinosaurs and their chase of Watts character (although, admittedly, I am nitpicking things most people won't care about). Some cinematography here and there is also a bit iffy--sped up effects shots that end up looking annoying rather then cool (I had the same problem with Kingdom of Heaven). And if Watts' character, Ann, was really shook around like Kong initially shakes her, she'd likely have broken her neck or back. Still, all in all, this is a great popcorn movie (if a tad too long) and worth checking out. (Dec. 22/05).
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Based off the classic book by C.S. Lewis (which I've never read), Narnia is a decent/good movie. The special effects run the gambit from mediocre to good--one scene of the kids gazing out at the landscape makes them look superimposed over the background (this on that land bridge early in the movie). Also, the beavers and titular lion also look unreal--I watched Aslan throughout the movie trying to figure out what was wrong about him. He has enough detail but he could have used more... texture or maybe shading. As it was he seemed fake (mind you, good enough given the fantasy quality of the movie). The acting, music and directing seemed fairly good as well. One thing that bothered me about this story was all the hub-bub about Lewis' being a devout Christian and how this was all religious allegory. I don't know if that's necessarily true but it did taint how I saw one scene that paralleled Jesus' sacrifice (this scene clearly was allegory). If they hadn't called so much attention to it, I likely wouldn't have even made the connection. Storywise, the movie is fairly good although I wasn't exactly blown away by it either. People inevitably compare Narnia and Lord of the Rings (for some reason) and LOTR is the clear winner here. LOTR is more imaginative and more interesting... Narnia is a nice looking movie but I didn't really care about the characters that much (perhaps the book expands on their personalities better?) and the ending was pretty much a given--there was no real sense that they might not make it in the end. Also, this story is grounded in the real world and has some fantasy creatures--griffins, phoenix, centaurs, etc. but too much of it isn't explained. Who is the Witch and how/why did she take over? She seems like she's human, but that's never explained. Who is Aslan? How did this place come to be and why it in some guy's closet? Perhaps these questions are answered in the book or other books in the series, but they're NOT explained here and they should be. Like with anything, someone's mileage on this movie may vary--I have a feeling kids would love this movie while I only liked it. A good movie, but not a great one. (Dec. 12/05).
Aeon Flux. This movie was not screened to critics before it came out. That is almost always a sign the movie is a piece of garbage and should not be bothered with (like Alien vs. Predator. Blech!) Add to that, I read a blurb online that the movie is not faithful to the original creator's vision... at first, I wasn't going to bother with it because of that, but then I remembered that I could never figure out what the hell the cartoon was about anyway so maybe I should give this movie a chance, since it might actually make sense. This movie has one thing in common with the movie Underworld(uh-oh!)--in that movie, the protagonist was the sexy Kate Beckinsale done up nice in a skin tight costume. In this movie, the protagonist is the sexy Charlize Theron done up nice in a skin tight costume--watching her move, you almost don't care about the plot (same as Underworld--which was good with that movie because it was all style and no substance). Despite what you might think, Aeon Flux is a surprisingly good flick. I went into it not knowing what, if anything, to expect and was delighted to actually like it. The acting is good (for what it is and what's required of the actors), the special effects, the directing and writing were also pretty good. The story starts out with several mysteries, including a logic problem I discovered but all are addressed by the movie's end. One minor thing--they have certain technology and then don't seem to think of using it later when it would make sense to but I wasn't too bothered by this aspect. Not a fantastic movie (compared with something like Batman Begins), but certainly worth checking out. (Dec. 8/05).
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. This movie follows the previous movies in being a good fantasy story centering around a young wizard and his friends. The acting, dialogue and special effects are all top notch. There were a lot of good character moments in this story and they came through very well... unlike Chamber of Secrets, this movie felt like a complete story (even though it's apparently lost a lot of material from the original novel). Recommended. (Nov. 24/05).
Shopgirl. This movie didn't seem to get a big release for some reason...it was in "select cities" first, then here last week and this week only two theatres have it left (it's come and gone that fast). This is the movie of the novella by Steve Martin (the comedian). Other then writing the novella, the screenplay, producing the film, narrating and starring in it, Martin doesn't seem too involved in the project . ;) The acting is good...Martin stars opposite Claire Danes and both convey their characters well as does co-star Jason Schwartzman. Danes does much of her acting with her eyes and face, which is likely why she's such a good actor (Martin likewise). The story, in brief, follows Mirabelle Buttersfield (Danes). A young woman, alone in Los Angeles working a dull job in the glove department of Sak's Department store. She is alone in the big city, having come from Vermont. She meets Jeremy, a strange young guy in a laundromat who is perpetually broke and dates him a couple of times. Later at work, she meets and begins dating Ray (Martin), a wealthy older man. She is subjected to his lifestyle and has to ultimately decide between the two... I do have some minor nitpicks--Mirabelle's art is vague throughout the movie and until the end I didn't really get it (was she doing charcoal pictures of her foot?) Also, how Jeremy becomes more respectable later in the film is extremely vague. He goes from being a sort-of roadie to suddenly having a nice car and some money. The movie is supposed to happen in Los Angeles, but somehow at one point in the film, everyone is in New York (even a background character that has no business being there). Also, Mirabelle is on anti-depressants at one point but they never really say why. I don't know if the movie was edited a little too much or they just didn't bother with some plot points in the book (assuming they're explained in the book). Otherwise, some minor continuity problems (how can Mirabelle see out that bathroom window? That would be physically impossible! And stars in the night sky? In Los Angeles--Smog City, USA? I think not). Still, these are minor nitpicks and it's a pretty good story full of small amounts of humour, pain and love, and hard truths. Recommended. (Nov. 23/05).
Serenity. This is the movie that continues the short-lived Fox series Firefly (I'm sure everybody knows that anyway). Like the series, the movie is well written and much of Whedon's camera direction is interesting (in a good way) to watch. This movie resolves several (most) plot points left over from the tv series before it--some obvious and some less so. It does leave a couple of things unexplained (likely for a possible sequel). Primarily, the story focuses around the characters of River and Simon and answers the question, "what's the deal with River?" Actually, that's answered so fast in the movie I was a little bit disappointed--but the rest of the story makes up for that minor quibble. Even if you're unfamiliar with the tv series, the movie quickly explains the basic premise any way making it accessible to newcomers as well. Whedon also keeps us on our toes by killing two of the cast, making the viewer wonder if anyone will survive in the end (a good strategy but it's sad those characters are gone now--I'll refrain from saying who died and how). All in all, a good movie and worth checking out whether you're a fan or not... (Oct. 6/05).
Corpse Bride. I saw this opening day (coincidentally) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Apparently, the movie in done up in stop-motion (or really good cgi. Not sure...) A good whimsical fairy tale about a man who accidentally marries a dead woman while practicing his nuptials. Good voice talent, a score by Danny Elfman and the usual Burton style make this a worthwhile movie to see. It only runs for 75 minutes, but given the work inherent in stop motion, this is understandable. There are several musical numbers which I felt suited the movie well (usually I don't care for song in my movies, but...) If the movie has a flaw, it's that the ending is a bit perdictable. Really, there's only one way this movie can end and it follows that path to it's inevitable outcome. Still, a worthwhile movie and recommended. (Sept. 23/05).
A Sound of Thunder. Based off the Ray Bradbury short story of the same name this movie apparently cost over $100 million to make. After having seen it, my question is, where did all that money go? Some early scenes in the movie have characters walking/talking in front of some elaborate city animation. Unlike in movies like Star Wars (where it looks real most of the time), they actually look like they were superimposed over the animation. It really was distracting in those shots... the animation for the creatures later on was adequate but hardly spectacular. The shot of the dinosaur looked especially bad--it doesn't toss the trees out of it's way. Nope. It just moves towards them and somehow they part for it to pass! Bad and inexcusable given the budget. The acting was decent but not wonderful--except for Ben Kingsley, all the actors were "B" talent at best (I've never heard of any of these actors before this). The story was true to the concept of the original short story but longer...it was an interesting premise and an adequate movie from a story perspective. The pacing of the movie moved things along fast enough--but the characterization is shallow at best because of it. I also think some things should've been cut in favor of characterization (the very first hunt was pointless, for example. As was Ryer's groupie...) We don't know much about the characters, thus we never grow to care for them and the ending was never in any real doubt anyway. Some plot points that made no sense: Okay, so the time changes come in waves. Fair enough. But why would the very last change the people into another form? I understand the story logic behind it but why do the characters know that for a certainty? The story is predicated on chaos theory so why should this follow a logical sequence? Also, why do the changes affect the vegetation and wildlife but there are still physical buildings that mankind built? If these things now existed all along then how could the buildings ever have been built? I think this movie had several problems: the script needed at least one more pass with a good writer to tweak it and they needed a better director then the moron who brought us crap like End of Days and The Relic to do it. Also, they should've gotten a company like ILM, Zoic or somebody competent to do the effects work.
A mediocre effort. If you must see it, wait for the DVD (or, better yet, track down the old Ray Bradbury Theatre episode and watch it instead. It was done on a shoestring budget and is both truer to the original story and considerably better). (Sept. 8/05).
Wedding Crashers. It was a good movie (not spectacular, but decent). The ending was perdictable but the only way it could've gone... otherwise, it was funny for the most part (not hilarious, but had it's moments). Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn had good chemistry. I agree with Ebert and Roeper that Christopher Walken should've had some sort of speech to give--it would've given him more to do and not wasted him in the role. Still, a decent movie all in all. (Aug. 4/05).
Howl's Moving Castle. The latest anime from acclaimed director Hayao Miyazaki is the story of a girl named Sophie who works as a hat maker in her small town until a chance encounter with a handsome mysterious stranger who can literally fly over building tops. When she is later cursed by a witch to become an old woman, she journeys to the Wastes, a place beset by all manners of beings and encounters Howl, a powerful young wizard. Like many of Miyazaki's previous works, this story focuses on a young woman and her extraordinary journey. For the most part, this is a good effort. The characters are likeable and capable in their environments. The movie is a bit long (two hours) and there are places where some things felt redundant. What exactly was the point of the war in the background to the story? Why did Madam Suliman want to get Howl? Either the movie was missing some footage or something got lost in the translation (this was a english dub). Even still, ignoring any flaws, the movie was a wistful and enjoyable movie that is worth checking out if you enjoy anime. (June 29/05).
Batman Begins. We've seen a lot of superhero movies in the past few years and they seem to follow one of two paths--they either really stink or surpass the bar set by previous movies. I'm pleased to say that Batman Begins falls in the latter category, being far better then the best of the older Batman movies (Tim Burton's 1989 movie, Batman). It also scores very highly in general amongst the ranks of the superhero movies. The acting is excellent and the casting is bang-on...Christian Bale is the best of the modern actors to play Batman (and, actually, probably the best actor to ever portray him--which wouldn't be hard). The story follows Bruce Wayne's journey as he becomes Batman and works to clean up Gotham City from its corruption. The villians are the Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul, both of whom accentuate the story but don't overwhelm it like the villians in previous Batman movies--instead, the story stays focused on Bruce Wayne (a smart move). The movie stays close to the comic source material (for the most part) and Batman is portrayed as a hero, instead of a masked vigilante (again, a good move on the writer's part). This is one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. Highly recommended. (June 16/05).
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. At last, the circle is complete. The final chapter of the six part, two trilogy Star Wars story is a competent movie with the prerequisite high-caliber visual effects and action of all the previous movies. The acting is competent and the dialogue is good for the most part (despite what some claim). There is some comedy in the first act of the movie while the rest of the story is mostly absent of humor (I suspect to better emphasize the dark tone of the story). I had read the comic adaption before seeing the movie so there were few real surprises in the movie for me. A couple of scenes are cut--including one where several senators discuss creating the Rebel Alliance (I think they should've left it in. Padme could've used more to do then just stand there and look upset). I think Anakin's descent into darkness was convincing--like he wasn't completely certain of himself but grew more-so as he went. Count Dooku didn't get to do much in the movie nor did the much hyped General Grevous (although Grevous did more by comparison). The final lightsaber battle was satisfactory and will likely rank as one of the best of the series... Star Wars will never be Shakespeare nor will it be able to compete with the likes of something like Babylon 5 (in story terms) but it works great for what it is--a fun two hour special effects fest that tells a space fairy tale. I love it on that level and this movie is a welcome addition to the saga. Highly recommended. (May 20/05).
Kingdom of Heaven. Yet another in a recent trend of big budget historical dramas... unlike Troy and Alexander, this movie actually hits all the right notes, rising to take its place alongside Gladiator. Coincidentally, this movie is by the same director as Gladiator, Ridley Scott. Kingdom of Heaven follows the story of a young blacksmith named Balian (played by pretty-boy Orlando Bloom) as he seeks meaning in the face of personal tragedy. He is lead by his father Godfrey (Liam "Qui-Gon" Neeson) to Jerusalem to aid in the defense of the holy city during the Crusades in the 12th century. An uneasy peace exists in the city, but it is threatened by a dying king, his ambitious underlings and the hordes of Muslims waiting to retake the city for themselves. The movie treats both the Christians and the Muslims with respect (which I liked). Both factions want what they want but there are moments when they listen to their enemy and are merciful--they're not over the top cartoon villians like in so many stories. The story also throws in some thoughts about the meaning of true faith and honor, as well as using God as an excuse to kill one's enemies (although it avoids being preachy). The end of the movie seems to indicate this story was based on true events but I don't know enough about the crusades to say whether or not this is so. Siddig El Fadil/Alexander Siddig blends in so well you never realize he's even there (Dr. Bashir from DS9). There are some scenes where Scott uses his trademark style of cinema and tries speeding up the action on camera (which is a weird effect) and then later both speeding it up and then switching to slow motion to contrast (it mostly works). The music also seemed good to me (when I noticed it). This is a very good movie and worth checking out... (May 12/05).
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A movie based on the cult classic sci-fi radio play/novel by Douglas Adams. This is a weird, weird movie... I've never been exposed to any other incarnation of this story (radio play/novel/TV mini-series) but unlike all the hardcore fans, I actually enjoyed the movie (likely because I went into it fresh). The story revolves around Arthur Dent, an ordinary dull Human who gets caught up in some bizarre extraterrestrial adventures when the Earth is ordered destroyed to construct a hyperspace bypass. The movie has a few minor awkward parts (lots of editing?) but it works for the most part and keeps one entertained. Like many movies, it gives one the gist of the beloved story and will likely be the jumping on point for many new and curious fans to pick up the book and read it. And it is funny, despite what some have claimed. Maybe not every single joke is in the movie but there are several and all are funny in a goofy, tongue-in-cheek way. Trillian is Arthur's love interest in this iteration (but not in others) and I think it came across very well.... (also the girl that plays Trillian is cute ;). The special effects and music were up to par and used to great effect in many scenes. I definitely recommend this movie to the other uninitiated sci-fi fans out there... and to those who have read the books, try to keep an open mind if you go to see it. It suffers the same problem as the new Star Wars trilogy does--its a good movie but it doesn't live up to its fans expectations and is therefore unfairly dumped upon. (May 5/05).
The Interpreter. A story of political intrigue set at the United Nations complex in New York (as well as around the city). The main characters are Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), a secret service agent and Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman), the UN interpreter. Silvia accidentally overhears people plotting to kill her (fictional) African country's president one night and has to call in the authorities to investigate. But all is not as it seems--Silvia has many secrets in her past and Tobin can't be certain he can trust her. The first little while I thought the characters were dry but as the movie went on it got more interesting and we started to care for them. The cinematography is nice (it makes NY look like a beautiful urban place instead of a cesspool). The story is good political intrigue--its not totally by the numbers and it all comes together in the end. The story's genocide aspects are a bit glazed over (compared with works like Hotel Rwanda) but the story is more about these characters in the present and how they relate to each other. The acting is pretty good (Nicole Kidman is wonderful--and so is her acting too ;). A good effort worth checking out... (April 27/05).
Steamboy. An anime that actually has a dubbed soundtrack for its North American release (I'm used to the sub-titled movies). The story is set in the late 1800s in England. An inventor and his son discover a way to compress steam and use it's full energy potential (via the "steam ball"). Things go wrong however and the inventor must flee from forces conspiring against him with the invention, leaving it in the hands of his grandson. The story goes on, revealing who wants the invention as well as plethora of impossible steam powered inventions that can wage war. Like so many other stories (especially anime) it focuses on a technology vs. morality theme...can this new technology be a blessing or a curse? Of course it depends on a person's pespective and as always, it comes down to somebody wanting to pervert its use to evil. The animation is adequate--it's not bad by any means neither is it spectacular (after Ghost in the Shell 2, my standards for "excellent" animation are high). The story is not terribly original and there were a few plot holes (like what happened to the boy's other family after the opening? *Apparently, the movie lost 20 min from its original japanese release so that might explain some of these problems). I think the best part of the movie was the boy (Ray) and the girl's (Scarlett) interactions--its almost a shame there wasn't a little more to that. As some sort of bad in-joke, Scarlett's family name was O'Hara... I have no idea why they went with that. The cast had several big name including Patrick Stewart, Anna Paquin, Alfred Molina and Robin Atkin Downes (Byron from Babylon 5). The director is the same guy who did Akira many years ago (I never did get around to seeing that). I found the technological aspect of the movie to be absurd--as if they could really use steam that well! And the inventions also bordered on the ridiculous... All in all, a decent movie but not a great one. If you're a hardcore anime fan you might appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother... (April 20/05).
Frank Miller's Sin City. This is a film based off the graphic novels of the same name... my exposure to the comic form is light at best (I think I read a preview story once and it didn't really grab my attention). What really stands out about this movie is the graphic style. It's big, bold and distinctive. The movie is primarily black and white but also makes use of selected colors at times (red, blue, yellow and green). Many of the film's effects and backgrounds are cgi and it helps add to the otherworldy aspect of the film. The film looks fantastic and it's easily Rodriguez's best work to date. The writing is actually pretty good.... unlike Miller's awful Robocop sequels, this movie works very well (to be fair, the two Robocop movies were apparently messed with by the studio suits). The stories are gritty and violent but well executed and maintain one's interest. Like Pulp Fiction, this one follows three stories and does them out of chronological order. The movie is consistently very violent (mostly in an unreal way...there's mutilations and what-not but it doesn't seem real--more cartoon-like in its sensibilities). There's also some incidental nudity (one story takes places in "O-Town" which is the red light district). This is not a movie to bring a kid to (nowadays what is?) Much of the dialogue is cheesy sounding (like a bad detective novel) but it works well in context of the film. If you like comics, film noir, bad pulp detective stories or just inventive movie making you should see it. Very good. (April 4/05).
Be Cool. This was the follow-up/sequel to Get Shorty that follows the exploits of John Travolta's Chili Palmer character. I haven't seen the first movie (but have been told it was very good) so I can't really say how it stacks up. As a movie on it's own, Be Cool is laugh out loud funny in many places and hits the mark for the most part. It's a good movie, but not a great one. There's several plot holes, for example. Why would some small time Russian mobsters run a protection racket on a big time record studio (and why wouldn't said studio have any security)? Also, why would a noted movie producer not be able to come up with $300,000? That's pocket change to somebody in that position (and yet this is never addressed so the movie can follow it's story...) The singer Chili manages ends up doing a duet with Aerosmith on a song that doesn't make a good duet and the audience loves it (I can't remember which one off hand but it sounded odd to me). There's some funny scenes and the acting is good. The Rock is a brave man for taking on the role he does (you'll never see him as an action hero again! :) Andre 3000, Cedric the Entertainer and others are all good (apparently this was Robert Pastorelli's final movie before he died of an heroin overdose--he was the painter on Murphy Brown, btw). I counted a sum total of 16 corporate and/or product placements (including one for Thrifty Car Rentals--the place I work! Wow, we are big! :) Cedric gives a speech near the end of the movie about racism. It's wonderful and poignant but totally out of place in the film (an odd choice). Finally, after her turn in Kill Bill, Uma Thurman is relegated to the cute love interest who lacks much character or even stuff to do. Despite all my nitpicks, this is a good comedy and worth checking out for what it is....just don't expect too much thought or logic in the story and you'll enjoy it. (March 29/05).
Million Dollar Baby. Another Oscar nominated movie from director Clint Eastwood. This film follows the journey of one woman as she goes from the trailer park to taking a shot at something better as a female boxer. The story is full of rich characters, humor and good dialogue. Like many of the movies I've seen lately, this one was a message of following one's dreams--of taking your shot no matter how insurmountable the odds may seem. The ending has a tragic twist to it which I would say brings it down a bit (conversely, if nothing happened then there really wouldn't be anything to the story--this way it has the dramatic punch it needs). Hillary Swank is charming as the earnest boxer Maggie and Clint is Frankie Dunn, her trainer/manager and surrogate father. Morgan Freeman's Eddie narrates the movie and provides much needed life insight. The movie script was from canadian TV/film writer Paul Haggis (I was surprised to see his name on-screen. He did shows like Due South). An excellent, touching movie--I can see why it's nominated for an Oscar. Highly recommended. (Feb. 13/05).
