Top 7 Movies of 2007
1) Cloverfield
2) The Simpsons Movie
3) Stardust
4) Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End
5) Sicko
6) 300
7) Transformers
(normally, I do a "Top 10" at year's end. However, I saw a lot less movies last year and there just wasn't enough to justify a full 10 list).
Cloverfield. This movie's concept can best be described as "Godzilla with a handi-cam!" We follow a group of twenty-somethings as their lives tumble into chaos when a giant Godzilla-like monster attacks Manhattan. The effects are excellent, the camera work is mostly good (although they overdo the shakiness a little bit--nobody's *that* bad with a camera). Some will not like the movie--indeed one guy in the theater I was watching it in stood up after it was over said as much. The acting is pretty good--certainly good enough to sell the story and, most importantly, the movie is entertaining. Highly recommended! (Jan.19/08).
The Golden Compass. A film adaption of part one of the book trilogy called "His Dark Materials". This story follows a little girl who comes into possession of a Alethiometer, a golden compass that can reveal the truth to it's possessor. She must journey to save her friend, find her father and find a way to stop the evil Imperium from total control of the world. The plot is very, very complicated and there is *so* much exposition in the movie, having to explain this plot point and that plot point that the viewer gets lost in the details. The ending is very abrupt and not very satisfying either (my friend tells me the book is better. Not perfect but definitely better). Honestly, I didn't hate it but neither did I love it. I think my feeling on it was one of indifference in the end. Pass. (Dec.16/07).
30 Days of Night. A movie set in Alaska and takes place at a time of the year when the sun goes down for a month. It is this opportunity that attracts a gang of vampires to the town, in search of fresh prey. Its a great premise, isn't it? Too bad the execution is so lousy. Beyond the idea, there's nothing much here we haven't seen done before--and better. The vampires are generic animals with virtually no personalities. And, despite a lot of strategy on their part in isolating their victims in the beginning, their overall plan for the townsfolk makes no sense with the vamps charging in and eating everyone in a quick flurry rather then taking some here and there and biding their time with their prey. The human characters fare little better. The main character is generic and it's never really explained why he and his wife broke up or why they still seem to care for one another's company despite it. A good idea with no depth and bad execution overall. Pass. (Oct. 26/07).
Stardust. A strange fantasy tale from acclaimed English writer, Neil Gaiman (based off a book he wrote). The story follows a young man that enters a mystical world beyond the wall in his own town. He goes there to find a star that crashed in the countryside and present it to a young woman he is wooing. However, he soon finds the star is, in fact, a young woman with her own ideas. The movie follows their journey and growth together as well as following the evil forces that want the star and her power for their own ends. Claire Daines plays the star and brings the right notes to her performance as does all the other actors. Robert Deniro's character was a strange turn for him but he manages to make it work anyway. This is a thoroughly entertaining and fun fantasy tale and definitely one of this year's best films (despite not being the third film of some trilogy). Highly recommended! (Aug. 16/07).
The Simpsons Movie. The highly popular animated TV series finally comes to the silver screen. Is it any good? Well, the movie follows the same basic formula that the TV show does but it goes a little further in places (due to being a movie and having a higher content rating). By and large, the movie is a series of sketches strung together by an overall arcing plot. I'm pleased to say the movie comes across pretty good overall--it definitely beats out a lot of the recent, more lackluster episodes from the TV show. Add to that, the addition of the occasional cgi to some scenes further enhances the movie (and the animation is smoother then the show too--due, likely, to the higher budget of the movie). Some of the jokes fail but most work and the show will more then satisfy the hardcore fan or the occasional viewer. Recommended. Aug.6/07.
Live Free or Die Hard. The fourth installment of the Die Hard series finds John McClane up against a Cyber Terrorist bent on disrupting the U.S. infrastructure completely, causing a "fire sale" scenario and panic in the streets. The acting is good as usual (for what's required for an action movie) and Willis is completely in character as McClane here. The stunts are preposterous but look really cool on film. Since this is an escapist popcorn flick, I'm not going to dump on how realistic those stunts are (they crash a cop car into a helicopter using a toll booth as a ramp! Or another where a car flies through the air and is stopped from killing the characters by two other nearby cars around them). A real flaw of this movie is the screenwriters knowledge of computers--the story assumes that certain things must happen and, like most Hollywood movies I've ever seen, takes some real liberties with reality in order to make that happen. The whole scenario of this movie is absurd--cyber security has grown to the point now that there's no way anyone could successfully take out the United States computer systems (not all of them virtually simultaneously, anyway). Industrial strength encryption is very sophisticated and it would literally takes years to try and crack it (I've heard estimates of twenty-plus years). In contrast, like most movies, the hackers in this show can set up a computer and hack just about anything in ten seconds. Also, it all seems like a ridiculously large effort to make in order to ultimately obtain monetary riches (especially when earlier in the movie they can just tap into a computer system and change details instantly). Granted, the villain also has an axe to grind but it still seems like a lot of effort to go to, all things considered. Since many things today are computerized, the villains can somehow access every security camera or piece of technology *everywhere*, even though many things aren't networked (many intentionally because of that reason) or too simple for them to get to. This movie introduces Lucy McClane--John's daughter. It's cool they introduced some more of his family but she's only there to be kidnapped anyway which leads me to wonder why they bothered (we start the film with her, forget about her for most of the movie then come back to her when we need to make things more "personal" for John). All in all, this movie sounds like a disaster from my descriptions however Bruce Willis' acting and the action make it work somehow (despite the plot holes and the various stupidities in the story). It's a decent enough movie--a great popcorn flick as long as you don't think too much about what's actually going on and just want to get your action dose. I still think John McTiernan's Die Hard movies (one and three) are the best ones respectively. While Die Hard 4 is a decent action movie, McTiernan's movies managed to work on a higher level--he has his own sense of humor that gets injected in the flick and gives them an almost tongue-in-cheek flavor as well doing stories where what's happening actually makes sense (contrasted with Len Wiseman here and his/the writers lack of understanding on how what they were doing a movie about actually is supposed to work). All in all, a decent movie despite it's flaws. Recommended. July 13/07.
Transformers. For a movie that could almost be called "Independence Day 2: Transformers", appropriately enough, I watched this movie on the American Independence Day. The story starts out in the desert near Qatar and then shifts to America and teenager Sam Witwickity, who is like any other awkward teenager. He likes girls and he wants to get a car so he can impress them... little does he realize that he inadvertently buys one that's alive. The story goes on--the US soldiers that survived Qatar are attacked again but survive it and return to the states. Some analysts figure out what information the Decepticons are trying to steal and Sam has an odyssey of his own--discovering what Bumblebee really is, being attacked by a Decepticon and later meeting the rest of the Autobot gang. I think the special effects were fantastic and the background music was decent--although it was a tad overused (some scenes could've worked better without the music there to teach us how to react appropriately). As far as the story goes, I think it was decent/good. Generally, the movie worked very well for the casual fan or average movie-goer and even hardcore fans likely will find it palatable. The Autobots had just enough personality (while the Decepticons got virtually none--save maybe for Frenzy). There were some plot elements that made no sense though--the cop that interviews Sam seems like he's nuts (this is even acknowledged in the movie). The main Sector 7 agent also plays like a generic movie Man in Black and seems to exude some sort of "comical" personality that I could've done without. I think they could've easily eliminated the whole "hacking signal" and signal analysts sub-plot from the movie and it would've been better off without it (not to mention shorter then the two and a half hours that the movie was). Other little scraps of "comedy" annoyed me--like what Bumblebee does to the Sector 7 agent (as well as other things too). I also wondered at stuff like using the computer to send a morse code message over the radio--that seemed silly and implausible to me as did having Frenzy use keyboards constantly instead of just interfacing directly with the computers. Or the tidbit that all of mankind's technological advances of the last century came from the humans possessing Megatron (why do humans have to be idiots?) And, how does Bumblebee magically get his voice back in the end of the show without any repairs being done to him? All in all, a decent movie despite my nitpicks. Recommended. (July 4/07).
Sicko. The latest documentary from left wing hell raiser Michael Moore takes a look at the sorry state of health care in the United States today, detailing the origins of HMOs and how health insurance companies use every trick in the book to deny people coverage and save themselves money. He also demonstrates several health care horror stories before comparing the U.S. system to Canada, Britain and even France's and showing how they are all vastly superior. He even goes to Cuba and reveals that their socialist health care system is fundamentally better then the U.S. system's. I admit the documentary is slanted in favor of getting better health care for Americans, but I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. Frankly, their system is terrible and in desperate need of reform. Whether you're American or not, this is a thought provoking documentary and something you should see. Highly recommended. (June 25/07). * - I saw an early screening, btw.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The third movie I've seen lately that also happens to be a the third in a series (Spidey 3, Shrek 3 now this). Unlike those films though, Pirates 3 doesn't disappoint. It's chock full of the same over the top action and comedy that made the first two so great to watch. All the actors are at the top of their respective games as are the special effects people. Pirates 3 is also a long movie, clocking in at two and a half hours but you never sit still for any of it. I have two story complaints however. One storyline, regarding Davey Jones and his lost love didn't feel entirely resolved--I would've liked to have seen a little more of an ending to it then what we got. Also, one of the main characters ends up in a bad situation at the end of the movie which seemed like a bad story choice (although, one could argue that without that twist the character doesn't get as much to do in this film and ultimately has a lot less reason for being there). Still, there's something to be said for not over-analyzing a popcorn flick too much--it's best to just turn off your brain and enjoy the ride with a movie like this one. It seems like Pirates 3 wraps up the story conclusively, which is good. Three of these movies were fun but if they try for another I think they might be pushing things too much... Highly Recommended. May 26/07.
Shrek The Third. I went into this one hoping to like it but unfortunately I found it was exactly what I was expecting. There are many funny jokes peppered throughout Shrek 3, but sadly there isn't much of a story ("thread-bare" is a fair description of the story in this film). Where the first Shrek was well written and had an anti-fairy tale theme, the second one felt like poor imitation* and this third chapter just feels like they're trying to milk a concept that proved popular while having nothing new to really say. Pass. May 21/07.
(* - my initial review of it was positive but over time, frankly, I can't even recall what happened in it. Never a good sign. At any rate, other then the Puss-in-Boots character, Shrek 2 wasn't that great. Good, yes, but not great.)
Spiderman 3. The next thrilling chapter in the greatest superhero film franchise yet... I had both high expectations and concerns going into this film and it looks like I was right to be worried. This outing has Green Goblin 2, the Sandman and Venom as the villains leading to a potentially crowded movie. All the principles are back, as well as director Sam Raimi (apparently Danny Elfman didn't do the music this time around--but the new guy stuck to the established themes so there wasn't much difference). I don't think Spidey 3 is a bad movie by any means but it suffers from the same problem many shows do--too many villains, which leads to too much story and a plot that meanders a bit. We start on Peter Parker, then Goblin then some of the Sandman, etc. Whereas the first two movies are fairly tight story-wise, the third one has so much material to cover it sometimes get lost in the shuffle. The people I saw the movie with and I agree that they really should've lost a villain and concentrated on what remained. This movie does have some good moments--Peter's increasing ego over New Yorkers' good will to Spiderman and his personality when in possession of the symbiotic suit. There also some dumb parts too--like what Harry does to Peter and MJ in the film. I also felt some of the Sandman's effects were a bit too obviously cgi--although, to be fair, a large man made of sand will end up looking fake no matter how much money you put into making it. I didn't mind how the movie ended overall but wished the Goblin plot had been resolved a bit differently. I also enjoyed Gwen Stacy's addition to the cast--even though she plays a different role then she traditionally did in the comics. Some of action sequences were too fast to be able to follow easily--like the opening Spidey/Goblin battle, for instance. A good movie, but it could've been more... mildly recommended. May 6/07.
Grindhouse. The strange double feature "B" movie that pays homage to the schlock movies of the 60s and 70s and the places where they were played. The movie starts with a mock trailer for Machete then goes on to Planet Terror (both by Robert Rodriguez). Of the two shorts of the movie, I found Planet Terror to be the best. It was simple in it's plot (zombies vs. survivors) and I think that made it work... by not bogging the plot down too much, it allowed Rodriguez to focus on the little things in the movie. After Planet Terror, we had several more mock trailers--all of which were amusing in their own way. Then came Tarentino's Death Proof. A story about a psycho that stalks women and then kills them with his super car. Death Proof was good in some aspects but the long character stuff in the beginning bogged it down a little. Still, the killer (Kurt Russell) was made interesting here too. Once the deed is committed, though, he apparently targets some more women some time later. Then it becomes a case of rinse and repeat. More long dialogue, establishing these women and what they do, blah, blah... then, Stuntman Mike finds them somehow and tries to kill them all. But they won't be quite so easy prey... At first, I thought maybe the second women were a flashback or something but I may have assumed wrong from the editing, which didn't make it clear. Either way, apparently Mike becomes really stupid in-between times. Where his first murder incident was well plotted out this time he just gets out there with no forethought and things go wrong. Add to that, both groups of women were irritating and I was kinda disappointed by the outcome of his second encounter. Death Proof also fails to tell us much about the killer and his motivations--I understand this is aping a bad "b" movie but it was a detail that would've helped (even if it ended up being something stupid/funny). Planet Terror used the "missing reel" trick to cut down some of the unnecessary running around in it's story--and that worked for both time and comedy in it's case. In Death Proof, I think a little more background and a little less repetition would've helped. Perhaps it's flaws were intentional--Tarentino mocking some movie(s) of which I'm not aware but if so, I didn't get the reference and feel a bit let down by that one. All in all, though, a worthwhile movie experiment and I wouldn't object to seeing more such things in the future (although Grindhouse flopped at the box office so I doubt it'll happen). Recommended. Apr. 18/07.
300. A movie form of Frank Miller's graphic novel. A violent movie with some nudity/sexuality in it as well. It appears to be a fairly faithful adaption of the graphic novel (never read it but from what I've seen of the thing). Some of the movie seemed over the top (corny speeches, overdone appearances of some of the bad guys) but generally it was an entertaining story (it's best not to think too much while watching it). The cgi backgrounds, like with Sin City, worked quite well and although the blood splattering was cgi, it wasn't too distracting (they filmed most of the movie on a sound stage in Quebec, btw).I also immensely enjoyed Leonidas' needless yelling throughout the movie--it made things fun, in a goofy kind of way. A good comic adaption movie and a good popcorn romp as well. Recommended. (Mar. 25/07).
