Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Spectre (2015)
Crap-re
Casino Royale was definitely the Bond film that made Bond interesting again. Great plot, some awesome action scenes, and actors who chew up the scenery, and a back to the basics Bond. Unfortunately, Quantum of Solace went south, but I thought that there was room for recovery. Unfortunately, did not see Skyfall, but got an idea of what happened.
That leads us to Spectre. I will cut to the chase: this is reminiscent of the loony Roger Moore Bond films, but with more crazy action scenes, and a plot akin to Moonraker. While there are some great performances from the supporting cast like Ralph Fiennes, Naomi Harris, Ben Whishaw, and even Andrew Scott, the main cast is half-baked at best. Daniel Craig looks tired of playing Bond, while Lea Seydoux is more eye candy, and doesn't add any substance to the film. Waltz as Blofeld basically is a different version of Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds". Plotwise, it basically is Bond infiltrating Spectre. The relationship between Bond and Blofeld starts out interestingly enough, but instead of fleshing it out, it is left to languish. Coupled with continued appearances from the mean looking David Bautista (who is a mix of Odd Job and Jaws), this Bond film basically languishes into obscurity. Beautiful scenery, and lots of action, but very silly at points. You can check it out if you want to waste some time, but I will leave my good memories with Casino Royale.
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)
I've seen better films out of Bollywood
If you have seen a Bollywood film, you know most are all flash with very little substance. Unfortunately, I would have taken one of those over this rubbish.
I picked it up on the great reviews I had heard, and watched it in Blu-Ray. When the beginning credits start rolling, when I saw that China TV and Alibaba were financing this, I had a hunch this was going to be bad.
Without giving too much away, this is a Tom Cruise love fest, with a rehash of old stories. Once again, IMF is in trouble, but this time from the Feds for funding and incorporation into the CIA. All because one agent (Ethan Hunt) believes in the "Syndicate" and there is collateral damage. Hey, this is like the first movie when he gets "NOC"'ed off and has to prove himself innocent. Action is always with a suit that somehow can weather the worst of conditions (off an airplane, bombing, fights, desert, etc.). The bad guy somehow has the unique insight to be indefeasible until Hunt is able to use some plot that appears to be hatched out of a Shamylan picture. Plot is pretty much a skeleton of the last few MI films, with some "twists" (which are pretty lame) in between. The supporting cast is basically there to give either humor (Pegg), crazy technical assistance (Rhames), glam (Ferguson), or just a warm body (Renner). Man, I could have used a few musical numbers with Cruise and Ferguson in some outlandish outfits with backup dancers to spice this movie up!
That being said, the action scenes are kind of cool if you watch them in a vacuum. In context to the plot, they become tiresome; either they drag too long, or they fail in the sense of "Everyone else is deaf, dumb and blind". I would rather watch Jackie Chan fight scenes from his worst movies; at least I know he is taking a beating for real, they work in context of the film, and he can make it look good.
While I understand that the MI films are what Tom Cruise can bank on for a check, it gets pretty stale when comparing the MI show of the 60s. The TV show at least had everyone participating in a pivotal role to carry out their mission. It never was about Phelps, Collier, Hand, or Armitage; they all worked together to make the mission work. Tom's MI film are him doing the dirty job so he gets the glory.
Old Tom is getting up there in age, and it really shows in this film. He needs to let some more talented actors (not just one, but 3-4) take the reigns of the franchise and just produce it. Grow up Tom. Even Burt Lancaster knew when to hang up the action movies.
Don't waste your $1.50 rental on this film ($1 on DVD)
Bronson (2008)
Awesome Independent flick about one of Britain's most notorious prisoners
Being a non-Brit, I had seen this on Netflix as a recommendation, and as Tom Hardy was in it and directed by Nicholas Refn, I had to check it out.
I was definitely not disappointed. First, this is Tom Hardy's vehicle, and he chews up every scene to the max, while relishing the subtleties of the role. He plays Bronson as a violent simpleton; a relatively nice bloke, but always raring for a fight for petty reasons; along the way, his portrayal of Bronson is one where the character is expresses himself as a (literal) fighter, despite trying other outlets. Some of the scenes are hilarious and thoroughly off the wall.
I highly recommend the film for anyone who wants a film that is totally off the wall, while maintaining a sense of humor. While it would be easy to compare to "Fight Club", this tends to stick with a more realistic scenario, while still managing to entertain.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012)
Mehhhh....
Saw it with my 4 year old son. New to the Madagascar movies, but you really didn't have to know the background as 5 minutes in this movie will get you up to speed.
Overall, I wasn't to impressed (and neither was my son). It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great. Many adult oriented jokes (not nasty, just way above a kid's head), some that hit it off, and some which were just OK. My son wanted to leave after 45 minutes because he was bored (I convinced him to stay). Some nice morals in the film.
However, was it worth a matinée for me and my child ($13)? I think not. I would have rather rented it at Redbox for a dollar. Even Cars 2, which I felt was more adult oriented, kept my son entertained infinitely better.
Prometheus (2012)
Above average sci-fi film in the Alien universe (but not making the alien the star)
I loved "Alien" and "Aliens", mainly because of the older, mature cast in different situations: The first Alien was a horror movie, while the second one was an action film.
That being said, when going to "Prometheus", know that it takes place in the universe as Alien/Aliens, but occurs many decades out, on a different planet, and touches on the actual alien itself in passing. I feel that too many viewers are expecting a direct Alien prequel, which it definitely it isn't. Also, I would classify this more as a sci-fi mystery/drama.
I actually appreciated this film a lot, as it touches on some pretty interesting concepts from "Bladerunner" (many reminiscent of Roy Batty's quest to the Tyrell Corporation). The most fascinating character in the film is easily David the android (played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender), whose cool and calculating demeanor are in some ways central to the emotive mirror in the second most fascinating character, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, who I thought was on par with Sigourney Weaver's Ripley).
Special effects and set designs were fantastic. There were many Giger elements in here, and the sets and landscapes were beautiful. I did not see the 3D version, but I may reconsider as there are some beautiful scenes that 3D would have accentuated well. If I had an issue, it would be that the tech shown appeared to be much more polished and advanced than what was seen in Alien/Aliens.
As for the story itself, I have seen many reviews ripping on the logic of some characters and their motives as well as some of the scenes. I think a lot of it can be explained away (there is a nice "FAQ" on this site on the forums explaining the many issues). If I did have a criticism, though, was that the movie was paced a little faster than I expected. I would have really liked hear more of the David/Elizabeth interactions, which would have brought a more intellectual bend to the movie. As for the Lindelof treatment of leaving things hang, I actually do appreciate it. At least that way, I know I am expecting a sequel (I am sure there will be one). I will, however, be let down if the sequel has nothing to do with path followed by the lead characters at the end of the film.
Overall, great film. I would recommend those who have not seen at least the first "Alien" to watch it for some (small) background. I also think that time(and quite possibly the sequels) will determine if it is a great film or not.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)
Better than MI2, on par with MI1
OK, a few things before the review: a) I hated MI2--the MI series went from team mentality to Tom Cruise as James Bond outing; b) enjoyed MI1 for its team ops, but ended becoming a little too much of a Tom Cruise vehicle; c) skipped MI3 as this was during Tom Cruise's Scientology head-trips; d) was convinced by my friends to watch MI4 after someone bought my ticket.
MI4 is definitely better than what I expected for the Tom Cruise MI flicks. Yes, it still is a Tom Cruise love fest, but definitely much more team dynamics than I expected. If there was a real star here, it would be Jeremy Renner as Brandt, the IMF analyst with a past; he is tough, but brings humanity to the character he plays. Also, glad to see that Paula Patton was great as Jane, another IMF agent, without being the romantic object of Ethan Hunt--plus, it's great to see a female hang as tough as the other IMF agents. Simon Pegg does bring in the comic relief, but sometimes could be a little annoying. While I like Michael Nyqvist from his role in the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" series, his role here could have easily been played by another actor (Stellan Skaargard comes to mind). That being said, action got to the point that it got a little too overwhelming at times. The Burj Khalifa scene, while fun to watch, had so many twists and turns (as well as big holes--who (guest included) wouldn't notice a guy going up all these windows or glass falling from it)) it became humorous. The race scene in Mumbai was a laugh--if you've been in Mumbai, you know that traffic is so anarchic, any vehicle in a chase would end up in a crash. At least it got realistic when there was a big pedestrian crossing.
In the end, for me, this was a better MI than I expected, but still the emphasis is on making Tom Cruise look great. As my wife, who is from India said: Tom Cruise is the "Govinda" of American films. For the uninitiated to Bollywood, Govinda is an popular Indian actor-dancer who will find himself in the most unlikely and impossible of action scenarios, but will always pull it off with a smirk of his pearly whites.
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
Great adventure even for those who have not read Tintin
A brief background: It seems that Tintin is popular everywhere in the world except the US. Even Indians have heard of him. My wife was dying to see it, and I had read one volume I bought her; entertaining, but I was certainly not a huge fan.
Now the movie: very entertaining film. The film tries not to stray away from the depictions of many of the characters of the comic, as well as mannerisms. You certainly won't get the same style of storytelling that you saw in the Herge comics, but the story is as intricate and fun to follow as Spielberg's previous adventure outings. Caat is excellent in all respects, especially Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock. While the action may be more dynamic than what was in the Tintin comics, it is certainly fun and exciting. The CGI is great, especially for translating a comic (a live film would have only detracted from the storytelling). And all this was without watching the 3D version.
Overall, even if you have never heard of Tintin, or are vaguely familiar, it will be a fun ride.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Now watch this movie or I shall taunt you for a second time!
I will preface this by saying that while I'm not a big Monty Python fan, when they get it right, it is brilliant. The show had some great sketches, but some were just bizarre and incomprehensible. The movie is 100% on the mark, starting from the titles with subtitles to its off the wall ending.
It would be a disservice to explain the movie and the great scenes in this review. But a few things to note.
First, when you take into account that this film was done in 1974, most medieval movies of the time were glamorous set pieces with handsome knights and beautiful princesses. The Pythons skewered this notion completely: Arthur and his knights were commonplace blokes, and the sets were in some muggy, ugly areas. This may have been a budgetary issue, but interestingly enough, they probably depicted medieval England more authentically than even films nowadays.
Second, the amount of times the fourth wall is broken are numerous, and just goes to shows how dementedly hilarious the movie gets, but yet still holds the story well.
That said, if you have never seen Monty Python (who hasn't?), this is a whole different level of comedy--yes, silly is about right, but not in the crude "Paul Blart" or "Larry the Cable Guy" type of silly, but at the same time, not the cerebral "Dr. Strangelove" type of silliness.
Must watch.
Raajneeti (2010)
Better than average, but no cigar
Wife recommended this film, so I watched. Overall, a better than average flick, but no cigar. The first part of the film is definitely the meatiest part of this film, where it starts as a modern day allegory of the Mahabharata embroiled in Indian politics--very fascinating. However, where it descends to trash is the second part, when scenes are ripped off scenes from "Godfather" and "Hard Boiled", and the story climaxes into an abysmal heap of dung. Worse yet, there is some pretty nice acting from all the actors involved, including non-actress Katrina Kaif. To aspiring Indian film makers, the first half of this film is how to improve Bollywood.
Being There (1979)
The Genius of Peter Sellers and Hal Ashby
Unfortunately, not many in this generation have heard of Peter Sellers, especially since they are used to the bad acting from "reality" shows. While his apex was probably during "Dr. Strangelove" (playing 3 different characters), he was known for being the chameleon, even before David Bowie. That is why "Being There" is so interesting; Sellers plays an individual with no personality.
Now this may sound paradoxical, but to play the a simpleton is no ordinary task; as Kirk Lazarus from "Tropic Thunder" said: "Everybody knows you never go full retard" (he even mentions "Being There"). And in a lesser actor's hands, that's where this movie would have gone. Sellers and Ashby take their time with making you be familiar with the character, which surprisingly takes only a few minutes.
This is not to say that everyone else's performance was dismal. If anything, Melvyn Douglas as the Randian capitalist with a good heart comes out strong, and Shirley McClaine as his conflicted wife is entertaining. But the fact is that Sellers and Ashby are the glue that holds this film together.
About comparisons to Forest Gump: I'm not going to say that "Gump" is a shameless rip-off, but the story sure borrows a lot from "Being There". Furthermore, "Gump" is more of a reminiscence film, with too many subtleties spelled out, and too long. Furthermore, while I admire Hanks as an actor as a whole, his performance as "Gump" is amateurish compared to Sellers--yes, I believe Sellers deserved the Oscar even over Hoffman in "Kramer vs. Kramer".
Overall, an impressive film with masters of acting and directing giving a good, story with none of the fluff. A must watch.
Basic Instinct (1992)
Waste of patience and money
Come on all! I really don't get it what all the great reviews are about! This was a horrible film, and I like Verhoeven! If you want a better take on this film, see "The Fourth Man", Verhoeven's earlier film with many of the similar elements, but creepier, gorier, and (darkly) funnier. Watching this film was pure torture, from watching Sharon Stone perform "necrophilia" (on Douglas), to Douglas' saggy bottom, to some stereotypical "gotcha"'s. As for performance, Sharon Stone was decent, but Oscar-worthy? No way! Michael Douglas gave his same middle aged, sex-driven role he has done in other films. Jeanne Tripplehorn was also good as an actress, but wasted as it appeared the director had a hard time deciding what to do with her. As for the no-panty scene, just over-rated; this may have been big in the 90s, but with paparazzi getting these same shots out of current starlets, this is no big deal; it wasn't like there was this big vessel of awe in there--many other European movies have shown the same thing. Verhoeven is much better than this trash. Don't bother even renting for $1.
You Don't Know Jack (2010)
Beautiful performance for a poignant subject
After seeing "You Don't Know Jack", two things stood out. First, the acting in this film is first rate. Pacino seems to have left his high-voiced, bravura performances we had been seeing since "Scent of a Woman" (exception: Donnie Brasco), and gone back to his roots from the Strasberg school. We forget we are watching Pacino, and think we are watching Kevorkian. The supporting actors are brilliant: Brenda Vaccaro is first rate, and Susan Sarandon it at her best. Also kudos to Danny Huston, who does a great Jeffrey Feiger, and John Goodman as Kevorkian's assistant. Second, the subject matter of euthanasia is handled very matter-of-fact. We see why the people decided to end their life, as well as the fact that not all subjects interviewed were given the service. But more importantly, the film explores commitment to the cause, decisions for euthanasia, and active vs. passive euthanasia. Whether you are an advocate or not, it is a compelling film to watch. 10/10.
Salt (2010)
Waste of $1
Got this from Redbox after it was recommended to me by brother-in-law.
Quite frankly, it sucked a big one. While I don't expect action thrillers to have that much in the way of plot evolution, this movie was to the point of ludicrous. With its multiple twists, do you really expect a sane individual to even get into the flick? By the time half of the movie was over, my wife and I were laughing at the defiance of the law of physics and ridiculous plot convolutions that it made a Bollywood film look like "Hamlet". And worst still, it takes itself too seriously.
Angelina Jolie is quickly becoming the female "Nicholas Cage", acting in stupid flicks with stupid plots while giving her silly pouts; worse yet, she has good potential as a good actress, as seen in "Gia" or even "Changeling". Direction is competent, but I was surprised to see Philip Noyce ("Patriot Games", "Rabbit Proof Fence") directed, since he has done better films in the past. When I found out Kurt Wimmer ("Equilibrium", "Ultraviolet") wrote it, I finally figured out why this was a stupid flick to begin with. The rest of the cast, while potentially good, went wasted.
Please don't waste your money on this garbage. Hollywood, please stop wasting money on trash like this.
Män som hatar kvinnor (2009)
Better than average, but lacks depth
I was half-way into reading the book when I decided to catch the movie because of the hype. Wife never read the book. After viewing the film, while I enjoyed it better than the average American thriller, I was not as overwhelmed by it as the hype surrounding the film. To give it credit, the two protagonists, Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Bloomqvist, are definitely an interesting crime solving duo, and one of the most unique in recent times. Both the actors do a good job with their characters. However, while the book takes its time in delving into the the intricacies of the mystery, I felt that the movie kind of cut out some of the interesting relationships that kept you interested in the story. Also, a key element in the book (Venestrom affair) were briefly alluded to in the movie, but are probably key in making this story more poignant. Wife and I both agree that while not overwhelming, it did jog our interest to see the second movie. Personally, would have waited for the rental. I am interested to see if the Hollywood version can make itself more powerful, but will wait for reviews before even considering going to see it.
Avatar (2009)
Technically beautiful; story lacking
After gathering my thoughts, I will preface this by saying this is a difficult film to review. Specifically, while there were some things I liked about the movie, there are other things I found off-putting.
First, let's highlight the strengths. Technically, this was a beautiful film to watch. To get a good experience, I would definitely recommend this in 3D rather than 2D. The imagination put into the world, coupled with the computer imagery, are definitely gripping. The development of the alien species and planet of Pandora was also very remarkable, from language to culture. The special effects are definitely a step towards making computer imagery more lifelike than ever (however, I will stop short of saying "like nothing you'll ever see...more later). Second, Sam Worthington is the anchor of this movie; very charismatic, but does punctuate his performance with some subtleties that make him more human than others. Third, the sci-fi technology is believable, in the vein of the 2 "Alien" movies.
That being said, let's hit the weaknesses. First and foremost, the story was almost a complete rip of "Dances with Wolves", except in space. Very off-putting, as I think for the time and effort that was put into the film and development of the aliens, I was expecting something more original. Come to think of it, it reminded me of another popcorn movie, Independence Day, but took itself more seriously. Special effects are nice, but if a story is lacking, it can make the experience tedious. Second, when considering the other performances apart from Worthington's (and I include alien ones), they were relatively flat or overacted. Even poor Sigourney Weaver, an actress I really like on the whole, was underutilised in her role. Third, I previously stressed that the movie had to be seen in 3D; I say this because prior to going into this film, I had seen previews, and was not very convinced of the ground-breaking effects. The 3D experience definitely enhances the viewing experience (though I wouldn't say it's a roller-coaster ride), but I could easily say if I had seen it in 2D, my review may have been lower. Finally, like I previously said, the effects were a step above computer imagery as we have seen it. But would I say it had the same gripping experience of first seeing "Star Wars", or the T-1000 of "Terminator 2", or even the computer generated scenery of "Phantom Menace" (which I gave a similar rating for based on story)? Definitely not.
In conclusion, I would still recommend watching the movie, with some conditions. First, it must be seen in 3D (IMAX if possible); 2D would only spoil the experience (would definiely not rent it until 3D TV comes out). Second, story expectations should be low (like going to see an IMAX museum film--go for the scenery, discard the story). In the end, it reminded me of my experience listening to Sgt. Pepper; I appreciate the historical technical advances it made, and even like parts of the album, but would still put other albums well above it from a satisfaction standpoint.
Watchmen (2009)
Great Rendition of the Novel, but lost its appeal
I read Watchmen 6 years ago, and absolutely loved it. I had heard through the websites that the movie was going to be made, but never thought that it would happen. Then I saw the preview at "The Dark Knight", and I knew it would be pretty close to the novel.
Now I've finally seen the movie, what I can say is this: Great rendition of the novel, but the appeal that the graphic novel had is still lost on screen. Watchmen the novel took what we who read comics knew as convention and spun it on its head, while taking a piece on how superheroes would function in "the real world", and presented the adult themes in comics, with a lot of "annotations" and symbolism. Watchmen the movie pretty much took the functionality part of it, while portraying superheroes as semi-flawed (which the novel does); however, these ideas have already been made into movies (maybe not good ones, but it's been done). The result is the audiobook equivalent of the graphic novel--one person's abridged interpretation of a masterpiece. Now, to give the movie credit, the effects are beautiful, and the acting (esp. Jackie Haley as Rorsharch) is good; heck, even the climax/end is more plausible/convincing than the novel's. However, as I watch this movie, I think that if this had been made 20 years before, it would have been to movies what the graphic novel was to comics. Definitely nice watch, but not earthshattering.
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Dark Knight realized
I'll first start w/ saying that if you haven't seen "Batman Begins", you should grab the DVD and watch it, as it will set a little background that may be needed for the first few scenes, and (if you haven't seen Batman since the Tim Burton/Schumacher era) you will be surprised by the 180 degree turn in tone and maturity.
That said, "The Dark Knight" is to "Batman Begins" as "Empire Strikes Back" is to "Star Wars"...more fleshed out, better acting, and better action. The fact that Mr. Nolan uses "real" actors helps the film better juggle the multiple characters with more ease. A lot has been said about Mr. Ledger's Joker, and I agree that it is probably one of the most cunning, pathological characters ever put to screen. However, credit has to be given to Mr. Bale, whose presence as Batman/Bruce Wayne gives the anchor the film would need rather than being lopsided (i.e. Burton's Batman). But the most kudos goes to Chris Nolan, for putting together one of the best, most "realistic" superhero films ever put to celluloid. The actions scenes are a mix of wit and adrenaline, but we are still brought back to great drama and story, which in all make the film tight.
My only issue (and this is where I'll give a deduction of 0.5) is that the ending does leave you feeling that there was less closure than would be anticipated. Nonetheless, this is the Batman film I've been longing for as an adult, and am looking forward to the 3rd one with much anticipation.
9.5/10
Disturbia (2007)
Overrated
Rear Window meets teeny-bopper flick. That's basically how to describe this film. SPOILERS........this movie could have worked on a paranoia level (a la American "Dark Water") and kept along that track. However, while the first half starts out pretty decent and looks like it will lead to paranoid schizo thoughts, it segue-ways into a teen love story, and then just drops into a stupid, PG-13'esque slasher mode, with no common sense whatsoever. Many lapses in story telling (e.g. where's Mom through half the story) coupled with a stereotypical ending should have made this a direct-to-DVD flick instead. Only saving grace may be Shaia LeBeouf, who is charismatic, and has potential to go places. Otherwise, pure fluff.
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)
Overrated
I liked the small clips of Borat I saw on Ali G, so I really was looking forward to seeing this film. However, after watching it, some of the gags worked, while others were plain terrible.
Let me preface the following by saying I'm not adverse to offensive humor...hey, I love South Park. However, while South Park uses its humor to convey a (almost always) great message, "Borat" is filled with scatological humor that gets tiring after 40 minutes with nowhere to go. No doubt, the "wrestling scene" was hilarious, but with its multiple allusions to sex and body excrement, I got tired of it after a while. I think if half the sex/BE jokes were left out, and Borat was more "gullible" than his horny self and an uninitiated stranger to the American ways in a more realistic way (e.g. not presenting feces at a dinner table), this would have been a classic. But as some folks that I saw it with said..."in the end, the Americans won, because it showed them to be on the whole much kinder than the mind behind Borat". While it may be a satire on people, it did not do so convincingly, and in the end, I think I could have waited for it on DVD.
6/10.
Sam gang 2 (2004)
Disturbing...but enticing
Saw this with the wife. Interestingly, she was grossed out, but enjoyed it. ****Possible spoilers ahead***
Think of this as "Creepshow", but more disturbing on a mental level. "Dumplings"--the HK extreme-- will definitely gross out the average viewer, but can be seen as an allegory to the trends of beauty today. "Cut"--the Korean extreme--brings some of Park Chanwook's themes of the "Vengeance" trilogy into a 40 minute segment. Very nerve-racking. "Box"--the Japanese experience--pretty standard Miike a la Gozu. But extremely entertaining.
While nowhere as disturbing as "Audition", these three would pack a wallop in any American theatre. Savor it...
Superman Returns (2006)
Better than I expected...
I went in expecting this to be a teeny bopper version of Superman. Well, I was surprised (and shouldn't have been, being Bryan Singer was on it). Essentially, this is more a continuance of the original series rather than a complete rehash (which is also what I expected). First, big kudos to Kevin Spacey, who gives a more accurate Lex Luthor than Gene Hackman ever did (not to mention funnier). Second, the new Superman pretty much holds his own against Christopher Reeve's portrayal, with a little more goofiness as Clark. Everyone else pretty much did a great job.
However, one noticeable improvement over the first 4: the effects. I recently saw Superman 3, and looking at the effects now, they were pretty lame (good for their time, though). We all know CGI has come a long way, and let's face it: looking back at the first 4, while technological marvels of their time, they were not the most convincing things. So the effects would be like comparing the Harryhausen dinosaurs from King Kong to the CGI dinosaurs from Jurassic Park. Similarly, the effects help propel the story.
Only negative comment: it is long--2.5 hours at my count (see IMDb for more accurate timing), which made the film drag at times, but otherwise, great popcorn flick.
Forrest Gump (1994)
Reelin' in the years..."Being There"
Saw this in the IMDb 250, and couldn't believe it was ranked this high. Quite frankly, very sappy film about a mentally challenged individual and how he influences key events through his life. I liked it when it first came out, but every time I see it on TV, I realize that this is a terrible movie. Essentially, it's a baby-boomer's movie reminiscing about the events of times past. And the more I see it, it reminds me of an earlier, even craftier movie with a simple-minded character which was far more intelligent than this film will ever be..."Being There" with Peter Sellers. Essentially the same story, but Sellers pulls of the role more convincingly and the story unfolds much better. Forget this film--"Being There" is the film to watch.
Chocolate: Deep Dark Secrets (2005)
How not to remake a film
Pure trash. That about sums it up. Essentially, this is "The Usual Suspects" done by Bollywood while trying to do a half-baked Tarantino dialogue. This could have been a decent re-make, but the stories do not gel, the acting is horrible, the songs make you vomit ("I am a shot of tequila, but don't tell my mommy"--what class) and the dialogue is some of the most ridiculous to come out of Bollywood. Should be called "Boom Part 2". The problem here is one that Bollywood makes time and time again: try to copy the new western films while trying to put Indian elements in it. Another problem is you try to show that Western ideas only equate to Taliban and and sex, and that does not make a film. Bollywood should stick to the old formula of film naiveté (a la the 70's and late 80's films) and not try to be the next Rodriguez/Tarantino/Singer.
A History of Violence (2005)
More complex than its source
I had the pleasure of reading the graphic novel before watching the film, which is a rarity for me. The graphic novel is a relatively straightforward novel about the main character's history of violence. Director David Cronenberg, however, is more complicated than this novel, as we have seen in his films like "The Fly", "Dead Ringers" and even "Crash". In Cronenberg's hands, the novel is transformed into an essay on violence and how it starts to interweave within society. Don't expect all-out action from this film, which is why I think some did not like it. My only reason not to give it a 10 were the 2 sex scenes. It's not that the scenes themselves were bad, but they really were unnecessary, and if anything, broke the continuity of the story. But judging from his past movies, Cronenberg has some issues with sex.
Performances are top par for the most part. Viggo Mortenson, while superficially flat, does convey the dilemma and the agony of the character extremely well. Ed Harris portrays his menacing character with such ease, yet avoids the caricature that others may have made it be. Even Ashton Holmes as the son does a superb job in showing adolescent turmoil. But the biggest surprise was William Hurt. Hurt, while always a good actor, is usually pretty laid back in most characters he plays. In this, he puts those roles aside and gives one of his most enigmatic, yet capturing performances to date. As for Maria Bello, she's adequate as the wife, but apart from the last scene in the movie, did not leave a mark of remembrance.
Great film overall. Just don't expect this to be an action film.
Constantine (2005)
Dangerous Habits...
"Dangerous Habits" is the title of the Hellblazer graphic novel upon which "Constantine" is based. It is also a decent description of the pattern that Hollywood has recently been taking to adapting graphic novels. While I do accept that movies that are adapted from novels need a little trimming, Hollywood had the habit of re-writing the whole premise to make it "original". "Sin City" was really the one true exception, but in turn, it almost created a backlash for the director.
The cast is (for the most part) exceptional. Rachel Wiesz as the detective with an unknown power is charming as always. Tilda Swinton does her androgynous turn as the angel Gabriel, Djimon Hounsou as the African mystic Midnite is perfect, and Peter Stomare, a great character actor recently seen as the torturer in "The Brothers Grimm", puts a nice touch on the Satan character. Heck, even Gavin Rossdale from Bush is fun as the half-breed demon Balthazar.
But unfortunately, Keanu Reeves is cast as Constantine--mistake one. Anyone who has read Hellblazer knows that even in the dreariest of moments, Constantine has a little life in him. Reeves, on the other hand, decides to redo Neo as a psychic detective with wood in his heart. Not good. Mistake two--the script falls on its face. We never truly understand why Satan and his minions want to torture Constantine so bad. The explanation given was so weak that Satan would have a grudge on many more people than just Constantine. Also, Constantine from the novel was always selfish, and would always use magic to resolve his problems, which only created more problems for himself and those he loved. Not necessarily in this case. In this movie, he is a relatively moral character. The role of the other characters are pretty much warped from the original story. Finally, by trying to use elements of one novel with a mutation of another ("Dangerous Habits" and "Son of Man", respectively), the filmmakers cram too much in to even develop any characters.
On the whole, Constantine is a relatively fun flick, but a)check your logic in at the front desk, and b) Hellblazer fans should think twice before seeing it.