X-Men Review

I've seen this movie a bunch of times.  This is the first time I've seen it since I started reviewing movies on this weblog though.  So, if I've seen it so many times, you can imagine that I like it.  I do.  It is a very well done comic book movie.  It makes the changes necessary to adapt it to the big screen (no stupid costumes), it is well written and it is built to be a franchise.

For an action movie that came out 11 years ago, X-Men's special effects age very well.  Part of this is due to the quality of them but I believe that it is mostly due to the fact that the film does not rely on effects nearly as much as it relies on a strong story and good characters that are decently acted.  This is where it loses a bit.  Only three of the actors give above average performances.  The rest are either average or below.  There is really no reason to make Anna Paquin have a southern accent that seems forced just to have it disappear halfway through the movie.

Hugh Jackman is the perfect man to play Wolverine.  He's got the look and the ability to play a "don't really care" kind of guy.  Ian McKellan is great as a villain with a chip on his shoulder even if he plays a guy who grew up in either Poland or Germany and magically acquired a British accent.  Finally, Patrick Stewart is always nothing but class.  Even when he's playing a guy who writes a movie about women getting naked (Extras) or the proprietor of an erotic bakery (Saturday Night Live).

The bottom line is see it.  It is just long enough to not leave anything out and it moves fast enough to keep your interest for the whole thing.

Vegas Vacation Review

I must admit, it took me 14 years to see this movie.  The only reason I did see it is because it came in a four-pack with the other three Vacation movies for $10 at Shoppers Drug Mart.  While it is still entertaining in its own way, it is by far the worst of the four.  I know I shouldn't expect too much from it because it is a Vacation movie.  But most of the time it just felt like they weren't trying.  For example, if they had spent just a few extra dollars, the green-screened shots of Clark at the Hoover Dam would have been much better.  I was also very disappointed in Randy Quaid (there's five words I never thought I'd have to say).  His character, while hilarious in the others is just bad here.

The whole movie is a lot like the others in the fact that there's very little story and it's just Chevy Chase's antics.  I will admit that his antics do make this movie watchable.  It is near impossible to not find Chevy Chase's subtlety funny.  But, for some reason, it did not seem to hold this movie together like with the other three.  I think part of the problem is that Audrey and Rusty are not complete losers in this one like they are in the others.  In the other movies, Clark is actually the least loserish of the bunch and it just doesn't feel the same.

That being said, there are a few redeeming qualities in this film.  I've already mentioned Chase's antics.  Those are quite good; especially his interactions with Wallace Shawn (the Blackjack dealer).  The scene with Clark in the dive casino playing the ludicrous games was quite funny too.  And, finally, Beverly D'Angelo is still smokin' hot (at least she was in 1997.  I have no idea about now); especially in the dress Wayne Newton gives her.

I'd say if you really feel the need to round off the whole franchise, you'll probably want to spend the 90 minutes.  Bad enough for me to say don't do that.  But, failing that, don't see it.  Watch Vacation or European Vacation and get the same type of movie but much better (Christmas Vacation is really different but just as good).

Dancer in the Dark Review

It had been a while since I had been to a movie night at Karl's.  When Shauna disclosed that she had chosen a musical that starred Bjork, I was kind of wishing I had waited another week.  But, as it turns out, this movie is very good.

It is a very tragic tale of Selma (Bjork), a Communist refugee in the 50s whose life is the polar opposite of her favourite movie genre, the musical.  It does a very good job of juxtaposing her ideal life with her actual life.  I originally thought that it would have made a fantastic tragedy without the musical numbers.  And I still think it would have been a very good movie.  However, when you add in the musical numbers in the manner that they did, it creates that much more depth and lets you see into Selma's mind so much better.  The songs (written by Bjork) have raw lyrics that evoke thoughts of being written by children.  But it's all the imagination of a simple person and not really meant to move the plot like a conventional musical.  The musical scenes come at times when Selma's life is falling apart.  This is the exact opposite of most musicals out there.  In fact, they even bring up the point that nothing bad ever happens in a musical.  The musical scenes in Dancer show you how Selma wants her world to be.  Lars von Trier shows this entire juxtaposition brilliantly by using vastly different camera work and lighting from the main scenes.

The acting in this film is very good too.  I was surprised because normally, musicians are pretty bad in films (even musicals).  I never thought I'd see the day where anything Bjork did made sense, but she does a fantastic job of playing the adorable innocent girl who cannot control her life spinning away from her.  There is not a point in this movie where you don't want to just jump into the screen and save Selma.  The supporting cast is very solid as well even if none of them can sing.  But it isn't about how they sing.  It's about how Selma wants them to be.  As an aside, I also especially liked how David Morse played the "back against the wall" character.  He's just so good at playing the guy you want to hate.

Definitely see it.  While it is long (2.25 hours), the last half hour or so is so powerful that it makes the wait worthwhile.

Thor Review

I know absolutely nothing about the Avengers story line or that of Thor.  So I don't know if this movie is true to the comics or not.  I'm guessing that, if Stan Lee is so close to these projects now, it probably is.  I do know one thing though.  This movie is very good.  I saw it in both 3D and Ultra AVX so that did enhance the experience somewhat.  3D wasn't really worth it but the AVX sound was better than just good.  It was spectacular.

The special effects are second to none too.  Visually, Thor is a real treat.  The earth scenes are really nothing too spectacular but the stuff that takes place in the other realms is beautiful to watch.  Even the fact that the costumes seem a little too over the top for my taste.  I chalk that up to the comic book factor.

Overall, the acting is surprisingly quite solid.  There are a couple of cheesy deliveries by Natalie Portman but she was the victim of a writer who I would guess thought it was good enough.  But the rest of the cast does a very good job; especially Tom Hiddleston and Idris Elba.  And I had never even heard of Chris Hemsworth before.  He's perfectly cast.  He's got the look for a superhero and can deliver a line well too.  Overall, there is just enough comic relief to keep it light and just enough drama to make you relate.  I could have used maybe one more action or fight scene but I think I just wanted to feel my hair shake a little more from the sound.  The only real complaint I may have is that the Destroyer looked and acted like it was just ripped off from the Day the Earth Stood Still.

If you are a comic book fan, you don't need me to tell you to see it.  You probably already have.  But, for everyone else, see it.  The action will entertain even the most hardcore action junkie and the morality play part of it should keep everyone else entertained as well.  And spend the extra money for the Ultra AVX if its available.  But save your money on the 3D option.

Irish Jam Review

Well, what can I really say about a movie that involves Eddie Griffin winning an Irish pub in a contest to raise money so a small Irish fishing village will not be turned into an amusement park called Leprechaun Land?  Doesn't that really sum it all up anyways?  It's a "fish out of water" story that is really very similar to King Ralph.  There is a half-hearted attempt at depth and Griffin learning that there's more to life than  taking care of your own interests.  But he is never really portrayed as a bad guy who will sell his own grandmother to make a buck (which is kind of what you're supposed to believe).

This movie is really nothing more than a goofy comedy to showcase Griffin's hip chattiness.  What makes it worse than King Ralph is that it tries to become a morality play.  I never had any delusions of it being a landmark piece or anything like that seeing as how my brother paid $3 for it at Zellers.  But the fact that it even tried kind of bugs me.

So, we've established that it's a bad movie.  But it is really an entertaining movie as well.  Griffin's antics, while not as good as Undercover Brother, are still quite fun to watch.  And the supporting bits from the villagers are pretty fun too.

If you're in the mood for a straight to DVD "classic", I would say see it.  But if "so bad, it's fun" or goofy lead acting is not your thing, give it a miss.  But, for me, it isn't a bad way to waste an hour and a half.

Fast Five Review

I love car chases.  Always have and I always will.  This movie does not disappoint in that.  Then again, if a Fast and Furious movie didn't deliver on the driving scenes, there's no way it would make money.

This movie starts out like it's going to be disappointing.  At the start, the acting is very wooden and the intensity between characters seems very forced.  However, once they get the whole heist portion (the real plot) of the movie started, the comic relief comes in and it seems that the whole cast relaxes.  That's when it gets really good.  There's a lot of jabs between characters and the acting picks up in quality.  It just seems that the timing gets better.

Sadly, we realize two things in this movie.  First, Vin Diesel should never smile.  Wow, he's a funny looking man.  Second, we found the type of character Dwayne Johnson should not play.  He's excellent when he's quiet and brooding or when he can get a bit goofy in an action comedy like he did in Faster, Be Cool and The Rundown.  In this one, he tries to be the intense, take no shit good guy and most of it seems very forced.

There's a lot of good action in this film.  As I said, the big chase is great.  The rest of the action is too.  Especially the big fight scene.  Some of the stuff near the end does not follow the prototypical line for movies like this.  I won't give it away though.

Definitely see it.  And, if you can see it in UltraAVX, do so.  The rumbling bass will actually shake your hair.  Also, I won't tell you why, but make sure you stay until the end of the credits.  Trust me.  And, if you do see it, maybe walk to the theatre or have someone pick you up after.  Your adrenaline will be so amped up that driving might actually be dangerous.

The Incredible Hulk Review

I find it sad that this movie didn't get great reviews or do well at the box office.  I think it is one of the best comic book movies in recent memory.  I really like the way they make Banner a more human character that anyone can relate to.  Too often, this doesn't happen with the alter-egos in comic book movies.  This is due in large part to the excellent use of music and the terrific acting by Ed Norton.

The Incredible Hulk is also brilliantly cast.  All of the actors make their characters believable.  The trick to this is to act like you're in a comic book but without the over the top cheesiness of a comic book.  That's a tough thing to do and they do it very well with this one.  The possible exception is Liv Tyler.  But that could be because I'm just not a fan.

See it.  It's actually very good.