The Net Review

This movie is a perfect example of why you should watch any current technology based movie as soon as it comes out. Everything in it is so laughably out of date now that it is actually hard to watch. Having come out in the mid-90s, it did use the technology of the time and it was made for that audience. Because of that, I can respect what they were doing. The internet was so revolutionary and there was (and still is to an extent) a fear of what the new technology could do in the wrong hands. That's what they were trying to portray in The Net.

What I cannot respect is the absolutely terrible way they told the story.  This is supposed to be a thriller.  In a thriller, things have to happen.  A story has to take twists and turns and move at a quick pace.  None of that happens here.  In fact, when it was done, I thought, "nothing happened at all.". Sure, there was a plot (albeit a weak one). And things moved at a snail's pace.  But the level of intrigue is so low that it is easy to let your mind wander.  The good thing about that is that the story is so simple that if your mind wanders, you don't have a hard time picking up when you get back into it.  It's just that, when you do, it's still unbelievably boring.

Don't see it.

Gone In 60 Seconds Review

I'm a fan of the remake from 2000.  I know it isn't a great movie but it has a good car movie story and some decent comedic one liners.  It also has good car chase action and I'm a big fan of that.  So i finally decided to watch the original to see how close the remake was.  As it turns out, it isn't that far off.  The remake added a human element to appeal more to the masses.  but the basic mission is the same: these car thieves are given a list of high end cars that they have to steal.

Unlike the remake, there seems to be no consequences if they don't steal the cars in time.  They basically do it to just steal the cars.  There is the white whale of Eleanor and stealing that car seems to motivate the main character to some extent.  But other than that there is no real story or character development throughout the entire film.  At times, it even seems like just raw B-roll footage of guys stealing cars.  Because of that, there are times when it seems very realistic.  If it weren't for the wooden acting from some of the secondary and tertiary actors, you could almost think you were watching the news.

If you are looking for realism in that sense, this may be for you.  Also, if you are looking for some pretty decent car chase scenes, you may like it.  It seemed like (and may be the case) that about 1/3 of the entire movie is a big car chase at the end.  At times, it seemed to drag on a bit but, for the most part, it did keep me engaged thinking, "how is he going to get out of this?"  And that's one of the two main elements of a good car chase.  The other is to have a lot of speed, crashes, and changes in direction which it did too.  From a 2013 perspective, there wasn't a whole lot of innovation.  but this movie is from the mid-70s and, for it's time, I would think it was pretty innovative with the stunt driving and deterioration of the Mustang throughout the chase.

If you like car movies, this is a decent one that is boiled down to the basic element of pure cars.  So see it.  But give it a pass if you need any kind of character development and motivation.  if that is you thing, give the remake a try.

The Fantastic Four Review

When this movie came out, I thought that the effects were really good.  For the most part, they have stood the test of time.  The invisibility, flames, and human rock are all still very good.  However, the stretchy skin aspect of Reed Richards has not aged well.  This is supposed to be a super hero movie and whenever he does his thing, it comes off looking like something from The Mask.  It's more comical than anything and the leader of a super hero group should not be the comic relief.

Overall, the acting is as good as can be expected with the weak and quite lame and cheesy writing that has occured.  Chris Evans plays cocky quite well but was given absolutely moronic lines and the character suffered for it.  Jessica Alba is passable and Michael Chiklis delivers well for a character that is outside of his comfort zone.  He's at his best as a badass and Grimm is a more tenderhearted character with a rough exterior ( a cheesy allegory given e whole rock skin thing but that's the MO of Marvel).

The story is a good telling of the origins of the group but it is just that: only the origins.  The whole film is exposition and doesn't move on into a more self-contained story.  Building the whole thing for a sequel is a risky proposition.  Given at there is a sequel, I guess it paid off.  When I finally watch it, I'll review it too.

It moves fast and has a lot of good action sequences.  So for a comic book movie, it is good enough.  See it if you haven't already.

V for Vendetta Review

In this movie, Natalie Portman is a lot like Sampson.  While she has her hair, this is actually a decent little thriller set in a dystopian society.  She plays an unsuspecting person who is accidentally caught up in one man's quest for vengeance against the evil, fascist regime that turned him into a monster and ruined so many lives.  There is also the policeman chasing him who starts uncovering evidence that the government he serves so faithfully may be responsible for atrocities.  It's a basic story but with the right writing and good acting, it could have been a good thriller with some very nice fight scenes.

Then, V shaves Evie's head and the entire movie goes completely off the rails.  V goes through this elaborate and completely useless facade to turn her into a less violent version of himself for his plan. Then, she's rendered almost irrelevant for the remainder of the movie right up until the end when she is conveniently needed for the final act of vengeance.  Evie should be a central character in this movie.  Instead, sometimes she's needed and sometimes she's swept to the background.  The relationship between her and V is so inconsistent that it hurts the story too much.

Finally, I will talk about the character of V.  I don't mind having a calm, sociopathic attitude to these anti-heroes in movies.  After all, they are people who have been messed up and are consumed with one goal.  But Hugo Weaving takes this one to a whole new level.  It's like there's no emotion in the character at all.  Even Bane had some passion in the Dark Knight Rises.  V is taken too far to the calm end and he becomes a boring character that you just don't care about.

There's some decent action and the cinematography is quite good.  The emotion brought into the viewer through the society being reminiscent of Nazi Germany is strong in parts.  And if they had stayed on the track they started on, this could have been fantastic.  But they veered off and ended up making a poor movie.  Don't see it.

Paranorman Review

I had seen ads for this when it came out but it wasn't even really on my radar due to it being a kids' horror movie.  Then Karl said that there were a lot of jokes that I would find funny.  I trust Karl's judgement in movies and I thought I'd give it a shot.

As it turns out, Paranorman is a fun little movie with some pretty good laughs.  Most of the good stuff comes from Neil, the portly, happy go lucky sidekick.  He's a loveable kid who's cluelessness relieves any tension that builds up.  As for the rest of the characters, yes, there are some of the quirky aspects that allow them to be funny.  But the writers seemed to hold back on the goofiness a little.  Had they turned it up just a little, this could have gone from a "few chuckles" movie to downright hilarious.  But, considering its targeted straight at a slightly younger audience, anything further for humour could have been wasted.

Had this movie been made by Pixar, it would have had the multi-audience levels of story and humour that would have achieved some more laughs.  But Laika is known for a more linear and less light approach to their films.  I never saw Coraline (also made by Laika) but I can tell that it has a more fantastical yet rooted in reality approach to animated film than Pixar's approach of talking cars, toys, and cuddly monsters.  Both take people into another world and make them laugh.  But Pixar would not have had zombies' arms ripped off by villagers and Norman would have a lasting friendship with the witch as they faded off listening to a Randy Newman tune.  Instead, Laika decided to teach life lessons with a much more realistic (and albeit dark) message that ultimately made this a more satisfying movie.

There are some lingering questions left for the more discriminating movie goer.  But this is purely, pre-teen entertainment and loose ends can usually remain loose in that arena.  The laughs and melancholic but satisfying resolution make it worth your 90 minutes.  See it.

Oz, the Great and Powerful Review

I saw the teaser poster back in the day and knew that I needed to see this movie.  With today's CGI technology, the Oz franchise is something that should definitely be revived.  Yes, the original is a classic and will always be so.  But the books depict this absolutely fantastic world that was previously unfilmable.  Now we can do it right and I'm glad to see that Hollywood realizes this.

I also like that they did not start by just remaking the Wizard of Oz.  A badly needed background is being built.  For the most part, it is quite strong.  I do not know how close this is to the actual story in the books as I have not read all of them and those that I did were so long ago that I have forgotten.  But there is definitely a foreshadowing of future events and crises throughout this film.  Some may say that it is an obvious setup for a sequel.  To that, I say, "what's the problem?"  There are numerous Oz books and the whole world is much more than Dorothy and her entourage.  A multi-volume film franchise is just what it needs.

That being said, just how does the first installment rate as a movie?  With regards to the story, I already said that I thought it was decent.  I like how they explained the wizard's arrival in Oz and his character flaws which are never fully explained in the old movie.  There was also always an underlying tension with the witches that they do a decent job of explaining.  Oz purists may or may not like it but I think it should satisfy most average film goers who are familiar with the original film.

Visually, it is pretty stunning.  Most of the sets and costumes look a bit plastic but this is a magical land that is far different from our own.  I like the use of black and white and a 4:3 aspect ratio for the Kansas scenes.  But I did find that they seemed a bit plastic and surreal as well which took away from the transition to Oz.

Finally, I was quite disappointed in the acting.  None of the star-studded cast gave a decent performance.  Oddly enough, the best was Michelle Williams who I just have a hard time watching at the best of times.  It was almost as if they all tried to tie it into the same style as the original film.  But, back then, that was just how people acted on screen.  We don't need that now and the camp factor actually makes it more difficult to watch.  I was originally happy to see James Franco cast as the wizard.  He proved with 127 hours that he has some range.  But his performance here was pretty bad.  Because of the light-hearted nature of the film, there is more comedy to it and his goofy grins and delivery went too close to his stoner from Pineapple Express.  It just didn't fit this movie and he turned out to be the wrong choice.  I do have to give a nod to Zach Braff's voiceover work though.  The combination of his inflection and the CGI for the winged monkey were spot on.

Because of the strong story and great visuals, I can forgive the substandard acting.  It isn't great, but it is good.  See it.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review

After three very decent movies, we've come to expect a certain level of quality from the Indiana Jones franchise.  Yes, we have been willing to let reality get suspended a little bit in order for the mystical world that Indy gets himself wrapped up in to reveal itself.  In a way, these movies use terrifica action and adventure to remind us that there is more to our world than we can understand.

Why, then, does a movie that deals with inter-dimensional beings on earth in a search for knowledge in this franchise disappoint me so?  There's a few reasons.  First, the other three Indy movies kept the mystical portions of their stories within the confines of our own reality.  They dealt with the relationship between divine power and human interaction with that power.  Ultimately, they told us of the dangers of evil and how integrity and righteousness can overcome if we just believe and accept.  Crystal Skull had the same basic theme but failed in its delivery.  Rather than have a story where the humans encounter the divine, it becomes a human encounter with a superior alien race and it becomes just another run of the mill alien movie with cheesy undertones of our inferiority to them and government conspiracies.

Second, the villains are completely flat and useless in this film.  Right from a completely irrelevant opening sequence right through to the climax, you never really feel that Indy is in any danger.  Sure, there is the encounter at the warehouse and a fantastic car chase through the jungle.  But that's it.  There never seems to be a race against the Russians to find the city of gold.  And that brings us to the Russinas themselves.  I understand that, in the 50s, Communism was the absolutely evil threat that made everyone paranoid.  But the use of that in film does not age well.  Indy fought Nazis previously.  We will always see them as the embodiment of the worst that mankind can become.  Communism has largely been forgiven for its evils because of the peaceful fall of the system (save for a few almost laughable pockets many of whom seem to be embracing the economics of capitalism).  So to try and put them on the same level of Nazis is just ridiculous.

Finally, the writing is just plain bad.  They spent way too much time trying to get the 50s "daddy-o" vernacular down when they should have worked more on developing character and plot development.

The good in this movie would be the action.  It does move very quickly and, as I mentioned, the action sequences are quite well choreographed.  For the most part, the effects and visuals are good to look at.  Any wide, sweeping shots are well done.  But there is an inconsistency in the green screening that took away from the visual enjoyment.  Overall, it was just too hard to lose yourself in this one compared to the other three.

It's not a complete waste of time but it would be a complete waste of money to spend anything to watch it.  Don't see it.