The Great Gatsby Review

I read this book back in college but don't remember most of it.  Steph read it just recently and said that it was fairly similar to the movie.  I had forgotten that, on the surface, it is a basic tragic love triangle story as told by someone from outside of the web.  When you dig a bit deeper, it becomes about the dangers of excess and selling your soul.  I won't go into how I came to that conclusion because Baz Luhrmann hits you square in the face with it.  There is nothing subtle about this movie at all.  Sets, costumes, dialogue, scenes.  Everything is over-stylized to give the viewer a sense of over-extravagance.  Even the Valley of Ashes is so far on the other end of the spectrum that you can't wait for them to leave it.  I can see the need for some of that.  If over indulgence is a theme of the story, they need to translate it from the written word to the visual medium.  But Luhrmann went a bit overboard with it and it dominated the movie to the detriment of the rest of it.

That's what makes me a bit disappointed.  Even though the script was a bit campy in parts, all of the actors from the top billed right down to the bit parts did a very convincing job of delivering their lines.  Leonardo DiCaprio in particular was magnificent.  He seamlessly goes from happy party host to sinister villain to heartbroken lover and everything in between in a believable manner.  He is truly one of the best our generation has to offer.

If you like fantastic visuals that take you to a slightly different reality, this may be the movie for you.  Personally, I would have preferred a better balance but I still enjoyed it.  See it

Forrest Gump Review

Do I really have to convince you to see this movie?  Chances are, if you care, you already have.  And then the chances are good that you would also recommend it to people.  For my money, this is flat out one of the best movies ever made.  For its time, the effects were unbelievable, the writing is solid, and the story is gripping and engaging.  The comic relief is well spaced and just funny enough to make you laugh while remaining in the seriousness of the moment.  It's one of those films that can make you laugh out loud and still bawl your eyes out later on.  Finally, the acting is some of the best I've ever seen.  In fact, for all of the movies I have watched over the years, Tom Hanks' performance as Forrest Gump is the most well-deserved Best Actor winner in history.

But it isn't just the solid technical aspects that make Forrest Gump so good.  There are two further reasons why I love this film.  First, I love history.  To be able to see some of the most important events in history through the eyes of a simpleton brings a unique perspective to the study of the past.  Even though Forrest's involvement in these eras and events is purely fictional, it shows how the world is becoming increasingly tumultuous and complex but humanity, at its core, remains fairly simple.  While the world changes, our basic needs and desires stay constant.

Second, using the hyperbole of the most simple of people being thrown into the most extraordinary of situations hammers home an even more philosophical point.  Even though many of us are just trying to live our lives without any grand outcome, the little things we do can have a profound impact on others and the world.  Forrest was just trying to save Bubba in the firefight.  He just felt like dancing while Elvis played guitar.  Bear Bryant told him to run with the football so he did.  And he just felt like going for a jog.  But these and the other events changed lives and history within this film's universe.

The only problem I have with this movie is the part about him running across the country for three plus years.  While all of Forrest's life events are far fetched, the running for that long was just a little too far over the line and seems oddly out of place in the film.  But by the time it gets to that part, it doesn't matter.  You will have already seen one of the greatest movies of all time.

And, because my "thing" is to give a see or don't see recommendation at the end of every review, I guess I have to say it to keep the streak alive: See it.

PCU Review

Ah, the 90s.  When a guy could wear mom jeans with a t-shirt tucked in and be considered the cool guy.  As long as there are movies, Hollywood will continue to pump out hastily written and made comedies that are designed to do nothing more than distract the masses for a couple of hours.  That's really all PCU is.  Sure, they try to make a commentary on political correctness getting out of hand by exaggerating it on a college campus.  But, in the end, it's Animal House, Old School, and House Party 2 and every other college party movie.

That's not to say that it isn't enjoyable.  It is.  Jeremy Piven, John Favreau, and David Spade do bring a half decent level of smartly delivered comedy to it.  And the different cliques of campus students provide some laughs in their over the top antics throughout.  The problem is that it seems it was slapped together very hastily.  Political correctness exploded in the early 90s and is still a nuisance much of the time for people who want to just relax and have a few laughs and a good time.  Had they taken a bit more time and effort with this, it could have avoided being a forgettable movie and been a decent statement on fighting the establishment.  Instead, the writing is very shallow and the story suffers.  It has become that movie you see in the bargain bin and say, "oh, yeah.  I remember that."

And, because it does provide some laughs, it is worth the bargain bin price; especially if you get the double feature pack that also includes Airheads.  If you stumble across it, see it if only for the nostalgia of the early 90s.  But, whatever you do, don't go seeking it out.

Hot Fuzz Review

I've reviewed every movie I've seen since March 2011 and I am just now reviewing Hot Fuzz.  I can't believe I haven't watched this movie in over two years.  It is one of my absolute favourites.

The second instalment in the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy is a hilarious spoof of cop (and to a lesser extent, slasher) movies from start to finish.  But what makes this a movie with such great rewatchability is the fact that almost everything that is said, done, or even shown in this movie is important to the plot and story development.  So, when you watch it for the third or fourth time, you'll likely notice something that you didn't before.

I've said it before but it warrants repeating: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are the best comedy duo since Wayne and Schuster and they're maybe even funnier than that.  In Shaun of the Dead, they both played best friend slackers and played very well off each other.  In Hot Fuzz, Pegg is the straight laced city cop and Frost is a doofus that wants to be just like his idolized cop movie heroes.  It's a different dynamic and I think it works even better when the two are thrown into more of an odd couple situation.  The dialogue between the two becomes much quicker and wittier when there's a bit more conflict.

Throughout the movie, you'll see things that you saw in Shaun of the Dead.  That is intentional.  The movies are part of a non-sequential trilogy that use the same elements and many of the same gags in slightly different ways.  It just adds to the fun factor when you notice them throughout.  Normally, it would be just rehashing jokes but they do them differently.  It's hard to explain why it works.  it just does.

See it.  This is one of the best comedies of the last ten years or so.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure Review

Sometimes, you just have to turn your brain off.  I saw this movie way back in the day and remember laughing my arse off but also recognizing that it wasn't a very good movie.  It was just funny and I was about 14 years old.  A recent turn in Draw Something where I drew Keanu Reeves saying, "be excellent to each other" caused me to want to give it another go to see if it would still be funny.  (Note: I subsequently found out that Bill said the line, not Ted.  So my drawing was inaccurate.)

While watching it the second time around, I was struck by just how much of this film was stolen to make Dude, Where's My Car?.  It would be easy to see it as a ripoff of that but Bill & Ted did it first.  And while the cinematic quality isn't there from an acting, story, effects, etc. point of view, let's face it.  This is one of those movies where they couldn't give a rip about making a great film.  The entire intent was to make a goofball, stoner comedy that makes you laugh because it is so ridiculous.  They succeeded in doing just that.

Sadly, the movie isn't aging as well as it could.  It was made at that awkward time when CGI was just starting to be used a lot and everything winds up looking too fake.  The acting is also atrocious throughout.  It is possible to do these stoner movies with some halfway decent acting quality (Dude... and Pineapple Express come to mind) but what they did in Bill & Ted was sufficient for the late 80s.  It wouldn't cut it now if they tried to do this the same way.

So, would I recommend the movie?  For nostalgia and some mindless laughs, yes.  But if you're looking for just a goofball comedy without the trip down memory lane, there are better options (see above).

About a Boy Review

The late 90s and early 00s are proving to be the golden age of British romantic comedy.  From the original Fever Pitch through Love Actually and more, these movies have been able to create a fantastic mix of melancholy and comedy that entertains the viewer on many different levels.  It's a formula that only the British seem to be able to do and one of the best is About a Boy.

Part of what makes this film successful is the source material.  Nick Hornby is an absolute master of combining serous topics with comedy that make you reflect on an issue while not taking it too seriously.  About a Boy takes depression and loneliness and makes you laugh at it without ever thinking you are making light of a serious situation.  This is not an easy thing to do.  I would think taking it from a novel to the screen is even more difficult.  Rather than dealing with it in a traditional good guy, douchebag, girl love triangle, the story has no bad guy.  The villain is really relationships themselves.  The characters need to conquer whatever is holding them back to win what they want.

The light-hearted theme throughout is achieved through some very strong performances by Hugh Grant and Nicholas Hoult.  It helps that they are cast perfectly.  Grant is always able to play aloof yet relatable.  Hoult just had the look of the awkward kid who just doesn't fit in.  It is likely a stroke of luck that they were able to get two actors that fit their parts so well and get a terrific on-screen chemistry from them.  Luck or not, it worked and that's all that matters.  From their first interaction right to the end, there is an authenticity in the development of their relationship that grips you.

In its writing, acting, music, pace, etc.  This movie excels in everything that a romantic comedy should be.  And it achieves the end result that all romantic comedies should: a happy and satisfied feeling in the viewer.  See it.

Sherlock Holmes Review

A recent trip to London and a visit to the Sherlock Holmes Museum combined with the new show, Elementary, caused me to want to wach these movies again.  I knew I already liked it from the first time.  I wasn't surprised because I do like most of what I see from Guy Ritchie.  I always like the lighting and cinematography in his movies.  Normally, I am not a huge fan of slow motion action but, for the most part, in this movie, he limits it to what is going on in Holmes' head before he actually engages his opponent in a fight.  So it actually is used very well to show how Holmes can predict how things are going to play out.

The best part of this movie is the dynamic between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.  Both are fine actors to begin with.  Downey was basically born to play the over confident jackass and his portrayal of Holmes is basically Tony Stark in Victorian England.  But he does it well.  Law plays the frustrated Watson to a T.  And while he can carry a film on his own normally, he is a great David Spade to Downey's Chris Farley (or any other movie duo you can think of).  Their timing and chemistry is some of the best you will see.

The only real problem with this movie is that the story is a bit convoluted and hard to follow sometimes.  This is often true of detective/mystery films because they have a very finite amount of time to show you the things you came to see (action) while still making the story tight with its twists.  So the viewer really has to accept that there will be confusion for some time but it will all make sense as long as you remember all the stuff that has gone on along the way.

After my trip to London, I did notice a few other problems with how they worked through the city and portrayed it.  First, the Boudicca statue on the North end of the Westminster Bridge wasn't erected until 1902 and this takes place well before that due to the construction of Tower Bridge.  Also, the characters would have to have the speed of the Flash to get from parliament to Tower Bridge through the sewers in the time that they did.  But those are small continuity errors that happen in every movie and are largely ignored for dramatic effect.

See it.  It is a fast paced and very well acted detective tale that keeps you intrigued even if a little confused as well.

Contagion Review

This is what happens when you merge Love, Actually with Outbreak.  You get an ensemble movie where all of the performances are very good, the premise is one that has the potential to be very tense, and all of the characters are interesting with compelling stories and motivation.  For some reason, that worked in Love, Actually.  The sometimes loose, sometimes not connections between characters kept us interested in what they were up to and we wanted to know what would happen next.  Contagion took the same type of formula and applied it to a new virus that has started killing people.  We see how it affects different people and their methods for dealing with it.  While it is written, filmed, and acted very well, something about it made it fall a little flat.

As I said, it is made very well.  Having it set mostly in the time between American Thanksgiving and Christmas gives it a bleak, wintry feel.  This sets the mood for the whole movie which is good because there is nothing "bright and sunny" about dealing with a killer virus.  They cast strong actors across the board and each one is placed into a role that suits them perfectly.  Jude Law plays a jackass conspiracy theorist perfectly.  Kate Winslet makes a great middle management scientist that is in a bit over her head with containment.  And Matt Damon did very well as the father dealing with the loss of people to the virus when he, himself, can't be affected by it.

I think the problem with the movie is that they may have made it too realistic.  This is exactly how I think an outbreak like this would occur in the real world.  There would be quarantines, deserted streets, etc.  But the efforts to find a vaccine and eradicate the disease would march on with very little fanfare and other pageantry that Hollywood would like us to believe would be present.  The press conferences, lab work, etc. in Contagion happen quite quietly with people who are remaining calm.  They never underestimate the importance of what they are doing but they also go about it like normal people.  There is some of the panic from the masses that we would expect in some looting and supply lineup violence.  But this film focuses less on that and more on managing the fallout and eradication of the threat.  Because of this realism, a lot of the tension that a film like this needs is lost and it makes it move quite slowly.

If you want a drama that has some good performances, see it.  If you're looking for more of a thriller, don't.

The Inbetweeners Movie Review

An acquaintance told me that the TV show was really funny.  So I gave it a shot and he was right.  The TV show is absolutely hilarious.  It's very raunchy and almost like a British version of American Pie.  So I figured the movie would be great as well.  I must say I was a bit disappointed.  The American Pie movies were able to take the same subject matter and make it funny in a feature length film.  The Inbetweeners should have been able to do the same thing.  But in taking their half hour format and stretching it over an hour and a half, they didn't add enough to fill the gaps.

They do push the envelope a bit with the blue humour but it isn't enough to really shock the viewer that is familiar with the TV show.  After all, in England, they can show some nudity and swear a lot more on their TV shows than they can in North America.  So it really had to just be a capstone finale to the series.

It does achieve that end.  The show was about four average high school kids and the movie ends that era of their lives.  However, in the show, the funny insults and crazy situations come fast and furious.  In the movie, they really don't.  The pace and content lends itself well to a 30 minute show where, when it's done, it's done.  But in a movie it was almost as if they said, "OK, we've used a funny slang term for female genitalia.  What do we do now?"  Rather than find some other jokes, they just have the kids walk around and argue for a bit longer.

If you are a fan of the TV show, see it just to wrap it all up.  There are enough laughs that you will get because of your familiarity with the characters.  But if you are just looking for a funny coming of age story with a bit of a raunchy edge, this one isn't really for you.

Shaun of the Dead Review

I don't care for the horror genre and zombies are my least favourite sub-genre.  But you have to know one thing going in.  This is not a horror movie.  When you put Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Edgar Wright into a project together, you can only come out with fantastic comedy.  It just happens to be a comedic tribute to the zombie horror genre.  So while it has the subject matter that I don't care for, that is outshined greatly by the superior comedy throughout the movie.

It's very similar to Zombieland in that it has a few people just trying to get to a safe haven during a zombie infestation.  The thing is, Shaun did it first.  Both are great movies but I have to give the edge to Shaun for its originality and more clever writing.  The jokes and dialogue do a fantastic job of working with the visual and physical comedy.  Right from the start, you know that you need to pay attention or you might miss something great.  And, like a good Pixar movie, they layered it.  If you're like me, you like it simply for the great comedy and timing of Pegg and Frost.  If you are a fan of the zombie scene, you like it for the great makeup, thrilling tension, and tributes to other films.  If you like good film making, you appreciate the allegories and symbolism (especially the colour red).  And, if you just like Queen music (which only soulless people do not), you like watching the crew beating a zombie to the rhythm of "Don't Stop Me Now."

From start to finish, this film has a tight story, excellent timing, and great makeup and effects.  It also has some of the best on screen chemistry you will ever see from the best comedy pairing since Wayne and Schuster in Pegg and Frost.

Definitely see it.

Guns, Girls, and Gambling Review

It was an interesting idea.  Take the popularity of the hip and cool London underground movies and put it in the context of Indian casinos.  You have a mix of quirky characters played by recognizable and fairly decent actors.  (Yes, I just called Christian Slater decent.  Face it.  He has some talent.)  Then, you call it Guns, Girls and Gambling and you should have at least a passable movie.  So, what happened?

I know that you should not judge a book by its cover or a movie by its poster or name.  But a movie like this called Guns, Girls and Gambling should probably have more than one gambling scene.  It should also have more than one girl that is important to the plot.  The Girl Next Door really wasn't that important.  So, had they changed the name, would it have been a decent movie?  No.

The biggest problem is that the movie is a cavalcade of one trick ponies.  The blonde has one schtick:  reciting poetry in a horrible effort to be like Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.  Even Samuel L Jackson delivered it a bit awkwardly.  To have a someone who I'm pretty sure none of us can remember the name of deliver the same style of lines is a recipe for disaster.  If that was it, I could have forgiven it.  But it's basically 90 minutes of everyone correcting everyone else for their political incorrectness and one or two other jokes that are beaten into the ground.

Sure, there's some cool movie violence and the overall story isn't horrible.  But after 90 minutes of basically the same thing, you just get bored.  Don't see it.  Opt for something by Guy Ritchie instead.

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.

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.

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.

Stitches Review

When I saw that the funniest man on the planet (Ross Noble) was starring in a movie, I knew I had to watch it even though it is a slasher film.  As you may be aware, I am not a fan of the horror genre.  But my research showed that this was along the lines of comedy and horror and gore was more of a vehicle for telling jokes (sort of like Shaun of the Dead but with less allegory).  Ultimately, that's really what it boils down to.

It's got the basics of a typical slasher movie.  There's the group of teenagers, each with their own quirks and one-dimensional personality.  There's the evil killer that is enabled as a killer by either psychosis or supernatural means (in this case, it's the supernatural but there's a bit of psychosis there simply due to Noble's involvement).  There's the small setting that keeps everything within its own little package so you simply can't just outrun the clown or call for help (something that they never really address).

But they aren't trying to delve into some weird psychological study or make any allegories to the human condition or any other crap like that.  Stitches is just a slasher comedy; plain and simple.  For what it is, it is adequate.  I would have to say that the comedy is better than any slasher effects.  Most of the gore is a bit too shiny and looks plastic and fake.  Had it been a serious movie, that would be a huge failing.  But what they lack in consistent writing and effects, they make up for in humour.  The group of teenagers is well thought out and used to make their personalities continue the laughs. And that's a good thing because I was disappointed in the amount of screen time that Noble actually got.  When he is on screen, he is very funny.  But the movie focuses more on the group of kids and the buildup to Stitches' involvement.  So the fact that the kids were able to maintain my interest is good.

It's nothing that is going to set the world on fire.  And without Noble, I would never have seen it in the first place.  Overall, it isn't a waste of 90 minutes and can be quite funny.  It's worth it just for the tricycle scene.  See it but don't make it a huge priority.

The Cannonball Run Review

The last time I saw this movie I was probably about 10 years old.  So I didn't know any of the actors except Burt Reynolds and Jamie Farr.  And I certainly had no clue who James Bond was.  But it was a delightful movie with fast cars and a little bit of cleavage so I liked it.  I felt a little nostalgic and decided to watch it again.  Now, I can see all of the satire and ironic jokes that they placed in there.  That gives me a much better appreciation for the movie as a whole.  But on the flip side, I can also see the numerous flaws and potential to have made it a better movie.

I should probably stop and acknowledge that this was never intended to be anything deep.  It's main characters are played by Burt Reynolds and Dom Deluise after all.  It's supposed to be an ensemble comedy where everyone is a screwball.  The problem is that they made the ensemble too big.  Rather than focusing on just four or five quirky duos that are rivals in the race, they bump the number up and give each team its own quirks.  While each one had potential to be very funny with its own character, there is simply not enough screen time that can be devoted to any one to really hold the viewers' interest.  There is also very little interaction between the teams thus hurting any conflict that could have been created.  Everything becomes a self-contained one-off gag that has no bearing on the rest of the movie.

That being said, the one-off gags are usually funny.  The best bits come from the doctor that Deluise finds and the guys in the computerized Subaru (I was surprised when I saw that one of them is Jackie Chan).  Dean Martin and Sammy Davis, Jr are also really good when they get to be on screen.  And Roger Moore's satire of himself as James Bond was funny even if it was a bit familiar.  The rest of the quirky teams could have been scrapped altogether.  Well, except for the girls in the Lamborghini.  We do need cleavage in an 80s screwball comedy after all.

If all you want is a few laughs, you may want to see it because you can likely find it for free somewhere.  Because of its nostalgia value for me, it does get a see recommendation.  But just barely.

Live Free or Die Hard Review

Just as Die Hard With a Vengeance is an example of current technology not hindering the aging of a film, Live Free or Die Hard is the exact opposite.  This one really is handcuffed by the technology used throughout.  The problem stems from the fact that the entire story is based on technology.  While it was all very thrilling when it was released in the theatre, watch the movie six years later and everything is very out of date.  This would be OK if the technology used was more of an accessory for the characters.  But, it is so pervasive that the viewer spends a lot of time noticing its obsolescence.  I can see it going the same route as Sneakers in this sense.

It isn't just that though.  The writing is a bit lackluster.  The one-liners that Die Hard is famous for are not as strong as in the previous installments.  Bruce Willis will always be a great John "Everyman" McClane.  But Justin Long is no Samuel L Jackson when it comes to pushing McClane's buttons while they try to save the world.  Instead of anticipating the next great exchange, I found myself just wanting to remove Long from the equation.

But, all in all, this is an action movie and, as an action movie, it delivers the adrenaline.  All of the action sequences are well shot and edited.  They often feel real even though they are very over the top and unrealistic.  The SUV in the elevator and the fight with the F-35 border on laughable.  But they're still tense and fun to watch.  Willis' reaction after the fighter plane crash is priceless.

The cheesy factor is higher than Vengeance.  The story is weak.  But the action is strong.  Overall, this one's really a wash but does barely pass.  See it.  But you may not want to see it again if you already have.

Die Hard With a Vengeance Review

Action movies tend to suffer the most from advances in technology.  They rely so much on communication limitations and technological advances that are being used for evil and must be thwarted.  So, when you come back to one almost 20 years after it was released, you know that you're going to see some things that wouldn't happen today.  The reliance on pay phones to engage in psychological games with John McClane is a prime example.  This doesn't diminish the quality of Die Hard With a Vengeance as an action movie.  It does mean that the viewer is always going to have to remember the context when watching the movie though.  While some of these limitations are present in the movie, the movie does not rely on them to be integral to the plot.  Instead, most of the story progresses through the tried and true action movie methods of explosions, car chases and a strong dynamic between two conflicting personalities.

If you've seen The Last Boy Scout, you know that Bruce Willis is a master of smart ass comments when interacting with a person that doesn't share his character's "Joe Blow" view of the world.  So, when you give him a sidekick that is more than twice the actor of Damon Wayans (I like Wayans.  But I'm not naive enough to think he's a good actor.), you get interactions and dialogue that are absolutely top notch.  Samuel L Jackson plays the angry black man with a chip on his shoulder perfectly against Bruce Willis' "I just want to survive the day and don't care about anyone's politics" John McClane.

Combine that great duo with some very good action sequences and a story that is actually pretty tight and you have an action movie that can be watched over and over.  The action in Vengeance is top notch as well. Having the heroes run through Simon's games as a diversion creates an element of tension that the first two didn't have as much of.  So, even when there are no chases or explosions, the viewer remains interested.

It isn't the best Die Hard.  That title still belongs to the original.  But it is far from the worst.  It's a great action movie with a terrific pace.  See it.