Angels & Demons Review

Whether or not you think the stories are inflammatory to the Catholic Church and sacreligious and whether or not you think Dan Brown reads too much into symbols and coincidences is immaterial.  One thing is for sure.  You cannot deny that Brown knows how to tell a good thriller.  The Da Vinci Code lent itself better to a movie and I think that's because it dealt with subjects and a legend that more people are familiar with.  Angels & Demons uses a legend and locations that are a bit more vague to the general public.  As a result, they have to spend more time in their exposition.  In a book, it works well because the author can use as many words as he/she likes to get the message across.  A film maker has less time though and all of the exposition in this story is rushed.

Brown's thrillers are so intricate that you really cannot omit much and still have a tight story.  So they spend the first half of this movie using the dialogue to explain things while trying to keep it moving at a fast pace.  (One thing they could have omitted was the shots of his Mickey Mouse watch.  It's taken from the books and never explained in the movie so it is completely extraneous and downright stupid.)  As a result, the dialogue became a bit cheesy and forced.  Add the fact that Tom Hanks (for some inexplicable reason) turned Robert Langdon into a condescending jackass for this movie and he immediately becomes unlikeable.  However, after the halfway point, the pace remains but they are finished explaining things and let the story unfold.

Ironically enough, what makes this movie good is the story itself.  The idea of science vs religion and the Illuminati vs the Catholic Church is one that I find way more compelling than the Holy Grail (Da Vinci Code).  Don't get me wrong, I liked the Da Vinci Code.  But I prefer both the book and movie versions of Angels & Demons simply for the story.  I especially like the resolution and conclusion for Angels & Demons more but I won't give anything away.  If you really want to know my thoughts on the endings for both, leave a comment with an email address and I'll get back to you.

I am disappointed that they reversed the order of this and the Da Vinci Code from the books but I realize they had to capitalize on the success of the second one quickly for the movie.  But you don't have to see these in order anyways.  They are really their own stories and are made separately quite well.  The only thing you need to know is that Langdon was involved in another adventure involving the church.

See it.  While it may not be the best acting or writing, the story is really tight and it moves very quickly.  I found, after multiple viewings, it still grips me and holds my attention.  So that makes it good in my book.

Beautiful Boy Review

Obviously inspired by the shootings at Virginia Tech, this movie becomes even more powerful in light of the recent shootings in Norway.  It's the story of the immediate aftermath of a campus shooting that focuses on the effects of the tragedy on the parents of the shooter/suicide victim.  In this, there is no real story.  It isn't a typical movie that follows a plot and comes to some sort of conclusion or resolution.  It really just is a snapshot of people's lives over a certain point in time.  This film is entirely set up to make the audience feel one emotion.

Beautiful Boy relies on strong acting performances.  It does get this from Michael Sheen and Maria Bello.  The emotional roller coasters that these characters are on always seems quite real.  When they veer off from each other, you feel the tension and when they collide, you feel the passion and sorrow.  There is only one spot where the writing is forced and the resulting dialogue on the screen seems a bit wooden.  Supporting performances are decent but nothing really to write home about.  I was surprised to see Alan Tudyk and Meatloaf in it.

As for the rest of the production value, there is nothing innovative or special about it.  But, as I said, a movie like this lives and dies with its acting performances.  While some of the camera angles seemed odd, it didn't take away from the film because the whole thing has a real indie feel to it.  I assume that was the intent.  I was not sorry that I paid $10 to see it.  While it seems to drag a bit because of the lack of a traditional plot, it doesn't go on for too long.

If you are in the mood for a drama with absolutely no comic relief, see it.  But, be warned.  There is only one emotion for this: sadness.  It is slightly less depressing than House of Sand and Fog or Requiem for a Dream.  If you can't handle that, give it a miss.

Captain America Review

I must be suffering from some sort of Comic Book Movie Fatigue or something because I should feel a lot better about seeing this movie than I do.  It really was not what I expected.  First, I expected it to be a lot more "hey Johnny" 1940s than it was.  With the exception of the big USO production number, it really wasn't at all like that.  I also expected it to be a lot more American patriot than it was.  After all, the character is Captain America.  If ever there was justification for over the top American patriotism in a movie it was here.  But, thankfully, they stayed away from that and made it more of a good vs evil type of story that audiences outside of the United States can enjoy just as much.

The best part of this movie is Tommy Lee Jones.  He really steals every scene he's in.  I think part of that has to do with most of the good one liners going to his character.  But he delivers them with his signature "deadpan yet oddly animated" style that only he can do.  As for the rest of the actors, there's really nothing bad except for maybe Stanley Tucci.  His German accent was slightly less worse than Vincent Schiavelli in Tomorrow Never Dies.  Between that and his look, it kind of reminded me of a caricature of my Dad's cousin, Bernd who is actually from Germany.

One thing a comic book movie has to be is visually appealing.  While Captain America didn't knock this one out of the park, it isn't bad either.  There are some shots where I thought they could have spent a little more money on the CGI to make it a bit smoother (especially when he's jumping) but, as a businessman, I understand the need to stay within budgets.  Most of the other effects are decent as well.  For example, the Hydra's weapons are well done.  The effects aside, the fact that this movie is set in the 40s doesn't actually help it.  Most of the costumes, props and lighting, etc. are overstylized and give it more of a Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen feel to it.  This is because they combine old analog technology with stuff that just didn't exist back then.  As a comic book movie, it needs to be a bit over the top but it doesn't seem to fit with the other Avengers movies in that regard.

If you are planning on doing the whole "Avengers" movie thing, it is obviously essential to see this movie (and, yes, stay until the credits are done).  But, if you are just looking for a stand alone action movie, you should probably not see it.  Especially with all that has come out this year.  And that's a shame.  If they had waited until they were out of the wake of Thor and Green Lantern, I'd probably feel different.  But, if you want to release the Avengers next spring, you have to cram as much of the preliminary material in before that as possible.  I just feel like we're being saturated with action this summer.

Arlington Road Review

It's a really good story that gets pretty dark as it progresses.  The problem is that, while the premise is good, the delivery is not.  Arlington Road is quite poorly written, acted and directed.  On the surface, I thought it would be quite good.  After all, it has three very good actors in Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack.  Add in that it is a thriller about domestic terrorism and it should get pretty exciting.  It starts out really well and ends decently.  But the stuff in the middle is quite forgettable.

The direction from Mark Pellington is a bit over the top.  Had he just stayed with it being a dark movie, it might have been better.  But his weird camera angles, odd lighting choices and overbearing music actually maces the movie seem like a bit of a parody of itself.  When you add in the fact that the dialogue is written quite poorly and cheesy, the entire tone of the movie suffers.  Furthermore, the writing, at times, is confusing.  I realize this is a conspiracy thriller so there have to be some twists.  But for a lot of the time, there was no proper exposition to explain how the story was unraveling.  As a result, the confusion compounds with the next twist.  If this happens too much (as it did here) the viewer can lose interest quickly.

As far as the acting goes, it seems that none of the three big names could really get it together at all.  Robbins and Cusack have great characters.  Both of those actors have the look and talent that should have been constantly sending shudders down my spine.  But, because of the poor writing, both performances became almost laughable.  Bridges, on the other hand, played his character quite well.  Oddly enough, his character was the laughable part.  Faraday is a history professor that specializes in domestic terrorism and he has a chip on his shoulder with the FBI.  He's constantly looking for conspiracies yet, when it comes to his wife's death, he's too quick to dismiss any conspiracy in either the government or the killers.  So, in spite of the decent performance, I could never really get on board with the character and didn't care about the outcome.

Don't bother seeing it.  If it were to come out now, I'd be one of the people rushing out to see it because I like thrillers.  But it came out 12 years ago and didn't age very well.  Maybe that's because it isn't really relevant anymore in the post September 11 world.  Had it been done well, it could still have some value in its historical context.  But the subpar production should put in pretty far down on your list of thrillers to watch.

Limitless Review

What happens when you take one of Hollywood's hottest commodities and give him a pill that will let him use 100% of his brain power?  That's basically the premise of the movie except that Bradley Cooper doesn't play himself.  Rather than do that, they should have given the screenwriter and director a pill that would have done the same thing.  Maybe they would have made a good movie then.

The premise is actually pretty cool.  But it had so much more potential to be a good dark thriller than it had for what it turned into.  Instead, they tried to make it a more upbeat movie that would appeal to, let's just say, the less cerebral of people.  I'm not saying that you're an idiot if you enjoyed it.  I'm just saying that they could have made a much more intellectual movie.  It is possible for the very intelligent to appreciate something a bit more shallow.  Rather than focus in on one or two plot developments and really getting into it, they bounce around a few different possible stories and never develop any kind of depth.  As a result, they rely on effects and distracting montages to move the story.  None of the villains have any meat to them and neither does Cooper's character.  In fact, you don't really care what happens to anyone.

For a movie where some of the characters are supposed to be using 100% of their brain power, they sure make a lot of illogical decisions.  I will give you one example that won't spoil the movie.  If you have to choose between hedge clippers, a baseball bat or a figure skate to use as a weapon against an assailant, what would you choose?  I'd choose baseball bat but that's because I can swing a bat well.  Some would choose the clippers for their stabbing and cutting power.  Only a moron would go for the skate.  But, that's exactly what she did.  And it's not like the skate was just lying there.  No.  It's attached to a LITTLE GIRL!!!!  Absolutely preposterous.  But most of the stuff is.

Don't see it.  It's pretty bad.

Cowboys & Aliens Review

John Favreau knows what he's doing.  He can take a comic book story, make an action movie about it and also make you care about the characters and story.  At first with this movie, I thought it was taking a bit long to get going and that there should be more action.  But, as it progressed, I realized that they were letting the story come to the audience and have it unfold naturally with action scenes used as a compliment.  Too often in these alien action movies, there are these big expository scenes that they rely on to explain things.  If you are anything like me, you tend to start tuning out long dialogue parts in action movies because you go in with your brain half turned off.  Often, I wind up confused because I missed something that was said and, if there isn't enough action going on through the whole movie, I come away disappointed.

With Cowboys & Aliens, a lot of the explanations are done visually and they don't get too deep.  Part of that I think is attributed to Favreau and the executive producers (Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard in particular).  But I think part of it can also be attributed to the subject matter itself.  The premise of an alien invasion taking place before our own technology has taken off is very interesting.  The gap between the alien technology and our own causes a lot more confusion on the part of the humans and they cannot develop any strategic defense or extract any knowledge from the alien technology (like they did in Independence Day).  So, the story becomes a bit more shallow and focuses on survival rather than any higher meaning.  There is no patriotic crap or underlying political message to this movie because of that.

Speaking of visuals, Cowboys & Aliens has some of the better ones I've seen in a Western for quite some time.  The locations that they used combined with the bright lighting are absolutely breathtaking.  Combine that with some really good special effects and you have a very appealing movie, visually.

The only real problems with this movie are, first, some of the sound editing was out of sync.  Sounds of fists hitting faces didn't match up with the shot in a few instances.  But the main problem was Harrison Ford.  I do have to give him some credit because he was saddled with a ridiculous character.  Is he good?  Is he bad?  Is he misunderstood?  Is he a schyster?  Make up your damn minds.  There were too many layers to his character and it didn't fit with the aforementioned shallower story and, therefore, became a distraction.  But, that notwithstanding, Ford's delivery of the character was still pretty bad.  Somebody get that man a lozenge please.  Or, just go off set, hork up that big loogie and let's move on.  Combine that with his wooden and cheesy deliveries and it's not his best work.

But, overall, see it.  It is well worth your money and time.  Even with Ford's performance, it is a very entertaining movie.  The other performances are really quite good even from the latest Maxim flavour of the week.  Favreau keeps the pace going and, before you know it, the two hours is up.  The climax even moves quite fast which is something that tends to drag on in an action/alien movie.

Quantum of Solace Review

I must admit that I like this movie a lot better now that I understand what they are doing with James Bond.  When I first saw it, I thought, "oh great.  The dirty, damn hippies have taken over James Bond."  But I now realize that they are trying to make Bond more realistic in leaving behind things like super cars and gadgets and having him escape some pretty stupid situations.  So, instead of gadgets, he has a state of the art smart phone.  Instead of super cars, we get to see eco-friendly Fords.  Instead of Jaws or Odd Job or even a Korean dude with diamonds embedded into his face, we get what is apparently Quentin Tarantino's malnourished and mentally deficient brother.  Instead of exotic locations, we get the Bolivian desert.

Quantum still has some of the hallmarks of a good Bond movie.  We still have two Bond girls.  One who is a bit dim and dies and one who helps him out.  We still have a super villain and even an organization that is determined to cause problems.  But, the villains now seem much more realistic and even if the method for domination is not.  An evil cartel trying to gain control of the world's water?  Sorry.  I'm not buying it.  And that's a good thing because we're never supposed to really buy into the evil plot in a Bond movie.  So, even if it was unintentional, I'm glad they still did something over the top.

Overall, Quantum is well made.  The action is still very good and a bit over the top which is what we want.  It is well acted all around and Daniel Craig steps it up as the gritty, new style Bond.  It will be interesting to see where he takes it in Bond 23.  I thought some of the decisions regarding music, sound and camera work were a bit too much on the artsy side but I can live with it.  Finally, it is a lot shorter than other Bond movies which is good.  I can handle over two hours when it is a ridiculous situation with a womanizing super spy blowing shit up in fancy cars.  When you strip it down like they have decided to do, it would get boring.  Instead, they shortened it and made sure it kept moving.

Like with my review of Casino Royale, I say see it.  It's actually pretty good.  Just be aware that you're going to get a bit of a bleeding heart environmental lecture.  But, if you don't like the direction Bond is going from Casino Royale, you should skip it because it really is more of the same from that.