Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Titan A.E. (2000)
10/10
Breath Taking Animated Sci Fi - Well Done!
30 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***Warning - some spoilers*** for those who haven't seen.

The blending of 2D animation with 3D for "outside views" of space ships, stations, planets, etc, was extremely well done, making the cartoon characters seem as though they were dwelling in a physically "real" universe. The texture and feel of the 3D animation was worthy of a non animated sci fi, IMHO, albeit, not one of the ones they spend 8 kazillion dollars making.

The Dredj made the perfect space villains, pure energy, completely cold hearted killers with no compassion, mercy, etc, just instinctively reactionary to Humans as a perceived threat, with no effort to establish negotiations, just the desire to wipe us out to the last person.

The story line was acceptable, involving heroes, bad guys, and plot twists. I, like most, don't expect great depth in a movie that is intended as a animation with just enough kick to interest an older crowd along with the children.

There are those who have criticized this movie for a variety of pretty half baked reasons. The main reason the criticisms are half baked are because THIS IS A CARTOON, and the critics somehow knock it like it was a full featured movie based on a classic novel. Let's check out a few complaints, just for fun:

1) The story lacks depth. LIGHTEN UP - IT'S A CARTOON! A simple sci fi with the bad guys trying to wipe humanity from the face of the universe and a reluctant and embittered hero, whose father was separated from him at a young age and whose planet was destroyed out from under him, having humanity's survival pinned on him. This ain't Gone with the Wind, gang, and it was never intended to be deep, just good clean fun!

2) It isn't made clear why the Dredj hate us so much. First, for those who apparently missed this point, the Dredj are SUPPOSED to be somewhat anomalous beings with anomalous intentions - cold hearted killers, pure energy with no heart, no soul, and no regard for any form of life and no agenda but the survival and advancement of their kind. No species really likes them and most just tolerate them and try not to get them too angry lest they should be next on their hit list. Being who and what they are, they don't need much of a reason to be belligerent towards another species. However, and again for those who apparently watched the movie but didn't pay much attention, just enough information regarding a motive is given in no less than TWO DISTINCT PLACES in the movie. The opening dialogue says that it may be because of what the Dredj perceive that Humanity may one day become that they decide to destroy us. Later, the question is pointedly asked, Why us? What did we ever do to the Dredj? and the answer is clearly stated, Not what we did to them but what we may one day become. If you need more, go find a Dredj and psycho analyze it - quickly, before it atomizes you!

3) With no real explanation, just a quick comment about changing the polarity or something, the hero states that he has discovered how to use the Dredj themselves as an energy source for the Titan, since they are in fact made of pure energy. This is a problem? How many sci fi's have we all seen that end in the day being saved by some simple techno bablish gibberish statement, a quick rerouting of some widget, then, push the button, and, ZAP!!! humanity saved and our heroes live to fight another day? It's the way things are done in the sci fi universe, so it was not too surprisingly the way things were done in this movie! Personally, I thought it was a fitting epitaph that the Dredj, who destroyed Earth and had every intent of destroying the Titan and all life aboard her, along with every last human, should be stopped by using them as the energy source to create a New Earth to replace the one they destroyed!

Bottom line: A great CARTOON! An animated feature with great action, a very interesting and unexpected plot twist, a great and fitting ending, and just plain fun.

I highly recommend it. I saw it in the theaters with my children and am now the proud owner of the DVD I just received as a Christmas present. Enjoy!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good Solid Action Yarn/ Steven Seagal Vehicle
24 November 2003
Ok, first the draw backs (aka nit picks):

A sharp shooter takes careful aim, draws a bead with scoped, high powered rifle, and, guess what? Nails Ryback (Seagal) square in the shoulder! C'mon guys, at least show the train hitting an unexpected bump and knocking the sharp shooter off a bit or something. This kind of scene leads to the many jokes we've all heard about all those good guys who must be walking around with the sorest, most lacerated shoulders in the world!

Pepper spray is something you get used to? I'm referring to the scene when the head honcho mercenary, (Everett McGill), and one of his side kicks, (Peter Greene), confronts Ryback's niece and she says "Mace!" and sprays them both in the eyes. There they stand, completely unaffected, Peter Greene with his eyes drenched with the stuff, eyes still wide open and with a p****d expression. Head mercenary grabs the spray cannister away from Ryback's niece and says something to the effect of, "Not mace, sweetheart, pepper spray. It's issued to civilians. Once you're used to it [sprays a couple of shots directly into his mouth] it just clears the sinuses!"

From what I've read about pepper spray, it REPLACED mace largely because it was MORE EFFECTIVE against an attacker than mace. The idea is that mace is a drug which is supposed to incapacitate an attacker. Problem is, if the attacker does drugs, they may have already built up a tolerance, and if they are high already when you spray them with mace, it has little or no effect. Pepper spray, on the other hand, is supposed to work at a far more rudimentary level. It's supposed to DEFINITELY INFLAME TISSUE around the eyes and in the nose and throat, causing the attacker to involuntarily close their eyes and the sinus passages to swell up, hampering breathing, and causing the attacker to fall weekly to there knees. Heck, the stuff has even being encouraged by rangers at Yellow Stone Park to ward off bears, since it has, on several occasions, caused a charging bear to stop dead in its tracks and do an about face and run off.

Some tough mercenaries, eh? Those old boys pass it around the camp fire while they're singing songs just to clear the sinuses!

Lots of words, I know, but points they could pay more attention to.

The movie, as a whole, ROCKED big time. It was a great action piece and a perfect vehicle for the indestructable Ryback/Steven Seagal.

I see lots of complaints about Ryback being too indestructable, etc, but, let's face it, that's the kind of movie this is. Whether it's Seagal, Eastwood, Stallone, Schwartzenegger, etc, the good guy wins against all odds. They have the fighting skills, courage, and an overall savy that makes them simply unbeatable and sure to win the day, and, yes, always just in the knick of time.

If you like action flicks, lots of fight scenes, things blowing up, bullets flying, and the good guys winning in the end, this one's definitely worth a rental. If you want reality in your movies, either watch the 6 o'clock news, read the headlines, or go watch movies that feature stark reality as their genre, but kindly stop complaining about things that are simply part of a movie's genre! Oh, and I promise NOT to complain that movies that are of a more realistic genre are too realistic at their sites, ok?

Enjoy!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daredevil (2003)
Over the top violence ruins the movie
26 February 2003
I won't spoil for those who haven't seen the movie, but suffice it to say that the many actions scenes, (and I like a movie with a lot of action scenes), included superfluous, graphic, maiming, impailing, etc, which, as usual, do not add nearly as much as the same scenes shot without the graphic violence and left to the imagination.

Too bad, since I, like many baby boomers coming of age, would take my kids to see a less violent movie, based on a comic book super hero.

I really think Hollywood should rethink what they're doing. Despite its strong showing, I truly feel they would keep the same current group of viewers and bring in more if they would simply tone it down some.

Lots of us parents out there who are movie goers with families of four - wake up and smell the green, hollywood! Until then, your loss.

Can't wait for the sequel I WON'T BE GOIN TO: "Dare Devil vs Jason XI!!!" Whatever.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
James Bond?
16 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
For those who haven't seen it yet, ***SPOILERS*** follow.

For me, and for many others, James Bond is a unique character who was established for decades by Sean Connery and Roger Moore. The producers quickly learned with the first few movies starring Sean Connery that the hard core Bond of the Flemming novels needed some adaptation to survive and they did a superlative job of doing so for quite some time.

As such, there is, (or I should say, WAS), a certain surrealistic magic about the James Bond character which allowed us movie goers to transcend reality and truly escape the headlines we all read daily regarding the heroes who die too young. During this period, if you wanted all out action and violence in a movie, you went to a Schwartznegger, Stalone, etc flick.

Certain rules, which have applied to James Bond for a long time, have been stripped away by most of the so called "Bond" films since Roger Moore's era and were ably and completely done away with in this film, such as:

1) Bond NEVER gets caught. Well, OK. He can get caught by the bad guy, threatened, bragged at by the Bad guy, then escape in just the nick of time and foil his plan. Truth be known, he could have escaped whenever he wanted to, but allowed himself to be held for a day or two just to learn more from the "inside."

2) Bond NEVER gets tortured endlessly. Maybe roughed up, but not tortured for over a year. His quick wit and matchless skills simply won't allow it.

3) Bond is NEVER in a situation from which his unmatched genius, talent, and cool can't save him.

4) Bond NEVER gets abandoned by his country or told by his superior that if it were up to her, he would still be rotting in prison. He might get a disapproving sneer from a stuffed shirt government rep, but deep down he's appreciated and respected for his talents and bravery.

Yet in "Die Another Day", we are presented with a James Bond who gets captured for 14 months, ruthlessly tortured by near drowning and scorpion stings, with anti venom used to bring him back from the brink of death time and time again. There was no doubt that he was captured, was to remain so, was completely at his captors mercy, and there was no way he could figure a way to escape.

At the end of the 14 months, when Bond thought he was going to be executed, he started walking that "last mile" out of the prison camp clearly in a hopeless situation in which he was going to be unceremoniously shot in the back with no way out. You could even see the look of broken despair and hopelessness on Brosnan's face as he walked bravely forward. One is reminded of Roger Moore in "Live and Let Die", when he is being quite literally walked out to a back alley by multiple thugs, spots an opportunity and takes out the gun men handily. A good job of acting out the role of helplessness, exhaustion, and nearly mental collapse by Brosnan, but simply not a fit for James Bond.

Last, but not least, when he realizes he is being traded and gets met by the "good guys", he is injected with a sedative and wakes up in a high tech "prison" of sorts where M tells him that if it were up to her, he would still be rotting in prison, that his freedom was bought at too high a price, that they suspect he was broken and gave away priceless secrets, and that he was to remain in their custody until she deemed it fit to release him.

I could go on, but the movie does so, (unfortunately), illustrating my point, so why bother?

In the real world, an agent with a license to kill and put on assignments like James Bond would probably not last very long. There are undoubtedly such heroes giving their lives daily in the protection of freedom and human rights which we will never hear about, as well as others who we do hear about. But the true Bond character is not real world. Rather, he stands unique. He allows us to escaped the carnage of real life and believe for a few fleeting moments, that the good guy really can survive AND save the day, and do it with suave and cool. What a shame they have ruined the franchise that was so ably established for decades.

Perhaps M's words to Bond summarized things best: Bond is not England's celebrated, priceless treasure anymore, not the man who stands head and shoulders above the rest. He does not walk coolly and calmly down the path to certain death, only to cheat death yet again simply because he is, well, "BOND, JAMES BOND!" In fact, at this point, he can be captured without displaying the wits necessary to escape, tortured endlessly, and taken out to the back ally and shot, in just the same manner as with any other John Doe in the real world. In fact, he is not even to be trusted and has been locked away indefinitely.

For my part, I've given the industry moguls many years to clean up the mess they've made of this franchise, and they will not get another dime of mine to see this (not even) poor excuse for James Bond they have been portraying recently in any future movies.
49 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed