Change Your Image
Pulpmariachi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Unaffected by Mileage
Nineteen years ago, when we last left Indiana Jones, he was riding off into the sunset, just having discovered and lost the Holy Grail, his father and his friends at his side. Over two years ago, when we last left Steven Spielberg, he had delivered quite possibly his bleakest, most depressing, and bitter movie to date. Prior to that, there were numerous rumors that the two would cross paths again. Yet, after attempts by numerous screenwriters, we have Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Needless to say, expectations rose high; this is, after all, Indiana Jones, one of the greatest adventure heroes. Excitement ran through the wires of the Internet and through word of mouth, but there was so much that could wrong at the same time: Harrison Ford is well into his 60s; George Lucas continues on shelling out Star Wars movies, barely making them beyond mediocre; Spielberg isn't the same filmmaker he once was, if his recent crop of movies from Schindler's List onward proves, he's taken a much darker turn and that whimsy and fascination and sense of fun that permeated Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, and Raiders of the Lost Ark has pretty much vanished. Added with the state of movie audiences in this day and age, who are far more cynical and pessimistic (a result of current policies and administrations?), there was a lot of potential for the fourth outing of Indiana Jones to fail.
But it didn't.
No: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a solid adventure picture, a border between the pulp-dime-novel-cliffhangers of the original trilogy and the weird sci-fi horrors from the 50s and 60s. Within five minutes after the start (ignore those prairie dogs), Spielberg has effectively and almost seamlessly taken us back into the world of the greatest daredevil archaeologist. His silhouette appears on the side of cars, his icon hat hardly ever leaves his head, and his wit is a strong as ever. Within twenty minutes, you're cheering for him all over again as he shows the Russians that he's not someone who can be easily stepped over.
The plot isn't any more complicated than any of the other films: there's these bad guys who wish to obtain a supernatural artifact to further their cause and Indiana Jones must stop them. Story revolving around the crystal skull itself can get a little complicated, the Meso-American importance and such, but the plot leaves enough room for car chases through a University, investigation of an ancient cemetery, another chase through the jungle (complete with sword-fighting on the back of cars), and all the booby traps that adorn mythical landscapes that's come to be expected out of this. As always, the chases are heart-pounding and it's always fun to watch Jones figure out what he's going to do next. Take out a forest cutter with a rocket launcher? Why not. Escape a warehouse using whips to swing himself from the overhead lights? That might work. Hide in a refrigerator to escape a nuclear blast? Better than any other idea. It's how Indiana Jones roles and if you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong movie, buddy.
There's no denying that Harrison Ford seems to be able to turn the Indiana Jones role on and off and it's a quite welcome decision that no one decided to pull a Bond and replace him. Shia LeBeouf proves himself to be making the right decisions and he's one of the least annoying sidekicks in the franchise (I'm looking at you, Short Round). Karen Allen returns, one of the best choices anyone could have made, and she again takes one of the most well-developed and realized love interests in any movie series through her same able-to-hold-her-own/Help-me-Indy/I-can-handle-this-myself role that makes up the dear Marion Ravenwood. Ray Winstone, always creepy, is an excellent foil and Cate Blanchett provides one of the creepiest maybe the most intelligent villains in the series so far. They're having fun in their roles, they're here for the ride, the thrill, the sense of being back together (Ford and Allen at least), of just doing something because they wanted to, and that chemistry and excitement moves off the screen.
Spielberg again proves just how much of the greatest director he is, able to come off the human psyche examination that was Munich to this without any hitch. He can stage an action sequence, avoiding the quick-cutting, kinetic, in-your-face, CGI-camera, epic sweeping cinematography choices that so many others have chosen, instead letting the shots last longer, resuming his point-and-shoot, non-meticulous-looking style prominent in the earlier films. Jansuz Kaminski delivers his most non-Kaminski photography yet; though there's still more desaturated lighting and beams through smoke than the other films.
The film's weakest point comes in the CGI, though there's minimal use of it. The prairie dogs at the beginning are too cute and out-of-place; swinging Tarzan monkeys don't seem to come across as well as they were when they were written; and the ending does kind of have a tacky element about it, but that might be the genre that the film's flirting with. And a tree of smoke with Indiana Jones standing beneath almost stretches the film's own reality too far, though it does make for a good screen-shot.
Roger Ebert said it the best: "If you like the Indiana Jones movies, you'll like this one." And it's true. So how does it compare? The safest way to view it, I think, is not to compare it to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is so perfect that nothing can stand up to it. I'd say, compare it to the weakest entry, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and see how it goes there. It's still early to weigh in its place within the franchise, but it's still one great, one spectacularly fun ride.
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Hands Down, Best Movie of 2006
It's hard to find a really good road movie. Most tend to have really great moments but are followed by long, drawn out sections that are kinda boring and making us as the viewer wish they'd go to funnier things. 'Transamerica' is a great movie, but it did drag on the road at times. Same with 'Vacation' and boatloads of other movies in that vein. Of course, then there are the absolutely down-right horrible road movies, like oh, I don't know..."Road Trip" and pretty much all the Vacations that followed the original.
So we come to 'Little Miss Sunshine'. The film opens with a young girl (Abagail Breslin of 'Signs' fame--she's way better in this), who is about 7 or 8, staring directly at us. We know she's watching TV because a beauty pageant is reflected in her glasses that are about twice the size of John Lennon's.
What follows is a brief introduction of all the characters of the Hoover family. There's the son, Dwyane (Paul Dano from L. I. E.), who has been reading Nietchze and has decided that the only thing for him to do is to take a vow of silence until he can get into the Air Force Academy; he spends most of his time working out and reading 'Thus Spake Zarathustra.' Next comes the Grandpa (Alan Arkin) who just got kicked out of his retirement home for chasing the women and snorting heroin. The dad (Greg Kinnear) is attempting to become a self-help guru; he's bent on winning and sees losers as seem to be dragged along the sidewalk, yet his 9-step program isn't doing that fabulously. The Mom (Toni Collete, always great) really wants the family to stay together but there's just not enough time for everything. And then there's her brother, Frank (Steve Carell), who has just tried to commit suicide because his boyfriend left him for the world's second-most Proust scholar who is climbing up the ranks.
That's the family. Like The Simpsons, there's a little bit of everyone you can see in The Hoovers.
Everyone is cast so perfectly. It's one of those instances where you forget all these big names and refer to them as Olive, Frank, Dwayne, Grandpa, Sheryl, and Richard. When a cast can do that you know they're doing a great job.
The movie's trailers may make it seem more like a comedy-drama but the drama angle is actually downplayed. 'LIttle Miss Sunshine' is a genuinely hilarious film. That's all I can say because the road is paved with comedy that's even the more hilarious as you come upon it.
Directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Ferris take the Spike Jonze route in their transition to the big screen rather than the, say, McG approach. This directing couple are visionaries, that's for sure. One doesn't need to look further than the two best Chili Peppers videos, 'Otherside' and 'Californication', to see that. They keep the weird visions subdued for the most part, but they are able to keep the incredibly boring road from Albequerque to Los Angelos interesting. That's quite a feat, I have to say, because New Mexico is really boring.
The music also stands out, especially since the songs are performed by DeVotchKa, probably the most original band out there that I've heard of (and they're from Colorado, take that The Fray!). They have this beautiful and strange sound that matches the entire film. Also contributing to the soundtrack are some great cuts by Sufjan Stevens, one of those big indie guys. DeVotchKa's better but still.
Really, this is a farce movie. There are loads of hysterical events that had my entire theater bursting guts. I don't envy the cleaning people after this showing. The Volkswagon Bus, being held together by it's last remaining nerves and muscles makes a great metaphor for the entire family but at the same time is a great gag throughout that never grows thin through all its foibles (though of course, if I were driving that thing I'd get pretty annoyed with it pretty quickly).
'Little Miss Sunshine' was picked up at Sundance for nearly 10 million dollars, the biggest in Sundance history. It was well worth it. It's an audience-pleaser and a great piece of art. There's a great satire underneath the entire thing too. It's most visible towards the end of the film during the beauty pageant, which is both uncomfortable and, how many times have I said funny? Can't really deny the truth. This should be the 'Brokeback' of 2006 mainly because it's about four times better than that. It's 'Vacation' with a heart.
The audience I saw it with when I sojourned to Denver applauded at the end. Everyone just seemed so happy while walking out the theater.
A+.
United 93 (2006)
Much Better When It's Limited to the Plane
I said it in my review of "Brick", something is going to have to blow me further away to make me think of it as a better movie this year. And "United 93" isn't that.
In fact, I was rather disappointed.
The scenes on-board the actual plane are amazing and tense and define a lot of...stuff. You know, that Americans can unite for a short period of time. That, though we may all be different, we all love and care for other people.
Then everything else is pretty much "Armageddon". We're in the scenes where everyone is in the control room, babbling incoherently. I was bored. Everything made this to be a story about United Airlines flight 93, not everything else that was going on on September 11th. In fact, that's what I was really hoping for. But no. We're in that stupid control room and it's taking away from the film. Not to mention, it all felt like a prolonged scene from "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". "Do you want to report a UFO? Repeat: do you want to report a UFO?" As an audience, we know exactly what happened that day from an outsiders' point-of-view. I frankly wasn't interested in seeing what the military was doing.
I do like Paul Greengrass's work, but I think he shakes the cameraman by the shoulders when he's filming something. There are times when the shaky camera does work. Like the hijacking and the uprising. I would be willing to bet that those times were just a big mess of confusion, and I think the film delivers that greatly. But everything else is super-hand-held. It gets annoying. I've seen other, better, hand-held movies. Just look at "Saving Private Ryan" for one. When the characters are steady, the shots are nearly steady. The same goes for "The Constant Gardener" and any Robert Rodriguez flick pre-"Spy Kids". They know how to control it and it works better.
The camera-work is more overused here than it is during "The Bourne Supremacy". "Supremecy" was all about confusion and spy-tactics and everything, so it was effective. People know what's going on in this movie (after a certain point and strictly limited to those stupid control room scenes) but they don't know what to do about it.
Again, the United 93 scenes work so much, because Greengrass lets us get into the characters (or as much as they could base off the characters). The phoning home scenes are touching and show that people do care about others besides themselves. There were no messages of hatred or anything, even though what these terrorists were doing was pretty horrible. Those final moments (before the uprising) were about making peace, and that is demonstrated greatly. We saw it in "Munich" as the main characters suffer and we in turn are more connected to the action on screen. This is what happens during the plane sequences.
Personally, I think Greengrass should have abandoned the whole "real-time" aspect. This makes all the control room scenes seem like a dull episode of "24" while the cameraman has a seizure. He could have easily made a tight film cutting all that out, and emotionally I believe it would have impacted everyone even more.
"United 93", while it is a good film, it could have been delivered in such a better way. I repeat (because I'm a post-Modernists and we do like repetition), the airplane scenes are gripping and heartfelt and the best parts of the movie. Pity it wasn't limited to just that.
B
Brick (2005)
Worth Everything
Keep up with me now.
I went through a lot to see this movie. I remember first hearing about it while watching "The Constant Gardener" DVD in January and thinking, "Huh, that looks like one of my movies. Hooray for archetypes." I wanted to see it as soon as the trailer ended.
For the next couple months I waited. I went to the Web site all the time, bought the soundtrack, and read excerpts from the novella, all of which were really horrible ideas on my part because they just made me want to see this movie even more.
And it was finally released, but only in one place in Colorado: Denver. For one week I couldn't see it and it drove me insane.
Finally the day came around to see the movie and my friend and I got lost in Denver, renaming it Colorado's anus and just generally cursing the city a lot.
The reason I mention all of this is because the movie was worth it. Everything.
Rian Johnson's movie starts out as a gimmick (what if a Dashiell Hammett novel was set in high school?) but it quickly moves on from there. It becomes its own story, with its own characters and everything like that. It's not a send-up of those classic noir films at all, it's a part of them, except with high schoolers.
The movie is about Brenden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), whose ex-girlfriend has just turned up dead. A quick "two days previous" segment tells us that she's gotten mixed up in something over her head. After her death, Brenden decides that his only choice is to find out who killed Emily. Armed with his contact, The Brain (Matthew O'Leary), Brenden uncovers an underground drug operation led by The Pin (Lukas Haas), who's old at twenty-six.
It is a whodunnitmystery of the most elaborate kind. There are extremely compelling characters who speak like Hammett gumshoe detectives. In fact, the entire high school seems to have been just frozen in the '40s, but that's called heightened reality.
All the actors give wonderful performances, and they have to because without them utterly convinced that this is the way they speak on a day-to-day basis.
The film is a mystery so there are clues littered all over the place, as well as great suspense all around. The film just gets extremely dark somewhere around the middle, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
"Brick" is only playing in select areas at the moment. Given the chance I think it could take off and become THE indie film of this year (much like "Brokeback Mountain" was the indie film of last and "Napolean Dynamite" previous, and "Donnie Darko" whenever that was released, the only exception being that this movie is better than ANY of them). It has that potential because of its brilliance.
True, some people may just not get it--I heard of a theater having to pass out a glossary for people to be able to know what the words mean, but any film noir fan should have no problem figuring it out.
Looking out at the rest of this year and judging by the previews that have so far been released, I don't think I'm going to see anything that tops this movie. Immediately after walking out of the theater I wanted to go see it again.
It's a brilliant brilliant film and I loved it. Now, I think I'll just stand here and bleed at you.
A+.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Spielberg Shows Us Aliens Aren't Just Cuddly and Trying to Phone Home
May contain spoilers.
I'm probably one of the last people you want to go to when asking about a Steven Spielberg film, because I'll always tell you they are always good. Or great. Or awesome. Or spectacular. I think there might be one other director who I'll make myself like their films. One.
I mean, Jurassic Park made me choose two career paths: 1. a paleontologist, and 2. a filmmaker. So you can blame that movie for everything. But seriously, Spielberg has changed my life with most of his films, and even his weaker ones I'll make myself like if I have to.
Whenever I walk into a Spielberg theater I think, "Okay, I'm just going to immerse myself in this world you're presenting and even if the largest plot-hole ever exists, I'll believe it." And it hasn't failed. I've never had to make myself like a Spielberg movie, either. I always have. He obviously is very much in control of his material. Self-proclaiming directors like Lars von Trier don't have anything on him.
Tarantino should quiver in his presence. The only other filmmaker almost on par with Spielberg in Scorsese. Seriously, Spielberg was named the greatest filmmaker by a British magazine. Hitchcock and Kubrick are excellent as well, but. . . . I don't know, basically I have a bias towards Spielbergian films. I always will. I have had one since 1993 and it hasn't gone away, even when I've gone through my different phases and whatnot.
So, on to War of the Worlds.
I loved it. And it is, by far, the best film of 2005. Batman Begins, Star Wars, Cinderella Man, and all those other films have nothing on this.
First of all, Spielberg gives us believable characters. He is going to make you like these guys, because, if you don't, you won't care what happens to them. And that's what tension is all about. Second, he gives us a story. Actually, it's H. G. Wells's classic masterpiece story, though vamped up a bit. The ending and events are all relatively the same, but just in a different time period. Finally, when characters and story are out of the way, Spielberg knocks us out with the visuals.
It's a running movie. Tom Cruise and his kids run away from the alien creatures. And just like Spielberg made it seem like they could be our friends, he turns around and shows us how they can rape us as well.
The tension. Man, some of those scenes are incredibly intense, I can't even describe (though one of them mimics Jurassic Park, but that's all good). I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, I was engulfed in what was going on.
Then, I squirmed in a few places. Like the red mist scene.
Brilliant film.
And we get performances out of everyone that is actually worthwhile. Cruise proves he can act and isn't always just a pretty face (think the Mission: Impossible films). I'm not a big fan of Dakota Fanning, but she was excellent.
Again, the story gives us plenty of moments of intensity. And great, and loud visuals. Kaminski's cinematography always makes you think that the entire thing is surreal, but very real, like the worst adrenaline rush ever.
The ending was kind of a bit off, but it can be forgiven by the brilliant scenarios that proceed it.
Anyways, I still think this is the best movie of 2005 by far. See it now.
***1/2 /****
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Excellent Film, Very Well Done by Cuaron (Maybe Some Spoilers)
I love the Harry Potter books a lot, they're really fun to read and have some good suspenseful moments (except for the end of Book Five, which only really evoked anger. Thank God for Fred and George) and great images that you can think of in your mind. Are the books the best thing ever written? No. Not even close, but they're still great. And my favorite one so far (waiting in anticipation for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and whatever Book Seven will be) is Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban. Don't get me wrong, the first two were great, but Book Three took the cake.
I really like the books, but am not the biggest fan of the franchise.
I was disappointed in the first two films. Film One wasn't very good at all, too much CGI and the kids weren't really working their characters Film Two was much better, but again, the kids weren't the characters and there was way too much CGI camera effects. So what did I expect about Film Three? First, I was stoked to see that Chris Colombus wasn't going to direct these films, and when I found out that Alfonso Cuaron (from Y Tu Mama Tambien and A Little Princess fame) was helming this project I was psyched out of my mind and I probably anticipated this film more than any other this summer (and third for the entire year, after The Incredibles and Kill Bill Volume 2).
Was I let down?
No. First of all, Cuaron says a nice "Screw You" to Colombus's vision of a happy castle where everyone gets along and little furry woodland creatures come up and sing songs. Hogwarts is now dark and mysterious, now maliciously lurking in the shadows. More like the Hogwarts I pictured while reading the books. And then there's this cool bridge thingy that stretches out, which is one of my favorite editions, along with the clocktower. If not for anything else, check out this film for its amazing cinematography and superb direction by Cuaron.
The actors finally come into their characters. And Emma Watson becomes a total hottie. I think what helped a lot is the focus more on entering puberty and growing up rather than playing with magic. On a sidenote, Cuaron had the kids write an essay about their characters. Daniel Radcliff turned in one about 3 pages long, Emma Watson turned one in 16 pages long, and Rupert Grint didn't even do it. But the kids are now the characters and you're totally engrossed by the story.
Which is: Harry Potter is going back to Hogwarts, but is being pursued by this escaped convict from the wizard version of Alcatraz, Azkaban. Everyone is scared pantsless and dementors (basically Ringwraiths that can fly and suck out your soul, but are still cool nonetheless) patrol the school grounds. We find out that the convict is Sirius Black, a friend of the Potters who betrayed them and wants to kill Harry because he wants Voldemort to go back to power (or does he?). Harry gets pissed and wants to kill him for doing what he did.
I did have a few problems with the film, that kept it from being perfect. I thought the confrontation with Sirius Black was a little TOO rushed. And the werewolf really didn't do anything for me.
But those problems are cancelled out by the best time-travel scene so far and the wonderful acting and cinematography. Not to mention the CGI effects are mainly thrown in the background, since Cuaron wisely wants to focus more on the characters, something that I think Colombus would have never done. That's not to say there aren't any. But they look good and fit with everything else in the film. Like Buckbeak, who is very well done, and then the return of the Whomping Willow, now more as a character rather than a prop. Still, this film also has my favorite CGI camera work, when we go through this clocktower...So awesome.
I saw this with a friend and he had more problems than I did and complained about them before saying he overall liked the movie. I really only had those two problems so I really, really enjoyed it. With the fans of the books this is either their favorite (as in my case) or their least favorite, and from what I've seen on message boards and stuff, it seems to be the same for the films. I say check it out, because it's really worth it. I give it 3.5/4.
The Polar Express (2004)
See It In 3-D, if You Can
I'm lucky enough to live in Colorado Springs, which has one of the few 3-D IMAX Theaters. Be that as it may, I hardly ever attend a film there because it's like $3 more than the regular matinée ticket price ($5.25). But I went with my family to see this yesterday and I'm glad this is where I saw The Polar Express.
The Polar Express isn't necessarily a good movie. It shows how difficult it is to adapt something like a 32-paged picture book into a 100 minute movie. There are some pointless adventures on top of the train, with a ticket, and on some ice. Then within the workshops of the elves (I wish that more people would make elves tall, like the ones Tolkien brought to life in his novels). On top of that, there is a rather annoying musical number with, get this, Tom Hanks singing. And then, at the end, the film falls victim to its own sentimentality. It gets to be TOO sentimental, unlike the book, where the whole mood fit right in.
And because of this, I don't think this would have been that great of a movie in 2-D on the regular screens. But in 3-D, Zemeckis's visuals pop out at you. You can catch try to catch the snow, stop the train, slap the Hero Boy in the face, or shake Tom Hanks's hand (my brother tried to do all of these). This is what made the movie cool to me.
So, if you ever get the chance, see it in 3-D at an IMAX theater. But be warned, the lines will be HUGE. At the ticket booth, nearly all the IMAX shows were sold out while there seemed to be a lot of room in the normal theaters. Get there early and bring a book to read.
In fact, if you're taking little kids like your children or siblings, why don't you take the BOOK itself and read it to them before going to the movie?
Again, I'm glad my city has one of these theaters. Oh, one more thing. At least at our IMAX we didn't get those annoying blue and red glasses that came with Spy Kids 3-D. You get those nice black ones, so you can see all the colors the same, but the images still stick out at you. You know, the kind they have at DisneyWorld.
For this film, I would give it 2/4 if I had seen it in normal theaters. But since I got THE IMAX EXPERIENCE, I'll give it 3/4.
The Incredibles (2004)
Just So Awesome!
This has got to be one of my favorite animated films, ever. Ranking up there with The Triplets of Belleville. Everything in this film just works so well, falling together perfectly. Each voice casting, the visuals, and the story. Brad Bird has to be one of my favorite animation directors (creating the excellent Iron Giant, and directing one of my personal favorite episodes of The Simpsons, "Krusty Gets Busted")and he masterfully displays his skill here.
This blows Finding Nemo away (which, I feel, was overrated) as well as anything else that Pixar released. And it deals with issues you'd never think you'd see in a Disney movie. Like infidelity and fights that occur within families. And then so many of the heroes die, though this is usually told in a flashback way and is really funny.
The story is excellent and the action sequences are intense. The forrest chase between the two kids and those razor bladed hover-things was great, reminding me of the speeder chase in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, except done MUCH BETTER. The final fight was just as intense. This time, with Samuel L. Jackson's Frozone coming in to kick some robo butt as well. Oh, and note how Samuel L. Jackson plays a character that freezes things, further defining how cool he actually is.
Basically, this movie is just so awesome. Better than a lot of things I've seen this year. Shrek 2 and Shark Tale, two other big computer animated releases, are left in this film's dust. In means of story and visuals. Visually, sometimes landscape scenes look so REAL, that you wonder if George Lucas is going to use them for the upcoming Star Wars film. And the characters interact in a real way too, that it seems the animators at Pixar had to hold themselves down so people remember that this is still an animated movie.
Kudos to you Brad Bird. For 115 minutes, you kept us gripped!
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)
Just Pass It By...Read the Book
First and foremost, I loved the novel by Ray Bradbury. It's the kind of horror that gets under your skin and sticks with you later. It was one of his best books, with, you know, Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine. I as just hoping that this movie would be all right. It had lots of chances, with a great cast, like Jason Robards and Jonathn Pryce. And Bradbury even wrote the script himself. And on top of all that, it has PAM GRIER!
How could it fail?
There may be spoilers within.
First of all, it was dumbed down. Much of the horror from the book was lost as Bradbury must have been forced to keep the violence to a minimum. All the visuals from the book...gone. Everything that made you squirm...gone.
And then there's the acting. Like a lot of movies that Disney threw out in the 80s, the kids in this movie cannot act. And, this bugged me a lot, neither of them looked 13 but 9 or 10. Their strong friendship wasn't addressed. It was more like they were acquaintaces.
You'd think Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce could pull this off in their roles of Mr. Halloway and Mr. Dark. But here it's like they just don't care. All they want to do is somehow pay off some mortgage or something. This is far from being some of their best performances.
Pam Grier was fine as the witch, but the charecter of the Dust Witch herself wasn't well pulled off. She's a lot less evil and doesn't have the presence as she did in the book.
And everything that was left out of the book. The ballon night chase, the marking of Jim's house, the real death of Mr. Dark, what happened to Mr. Coogan on the merry-go-round, the fate of the lightening rod salesman, the real death of the witch, and oh so much more.
And the special effects were bad, even for the 80s. The merry-go-round of doom for one thing with the superimposed horses going around wasn't really creepy, and that weird green mist that really had nothing to do with anything.
I could keep going about how this movie ripped apart the original novel, but it makes blood boil. Don't see this movie but read the book. It's a classic of Bradbury.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Doesn't Top the First, But Still Cool
The Bourne Identity is probably my favorite spy movie. Bourne has to use his brains to figure everything out and quickly dispatches his nemesis before moving on. Oh, and here's the best part...THE COPS ACTUALLY SHOWED UP ALMOST Immediately AFTER SOMETHING HAPPENED! That was so shocking and amazing! The police actually doing their jobs! And that film created a real sense of realism (well, except for the end when Bourne jumped down that building, popped a guy in the head, and used that dead body to break his fall, but that was still pretty cool). Doug Liman created something different from all the other spy thrillers and it remains my favorite.
So now, here we have The Bourne Supremacy. A lot of it is a retread of the first one. More things for Bourne to figure out, avoiding the CIA who so desperately wants to kill him, and then just beating up people who try to kill him. Is this bad? No. It's very cool. Like the first one, this movie is a chase thriller, but I don't think it was handled as well as the first.
You know have Brian Cox's character taking over the Chris Cooper character, but now he's using this other team to hunt down Bourne. And then there are some other assassins trying to kill him. And you know how it is.
Much like the first one, this one really strayed away from the book, which I feel is a good thing because now the movie and the book can be judged on their own. The major element lifted from the book still in the movie is that some assassins killed some people and they put the blame on Bourne.
I don't think Paul Greengrass is as good as Doug Liman because I don't think he has the same passion as Liman for Bourne. Listen to commentary on the DVD and you'll see. He uses hand-held cameras, like what Liman did with the first one, but still there is a lack of the energy Liman tried to get with the first film. But the chases are cool, the fighting is awesome, and it still has intelligence.
The two car chases don't hold up to the one in the first film and there is still no scene that comes close to the one in The Bourne Identity where he chases Clive Owen at the Farmhouse. Still, this movie is really cool.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
HATED THIS FILM--TWO STANDPOINTS
All right, now I know most people are like: "Oh, a Jesus movie, we cannot be better Christians if we don't go see this movie and praise it and depress ourselves by seeing how bad of people we really are!" And I do see the box office gross, but that doesn't mean anything. Some of the worst films of all time are box office smashes (Star Wars Episode I, anybody?). But there are two standpoints why I hate this film. One standpoint is that of a filmmaker (however amateur I am) and of a Christian (Catholic, and yes we are Christians too.)
Let's start with the filmmaker standpoint of why I hated this movie.
It was cheaply shot and put together. On what looked like 8mm. Not hi8, just regular crappy 8mm. And when Jesus fell, did we need to see it FROM EVER SINGLE ANGLE?! No! I think that when Gibson sat down to write his directorial follow up to Braveheart, he said "How can I make a movie even more gory than Reservoir Dogs?" And come on. Nobody has that much blood in them (I'm referring to the cat of nine tails scene). NOT EVEN MR. ORANGE! The raindrop thing was just stupid. Some of the worst uses of CG cameras I've ever seen. I prefer the Harry Potter ones to this. And that music score! Could it be more overpowering? And then the switching to slowmotion to show beatings and his falling. I'll admit, there was one scene I liked, where Jesus saves Magdalene from the stoners, that was well done, but for the rest of the movie, Gibson just kind of tossed the camera and wherever it landed, that was the shot he was going to use. I've discussed some of the editing earlier, but I think that that was a major let down, too. Just random cuts that don't mean anything. And then they are repeated again and again. And that got annoying. All the characters, too, are just kind of there. There is no reason why they are there. They have no characterization. They just kind of chill out, cry, or die. That's it. Nothing else. You don't feel for them (okay, with Christ getting beaten and the sound effects, it's a bit flinching).
And now, I'd like to talk about this film from a Christian standpoint.
I don't know what most Christians want. But me, I don't want to watch my Savior getting beaten and bloodied for two hours. Okay. Yes, he died for us. Yes. He died because we're all sinners and that was the way of forgiveness. BUT I DON'T WANT A WHOLE MOVIE WHERE HE JUST GETS BEATEN! Why would I want that? Jesus was here to help make us better people, not so we can watch him die while we gawk at him like we are at the circus. Dying was a big part of that, because that made him more than a human, that made him our Savior. Which is what he wanted to do. He wanted to SAVE US by making us better people. He wanted to show us a path to righteousness and to God. He didn't want us to stare at him getting beaten.
I think it is kind of funny that most Christians think they become stronger by watching our Savior getting killed. I found it more uplifting in Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST (where he gives up a normal life and gives us dying just so we can live). But most Christians don't like their Savior being human than rising above that. They'd rather have him a shapeless mass of meat.
Memento (2000)
A BORING WASTE OF MY TIME
I don't know...for some reason I just didn't like this movie. A bunch of my friends had said thati it was really good and messed with your head and everything and came out at a time when I really respected M. Night Shayamalan (he said this was probably one of his favorite films). So I got the DVD and I watched it and was just bored to death. Sure, the acting was okay and the story was good, but the direction just went nowhere and the minutes seemed to drag on.
And then there was one thing that really brought it down for me. The "I don't remember anything before the night my wife died." If he doesn't remember anything before his wife died, how does he remember that he has a condition. Something that Quentin Tarantino pointed out.
This movie just never ticked me with. I found it too slow and too drawn out, like Christopher Nolan was wanting you the get it instead of messing with your head (like the repetitive scenes where Lenny meets the girl and Teddy keeps saying hello). But that's just my opinion and I think you should just judge this movie for yourself like you should judge anything.