Archive for Reviews

The reason why I picked the DVD of The Soloist and took it home and watched it was its DVD cover art. I have the tendency to judge movies by their posters and DVD cover art. When a movie poster or DVD cover art successfully gets my attention, I take the time to read what’s written on the back of its DVD case. What’s written on the back of the DVD case will make me take home or drop the movie. In the case of The Soloist, I liked its central focus–classical music and a mental illness. Did it deliver what it promised in its cover and in what is written on the back of its DVD case? I safely can say that it delivered six out of ten.

The Soloist is based on a Los Angeles Times columnist’s (Steve Lopez, played by Robert Downey, Jr.) preoccupation with helping a Juilliard School dropout and a homeless schizophrenic musician (Nathaniel Ayers, played by Jamie Foxx). Foxx’s and Downey Jr’s acting are great, they really made the characters they play come to life on screen. But the movie has some shortcomings. For one, it tried to touch issues that are too big for it to handle all at the same time, like racial discrimination in our time, homelessness, and charity. These issues are actually fertile ground for movies like this, but biting on it too much could ruin what every film in this genre is after.

The biggest disappointment as far as I am concerned is the superb acting of Jamie Foxx was diminished somewhat by his inability to play the cello. I don’t know, but I was really distracted by Foxx’s fingers in the scenes where Nathaniel Ayers plays the cello; Foxx’s fingers seemed to tell me, “Hey, I am not Nathaniel Ayers, I am Jamie Foxx trying to play Nathaniel Ayers.” If you have seen the 1986 movie Crossroads, you’ll be impressed with Ralph Macchio playing the part of a guitar player because he really studied the guitar parts, so his scenes were realistic; his fingers moved along with the sound of the guitar.

But despite of its shortcomings, The Soloist is still a good movie worth watching. If you like classical music, then you’re in for a treat here.

I  think that the new Star Trek movie was awesome! It had many excellent aspects and was like the older ones.  Personally, I would give it nine point five out of ten stars.

The movie begins when the U.S.S. Kelvin is sent to investigate a lightning storm in space. Out of the storm emerges the Romulan mining ship, Narada, which attacks the U.S.S. Kelvin, killing much of the crew, including the captain. Thus, George Kirk is put in command.  His pregnant wife is evacuated along with most of the crew.  In the lifeboat, she gives birth to James Kirk, and then the elder Kirk crashes his ship into the Romulan ship.

Next, you see James Kirk as a young, reckless teen. He has stolen his stepfather’s car and is racing along a road at high speeds when a cop attempts to pull him over.  Kirk speeds on, but loses the car off a cliff, so he is arrested.

Next you see him at a bar full of Starfleet sailors.  Kirk gets in a fight with some and afterward is talking to Captain Pike who bets him to join Starfleet. The next day, he arrives on base and becomes a cadet and befriends Leonard McCoy. Later, at the end of training, he is sent in front of a tribunal because he cheated on a test.  Suddenly, command reports that a fleet ship is damaged, and all the cadets are sent to ships.  Kirk is grounded, though, so he can’t come, but McCoy smuggles him in as a patient under his care.

Kirk recognizes the similarities between the Vulcan incident and the encounter that destroyed the Kelvin and warns Pike that the fleet is heading into a trap. The Enterprise arrives late to find the fleet destroyed and the Narada drilling into Vulcan’s core.  Pike is ordered to surrender and come to the Narada, but on the way Pike drops Kirk, Hikaru Sulu, and Engineer Olson into a orbital ski dive to attack the drill. Olson dies, but Sulu and Kirk destroy the drill and allow Spock to save some of the Vulcans.

As they sail away, Pike is captured, so Spock is Captain.  Then Kirk and Spock argue, so Spock maroons him for mutany. . .

I will not share anymore details, so I do not devulge the entire movie’s contents, but I will say it was great!

In no short amount of time the latest Terminator movie, Terminator: Salvation, will be in theaters, and crowds will be wowed by special effects, but who cares? After T2, has anyone really cared about the Terminator story? T2 was completely, and still is, ahead of its time, and after Arnie lowered himself into that pit of molten metal did anyone want to know the further back story of the whole thing?

T3 wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great. The Terminator stories seem to have a place in a generation that was fascinated with future stories and robots. In the present tense there doesn’t seem to be a real call for these types of movies, excluding Transformers. The story seems old and doesn’t have the same impact it once had on society.

Maybe the folks at the Terminator franchise are looking for the same revival that Star Wars had, so they can capitalize on some big money and get people excited about robot killers again. Without Schwarzenegger, though, this movie won’t feel the same as the previous three. True, Christian Bale is taking time from screaming at people to be in this movie, but he belongs to Batman not John Connors. There already have been too many John Connors, so why not add Christian Bale to the list of famed actors to play the same part in another movie? Isn’t that what he did in Batman…

Oh well, this movie will storm into theaters pretty soon, and fans will have their way with it: explosions galore and possibly some story? We only can hope. If nothing else, you always can watch T2 again and marvel at Richard Patrick’s T-1000.

The 2009 Golden Globe Awards wrapped up last Sunday, with Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire sweeping all the awards they were nominated for and coming out as the Best Picture - Drama awardee.

Do you agree with the winners?

Best Animated Feature Film

Nominated: Bolt, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E
Winner: Wall-E

I watched all three movies, and although all of them were really good movies, I have to agree that Wall-E is the best animated featured film among the three. It’s simply made, but it’s the kind of movie that you never forget. It will melt even the strongest heart and make him come back again and again to watch Wall-E.

Best Screenplay (Motion Picture)

Nominated: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire

This is a bit tricky since I have seen only Slumdog Millionaire out of all these movies. But, speaking of Slumdog, it’s a simple story about a boy from the slums. The movie was never told in a matter-of-fact kind of way. Simon Beaufoy wrote it beautifully by writing it how a person’s life naturally flows. A person’s life never follows a straight line, it sometimes needs to go through a detour. And that’s what Beaufoy successfully achieves with Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Director (Motion Picture)

Nominated: Stephen Daldry (The Reader), David Fincher (The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button), Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon), Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road), Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)
Winner: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)

Best Motion Picture (Drama)

Nominated: The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Revolutionary Road, Slumdog Millionaire
Winner: Slumdog Millionaire

When I heard Danny Boyle was making Slumdog Millionaire, I was expecting it to be like his earlier movies, including Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. Fortunately, it wasn’t. It was a movie about gruesome and scary stories, but it wasn’t a horror movie. It was a fact of life movie, which made it even scarier. But the great thing about Danny Boyle is that he made us aware that this is life in India. This is what people in slums had to deal with. It may or may not be true, but all his visual storytelling made us feel that that was the case.

So, do you agree with the winners? Academy Award nominations are coming out on January 22. Do you think the Golden Globe results will have an effect on this?

The Women didn’t interest me as much as it did for other people, but since I went to the movies with other people who wanted to watch it, I decided to give it a shot.

The Women is a about woman’s relationship with her husband, her family, her friends and her personal life. Meg Ryan is Mary Haines, the wife of a Wall Street honcho who has sacrificed her career to give her husband and daughter the care they need. Annette Benning is her best friend, Sylvie Fowler, a hot-shot editor-in-chief of THE fashion magazine. The story starts when Sylvie finds out, from her manicurist, that Mary’s husband has been cheating on his wife. Together with their other friends, Edie (Debra Messing) and Alex (Jada Pinkett-Smith), they try to hide the truth from Mary. What follows is a story that will test the relationships between family, friends and their own personal lives.

This movie had nothing entertaining to offer me. Going right into the story never gave them a chance to establish and develop the characters of the movie, therefore never giving the viewers a chance to get to know them and have sympathy for them.

And I find it hard to believe that these totally different women even became friends in the first place. Meg Ryan plays a designer who was quite content letting others take the credit. Annette Benning plays a career-driven woman who doesn’t see the need for a family. Debra Messing plays a new age mom who is satisfied with building a bigger family. Jada Pinkett-Smith plays an artist who happens to be a lesbian. They may have had something in common when they met for the first time, but nothing was ever established to make sense of the fact that they are still friends.

Everything was just all over the place and never reached the destination. In fact, I don’t think it ever went on a journey. It jumped from one story to another, and it seemed like none of the stories were quite connected to the other.  It was simply a forgettable movie. Keep that in mind if you do decide to watch this movie.

Hold my beer while I type this. I’m going to make this as un-political as possible, I promise. I’ve, unfortunately, seen the trailer for the new Oliver Stone movie W. three times. All I want to know is: why?

When it comes to Oliver Stone movies I sit down with the best intentions. Still I have never, never been able to sit through an entire movie. I’ve tried The Doors, Nixon, Natural Born Killers, and JFK. The only movie of his I actually sat through was U-Turn. My friend had it on video, it was late, and I don’t need to explain this to you.

The cast for W. looks impressive: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Richard Dreyfus, James Cromwell, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Thandie Newton, Toby Jones. All the major players have been covered from G. H. W. Bush to Condolezza Rice, but who plays Jeb? Poor Jeb always gets left out.

Stone seems like he wants to exploit the public history of George Bush. Anyone who hasn’t lived under a rock for the last seven years knows the mythic rumors of Dubbya’s crazy past. Do we seriously need to watch them on the big screen?

Bush will never be my favorite president, but what is the aim of this movie? To glorify drunken Texas antics in hopes that it will inspire the youth of America to become president? The least Stone could have done was wait a year or two after Bush was out of office.

‘Bush bashing’ got old during his first term. Stone should have made this movie five years ago when we had the opportunity to vote Bust out. Now Josh Brolin will go down in history as Mikey’s older brother Brad and George W. Bush.

Ok, pass back that beer, this post is done.

I’ve been trying too hard to come up with a snappy opener for this post, so here goes: this time next year Columbia Studios will start filming Spiderman 4 and possibly 5 back-to-back. Yeah, how can you follow that?

First, you could say that Spiderman 3 was disappointing. There was too much, way too much, going on for one movie. The same way X-Men 3 tried to cram in every mutant they could, Spiderman 3 had too much storyline. Tobey Maguire is set to go back; the studio didn’t want anyone else.

I can’t imagine the plotline, on sheer speculation I’d have to say: Spiderman 4 is about MJ and Peter getting married, then Spiderman 5 will follow a messy divorce and determine who gets custody over their first child. This will spawn another hit series called Spiderbaby followed by cartoon shows, toys, and breakfast cereals. (Speaking of cereals, I haven’t had Nintendo Cereal in almost two decades; I really wish I saved a box.)

If there is one huge reserve I have about Spiderman 3, it’s that fact they killed off Venom. I mean, come on; Venom had potential to be one of the coolest looking villains, but they killed him! He was one of the biggest draws to that movie, and the studio could have milked it big time for another sequel. Those guys need to think with their wallets more than think about the fans. Wait, is that backwards?

I have no idea what Marvel and Columbia have in mind, only time will tell. I hope they clean up and focus on one story and one villain, maybe two. Spiderman 3 could have been better if they cut out Venom and gave him his own movie. Well, as long as Bruce Campbell makes more funny cameos, I’ll probably swing in and watch them.

I don’t care if it’s a decade old, as cheesy as can be, or as some would say, “shallow”. I loved Armageddon. Maybe I fell for the two heartthrobs, Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, but hey, that’s what they’re there for right?

The basic story is that the world is going end. There’s a meteor the size of Texas headed for the planet, and its impact will end life as we know it in a matter of 18 days. Of course, there is one way to save the Earth. A group of astronauts will have to launch into space, swing around the moon, land on the meteor, drill a hole 800 feet into the ground, drop off a nuclear bomb, take off, and deploy. If all that is done, the meteor should split in half and perfectly avoid our beautiful planet. (Shhh, try not to think about how unlikely this would be.)

NASA has astronauts that are prepared to do the flying, but the drilling is a different subject. They decide to hire the best driller on the planet, Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis). When Stamper meets the crew he is supposed to be working with in space, he realizes that they won’t be good enough. He tells NASA that he needs his original work crew. These men come in varying shapes and sizes, both body and mind. None of them are truly prepared for space, but in a matter of days, they will have to be, because they are the Earth’s only hope.

The rest of the story is fairly predictable, but who really cares? You come to “love” all of the crew. When someone dies (don’t tell me I spoiled that for you, you knew it had to happen), it’s a real tear-jerker. Sometimes a predictable movie is just what you need, especially if the ending you see coming is exactly the way you think the movie should end. For me, this movie had just enough action, comedy, and romance to appeal to all of my movie-watching senses. Minor deductions could come from the overall cheesiness and predictability, but both don’t detract from the movie too much. I would give it eight stars out of ten.

By definition, adventure/action movies always have an air to them that makes them unbelievable. But often you can overcome this by having a riveting tale of adventure that keeps you glued to your seat. Unfortunately, Journey to the Center of the Earth, starring Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, and Anita Briem, was one of the most forgettable movies that I have seen, an unbelievable tale that bastardizes Jules Verne’s classic book. In this iteration of the tale, the filmmakers (with Eric Brevig as director) tried to make up for a lackluster storyline by utilizing new 3D technology. The technology left my two sons, who saw the movie with me, constantly asking, “Why does the picture seem so grainy?”

So if combining an unbelievable story, a predictable plot line, and non-awe-inspiring effects is your formula for an action movie, then you should see Journey to the Center of the Earth. For everyone else, just save the cash.

Before I took a trip to the movies yesterday, I checked out how The Dark Knight faired on Rotten Tomatoes, a Website known for being a harsh critic on movies. To my surprise, The Dark Knight had achieved 94% on the “tomatometer”, which actually makes it one of the most highly rated movies on the site.

Armed with my ticket I entered the theater and braced myself for an unforgettable experience. Oddly enough, I am among the 6% who did not enjoy the movie, and I even wish I could forget the experience.

As far as the characters go, I think the actors did a good job, but in my case, this is a bad thing. The Joker, played by Heath Ledger, seemed like such a creep that it was hard for me to keep my eyes on the screen while they focused on him. I felt like all of the voices were low and monotonous, often hard to understand over all of the action scenes. Critics credit this movie for being very “deep”, but all I can think is that they confused this word with “dark”. I might be more content with the movie if there were a glimmer of light or an ounce of casual humor in it. Alas, there was neither. I found myself listening to line after line of sadistic comments spewing from the mouth of The Joker. I felt I never would be set free from his evil, twisted manners.

In an article on MailOnline, Chris Tookey wrote, “It doesn’t fight terror, it embraces it.” I couldn’t put that into better words. It’s like no one in the film would just stop The Joker’s madness. The problem is that the movie is also longer than the average movie: 2.5 hours. When I had to use the bathroom during the movie, I found myself not caring that I missed a segment of the movie. (That has never happened to me before.)

I’d like to conclude by saying that if you’re specifically into action, this movie will not disappoint you; the special effects are fantastic, but I cannot say that for the rest of the movie.