The Big X-Men Finale

So X-Men: The Last Stand premiered over Memorial Day weekend, breaking all kinds of records by the time the weekend was over. I’d hoped to get this review out a little sooner, but it was just been one of those weeks, and sadly by the time I’d gotten home from work every evening last week, I just didn't have the motivation to do much of anything, so I had a hell of a time getting focused on getting this done (but on the plus side, at least it didn’t take a month or more to do it!). With that said, I have to say that as far as the big finale to the X-Men trilogy goes, I was pretty disappointed. To be fair, I think Brett Ratner did a pretty good job taking over as director from Bryan Singer (which was of course my biggest concern before the movie came out, since I’m a very big fan of Bryan Singer’s, and he did such a fantastic job with the first two movies). And visually it was very exciting and enjoyable to watch (but that’s to be expected). The story, on the other hand, I have A LOT of complaints about. Now, before I continue any further with this review, I need to make two disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1: If you’ve never really read the comics and only know the X-Men characters/stories from the previous two movies, then you will probably very much enjoy the third movie just as much as you did the previous two. The vast majority of my criticisms of the movie are coming from someone who is a long-time reader of the comics. The screenwriters took a lot of liberties and did a lot of things with the characters especially that as a fan of the comics I was very unhappy with. So if you’re not a reader of the comics, don’t let my negative comments dissuade you from seeing the film – you’ll probably have little or no problems with it, and will wonder what the hell I’m so upset about.

Disclaimer #2: Some of the comments/criticisms in this review will be fairly vague and non-specific (which is going to be really difficult for me because there’s a lot that I’d really, really like to go into detail about). The reason for this is that any details I might give about the things I have a problem with would be MAJOR spoilers for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. So on the off chance that one of my small handful of readers (assuming any of you are still out there after my long periods of no new entries) reads this review and hasn’t seen the movie yet, I don’t want to spoil it for you by revealing things that happen in the movie that are supposed to come as a surprise. So we’ll see how well I do venting my frustrations with the script without giving away too many surprises or key plot points.

Also, I’d just like to quickly say that I’m not going to make any comments about the critics’ reviews of the movie, because it is patently obvious that not only are they as clueless as always, but not a one of them has so much as looked at the cover of an actual X-Men comic, much less read one, so as far as I’m concerned, their opinions are completely meaningless here. And so with all that out of the way, on with the review. Let’s start with the positive (and there were certainly things about the movie I did like). For starters, the biggest thing I liked about the movie was that the various new characters (with one glaring exception, which I’ll get into later) were all great! It would have been nice if some of them would have gotten more screen time, but they were still great to see. Both Kitty Pryde and Colossus are both back (with Kitty, at least, played by a different actress than previously) with bigger roles than before, which I loved. The additions of Beast and Angel are both fantastic (Kelsey Grammer was unbelievably good as Beast), although it would have been nice to see Angel have a bigger role in the movie (he plays an important part to the story, but isn’t really IN the movie all that much). Another mutant addition that it was great to see (and something of a surprise as well) was Multiple Man, although his character was way under-used.

The character I most enjoyed seeing in the movie was Leech, a young boy whose mutant power is that he cancels out other mutants’ powers. The movie uses his blood as the source for the mutant “cure” that’s at the crux of the plot. The one thing I was curious about going into the movie, however, was that in the comic book Leech’s power actually has a radius effect, and any mutant getting too close to him is affected by his power (it's not just his blood). I was impressed to see that they did bring this into the movie, and used it to good effect as well. I also like the young actor who portrays Leech – Cameron Bright, who I previously discussed in my review of Ultraviolet. I'll be interested to see how his career develops, and whether or not he disappears off the map once he gets older, as numerous other young child actors have done.

Another pleasant surprise in this movie was the addition of Dr. Moira MacTaggart, a non-mutant character who is a big part of the comics. Her name appears in a list of computer files at one point in X2 (you pretty much have to pause the DVD at a certain spot and look closely to see it, something I did just to see how many of the names listed I could identify from the comics), and she finally appears in person in the third movie. Interestingly enough, she’s not actually in the end credits, and shows up on imdb as uncredited (which is somewhat strange considering that she plays a fairly sizable part for a secondary character – but that’s Hollywood for you). Which brings up something else I’ve liked about all three of the X-Men movies. In all of them, I’ve found that if you watch the end credits closely (or check out the movies’ entries on imdb), you discover all kinds of characters that although they make little or no mention of their names in the movies, they are actual characters from the comics. For example, Jubilation Lee, a young Asian girl who actually was first created for the original X-Men cartoon, and then moved into the comics from there, has appeared in all three movies, and is listed in the credits for all three as Jubilee (her "superhero" name), but is only shown in group scenes of the students during the films – her name is never given in the movies, but if you're a fan of the comics you can fairly easily pick her out and know who she probably is. So even though she has a minimal role, and never even uses her mutant powers, they still made a point of identifying her character in the credits, which I thought was kind of cool (especially since I always liked her character). I kept hoping they’d eventually give her a bigger role (like they finally did with Kitty Pryde in the last movie), but at least she’s in all the movies.

There are numerous other characters that are in this same category, but I’m not going to take the time and effort to name all of them (I do have to say, though, that I've always felt the inclusion of these numerous additional characters actually taken from the comics, whether you caught who they were before you saw them listed in the credits or not, was a nice bonus for the fans of the comics that the filmmakers didn't have to do, but did anyways). If you’re a fan of the comics, check out the credit listings on imdb (if you haven't already); you’ll be surprised at just what characters they actually have listed in the credits (although there are a few that I STILL haven't actually been able to place in the movies when I re-watched them).

One more character I do need to talk about, though, before me move onto other things, is the one character who had no business whatsoever being in the final movie, and that is Cain Marko, AKA Juggernaut. Yes, he’s from the comic books, and is actually a fairly significant villain (also, for those who don't know, he's actually Professor Xavier’s step-brother, which is the main connection he has to the X-Men in the comics). There are two problems with including him in the movie, however. Number one, he was a fairly dumb and annoying character in the comics, and they make him an even dumber and more annoying character in the movie. Number two, despite how they might mislead you in the movie, Juggernaut is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, a mutant, which of course means he would have no place in Magneto’s Brotherhood of Mutants. All of Juggernaut’s powers came from a mystical crystal in his helmet (which is why he never took it off – without it he was powerless). So for the moviemakers to bring in not only an annoying character from the comics, but one who’s not even really a mutant, just really, really bugged me. This was an obvious weak spot in the film that could have been avoided (although there is one amusing scene with Juggernaut that I did like).

One last quick comment about the credits of the movie, and then we’ll move on. I love the fact that the movie featured R. Lee Ermey as the voice of an army sergeant. He is so perfect for that sort of role, and I just love it whenever I see him making a cameo appearance in a movie (he’s so the go-to guy whenever moviemakers need a great Army/Marine sergeant character, even if they’re just using his voice). And in looking at the imdb listing, I discovered that the movie not only featured the obligatory Stan Lee cameo, but there was also a cameo by Chris Claremont, a LONGTIME Uncanny X-Men writer and creator of numerous Marvel characters.

And now, onto some of the other things I liked about the movie. The actors all did a very good job, and even those who’s roles were way smaller than they should have been gave wonderful performances. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, visually the movie was indeed very exciting and top notch. And the action scenes were all very well done. But all of this was to be expected and so it's not exactly high praise for the movie (it would be a major criticism of the movie if these areas weren't well done, but it's not really a compliment to the movie that they were). The big problem is that the story has so many things wrong with it (in my opinion) that it really takes away from everything else. That being said, let’s get to what I found wrong with the movie.

Where to start, where to start. Well, I guess the first place to start is with Hollywood’s love of the trilogy. Three so seems to be the magic number. Yes, you do have a number of franchises that make many, many more movies than that, but by and large it’s all about the trilogy, and so as soon as the studio greenlights a sequel to a movie, it’s generally assumed that a third movie will be done, and then barring huge success, they’ll stop there (I also think that any more whenever there’s franchise potential, they’ll get actors to sign a three picture deal so that they know they’ll have them at a set salary for at least three pictures – which means that if there is a fourth movie, they have the problem that the actors can either opt out of further films, or ask for quite a bit larger salaries if the first three movies have been very successful). That seems to be the attitude that the screenwriters took on X-Men: The Last Stand – this is the last movie in the trilogy, so we can do whatever the hell we want to with the story and the characters. Which is exactly what they did. I won’t go into details because I don’t want to put in any spoilers, but they do some things to some of the major characters that really pissed me off, because it so goes against what’s in the comics. I think any fan of the comics would be upset with what they did.

Now, having said the above, I will concede that they do leave hints at the end of the movie that point to a possible fourth film (but let’s face it, that’s pretty much standard for ANY movie with franchise potential or that’s part of a franchise, whether there’s any plans whatsoever to do another movie or not, so that really means absolutely nothing these days). Oh, on that subject, if you do go to see the movie, make sure you stay all the way until the very end of the end credits.

Another aspect of the story that annoyed me, but wasn’t nearly as big a deal as what they did to the characters, is the state the country is in when the movie starts. Admittedly it has been three years between movies, but the student characters don’t really seemed to have aged that much (as far as how they’re portrayed in the film) and things at the school just don’t feel like that much time has passed (but maybe that’s just me). But the world at large in the movie shows enough changes to make it feel like even more than three years have passed. There’s a new president, and we have a brand new government department, The Department of Mutant Affairs, and mutants are a common, everybody knows about them minority in the country. It just feels like too many things have changed between the second and third films. And then there’s Hank McCoy, AKA Beast, the Secretary of Mutant Affairs. He shows up out of the blue (no pun intended), and when he arrives at Xavier’s school, he’s greeted like an old friend by Storm and Professor X, but Wolverine acts as if he’s never met him before. And we are given the impression that Beast was once an X-Man, but no details into his history or connection to the group or the school are mentioned; you’re just expected to assume that there is one, which just bothered me as being a weak point in the story that they just decided not to bother going into.

Another thing that bugged me was a group of mutants the movie shows getting together to protest the new “mutant cure”. My guess is they’re meant to represent, or are inspired by, the Morlocks, a society of mutants in the comics who live in tunnels underneath Manhatten because unlike the X-Men they don’t have cool superpowers, they’re just freaks of nature whose physical mutations are blatant and extreme enough to make them outcasts of society. Part of my reason for linking the group of mutants in the movie to the Morlocks is that one of the characters there who joins Magneto (the woman who can sense other mutants) is listed in the credits as Callisto, who in the comics rises to become leader of the Morlocks. But instead of showing us a group of obvious mutants (which would be REALLY easy considering the F/X make-up and CGI abilities that movie studios have these days), what we get is basically just a group of vagabond homeless people, some of whom are fairly obviously mutants. This, in my opinion, was just laziness on the part of the filmmakers.

Well this thing has gotten long enough that I think I’ll stop there. That should give you an overall view of my feelings about this movie. Again, if you’re not a big reader of the comics, most of my complaints will mean little to you, and if you liked the previous films, you should enjoy this one just as well. But as for me, I’m unhappy enough about some of the story decisions of the movie (among other things) that I won’t be bothering to see it a second time at the theaters (something I felt sure I’d do from watching the trailers and from how much I liked the previous movies), and it’ll be up in the air as to whether or not I pick it up on DVD. But that’s just me.

And so we conclude our latest entry. I actually have my review of this weekend’s movie, The Break-Up, completed as well, but it’s still sitting in Word (and it's way past my bedtime and I've got work tomorrow, so it's going to have to wait). So as soon as I get it copied into blogger and all the imdb links put in, it will be published as well; barring unforeseen delays, it should be up on Monday. Until then! :-)

Spring 2006

So we’ve finally made it to March and April. If I can hurry up and get this entry done, I’ll only be one month behind! And if I do a separate entry for X-Men: The Last Stand shortly after I watch it like I did with The Da Vinci Code, then I’ll only have two movies to review for May, and then I’ll be caught up! Can you imagine it, dear readers? It’s almost frightening, I know, but it really could happen. But not if I don’t get a move on! So on we go with movies from March.

The first movie of March (at least that I saw) was the Richard Donner action thriller 16 Blocks, which starred Bruce Willis and Mos Def. I didn’t realize that this was a Richard Donner movie until the end credits, at which point I realized the reason why I enjoyed the movie so much (how can you not enjoy a movie brought to you by the man who brought us all four Lethal Weapon movies, among others?). This movie was action-packed, exciting, and generally just fun to watch – a perfect Saturday matinee popcorn movie. Bruce Willis does a solid job as always, and Mos Def does a very good job (after seeing him in this, following on his great performances in The Italian Job and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, I have to say I look forward to seeing what he does next). I'd also like to compliment David Morse, a great character actor whom I've always liked, who does a great job as the corrupt cop chasing after them. It’s your pretty standard action/thriller fare, so I don’t know that there’s anything specific I really want to touch on about the movie, other than to say I really enjoyed it and will probably pick it up on DVD.

The other movie that came out this same weekend was one I was much more excited to see, but which turned out to be something of a disappointment. The movie I’m talking about is Ultraviolet, starring the very sexy Milla Jovovich. This is basically a sci-fi vampire movie, but sadly I think it tries to be too many things, and doesn’t do justice to any of them. The background of the film isn't developed very well, and the characters are really not that believable. Visually the movie is pretty stunning, and the special effects are top notch, but sadly that’s not exactly something special or unique these days. Any movie with any sort of budget can have incredible visuals, but if you don’t have a decent story to go with it (which Ultraviolet very much doesn’t), you end up with a weak movie. I’d say it’s worth seeing if you can rent it on the cheap (if for no other reason than the visuals are interesting to watch), but that’s about it. I do have to make note of the performance by young Cameron Bright, though, who plays the boy that Milla Jovovich is trying to save. He does a really good job not only in this movie, but in the several other roles I've seen him in (including a great guest role on Stargate: SG1). I'm looking forward to seeing him playing Leech in X-Men: The Last Stand.

The second two movies of March that I saw were both top notch, kick ass movies that left the month's early movies completely in the dust, starting with the first Top 10 contender of 2006, the stellar V for Vendetta. I loved this movie!! Natalie Portman was fantastic. Her British accent was very well done (and very sexy), and even with her head shaved, she is as beautiful as ever. She is certainly one of my very favorite actresses, and her performance in this movie is an excellent example of why. Also great in this movie is Hugo Weaving, whose voice is perfect for the enigmatic and very verbose V. And certainly worth mentioning as well is Stephen Rea, who does a wonderful job as the police inspector who’s trying to track V down.

I’ve read the original graphic novel that this is based on, and I have to say I was very impressed with how they developed the story for the screen. To my surprise, they didn’t dumb it down for movie audiences like I expected, and much of V’s dialogue is in the movie (much of it very Shakespearean sounding and a little hard for even me to follow at times), which I was thrilled to see. The story is very engaging and really keeps your attention throughout the movie. The actors all did a wonderful job, and the cinematography was great. The critics generally gave it good reviews (surprise, surprise), although I do think that too many of them made too big a deal out of the political aspects of the movie, trying to compare it to current real world events (it's just a movie, people – the original story was written long before George W. Bush ever got into office). This was definitely the first big movie of 2006 as far as I'm concerned, and I can’t wait for it to show up on DVD. With any luck, the success of such movies as this and Sin City will lead to more non-superhero comics being developed for the movies, which I think is a wonderful thing (how many people realize that the incredible Tom Hanks gangster picture Road to Perdition is actually based on a comic book graphic novel, for example). Being a huge comic book fan, I love the idea of people being exposed to the many wonderful, complex, amazing stories that comic books can tell, that have nothing to do with super-powered guys and gals running around wearing spandex (not that I don't enjoy those comics and their movies as well).

The final movie of March was also a great film (although not quite on par with V for Vendetta). It was Inside Man, from director Spike Lee. While I’m not generally a big Spike Lee fan, I am big heist movie fan, and this is just a damned good heist movie. Even better, it’s part heist movie, part suspense thriller, so there are some great twists and turns to the plot that aren’t generally part of a heist movie that made it even better. And with the all-star cast they put together, how can you go wrong? Denzel Washington and Clive Owen do a great job as always, and Jody Foster’s manipulative, amoral character is just fun to watch. She really does a good job with the role. And I loved the bhangra song that was used in the opening credits (especially since this is a genre of music that I’m just starting to get into). I highly recommend this movie.

And now we head into the month of April, which only brought us two new movies that I managed to see at the theater. As I believe I mentioned earlier, I caught both of these on a Sunday afternoon as a sort of double feature (the theater wasn’t playing them as a double feature, I just saw one, then turned right around and saw the other). And of course I did this just as I was developing a really nasty flu, and so I ended up deathly ill by the time the second movie was over, and the week following was one of the most miserable of my life, but we won’t go into that.

The first of these two movies was the video game horror movie Silent Hill. This was a very creepy movie, and the director did a great job with the atmosphere for the movie. The story wasn’t too bad, but it was pretty confusing at times, and there were a few inconsistencies that just didn’t make sense at all that muddled the story a bit. I do have to say I liked the twisted, messed up ending to the movie (which was very much in line with this sort of spooky horror film). The cast does a really good job, and I liked the little girl (because what’s a creepy, spooky horror movie these days without a creepy little girl with long, dark hair, right?). But all in all I’d have to say this movie is just okay. Part of that, however, I think comes from the fact that I tend to set the bar pretty high these days for horror movies, because of the fantastic horror movies that have been coming out in the last couple of years, especially those coming out of Asia. So if you’re a big fan of this genre of movie, I’d say go ahead and check it out (if for no other reason than just to say you’ve seen it); otherwise it’s probably not worth your time.

I followed up Silent Hill by turning around and seeing The Sentinel. It’s hard to compare the two movies because they’re two completely different genres, but all in all I’d have to rate them the same – not bad, but not great, either. A number of critics compared it with 24 (and generally not favorably), since both star Kiefer Sutherland and have the same general concept. I do have to say there are similarities, but I can’t really compare quality since I stopped watching 24 mid-way through season 3 (since in my mind the show had really gone downhill since the first season and the plot was way too all over the place. A buddy of mine tells me the storyline tightened up and got a lot better several episodes after I stopped watching, so I’m now watching the series over in syndication – we’ll see if he was right or not). But back to The Sentinel. The story is okay, but it gets a little far fetched at times, even for this sort of political action thriller. Nothing about the movie really stands out that I can think of (well, other than the fact that Eva Longoria is really hot), so that’s about all I can think to say about it.

Okay, turns out I lied. There were actually three movies from April that I saw at the theaters (but in my defense, this third one I just caught last weekend or the weekend before; I forget). This last movie, that I’m guessing I caught just before it left theatres, was the Robin Williams comedy RV. Now I don’t care what the critics say – I thought this movie was funny as hell! Okay, yes it was over-the-top and dumb at spots, and it started going downhill towards the end, it was still really a joy to watch. Robin Williams is just such a nut, and since his last several movies have been much more serious, dramatic films, it’s nice to see him getting back to his comic roots. So if you’re looking for a good, funny, family-friendly movie, and can accept the fact that yes, it gets really dumb at times, I’d say this movie is worth checking out.

Well look at that! March and April all done! Not exactly long, detailed reviews of the movies in question, but hey, better than nothing, right? Well since I’m on such a roll, I think I’ll continue right on into May. This is the month that officially kicks off the summer movie season (which used to start on Memorial Day weekend, but as movies started being released a week or two before this in order to try and get the jump on their bigger, more highly anticipated competition, the beginning of the summer blockbuster season has slowly crept backwards until nowadays it seems to pretty much start the first weekend in May). The nice thing about the start of summer movie season from my perspective (especially as far as my blog entries go) is that for the next several months I will generally only have one new movie per weekend coming out that I really want to see, which makes it a lot easier to keep up on my movie reviews.

So I’ve got just two movies to cover for May, and then I’ll be all caught up (since I already reviewed The Da Vinci Code, and I won’t be seeing X-Men: The Last Stand until tomorrow). How unbelievable is that?! So neither of the movies I caught in early May were all the great, but they were both worth seeing at the theater. The first of these was Mission: Impossible III. Now I loved the original movie, and I really enjoyed the second one (more so than the critics, or most of the people I know who’ve seen it – but then again, I’m a HUGE John Woo fan, so what can I say). The third one, however, didn’t really do a whole lot for me. For starters, I’ve never really been a big fan of Tom Cruise, and like a lot of people, I’m really getting tired of hearing about his escapades in this news. The other thing with this movie, that a few critics commented on that I have to agree with, is that unlike some of the other action/spy/thriller franchises out there, this one never really developed characters that you’re involved with. Cruise’s Ethan Hunt just isn’t that likable a character, and it’s really hard to care one way or the other what happens to him. And the rest of the cast (with the exception of Ving Rhames, whose just great in everything he does, and is one of the few endearing things about this franchise) seems to change every movie. Which means that as opposed to being a franchise that builds on itself from movie to movie, like that Bourne films or the James Bond series, for example, the Mission: Impossible movies pretty much are forced to stand alone as individual films. And while I’m a big fan of J. J. Abrams, this movie doesn’t really impress all that much. It’s not that bad; I’m glad I went and saw it at the theater (although I do wish my dumb ass would have remembered I had a free movie ticket in my Mission Impossible DVD so that I could have saved myself $5 – oh well), but at the same time, I doubt that I’ll pick it up on DVD until it’s on sale and I can get it for $10 or something. I do have to give props, though, to Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays an incredible, very sinister villain, and to Maggie Q, who is a very sexy and fun to watch (I absolutely love her line when Tom Cruise tells her to blow up the Ferrari (or whatever type of high end sports car it was), and she says, “It’s such a nice car . . . .” The delivery is just superb).

My final movie to review for the month of May is the disaster movie remake Poseidon. Now normally I’m a really big fan of Wolfgang Petersen’s movies, especially when he’s doing any sort of sea picture, but I have to say that Poseidon was a bit of a disappointment, especially when compared to the 1972 original The Poseidon Adventure. As disaster epics go, Poseidon isn’t too bad, and I must admit it does a pretty good job of showing just how horrific this sort of tragedy would likely be (although I’m still not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing, as it is something of a downer when you really think about it). The visual effects are pretty good, but you just don’t really get as involved with the characters as you do in the original movie, and so it’s hard to care as much when they get killed. I am glad I saw this on the big screen (as it is certainly a big screen sort of movie), and as a disaster movie fan, I did enjoy it, but unless you’re a big fan of this genre, I’d say it’s probably one you can skip.

And so, shock of shocks, I am actually all caught up!! And as I said, I’ll be seeing X-Men: The Last Stand tomorrow, so I'll try and get a review up for it early next week. And then it’s onward and upward from there! And since I’m actually caught up on movie reviews, I can actually start doing some entries that aren't specifically movie reviews, and branch out into other movie-related articles. That should be fun. Well, until then, see you at the movies!!

The Da Vinci Code

Two entries in two days?! Is that even possible?! Yes, as shocking as I know that is, I'm actually publishing a new entry the very next day after my last entry!! How it happened even I can't imagine. So before we continue, let me give you a moment to get over your dismay . . . .

Okay, and now, on with the movie review! :-)

So last weekend I saw the highly anticipated movie version of the hugely successful best selling novel The Da Vinci Code. And I must say, it lives up to all the hype. I have to add, however, that I haven’t gotten around to reading the book yet (but having seen the movie, it’s pretty high on my list now), so I can’t really comment on how well it compares to the book or how good a job it does of bringing the story to the screen. All I can do is talk about how good a movie I thought it was in and of itself, with no comparisons to the original text.

Of course you can’t talk about this movie without talking about all the controversy surrounding it. Well, actually, you can. Which is why I deleted the paragraphs I’d originally written expressing my (mostly negative) views of the Catholic Church and their protests of this movie. I decided that just wasn’t a topic I wanted to even touch on (especially since I tend to get very fired up whenever I’m discussing religion or politics). Despite all of the fuss, this movie isn’t some thinly-veiled attempt to attack the foundations of Christianity – it’s nothing more than a wonderful, fun, exciting mystery/thriller/adventure, that ties pieces of history and mysteries/conspiracy theories from our past into a modern day treasure hunt. Anyone who wants to make it out to be more than that just needs to get over themselves.

The Da Vinci Code is actually very similar to National Treasure in its base concept, which is probably one of the reasons I liked it so much (because I love that type of story – the treasure hunt that’s tied to events from history). And like National Treasure, the conspiracy theories of The Da Vinci Code that make up the heart of the mystery are pretty fanciful and have little concrete basis in fact (although there are numerous theorists out there who would dispute that). Although both movies featured The Knights Templar as part of their mystery, I liked the mystery of this movie a little better than the one in National Treasure (mainly because even though I’ve never read Dan Brown’s novel, in the past I’d done some research and read some non-fiction texts closely related to the some of the texts that Dan Brown used when putting his story together, and I found the ideas they presented incredibly fascinating – but then again, anything involving The Knights Templar and secret societies and the many conspiracy theories that have come out of that time period are all great reads if you’re into that sort of thing). Whether you’ve read the book or not, if you do see the movie, make note of some of the names of people and groups and events that you see, then get online and look some of them up. It’s really fascinating some of the things you’ll come across and some of the ideas you'll see presented.

I must say, though, that the base mystery was about the only thing about The Da Vinci Code that was better than National Treasure (which isn't a criticism of The Da Vinci Code at all; it's more an indicator of just how incredibly fantastic a movie National Treasure was). The critics really trashed the The Da Vinci Code, which was a little bit of a surprise considering its director and main star, but I guess they’d just set the mark way too high for what they expected from the movie, and when it didn’t match that overly high standard, they attacked it as being a bad movie (or maybe they’re just stupid – one critic that I know of had the audacity to actually criticize the book as not being very good; I guess he knows better than the 50 or 60 million (or however many it is) fans that read and loved the book). That's critics for you, I guess. That being said, I do have to admit that despite really enjoying the movie, there are a few criticisms I can make.

My biggest criticism would be that some of the dialogue comes across as kind of wooden and almost forced. It just doesn’t seem to flow naturally from the actors. And I must admit that some of the actors aren’t giving their best performances ever in this movie (but when you’ve got such phenomenal actors as Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan, even if they're not giving their best personal performances, they're still doing a better job than a lot of other actors out there tend to do). But all in all the actors all do a pretty good job, and there are some just stellar actors in this movie (which might prejudice me a little bit, since these are actors that I really, really like), including Jean Reno, Jurgen Prochnow, and Paul Bettany in one of his best performances to date (this is an actor to look out for – every time I see him he just gets better and better. I’ve loved every performance of his that I’ve seen). And of course I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the very lovely Audrey Tautou, who does a very good job here as well (but I must admit, this is the first movie I've seen her in; there are a couple of her earlier films that are very much on my list of movies I need to see, I just haven't gotten around to seeing them yet).

There are a few spots in the movie that are a little far-fetched, but that’s to be expected in this sort of film. So all in all I have to say that the couple of criticisms I could make hardly detracted from my overall enjoyment of the film, and are certainly more minor complaints than could be made of a lot of other popular films from the last few years, so I think the critics just need to get off their high horses. I would highly recommend this movie to everyone. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for???

And so we end this little interlude into the realm of current, actually at the theaters right movies. We will return to our regularly scheduled programming of old, long since left the theaters movies when my next entry comes out (but hey, on the bright side, I'm only 3 months behind now!!). And sadly, no, the next entry will not be tomorrow, or even this week. If I get really motivated and not too distracted with other things over the Memorial Day weekend, I may have the next entry done early next week (but I wouldn't hold your breath). With luck it won't take me too long, though, since I actually feel like I'm starting to get caught up with this damned thing. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Finally Made It To 2006!!

And so we’re on to 2006, which means I’m only 5 1/2 months behind!! Now usually, the beginning of the year is a pretty sluggish time at the theaters, with studios dumping a lot of films they don’t expect to do very well onto movie screens at a time when generally not a lot of people are going to the movies. So you’d think that would mean I’d only have a handful of movies to review, and could quickly skim through early spring so that I could be caught up and ready for the summer season (which is already starting up). And in years past, that has indeed been the case. But this year, being the diehard movie buff that I am, I actually watched A LOT of movies this spring (hell, I think I saw as many movies this spring as I do over an average summer). As is generally expected, most of these movies didn’t bring in a lot of cash (and some of them completely flopped), but that didn’t stop me from putting my money down to see them.

In January, I actually only saw one new movie (about what I’d expect for the post holiday season). February, on the other hand, had me at the theater for FIVE new releases (although at least two of them (both starring Paul Walker, interestingly enough) I don’t think I actually got around to seeing till March, I’ll still cover them under February since that’s when they were first released). March saw the release of FOUR new movies that I went and saw, including the absolutely stellar V For Vendetta (which is this year’s Sin City – a fantastic movie based on an incredible comic book graphic novel). It’s probably not going to rate as highly on my top 10 for 2006 as Sin City did for 2005 (if I’d actually done a top 10 list for 2005, that is), but that’s mainly because this summer’s blockbusters look to be so much better than what we saw last year, so V For Vendetta is likely to have a lot more competition than Sin City did.

Finally, we have the month of April, which was more online with what I’d expect from this time of year – there were a number of interesting movies released, but nothing that really motivated me to get out to the theater. I caught only two movies at the end of April, and I did a double feature and watched them one right after the other the same Sunday (which turned out to be a mistake, since I was just starting to develop a nasty flu, and so by the time I was finished with the second movie I was deathly ill, and ended up home sick pretty much the entire next week – but that’s another story entirely). I probably won’t get to those two movies (or March’s movies) until my next entry (since I saw so many movies in February), but I’ll try my best to get these next two entries done in the next few weeks, so that hopefully I can quickly get May’s movies done and actually be caught up and current and doing my reviews as the movies come out (imagine that!!) by mid-June. The challenge from there, of course, is to actually STAY caught up. We’ll see how it goes. And now, on with the show!

The one new movie I caught in January was the action/horror sequel Underworld: Evolution. Sony was smart enough not to screen this movie for critics, knowing that critics across the board hate this genre (among others) and would likely give it nothing but negative reviews (which is exactly what they did once they saw it after it had opened). To me, this is a smart move, and one I think more studios should follow. In the past, it was always assumed that if a movie wasn’t screened for critics, it meant that the studio wasn’t happy with the results, and it was likely to be a disappointing if not downright awful movie. Critics continue to insist this is the case, but I think nowadays studios are wizening up and realizing that certain genres of film (regardless of how much fans of that particular genre will like them), just don’t get good reviews from critics. So why give the critics a free showing of the movie when you know they’re just going to give you bad press and try and keep people from paying to see your movie? If you know they won’t like it, I say make them pay to see it like the rest of us!! Which is exactly what Sony did with Underworld: Evolution.

I must admit, I was somewhat disappointed with the original Underworld. It just didn’t have the action and excitement I expected from the trailers, and while not a bad movie per se, it was just kind of a letdown from what I’d hoped for (although I haven’t gotten around to seeing the Director’s Cut DVD to see if that version is any better). I must say, however, that the sequel did not disappoint. It had more action, more incredible visuals, and a more well thought out story (in my opinion), not to mention a steamy love scene between Kate Beckinsale and Scott Speedman (damn is she hot!!). The amusing thing about that love scene is that the director of the movie is actually Kate’s husband (they got married after meeting on the first movie), and from interviews I’ve seen with her, it seems that Scott is a actually a good friend of the couple, which made that scene somewhat uncomfortable to film. I had to laugh when I saw her on one of the late night talk shows – they kept bleeping her whenever she said the phrase “cock sock”, which is the industry term for what is used to cover an actor’s penis when they film scenes like that. And as far as director Len Wiseman goes, I figure you've got to either be really committed to you art, or just a little bit messed up and perverted, to not only watch your wife naked pretending to have steamy sex with another man, but to actually be the one directing their actions and making sure that it really looks steamy. I don’t know if I could do that, but that’s just me (no wonder Hollywood marriages have such a high divorce rate).

But enough of Kate Beckinsale’s love scene (as enjoyable as it was to watch – and can I just say she looks so damned hot in skin-tight plastic!!). Overall this was a pretty fun movie – certainly an improvement over the original. They seemed to look at what worked in the first movie and what didn’t, and shored up the weak spots and improved on what worked in the first film. If only more sequels would take that approach, as opposed to just giving you more of the same like so many of them do. I don’t know when or if I’ll ever buy this one on DVD (I still don’t own the original on DVD), but it’s certainly worth renting if you enjoyed the original at all.

And so now on we go to the unbelievably movie-filled month of February. I still can’t believe how many movies came out that month that I actually saw at the theater. Then again, one of the big differences in the spring and fall off seasons as opposed to the summer and holiday blockbuster seasons, is that since it’s a dumping ground for a lot of lower-budgeted, lower expectations movies, studios aren’t as worried about what else is opening that weekend, or what opened the week before or opens the week after, and so I think you get a lot more movies getting released on the same weekend, so it’s much more likely there will be two or sometimes three movies come out the same weekend that all look interesting (although even I usually don’t manage more than two new movies a weekend on a good weekend, so often movies either don’t get seen, or get seen just before they leave the theaters on a weekend that DOESN'T have a couple of new movies I want to see). During the summer and at Christmas, on the other, you generally get only one big new movie that everybody wants to go see, that no one else really wants to compete with, so they move their films to a different weekend. So once May hits, I expect to see one new movie a weekend, and maybe one older movie I hadn’t seen yet that’s still playing if I get motivated to go to the movies on Sunday.

So the first movie I saw in February (at least I’m pretty sure it was the first one I saw in February, it’s hard to remember that far back), was something of a disappointment, and that was the Harrison Ford thriller Firewall. It was your standard, generic action/thriller, and while it tried for a high-tech edge to give it something new, sadly there were a number of technical blunders that as a computer guy really jumped out for me as being hokey and unrealistic. And I have to agree with the critics – let’s face it, at 64-years-old, regardless of the shape he’s in (and for his age, he’s in pretty damned good shape), Harrison Ford is just getting a little too old for these sorts of movies. He’d be better off in the dramas that he’s done very successfully in the past, or in an action/thriller that is a little less physical, with fewer fight scenes (such as Sean Connery in Entrapment). I just think audiences would accept him more in these sorts of roles, as it’s just hard to believe that a supposed computer security expert in his mid-60s could handle the situations he does in Firewall (I certainly don’t know any in that good of physical shape – it’s just not something that tends to go hand-in-hand with being a computer geek). He may have the time and money for personal trainers to keep him in top notch physical condition, but most of his characters proabably wouldn't (I'm just saying). So overall I’d probably give this one about 2 1/2 stars – it’s worth renting if you enjoy this sort of movie, but that’s about it.

The other movie I saw this weekend was much, much more enjoyable, and that was The Pink Panther remake starring the very funny Steve Martin. Now I do have to agree with the critics and with friends of mine who also saw the movie – Steve Martin is no replacement for Peter Sellers in this role (but let’s face it – NO ONE will EVER replace Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau – it just can’t be done. He so completely created and embodied that character). So the key to enjoying this movie is to go into it knowing that Steve Martin is not Peter Sellers, and that this isn’t the original character or original movies. If you go into it with that in mind, this is a really, really funny movie. Steve Martin is hilarious, Jean Reno is fantastic in his role (but he’s always done well as the quiet, serious character, and is perfect as the straight man to Steve Martin’s bumbling Clouseau). Also wonderful in this movie is Kevin Kline as Chief Inspector Dreyfus. The things they put that poor guy through! Also fun to watch is Emily Mortimer, who is just lovely and charming and adorable (and with such a sexy accent). I was excited to see her in this, because I loved her female hit woman character in Formula 51 (which is too bad, because despite the wonderful performances by all the main actors, this movie was pretty much complete crap, and not one I’d bother to own, despite how much I liked her and several of her co-stars in it).

The physical comedy in The Pink Panther is fun to watch, and there are a number of great scenes. My favorite featured Clive Owen as Agent 006, an obvious parody on the fact that he was up for the new James Bond role (one which he ultimately did not get). I think this scene proves he would have made a great Bond (but I do admit that I have high hopes for Daniel Craig, also a very talented actor – we’ll see how he does). I was also very pleased to see a cameo by Jason Statham, who's very high on my list of favorite actors. This is definitely a movie I’ll be getting on DVD at some point, and I look forward to a sequel if they decide to do one.

The next movie I saw wasn’t one I’d originally planned on seeing at the theater, but my buddy talked me into going to see it, and I’m glad he did. The movie in question – Date Movie. It was hilarious!! Admittedly, there were a few scenes that were a little gross for my tastes, but sadly that’s to be expected in this sort of parody movie. But regardless of that, the movie is really damned funny. Naturally they poke fun of all sorts of romantic comedies and chick films, but they go so far as to throw in parodies of such films as Star Wars: Episode III and Lord of the Rings! They also reach way back to the 80s and 90s and parody some classic movies (something you generally don’t expect in parody movies -- normally they're pretty focused on strictly recent films). Alyson Hannigan is as beautiful as ever (I so love her!), and incredibly funny at the beginning of the movie when she's in her fat suit, and Sophie Monk is just unbelievably sexy and gorgeous in every scene she’s in!!

And now we have the two February releases that I didn’t get around to seeing until weeks after they’d come out (and probably just before they were due to be pulled from the theaters). Both starred Paul Walker (which had nothing to do with why I didn't catch them when they first came out; it was actually pure coincidence), but otherwise were about as different as two movies can be. The movies I’m talking about are Eight Below and Running Scared (which is in no way related to the original Running Scared from 1986 that starred Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines – which is too bad, because that was a much better movie). Of the two, Eight Below was definitely much more worth the price of admission. For those who don’t know, it’s the true story of a team of sled dogs who are left in Antarctica during the winter when their owner is forced to leave without them due to incoming storms. The story jumps back and forth between the dogs’ struggle for survival, and their master’s attempts to get funding to get back to Antarctica to retrieve them.

What can I say, like most Americans, I’m a sucker for a heroic dog story (how can you not be?). And this one has not just one, but eight dogs in it. And they do a very good job of distinguishing the dogs and letting you get to know them just as if they were human actors, which connects you as a viewer that much more into their plight. And Paul Walker does a surprisingly good job portraying the one person who never gives up on them and does everything he can to get back to save them. While I enjoy most of the movies he does, I’ve never really considered Paul Walker that great of an actor, but I have to say in this movie he does a surprisingly good job with the character. So if you like good wholesome family movies or dog movies of any sort, this is absolutely a movie to check out.

Our final movie for the month of February (and the final movie for this entry, since it’s getting a bit on the long-winded side) is the action crime thriller Running Scared. While not the worst of this genre that I’ve seen (but then again, this is one of those categories of movies that seems to produce A LOT of B-grade, direct-to-video films), it’s hardly a movie I’m going to rush out and buy when it comes out on DVD (although it does have enough gratuitous violence and nudity to it that I’ll probably pick it up eventually, once it's cheap).

Here’s the basic plot outline – Paul Walker plays a small-time hood whose gang is involved in a drug deal gone bad that results in the deaths of several men they discover are actually dirty cops. His boss gives him the handgun that had killed the cops and tells him to get rid of it. Well, instead of getting rid of it, he hides it in his basement. What he doesn’t realize is that his young son and his son’s friend are hiding in the basement at the time and see him hide the gun. His son’s friend is the stepson of a drunken, abusive Russian mafia guy, so he steals the gun, shoots his stepfather in the shoulder, and then runs off. Well naturally when Paul Walker realizes the gun has been stolen, he’s in a panic (since he was supposed to have disposed of it). So from there you’ve got him chasing the kid (who of course loses the gun so once he finds the kid he's still looking for the gun), and his gang is looking for him and the guy in charge of the dirty cops is looking for them. It takes some very, very bizarre twists and turns (such as when the Russian boy is helped out by a really friendly couple who turn out to be murderous child molesters) before finally reaching a finale with a big twist to it that isn’t necessarily what you’re expecting (if for no other reason than because of how hard the movie is to follow), but that doesn’t really come as that much of a surprise once it’s revealed. So not really a movie I can recommend, but certainly an interesting movie to watch, if for no other reason than to see the strange directions that the movie goes in and the goofy, only-in-Hollywood problems this guy has as this gun goes from person to person to person as he does his best to chase it down.

Well that’s it for the beginning of 2006. I’ve got 6 movies to cover for March and April, but I just saw The Da Vinci Code last Saturday, so I’m thinking I’m going to put together an entry for it while the movie is fresh in my mind (and the movie’s actually still new and at the theater so that my review is timely and relevant, for once). Once that’s done I’ll go back and do March and April movies, and then I’ll do an entry for May movies, and then onto current movies from there (well, that’s the plan anyways. We’ll see how well it actually works). Until next time, try to enjoy the daylight!

Holiday Season 2005

Damn! I can’t believe it’s been a good two months since my last entry! I guess time flies when you’re busy as hell. So where was I? Ah yes, December. The big month for big budget family movies. And December 2005 brought us some top notch examples of the quality of filmmaking Hollywood can achieve when it sets its mind to it. The first of these was The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I have to say, I really enjoyed this movie. And that’s saying a lot, because I’m a HUGE fan of the original stories, and a very big fan of the old BBC version of this book (which is basically a scene-for-scene, line-for-line, completely faithful translation of the book, which is pretty impressive. Of course, it was also a 165 minute long TV mini-series, which is kind of hard to duplicate on the big screen, regardless of how long theatrical movies are getting these days).

Now I do have to admit, there were a few minor changes here and there from the book that I found annoying (mostly because I didn’t see any reason why they couldn’t have left them as they were in the book), but most of these were very minor, and weren’t items most people would notice unless they’d read the book several times (and they didn’t negatively impact the story flow of the movie at all – they were just different than the book). And I figure if this is the worst thing you can say about a movie adaptation of a wonderful book, then the movie’s done a pretty darned good job.

Visually, the movie is stunning. The visual effects are very well done, and the fantasy creatures all look spectacular. Aslan is especially amazing to watch (and the choice of Liam Neeson to do the voice was just inspired casting – he does an incredible, first-rate job). I also like that they followed the Harry Potter path of getting unknown British kids to play the lead roles. All of the kids did a great job, and I can’t wait to see them again in the next movie. This one I rushed out to buy as soon as it was available on DVD.

The next big holiday blockbuster was Peter Jackson’s King Kong, remake of the classic monster movie. Now firstly, I have to say that while the original King Kong is now considered a classic film, mainly because of the stop motion visual effects used in its making, story wise its basically a B-movie (which is not to say I don’t like it – I love B-movies). Which means that when you get right down to it, Peter Jackson honestly didn’t have a whole lot to work with in trying to turn it into a modern day blockbuster. He does a pretty good job of it, and I did go ahead and buy the 2-disk DVD when it came out. But I have to agree with the comment my good friend Cliffie made after he’d seen it – Peter Jackson (like too many of his fellow directors these days, sadly) has fallen way too in love with what he can do with digital effects. Being a computer geek myself, I can understand how easy it is to get caught up in all the amazing things that CGI can do nowadays. But sadly I also feel that it’s a trap, one that can pull a director away from the story and the characters, which in my not-so-humble opinion are the key elements to making a great movie.

Don’t get me wrong, I did like the movie quite a bit, and it's a lot of fun to watch, but with a running time of 3 hours and 7 minutes, the thinness of the story certainly shows in spots. And much like The Matrix Reloaded (although that was a horrid waste of a movie, which King Kong is not), there are a couple of the big CGI-heavy action scenes that really drag on longer than they need to. Sure, they look great, but you reach a point where you’re like, “Okay, we’ve watched Kong fighting the dinosaurs for long enough; let’s move on.” One positive thing I will say about the visual effects, however, is this – they did an unbelievable job on Kong’s face. You could really see the emotions playing across the big ape’s face in a number of scenes. It was really impressive. So all in all I think I’ll give King Kong three and a half stars. It was a good movie without doubt, but it could have been a lot better with a little trimming here and there and a little more focus on the keeping the story tight.

Which leaves us with one final movie that I managed to catch at the theaters during the month of December – Memoirs of a Geisha (which has been out on DVD for a while now – it’s hard to believe how quickly they’re turning movies around from theatrical release to DVD these days). This was a really enjoyable movie – but I’m a big fan of Zhang Ziyi and have enjoyed everything I've seen her in. And of course there’s the beautiful and talented Gong Li and Michelle Yeoh as well. Not to mention the very talented actors Ken Watanabe, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (an actor I’ve always liked), Ted Levine, and Mako (another actor I've always liked). The visuals are beautiful, the story is well told, and it’s just a wonderful movie to watch. Because of the fact that it’s basically a romantic drama, it probably wouldn’t make my top 10 list for 2005 (but that’s because I’m more of an action/sci-fi kind of guy), but it’s still a movie I’d like to pick up on DVD eventually (when I have the money – and when I’ve caught up with watching the couple dozen DVDs that I’ve bought that I haven’t found time to watch yet).

And that should about do it for 2005. And since I’m so far behind, I’m just going to jump into 2006. I guess my best and worst of 2005 lists just aren’t going to get done (but then again, if you’ve read through all my entries for last year, it’s pretty easy to tell which movies I really liked, and which ones I really hated last year). And so now it’s on to the early 2006 movies, coming soon!!