Reviews

28 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Baringly humanizing and intimate look at Kurt's personal life
12 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Let me say it beforehand that I've never watched a Kurt/Nirvana documentary before this nor read any of the books about him and I'm not a Kurt obsessive, although I've admittedly read up on his death and admire Nirvana's music and their contribution to 90s pop culture (which I am a fan of).

This documentary is a surprisingly humanizing look at him, with pretty much zero focus on the circumstances of his death (only a two-second note about it appears on the screen right before the credits roll) - which was quite refreshing since there seems to be a macabre obsession about Kurt's death, almost to the point of overshadowing what he was like as a person. And that's precisely what this documentary does - bring him from this deified rock legend pedestal to the level of a man, what he was like as a son, as a father, as a brother, as a husband and ex-boyfriend.

The interviews with his father, sister (it's the first time his immediate family has agreed to one), ex-girlfriend Tracy Marander and his mom Wendy in particular - along with more familiar faces like ex- wife Courtney Love and bandmate Krist Novoselic - are touching, at times uncomfortable and revealing. They map out a sensitive and talented but vulnerable artist who was a little too conscious of himself.

Although there's also performance footage here, Nirvana's music is almost a minor footnote and the focus strictly remains on the man himself. The stylized animations of Kurt's journal entries, drawings and narrations of his teenage years fill in the rest of the details about his youth, although the most effective parts are conveyed by various home videos at different points in his life - including some very intimate and unnerving ones that depict his domestic life with Courtney Love and their daughter Frances.

In a memorable scene, Courtney is giving baby Frances her first haircut as a visibly impaired Kurt nods off on heroin while holding the baby. It's a baring, unfiltered look – their messy house and unwashed appearance depicts a chaotic domestic life that's far from idyllic. It also shows that despite the rumours, Kurt and Courtney were very much in love and somehow made naturally suitable partners (despite, or because of, their drug habits). Morgen makes the brave decision of letting Cobain come across as a flawed character rather than a romanticized tragic anti-hero, without denigrating him or making him seem unsympathetic.

I was also quite surprised by how meticulously documented virtually all his life (even pre-fame) seemingly was - by his family members' home videos since he was a little child to the way he meticulously preserved his possessions, feelings and thoughts (artistic, mundane to-do lists or otherwise) in his journals and the 'treasure trove' of boxes upon boxes of tapes (among other belongings) that director Brett Morgen used to fill in the details of what went on in his mind. Of course, not to mention the baring, rather unflattering home videos of his personal life with Courtney and his daughter. It's as if he was anticipating the opportunity for legend-status fame and preserved his life for it just in case.

This documentary is a humbled, humanized view that goes into the deep end of what made Kurt the person he was, rather than the ideal that he was made out to be. It also provides a fairly unfiltered, at times disturbing window in the mind and life of the 90s' quintessential rock star and so-called voice of a generation - without any baggage of the romanticizing fandom that surrounds his tragic death.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crisis (2014)
Starts off great, but the plot kind of trails off after that
3 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Just finished a marathon run of this series (at only 13 episodes, it wasn't exactly a challenge) after a friend recommended it to me.

I must say that the pilot and first two episodes were gripping, tightly written and showed great potential, but mid-way through the season the plot just gets too muddled, as if the writers were trying to utilize every twist in their bag in as short a time period as possible - I'm sure NBC's mid-season cancellation of the series probably has something to do with it.

It's actually a pretty interesting premise but unfortunately it's let down by shoddy pacing, the twist-a-minute approach quickly saps out any emotional weight from the story and becomes increasingly absurd. The twists sometimes rely on lazy storytelling devices (such as the Chinese kid's mom revealing out of nowhere that she's a secret spy) or implausible situations (like most of the parents' drastic actions), but since this is a TV thriller after all it would be fine and well it there was a payoff to it but there simply isn't - even when one of the main characters kills off a student hostage, it lacks the emotional impact that it should have and feels like a rushed explanation to sprint towards the conclusion.

The acting - except for Dermot Mulroney's troubled portrayal of the morally ambiguous anti-hero father Francis Gibson - is also mediocre, and Agent Finley for some reason reminded me of Chris Tucker's character from Rush Hour (if he was transplanted in a political thriller). Likewise, the characters (except for perhaps Francis Gibson) are also largely one-dimensional, unengaging and unconvincing.

Worse still, the story rapidly veers off from what made it engaging in the first place (the hostage students) to a convoluted political thriller involving the CIA, shady corporates, powerful unknown people not limited by seemingly anything and governments. It reminded me of Prison Break in that sense (and the choppy acting, too).

Fortunately, it's only 13 episodes and the first few episodes are suspenseful enough to make you want to see how it ends (hint: not very neatly and a bit open-ended), but had NBC not cancelled it (along with a bunch of other programs) I'm sure it would have been a pretty good thriller drama.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better Call Saul: Marco (2015)
Season 1, Episode 10
Jimmy's moment of truth is here
7 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
For most of the part, BCS has been a sly character study – 'Marco' was kind of a departure in that it made most of its points rather overtly, but it's still a highly enjoyable episode that neatly wraps up the first season of BCS, setting up the stage for the introduction of Saul proper in the second season.

Compared to the preceding episode ('Pimento', easily the best episode of this season), it wasn't as smoothly paced (Marco's sudden death-during-scam was a bit jarring) and more bluntly set up – I thought the montage of Marco and Jimmy in Cicero and especially the ending was a bit on-the-nose, but I guess it straightens out in the bigger scheme of things since the writers probably don't want to stretch the introduction of Saul Goodman proper beyond the second season.

The bingo sequence was arresting and did an excellent job of filling in the blanks about Jimmy's past and what led him to Albuquerque – and it was delivered with the unique blend of angst and hilarity that Bob Odenkirk does so extremely well (Confession: I had no idea what a Chicago Sunroof was).

I still thought Hamlin got off a bit easy. Sure, Chuck was pulling his strings and Hamlin actually had a decent opinion of Jimmy, but I thought he still deserved a mouthful of Jimmy for being such a spineless tool all this time and not questioning Chuck. Instead, they exchange pleasantries and Jimmy apologizes to him for calling him a pig fornicator – it's just a bit too neat for my liking (like most of this episode).

Had the ending of the episode left a bit more ambiguous, we could have hoped that Jimmy became Saul only after he'd exhausted all options, but the writers made a pretty bold decision by letting us know (rather explicitly, as his chat with Mike explains) that Jimmy very consciously made the choice to be Saul. His conversation with Mike also reveals a lot about Mike, who has been an exceptionally well-developed supporting character throughout this show - Jonathan Banks is able to sustain an episode on his own (case in point: "Five-O") and I hope we get to see more of him in the second season.

Kim informs Jimmy that he has a partner-track opportunity lined up for him at a regional firm working on the case with HHM (impressed with his clients' opinion of him), but he backtracks at the last minute in HHM's parking lot, U-turning out of it and telling Mike that he knew why he passed up the Kettlemans' cash when an opportunity to take it unhindered was staring him in the face, and that he'll never let that happen again.

That U-turn is the U-turn of the trajectory of Jimmy's life from here on. He's done with proving himself to others, even if it means passing up the right track to his lawyer dream (partner at a major firm). He's ready to take control of his life's trajectory on his own terms.

Now that the season is finally over, I'd just like to say that I think BCS covered a lot more ground in its first season compared to BB's first season – and objectively speaking, it's technically more polished: more economically written, better paced and the characters are more thoughtfully fleshed out. Not a surprise, considering that the writing team has gained invaluably from its experience on BB, but it's still a major rebuttal for those who have been saying that it doesn't live up to BB. So here, I said it: the first season of BCS is better than the first season of BB, or even at worst on par with it. Too bad the second season is still a year away.

P.S. Much like Breaking Bad, I think BCS deserves attention for its amazing soundtrack choices in every episode. I'd almost forgotten how awesome the 'Smoke on the Water' riff is, and this episode ends on a classic note with it: Jimmy's driving away from his life's dilemmas into the sunset, humming that unforgettable riff, and then the actual riff kicks in and the end credits roll. Like I said, classic.
40 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better Call Saul: Pimento (2015)
Season 1, Episode 9
Saul has arrived
31 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's always incredible to see that first domino fall in a character's mind that sets them on their path. For Walt, I thought it was the moment in BB's first season when Walt furiously punches an air dryer in the washroom after learning of his cancer's remission, and for Mike it was the emotionally gripping final 5 minutes of "Five-O" four episodes back. In this episode, we see that turning moment for Jimmy McGill / Saul, and boy is it painful and exhilarating to watch.

The buildup to the explosive climax of this episode had been ongoing in some way or the other for at least the past eight episodes (and two episodes directly set up the stage for it), so you could see it looming in the distance, but it was nonetheless still very high-impact when it finally arrived.

If the last 5 minutes of "Five-O" were Jonathan Banks' Emmy moment, the last 5 minutes of this episodes are Bob Odenkirk's (and perhaps even Michael McKean's). Bob Odenkirk gives a blistering performance as Jimmy learns that the person whose approval he pined for the most had been the one holding him down and betraying him all along, and it was perfectly complemented by Michael McKean's reveal of Chuck's inherent hopelessness in Jimmy.

It's a major turning point for Chuck's character as well - so he's basically been the main villain all along, while the douche-y Hamlin had just been taking the 'bad guy' rep so Chuck could have his brother's support. This was also beautifully set up with the phone call Chuck makes at night and the tense interaction between Hamlin and Kim, and then particularly the scene between Kim and Jimmy in the nail salon (Kim couldn't bring herself to revealing the truth to Jimmy, it would break him).

The subplot with Mike's first 'protection mission' for a newbie suburban-dad drug dealer, who was somewhat reminiscent of an early Walter White, was also hugely entertaining (as any scene with Mike on a mission is) - with Mike revealing the legwork he puts into every mission beforehand, laying down his philosophy on the distinction between a criminal and a bad guy, as well as putting his stoic tough guy skills to use on a loudmouthed, gun-loving bigot (perfectly played by - surprise, surprise - TREVOR PHILLIPS from GTA V, who brought his A game to the table!) who was initially put on the protection job with him and soon rendered useless by Mike. Nacho, an early favorite of mine from this series, also makes a return as the purchaser of the drug deal.

This was in my opinion the best episode yet from this great series' first season, and if it's any indication, I'm assuming that from the second season onward we'll be introduced to Saul Goodman proper. In hindsight, I'm also glad that the writers played it smart by taking their sweet time to flesh out the characters and explore the show's comedy/drama dynamic in the first season instead of quickly sprinting to the enactment of Saul Goodman.

I'm also interested in seeing in how Jimmy's dynamic with Mike and especially Chuck will play out - now that he's declared that he's "done" with Chuck after his revelation. All in all, I'm very pleasantly surprised with the way the show has turned out - it's comfortably moved beyond the gigantic shadow of Breaking Bad and has managed to constantly retain interest in a storyline where the outcome is more or less already defined, and that's a mighty achievement.
148 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Problem Child (1990)
This is what the scourge of basic cable movie re-runs looks like
22 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Even though I also spent the better part of my childhood in the 90s (having been born in 1993), somehow I missed the re-runs of this one (or its sequel) on TV - not like I missed out on anything because of it (on the contrary, in fact, having seen it now), but it also means that I'm not familiar with the "I know it's bad but it holds a special memory for me" feelings that many others have for this movie. I just found it to be a plain bad, annoying film about a very, very annoying character.

Judging from its all-too-obvious title and production (it looks like a low-budget late 80s/early 90s family comedy, which is what it basically is), I was expecting a cheap knockoff of Home Alone - and it's not like I liked that series either, maybe because I don't find anything cute about hell-raising little spawns of Satan, they're little devils who just tick me off and need to be disciplined.

The problem is that – unlike, say, Matilda or even Kevin from Home Alone – this kid's just not likable or even particularly cute. Instead, he comes off as the movie's other characters describe him – a vile little spawn of Satan (the ginger hair, dead eyes, freckles and bad teeth only add to it) who delights in inflicting misery on others until way too late in the movie - it almost feels like the filmmakers decided that they needed to find a way to make the audience not woo for the little devil's death.

The film unsuccessfully tries to walk a fine line between a violent naughty-child family comedy (a la Home Alone) or a semi-serious commentary on sensitive issues like abandoned children, adoption and parenthood. Instead, it awkwardly dips in and out of both territories. Adding to the stilted tone is the fact that in some parts it's actually quite dark if one bothers to give a below-surface thought to it – there's one particular scene where the defeated, blanked-out dad contemplates killing his adopted little devil while his wife fornicates with an escaped serial killer in the next room - in a PG-rated family comedy!

Virtually every character in the film is paper-thin, overacted to the point of bad unintentional comedy and just plain disengaging or annoying. And my apologies to--let's see--Michael Oliver, who I'm assuming has now vanished in the dustbin of Hollywood's child actor has-beens (like most stars of such movies do), but here he's probably the most annoying kid I've probably seen in any movie with a child protagonist.

Unless you've had a childhood with crappy basic cable channels that used to rerun movies like this one back in the 90s - even I caught this movie as a rerun on my crappy local cable (as they say, old habits die hard) - and as a result you have some kind of perverse sentimental value for it, there's no reason anyone should watch this, especially considering that that today (the Modern Golden Age of TV) there are so many great shows on TV to kill your time with.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Whose Line Is It Anyway? (2013–2024)
Whose Line is back and great as ever!
17 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm one of those people who jumped fairly late on the Whose Line bandwagon, and ended up watching the better part of the eight seasons of the Drew Carey hosted series online. Needless to say, I was thrilled when I heard that the show will be back with all the main performers, and the big question was: Will it live up to its original run?

If the first two episodes are anything to go by, the answer is a resounding yes. Drew Carey is replaced with Aisha Tyler as host (a source of much debate among Whose Line fans), and though I think that she did a decent job, it's too early to judge her as she needs a few episodes' time to develop the kind of chemistry that Carey did with the performers. I did kind of miss Drew Carey - his familiar introductions ("Come on down let's have some fun" and "the points don't matter, just like >insert joke< ") became such a recognizable aspect of the show for me that not hearing them was a bit jarring. But apart from that, I don't have any complains with Aisha Tyler's hosting.

The great news is that all the original performers - Colin Mochrie, Ryan Stiles and Wayne Brady - brought their A-game to the show and their age hasn't slowed down their improv skills one bit. Crowd favorite games such as Dating Game, Dubbing, Helping Hands and Scenes From A Hat are back in all their hilarious glory. We're also introduced to a couple of really fun new games, including one where the performers act out a situation using items from audience members' handbags and a 'magic mat' where the performers act out the scene lying on the floor while a camera above shows it to the audience in a 'front-view' perspective. Magic mat in particular was hilarious, and I think it will definitely become a crowd favorite.

Each episode had two guest performers. The first one had Gary Anthony Williams and Lauren Cohan (of The Walking Dead fame), while the second one had Heather Ann Graham and Glee star Kevin McHale. Even in the original run, I had always thought that the male guests had far better chemistry with the performers than the female ones (could be because of the uninhibited spontaneous nature of the show or whatever), and this time around it's no different. Among the guest performers featured so far, McHale was probably the best, though I really hope that the guest performers from the original run such as Greg Proops, Brad Sherwood, Jeff Davis and (my personal favorite) Chip Esten also return. Having Drew as a guest performer would be amazing.

If there's any justice, this show's ratings should be able to convince the CW to extend the series for another few seasons - having such a fun improv show with this level of talent is a rarity among the 'reality' crap that's everywhere on TV these days. And fans should be pleased that less than four minutes into the first episode, there's already a bald joke and Colin Mochrie is kissing Wayne Brady - the Whose Line that we know and love is BACK.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Notebook (2004)
An unabashedly romantic and unadulterated love story that gets it right
19 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Classic love stories that lack grit or are "grounded in reality" are rather rare to come by in mainstream Hollywood in the 21st century. The Notebook is a throwback to the days when "serious" love stories were passionate, optimistic affairs devoid of any realist pretences, and this sincerity is by far the movie's biggest draw.

The plot is narrated in flashback by an elderly man at a senior home to an amnesiac lady friend (who happens to be his childhood sweetheart), and the story isn't terribly original – wealthy teenage girl falls in love with a modest but charming local boy during a summer vacation in rural South Carolina, her parents force her to move away, the boy and the girl carry on with their lives until they cross paths years later as adults and rekindle an old flame. The straightforward plot works because this is a movie that knows exactly what it is – a classy sweep-you-off- your-feet romance about two people, and a very solid one at that.

The lead actors are attractive and look the part, while the cast in general fills out its shoes adequately – there isn't any standout that leaves a long-lasting impression, but the same could be said for the characters they're given to work with. The much-needed chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams is there (heck, they hit off a real-life romance once they met on the set, I can only imagine what it must have been like) and their passionate make-out scenes probably justify watching this movie for most folks.

The movie sometimes does feel a bit out of touch with the era it's supposed to be set in if you think about it – after all, I'd expect more than a few disapproving looks if someone publicly made out with his girlfriend before marriage in front of his family and friends back in the 1940s – but it's only a minor gripe. This is also a very beautifully shot film, evoking all the right nostalgia of the classic Hollywood era – making out in the rain, canoeing in a scenic river with swans all around, drives around the lush countryside and, of course, losing virginity in a dilapidated farmhouse (that last example might be a bit tongue-in-cheek). The rich, striking cinematography of the outdoors is also thoroughly soothing and contributes wonderfully to the lovestruck, tipsy mood of the film.

The Notebook is an honest-to-goodness romantic drama that won't disappoint if you're in the mood for watching an all-out love story. And do watch all the way through – the last scene is quite a tearjerker.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Matilda (1996)
A lowbrow family film that barely meets its very low expectations as run-of-the-mill family fare
29 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I was surprised to find out that this movie had a theatrical release – because I don't think it deserved one; at best, it's a somewhat passable run-of-the-mill family TV movie; at worst, it's simply bad film-making in all aspects of the word. "Matilda" is just a saccharine family film with a pseudo-cute lead surrounded by dumbbells or eccentrics. I haven't read the Roald Dahl book on which this movie is based, so I can't judge comparatively – but if the movie is a faithful adaptation of the book, then the book was either not movie-adaptable or plain sucked.

First of all, I was blown away (and I mean blown away out of disgust) by the incredibly lazy way of storytelling. A hazy narrative by Danny DeVito, the movie's director and one of the lead actors, is the main tool of storytelling here, rather than what you see on screen. The story is basically about an over-smart girl with telekinetic powers who has to learn to get through ill-meaning and not-so-good family members as well as a disturbingly mean headmistress.

While the story could've been handled decently – once again, I haven't read the book, so I'm open to positive deviations – it is populated by paper-thin, ridiculously one-dimensional cartoon characters played as a joke by their actors. As our lead we have a buck-toothed little snob whose only criteria for acting is to "look cute" (which is apparently the norm in most family films starring a child actor these days) – which she's admittedly good at, but with standards this low, no wonder she is. The story, which could've carried a meaningful message of child abuse or adult vs. child psychology, is also brutally slaughtered thanks to the obnoxiously developed characters.

The only redeeming factor about the movie that I can think of is the character of Ms. Trunchbull, the Olympian headmistress (literally) who should've been given a life sentence in the real world for child abuse. Admittedly, the character itself is very screwed if you think of the kind of treatment she metes out to her students in real life, e.g. javelin-throwing a student, cussing another's mother, and humiliating an obese student by force-feeding him among other acts of intimidation – not very funny, is it? The character is also cartoonish and one-dimensional like other characters in the movie; however, it's played to perfection by Pam Ferris. Her genuinely intimidating on screen presence lends the movie a macabre sense of humor, which is the only humor that seems to somehow work; but unfortunately, it's not enough to save the movie.

All other characters are clichéd and poorly acted, especially Matilda's family (the dad is played by film's director Danny DeVito), while her ultra-nice teacher Ms. Honey, who has a history of childhood abuse, is also a wasted opportunity and is poorly played by Embeth Davidtz, who tries too hard to be sentimental and hence fails.

Instead, the childhood abuse theme would've better fit Ms. Trunchbull and helped to move away from the movie's incredible one-dimensionality (even if a little bit). The entire movie could've been put to some good use with serious undercurrents, such as the aforementioned childhood abuse plot. But in the end, "Matilda" is a wasted opportunity – poorly acted, has low production values and is one of the most one-dimensional and lazily made family films I've ever seen, despite it having considerable potential. Danny, please stick to acting and stay away from family films. RATING: 4/10.
3 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
History aside, "Saving Private Ryan" is one of the greatest propaganda films ever made and grittily epic visualizing at its finest
13 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Although I have had this film's DVD for a few years now, I had never been intrigued by war films and always thought of them as preachy propaganda in one way or the other. But I happened to stumble across "Saving Private Ryan" as our class was doing a WWII project, and so decided to watch it. Although maybe it was preachy (somewhat) and yet still not extremely historically accurate (I should know, considering that I watched it for a history project), one thing that I could not deny with an open mind is that Saving Private Ryan is epic film-making at its finest.

As far as the story is concerned, I won't go too deep into historical accuracy, but as long as the important things are set straight and the story makes sense on its own, I'm happy with it. That being said, there should have been more effort put into showing how other Allied nations besides America contributed to the war, at least during the beach landing sequence. This is my biggest gripe with the story, and even then it's a fairly minor gripe.

Some more background on the war would have also helped a lot to lend that extra authenticity edge to the movie, but the lack of it doesn't come down hard at all since most of us know it anyways. Aside from that, the story is fairly straightforward, which is good, since most of it is packed with great, amazingly cinematographed action sequences, and even better, the high-impact action is nicely balanced out by a few tender moments – making Saving Private Ryan more than just a war-themed action film.

However, the whole mission of 'saving Private Ryan' – for which our heroes risk their lives – should've been justified more deeply, with more than just an Abraham Lincoln speech. And another thing that could've cleared up many misconceptions was the movie's name; Pvt. Ryan, despite being talked about throughout the movie, appears for like 15 minutes on screen, and even then has very little character development. Heck, the movie's tagline would've made for a more suitable title ("The Mission is A Man"). In fact, Pvt. Ryan is almost relegated to a minor character when it comes to screenplay, as the movie centers almost entirely around Tom Hanks' Capt. John Miller, who is also the most fleshed-out character in the movie – perhaps the only one, in fact, but considering the movie's runtime, focusing on a few characters is a good thing.

Like most others', my favorite scene from the movie was the Normandy beach landing at the beginning, which is one of the most intense sequences I've ever seen in a movie. If there is one vital thing that this scene would be incomplete without, it is the cinematography – the shaky hand-held camera-work wonderfully evokes the feeling that the viewer is seeing the whole thing through the eyes of one of the soldiers fighting on the beach, and it leaves a very strong impression. There are also dramatic depictions of shell shock and tons of realistic hardcore gore, none of which feels gratuitous in context of the overall turbulence of the entire sequence. The sound is just as good, as gunshots and machine-gun fire booms loud and clear amidst frantic last cries, groans and screaming of soldiers.

The cinematography, production design and acting are top-notch all across the board throughout the movie. Tom Hanks' performance is particularly moving and resonant. The cinematography is greatly helped by the 'handy-cam' style of camera-work and use of appropriately grayish color palettes. When it comes to the production design, destroyed villages and pastures look like they should, with dead rotting cows and all, while the piles of garbage that are found in abundance throughout the movie are also meticulously detailed, complete with chunks of 1940s-looking weaponry sticking out of them.

All in all, Saving Private Ryan is one of the best war propaganda films ever made, if not the best (and I mean it positively) – but my dilemma was right, it is still a propaganda film because according to this movie all Nazis are one-dimensional, motiveless and spineless, but considering how good the movie already is with its current premise, I couldn't really ask for more. And besides, with a famously Jewish director, what else can you ask for? Regardless, Saving Private Ryan is without doubt among the finest movies in its dimension and in its genre. RATING: 9/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Even for someone who hasn't read the Tolkein books, this is one ambitious yet thoroughly comprehensible otherworld brought to life
5 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As someone who hasn't read the JRR Tolkien books, this review is based solely on and from the movie on itself -- no external comparisons.

From the very first scene, I noticed that the movie was trying to be epic and there are a lot of things going on, not unlike other fantasy "universes" (e.g. Harry Potter). But FOTR tackles a far bigger universe than Harry Potter's -- and most of the time, it succeeds amazingly in its ambitious storytelling, without becoming convoluted or confusing.

One thing that I really admired about the movie was it's openness to newcomers to the LOTR series (like me), which is most evident in the opening scene where a dreamy prologue during an epic battle between the forces of Middle-Earth and Mordor forms the backbone of the story to follow. As a result of this narrative, the otherwise convoluting plot remains cohesive and "in one piece" throughout the movie -- without the prologue, I probably wouldn't have been nearly as involved in the movie's plot.

The movie's tone is generally serious and epic, complete with grandiose otherworldly dialogue -- but in an extremely smart move, FOTR doesn't compare itself to the "real world", but instead tries to suck you in a totally different universe, and as such, its combination of seriousness and optimism works without coming off as pompous or misplaced.

The production design of FOTR is one of the most ambitious and finest that I've ever seen to date, and wonderfully complemented by the beautiful New Zealander landscape and some truly epic cinematography. The acting is also top-notch all across the board. All elements of the "Fellowship of the Ring" are tightly held together by Peter Jackson's ambitious direction.

However, there are still some tweaks that could have been made. For one thing, there are a couple of very unnecessary moments, such as when Gandalf leads the Fellowship through the dangerous underground lairs of Mordor to escape from the Balrog - yet he fights (and loses) to the beast in the end. Why risk yourself and so many other people when he wanted to fight the beast in the first place? Otherwise, why even try facing the beast? The ending also didn't need to scream "there is going to be a sequel!" so loudly (so to speak) and would've been better if it was more gradual - but again, I haven't read the books, so it could just be my opinion from a moviegoer's perspective.

But these minor detractions aside, the Fellowship of the Ring is a great movie on its own and anybody who hasn't read the Tolkien books will be easily involved in the wonderfully realized otherworld and engaging characters and story of "Lord of the Rings" -- and those are qualities that any good movie, whatever its source is, should have. RATING: 8.5/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enchanted (2007)
A stellar cast dazzles up this otherwise alright live-action fairytale
24 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What happens when the archetypal Disney princess is thrown from her blissful animated world into the no-nonsense world of modern-day Manhattan. That's exactly what "Enchanted" wants to show you, and in, uh, a family-friendly manner. Although the premises of Enchanted are fairly interesting, it's the amazing cast that is arguably the movie's most powerful asset. Not only the actors' performances, but the casting choices are also top-notch across the board.

One may not be sure if a 33-year-old would be able to pull off the archetypal Disney princess in the real world, but Amy Adams left me smitten throughout the movie; with her cute innocence and wide-eyed optimism, within moments it becomes hard to imagine anybody else in the role of Giselle. Her transformation from a near-stupidly optimist into a real-world woman over the course of the movie is also handled very well and smoothly, which prevents Adams' aptly over-melodramatic acting (for most of the movie) from coming off as cheesy.

Timothy Spall is also fully believable and downright hilarious as the evil queen's bulky lackey Nathaniel. Patrick Dempsey - who plays the hardheaded divorce lawyer Robert - and James Marsden, playing the archetypically handsome but egotistically dimwitted Prince Edward, are also enjoyable in their respective roles. Giselle's talking chipmunk friend Pip, who can't talk when he's in the real world and has to communicate by acting, is also a drop-dead hilarious CG character; his imitation of Nathaniel in particular cracked me up.

However, Idina Menzel was fairly unconvincing and overacted as Robert's pragmatic girlfriend Nancy, while Susan Sarandom - who is perfectly casted as the evil Queen Narissa - is disappointingly misused (more on that later).

Unfortunately, the movie's strength drastically weakens once the evil Queen Narissa shows up in the real world near the movie's ending. Not only is Narissa farcical and not menacing at all in person, but even the CG dragon that she transforms into during the climax looks like a 3D character with cartoon proportions and comes off as more humorous than menacing. There is also no proper explanation of why Narissa still wants to kill Giselle even after she knows that Giselle's true love isn't her stepson (Edward). The climax, where Giselle dispatches the dragon, should have been better defined and more developed.

Carrie Underwood's "Ever Ever After" at the end lent the movie at bit of Disney 'plasticness', but I won't complain much about it because after all, it's supposed to be a feel-good ending, complete with cheesy dancing from Patrick Dempsey and Amy Adams; the movie itself is rife with colorful musical numbers that resemble a Broadway musical on steroids, in classic Disney fashion; not to mention the staple "and they all lived happily ever after" narration.

All in all, despite a bogged-down ending, Enchanted is a thoroughly entertaining feel-good family film that sincerely honors its not-so-believable homages rather than ridiculing them. However, along with some wonderful performances, the biggest reason that Enchanted is so memorable is its undeniable feel-good charm. RATING: 9/10
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Def Jam: Fight for NY (2004 Video Game)
"Fight for NY" is one of the best fighter games on the PS2 - period.
6 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Publisher: EA Games

Developer: EA Canada

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Graphics: 9/10

Gameplay: 9/10

Sound: 9/10

Challenge: 9/10

Overall: 9.5 (of 10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

+ The perfect combo of tightly balanced controls and graphics that truly kick ass (by PS2 standards)

+ A vast variety of combat moves that extend far beyond wrestling

+ A good variety of terrific locales that host a depth of cool environmental attacks

+ Synchronized dialogue and great hip-hop soundtrack that feels just right for the game's thuggish mood

+ A highly engaging and diverse gang-based story that is pulled off very well

  • The story mode would have been better if it had more than one storyline in it


  • Certain fights can get quite frustrating, especially in the beginning


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Conclusion

Although this is my first Def Jam game (didn't play "Vendetta"), it is definitely one of the best fighting games that I've ever played -- and I say that as a Mortal Kombat fan. A prominent feature of Fight for NY is the Blazing system, i.e. once you have beaten up your opponent to a certain extent, a meter fills and glows up telling you to pull off a fatal over-the-top move. As you perform the move, the screen goes all druggy and colors flash all around in high hues, which sets a great mood indicating the character's anger. Nearly everything else about the game is also implemented superbly -- definitely something that no fighter game enthusiast should miss out on, as well as a worthwhile experience for any casual gamer.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Manhunt (2003 Video Game)
Any game that enjoys its sadistic and brutal nature to the fullest will have a hard time topping "Manhunt"
5 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Publisher: Rockstar Games

Developer: Rockstar North

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Graphics: 8.5/10

Gameplay: 9/10

Sound: 9/10

Challenge: 9/10

Overall: 8.8/10

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

+ A very interesting story that renders the game a playable snuff film to some extent

+ Great dark atmosphere designed to evoke claustrophobia and paranoia

+ Great use of lighting and the 'dark spots' blend in neatly with their surroundings

+ Looks great artistically as well as technically (at least for the PS2)

+ Cleverly crafted minimalist soundtrack that sets just the right mood of eeriness

+ Great darkly humorous dialogue from nearly all the non-playable characters in the game

+ Nicely implemented, stealthy trial-and-error gameplay that requires brains

  • During certain levels, particularly shootouts, the difficulty feels unnecessarily tweaked


  • HUD is quite minimal, and the "Hardcore" difficulty in the game features no HUD at all.


  • I went unnoticed by the AI during some very obvious moments.


  • Despite its sheer depth, the game is extremely linear and lacks repeat value


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Conclusion

Manhunt is a great game, both technically and creatively. The main aspect of Manhunt is, in simple terms, to kill. There are two ways of killing: visceral executions and shootouts. Shootouts don't really take off until half-way through the game, and are basically standard auto-aim shootouts with the stealth and gore factors tweaked up. In order to perform a successful execution, you have to silently stalk the prey for a while; the game provides many dark spots to facilitate the player for this purpose. Every item, except one, features three levels of executions, and dozens of items are featured in the game. An example of a Level 1 execution would be choking an enemy with a baseball bat (to death, of course). A Level 2 execution might feature severing an enemy's nuts by pulling a sickle between his legs. A Level 3 execution can involve stabbing an enemy in the back with a crowbar, then jamming it in the victim's skull and wiggling it around, and finally prying the head off from the neck bone. Each execution is presented in a very graphic manner and as a cut-scene, accentuated with a grainy filter and scan lines, as if being played off a dingy CCTV camera, for a great artistic effect. Blood-thirsty gamers or those looking for some degenerate thrills and ground-blazing style will find Manhunt a worthy game to own.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004 Video Game)
"San Andreas" is one of the biggest and boldest games you'll ever play on the PS2
5 September 2008
Publisher: Rockstar Games

Developer: Rockstar North

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Gameplay: 9/10

Graphics: 8/10

Sound: 8/10

Challenge: 8/10

Overall: 8.5 (of 10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

+ There are always tons of things at your disposal at any given time

+ Very varied and realistic cities that truly capture the essence of their real-life inspirations

+ Great sense of humor throughout, especially from the game's in-car radio and dialogue

+ Some very interesting characters to meet as you progress through the game

+ Almost none of the gargantuan expansive playing environment feels wasteful

+ Some of the missions are truly thrilling and rewarding

+ The superbly-constructed gameplay will devour well over 100 hours of your time

  • Controls are clunky, especially during shootings and when trying to position your player


  • Some voice-overs are derailed; radio stations get repetitive over the game's course


  • Frame-rate issues, lag, and low-polygon renders are sometimes very notable


  • Certain missions seem borderline impassable, mainly due to lax controls


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Conclusion

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a beautifully envisioned spectacle that deserves at least one try for the amount of creativity that went into it; rife with cultural references and its stellar sense of humor, San Andreas glows of the effort that went on behind the scenes at Rockstar North. Every nook and cranny of Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas and all the landscape is packed with detail, and the despite the scope of the game, everything is balanced with surprising dexterity. However, certain technical aspects of the game loosely cave in when it comes to implementation, most importantly the controls and visuals. Regardless, San Andreas' gangsta, action-movie style theme lets you overlook these shortcomings to an extent. Apart from the core missions that you need to progress through the story, there are handfuls of side-missions that boost your attributes. Altogether this boils down to an approximately 150-hour kamikaze ride that shouldn't be passed on by anyone man enough to handle it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not as intelligent or deep as its predecessors, but X3 is still a fun-filled action-fest
5 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having thoroughly enjoyed the first two X-Men films directed by Bryan Singer, especially X2, I was (like many other people) skeptical when a new director was announced, perhaps because of which X3 didn't leave a very bad taste in my mind when it ended, although there were many things that could've worked much, much better than they do. My biggest contention with the film (and I'm sure most people's as well) was that it relentlessly prefers quantity over quality when it comes to characters.

Apparently the studio wanted to end the X-Men franchise with this film and make it the bona fide "last stand" for the series, so director Brett Ratner crams in as many characters as he can, so that everyone gets to see their favorite character. Unfortunately, except for Beast, all new characters are cardboard-thin. Even worse, certain vital characters – who had been nicely fleshed out by Bryan Singer – are conveniently wasted away to accommodate the new characters in the movie's 100-minute runtime.

Cyclops is ridiculously killed off in the movie's first 20 minutes; since his death is off screen, I was hoping throughout the movie that he'd make comeback, but unfortunately he doesn't. Mystique, Magneto and Rogue are stripped of their powers by the mutant cure; Rogue, who's barely used in X3, deliberately takes it (ugh, morals). Jean Grey's Phoenix incarnation, the movie's other main storyline besides the mutant cure, is also killed off by Logan in the end, but (thankfully) in a fairly befitting and appropriate manner. Her death is also not very touching because of her character's misuse; first, she (apparently) kills off Prof X (more on that later), and then she stands for 20 minutes like a statue besides Magneto while he destroys Alcatraz during the climax.

As far as wasting characters goes, the "head" of the X-Men, Prof X, receives the worst treatment. First, he's disintegrated to fragments by the Phoenix at Jean Grey's home, yet the post-credits scene shows him in a hospital room being tended to by one of his mutant-researching human colleagues. First of all, he shouldn't have been disintegrated in the first place; but once it was done, just killing him off would've been better than this nonsensical ending. Many of the newcomers to the series (Callisto, Arclight, Quill, Multiple Man, what-not) are apparently killed off during the climax, while Juggernaut's fate is left undecided. I was also disappointed by the unexplained absence of the Nightcrawler (one of X2's better characters) in X3.

The difference in direction brought forth by the change in directors is also felt. In X2, after Pyro destroys the police cars at Bobby Drake's home, the X-Jet is chased by military jets all the way until it nearly crashes; even Jean wasn't able to stop both the missiles. Yet in X3, after the Phoenix crashes her house down from 10 feet in the air, neighbors don't notice at all and the surviving mutants leave in peace without any aftermath. Similarly, in Singer's films Magneto was put in a plastic prison after he was caught, but after his powers are neutralized during the climax in X3, he's seen playing chess with himself in a park! No police, no aftermath of all the trouble he caused. Note how Singer tried to tie up as many untied knots left behind as possible while Ratner just wants to move on quickly.

Since both of X3's story lines are strong enough to hold their own, the movie could've done better if it went with only one of them – either the mutant cure or the Phoenix. Fortunately (in this case), X3 is also the most action-heavy of all X-Men films, and the movie packs healthy doses of thrilling, high-impact action for every cardboard-thin character introduced or vital character wasted away. However, X3's use of the mutants' powers during action sequences can sometimes favor aesthetics over logic; for example, Jean Grey uses her powers during the climax when they would look most impressive, not when they would be most effective. Same goes for Pyro and Magneto's "flaming cars" combo during the climax; why not simply burn the entire place?

On the other hand, certain characters – Colossus and Kitty Pryde – that were limited to cameos in the previous films take part in full-fledged action sequences here. Kitty is also a substantial supporting character, a major player in the climax, and also a well-used plot mechanism as Bobby's 'other girl' and the reason Rogue wants to get cured. Ellen Page, the third actress to play Kitty, also gets a lot more screen time than any of her counterparts in the previous films and fits right in Kitty's personality – spunky, hot, and short; maybe "short" is Page's specific trait, but she turns in a decent performance regardless.

Aside, the acting is decent as usual from most of the cast, although Kelsey Grammar plays Hank McCoy / Beast to near-perfection, complete with a Churchill quote humorously wisecracked while trampling people during the climax (and seeing him do that is always fun). On the downside, Multiple Man is narcissistically played to the point of self-parody, the 80-something guy playing the president was a talking corpse, while the Juggernaut was apparently written for comic relief – when he's rescued by Magneto, his first line is something along "Do it quick, because I need to pee". Dialogue-wise, X3 is lightest in tone of all X-Men films, and features an assortment of blunt one-liners (in contrast to X2's usually tactful dialogue). But X3 does provide some powerful moments (e.g. Jean's confrontation with Xavier at her house) and dialogue to offset that, and most of the time the humor works well, since the movie doesn't take itself too seriously anyway.

X3 is an action-fest type of movie that despite not being very smart or deep is still pretty fun. RATING: 7.5/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
X2 (2003)
An intense, darkly fierce and psychological superhero film that succeeds in everything it tries to do
29 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A tastefully dark, serious superhero film = pure gold for me. Having said that, am I glad that I believed in the hype for X2.

X2's story is more complex, engaging and deeper than its predecessor's; even though it is fairly graspable, I had to play closer attention to understand it than the previous movie's story; otherwise, it can occasionally get confusing. The character development is also more even here than the first X-Men, although the focus still tilts towards Wolverine.

X2 also introduces three new big players to the series – William Stryker, Yuriko Oyama (also known as Lady Deathstrike in the comics) and Kurt Wagner / the Nightcrawler. Stryker is a human military scientist hell-bent on eliminating the mutant race because his mutant son caused his wife's suicide by 'playing' with her mind; the X-Men and Magneto's mutants are urged to unite against his heinous plans. Oyama is Stryker's assistant and henchwoman, and a mutant he has successfully 'experimented' on; she is basically a sleeker, sexier, female version of Wolverine. The Nightcrawler is a blue-skinned freak of a mutant who is capable of teleporting; he is recruited by the X-Men after he attacks the president, and he's a religious Christian from Germany (talk about mutant fundamentalists) who used to work in the Munich circus before. All the characters from the previous movie return, along with cameos from some new characters; the most appetizing cameo by far has to be Colossus' (unfortunately it's just a cameo).

The action scenes are also better than the first movie this time around. They're more intense, more abundant and more diverse – everything from visceral combat action to pure smash-fests is here. My personal favorite is a violent, nighttime raid by Stryker's soldiers on the X-Mansion, with Wolverine deliciously stabbing the soldiers on screen. X2 is probably the first movie to kick off the trend of dark, serious plots in superhero films (more importantly, it's the first superhero film to do so successfully), and the movie's action is fairly violent. The movie ends with a classic quote (said by a major X-Men member believed to have died) in an optimistic, aptly epic way; and since a movie's ending has a huge impact, X2's couldn't possibly have been better. To top it all off, John Ottman's epic soundtrack is the best I've ever heard in a superhero film since 1977's Superman.

The acting is decent and slightly better than last time from the entire cast, with no one standing out once again, but Brian Cox towers moderately above the rest with his shrewdly sinister William Stryker, who makes his first and last appearance in the series. The production design is top-notch throughout as usual. The costume design is also subtly enhanced, the X's on the X-Men's costumes are more pronounced and plentiful, and the costumes look slightly more superhero-like than the previous film, for the better.

Overall, X2 is a great follow-up to a decent movie, and improves upon every aspect of its predecessor – much like what "Spider-Man 2" did for the first Spider-Man movie. X2 is one of the few superhero movies that are serious and fun at the same time and is the best superhero film I have ever seen since "Spider-Man 2" (since this review is belated anyway, I may also add that I've also seen the overrated "Dark Knight"). RATING: 9/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man (2002)
"Spider-Man" makes its first translation to the big screen with both style and substance...
27 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of the 1990s Spider-Man animated series, I was naturally eagerly awaiting the release of Spider-Man. Being directed by Sam Raimi (known for horror films) at a $100-million budget, and the lead characters being played by relatively unknowns, one may be skeptical, but Spider-Man proves again and again that one should not judge movies from the outside.

Unlike some other superheroes, Spider-Man's origins are fairly rigid, and the movie takes an appropriately straightforward approach to it. The one thing that irked many fan-boys, Spidey producing webbing from his wrists rather than inventing it, wasn't a problem with me because it didn't change the character of Spidey at all, and besides, it does make more sense; Raimi himself put it best in an interview with something along the lines of "how can a high school student invent something in his spare time that scientists or government agencies haven't been able to?". The movie's main villain, the Green Goblin, is also introduced slightly differently than he was in the comics, but it's for the better, makes more sense, and isn't very radical.

The movie's plot smartly plays it safe by limiting the scope to only one villain, one love interest, one tragedy (Uncle Ben's death), and a narrowed supporting cast. This allows for some deep character development and keeps the story cruising smoothly without any convolutions. Although superhero movies are rather prone to screwing up the climax, Spider-Man builds up very well all the way towards an appropriate and deserving climax. The action elements are also well-choreographed and surprisingly visceral for a superhero film of this scope; an overwhelming majority of the action sequences feature kung fu style, one-on-one combat action between the Green Goblin and Spider-Man. The scenes of Spidey web-swinging through New York are also beautifully shot in a way that lends an appropriate sense of 'speed' to them.

The one element where Spider-Man takes most liberty from its source material is the costume design. Spidey's traditional red-and-blue costume, which doesn't show up until halfway through the movie, is enhanced with raised glossy webbing, reflective silvery-white eye lenses, raised spider logos, and a brick pattern on the fabric – this gives the costume a more realistic feel. However, it would have been better to show some glimpses of Peter making his Spidey costume, because it comes on screen out of nowhere and leaves behind a few untied knots; for example, those not familiar with the comics may argue that "whoever made the costume would know the identity of Spider-Man", and the costume looks pro enough to be misleading.

While Spidey's costume is slightly altered for the better, the Green Goblin's suit is overhauled completely, and looks very high-tech and robotic compared to the comics' organic design. But what struck me most is that the Goblin's mask is stationary, so nearly all the emoting is left to body language. Where facial expression is needed from the Goblin, the eye lenses are lifted and Norman's eyes convey the emotions. At least the mask should have been non-stationary, because I was quite irked by how hard it was for the Goblin to emote.

Although most of the cast gives an impressive performance, Tobey Maguire easily takes the top spot; he perfectly fits the nerdy teenager's role with his youthful looks and voice, his body is supple enough to be Spidey's, and his soulful eyes are able to convey emotions with little effort – in fact, Maguire does for Spidey what Christopher Reeve did for Superman. Willem Dafoe was sometimes a little over-the-top moody as Norman, but otherwise gave a fine performance. Kirsten Dunst's expressions also seemed either overdone or flat, never in that 'sweet spot' in the middle (unlike Tobey), while James Franco was stiff throughout. J.K. Simmons' stints as the brash Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson were solid hilarity and without doubt the best minor role in the movie, while Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson also shine in their roles.

"Spider-Man" does have its shortcomings and takes some liberty from its source in some places, but all the changes except the Goblin's redesign work in its favor. Despite that, some great combat action and character development, Danny Elfman's epic soundtrack and a lead actor that couldn't possibly have been better make "Spider-Man" a thoroughly impressive superhero film. RATING: 8/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
X-Men (2000)
A decent superhero film that's not very deep or outstanding, but enjoyable nonetheless
27 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Although I'm not a big fan of X-Men, I did enjoy the "X-Men: Evolution" animated series and am a fan of superhero films, so decided to get the DVD of this movie today. Read on to find out what I thought about "X-Men".

The story can get bumpy sometimes, but otherwise goes on smoothly and basically focuses on the relationship between Dr. Xavier's X-Men, Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants, and humans' relationship with mutants. The movie sensibly doesn't go too deep in the origins of the characters, since there's a bevy of them in the movie and all have the same tale more or less – that they're mutants. The movie revolves mostly revolves around Wolverine, while most other characters - except for Wolverine, Rogue, Mr. Xavier and Magneto - get little development and serve mostly to accommodate the action sequences. Needless to say, X-Men's story or characters aren't very deep, but considering the highly collective nature of the X-Men and the movie's sequel-orientation, I guess that the latter is not that bad.

There is a lot of smashing action, although the climax on the Statue of Liberty could've been better defined, and the choreography is also very good. But the action is somewhat offset by the lengthy dialogue sequences delivered by Magneto and Mr. Xavier. The acting is mediocre from the entire cast; no one gives an outstandingly good or bad performance, and most cast didn't really have a choice due to the tepid character development. Aside, there's some good contextual humor here and there, thanks in no small part to Wolverine.

The production design is also top-notch, especially the sterilely high-tech X-Mansion; however, the X-Men's costumes (especially Wolverine's), which are redesigned for the movie, could have been closer to the comics and animated series while being realistic at the same time. The best character design IMO goes to Mystique; the scaly prosthetics motif on her otherwise nude body looks sexy, sinister and feels just right for a cunning shape-shifter like her. Among the villains, the character design on Sabretooth and Toad is also very impressive; the latter even has a cocky personality to complement his repulsive appearance. Unfortunately, both characters are reduced to disposable henchmen.

Although "X-Men" didn't get me very excited, calling it terrible would be a gross exaggeration. It's just a decent superhero film, up there with "Superman: The Movie" and "Spider-Man 3", and should not disappoint anyone into superhero films – but frankly, for someone who's not a die-hard X-Men fan, like me, there are much better superhero movies out there. RATING: 7.5/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman Begins (2005)
Without doubt the best and most realistic interpretation of Batman's character and origins till now
20 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have always enjoyed the Batman movies, even Joel Schumacher's comedic installments, since they were enjoyable after all (even if in a totally different dimension than Tim Burton's). However, unlike Schumacher's campy installments or Burton's fantasy-like worlds, Batman Begins aims for a realistic, 'crime-epic' like attitude. So, when Batman Begins came around, I knew that I had to give it a try and see how things turn out this time. So here's what I thought about the movie:

The story of Batman Begins is dark, foreboding, and definitely far more mature than any previous installments. As the title may suggest, the movie makes full efforts at explaining Batman's origins, how and why Bruce Wayne transformed into Batman. The origins part (roughly the first quarter) of Batman Begins is particularly intriguing, convincing and imbued throughout the movie. The ubiquity of the psychological elements of the story – the themes of fear, remorse and conscience – are a huge reason for the plot's tight cohesion and imposingness. I was also impressed by how the plot strongly relates to Batman's origins even in the movie's second half, when the focus shifts to the villains.

Batman Begins' presentation is also superb most of the time, although there are times – such as Liam Neeson's philosophical lines during Bruce's training with the League of Shadows and when the Wayne Manor is being burned down – when the dialogue seems to stand in for story elements left out in the visual presentation, which I thought was a rather cheap way of storytelling. The lines spoken by Tom Wilkinson during Carmine Falcone's introduction to Bruce Wayne were also rather clichéd.

It's also worth noting that Batman's "playground", Gotham City, sees its grittiest interpretation yet in Batman Begins. A good part of the movie takes place in the Narrows, Gotham's shantytowns, and it looks as organically squalid as could be. In contrast, downtown Gotham features gleaming skyscrapers and a monorail connecting the entire city, which not only results in some impressive cinematography, but also perfectly conveys the sense of inequality the movie tries to show. Aside, the production design is dark and top-notch everywhere else. The movie also appropriately accentuates its darkness by primarily using dank color palettes.

The acting in Batman Begins is also overwhelmingly positive. Christian Bale's portrayal of a playboy Bruce Wayne who hides dark secrets inside him is very interesting, although his raspy 'Bat-voice' sounded dangerously over-the-top to me. Katie Holmes (13 years old in this movie, apparently) is definitely the weakest point in the movie's cast; her exaggerated expressions just don't cut it, and her chemistry with Christian Bale is frustratingly poor. However, the best acting IMO goes to Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow, whose subtly sinister demeanor is startlingly realistic and goes hand-in-hand with the movie's mood. Bale himself comes at a close second, while the other cast members, notably Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Tom Wilkinson, all do a great job in their respective roles. Michael Caine in particular, with his grandfatherly figure, is very amusing every time he comes on screen.

And while Batman and Bruce Wayne's character development is as great as could possibly be, Jonathan Crane's Scarecrow doesn't have a background story to explain his motives, and the development of the love story between Bruce and Rachel is underwhelming at times. The microwave emitter subplot, which eventually evolves into the climax, should also have had more time devoted to it – as a result of which, the story convolutes towards the climax, which comes a bit too quick (and goes away rather quickly as well).

Although the action sequences in Batman Begins are well-choreographed and clear despite the darkness they take place in, I found the movie to be lacking in 'combat action' and nearly all of the movie's high-impact action is stored away for the climax, but it's forgivable considering Nolan's focus on the origins and the psychological side of the story. There are also certain lines said by Bruce / Batman that should have been avoided, such as "I'm no executioner" and "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you either", since he does kill deserving people both directly and indirectly (and both as Bruce Wayne and Batman) over the course of the movie; it would've been better to leave Batman's morals more ambiguous and hence avoid unnecessary convolutions.

While Batman Begins might not be very well-suited for the action-hungry crowd, it does a wonderful job of explaining the character's origins, something important that hadn't been done in a live-action Batman movie till now – and now that it's been done, I might add that it's done very, very impressively. This movie definitely has its flaws, even in an otherwise awesome story, but that didn't do much to ruin the movie for me. Batman Begins defines the origins and character of Batman in a mature, refreshingly original and thoroughly entertaining way. RATING: 8.5/10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Superman (1978)
A straightforward superhero movie that could've benefited a lot from some more high-powered action
16 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Although I am not a big fan of Superman, I got this movie's DVD mainly because, as a fan of superhero movies, I felt that "Superman: The Movie" simply had to be in my 'have-seen' list. Before I review the movie, I'd like to say that this is the first and (so far) only Superman live-action movie I have watched, so I can't compare to other installments in the series. So here's what I thought about "Superman: The Movie":

The story of "Superman" is fairly simple, and anyone who doesn't even know anything about Superman (highly unlikely in the first place) will have no problem following it. The movie does a great job of explaining Superman's origins, and is cohesive throughout. Sometimes the story is far from being politically correct, especially the way it deals with the laws of physics, but that's okay with me in a "Superman" film. "Superman" also makes a rather smart decision by keeping its mood lighthearted; it's definitely not campy, and there are a few serious moments, but "Superman" is by and far devoid of any darkness or disturbing elements, and in a mostly positive way.

Since there are no (per se) super-villains in this movie, one-on-one 'boss battles' against Superman wouldn't have made much sense, and thankfully there are none in this movie. But I felt that a few more wham-bam sequences could've been tremendously helpful, since there are fairly few memorable action sequences, such as when Superman saves a plane from crashing; the climax, where Superman simultaneously tries to save two deadly missiles from hitting targets far apart; however, one of the missile lands and causes an earthquake, and while Superman is busy cleaning up the mess caused by the earthquake, his girl Lois Lane succumbs to a landslide caused by the disaster, and so Superman reverses the world's time in (against his morals) order to see Lois alive again. I'm also glad that they didn't go with the "defies-all-odds-and-saves-both" technique for the climax. I'd also like to point out that the special effects in "Superman" look fairly impressive despite their age, especially during Superman's flight, which also featured the best cinematography in the movie; the action scenes are no less technically, but it's just that there are not quite enough of them.

The acting is decent from most of the major cast, but I often found myself being more interested in Christopher Reeve's performance than the movie itself. Being ridiculously handsome and managing to believably play the archetypal superhero and a geeky journalist at the same time is a massive double-edged sword, and Reeve aces at it. Margot Kidder comes second as Lois Lane, even though (as far as I can recall) the Lois from the Superman cartoons was smarter than the one in the movie; regardless, Margot's chemistry with Reeve is the best I've ever seen in a superhero movie so far, and the two are always interesting whenever together on screen. The remaining cast, including big names like Gene Hackman and Marlon Brando, do a good job with the script they're given, but the character of Lex Luthor should have been less cartoony for a live-action adaptation IMO. And the guy who plays Otis annoyed me every time he came on screen.

And then there is the soundtrack, with the opening theme being one of the most famous elements of the movie, and rightly so. However, in my opinion, the best element of "Superman", after the acting, is the production design, with the most imposing sets being the dreamy Fortress of Solitude and Lex Luthor's underground lair, which is just the right embodiment of sinister luxury hidden away behind Metropolis' murky subway system.

With the lack of a lot of high-impact action, my favorite moment from "Superman" was one of its subtlest scenes. It goes something like this: Lois invites Superman to a private interview at her balcony, and when she discovers that he can see through things, she naively asks him if he can tell what color her underwear is. Realizing her mistake, Lois instantly apologizes. Superman replies that it's okay and that there's a flowerpot made of lead in front of her, so he can't see through it anyway. Then Lois asks him about his favorite color. With a naughty smirk, Superman looks directly at Lois and instantly replies "pink", and both of them break into giggles. All of it is done in such a 'cute' (don't be mistaken though, it's in REALLY good taste) and organic manner that I myself almost started giggling, and so will many people who get what this scene meant.

"Superman" is a sincere, straightforward superhero movie that's not dark, true to source and features some great acting and production design. But for my liking, there was nothing very memorable about Superman's story, mainly because about 90% of the time I could accurately predict what would happen next -- "Superman" rarely tries to innovate, and a healthier dose of action sequences would have would have gone a long way considering the movie's straightforwardness, and a more serious villain would have also been helpful to a lesser extent. But despite that, "Superman: The Movie" is definitely no bummer. Aside, since it's aptly rated PG, it's also great for the younger crowd. RATING: 8/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Balanced almost as perfectly as an egg on the back of a spoon
14 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having enjoyed the first Spider-Man movie, I was looking forward eagerly to this movie, and to bluntly ruin the surprise, I was impressed beyond expectations. In a superhero movie, good action is usually a given, but a good story is hard to manage, and Spider-Man 2 honorably handles both these elements with a grace that equals Spidey's when he's web-swinging across the skyscrapers of New York City.

Spider-Man 2's story, which is themed on internal strife, is one of the mature and realistic I've ever seen in a superhero movie, and it portrays the duality of the protagonist and antagonist's lives very effectively. Spider-Man 2 is also one of the few superhero movies that manage to be serious without getting dragged or seeming self-obsessed.

But even with its seriousness, Spider-Man 2 proudly embraces the lightness of its origins with J.K. Simmons' hilarious stints as the brash Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson, Doc Ock's dark sarcasm, a side-splitting scene with Spidey taking an elevator and a cameo by Bruce Campbell as an annoying doorkeeper at a theater, along with more subtle humorous moments with Peter Parker. Amazingly, none of the humor feels out of place, cheesy or overdone.

However, Spider-Man 2's story is not without its flaws, almost all of which had to do with prematurely revealing Spidey's secret identity, something that should have been delayed as late as possible in the series. The first time Harry does the unmasking (thanks to some good help from Doc Ock), which should've been avoided but wasn't as paining as the second time, when Spidey deliberately takes off his half-damaged mask during the climax, revealing his identity to a train full of passengers.

Perhaps sensibly, the movie makes no effort at explaining the knock-on effects of the revelation of a superhero's identity in a place like NYC (especially with people like J. Jonah Jameson around), but then why unmask Spidey in front of an entire crowd in the first place? But since this is just one inconsistency in an otherwise superb plot, it's somewhat forgivable.

The action sequences are much, much better than the first movie, and probably the best I've ever seen in a superhero movie. While the first Spider-Man featured a good deal of almost kung fu like action, this time around Spidey grapples and smashes objects on a far bigger scale – the best of which occur on the façade of a skyscraper and on top of an elevated train (the climax). But what makes it all so exciting is that Spidey does all this against four mechanical tentacles that are essentially the arms of his nemesis, Doc Ock.

Talking of Doc Ock, I feel that it's necessary to mention that his tentacles feel so organic and natural in their movements that it feels like they're actually his arms, controlled by his own muscles; in fact, they're even capable of emoting when needed, such as during the more dramatic scenes when Doc Ock questions his conscience, which is a big feat in itself. Spidey's costume has also undergone some subtle changes this time; the colors are richer, the lenses are whiter and maybe a little more opaque, and the costume generally looks more imposing on-screen.

The acting is miles better than the first movie from the ENTIRE cast, with Tobey Maguire and Alfred Molina taking the top spots in the major roles. However, Kirsten Dunst still had more room for expression. There is also something unique about the way the web-swinging scenes are filmed that I didn't feel in the first movie; it feels like you're swinging with Spidey. I later found out that this was the result of a new camera-work technique called the Spyder-Cam; anyways, great stuff. The cinematography is also top-notch throughout the movie, and especially so during the action sequences.

Overall, Spider-Man 2 is a tremendous leap forward in every aspect from its already-impressive predecessor, and in my honest opinion, quite simply the best superhero movie made so far (since this review is pretty late, I include the extremely overrated Dark Knight in that too). RATING: 9/10.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Spider-Man 3's $256m budget buys it all the action-fest glory, but an effective story requires brains
11 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I went in Spider-Man 3 expecting at least a few sacrifices in the character development since there are three major villains along with a substantial supporting character (Gwen Stacy) crammed in a 150-minute movie, and because of that I wasn't very disappointed, even though commonsense would have been to limit the scope to no more than two villains. Honestly, I don't think Spider-Man 3 could have been a lot better than it already is with the overbearing challenge it takes on.

Of all villains, Venom gets the least character development, despite having the most star power. Even worse, Eddie Brock seems deliberately overacted to the point of self-parody. The Sandman gets more character development, even if it's not a lot better, but due the cumbersome and sluggish nature of his character he's not as interesting when it comes to wham-bam! action.

It's safe to say that Harry Osborn as the high-tech New Goblin is the best villain, mainly because he's already had some great character development in the previous two movies; unfortunately, he is ridiculously killed off at the end while trying to 'help' Spidey against the other two villains (don't ask why). Unfortunately, Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy, especially the latter, are almost ignorable in terms of their contribution to the story.

The action sequences are superbly choreographed as usual, with each movement being well-defined, clear and thrilling. Early on, there is a dizzyingly paced aerial battle between the New Goblin and Peter Parker that takes place mostly in narrow alleys. It's worth mentioning that in a battle sequence so fast and during nighttime, it's hard to properly define every movement, and Spider-Man 3 does this amazingly well.

After witnessing the New Goblin battle, the climax feels a bit sluggish, but nonetheless entertaining and action-packed. Unfortunately, the storyline that preludes it makes it seem less credible; I mean, how do you create a Sandman and Venom union with a one-liner? The Spidey and New Goblin union is even more ridiculous, thanks largely to the Osborns' butler.

The acting is mostly stiff from the main cast, except for Topher Grace, who goes over to the other end of the spectrum almost comically. Tobey Maguire tries to make the best of a hodgepodge script, and gives an overall decent performance, save for a comically ridiculous bit where Peter apparently turns 'emo' under the symbiote's influence. J.K. Simmons' comic relief as J. Jonah Jameson is top-notch as ever and wildly entertaining. Aside, Spider-Man 3 is generally lighter in mood and less serious than the previous two Spider-Man movies.

While Spider-Man 3 is a considerable step down from Spider-Man 2 in every aspect, and even the first Spider-Man movie in terms of story, it does a decent job of concealing its predictably inadequate character development with its thoroughly enthralling action sequences. RATING: 7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WWE Backlash (2007 TV Special)
A very good show at Backlash
2 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Following the hyped WrestleMania23, Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present yet another good-looking card to us from a sold-out Philips Arena, Atlanta. I personally thought that 6 matches were kind of little for 3 brands (average 2 matches per brand). Anyway, here's my evaluation of the event:

The Hardyz vs. Trevor Murdoch and Lance Cade - Good high-flying action by the Hardyz as usual, although Murdoch and Cade at times kinda paced down the match. Hardyz win after Matt lands a Twist of Fate outta nowhere on Trevor, and Jeff follows it up with a Swanton Bomb, Matt then takes the pin. 7.5/10

Melina vs. Mickie James - (skip) Good break, anyway

Chris Benoit vs. MVP - Nice match, although a bit too technical for my liking. Nice mat reversals by MVP, Benoit was kept under pressure, although in the end he took the win with a cradle. Technical fans look out for this one. 6/10

ECW championship: Umaga, Shane and Vince McMahon vs. Bobby Lashley - I hate when the McMahons include themselves in matches, gets so unfair (and stupid). Bobby had the upper hand for like the first half of the match, at times Shane almost saved the match. Vince ridiculously pinned Bobby TWO top-rope splashes by Umaga. 7/10

World Heavyweight championship (Last Man Standing match): Batista vs. the Undertaker - Great match, both men were on it. Undertaker worked on Batista's knee, and leg-dropped him through the announcer's table (ouch). Undertaker was about to powerslam Batista off the stage but Batista countered it into a Spear and both men dove down the equipment area; support beams fell down, circuits blew up and what-not. Wow. Both men were out flat till the 10 count and so Taker's still champ. 8/10

WWE Championship (Fatal 4way): John Cena vs. Edge vs. Randy Orton vs. Shawn Michaels - Match of the night, fast-paced and very exciting. Everyone gets to get some of each other. Ending was very tense; Orton attempts to RKO Cena, but Cena pushes him right into Edge's Spear, and then F-U's Edge, only to be later belted by a Sweet Chin Music from Michaels and the impact fells Cena onto Orton. The pin is over before Michaels can break it up. At least this time it wasn't Cena's fault that he won. 9/10

A good PPV once again, about as good as Mania for its caliber. Almost all the bouts were in the decent to good range, with the World Heavyweight and WWE Championship matches standing out. Overall PPV rating: 8/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cute, enjoyable kids' movie...
3 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A nice Disney production with the Big 3 (Mickey, Donald and Goofy) taking the leads, interestingly Pete reprises his peg-leg from the olden days. I won't give the story here, it's basically the same as of the book -- although, of course, with a Disney touch to it. Although the animation, songs, and performances were mostly enjoyable -- Donald's depiction as a coward (who sometimes even turned into a chicken) set my mood off since he doesn't get to expose much of his hotheaded personality, which is what makes him possibly the most amusing of all Disney characters. While Pete probably gave the best performance of all in his aptly villainous persona, the rest of the characters also gave a thoroughly enjoyable performance. However, Princess Minnie could often get annoying (as usual) and the brief Clarabelle-Goofy romance side plot got kind of cheesy in comparison to the somewhat edgier mood of this film (by 'Mickey standards'). Highly recommended for kids and kid-like adults ;). RATING: 7/10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Royal Rumble (2007 TV Special)
Decent show at Rumble '07
29 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Royal Rumble – January 28 2006, AT&T Center, San Antonio, Texas

MNM vs. The Hardys: A decent match, albeit the Hardys sometimes seemed a bit cautious on Mercury and nearly all the major blows were landed by the Hardys, and MNM only hindered them if anything. Some good Poetry-in-Motions as well as a Twist of Fate (or two) and a part-failed over the top rope attack by the Hardys on Nitro from both ends of the ring made this a good match. MNM couldn't get major blows on the Hardys although they were able to press them down via cheap tactics and dodgery. Jeff finished after a Swanton Bomb on Nitro. 7.5/10

ECW Championship – Lashley vs. Test: Another decent match, although it's ironic for the ECW label (and thanks God for that). Lashley got some nice complex suplexes as well as a spear on Test. Test was barely dominant. The match weirdly ended in count-out after Test refused to enter the ring at the last moment. Lashley was still not satisfied and proceeded to belt Test with a Dominator. If it wasn't for the ending, this would've gotten a 7/10. 6/10.

World Heavyweight Championship – Batista vs. Mr. Kennedy: Once again, a decent match. Kennedy got a good deal of Batista, especially the lower part of the Animal. Kennedy almost took the pin but the ref was knocked out when the Animal flung his elbow into his face. Match ended when Batista countered an off the turnbuckle move into a clothesline and followed it up with a Batista Bomb. 7/10

WWE Championship / Last Man Standing match – John Cena vs. Umaga: A more than decent match this time. Both men suffered mainly due to their own blunders. Umaga attempted to splash Cena through the announcer's table but Cena moved and the Bulldozer crashed through. Cena busted himself open viciously after he flunked an FU on the steel steps. Umaga was quite resistant to count-out, and Cena was manhandled for most of the match. Estrada disconnected the turnbuckle from one corner, which dropped the ropes loose into the ring. Umaga tried to hit Cena with the metal joint but Cena countered it into an FU and then proceeded to choke Umaga STFU-style with the ropes. Umaga still got up and so once again Cena choked the life out of him and made the count this time. Hate that Cena-can-do-it-all attitude but an entertaining match after all. 7.5/10

And finally, the doubtless main event (an event in itself, in fact), the Royal Rumble match. The men in the ring were sometimes statuses away (good thing), and weapons were also used quite often. The over-the-top-rope rule was strongly applied: Flair and Edge slid out under the bottom rope to get a weapon, Michaels also slid out after taking an RKO, and remained in the match. Some dominant forces in the ring were Kane (chokeslammed Sabu off the apron through a table), the Great Khali (who landed a long consecutive streak), Rated-RKO (nice teamwork there) and the Undertaker. The last two men were hometown hero Shawn Michaels and entry #30, the Undertaker. The two had a good bout, and the Undertaker booked his place at WrestleMania after evading a Sweet Chin Music and belting Michaels over the top rope. Nice fireworks for 'Taker afterwards. 7/10

Overall, a decent pay-per-view with the best matches probably being the Tag match and the WWE Championship match. The Rumble match could have been much better if it didn't have that drag feel to it, and most eliminations could have been more exciting than they were. The rest two matches were okay. PPV rating: 7/10.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed