Change Your Image
ichikuo
Reviews
The Last Samurai (2003)
Best movie of 2003 (haven't seen ROTK)
I'm going to make my comments short about this movie. It's just so good that I could sit here and type too many things about it. Basically this is definitely one of the must see movies that should be seen this year. I waited for about a year and a half for this movie and was not the least bit disappointed, in fact, I was very impressed. This definitely tops the two Matrix movies and Kill Bill for 2003 and quite possibly could and should contend ROTK. Tom Cruise does a fantastic job as he always usually does in his more serious sided movies, but the real spotlight here is on Ken Watanabe. He plays the leader of the samauri. He should and probably will be nominated for best supporting actor in the Oscars. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say that he will probably win it. The academy loves situations like this: a foreigner who just surprises eveyrone. Not only do I think he will win I hope he does. Definitely go see this. You are doing yourself a disfavor if you don't. My favorite movie of the year, so far...
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Must get by the hype for a fair judgment (no spoilers)
When I first saw the trailer for the Matrix Reloaded I was very, very excited. It was one of the best trailers I have ever seen. As what comes with every hyped movie, as the Matrix Reloaded has no doubt received, a bit of disappointment can come when it is finally seen. Yes, the first 20 minutes of the film I was a bit disappointed. I was expecting this movie to blow me away like no other movie. Every day that passes before I saw it tonight made the hype grow. Finally tonight I saw it and I come away very pleased. I got over my disappointment of the beginning because then the heart of the movie appeared. The freeway scene is unbelievable. It is the heart of this movie. Not to mention the hundred man Smith fight. These two movies are what washed away the disappointment and brought true Matrix action to the screen. There are times when the love scenes and complicated explanations get over the top, but overall these will be washed away by the visuals and intensity of the action scenes. This is truly a sequel that lives up to the predecessor. I just hated the way it ends. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see it. It makes perfect sense why Revolutions will be released so soon. You will enjoy this movie.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Superb Story, Sub-par Directing
I will make my comments away from the film's story but about the film's directing. We all know that the LOTR has one of the most powerful stories ever in the media (including literature). I've never read the novels but still very much enjoy the story on film. However, I can only imagine what the film would be like if it had a better director. My opinion of "The Two Towers" is the same as "The Fellowship of the Ring". Both films are driven by story. I enjoyed both films extremely only because of the stories. This leads to my disappointment of Peter Jackson's film directing abilities. However, I guess a man jumping from a blockbuster as "The Frighteners" (sarcasm) lived up to my expectations. Peter Jackson is not a young man and seeing how terrible his films were before LOTR, I expected a story driven film trilogy. Why was he chosen for this film? What credits does he have that make him honorable? Any director that has such a powerful license to a story such as LOTR is going to be successful. If you look at the film from a director's perspective, there is nothing special about it. The film is watered down to nothing more than overhead fly-bys, which gets very old, early in the film it was like watching "Behind Enemy Lines" again. The battle scenes are gorgeous simply because of location and CG, but there's no uniqueness to them. Something Peter Jackson needs to make in order to make him stand out as one of the great directors to date. He does not take advantage of the opportunity he has with LOTR. An amateur film director could have designed the scenes for each battle. They were too simplistic. Mind you, you must get over the strength of the story and look at the basics of the direction of the film. I would've liked to seen what a director such as Ridley Scott or Steven Spielberg could have done with LOTR. These film makers always seem to bring something new to the screen with each movie, something that makes them stand out, something Peter Jackson lacks. Many people don't like Spielberg, but I like Spielberg films because they are always beautifully directed, same as Ridley Scott. The point of this editorial is something that everyone should notice and not look at LOTR as the novel, but as the film. Peter Jackson's sub-par direction is hidden behind the story of LOTR.
Empire (2002)
Low expectations can be a good thing
So I've basically seen every movie that has come out to this point and yet my girlfriend and I decide to go to the movies. I really want to see "Adaptation", but it's not out in K.C. yet for some reason. So we settle with "Empire". I've seen the previews and I actually like John Leguizamo, his stand up is pretty funny; however, this movie appeared to have no merit whatsoever. To be perfectly honest I was very surprised. The movie actually entertained me. Leguizamo was very good and fit the part perfectly. I couldn't see any other Latino actor playing that part. Overall the acting was decent. Some unknown actors who had small roles played nicely. Denise Richards was very good at playing the "bad girl" part, her boyfriend (don't remember his name) was decent but didn't handle the climax very well. The worst scene was by far the one with Fat Joe with his son. I don't know why movies continue to recruit rap stars who can't act. The scene did lead up to a predictable event, but Fat Joe was just plain terrible. The story was very good. Definitely one I didn't expect to keep my attention. The twists of the movie were for the most part unpredictable, except the one mentioned above, and entertaining. Most people will go into this movie with a low expectation. It actually works for the movie, as it is not stellar but because of the low expectation it is good.
Signs (2002)
Shyamalan is a story-telling genius
I loved Sixth Sense when it came out. I was actually one of those that saw it before the hype and was amazed. I also saw Unbreakable which was good but not mind blowing. Just some fun entertainment and a reunion of one of my favorite duos Willis/Jackson. I've been waiting to see Signs for quite some time now. Shyamalan really knows how to market his movies by hiding what the reasons behind the crop signs are. I wanted to see this movie just to find out what the heck the answer was. What were the signs? Who was doing it? This was major when I watched the film because even from when the First credits were rolling I was excited and anxious. I couldn't wait to find out the answer. It was a great marketing job which affected how I saw the film. Now to the actual film. This story is probably the most wonderful work of story telling I have seen. Just how everything ties together and the dialogue of lines makes me think, "How could anyone ever think of this?" I could better explain the what I mean here but that would mean spoilers, which I want to avoid. Just go see it and you will know what I'm talking about. It's a great story because there are the obvious connections you can find and then there are those deeper more complex connections that you can only find by seeing the film twice, yes i have seen it twice. I also love the title of the movie because I went into the movie thinking the title "Signs" was about crop signs, but I came out of the movie with a different perception on the title. This is just a fantastic movie told in a fantastic way. Shyamalan is a true story-telling genius.