ajpublic Reviews

Star Trek (2009)

Great Reboot - a job well done by all!

[8/10 · 8 May 2009]

For me, Star Trek was always about Kirk, Spock and the rest. I used to watch episodes of the Original series at midnight when I was in High School. However, I never got into the other several series, and if I had to choose one other it would be The Next Generation.

Anyway, I am pleased that the writers and director decided to bring back the original characters and storyline for a new age and a new era of movie entertainment. This version of Star Trek has great characters, chemistry, and enough of a story to keep anyone watching engaged from start to finish. The plot works well to pay homage to the original series, and still gives the viewer a path to see the new universe and how the two intertwine. The special effects were fantastic, and it was the subtle changes that really impressed me, like the bursts of phaser fire instead of solid beams or the addition of swirls for the transporter instead of the static that was previously used. The acting here is superb. Pine as Kirk nails the role, giving that Kirk swagger just enough kick. Quinto shines as Spock, with a nuanced approach that both reminds the fans of Nimoy's Spock and also provides Quinto's vision as well. Saldana as Uhura has a strong role, having much more influence within the ship, than in the past. Urban's McCoy was great, Chekov was great, Scotty was great, Sulu, etc.. Honestly, the casting team for the film deserves a great deal of credit, for bringing the right mix of actors together. Bana especially brings a menacing, calculated angle to his role as Nero, and his use of accent and speech patterns were impressive.

Overall the movie succeeds well in introducing to a new and re-introducing to an old generation to the stories and characters, and ideas that have been intriguing people for over 40 years. I am very excited to see what they have in store for the 2nd and 3rd films with this cast, I think it will be enjoyable to watch them and their adventures for the next decade.

Who's That Girl (1987)

Madonna's best film.

[5/10 · 26 November 2004]

As most positive reviews have already stated – If your not a Madonna fan, you probably won't like this movie. However, as a Madonna fan, I saw this movie when it played on cable the first time, around 1988, I enjoyed this movie then and I still enjoy it now.

It's not deep or even based in reality but it is just very fun to watch. Madonna gives a great performance as Nikki Finn; she's funny, sexy and assertive. It's clear she carries the film; I've read other user's comparisons to Judy Holiday and Marilyn Monroe, and to me, that's not bad company to be associated with.

Her character is simply mesmerizing on screen, in late 80's fashion of course...I don't know about the rest of you, but I just enjoy seeing the Madonna we grew to love, before her exploitive stage, before she 'gave the farm away' so to speak, she was sexier then.

How about the soundtrack? Great especially the theme song… And Griffin Dunne is hilarious by the way. B+

Anger Management (2003)

A formulaic Adam Sandler movie with great acting

[7/10 · 8 August 2004]

Notice my tagline? I use the word formulaic, because that is what Adam Sandler movies are. And really is that such a bad thing? Most of his movies revolve around a main character (Sandler) who's generally a good guy surrounded by situations that consistently attempt test his character. Sandler, who rose to fame through Saturday Night Live has this type of story down pat and he will continue to use it until it no longer works. (See :$$$)

I think that this movie is one of his better versions mostly because of the cast that he has surrounded himself with. Jack's character is great, even though it seems that his methods of treatment are questionable. (The singing scene on the bridge is a riot!) Marisa Tomei, is about as likable as ever. John Turturro's character had me laughing from his first scene and Luis Guzman had me laughing out loud as well. I also enjoyed the cameos by Woody Harrelson, Mayor Guilani, Heather Graham, and John C. Reilly.

Another recurring quality about Adam Sandler's movies is that you keep seeing the same familiar faces from previous ones, so I kind of look forward to spotting the people I have seen in his movies before.People like Allen Covert and Jonathan Loughran.

Adam Sandler's strategy so far has worked perfectly, and made him very rich in the process. His production company has promoted the same types of movies for almost a decade. He has produced films with the same formula that starred other Saturday Night Live alums as well. (Question: I wonder how Chris Farley's career would have been had he lived? Would he have been in Sandler's position or Schneider's or Spade's?) David Spade, Rob Schneider, Dana Carvey all have used Adam's movie making formula to modest box office success.

People who criticize that both Sandler and this formulaic, cookie cutter movie is the very problem with Hollywood; tend to forget that this is what Hollywood is all about. Its core philosophy is to discover what the audience likes and give it to them repeatedly until they no longer like it anymore. That very idea is what drives a studios profit.

To Adam's credit, at least he's not hitched to a typecast role; we could have been watching Happy Gilmore 4, for Pete's sake... Instead, he has found a way to play the same type of characters with subtle different characteristics. Tried and true, Adam Sandler provides 2 hours of fun; it may not be original, but it's defiantly entertaining. It's no different than maybe watching an old episode of I Love Lucy, you know the general story - but it still remains fun to watch Adam work it all out

Gangs of New York (2002)

An engaging look into a seldom mentioned history of NYC

[8/10 · 16 April 2004]

When Gangs of New York was in preview, I grew excited to learn that a master of NY filmmaking was presenting a piece of interesting history of the city. Having watched New York by Ric Burns, I was well informed about the period that Scorsese was about to recreate. To say that his attempts were somehow sub-par would be just wrong. Scorsese does a great job in painting the canvas that was 1860's lower NYC. And by also displaying the trials of the immigrants attempts gain respectability in the new land.

Essentially, the format is similar to Titanic, in that a closer fictional story is surrounded by the historical truth. I do not know about Amsterdam Vallon or Bill the Butcher or whether they even existed. But their characters do much to propel the movie to success.

I enjoyed the acting, I thought Daniel Day Lewis deserved Best Actor. But I also could see a Colin Farrel in the role that Leo played - although I enjoyed his performance as well. I am not too sure about the significance of Cameron Diaz's acting, I think a large group of other A-list actresses could have done better. For example, would it not have been interesting to see Kate Winslet and Leo reprise the chemistry they had in Titanic? Clearly this picture was better than Chicago and the Academy should of rewarded it as so.

Spoilers ahead -

If I could get back to Lewis as Bill the Butcher - As vicious as antagonists come. That mutton in the back of the man running for Sheriff was brutal. And why not just kill Leo when he had the opportunity? Because he was also honorable, true to his conviction in his beliefs. His eventual downfall is his reluctance to change.

The conditions of the environment were squalid. Life was very hard back then. The struggles of the day to day actions would make most people quiver today. The absence of true law itself was humbling indeed.

This movie did not perform as the blockbuster it was promoted as - but if you watch I am sure that you will agree that Scorsese again takes a piece of NY history and preserves it for posterity.

***1/2 out of ****