BABYLON A.D.

This is probably just going to be a relatively short review. In a futuristic time, mercenary/smuggler Toorop (Vin Diesel) is an American living in a war-torn, violent, uber-ghetto Russia. He's suddenly hired to smuggle a mysterious Russian girl, Aurora (Melanie Thierry), and her guardian, Sister Rebeka (Michelle Yeoh), to America within 6 days. Along the way, a lot of stuff happens with people trying to stop them or with just trying to get across the border safely.

To start off with the good, the visuals, both special effects and cinematography, were amazing. The grittiness of Russia; the vastness of the Bering Straight; the overly-commercialized New York; the brilliant special effects—everything just worked together nicely to pull off one really good looking film.

However, one negative aspect to the visual style was the fight scenes, though only those wherein there was physical fist-fighting. It was slightly annoying in that it would constantly cut out just before the moment of impact to where you would never actually see the hit. And with both Vin Diesel and Michelle Yeoh fighting, that's pretty lame. The other action-type sequences, however, were done very nicely.

Another negative issue, and this won't really come as a shock to most, was the acting. I mean, the acting was pretty bad. And I don't just mean from Vin, but from pretty much every actor/actress in the film. And part of that might have had to do with some of the dialogue they were given, but some of it was just... eh.

The story, on the other hand, was good. The movie started off a bit slow. It doesn't really start to pick up until after the first 30 or so minutes. But after then, it gets pretty good. The movie almost comes off as more of a mystery with action than an action movie with mystery. The whole movie is about figuring out what the heck is actually going on with this girl he's transporting (even though the trailer pretty much spoils it if you pay attention closely enough). But you don't really find out until the end. And speaking of the ending, this is where the movie starts to get a bit shaky. It's interesting, but it all starts to go in an awkward direction and gets a bit choppy. And then the very end (the final scene)... I'm not sure what it was about it, but it just really bugged me. I couldn't put my finger on it in the theater, and I still can't now, but I just knew that the quick final scene was, frankly, silly and poorly done.

Otherwise, the movie was entertaining. The acting, ending, and fight scenes bring it down a bit, but the (at the very least) intriguing story and amazing visuals shoot it up a bit, as well. And I enjoyed the bit of social commentary that flowed throughout the film, whether directly or subtly. And that's really all about I have to say on it.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. For clarification, this movie is by no means a great piece of film... I just enjoyed it in the guilty pleasure kind of way (and, again, because I really did love the visuals)).

MIRRORS.

So, I wasn’t originally thinking about seeing this in theater, but I was bored and wanted to see something that could be fun, thrilling, brainless, and entertaining (and I missed the closest showing for Death Race). So I decided… what the heck. Might as well, right? Plus, the majority of the reviews I had read were unbalanced (usually things like how the first part was better than the second part, or that the movie was awesome, or that the movie just plain sucked). Not to mention that, at this point, it has a 6.3 on imdb, is directed by the pretty talented Alexandre Aja, and has brief Amy Smart nudity. In short, I went.

The movie is about down-and-out Jack Bau… erm… Ben Carson (Keifer Sutherland), who was forced to resign from his detective duties after he accidentally killed another cop. His marriage with his supernaturally hot wife, Amy (Paula Patton), is also failing, though he’ll do anything to be with his two kids. So he’s living with his sister, Angela (Amy Smart), and trying to get his life back in order by getting addicted to pills that help get over alcoholism and getting a job as a security officer to help get over killing a cop. So what is he security for? Well… something that really doesn’t need guarding. It’s a big Mayflower store that got burned down, so he has to guard all the crap inside that wasn’t destroyed by smoke or fire (at least I think so… if it was really explained at all, I missed it), including some really big mirrors. But then it turns out that something is inside the mirrors and is both haunting and attacking him and his loved ones. So Ben is forced to figure out what the mirrors want and act all detective-like in order to save his family.

You can tell that the plot and everything about it is based on a foreign movie, because it’s similar to pretty much every other Hollywood remake of Asian horror. The only difference between this movie and movies like The Ring or The Grudge? This one actually has tense or scary moments. The others are usually pretty pathetic. I didn’t think that the second half of the movie was worse than the first half, as a lot of other people seemed to think. I thought the whole mystery thing was interesting. And while the result wasn’t your typical child-accidentally-died or child-brutally-murdered case, it was still very much an interesting, albeit a bizarre concept (and quite Asian). In fact, the whole climax reminded me of something from a survival horror video game, such as Resident Evil or Silent Hill. When it started, I was like “Boss battle! Go, Jack Bauer, Go!”

The music was good, though I think the movie relied too heavily on it. It was almost overpowering in its use. And I know the director has the ability to be creepy or scary without the intense music. Nevertheless, it was still a pretty decent soundtrack.

And speaking of the director, if there’s one thing that Alexandre Aja knows how to do, it’s setting the atmosphere. When I saw the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, I could almost feel the heat of the desert along with the characters, and I could feel their isolation and terror. Similarly, the way this movie was shot, I could feel the paranoia and tension brought on by any reflective surface. And mirrors have always been a scare-tactic in horror movies, but to widen the range to any reflective surface and have any of these reflective surfaces be the cause of death increases the tension of almost every minute of the movie, because you’re always waiting for that next scare, not knowing if it’ll come or not.

The acting was a bit mediocre, but it only bothered me a couple of times. Seriously, by the time the end of the movie starts to kick into gear and Paula Patton is soaking wet in a white tank-top, I couldn’t care less about acting. I mean, some of it was good, but most of it… not so much. And I couldn’t tell if it was because of the actors or because of the script they were given, as some of the characters came off wrong. There was one scene that really bugged me, toward the beginning (and I think this was more of a writing issue). But Keifer and Paula are arguing, Paula having started it, and out of nowhere Paula yells at him. She just goes off. And then Keifer tries to keep it cool, but eventually yells back. And then, I kid you not, Paula’s character is like (and I’m paraphrasing here) “See? That’s what I mean. I never know how you’re going to act,” or, in other words, “why the hell are you yelling at me? It’s not like I just bit your head off first and then acted all innocent and hypocritical in the situation. Oh whatever, let’s make out.” And then they proceed to forget everything and do so. Oh, and one last thing about the writing that bugged me. How coincidental can you get when everything you need to solve the case is right at your fingertips? For instance, Ben was a former detective, so he had a couple connections in getting old hospital files and such. Or how his wife was a mortician, and he needed to urgently see a corpse that had recently been added to the morgue, so she was able to get him in. Just stuff like that was too cliché and too simplistic.

Overall, the movie wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. The CGI was a bit too fake at times, and the plot turned pretty sketchy every now and then. But there was a good balance between tension and gore. The visual style, I think, was the best part about the movie, with constant showings of reflections in different objects. The very end of the movie didn’t make much sense, though. I mean, I understand what happened, but I just don’t know how it happened. Though I did have to smirk at a comment somebody made as I was leaving the theater, which really fit in with how Hollywood is going these days. “So I guess there’s gonna be a sequel. What’re they gonna call it? Reflections?”

Indeed, movie-goer. Indeed.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

2 In 1: Miss Potter and Finding Neverland.

This 2 In 1 focuses on movies based on two famous children’s authors with even more famous works of literature. Both movies also tend to have a bit of magical realism played into it, for better or worse.

Miss Potter.

This film is based on Beatrix Potter, famous for writing and illustrating the children’s story The Tale of Peter Rabbit. But the movie, really, isn’t about that. However, it’s hard to pinpoint what the movie is about. It really isn’t a story about her rise from nothing to fame, because she starts off rich and gets published in the first scene of the movie and then begins to gain fame within the first 30 minutes. It’s more of a love story between Beatrix (Renee Zellweger) and her publisher, Norman (Ewan McGregor), as well as her friendship with Norman’s sister, Millie (Emily Watson)… as well as her relationships with her parents. So if I were to be asked what this movie is about, I’d answer ‘the many relationships of Beatrix Potter.’

Obviously one of the major faults of the movie, to me, is that it has no clear purpose. The movie moves as an almost breakneck speed, leaving no room for plot, character development, or chemistry. It moves from scene to scene adding more tidbits on the life of Beatrix Potter without really extending on any given moment besides its importance on the surface level. There was no real chemistry between Zellweger and McGregor. There was only a marginal bit of chemistry between Zellweger and Watson. But none of the characters really grew. They all stayed exactly the same, including Beatrix. Sure, she moves on with life and eventually stands up for herself… but she did that numerous times in other different ways as shown in the movie. There needed to be a lot more to the movie, especially on the character of William Heelis, who has all of 4 or 5 scenes in the entire movie, but turns out to be highly important in Beatrix’s life. His complete lack of screen time gives the audience no ability to attach to him or actually care about what the heck happens (much like with any character in the movie). And then within the last 15-20 minutes of the movie, it continues to go in a completely unimportant direction before abruptly ending. There’s no real conflict or climax to the movie. It’s just like “moments in the life of Beatrix Potter.”

As for acting, I felt Ewan McGregor and Emily Watson did the best job. Renee Zellweger, though I’m not sure why, got on my nerves. Something about the way she acted the part was just irritating. Not to mention she came off as clinically insane for most of the movie. It was interesting, at the least, how her pictures kept coming to life via her imagination, but they really didn’t make too much use of the idea (except in one scene to show a mental breakdown, though, as I said, she was arguably already mentally unstable anyway).

I usually talk about a movie more than this, but I honestly don’t know what else to say about it. The movie was at least somewhat entertaining for the most part, though it had a lot of flaws to me, and the last 20 minutes or so was pointless and needed a lot more meat to it. The best visual is toward the beginning when the young Beatrix is picturing her parents getting into a pumpkin-carriage being led by giant rabbits (and driven by a mouse, if I remember correctly). I really didn’t care for Renee’s acting in the part, and the movie could have just used more of a plot in general. That’s about all I can say on that.

Feed Me, Seymour!

Finding Neverland.

How is it that this movie only won a single Oscar again (and only for Original Score, at that)? J.M. Barrie (Johnny Depp) is a failing playwright, much to the chagrin of his producer (Dustin Hoffman), with a failing marriage with his wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell). But when he happens across a family headed by widow Sylvia Davies (Kate Winslet), with four boys including the much-troubled Peter (Freddie Highmore), both his life and his imagination find a sudden spark. Even against the wishes of Sylvia’s strict mother (Julie Christie), and through all the slanderous rumors against Barrie’s true purposes with the family, the friendships strive on as Mr. Barrie creates his masterpiece, Peter Pan.

There’s so many wonderful things about this movie. The acting is magnificent, from Johnny Depp all the way down to Freddie Highmore (I would argue that this and August Rush are his two best films). Johnny Depp is great and diverse as usual, as well. The only slight buggy bit was when he kind of dropped the accent to do a pirate accent at one point, which made it more reminiscent of Captain Jack than of a proper Scotsman. The actress that catches my attention the most, though, is Radha Mitchell, who really seems to be one heck of a diverse actress. I mean, she’s played a troubled, badass ship pilot in the Sci-Fi/Horror flick Pitch Black, she’s played the worried mother in the Horror film Silent Hill, and now here she is playing the snotty English woman. It’s just fun to see the range she can take and still do well in (we all know Johnny Depp is pretty much the same, but I’m talking in the terms of actresses here. There aren’t many actresses out there who can do these vastly different roles and pull them all off well).

The sense of imagination/magical realism in the film is handled very nicely, as well. It isn’t played up like J.M. Barrie is insane or whatnot, but simply opening his imagination and inviting everybody else to join him in doing so. My favorite bit, which really shows the contrast between characters, is when Barrie and his wife are going to bed in their separate rooms. Mary opens her door, which is just to a dark bedroom, while J.M. opens his door to a bright, flowery meadow. There’s quite a bit of symbolism between reality and the imagination imagery, which is handled nicely (especially toward the end when Kate Winslet ‘Finds Neverland’, so to speak).

The music was beautiful, obviously, since it won an Oscar for it. This is really a short review, as well, because there’s not much more to talk about. The movie was handled very well on all fronts, and it’s a shame that it was relatively ignored. It’s just a beautiful film overall.

Royale With Cheese

Short Review: Diary of the Dead.

I'm a huge zombie fan (and therefore huge Romero fan). I heard a lot of bad things about this movie. Didn't expect this.

-------------

Premise: A bunch of film students that are filming a horror movie get caught up in the beginning of the zombie apocalypse and decide to film all that they can.

Starring: Nobody known.

My Reaction: The acting was horrible. The writing and dialogue was horrible. The narration was horrible. The characters were horrible (and no Texan from San Antonio speaks like that). The use of first-person camera and everything about it was horrible. Practically everything in the movie was horrible, if you haven't gathered that yet. And Romero was trying way too hard on adding a relevant social commentary to it. Way too obvious and in-your-face (to the point of annoying). There were one or two cool, though brief, shots in the entire movie, such as a bunch of zombies in a swimming pool. Otherwise, the movie was awful, and it really isn't worth seeing even for those one or two good shots, as they're only one or two seconds long at most. Shame on you, Romero. Shame.


She's Gone From Suck to Blow!

TROPIC THUNDER.

I wasn’t sure what to expect going into this, but I came out with a smile on my face and a good time behind me. Tropic Thunder is about a blundering war film based on a ‘true-story’ book called Tropic Thunder written by Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte). But everything is screwed up: the explosives guy Cody (Danny McBride) is overly obsessed with his profession; the actors—action guy with failing career, Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller); extreme method actor, Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.); failing comedian, Jeff Portney (Jack Black); rapper, Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson); and the rookie, Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)—are all screw-ups and completely messing up the film. So the director, Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan), gets advice from Four Leaf to film the movie guerrilla-style by dumping the actors in the middle of the jungle away from all of their modern-day vices and such. But when one bad thing after another occurs, the crew finds themselves in the middle of an Asian drug encampment, and they’re all very much real and serious.

The beginning was a little slow, though there were quite a few laughs. The big thing with this movie is the high number of cameo appearances, including the much-talked-about Tom Cruise. Sometimes they’re more than small appearances, sometimes they’re only brief. But all of them are funny.

The acting in the movie was done really well, I thought, all around. Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr., though, were the obvious leads of the film. The majority of the movie concentrated on those two actors’ characters. Jack Black’s character isn’t really the typical Jack Black, in my opinion (musically obsessed, hardcore spaz). But then again, Black wasn’t at the forefront of the movie, either. Brandon Jackson is pretty much like you’d figure him to be from the movie trailer. But the surprise of the group was Jay Baruchel, who really held his own against these other guys. You’d probably only recognize the guy from Knocked Up (the scrawny friend with the bad haircut). But his character here, though he’s not one of the top billings, played a bigger role than arguably even Jack Black’s. And his character was much better, too. Of course the stand-out was Robert Downey Jr. Anytime he was off-screen, I waited for it to go back to him (even though you could barely ever tell it was him). Oh, and Tom Cruise’s character is hilarious. He was very good, too. As for Nick Nolte? Well, he was Nick Nolte (intense and kinda creepy).

The cinematography was another thing done quite well. There were a lot of great scenery shots, as well as fun action shots. And on the subject of action, there was a lot, and it was all excellent. The only bad visual I really noticed in the whole movie was toward the end, when there’s this kid stabbing one of the characters… and the whole sequence with the kid (from the stabbing to what happened right after) looked really fake. Otherwise, it was great.

So we have the action down; what about the comedy? For an action-comedy, it’s half the equation. And it really worked. I was laughing, my theater was laughing, and it was hilarious in its absurdity. And the humor ranged all around the board: from just verbal humor, situational humor, gross-out humor, action-related humor… well, the movie was just really funny. I can’t say much more than that.

And I really don’t think I can say much more than that. The acting was done well. The visuals (in both cinematography and action) were done great. The humor was great. The cameos were great. All around, the movie was highly entertaining (except for a few slow spots toward the beginning), and I left the theater smiling. What more can you ask than that?

A Keanu 'Whoa'

PINEAPPLE EXPRESS.

I wanted to like this movie a lot… and I did… mostly. Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) is a pot-head with a girlfriend still in high school and a job that makes everybody hate him (handing out subpoenas). But after he gets a little high off a new, rare brand of weed, Pineapple Express, with his drug dealer Saul (James Franco), he goes to serve Ted Jones (Gary Cole). But when he gets there, he witnesses Ted and a female cop murder somebody. Dale gets rid of his doobie and gets the heck out of there, but all is already lost. Ted is the ultimate supplier of Pineapple Express, and had only given it out to one man, Red (Danny McBride), who gave it to Saul. So now Ted is forced to send out a couple hitmen (Kevin Corrigan and Craig Robinson) to finish them off, thinking Dale was hired to kill him by the same men who had sent the man Ted killed in front of him. Make sense? Good.

The plot of the movie is actually pretty good in its own bizarre kind of way. The biggest problem with this action-comedy, though, was the comedy. The first 30 minutes or so was very slow and the jokes just didn’t seem to work for me. They were the same, old, boring stoner jokes that would probably only make pot-heads (or at least people who have been high before) laugh. I only laughed a couple times in this beginning portion of the movie. It wasn’t until the action finally kicked into gear that I really got into the movie. And it wasn’t just because it was action, but that in the action was the true comedy. It wasn’t over-the-top by any means (well, mostly), and it was both entertaining and funny in its presentation. But the attempted comedy that wasn’t involved in the action often failed for me (some hit, but it usually failed).

As for acting, Seth Rogen was Seth Rogen. The highlight of the movie, I think, was James Franco. His acting was done rather well, and his character was both funny and easy to feel for (just because he’s such a nice, laid-back guy). The hitmen were also unique, in a way. They weren’t Jules and Vincent, but they had their own quirks. The one character that was kind of off was Red. Though it wasn’t as much the character as it was his standing in the story. After all the stuff that happens to the guy, he shouldn’t have been up and walking as well as he was at the various parts of the movie. The other bit of the story that was kinda weird was the fact that Seth Rogen, who looks like he’s almost 40, is dating a high school girl that looks 16. Though I do admit that the scene where he goes to the high school toward the beginning of the movie was pretty funny (one of the funnier parts of the first 30 minutes).

Now, I’ve seen another movie that portrayed a collaboration between this same director and director of photography, George Washington, and I often felt the same about this as I did about that (though more positive about this one). Some of the camera work/visuals were really good. Other times… not so much. Sometimes occurances in the movie were great… sometimes they were just weird. The one thing I did get kinda tired of was the constant camera zoom-in on important objects (as if to tell the audience “Hey! I’m gonna be important in a couple seconds!”).

Overall, the action was good, and the comedy within the action was good. The other attempted comedy could have been better, in my opinion, but the latter half of the movie really kind of overshadows the former half. There were some too-ridiculous moments where some worked and some didn’t. So, yeah, that’s about it. It was really good, though it could have been a bit better. It was entertaining enough once the movie got going.

I Am McLovin!

LAMB MOTM: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind.

So, this movie was chosen as the next LAMB Movie of the Month. But not only has it been picked there, but it has also appeared in a couple different other LAMB events, such as Sirens of the LAMBs and The LAMB Action Hero. So when this was chosen for the MOTM, as an anime fan, I had to check it out (as I hadn’t seen it, though had heard of it numerous times, even prior to LAMB events). I love Miyazaki’s films, and I think the man is one of the greatest in the field, but I have to say… this one wasn’t one of his best.

First, the story was jumbled and rather all over the place. It just felt as if it didn’t know what it wanted to be about. Did it want to be about finding a cure for the poisoned Earth? Did it want to be about two feuding nations? Did it want to be about stopping one of said nations from resurrecting one of the monsters that ruined the world a thousand years ago? Did it want to be about stopping the giant insects from destroying the valley and/or world? Did it want to be about finding the one prophesied hero who would save them all? Who knows? Apparently the movie didn’t.

For the animation, I’m taking into account that this was made back in 1984 (which is ironic, as it has some slight dystopian undertones). Some of the animation was pretty good, and some of it was only decent at best. There were some great, epic shots at times (usually in moments of action or ‘suspense’), but then there was some rugged, awkward animation. The best moments (of the whole movie), though, as I said, were the action scenes.

As for why I put ‘suspense’ like so, I am brought to one of my big issues of the movie: I didn’t care for any of the characters. Nausicaä was naïve and oftentimes annoying. All the other characters were just shown intermittently. None of them really had any kind of character growth. So when it came to the action sequences and such, while they were usually interesting (at the least) to look at, I never cared about the outcome, which just made the whole movie quite dull.

The dialogue was incredibly annoying, as well. It seemed like every character spoke in exposition (and/or their thoughts). Especially in the first 15 or so minutes of the movie, when Nausicaä continually talked to herself in an incredibly unnatural way, as if obviously explaining to the audience everything they needed to know. This kind of thing also happened quite a few times throughout the movie, as well. But it wasn’t just that about the dialogue, either. Just the dialogue in general was stiff and unnatural.

The voice acting, on the other hand, wasn’t too bad. I watched the 2004 dubbing that included the talents of Edward James Olmos, Chris Sarandon, Patrick Stewart, Uma Thurman, and Shia LaBeouf. Mr. Olmos and Mr. Stewart were especially good. I could barely tell it was Uma Thurman doing the voice. Chris Sarandon seemed to be channeling Prince Humperdinck from The Princess Bride (and, oddly enough, looked like Christopher Guest’s Count Rugen of the same movie). The only voice that was distracting was Shia LaBeouf’s, mostly because he has such a distinct voice and has been in every other movie these days, so I would always picture him instead of the character. And I know anime rule #1 (as well as any foreign movie, really) is to never watch it dubbed… but I didn’t have much of a choice, here, in my viewing options.

But another thing that bugged me was the music, though not all of it. Some of the music was actually quite good. Other times it sounded as if it would belong in a Final Fantasy game (which is not bad… those games can have some great music). But oftentimes, it sounded as if it would better belong in some campy, old-school video game, and it was really distracting. The weird mix of orchestral music with weird techno-keyboard-type music was an odd choice, in my opinion.

Overall, even though I like anime (and Miyazaki), I couldn’t get into this one. And it wasn’t because of the environmental message either, which I really didn’t mind, except for the awful dialogue that it brought on (and the message was really in-your-face. Seriously, this movie would make anybody who hated the “green” message in WALL*E find it suddenly easily tolerable. I was also reminded of the recent The Happening with its trees of doom and such). Anyway, I don’t think I’ll be watching this one again… at least not anytime soon.

The Zed Word

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR.

Warning: Minor spoilers.

---------------------

I’ll make this short. The movie is about Alex O’Connell (Luke Ford), son of Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Maria Bello), who unearths the tomb of Emperor Han (Jet Li). The mummy comes to life and wrecks havoc whilst trying to become immortal and rule the world. He has superpowers and, later, can shape-shift. They also meet guardian Lin (Isabella Leong) and bring back Evelyn’s brother, Jonathan (John Hannah).

Good notes about the movie:

- Isabella Leong was hot.

- Brendan Fraser was his usual funny self (sort of).

- John Hannah’s character was entertaining as usual.

- The action was somewhat entertaining.

- Oh, and Isabella Leong was hot.

Bad notes about the movie:

- The CGI was terrible. Seriously, it was awful.

- Luke Ford can’t act.

- The relationship between Alex and Lin seemed forced.

- Maria Bello is no Rachel Weisz.

- Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello had no chemistry.

- The CGI really was terrible.

- The Yetis were just silly.

- Why did they absolutely need the O’Connell’s to be the ones to raise the mummy again?

- How come the Chinese army dude can’t read Chinese?

- Have I mentioned the terrible CGI?

- The martial arts was lame, brief, and underwhelming.

- Sorry to say, even Brendan Fraser’s witty charisma was lacking. He had his moments, but they weren’t as good as they should have been.

- It was too silly, in general. At least the first two Mummy movies (moreso the first) had a darkness or grittiness to them. This one was just childish and, again, silly.

- The last line (the written sentence on the screen) of the movie was almost intelligence-insulting. I’m pretty sure the audience could have gathered the joke without it… but maybe I’m just giving too much credit to the mass population.

- I’m not even going to bother bringing up the bad CGI again. Oh wait, I just did.

Let me put it this way… not to long ago, I was at the theater and there was a woman sitting in front of me with two kids and a cell phone. She drove me up the wall and ruined the experience. That SAME woman with the same two kids and stupid cell phone was there again, sitting, yet again, a bit in front of me… doing the same things as last time. But this time, I didn’t really care as much. It had some good moments, but the movie, as a whole, was just pretty bad. And to top it all off, my showing didn’t include the teaser trailer for Half-Blood Prince, which pissed me off. That was supposed to be my redeeming factor of seeing this movie… and it wasn’t even there! Gah. Well… at least Isabella Leong was hot.

The Zed Word

North: So Ridiculous It Has To Be Seen.

So I saw this movie over the weekend and just had to comment on it. I missed the first 15 minutes, but don’t really think I missed anything important. The premise of the movie is thus: North is a young boy who, after feeling unwanted and unloved by his own parents, has it set up by court order to travel the world in order to find new parents who can appreciate him.

But every place North visits (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, China, Amish country, etc.) is so over-the-top in its stereotyping that it’s ridiculous. Everyone in Texas is a horse-riding, ranch-owning, cowboy hat-wearing sharpshooter who likes big things. Everyone in Hawaii is a mainland-US-hating native. Alaska is more like Antarctica, and all houses are Igloos (I’ve been to Juneau in the summer, and I can say… it’s nothing like that). China is apparently still in the Ming Dynasty, and everyone is something like Buddhist Monks. You get the point. It’s just so ridiculous, but it’s so laughably bizarre, at the same time. And it doesn’t help that Bruce Willis magically appears as a different character in almost every place.

Now, speaking of Bruce Willis, I should discuss the cast. The cast of this movie is just about as insane as the movie itself. Every frame there’s like another big name (either for back then or now): Elijah Wood (North), Jason Alexander (North’s dad), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (North’s mom), Bruce Willis (numerous), Jon Lovitz (lawyer), Alan Arkin (Judge, the best character), Dan Aykroyd (Texan father), Reba McEntire (Texas mother), Keone Young (Hawaiian father… you’d know him if you saw him), Graham Green (Eskimo father), Kathy Bates (Eskimo mother), Abe Vigoda (Eskimo grandfather), Richard Belzer (A ferryman-type guy), Ben Stein (Curator), Robert Castanzo (hitman-type guy), John Ritter (final father)… and the one to put the cherry on top of this insane list… a 9-year-old Scarlett Johansson as John Ritter’s daughter in her first movie. A few of those actors are on the ‘That Guy!’ list, but there’s some other big names in there, as you see. Seriously, when I noticed the little girl was Scarlett in the very last frame you can see her face, I knew this movie had officially hit my list of things to talk about.

The acting was silly, like the rest of the movie, but I have to give a shout-out to two characters in the movie: Alan Arkin’s Judge and the Amish father. Arkin stole the movie, for me. Imagine this: Alan Arkin looking like Harvey Keitel doing a Robert DeNiro impression as he acts like a courtroom Judge. It was hilarious. And then the Amish father, for the brief scene he’s in the movie, has one of the best lines in the movie. It literally had me laughing out loud (mostly due to the delivery): “Greetings, North, I am thy new father and this good woman who art my wife, is thy new mother. And these are thy new brothers who art named Ezikeo, and these are thy new brothers who art named Art.”

To top the bizarreness of this movie off, there’s even a random song-and-dance number via Reba and Dan Aykroyd in Texas. There’s some hilariously random dialogue in this movie, as I just showed, but that doesn’t even scratch the surface. This movie can’t really be explained in its ridiculousness. It’s just something you have to witness on your own. If I tried to explain it or list other ridiculous things, I’d be giving a frame-by-frame of the whole movie. Let me put it this way: back in 1994, when the movie was released, Roger Ebert gave what is supposedly a famous review: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

So if it can bring about such a reaction from Mr. Ebert, it just has to be seen. If you like movies that are so-bad-they’re-good, you definitely need to check this one out. You’ll have a great time, I’m sure. Oh, and did I mention it’s directed by Mr. Rob Reiner? You know, of The Princess Bride and Spinal Tap fame? Yeah, I couldn’t believe it, either.

(P.S. Yeah... I can't rate this movie. I wouldn't know what to give it).

Short Review: Training Day.

So I finally saw this movie. Granted, it was an edited version, but I still got the effect.

----------

Premise: Narcotics officer Alonzo takes a rookie, Jake, out on the job for a day of drugs, violence, and the inner-workings of crooked cops.

Starring: Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke.

My Reaction: Holy crap.


Royale With Cheese

THE DARK KNIGHT.

Short answer: Yes, the movie lived up to its hype. Now that Falcone is no longer running the mob, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are trying to bring down the mob and all crime in general from Gotham. Meanwhile, the now head of Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), is working with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to help bring down a corrupt CEO, Lau (Chin Han), who is working to keep mob money safe in the banks. Similarly, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is out to let the people of Gotham know that Batman is still out there somewhere, keeping the peace. However, a new guy in town who calls himself The Joker (Heath Ledger) begins to steal all this mob money and wreck havoc in Gotham. But that’s only the beginning of his plans. What The Joker really wants is to cause massive chaos by bringing together all criminals and luring Batman into the public eye. And it’s all very much taking its mental tolls on Bruce, who must continually seek advice from his butler, Alfred (Michael Caine).

Let’s just get it out of the way, first: Heath Ledger. Wow… just… wow. The trailers don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this performance. All of the best scenes in the movie were the ones that The Joker was in. Every time The Joker wasn’t on screen, I (im)patiently awaited for the next time he would be. It’s unlike anything Heath had ever done before (and, unfortunately, will ever do again), but it was one hell of a role to end with. Before I saw the movie, I kept wondering if or how they were going to explain The Joker’s origins this time around… and I’m actually really glad they did what they did (not to give anything away). And that interrogation scene was just… wow. Really.

As for other acting performance, Aaron Eckhart did an amazing job. I really felt for Harvey Dent (and believed in him), and by the time you-know-what rolls around, I just felt horrible for the man. It’s rare these days for a character whose fate ends up as such garners so much sympathy from the audience. And while I can definitely see Ledger getting an Oscar nom, I’d also like to see Mr. Eckhart get one, as well. Oh, and not to mention that his ‘look’ was totally disturbing.

All other acting was about where it should have been. There was a lot more Batman than Bruce Wayne this time around, which made the 2.5 hour movie go quickly, unlike the previous installment (which has a tendency to drag at times, in my opinion). But this is also one of my negative (yes, I said it) comments about the movie. The beginning of the movie made me feel as if I had missed something. For the first 30 or so minutes, it just felt as if things were going by too quickly, scene after scene, some of which was confusing at first (like the ‘copycats’. Oh, and how they brought back in the Scarecrow was kinda lame). But all of this is quickly overshadowed as soon as The Joker starts to shine (he had me with the disappearing pencil).

The cinematography was great, too. The first movie was more dark and gritty, and this one had a lot more daylight. However, while there was more sunshine, it made up for it with darker characters/villains, as well as some great camera shots that weren’t exactly there in Begins. There were just some beautiful shots that caught my eye in the movie, such as the rotating camera around the characters in a couple scenes, or the movement/focus of the camera on an upside-down character. Some good stuff.

While the first movie had its theme of fear, this movie had its theme of chaos and order, and there was plenty of both. And not only was it evident in the story, but with the camera movement and the music. Everything played its rightful role in the movie, and the movie deserves every praise it gets. Heath Ledger deserves all the praise he gets. And I honestly didn’t watch the movie and try to make parallels between Ledger and The Joker to find how disturbing the role became. Instead, I sat and enjoyed the movie. I didn’t have time to think about those kinds of comparisons. From the awesome opening bank heist to the ending monologue, the movie had me hooked, every minute of it (even when the stupid projector cut off for about 5 minutes during the last five freakin minutes of the movie). It brought out so many different emotions: it was sad, dramatic, action-packed, hilarious, slightly romantic, and disturbing. And I plan on seeing it again. This is one of the best superhero movies ever made, and it’s one of the best movies, if not the best movie, of the year.

Royale With Cheese

2 In 1: Stark Raving Mad and Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round.

For this 2 In 1, I'm focusing on heist movies (which I've done before). But for this one, it's heist movies in which the heist relies upon an occurrence not entirely up to or controlled by the robbers. For the first movie, Stark Raving Mad, the robbers rely on the loudness of a rave. For the second movie, Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round, the robbers rely on the arrival of a Russian Premier at the airport. So here we are.

---------------------

Stark Raving Mad.

This is one mind-freak of a movie. After his brother dies, Ben (Seann William Scott) is forced to pay off his debts to Gregory (Lou Diamond Phillips). He gets together a crew, including his best friend Rikki (Timm Sharp); a safe cracker, Jeffrey (Patrick Breen); an explosives expert, Jake (John Crye); and computer hacker/systems expert, Betty Shin (Suzy Nakamura). What they need to do is rob a bank that is right next door to a rave club. Unfortunately, the bank has three levels of security. Betty can get through the first two, but the third is a sound detector. Luckily for them, that third system can be nullified if there’s a certain degree of sound. So now they have to keep the rave as loud as possible while they attempt to break into the vault next door. But anything and everything continues going wrong, including a prying FBI agent, Roy (Dave Foley).

This movie is a mixed bag for me, and has been ever since I first saw it a few years back. I think it’s the tone of the movie that is the biggest issue. It seems as if the movie can’t decide whether it wants to be a dark comedy or some kind of quite-literal techno thriller. But one thing is for sure: this movie was made for people to watch while they’re stoned. From the constant techno music, the flashing lights, and any other kind of trippy addition to the movie (such as characters often breaking scene to turn to the camera and give a brief narrative metaphor… or maybe the transvestites… or even a scene in which a boa constrictor is beaten with a humongous rubber dildo). Though I did like the breaking of the fourth wall for the metaphoric narratives. Usually it was Seann William Scott, but there is a scene (in which the movie’s namesake derives) in which another character does it. But they often go off about something seen on the Discovery Channel or PBS, and it somehow connects with their current situation in a symbolic sense.

The acting was average at best, with two exceptions. This movie isn’t your typical Seann William Scott movie. In fact, his character is quite serious most of the time, and he pulls it off very well. He should do more serious roles. But the real standout performance of the movie, I think, was Timm Sharp as Rikki. It was a great character, the most relatable in the situation. Otherwise, as I said, the acting was anywhere between relatively decent (Dave Foley) to just pretty bad (Lou Diamond Phillips).

The visual style is chaotic, much like a rave. The editing style is very quick-cut and purposefully choppy, adding a sense of disorder and mayhem to every scene. However, there are some other shots that are actually quite brilliant to look at: the diamond-in-the-rough scenes, if you will. It’s just that, every now and then, a brilliant camera shot would show itself, making you wonder why the rest of the movie wasn’t equally as stylish.

I’m not sure how else to really explain this movie. It’s one of those that you really must see to understand. And the heist really is the epitome of Murphy’s Law. You’re constantly wondering just how it can get any worse for them, and it usually finds a way. But the movie as a whole still has an awkward feel to me, and I’ve never been able to put my finger on exactly what it is about it that bugs me. It’s still a pretty good heist flick, and unique at that, but it’s not the greatest I’ve seen. If anything, I’d just recommend it for Seann William Scott in a different kind of role. Though if you’re a big fan of heist films, you can check it out for that, too.

I Am McLovin!

Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round.

A heist film with a fun title, but that’s about all it’s worth. Eli Kotch (James Coburn) is a con man on probation setting up the robbery of a Los Angeles airport bank on the same day that the Russian premier is arriving, causing boosted security, picketing, and chaos. But before he can even attempt it, he must first raise enough money in order to get the blueprints of the bank, so he cons his way into a bunch of ladies’ hearts, only to make copies of their keys and steal their things. Though he becomes a bit more connected to one of the women, Inger (Camilla Sparv), and ends up marrying her. But once he has the blueprints, he and his small group of co-robbers begin their master plan on pulling off the highly improbable.

I usually don’t watch too many older movies (this was made back in 1966), but the title caught my eye first, and when I read the description, I thought I’d check it out, as I’m a fan of heist films. Unfortunately, it only seemed to prove my thoughts on why I don’t watch too many older films. It was only 104 minutes, but it felt like 3 hours. It felt unnecessarily long, disjointed, sometimes confusing, and boring. In fact, the entire conning women in order to steal their things stuff would, today, be just written off as a montage, as it isn’t the point of the film. Instead, each woman gets at least 5-10 minutes of the film (and some of them are more annoying than others, especially the first one). All together, the conning stuff took up at least 30+ minutes of the movie at the least, and most of it was very dry.

The one fun thing about it was seeing the different personas that James Coburn pulled off. He was almost a master of accents in this movie, and it was always fun watching him pulling a fast one over on people. He was the best thing about the movie. Camilla Sparv was alright in her acting, but nothing especially noteworthy. Everybody else was relatively forgettable.

There were some great cinematic shots, though, especially toward the beginning. The movie starts off focusing on a group of shadows on the wall while a prisoner gives a monologue during a group therapy session. Later, when Inger is introduced, it begins with a beautiful shot of snow on tree branches, then pans down to show snow-covered everything.

When the big heist finally came, there was some suspense. I watched nervously, wondering if they were all going to get away with it and get to safety. It wasn’t the most amazing heist of all time (nothing like Inside Man or the Ocean’s films), but it was alright. But the real kicker is the twist ending in the last few seconds of the movie. It confused me at first, mostly because of the way the scene was acted, but then I realized what had happened. It was a fun and ironic twist.

Otherwise, it was just alright. It’s not up there on my favorite heist films of all time, and I probably wouldn’t watch it again (actually, I might if just to catch a glimpse of a young Harrison Ford, as this was his first movie, and he has a brief appearance as a messenger of some sort, though I missed it when I watched it… mostly because I didn’t know to look for it). But if you’re a fan of heist films, conman films, or James Coburn films, you should give it a shot. Otherwise, I wouldn’t really bother.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. And no, the title doesn’t really make much sense, except that it seems to be the title of an essay or poem Eli wrote, but the movie never goes into it. You just see it on the front of a page as it’s being read silently.)

LKMYNTS: [REC].

So when I heard of a new movie coming out called Quarantine, I watched the trailer, was highly intrigued, and decided to look into it further. When I did, I found out it’s a remake of a Spanish film that was made only last year called [REC] (short for Record or Recording, in this instance), and all reviews I read stated how terrifying it was. I was more intrigued. And then I saw it was a zombie movie. I tracked it down as quickly as possible… which was very difficult, as it isn’t available for Region 1 DVD. Fortunately, albeit not in the most ethical approach, I found a copy uploaded on YouTube of all places. I’ll just leave it at that.

[REC] is about a young television reporter, Angela (Manuela Velasco), and her cameraman Pablo (never fully shown, but voiced by Pep Sais), who are filming a night in the life of the local fire station. She teams up with two of the firemen, Alex (David Vert) and Manu (Ferran Terraza), and discovers how firehouse life is actually quite boring on average. But when they get a middle-of-the-night call to an apartment complex about an elderly woman giving blood-curdling screams, Angela, Pablo, and their firemen acquaintances make their way to the building. However, upon reaching the place, they discover something else much darker than they were expecting is happening. The elderly woman bites a policeman and one of the firemen, and the entire complex suddenly find themselves in the middle of a government quarantine with no explanation as to what is going on or why. But all they know is that there are two dying men who need to get to a hospital and a very sick little girl who apparently has tonsillitis. And everything slowly becomes more and more chaotic from there.

I have to say, this movie was intense. It started off kind of slow, but once they reached the apartment complex, the pace picked up considerably before dropping off for a little bit, and then hitting hard again non-stop to the end. My adrenaline was constantly pumping, my heart going fast, and I even jumped a few times. However, one of the movie’s major downfalls is that it focuses primarily on the intensity and not the characters. The only characters I really had any kind of feeling for were Angela and Pablo. There are a few introductions to characters during the middle slow part of the movie, but not enough to really get a good feel for them. You know they’re just there to raise the body count. The movie would have been much better had they extended the incredibly short length of the movie (it clocks in, without credits, at less than 80 minutes) in order to focus more on character development.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, this movie is shot in a similar fashion to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Diary of the Dead (except it was out before the latter two). But as I said, it didn’t have the same character focus that, say, Cloverfield had. I didn’t care about Pablo in the same fashion that I cared about Hud. But enough about the characters.

The visuals of the movie are really good. There are some cool shots and angles, and quite a few less-is-more approach shots, in which you only see quick glimpses before the camera pans away, or you only hear noises. There are some great uses of the camera, as well, such as the night vision and the camera light (much like in the subway scene of Cloverfield). Though there was a rewind/fast-forward sequence that didn’t make sense, because as far as I’m aware (though I could be wrong), you can't record yourself rewinding and fast-forwarding.

As for the zombies, they look really creepy from what you see of them (like I said, quick glimpses). Though they’re almost more like The Infected from the 28 _____ Later films, except I would moreso argue that these are actually zombies, unlike the ones in those films. The origin of the zombies is somewhat attempted to be explained, but isn’t fully done so, which I think is nice. Movies that try to explain their monsters sometimes end up hokier than they would have been otherwise. Instead, it leaves it more up to speculation.

The acting is done really well, mostly from the lead actress, Manuela Velasco. I really didn’t notice many (if any) parts that really brought me out of the movie due to poor acting. The ending somewhat confused me, though I think I understood it for the most part. And it’s also a rather abrupt ending, much like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. I’m not too sure what else to say. From the Quarantine trailer, it looks almost identical to [REC], except in English. Even down to the position of the camera and the reaction of the character to certain things. Hopefully, though, this could be one of those rare instances where the remake actually builds on and makes better the original version. If the American version is longer than 80 minutes, I’ll start getting really excited. But until then, I’ll just anticipate both that version, and for whenever [REC] comes to DVD in the US.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I also just found out that my main man Doug Jones is gonna have a cameo appearance in Quarantine, so I'm there even more).

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY.

So, the first one was decent and entertaining. This one, on the other hand, was that and more. Hellboy II starts off with a young Hellboy being read a fairy tale by his ‘father’, Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt), about the Golden Army and its origins. Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) is having some issues with his new relationship with Liz (Selma Blair). But when they, along with fellow friend and teammate Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), get called in to look at a crime scene with no survivors, they soon begin to realize something dangerous is afoot. Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) is attempting to reassemble all the pieces of a magical crown in order to bring back and take control over The Golden Army, though not if his twin sister, Princess Nuala (Anna Walton), has anything to say about it. Though after a little mishap that reveals Hellboy to the public eye, the director of the paranormal agency, Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), brings in Johann Kraus (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) to attempt to keep Hellboy in line.

As I said, the first movie was decent and entertaining, but this one takes it to another level. It’s not as dark as the first one, though. In fact, it’s a lot lighter with more fantasy and fairy tale aspects instead of the nitty-gritty demons, Nazis, and evil Russians of the first. In fact, there’s even a scene in a Troll Market that is somewhat reminiscent of mixing Harry Potter’s Diagon Alley with the Star Wars cantina. And the beginning with Abe and Manning walking through the department reminded me of something out of Men In Black.

The visuals are amazing, as per usual with Del Toro. There is some CGI, but there are far more puppets and costumes than computer graphics (at least from what I noticed), which is nice, because it’s not an overwhelming sensation of fakeness. There were even some really creepy parts, such as the Angel of Death sequence, which I loved. And one of the issues I had with the first movie was that it felt like I was cheated out of the battle scenes, especially the final battle. This time, I didn’t really feel like that (okay, maybe once). But the final battle was long, entertaining, and quite acceptable. Oh, and we finally got to see some cool moves from Abe at one point in the movie, though it’s very brief. Still, it was cool, nonetheless.

The humor from the first movie is still here, as well. In fact, there might be even more. The movie had me laughing out loud quite a few times, specifically the Hellboy/Kraus ‘fight’ and the Hellboy/Abe ‘moment’ (I don’t want to give it away, but you’ll know what I’m talking about).

The acting was a little stiff at times, but not too often. I was glad to hear Doug Jones’ voice for Abe. The villain of the movie, Prince Nuada, actually had some depth to him. He wasn’t just your typical revenge-seeking baddy. In fact, I could compare him (and a lot of the movie’s themes) to that of Magneto from X-Men. There were quite a few parallels, actually, to the themes of X-Men and the themes of this movie. And yes, when I said Seth MacFarlane, I did mean that Seth MacFarlane. But you really can’t tell (at least, I couldn’t).

Overall, I really enjoyed it. I found it much better than the first one, and I wasn’t left with a feeling that something was missing. Selma Blair still could have been given a bit more to do action-wise, though. She got some cool special effects with the fire, but that was about it. So she was nice to look at in more than one way. But yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

KUNG FU PANDA.

So I finally got around to seeing Kung Fu Panda, and it really was better than I thought it was gonna be. Po (Jack Black) is a panda that sells noodles at his father’s shop. He idolizes the five greatest kung fu warriors of the time: Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross), who are all apprentices of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). But when Oogway (Daniel Duk Kim) prophesizes the return of the evil Tai Lung (Ian McShane), he and Shifu realize it is time to announce the identity of the Dragon Warrior. In what seems to be an accident (though there are no accidents), Po is chosen as the Dragon Warrior, despite his lack of skill and overweight body. Much to the chagrin of Shifu and his five disciples, Po must now train to become the Dragon Warrior of legend and defeat Tai Lung.

First I want to talk about the voice acting. The only name I knew coming into this was Jack Black. Watching the movie, I immediately noticed David Cross’ voice, and recognized the voices of Jackie Chan, Dustin Hoffman, and Ian McShane, though I couldn’t place who they were. Actually, I thought the entire time that Ian McShane was actually Eddie Izzard, because they sounded awfully alike here. It was Shifu/Dustin Hoffman’s voice that drove me crazy the entire time, as I couldn’t place it. But when the credits began rolling and I saw all these big names, including Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, and Lucy Liu, I was incredibly surprised. They all did a nice job.

The animation style was really well done, and I loved the little anime sequence at the beginning before it transferred over to computer animation. The action sequences were a lot of fun, even for a children’s animated movie. There were a lot of fun fight scenes, most of them happening back-to-back starting with the dumpling fight with Po and Shifu. And the final fight wasn’t too short or anticlimactic at all, as sometimes happens in martial arts movies. I thought it was just right.

The movie was also pretty funny and had me laughing quite a bit. Even by the time the ‘ska-doosh’ came around, I had a big smile on my face just because of the context of the scene. What I particularly liked was that the jokes weren't childish fart jokes, and the movie didn’t attempt to put in adult innuendo humor like Shrek to appease the adults. The jokes worked all around the board, and the movie didn’t even have to rely on slapstick non-stop, either. I was laughing from the opening anime scene with just Jack Black’s narration.

There’s not much more to say. It was thoroughly enjoyable, and I wouldn’t mind watching it again. It didn’t have to throw in a romantic subplot, and it didn’t have to have any crazy twist ending like most movies these days, and that was really a breath of fresh air. Just something simple and fun. It was a relatively linear plot, and mostly predictable, but the way it was done worked. I liked it. Awesomeness.

Royale With Cheese

HANCOCK.

You know when you’re watching a movie and you zone out, but you’re knocked back into the movie every now and then… and when you are, you feel as if you missed something important, or a good, solid scene in the movie? With Hancock, the entire first half of the movie is like that, but without needing to zone out. Hancock (Will Smith) is an alcoholic superhero with amnesia, and every time he tries to do something for the good of society, he ends up screwing up and making the situations even worse. But after Hancock saves the life of a failing public relations professional, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), Ray decides to try and turn Hancock’s public persona around, even if it’s against the wishes of Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron).

That’s about as best as I can describe the plot, even though the entire latter half of the movie has nothing to do with that. In fact, the second half of the movie is more of the consequences of what occurred in the first half… sort of. As I alluded to at the beginning of the review, I enjoyed the second half of the movie much more than the first half. The first half just lacked substance, meat, or heart, if you will. It just zipped through the plot like the movie version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire shot through the first 200 pages of the book in 15 minutes. That’s the best way I can describe it.

But I can’t say, specifically, what I liked about the movie, because that gets into spoiler territory. So all I can really say is my favorite part of the movie all occurred in the second half (though it was alluded to a few times in the first half) and dealt with the superhero lore. I thought that was really creative/imaginative, and I really wished they had dealt more time of the movie on that, as well as the connection between two specific characters. Hopefully if the movie does well enough to garner a sequel, the sequel will do it there.

However, on a similar subject, the movie set itself up for the perfect villain, but then decided not to go that route. Instead, we get really surface-level, shallow villains with no real substance or… anything. They’re just boring and non-special in every way.

The last real thing to complain about would be whoever the heck controlled the camera (or the director, if it was all his idea, which it most likely was). I’m rarely ever conscious of camera choices, but I could never get comfortable in the movie because of it. It liked to get right up in every character’s face in a tight close up (usually used to give everybody a feel of claustrophobia), even if everybody was in a wide-open space. And there was an incredible preference for the zoom button and shaky-cam; as in, the camera would be shaking about like a Bourne movie, and then the cameraman would hit the zoom button so to, very noticeably, shoot in even more on an actor’s face. I noticed it moreso in the first half of the movie than the second half, though. However, I loved the editing work for the climax of the movie, juxtaposing what was going on between Hancock and a certain other character. I thought that was brilliant.

Now on to some good stuff. As for the acting, it was done nicely all around the board. I can’t say much more about it, really. The villains could have been better, as I stated, but I think that was more of a scripting issue than an acting issue (…at least for the most part). The visual effects were stunning, specifically in the second half of the movie with stormy weather fight and the climax battle. The movie was relatively funny, as I did laugh quite a few times. Though I did come off rather negatively in this review, I did enjoy it quite a bit. It was entertaining enough, though it could have been so much better with the potential it had. And they should have concentrated more on the superhero lore. In other words, I think the movie could have been helped by a longer time frame; perhaps another 30 minutes or more. Otherwise, it was pretty good.

I Am McLovin!