Reviews

I've never read the manga or seen the anime. I somehow managed not to see anything related to the movie other than a very short teaser more than a year ago. So I went in to see this with no expectations other than knowing Robert Rodriguez and James Cameron with behind it.

The movie does a fantastic job of world building. We see the world through Alita's eyes, discovering it as she does. (Her character has amnesia.) Note to Rian Johnson: This is how you subvert expectations. Despite her amnesia (or perhaps because of it) Alita has an enthusiastic desire to see and learn everything with no sense of distrust or fear. More naive than innocent. In some ways,

The story of this movie is more of an origin story, setting up Alita's character and world-building than telling an epic tail. In some ways, it's what the Phantom Menace wanted to be (but of course the Phantom Menace failed). Take these random characters and throw them together with someone who will change their lives and maybe one day the world.

Alita's doesn't try to be a badass. She just is one because of the strength of her convictions and desire to do the right thing. It's awe-inspiring as she grows in her abilities and determination (a growth we actually get to see, unlike a certain Anakin Skywalker). There are a couple moments in the movie where the entire theater applauds her actions.

It's not a perfect movie, but it's a great movie. I wish we had more movies like this. The only real flaw of the movie is that we don't yet know if it's going to have a sequel. It certainly deserves one.

Nothing in this review is a spoiler if you have already seen the Lord of Rings (LOTR) trilogy (or read the book)!!! The Hobbit was a pretty short, children's book describing how a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, went on an adventure with Gandalf and a group of dwarfs to reclaim their mountain from a dragon. The book just happens to include Bilbo finding a magic ring that makes the wearer invisible.

When Tolkien later wrote LOTR, he decided that the ring from The Hobbit would become the ring of Sauron. He also decided to place all of the random, throwaway events from The Hobbit into a larger history of Middle Earth.

This movie is NOT an adaptation of the book, The Hobbit. It is an adaptation of the history of that Tolkien later constructed. This is great news for people that love Tolkien and have read the appendices of LOTR. Unfortunately, it waters down the story of The Hobbit and Bilbo's adventures and makes the movie(s) overlong, overcomplicated, and drag in parts. I can't help but think it would have been a much tighter, more understandable story. My relatives who are not Tolkienistas were lost during much of the movie, as it inter-cuts Bilbo's adventure with the events of the larger history.

Once the DVDs come out, I hope a "Bilbo only" cut is released (or done by a fan, like the no Jar Jar version of Phantom Menace).

The movie is an odd mix of tones. The book was a children's book and much lighter than LOTR in tone. Parts of the movie are very light and even dangerous moments are often played for laughs. The caves are very bright and, contrary to the LOTR, some of the orcs almost have a cartoon/animated style. Meanwhile other parts of the movie are played very seriously.

Gollum, of course, steals every scene he's in and looks even better than in the LOTR movies.

Of course everyone who has seen the trailer knows the dwarfs' song. The movie is faithful in that regard to the books including the poems and songs.

Don't get me wrong. The movie is great, and, of course I can't wait to see the next ones, and one day the "Bilbo cut". So maybe Peter Jackson isn't crazy after all. But it could have been better.

When the most memorable thing you remember coming out of a movie is that you were annoyed by the camera work, you know there is a problem. Proper shaky camera work can convey a sense of chaos and action (see the Gladiator for its proper use), but here, it just distracts and confuses. During the action scenes, it obscures what is going on (especially if you're sitting relatively close to the screen). During a quiet moment, it completely takes you out of the movie. Try this experiment. Sit down across from anyone at a cafe or restaurant. Notice how much jitter there is around their face and head...right none! Now watch Matt Damon have a conversation with Julia Stiles...that's right, I didn't say Jason Bourne, because the camera is so shaky, that you think you're watching Matt Damon's home movies filmed on an antique camera by his uncle with Parkinson's disease.

Now that the big one is out of the way, let's critique the movie. The camera-work aside, this is an enjoyable movie featuring everyone's favorite amnesiac superspy. It delivers on over the top action with a modicum of cerebral superspy stuff. It has a few nods to previous movies, prominently highlighting the last line of the second movie. The hand to hand fight scenes are phenomenal. I really enjoy the Arnis based combat (obscured by the camera-work as it is). I just wish they would teach the actors real gun handling. (Watch Collateral for some good handling.)

The Bourne Identity sounded the death knell for James Bond, by raising the bar to unreachable heights. Unfortunately, the Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum both failed to reach that bar. Instead the producers decided that they would simply try to one up other movies. Transporter 1 and 2? We can be crazier with driving. Casino Royale? we got that covered. Unfortunately, Bourne is at his best when doing his cerebral, superspy shtick, and there just wasn't enough of it. The best scene in the movie happens in the first twenty minutes. The rest of the movie, while good, just doesn't live up to its promise.

I hope they bring Bourne out for a fourth movie, but do us all a favor, and fire Greengrass before he destroys the franchise.

Slight spoiler below:

There's also two continuity/sequencing issues, where you're not sure whether they're in London or New York. And how does "the asset" magically get from one continent to another? Why not use another asset? Where they running out of asset actors?

Some might think it ironic that each X-men movie is better than the previous, but what it actually shows us is that the X-men are better suited to episodic story telling than to single movies. In this sense, the X-men share more in common with Highlander and Stargate, in that while the movies were decent, the TV series they spawned were infinitely richer and better. It takes a while for a series to get its legs, develop the characters properly, find the right directing, etc. So X-men, now in its third season has jettisoned it's too-slow director (so he could go and make Superman Returns too slow) and is finally finding its legs.

This movie is by far the most graphically violent with the sense that real people are dying (not that it's gory). It is also the most mature in its storytelling. It doesn't fall victim to the classic blunder of trying to explain everything while giving us enough explanation for us to willingly suspend our disbelief. (Think Mitacloreans vs. "the force flows through all living things binding them together.") And finally, pay attention to Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde (the girl who can walk through walls). In one movie, she's already shown far more heart, spunk, and superhero attitude than Anna Paquin's Rogue has in three movies. No offense to Ms Paquin, but since when did Jubilee ever upstage Rogue? Rogue was miscast from the beginning, the choice to make her a child was a mistake, and it shows more than ever in this installment. Just be glad that there's enough other things going on so that you don't miss Rogue too much. And if your favorite character doesn't get enough screen time...don't worry. There will be plenty more X-men episodes--I mean movies--to come.

I fondly remember this after school special. It features the bony Kyra Sedgwick as a teen girl whose father has just remarried after her mother died. The fairy godmother is a mystic bag lady played wonderfully by Pearl Bailey. In a twist, the stepmother is kind and understanding, but that's more than offset by the evil stepsisters who belittle Cindy for her lack of 80's style. Of course now, we would appreciate Cindy's understated, if plain taste, and revile the hip 80's glitz. And of course a pre-Ferris Bueller/Dirty Dancing Jennifer Grey is one of those evil stepsisters. It was cheesy and self-aware, but nonetheless had a certain charm mainly due to the chemistry between Sedgwick and Bailey.

This was definitely a pleasant surprise. When my wife brought it home, I was very skeptical, but it is an interesting and entertaining movie. Salma does very well with artistic moments--showing poignant images and voiceless narrative--but not letting them bog the movie down. It is impressive how she was able to let us peek into the lives of more than a dozen characters, letting us see their struggles and feel that we know them, without getting lost in a mishmash. She also had the good sense to end the movie when it was done. While not a great movie, it is a good movie and much more watchable than any movie Robert Redford has directed. Keep up the good work.

BTW, the song during the end credits is haunting and, interestingly enough, sung by Mare Winningham.

Lay your fears to rest. Peter Jackson and friends have not stumbled on the third and final Lord of the Rings movie. The Return of the Kings holds to the same standards as the first two movies and extremely satisfying. There's a big difference between making a trilogy where the entire story has already been written, and one where sequel's are made to capitalize on a successful film. (See Matrix, Batman, and Star Wars for examples.) In fact, the only real flaws are one's of omission. Weighing in at three hours and thirty minutes, it's still not long enough to complete Tolkien's story. So, it glosses over quite a few things in the interest of finishing. While die hard fans, including myself, will have to hope that Peter Jackson puts in these omissions in the extended DVD version, everyone can relish what did make it to the screen.

The Return of the King is the easiest of the three movies to understand for Tolkien neophytes, with all of the exposition and explanations clear and well paced. The battle scenes are fabulous and not so onerous as Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. Shelob, Frodo's burden, Minas Tirith, the Mumakil, Eowyn's confrontation with the Witch King are phenomenally well done. Legolas fans won't be disappointed, and Gimli gets to utter the movie's funniest line.

The ending suffers a bit with multiple denouements but without the book's second climax. But despite this, the audience cheered, cried, and applauded at the end. When I first read the Lord of the Rings, more than twenty years ago, I thought how great it would be to see this in a movie, but then I thought what a phenomenally bad movie it would be, because the story line was too complex; no movie company would let it be the proper length; and how do you portray the evil whose greatest threat is his oppressive presence? And on top of that, the special effects would never do it justice. Well, I have to take my hat of to Peter Jackson and New Line, as well as everyone else who worked on the project. They truly have accomplished the impossible, adapting The Lord of the Rings to three phenomenal movies which are true to the novels and never cheesy in that Sword and Sorceror kind of way. Thank you.

Johhny Depp never disappoints...sometimes his movies do, but he never does. Thankfully, neither does this movie. OK, maybe the focus is a bit disappointing; about a third of the way through the movie you see right where the movie is headed, but once you resign yourself to the fact that it could have been better, it's a thoroughly enjoyable movie. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but doesn't go to far in the comedic direction either, although it would have been nice if the writers would have laid off just a bit on the comic relief.

The supporting cast do quite well, although they come up a bit dull next to Johhny Depp. Whenever his character is offscreen, you find yourself thinking, "Why don't they just put the camera back on him?" Keira is more than mere eye candy; her spirit and spunk make her match up well against Johnny Depp. You almost wish she ended up with him. Orlando Bloom does well in his first post-Lord of the Rings film, although it seems as though he wasn't quite given enough character to really work with. Hopefully, his next film will.

All in all, the film really is one of the better Disney films to come along lately and a fabulous pirate film in its own right. Much better than Treasure Island, but not quite as good as Disney's 80's mini-series, Return to Treasure Island (which I hope they will release on DVD).

A lot of people who were so disappointed in The Phantom Menace, need only look at this movie for explanation. This was billed as SERIOUS competition for Star Wars. Compared to this, anything would have been good. Although released three years earlier, Star Wars' special effects are decades above Battle Beyond the Stars; the characters were likeable, the story made sense, the world was presented as a living place, the villain really was a villain. Battle Beyond the Stars fails on these counts. I remember seeing it just before The Empire Strikes Back was released, and we were all excited because we thought it would be The Empire Strikes Back's Matrix. Unfortunately, we got a movie that was completely forgettable. The only reasons to watch it would be 1) You want to remind yourself that despite George Lucas' shortcomings, his movies really were a step above the times, or 2) you want to see just how far James Cameron has come since his work as art director on this film.

This mini-series completely and utterly blows away the original movie and the new cartoon outer-space adaptation. It's eight or ten hours of pure, unadulterated fascination and excitement. The story is well-written and paced. The action scenes are believable. Jim Hawkins is well cast, but Brian Blessed as Long John Silver absolutely and completely steals the show every time he is on board. The love interests are strong and beautiful women. The locations are varied and exotic, ranging from lush Caribbean lowland jungle to Mexican desert. The script is witty and funny, yet rarely corny. It's hard to make a two hour movie this good, yet somehow Disney managed to make a ten hour mini-series that delivers right up until the very end. Like another reviewer said, it's impossible to find these shows now. If Disney makes the complete miniseries available on DVD, be sure to pick it up.

From reading these reviews, it seems that many have completely missed the point of the movie, although it's not that hard to do, because the movie doesn't quite make the point it tries to.

The movie is the story of a German counter-culture that sprang up in Germany just before World War II. Before is the key word. Hitler was busy declaring Blacks, Jews, and cripples as less than human, while Swing music was becoming popular among Germany's youth. Swing composed and performed by Blacks and Jews, and in the case of the movie, a crippled friend. The danger to Hitler lies in the fact that as the youths became more immersed in Swing music and its culture, the less inclined they would be to agree with Hitler's policies toward Blacks and Jews.

And the nonhumans, were the key to the whole Nazi power. Recall how hard Hitler tried to keep Jesse Owens from running in the Olympic games. Recall that a Japanese diplomat declared that it was amazing what Hitler had done for Germany, but how it couldn't be duplicated in Japan, because they didn't have any Jews.

That's what the film is trying portray, but unfortunately, the movie can't decide if it wants to chronicle a historical movement, a love story, a story of friends, or what. Each scene is itself fairly well done, but taken as a whole the movie is quite lacking. See it once, if for nothing other than the music and dance scenes which in 97 and 98 would inspire countless nouveau-swing kids in America to try big dancehall swing moves in tiny overcrowded clubs nearly killing each other in the process.

The main problem with this movie is that it doesn't follow either the movies or the series. It mixes up elements of both so hopelessly, that it might as well not be called Highlander. The only good thing about it is that we can finally be rid of an aging immortal Christopher Lambert.

Plot: mixed up beyond belief. Completely redefines things from the movie and the series, such as who the watchers are and what their job is. In the movies, the end of the immortals is near, while in the series, the end is off in the syndicated future. Reconciling them apparently was too hard to come up with a decent story that we care about.

Characters: Duncan McLeod and Joe Dawson from the series, but Duncan's character is so completely different as to be unrecognizable.

Action: It could have all been forgivable if the action were okay, but aside from a ten second sequence between Adrian Paul and Donnie Yen (an amazing martial artist btw) there was no action.

Bottom Line: Any one of the series episodes is more worth watching than this movie. Don't see it.

This movie is so bad that you keep watching it, because you can't believe that it could possibly get any worse and then it does.

Let's just take a brief look at Reese Witherspoon's character: 1) Does not think that young people are truly capable of understanding love so she is going to wait to have sex until she's married. Also has a serious boyfriend. 2) Makes friends with the local predator, who she knows is a predator and is out to get her. 3) Within 1 week, not even seven days, she has sex with said predator, because he used this line: "You're going to walk out on love."

Please!!! Give the girl SOME credit. I can't imagine ANYONE falling for that line in one week, let alone someone with her character's convictions. Let alone that, shouldn't she at least have had the decency of breaking up with her boyfriend before sleeping around?

Just a sample of how utterly insipid this movie is. I'm glad I didn't pay to rent it.

I love Jet Li, but he wasted his time in this movie. In fact, the only thing that makes this movie worth watching is Jet Li's presence. Unfortunately, even his incredible screen presence was cut off at the knee by poor directing, a lack of character development and too-short fight scenes. The movie skips any semblance of an opener and so fails to give us any insight or connection with Jet Li's character, let alone a taste of his abilities. It also fails to explain why the bad guys imported a not so pretty single mother from North Dakota and kept her as an unsuccessful prostitute, while pouring valuable drugs into her and keeping her daughter in orphanage at their expense. And Bridget Fonda is horrible as this prostitute.

I must admit the action sequences were quite good, but the fight scenes were too short and plagued by that bane of good martial arts: cutting the shot to another angle prematurely. Jet Li's presence in a room filled with smoke was simply incredibly, even if what followed lacked his usual elegance. He also got to utter "don't do that again" in that so matter-of-fact it's menacing tone ("That was a mistake" --Romeo Must Die). Too bad you couldn't actually see most of the action that followed the line.

Perhaps Jet Li is trying to get away from being a martial arts star and become simply an action star who also does wushu. What a pity if he does. Action stars are a dime a dozen; martial artists of Jet Li's calibre who can also act are quite rare. Jet Li in motion is beautiful, but this movie doesn't portray much of it. The few moments where he is allowed to shine are so short. In almost every kung fu movie, you see this comment, "Too much wirework." Please, just let us see Jet Li do his stuff, unhampered by funky camera angles and switches.

Wong Fei Hung is a legendary Chinese hero (like James Bond) whoe has some 90 films about him before this movie. In fact Jackie Chan plays Wong Fei Hung in Legend of Drunken Master. So this movie is not merely a kung fu movie. This movie's main theme is of Chinese culture vs Western culture as it is embodied by martial arts vs guns. How can China remain beautiful in its art that requires years of dedication to master, when success can be so cheaply purchased with Western firearms? Wong Fei Hung must make sense of it somehow, and in the end shows that while you can't fight guns with kung fu, that kung fu in the right hands can be just as deadly as guns. (It's not the gun... it's the bullets.)

Woven into this main theme is the theme of a lost sense of Chineseness and lack of communication. The characters who cut off their queues (their symbol of loyalty to the Qing dynasty) because of desperation or confusion or ambition. The Chinese/American who cannot read Chinese. The mistaken Lion dance.

Beyond this conflict, the movie has countless inside jokes for the fans of Honk Kong cinema. The trampolines at the end were a tribute to the early kung fu movies that used them before wire techniques were introduced. The scene where the two disciples have to dress up in the Peking Opera: Sammo Hung (TV's Martial Law) traditionally played the role of the butcher in this series. He, along with the other character who dressed up in the movie were originally trained in Peking opera and form there entered kung fu movies. So it was an inside joke. The nerdy character is played by one of Hong Kong's most popular pop singers.

This movie is simply incredible, even though the kung fu is not as satisfying as in some of Jet Li's other movies (The Legend and Fist of Legend). I recommend seeing it on DVD. That way you can see the original movie with subtitles. Then you can go back and watch it with a running commentary. Stay away from the English dubbed version, as it cuts scenes from the movie.

This movie could have been great. We love the anti-hero type, especially if he's good looking (in a rugged manly way) and has style and has been wronged badly enough. Mel Gibson certainly fits the bill. His charisma in this movie is almost palpable at times. He's outsmarted or caught off guard sometimes, but he can't be beaten.

Unfortunately, the movie is simply too violent. There's no reason for it. It's hard to say where to draw the line between too much and not enough. I'm the first to admit that I like a good violent movie, but for some reason this one just crosses that line. That, and leave out all the S&M which had no point.

The good parts in the movie are just overshadowed by the excessive violence, so that you leave the movie with a feeling of disappointment rather than visceral satisfaction.

After seeing Assassins, I just couldn't understand why everyone was gaga over Antonio. This movie explains it. It's not so much his looks; it's his passion coupled with the accent. His character is just incredibly intense, "Did I thank you? I weell."

Of course Steve Buscemi completely stole the show. Salma Hayek is still one of the most beautiful causes for a car wreck in the world. And Quentin Tarantino should just go home.

This movie is simply quite incredible. The acting and dialog run on the cheesy side, and some of the fight choreography needs work, but just consider this a full length Capoeira advertisement. There is no denying the beauty and allure of this African cum Brazilian martial art. My only regret is that the producers saw a need to speed up some of the Capoeira play, as though it weren't impressive enough to stand on its own.

Plot and acting aside, the only real flaw with the movie is that the entire movie, they use a fairly accurate Capoeira fighting style with legs being the predominant weapons, but in the second half of the final fight scene, the fighting style completely shifts to a more street style involving only elbows and fists. While Rio style Capoeira incorporates these as a regular part of the style, it just doesn't fit in the movie at this point.

If you haven't seen this movie, rent it, then go find a Brazilian restaurant and watch a Capoeira/Samba/Lambada show. Then find a Capoeira mestre and start learning.