Reviews

YEEESSS! This is the Predator movie I've been waiting for! I would have paid to see this in theaters twice! It's the best Predator movie since the original.

It's got a solid story, good character building, and believable action (within this make-believe universe). That is to say, moments feel earned. There are a couple of Easter eggs for fans, some stuff we've never seen before, but none of it felt like too much fan service or fluff.

I went into it not knowing exactly when in the past it took place, and when the timeframe was revealed, I asked myself "this is where the Predator would hunt on Earth at this time?" But even that proved entirely satisfying. I also liked that the Predator was *different* than the ones from the 1980s-2000s. The tech was enough backdated to show an evolution of the species, but still have them be technologically advanced. It seems very well thought out.

Props to Dan Trachtenberg (10 Cloverfield Lane) for the beautiful direction and Patrick Aison for a tight heroe's journey of a story. Both of them seem to be fans of the mythology of The Predator. Someone give them the reins to an Alien movie, or Robocop or something!

I really can't believe this wasn't released in theaters. I blame Shane Black with his awful last entry, and probably racism? Nobody will see a movie with an all-Indigenous cast? Pshhht. Whatever.

Nanny McFee is unabashedly a fairy tale. It's important to say this up front because if not viewed through the eyes of someone watching a fairy tale, one could conceivably come up with an array of complaints about the film. However, it is a fairy tale, it is obviously trying very much to be a fairy tale, and in that regard, it succeeds admirably.

The film stars Colin Firth as Cedric Brown, the widower father of seven unruly little brats who pride themselves on the speed with which they scare away nannies. They are almost comically naughty, highlighted by an introduction where they pretend to eat their baby sibling in order to get rid of nanny #17. Mr. Brown is at his wits end when he runs out of nannies to hire, and he hears a voice say "Nanny McFee is who you need." It was a bit disappointing when McFee (played perfectly by Emma Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay) shows up at the Brown Manor front door, without any effort on Mr. Brown's part to get her there, but then, it's only a fairy tale. The challenge in the story comes when Brown is given an ultimatum by his wealthy great aunt (Angela Lansbury wonderfully channeling a cranky nearsighted tortoise) to either get married by month's end, thereby providing the children with a necessary mother figure, or cease to receive her monthly stipend, which is all that is keeping the Brown family in their home and together.

Twists and turns are not the goal of Nanny McFee. You know who Mr. Brown is going to marry the moment you see her. You know that the children are going to learn to love Nanny McFee and that she's going to have to leave them when they do. McFee is not about surprises for the viewer. It's about getting lost in a fairy tale. I believe that for the most part, this movie achieves everything it tries to achieve. I only wish I had been able to enjoy it with a niece or nephew, to get their point of view. My guess is, kids will love it. Mary Poppins it isn't. It doesn't have the depth, and it feels heavy-handed at times (well, most of the time). At some points McFee seems too colorful, the gags too cartoony. Plus, Mary Poppins was smart enough not to have a talking baby in it, and I'm sorry, fairy tale or no, talking babies are always creepy.

Besides that small flaw, and a really loud presentation at my theater, I enjoyed Nanny McFee. It's definitely aimed at the kids, but grownups won't be completely uninterested watching it. The performances by everyone in the cast were fantastic, with special kudos going to the children. Finding seven children who can convincingly play their roles is challenging to say the least. A standout from the young group is Thomas Sangster (Love Actually) as the ringleader older brother Simon, the last to accept Nanny McFee into his heart (awww….). The film has a satisfying final scene but never answers the question; who is Nanny McFee? Well, it's either a good conversation starter for the family or a question to be answered in the sequel.

But mostly it's about Vin Diesel. Ladies and gentlemen of the general public, we have a new action hero. I remember Saving Private Ryan. I remember excellent performances from a superb ensemble cast; solid, thought-out direction; and a good, meaningful film. I didn't remember the name of the guy who played Private 1st Class Adrian Caparzo. It was Pitch Black where I first really noticed this guy. Riddick was a great villain. Bad as ass can be, yet he had heart, compassion. He was a real human being that could do horrible things, and he was all the more scary for it. I went to see the movie because of the monsters. I'm a glutton for scary. I enjoyed the film because of the engaging story, the great cast (again), and fantastic FX. I saw it again, and bought the DVD, because of Diesel. Oh, sure, and those other reasons, I can't lie to you. But he was a seriously cool bad guy, and of a form we hadn't really seen yet. I had a feeling about this guy. I couldn't wait to see what he did next. Then it turned out to be a car movie. <sigh> Fan-bloody-tastic. Another X-Games meets MTV flick for the kids who don't like to think with their movies. Directed by who? With the jock from Pleasantville? No thanks. Not my type of film, thank you very much. Unfortunately, none of my friends went to see it either, so that they could tell me the impressions I got from the trailers (useless, useless trailers) were wrong. Well, I eventually heard enough good things about the movie (and Vin) to put it on my Netflix list. A couple weeks ago, I got it into my player, and was really surprised by how good and solid it was. It wasn't just a street racing movie for Gen X-ers. Or whatever generation digs that stuff nowadays. It was about the people who did the racing. That was cool. Paul Walker was ok (see my review of Joy Ride for more on him), but Vin was excellent. Commanding, cool, and angst-ridden. Until I saw that, I wasn't really looking forward to this new Triple X thing that was coming. The new James Bond, indeed. There's nothing wrong with the old James Bond. Or so I thought. Then I went top the theater today and saw him try to infiltrate the lair of crime syndicate Anarchy '99. They were having a rave that night, and Secret Agent Man didn't quite fit in with his tux and well-manicured good looks. A sharpshooter for the bad guys was easily able to pick him out of the crowd and pop a cap in his blond behind. Obviously things have changed. We need an agent who can infiltrate the new world of crime. The ones who go to underground night clubs and raves, instead of mansions and dance the tango. This is where Vin comes in. He starts XXX (his code name) as a performer of stunts for an underground video/internet service thing, I don't know. He has a cause, and it's got a reason, and he's punishing somebody for something, but that's not really important because he drives a car off of a bridge and parachutes out of it. This guy is cool. And during a series of tests in which he is recruited into the NSA by Samuel L Jackson, he proves that he's also smart and compassionate. So they send him in to infiltrate Anarchy '99. Which is kinda funny because they all turn out to be big fans of his stunt work. Being in the underground themselves, they've got the tapes, and you see. well, it doesn't matter. Yada, yada, yada, one things leads to another, X gets himself a cool car, a cool gun, a pair of X-ray specs (get it?), and he has to save the world. Along the way he performs what I believe to be a stunt we have never seen on film to date. And (though I realize The Matrix Reloaded is less than a year away), I find it hard to believe a movie will be able to top the excitement of seeing this guy race an avalanche down a mountainside. Oh, come on, I didn't ruin anything, you saw it in the trailer. Um, but I won't tell you why he races the avalanche. Aha. Happy? It's cool, guys. Well directed, well acted. Asia Argento and Marton Csokas both deserve kudos for their turns as the love interest and the villain of the film, respectively.

And the best part? The pair of ladies (mid-forties, I'd say) I was sitting next to in the theater who obviously never so much as seen a music video or been to a dance club (I hope), and had to comment on a lot of the stuff that was happening on-screen, were enjoying the hell out of themselves. I did to.

Road to Perdition is everything you look for in a well put together drama. The acting is superb, the directing is solid and thought out, the cinematography is top drawer, and the script is solidly period without being campy or hokey. It's not an original story, we've seen it before, but not only is it a well made movie, but it's a GOOD story. It feels like it means something. But more importantly, it's a film that stirs your emotions, which is really what movies are all about anyway. A must see, but unless you need to be able to discuss it with friends, it'll still be great on DVD.

Now, Reign of Fire, though not as completely good a film as Road to Perdition, is the one of the two that has to be seen in theaters (I may even see it again) and I'm willing to go as far as to say that it's the best dragon movie I've ever seen. It's better than Dragonheart, which never really took itself seriously enough to be fascinating (and which I own on DVD because it came free with my player). It's better than Dragonslayer, which was (and still is) impressive in it's own right, but again included too much humor for it's own good, as if it didn't trust itself to be a good adventure. That's not to say that Reign of Fire didn't have humor, but it wasn't included in order to lighten the mood. It allowed itself to be serious, to really explore the social ramifications of the existence of these creatures, these forces of nature. The performances are solid, and the effects are incredible. It also, amazingly, managed to avoid all the action/monster movie cliches that we've actually come to expect from a summer blockbuster. The children in the movie are used sparingly and effectively, as are the monsters themselves (which could have been CGI, but were most likely real dragons). If you haven't seen MIIB yet, don't bother, and spend your money on these memorable modern classics instead.

"Saving Private Ryan," with the possible exception of "Glory" and "Platoon" (and neither of those was about WWII) is the most spectacular and, as far as I can tell, accurate portrayal of a major world war, except for maybe one point: War is worse. And here's the difference I have with most reviewers, and even Spielberg himself; I believe that EVERY child, of about 15+ in age, should see this movie. If only for an understanding of the absolute horror of killing other human beings (and fish) by the THOUSANDS in the name of democracy or some other damn thing. I confess that I never really understood such issues as the taking of Omaha Beach on D-Day. At least, not beyond the reflection of poets and storytellers "...And those men took that beach..." I never realized quite how terrible the ground war was. As an Air Force Cadet, I studied the aspects of the world's first air war, which in and of itself was bad enough.

A friend of mine was telling me what he thought of the movie today, and he said "It was enjoyable." Well, that's not quite how I would describe the experience. "Excruciatingly emotional" is more what I was feeling. Yup, I cried. And one line at the very end between a man and his wife strikes me even now, two days later. Eric knows what I'm talking about, I'm sure. I've been crying a lot at movies recently, which is odd. "Titanic", I cried at, but sort of enjoyed having that little damn burst. Before that, "Braveheart" got me every time. Even "Deep Impact" got the tears flowing a bit. But those were all a little fun in the release. As I was walking out of "Ryan," (in a theater that was, although sold out, absolutely dead silent as people exited, most looking at the floor) I felt not a cleansing, but a slightly gnawing guilt. I'll see it again. Mostly so I can pay more attention to the technical aspects of the film (if I can) and try to determine how I might someday make a film half as good as the one Steven Spielberg's genius has wrought this time. His best? Possibly. But it's hard to differentiate five or six "five stars out of five" movies. If you're looking for another, less gory but still brutal look at WWII from Spielberg, check out "Empire of the Sun," a movie that was far better than it's box office take, and one of the first people movies that makes me cry.

In what may be the best credit for this movie, which obviously stems from a long heritage, is that I loved the entire experience, HAVING NEVER SEEN ANOTHER "HALLOWEEN" MOVIE... Well, Halloween 3, but I guess anyone who's anyone knows that that doesn't count.

I meant to catch up on at least the first two before I saw H20, but just wasn't able to before I went to see it with a friend. So, having only minimal background (and drawn by an irresistible trailer), I sat down in that too-dark theater. Usually, I watch a movie slumped down, so people behind me can see, but by ten minutes into this thrill-fest, my head was down by the seat cushion. Yes, the body count wasn't as high as the rules of sequels dictate, but Director Steve Miner makes excellent use of false scares, one of which actually made me scream out loud, something that hasn't happened since I saw Jaws on the big screen. My point is, despite one small flaw in the diminutive length of the film, it is worthy of both fans and non-fans of the series. All you need is a sense of adventure, and strong knuckles. One thing, though; Is that a mask or what?

Now here is a movie that does something that hasn't been done in a long time. It take ten or so different elements that we're already familiar with (Vampires, martial arts, a techno beat, top-o-the-line special effects, etc.), and turns it into something that feels brand new. In what could have easily been merely a combination of "Mortal Kombat" and "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer," Wesley Snipes (no favorite of mine since and mostly because of "Passenger 57") gives a really good turn as the half human/ half bloodsucker. He acknowledges the internal conflict, but doesn't dwell on it more than necessary. He makes Blade as deep a character as Michael Keaton made Batman.

I'll say that the only part of the movie that got me a little miffed was the always present horror movie cliche of that one person that the hero happens to know who happens to know exactly how to stop the evil guy. On the other hand, you sort of have to have that in a movie like this, so it's easily excusable.

Well, Snipes is good. And Steven Dorff, hyped in the previews, makes a more than bad enough bad guy to Snipes' hero. He's got class, presence, and enough control in his little pinky to teach Al Pacino how to tone it down a bit. Who would ever think that a comic book movie would be a launching pad for an actor? I sincerely hope this is. And whoa! where the heck did Kris Kristofferson get acting talent? Don't get me wrong, but the prolific actor hasn't done anything memorable since "Millennium," and how many of us watched that just 'cause of the cool video box? Well, here he is, folks, in a very Obi-Wanish turn, as Blade's mentor and father figure. And good job, too.

The quality of the acting is matched by the quality of the choreography and special effects. Accompanied by a pulsing techno beat, the fight scenes brings back and quickly banish memories of Mortal Kombat. Hey! It had a script, too! I was wondering what had happened to all the good writers out there.

The two major indications to me that I saw a quality flick were these; I had no feeling of remorse about paying full price to get in, a la any Schumacher "Batman," "The Avengers," "MK: Annihilation," "Godzilla," or "Armageddon." (wow, how many of those came out this year? Ugh) Also, I look forward to the inevitable sequel, as per the film's ending. Let's just hope they do as good a job with it as with the first one.

My hope is that the series was a lot better. Although I've never seen the television show, I have the distinct impression that this movie was trying very hard to use the same humor as the series(s), yet also couldn't resist it's Hollywood heritage. That of the action flick. Now, as the rather loud people behind me in the theater kept reminding the rest of us, it wasn't believable in the least. Of course that in and of itself isn't a problem. After all, a big joy of movies is removing yourself from reality. However, you shouldn't necessarily be aware of it. With "The Avengers," I was almost painfully aware of discrepancies. I say almost because I'm able to remember more excruciating experiences with "Batman and Robin" (also with Uma. Hmmm...) and more recently with "Armageddon."

The major flaw seemed to be one of continuity within the story. And a sort of unenthusiasm among the actors. To her credit, Uma Thurman looked like she put more into her part than the rest of the cast. Whereas Ralph Fiennes and Sean Connery especially seemed like they weren't having all that much fun. What really disappoints me, though, is that at certain parts of the film, I actually drifted off to sleep. The only other time I've done that was during "The Last of the Mohicans." Yeah, I know. Oh, well, at least I can be consoled in the fact that I didn't pay full price for admission. Ah, matinees, what a wonderful thing.

As for turning "The Avengers" into a franchise, I'd still rather see "Alien 5" or "Lost in Space Again"