Reviews

Plot Based on the best selling novel by author Dan Brown, Angels & Demons is a popcorn thriller about a symbologist professor named Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks, being summoned to the Vatican to assist in foiling a diabolical plot against the church and its cardinals. The pope has died and 4 cardinals are kidnapped before the start of the ceremony to elect a new pope. A cryptic note is sent to the Vatican police that details the intentions of the Illuminati to kill the 4 cardinals and blow up Vatican City. Robert Langdon must decipher the clues and, in a sense, save the church. Along for the ride this time is beautiful and mysterious scientist Dr. Vittoria Vetra played by Ayelet Zurer. Together the two set out on a frantic hunt to find the Path to Illumination. The story is full of church intrigue, power struggles, and violence from within and without the Vatican.

Central Conflict One of the themes at the center of this movie is science versus religion. More specifically who owns the moment of creation? CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, is on the eve of proving the God Particle exists that created life in the universe from the collision of matter and anti-matter. The Illuminati choose this as the time to strike back at the Catholic church in an act of vengeance for a previous incident against the Illuminati referred to as La Purga where 4 members of the Illuminati were branded in the chest with crosses and burned at the stake.

"Are you not Entertained?" The verdict is Guilty. I was entertained. In a recent Colbert Report interview Ron Howard stated "The thing that Dan Brown does so well in his novels is he collects all these fringe theories and conspiracy theories, old and new, and combines them in these works of fiction and yet he puts enough verifiable history in there so that it stimulates your imagination and your curiosity while it entertains you." Ron Howard so succinctly encapsulates why this movie and others like it such as the National Treasure are so successful.

Does this movie solve the issue between religion and science? No, but I think it sheds enough light on the subject to spark some interesting conversations that just might make people finally realize that religion and science are not inherently at odds with each other.

If you're interested in this movie, you should also check out ...

National Treasure National Treasure: Book of Secrets The Third Miracle Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and of course ... The Da Vinci Code

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

The year is 2018. Judgment day has come and gone leaving humanity in the hands of a few, scattered resistance fighters. Various terminator models roam the post-apocalyptic wasteland either killing or harvesting humans all under the direction of a faceless, computer enemy known as Skynet. And the salvation of the human race rests in the hands of one man ... John Connor.

Unfortunately, this plays out more as a guilty pleasure movie than a canonical extension of the James Cameron Terminator series. If the first movie was about saving Sarah Connor, and the second movie was about saving John Connor, this installment seems to be about saving Kyle Reese. This is where the holes in the story begin with me. How does Skynet know about the relationship between Kyle Reese and John Connor? I can understand that they know about John Connor from his FDR style fireside chats over the radio as the leader of the resistance. But how would they know about his relationship with Kyle Reese? Kyle Reese and the T-800 are sent back in time in the year 2029 and yet this is only 2018.

In the first Terminator movie Kyle Reese assesses the conflict between man and machine in the following quote, "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead." That context helps build the tension in the first 2 movies. Whereas the conflict in this installment is full of less tension because it seems Skynet is content to leave the resistance to its own devices while it's busy in the lab working on schemes. There are no scenes like in the first movie where we see terminators infiltrating resistance camps. That would have been cool. Interesting side note, Arnold's workout buddy Franco Columbo plays the terminator infiltrator that shoots up the resistance camp in Kyle Reese's flash back sequence in the first terminator movie.

Influences and flaws: MCG cites such movies as Black Hawk Down, Children of Men, and Road Warrior as influences for this movie. In reality, this movie plays out more like a thinly veiled rip off of those movies while managing to never come close to catching the authenticity or originality of any of those movies.

That's probably my biggest complaint about this movie is that there's nothing original about it at all. It's just a rehash of old clichés. Why there's even the cliché post-apocalyptic child, same archetype child as found in the Road Warrior, old Star Trek reruns (Bop!), or Aliens. I half expected her to say ... "The Terminators mostly come out at night, mostly." The 60 foot tall harvesters are right out of the movie War of the Worlds. Even the sounds they make are exactly the same as Spielberg's alien harvesters in War of the Worlds. The air battles in the canyons are played out. The terminator motorcycles are straight out of Road Warrior and in fact the entire high way sequence is straight out of Road warrior. The acceptance of Terminators as allies and even mentors for young would be resistance leaders (in this case, Kyle Reese) and not just enemies was already introduced in T2. The final sequences take place at an industrial plant and plays out exactly like the ending of T2. cough, cough, HACK! All the call backs to the original material in the form of "i'll be back" and "Come with me if you want to live" felt cheesy instead of inciting nerd nirvana like the call backs did in the recent Star Trek movie.

Maybe my problem is that I've seen too many movies and my expectations are set a little high. Or maybe MCG is a hack and this movie should have been held to a higher standard. Nevertheless it feels like they're just cashing in on the Terminator name.

Other franchises have been successfully rebooted such as Hulk, Batman and James Bond. I think in those cases, the source material needed a bit of freshness to appeal to modern audiences. This attempt at rebooting falls flat and lacks the fresh approach necessary to over shadow the source material. James Cameron casts a giant shadow. This movie plays out more like a made for TV sci-fi channel attempt at capitalizing on the franchise name instead of a true reboot of the franchise. Being a fan of the series, it was fun to see the T-600 walking around like zombies ineptly attempting to kill humans. But beyond serving up more endoskeleton murder machines walking around with "crush, kill, destroy" on their little tiny robot brains, this movie doesn't offer much.

Characters: A bright spot among the acting was new comer Sam Worthington who plays Marcus Wright. We find out that Marcus Wright is a prototype cyborg used by Cyberdyne systems to infiltrate the human resistance. That is something I would have preferred to find out in the middle of the movie when it's revealed rather than in the TRAILER!!!!!!! Because really that's the only twist in this movie. Other bright spots are Moon Bloodgood who plays a fighter in the resistance and Anton Yelchin who plays Kyle Reese. All the other performances, including Christian Bale who seems to be phoning this one in with his Batman voice, fall flat.

"Are you not entertained?" A very qualified yes. It's not so much that I dislike this movie as I think it's forgettable. Really, once you've seen this movie, there won't be any scenes that you'll be talking about with your friends afterwards.

If you're interested in this movie, you should also check out ... The Terminator Terminator 2: Judgment Day Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines Black Hawk Down Children of Men Mad Max 2 Transformers War of the Worlds Westworld Futureworld

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

In my quest to watch all things Katie Aselton, I thought I'd found pure gold when I stumbled upon this movie. I watched the preview to see if my bounty was true or fools gold. The preview played it off like a light hearted romantic comedy so I was sold! Much like the premise of the better known comedy Hall Pass, a young couple comes to an agreement to take one night off from their marriage in hopes of rekindling the spark in their relationship. Much UNLIKE the better known comedy Hall Pass, this is not a comedy at all but rather a horror movie. Their guilt and shame at what they've done destroys the bedrock of their relationship and we're left to pick up the pieces. Dax Shepard and director Katie Aselton are pleasant enough as the young couple but I watched the first half of this movie thinking that this doesn't look like a couple that is having intimacy problems. The second half of the movie I just thought Dax's character was a jackass. Katie, of course, was a princess. I found it to be very similar to Indecent Proposal in that it tells the story of a young couple that tempts fate in an attempt to save their relationship only to find they've set about destroying it instead.

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to say I was entertained but this is one bad movie. It was loaded with talent but the material is just soo bad and soo over the top. A good sign of bad writing is when the movie starts off with a " ... previously on MacGyver" intro to "catch us up" as if this was the second episode of a TV series. I mean it was like this was the sequel to some other Jonah Hex movie we all somehow missed. Just plain lazy story telling. There was a lot of potential here with a decent franchise but they kind of blew it ... big time. Very similar setup to Clint Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales except Clint is a master at story telling.

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

I say, bloody splendid movie, old boy. That was my best proper British accent. What do you think?

Although this isn't an action movie with cars exploding and spies trying to kill one another, I was riveted, on-the-edge-of-my-seat thrilled by this movie. The tension created by the marvelous performances of these brilliant actors was truly inspiring. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush made this material come alive. The back drop of this movie is also a very compelling moment in history. And a not so well known behind-the-curtain peek at the history of the royal family. "It's pronounce Ma'am like ham not Ma'am like balm" as the Queen would say to everyone she met. Any actor that wins an award for their performance in this movie should stand proud. I would even be alright with it winning best movie of the year ... but don't tell Christopher Nolan I said that.

Odds and ends ... when I watch an ensemble piece like this I can't help but pigeon hole each actor into the first character I saw them play or the performance where I first became of aware of them by name. What I mean by that is every time I see Colin Firth, no matter what role he is playing, he is indelibly connected to his role as Mark Darcy in the movie Bridget Jones's Diary for that is the first performance where he managed to make an impression on me. For Geoffrey Rush it's Shine. For Helena Bonham Carter it's Fight Club. For Derek Jacobi it's The Odessa File. For Michael Gambon it's Gosford Park. And for Timothy Spall it's Wormtail from the Harry Potter movies. Which brings me to another interesting note, Gambon, Spall and Bonham Carter have all starred together in the Harry Potter movies. It's a small world.

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

Plot The story centers on a young girl named Audrey that lives in a trailer park in the New Mexico desert. We soon learn that her best friend Calista, also from the trailer park, has succumbing to the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis and that her father can't leave the grounds of the trailer park because he's so emotionally crippled by the death of his wife, our protagonist's mother. Enter stage left ... Justin Long, now and forever known as the Apple guy, stumbles upon their trailer park on his way to a basketball tryout at UNLV.

Central Conflict Audrey is a girl destined for greatness who hides her fear of failure in the stoic duties of taking care of her emotionally crippled father and her friend Calista who's diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. As Justin Long's Character, Mookie, starts to gravitate towards Calista, we see Audrey start to project her dreams and desires of leaving the trailer park behind onto him. The friendship between Audrey and Calista unravels as the two girls fight for his affection. And in the end, you really don't care who ends up with him.

This movie drowns in what I'll refer to as the "victim mentality." The lead character blames her dead mother, her father, her friends and her trailer park for not being able to move on with her life. And instead of doing what she already knows is the best thing for her to do, she allows herself to be paralyzed by her self pity. It takes Justin Long to come along and give her something she had all along ... self respect.

This movie is just too contrived, clichéd, unoriginal and has been done before in better movies such as Bodies, Rest & Motion and Gas, Food Lodging. Also, it's as if the script was written by Debbie Downer ... "I want to be Miss America but I have MS" ... queue the Wah-Wah trumpets.

Characters Justin Long cast as an undiscovered basketball prodigy living in the desert? Really? Soccer maybe but not basketball. Kelli Garner cast as the second fiddle in a trailer park that only contains two girls? Really? Was the casting director blind? Gina Gershon's part consists of us watching her unpack Justin Long's crap? Really? Central Casting! I need a super hot actress in her late thirties to early forties that can unpack the back of a truck? Horrible casting but I blame the script more than the cast for this epic failure.

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

Religulous is funny. But of course, that's its main intent: to entertain. In the style of Borat, Bill Maher films himself in a series of interludes where he makes simple people of faith look foolish by asking all the right questions about serious religious issues that are at the core of faith. Questions such as why are there so many different world religions, creationism versus evolution, is the earth only 6,000 years old, what's the deal with transubstantiation, what's the deal with the trinity, and so on. All valid questions that everyone has probably answered for themselves after a late night dorm room discussion while on the journey of forming their world view.

The only problem is I don't think Bill Maher was looking for the answers or even looking for a level playing field on which to debate the questions. The goal here is to strictly to entertain rather than educate. And that's where this movie falls short. Bill Maher's political debates on his show "Real Time" are, for the most part, well represented by conservatives and liberals alike so as to have a fair and balanced debate of the political issues of the day. In contrast, Religulous is more like the Christians being fed to the lions than a fair and balanced discussion on faith.

"Are you not Entertained?" I have to say I was. Despite my beliefs differing from Bill Maher, I found the movie very funny. But I have a sick sense of humor.

The movie fails to resonate any truth since the discussion was pretty one sided. In other words, this was a religious version of Jay Leno's Jay walking where you ask simple questions to stupid people to get a laugh at their expense.

If you are really interested in listening to educated people discuss this type of material than I suggest the PBS special entitled The Question of God: Sigmund Freud & C.S. Lewis

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

I'm a big fan of the three principle actors (John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill, and the incomparable Marisa Tomei) and am becoming a fan of the mumblecore directorial team of Jay Duplass & Mark Duplass. This is a dark, almost haunting dramedy. The premise is John C. Reilly's character, John, is still getting over a divorce and meets Marisa Tomei's character, Molly, at a party. They hit it off and, as the relationship blossoms, John finds out that Molly has a 21 year old son played by Jonah Hill that still lives with her. Jonah Hill's character feels threatened by this new man in his mom's life and reacts by attempting to break the relationship up with a series of passive- aggressive episodes. I call this a dramedy because it really is much more of a drama with some light moments. When I first heard the premise I thought this would be more of a Step-Brother's comedy played for laughs ... but it is not. There are moments when you think Jonah Hill is going to become unhinged. Any who, it certainly worth checking out. Similar movies: The Freebie, Greenberg, Nights and Weekends, Solitary Man, Sideways

So I am watching the credit roll for the movie The Chronicle of Riddick and I am wondering why I loved this movie so much. And then it hit me. This is the sequel to Conan the Barbarian that Conan the Destroyer was supposed to be. Did I loose you? Conan the Barbarian is one of my favorite movies and Conan is one of my favorite characters. Riddick is more true to the character that Robert E. Howard created than the movie Conan the Destroyer ever was. And of course Conan the Destroyer could never be redeemed because Arnold left the franchise because he didn't want to become a one trick pony.

Vin Diesel also shies away from sequels. He refused to do another Fast and Furious or Triple X and would only do a sequel to Pitch Black once he was made producer of the film. Shying away from sequels is another lesson he learned from the master – Arnold. And in Vin Diesel's defense, this movie isn't really a sequel to Pitch Black. It picks up where Pitch Black left off but it goes into a completely different direction. They establish a mythology early on in the Chronicles of Riddick that helps set the tone for the new movie and move it away from the gimmick of Pitch Black. The main similarity between Conan the Barbarian and the Chronicles of Riddick is IT'S THE SAME STORY! The story arc between the villain and the anti-hero is exactly the same -- except they left the scene with the steamy orgy next to the boiling caldron of human body parts out of this movie to get the PG-13 rating. The other thing they left out was the snappy dialog that made the Conan movie so campy. I mean who can beat James Earl Jones, arguably the greatest voice ever, belting out lines like `Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark!' and `They shall all drown in lakes of blood.' The story lines aren't just shockingly similar they are exactly the same. In Conan, Thulsa Doom sweeps the land destroying everything in his path with the purpose of building a new religion unto himself. In the process, he destroys Conan's village thus providing Conan the motivation to become the warrior that will one day become the instrument of Thulsa's destruction. And to the credit of Conan the Barbarian, they explore this dynamic in the movie and the character, Thulsa, attempts to exploit it. This dynamic is sorely missing from Riddick. In Riddick, the Lord Marshall, doesn't quite have the same ring as Thulsa Doom, sweeps the universe destroying everything in his path with the purpose of building a new religion unto himself. Yada, yada, yada.

Where the movies are different is in how the anti-heroes are played. Riddick is a little self-aggrandizing whereas Conan has a little humility. In Conan's world, Conan seeks the favor of the gods whereas Riddick is too much of a rebel to bow to any such notion. The world view that there are gods worthy of tribute makes Conan a more grounded and thus more sympathetic anti-hero. Not only does the movie lift from Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian, it lifts strait out of William Shakespeare's Macbeth. There is a minor story arc with Mission Impossible: 2's Thandie Newton and Lord of the Rings Rohan Warrior Eomer. Thandie is constantly attempting to manipulate the situation to position her husband as the new king, eh, Lord Marshall. But again the dialog falls short. Instead of `Out, Out Damn Spot' we get something like `wait, that wasn't supposed to happen.' In summary, if you like Conan meets Macbeth, then you will love this movie. I certainly did!

Open Range is the story of two cow pokes that are running a herd of cattle through a territory that doesn't allow for free ranging of cattle. There is an evil Irish cattle baron that is seeking to scatter their cattle and kill them in the process. Robert Duval gives an Oscar award winning performance as the old cattle hand that knows it all because he's done it all and Costner plays the brooding second in command cattle hand with a sorted history. They also throw a bit of romance in the movie between Costner and Annette Bening. It has the best climatic shoot out I have seen since Unforgiven.

Kevin Costner's character, Charley, is a man who doesn't believe in second chances. His reluctance to forgive his co-worker for cheating at cards shows us that he is not willing to forgive himself for the things he has done in his past. Charley has changed his ways and he doesn't even know it.

The person he was in his past has driven him to become the best person possible; a person of integrity, loyalty and respect.

In that regard, I would say that this is a movie about second chances. I would further say that this is a movie about redemption. In a very subtle manor, Charley effects redemption for himself, his co-workers, his boss, his future wife and an entire town.

I would even go so far as to say that all of the bad things that happened to Charley in his past served the purpose of this redemption. For it is the catalyst that brings this entire story together.

I walked away from this movie uplifted and restored with hope. Hope that my sorted past will lead me to be a better person; a person of integrity, loyalty and respect.

http://scottishtexan.blogspot.com

Mickey Rourke tells a story about his mother killing a litter of dogs in a bathtub. He asks her why she's killing them and she says, `I have to kill what I can't take care of.' And then she says, `I wish I could do that to you.'

At that moment, I realized that people are broken and they are looking for a fix. The people in this movie are the fringe of society and deserve our respect because life is precious and these people deserve to be loved.

This movie reminded me of Trainspotting. Trainspotting taught me that these people on the fringe are salvageable.

It also reminded me of Requiem for a Dream which taught me that these people meet their demise if they don't pull out of the downward spiral of wickedness in time.

screamingfoot From New York wrote,

"I did have a problem with the fact that Donnie had a marker in his hand with which to write the number business on his forearm. Does he sleep with a black marker? And the 2 "bad boys" who just happened to show up at Grandma Death's place."

Donnie is shown picking up the marker when he was sleep walking. He grabbed the marker from the refrigerator marker board that was used throughout the movie.

Now this is just a theory about why the two guys were at Grandma Death's house but I believe it was to rob her. They mention a couple of times in the movie that she was rich and kept jewelry around the house. Being that she was an invalid and it was Halloween made it a perfect opportunity to rob the place. Bottom line it was a plot device to have a reason for the Old lady to be in the street to make the car swerve and hit Jena Malone.