Change Your Image
TheWillVega
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)
Just as good as the original Paranormal
Came back form Paranormal Activity 2. At first I didn't like it so much but by the end they put enough jump scares and terrifying build up moments to finally prove i'm just a coward. The original scared me and I was thinking to myself for the sequel "i'm gonna get scared but i'll control myself". Nope. I was fidgety the entire time but I was by myself like last time, everyone else had someone to latch on to. And someone brought a baby there too, what were they thinking? Poor thing was crying during the loud jump scare moments.
I think the original was better overall. It had a better cast and better build up. The acting, ironically, was pretty bad sometimes in this one. Considering they had a supposedly more professional cast this time I expected better. Plus the two person dynamic in the original made it more involving. With this bigger cast, you jump from several points of view and don't see them get more and more terrified over time. Most of the time its just jump scares, a couple were actually so stupid they were funny (everyone in the theater laughed). Like you can tell where things were being picked up by strings and whatnot, something the original was more clever to hide. The only time anyone laughed in the original was when that Micka guy, or whatever his name is, cracked a joke.
The ending was good on paper, and expected, but really cheesy on the execution. I mean seriously, look it up sometime. They could've done it MUCH better considering the budget. Also the paranormal scenes were shown with the security monitor system most of the time and they cut to A lot to scenes where NOTHING happens at all. I thought "well, OK, maybe in the end SOMETHING will come out of it" but it never did. At least in this theatrical cut. Hopefully they did film scenes where creepy stuff was happening and restore them/have them in the delete scenes on the DVD release.
Despite my complaints, I had a fun time overall. I got just as scared as I did last time and I think it was worth the money despite what any self proclaimed big balled macho guys say. If you liked the original or this genre, i'd definitely recommend it.
Avatar (2009)
12 Years Doesn't Slow Cameron Down
Just came back from it.
If you guys are gonna see it, do not go to the dollar cinema. Unless that dollar cinema has 3D IMAX equipped and ready to go, you'll only get nearly half the experience. The movie itself is good, very good even if you put aside the fact Dances with Wolves did it before (maybe better, I dunno, I haven't seen that movie myself). Its a classic nature vs. technology story. The opening is completely amazing and the ending is jawdropping. And the great thing about it is the special effects are not the star of the show. Nay, they...and get this....actually enhance the story and characters. Get that, eh? That's exactly what I and many other people complain about when it comes to these effects driven movies. And Cameron apparently answered that calling.
There are a couple of moments that are truly amazing, but other than that it's nothing groundbreaking (apart from the technology I guess). Its just a really entertaining movie. The only things that keep me from giving it even a 9 (and it was pretty close) were a few slow moments, some cheesy dialogue, and very derivative almost uninspired looking creature designs. That aside the characters get better as the movie goes along, Cameron is pretty much still the king of the action genre cause a lot of the battle scenes were fantastic, the story gets more involving even if it is predictable (and admittedly, feeling a tad rushed), and in the end it felt satisfying. Yea I paid $13.00 but it was $13.00 well spent. Movies to me are about the experience, not really how unpredictable the story can be or witty the dialogue is, and it succeeded I think.
The 3D, even in IMAX, I have to say is breathtaking. I actually felt like I was in the world. Most other 3D movies I went to felt like a really cheap pop up book. Not here. They made specific objects pop-out and set them up really carefully to actually give a 3D illusion. It helps immerse you into the entire thing, which is why I want to watch it again without all the fancy stuff. But even if that tech wasn't there, I think it would've been a great movie anyway. And I had a pretty bad seat too. I'm thinking of going back in there, sit in the best seat an hour ahead of time (it was filling up 45 minutes prior when I got there), and see it again to get the best possible experience out of it.
8.8/10
PS: As a side note, i'm gonna give my personal top 4 SCI-FI films for 2009:
1. D9 (9.2/10) 2. Star Trek (9/10) 3. Avatar (8.8/10) 4. Moon (7.5/10)
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
God no more....
I skipped through it the first time cause it was boring me but after reading into the Alien stuff recently, I decided to give it another chance. Yeah, doesn't surprise me why I skipped on it the first time. The characters are terrible. I don't know why they elaborated on like 4 different sets of characters, they're all stock, one dimensional, and boring. Not one stands out like Segorney Weaver or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Plus I dunno why they keep trying to do the whole horror suspense thing with these franchises. I think it only worked with the first Predator but even then it was better when the action kicked in. Aliens and Resurrection also worked better as action films and character studies with a FEW characters rather than a whole town. Like I care about a bunch of hicks and abercrombie and finch wearing kids getting gutted and skinned alive. They even managed to make the Predator and Xenomorphs boring. As cheesy as the first movie was, at least I give them credit for keeping a little bit of my interest intact. I don't know why they gave the directing helm to a couple of guys who only did commercials (they ain't no David Fincher). Or worse yet, the screen writing job to a hack.
The main problem is that they thought they were doing the franchise justice by throwing in some gore and naughty words to seemingly justify giving it an R rating without actually putting some quality work into it. Yea the last film was PG-13 but making guts spill a little and say "**** you" a couple of times didn't make this movie any better. The story is so poorly constructed, there's no suspense, there's no excitement, you just want a nuke to fall down and kill everything just so you can see the credits and move on with your life (oh wait, that's what happens). And its barely an hour and 20 minutes, not enough time to tell a compelling story (though thankfully at the same time i'm glad its short).
Orca (1977)
Sea World Show with Violence
I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.
While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".
Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.
Watchmen (2009)
People will look up and shout "MAKE IT EXACTLY LIKE THE NOVEL"
... and i'll whisper "would you like fries with that too?"
By now we've heard it all. Based on the most celebrated graphic novel. From the visionary director of 300. Is this movie gonna be good or a pile of...well, you know. Well, the movie officially hit theaters yesterday. It's, not surprisingly, in the IMDb Top 250 and Moore faithfuls have either been saying 'its a faithful adaptation' or 'boycott this filth, it's not worth seeing.' Not to mention mega nerds arguing if its comparable to last year's The Dark Knight or Sin City.
I will say if you want to watch a movie, there is no better time than now. I mean its either this or the Jonas Brothers 3D IMAX. It's thought provoking, visually booming, well-acted, and....extremely condensed. That's hardly a surprise though. Director Zack Snyder, of Dawn of the Dead remake and 300 fame, was hellbent trying to keep this page-by-page faithful as much as he could. And for those who wish for such a thing, he did a good job for the most part. Not every scene was kept sacred though, most notably there are some action scenes thrown in there to keep the audience from getting totally bored.
Visually its stunning, so I won't go too much into that. Just know you won't be disappointed on how it looks from beginning to end. One of the things I found surprising was the action. I've never seen kung-fu moves as fast and furious in a superhero film before. While few and very far in between, they were the major highlights. The climax in particular has some of the more impressive shots I ever laid eyes on. Mind you, this is all to keep the audience's attention. There's no such depiction in the graphic novel of Rorschach karate kicking Oxy-moron (or whatever his name is) but is so damn sweet seeing it in this movie. Christopher Nolan, if you want to do another Batman: TAKE NOTES. This is what the action should've been like. Not only was it clean and fast, it was coherent. Cubby Broccoli's children should also takes notes to avoid another Quantum of Solance catastrophe.
It's also no surprise that Jackie Earl Haley as Rorschach is a match made in heaven. It's one of the most impressive "he-is-the-character" choices since Heath Ledger as the Joker. In fact I have to say he's a solid number 2. There is never a dull moment whenever he is Rorschach or the fragile Walter Kovacs. What did surprise me was Dr. Manhattan, who sports the biggest distraction in movie history. I mean wow, that's a lot of blue trouser snake. Enough to give it its own co-star mention. But *ahem*, back to the point...what I thought was one of the dullest characters in the novel was actually one of the more interesting ones in the movie. His back story was executed very well and I think it was the turning point of the movie. Before, it was getting pretty dull and slow (minus the Rorschach scenes) but once his story hit it really started to pick up. And it was a fun ride from there. Niteowl II was also a surprise, the character was delightfully entertaining to watch on screen. The audience and I laughed at his offbeat jokes and nerdiness, he was just an extremely likable character. Silk Spectre II was...hmm, alright I guess. People say she was so bad she almost killed the movie. I think that's an exaggeration. She did her part but it wasn't as compelling as her castmates. I think the worst character was Nixon. Man, every time he appeared we are taken out of the movie and me and my buds laughed our asses off. I think his nose was bigger than Manhattan's blue rocket.
Speaking of out of place, I have to mention the soundtrack. The orchestrated soundtrack was just fine but omg...in choice events, for reasons beyond me, they decided to play random classic rock tunes out of nowhere. The beginning had a Bob Dylan song (*shudder*) and when they reach the fortress in the climax they tuned in Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" (which funnily enough is a Bob Dylan song as well). That was pretty cheesy and it took us out of the movie every time. There are two more examples i'm missing, one was an '80s pop song. If they didn't do that, the movie wouldn't have suffered. They should've put that Muse song from the trailers in there somewhere.
And to mention the story one more time, I was happy to see the climax remained the same (even if a bit simplified...obviously) including that one unhappy moment. If you're a fan, you know what it is. Everyone was bummed but it was necessary. Halfway through, the movie was a joy to watch. It's like they found the balance and kept with it. Kind of a shame it wasn't like that for the whole movie, but hey. That's the way it goes. I was thinking of giving it a low 7 but bumped it up to a higher 7, near 8, cause of that. Overall if you don't expect anything more than what it is, a movie that tries to emulate the source as much as possible, you'll think its good. It's short comings don't make it great but its accomplishments don't make it suck either.
7.6/10
The Notebook (2004)
Notebook Delivers
Where a lot of romance movies fail, this one delivers. I think the reason why this is so is because of two simple things: 1. The character chemistry interaction usually seems superfluous and fake.
2. The reason why THAT is so is because we don't experience growth between those characters through interaction.
Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams are perfect candidates for this movie. McAdams is not only beautiful, she doesn't act like an airhead like you find in most romantic movies (think Disney channel sappy romance). As childish as she acts in the beginning, we realize she's young and wants to experience all the things teenagers do: fun, excitement, and love. As a guy, I didn't roll my eyes when I saw her whine or crushed. I felt for her. I sympathized with her. I don't see her portrayal of Ally as some throwaway stock character, I see the Ally character as a human being. A fictional character literally brought to life. Once you get that sense of authenticity, it's not game over. It's one base covered.
Ryan Gosling's character, Noah, is the second base covered. He's a charming, wild, crazy, yet likable person. For anyone who's been in love or at least knows what it feels like, we can understand why he does the things he does with McAdam's character in the beginning. It's a little stalker-ish, admittedly, but for a movie it works. Like any romance novel, he's a rugged good looking character whose really in love. But like McAdams, Gosling's physical and verbal expressions feel authentic. He's not the typical guy who hates the girl at first then falls in love, nor is he just there for a few minutes and then suddenly there for the traditional happy ending. On that note, he's not cheesy. I think that's important to note. It's real easy to be cheesy in these type of movies, but it doesn't happen here. The dialogue is another factor to this. It hits the appropriate notes and doesn't add any to make it seem artificially mushy to get cheap "aws" and earn rolled eyes. It talks about the most important thing in life and all the conflicts that try to separate it, but fail. These conflicts are from Ally's mother who doesn't want her to see Noah, Ally's later fiancée, and even Ally herself. Luckily, all these are explained in the movie. They are not throw away plot devices and that was a major plus for me.
My personal favorite scenes were the ones dealing with the letters, especially when Ally gets then back from her mother, and the older Ally finally remembering who Noah is. If I had to gripe, I would liked to have seen Ally's desire to paint emphasized a bit more (plus "sneak" into the story better) and see the young couple have a final sendoff for the viewers before we see the remainder of their lives in photos.
We are taken to small destinations like the fair, the old house that gets rebuilt, and a very brief walk through World War II. But the destinations are really only background and filler, only enhancing the mood when the story feels appropriate. The scene where the 20 something year old Noah and Ally rekindle old ties in the lake then fall in love all over again when it starts to rain is a perfect example of that.
All in all, what carries the story on its shoulders is the side story: the older Noah and Ally. Halfway through the movie, we finally realize its the older versions of the characters in the main story. Noah tells Ally, apparently every day, the story of how they met and came to live with each other even in an elderly home. Unfortunately, Ally suffers from dementia and doesn't remember him. She forgets but we remember. That's the most powerful element in the story.
By the end, we don't feel like we just wasted our time and money. At least I didn't anyway. In my opinion, this is what movies like Titanic should've been like. We see two different stories about how true love can come to anyone, no matter the circumstances. A lot of it centers on Ally and for good reason, old Noah is telling it to her to get her to remember. Both stories go happily hand in hand with each other. The authentic portrayals, appropriate direction, and wonderful writing made a perfect romance film that both guys and girls can enjoy (that is if the guys can tolerate a love story).
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Family Guy The Movie - Special Yellow Edition
I've been waiting for a Simpsons movie since I was a kid. I gave up hope and went on with my life as I got older, but the fans of old and new were still waiting for that holy grail to suddenly appear.
It finally came many years later. And, not surprisingly, i've never been so disappointed. I read one review state that this wasn't an "extended episode" compared to South Park: BLAU and Beavis and Butthead Do America. That person could never been more wrong. While the Simpsons had its moments, taking advantage of what it could accomplish on the big screen that the little screen couldn't handle (fancy CG effects, akin to Futurama) it failed to do the little things. And those little things pile up and MAKE the movie.
Beavis and Butthead had an epic journey that spanned some of America. What we got in the Simpsons was a trip to Alaska (probably written in to showcase how pretty the movie can look) and...yeah, that's pretty much it. I thought it was kind of pointless. The journey in Beavis and Butthead actually had a point and was consistent with it. Simpsons had everything tacked in just cause it wanted to be funny. Like they had a bunch of good ideas for jokes and they just picked the best ones, then based a story around it.
South Park was more epic. It made use of its R rating by going BEYOND the show and even went as far to include musical numbers. Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker went on to state they wanted to make a movie and do some of the things they couldn't do for television. And they did just that. Simpsons, of course, didn't hit that mark. It was really a long modern Simpsons episode with Futurama-esquire CG riddled here and there to give the impression it was bigger and better than a normal TV episode. Everything else was styled in the same way as the TV show, there wasn't much to clearly make it look cinematic. Even the straight to DVD Furturama movie made up for lack of cinematic presentation with a mindblowingly good (and well thought out) story.
One of the biggest faults of this movie was the fact that it relied too heavily on Family Guy humor. Jokes that are too random and is not consistent to the story (or what little story it has). This has been going on for a few years since the Family Guy fad was in its peak. Even before, it was already steadily going downhill. Unfortunately, that carried over to this movie. Some of the jokes, especially involving a certain Pig and Maggie, fall way flat. No one in my theater was laughing. Some kid next to me was even going "okay..." during some of the so-called highlights of the film. I had the exact same thoughts, so did my friend, and so did everyone else in the theater. And the staple of the series, the character driven story lines, were completely absent.
They tried to do something like that with Bart and the Flanders family but the chemistry didn't work. It was incredibly weak how they tried to make Homer the screw up and why Bart decided to defect to the Flanders' family. Plus hasn't that already been done before? Can't really blame them for that, a show running for nearly 20 years and you're bound to run out of ideas. Plus I didn't have any sympathy for Homer. He was just dumb, not lovable dumb just...dumb. He was the cause of everything, but it seemed like he could care less. The old lovable Homer would've done all these things by accident, not knowing the harm it could bring to everyone. I also expected Maggie to play a pivotal part and was really disappointed when she was just reduced to a quick gag. The only reason why I give it a 6 instead of a 4 or 5 is cause its the Simpsons. And it's not even the Simpsons I (and millions of other people) grew up with, but its that nostalgia that gripped me and paid for my ticket ultimately. Without that, this movie would've bombed hard. I'm sure at least half of the people that saw this wanted to see classic Simpsons in the big screen even though it can't be possible now (despite many of the old writers and one of the bigger series directors coming back).
By the end of it, there was no applause. Other highly anticipated movies like the Dark Knight and Spiderman were met with applause in the end, but not this movie. Everyone just upped and left. Disappointed. This is really sad since the Simpsons is actually more iconic to modern society than either Batman or Spiderman. What's worse is that the newer episodes i've seen are finally going back to the basics: homer is not as stupid, character driven story lines are back, and the humor is stripped from its Family Guy shackles and goes back to being coherent to the story.
There is a rumor (maybe an early confirmation?) that a sequel is in the works. If the newer episodes indicate anything, it might be good if they don't try so hard. At least this was the first non-CG movie i've seen in theaters in awhile, I can give it that at least.
Figure 17 Tsubasa & Hikaru (2001)
Underrated Heart Tugger
I don't really watch anime nowadays. I sort of grew out of it.
But this one is different. I remember seeing a full episode preview a long time ago and it captured my interest. The first episode, while diving into SCIFI elements in the end, had great drama. Rarely does something captivate you with its characters and sympathetic moments without looking really dumb and cheesy. Let alone halfway into the first episode! Yet this one pulls it off.
Tsubasa is a socially awkward girl who lost her mother at a very young age. Emotionally fragile, she blames herself and as a result loses all self confidence. Her dad, a lifelong aspiring baker, decides to move to another town to pursuit that dream. Tsubasa then leaves her familiar hometown to a very unfamiliar place, things will get worse she assumes.
She's only half right. At least at first. While things go bad at school, she wanders around the local forest at night and...pretty much lands in the middle of an alien battle near the end of the episode. What happens is that a copy, called a Figure which is made out of metallic goo, encases her body and she becomes one of those "Pretty Solider" characters in alien form. Typically, a Figure goes back to its original form once its done fighting...however this one does not. Enter Hikaru. Hikaru is her polar opposite in personality. She is out going, friendly, very hungry, and has a confidence meter off the roof! That is the only thing that's different about them (well, besides the pony tail on Hikaru). On the outside, they look like identical twins.
This is where the episode ends and the series really begins. It's really 70% human "day to day life" drama and 30% SCIFI action/alien plot. To be honest, I would give this a perfect 10 if the alien part of the anime was as well developed as the human drama. The SCIFI stuff is cliché anime fare, complete with laser blasts and dramatic punching and kicking. Most other anime i've seen with drama are pretty good, but never did any of those make me almost want to weep for any of the characters. The only other one I can think of is the brilliant "Grave of the Fireflies", which has about the same effect but with more powerful imagery (plus its based on historic fact). You'll yearn for less SCIFI when it comes on in favor for more character growth, which is the series' strongest point.
I won't spoil it any further but there are gonna be moments where you'll feel real bad for the main character. Her character is simple yet very likable. You want her to snap out of her introvert nature and be more outgoing, with Hikaru cheering her on and acting as her personal cheerleader (and real time body guard). If you let it get to you, it will. And you'll too will be glad you got yourself into something as fantastic as this.
The Happening (2008)
An M. Night Shyamalan Retrospective
To start off, i've seen every movie of his in theaters starting with the Sixth Sense. And I liked it. It was suspenseful, it was clever, it was unique. It brought the tough as nails Bruce Willis in a new light and introduced us to Haley Joel Osment, who had a short lived career with A.I., Pay It Forward, and Kingdom Hearts shortly after this film. Plus, to me anyway, the twist was unexpected and made an impact with my developing mind. Unbreakable was the next effort. With Bruce returning and Sam Jackson in the cast, coupled with an intriguing story, it was another hit. I was put off at first and didn't like the style of directing for this movie, but over time it grew on me. Eventually I would grow to appreciate Shyamalan's style no matter what movie it was.
Signs was the first mixed reaction. Though I liked it, it wasn't as enjoyable as the first two efforts. The twist was ridiculous and most of the movie gave me a headache thanks to the unusual camera work. Despite the shortcomings, I enjoyed myself. The Village sunk in a deeper hole. I wasn't impressed with the ending and I felt cheated when the main attraction...well, it just didn't do it for me. The writing and character development was starting to fail, I was tilting my head in confusion.
Then Lady in the Water came in. While it did have its moments, I finally felt cheated. That movie went nowhere, many promising moments were butchered or not realized. I wanted to like it, since it was a Shyamalan movie, but it didn't happen. I ended up making fun of it with my friends, with many of the audience laughing along since they were obviously bored with the film. If Shyamalan was there in the same theater with us, he'd probably hang in head in embarrassment and shame, maybe even tear up. I would've if I was in his position.
Now it's time to talk about the Happening. Like Village and Lady in the Water, it doesn't help revitalize Shyamalan's reputation. The characters, some of the dialogue, the pacing, the main threat, the ending...very poor. The very concept and the trailers promoting the movie made this look like the next big disaster movie, I was expecting it to be filled with some intense gore and strong suspense elements. As you might expect, especially if you read other reviews, it didn't deliver. In fact it probably was damaged by customs, lost in the mail, or "returned to sender".
However, most of the reviews i've read were just that: only negative. If you also noticed I gave this film 6/10 stars. How so, if I think some of the elements I mentioned were so poor? Simply put, Shyamalan still knows how to play with the element of suspense. No other modern director I can think of can make me feel nervous during seemingly normal scenes and jump during others. While I was told the film starts to fail around 30 minutes into it, I found it got better. The main silly plot device was actually starting to scare and startle me. That aspect of his directing is as masterful as ever, he didn't lose that ability at all. The fault has mostly to do with the writing. There are some funny moments and clever bits, but most of the script was pretty awful. Lines like "This is a small town. Nothing bad happens in small towns." really wreck the film. I think it's about time Shyamalan allowed another writer to assist him writing his scripts from now on, if his own ego doesn't get in the way that is. And the people in charge in producing really NEED to act on their role some more. It's proved the talent is still there, but since the Sixth Sense he's been full of himself and started thinking he can handle every movie single handedly. Sadly, this delusion has to diminish.
Some scenes, especially in the beginning, were poorly directed as well. It's possible Mark Wahlberg and John Leguizamo were miscast, with Zooey Daschanel giving a pretty unenthusiastic performance to boot. Not much effort was put into the acting, and I blame the director for that. The actors (and actress) I just named are exceptional in other movies, but they just didn't show it in this movie. While it did get better as the movie went on, I couldn't help but think that more parts could've been added or altered to help make the movie surpass greatness. The gore factor really disappointed me, as it was advertised as the first "R" rated film from the director. I'll go ahead and admit I like Hostel, Saw, and even the knockoff Turistas for what they were. I'm impressed how the gore in the first two movies mentioned raised the bar for horror/suspense films. That said, Happening should've been right up with them. The scenes in question should've been more violent and shocking, in my opinion. I couldn't help but notice how fake and "ho-hum" certain scenes were, the most suspenseful scenes didn't involve gore at all. Maybe that's a good thing for some, but I would've preferred to have seen the horrors taken place among all individuals (men, women, and children alike). The impact would've been great if it did. Maybe i'm just a gore junkie, but I know you'll be disappointed by the scenes i'm talking about unless you're one of the extremely queasy types.
In short, if the film's script and story was severely tweaked some more, the directing (this includes acting) was more refined in certain parts, and the "selling point" was more shocking and frequent, it would've been the best effort by Shyamalan since Unbreakable. Unfortunately, it's nothing more than a half-done outline of a potentially promising film. A promising film we will never get to see.
John from Cincinnati (2007)
Very Promising and Interesting Premise - Nothing Much Else
Now that the show is canceled by the time of this writing, I have to say i'm neither sad nor glad at the decision. The show was pretty deep and bizarre, especially when the title character John was there.
John (Austin Nichols) himself was probably the best character in the entire show. He was child-like in nature, but there was so much more about him that was intriguing to keep watching the show. His ability to learn by repeating sentences (and relentlessly repeats them), pull things out of his pockets, and heal were probably a few of the possibly many things the writers originally planned to do with him. We will never know now.
Greyson Fletcher as Shaun Yost is probably one of the worst casting decisions ever made. This kid can skate and (possibly) surf very well, but he sure can't act. Pro surfers like Keala Kennelly actually can act pretty well despite their actual profession, so this is simply inexcusable. As I read somewhere, this is reminiscent to George Lucas casting Jake Llyod as Anakin Skywalker in Episode I: it should have gone to a more capable actor and they should've been the stunt doubles instead.
The entire Yost family was interesting to say the least, they lacked a certain something that could've made their characters more engaging. I can't say the same for everyone else, especially Ed O'Neill and Luis Guzman who were very uninteresting and hollow in their performances (sad cause they are good actors). If the show had more compelling characters (and a few actors) along with the dialogue actually going somewhere instead of being overly dull and cryptic, this would've been a great show without a doubt. It has its moments (episode 2 and 3 were great especially of what the show should've done, as well as the John and Cass relationship), but ultimately it left me wanting more of "human" moments and less of the nonsensical ones.
Casino Royale (2006)
Bond is Back.
Gone are the glossy gizmondos and poorly written Madonna songs, Bond is back! For real this time! Daniel Craig as Bond was iffy for everyone. Everyone was already accustomed to the now aging Pierce Brosnan, who fit the role perfectly since actor Sean Conery introduced the much loved British superstar in stunning fashion. On opening day, the audience and I sat back and realized this role was near perfectly fit for Craig to helm on for the new generation. Half of me thinks Brosnan would've been great if this would've been his final hurrah, instead of it ending with the abysmal Die Another Day. But the other half, with a stronger opposition, agrees that this role was made for Craig.
Martin Campbell, the man who introduced us Brosnan and the (then) incredibly new and awesome Bond series for the '90s returned to give us another incredible start for the Millennium Generation to enjoy. Gone are the glossy gadgets, poorly written dialouge, and Campy B-plot that plagued Die Another Day. Campbell and crew instead gave us well-crafted (for the most part) explosions and action, exciting casino games, incredibly well-written dialouge, and (finally) real character development.
It was everything Bond should be, and now is. Coupled with incredible new Bond girl Eva Green (who was proved to have superb chemistry with Craig) and a new proper theme song written by Soundgarden/Audioslave Chris Cornell and film composer David Arnold, and you got too much to ask for. Unfortunately, the film does fall flat on its face a few times. The new villain is not as strong as he should've been, and the featured sub-villains were even weaker. You have a great Bond, an awesome Bond girl, a great director, and awesome music...but virtually no real noteworthy villains. Goldfinger, Alec "006" Trevelyan, and Blofeld are a few of the more superior villains in the series to date. If we would've had one on equal caliber, this Bond film would've been even closer to perfection.
Also, typical for a Bond film, the plot is pretty predictable. While it outshines the likes of MI:III, it really doesn't pair up to the 1995 M:I's superior plot line. It makes up for everything else already mentioned, but a clever storyline and a few more good twists would've put Bond on the map (especially since other espionage/spy films this day and age are already on the ball with that stuff).
But minor complaints aside, this really is one Bond worth watching. I will be buying the DVD when it comes out, it'll be worth every penny. Do yourself a favor and see the new Bond, it really attempts to kick out the campiness that plagued the series for some years and really succeeds on many levels. I'll be looking forward to the new Bond movies from here on out and pray that the generation doesn't end poorly, as the Brosnan era proved with the spectacular Goldeneye down to the ill-received popfest that was Die Another Day.
Saw III (2006)
Saw Trilogy - Doesn't End With Rainbows and Carebears
This is probably the nastiest of the now-famous Saw Trilogy, perfect for gore fans and just in time for Holloween '06.
While the first Saw was a nice experimentation on the torture-horror genre to see what would happen and the second was a dip trip on a few more extreme little puzzles and traps (with a iffy story written in there), the third took all the experience learned from the previous two and ended the series with a bang.
Jigsaw and Amanda are back, of course, and they decide to kidnap a doctor who diagnosed the now ill, brain cancer victim Jigsaw in a race against time to try and save his life (single handedly, with the coolest open brain surgery performed on the silver screen...with power tools). On the other end of the story, a man named Jeff is the new victim in Jigsaw's puzzles who tries to solve them to get to the man who killed his son in a freak accident.
The signature plot twists are still as good as they were in Saw I & II, you'll still be surprised and pretty "WOW"'d by the finale. Plus there are references to the previous films to intertwine the story, developing and explaining certain events and characters while its at it.
So if you liked the previous two Saws, then do yourself a favor and check this one out with friends. And i'm not kidding when I said this is gorier and nastier than the others. Hell, it can be downright inhuman sometimes. The graphic nature takes out anything that's been in the theaters before, including Hostel and Se7en.
Stargate (1994)
Enter the Stargate
Usually I give 6's to movies that fall short on the entertainment scale, but this is not the case with Stargate. Rather, I give it a 6 cause it feels too short (apparently, I just heard of a 3 hour extended cut is in existence and would really help remedy this).
In truth, Stargate is a lot of fun and worth watching. In fact, I watched it twice (again for the commentary).
Love 'em or hate 'em, Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin have helped make some of the most entertaining disaster & monster flicks for this generation to enjoy. Pure fun is what I look for in a film every so often when I wanna stray away from the art-house and just watch something fun, and this is something Dean and Emmerich are generally very good at doing.
Emmerich's original baby, which soon also became Devlin's, was the original smash hit that took audiences by storm. A mysterious gate found in the 1920s opens up a pathway to another world, but only one man can open it. And when he does, along with a crew of military personal (with their leader shrouded in a shady past), that's where the excitement begins.
The special effects, which were state of the art then, are still relatively nice to look at now. Not all have passed the test of time, like the Anubus head changing guards, but for the most part are watchable. The visual quality of the film is reminiscent of films like Jurassic Park, glowy and lighthearted...yet at its core, dark and sinister.
Besides the length, another thing that disappointed me was lack of character development for a few of the characters (which technically can be attributed to the length). I felt like the characters were very engaging and had some great moments here and there, but in the end I didn't think they had sufficient time to full develop into really likable characters. Had they gotten the time to do it (or released this supposed cut), I would've shot the rating up to an 8 automatically.
The action itself is nothing REALLY special, it's typical Hollywood. But not in a Steven Seagal cheesy kinda way, thank god. Like the special effects, its watchable.
Nothing much else to say except I can't wait for the rumored movie sequels to become fact!
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
An Ageless Western
Just watching it right now for the first time, i'd honestly would have a hard time believing this was made back in 1966. This is probably for the simple fact of the matter that Sergio Leone and his crew were thinking way ahead of their time, a method of thinking and shooting that critics couldn't even comprehend at the time.
Fortunately, the audience did. And the audience has grown stronger as the decades rolled by.
While I can't say the climax was as great as I thought it was going to be, everything else is rock solid. My favorite parts were in the beginning, the shots and scenery chosen by Leone were nothing short of perfect. The trademark extreme closeups look as stylish today as they did four decades ago, a trademark that Quentin Tarantino later used in his breakthrough hit "Pulp Fiction".
The story itself is simple, but simplicity is always a good thing. Three bandits (Angel Eyes - Bad, Blondie - Good, and Tuco - Ugly) cross paths and double cross each other all in search of a common goal: hidden treasure. And that's pretty much it, everything else in between is very good filler and bits of character development (most notably for Tuco). Though I wished the Civil War bits were more interesting and the climax was better, it all doesn't ruin the rest of the film (which is nothing but greatness).
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Over 50 years later...
And surprisingly enough, this film does NOT feel outdated in anyway (except for the audio).
I can see where all the hype is now, this is THE movie that started a trend that continues even today. The multi character development, the small romantic storyline, the extremely exaggerated goof-ball character, the stone face serious warrior...almost everything. It was all started here, a simple Japanese film, that went on to influence people like George Lucas and Sergio Leone (maybe more so with Yojimbo with Leone) into making the best films ever witnessed in the 20th century. Even Anime also, the Japanese animation art form, seems to have been influenced in some way by this film.
Yet its simple at its core, what gives the movie its critical acclaim is not because introduced these now common place plot and film elements...its because they did them well, very well in fact. So well its still watchable for many people today, not just a select few who grew up in that era or are interested in old school cinema.
Two things that impressed me the most were the sophisticated camera shots (very ahead of its time for a movie made in 1954) and the incredibly engaging characters. Especially the characters, this movie wouldn't have even been half as good if it wasn't for five of the seven samurai (I wished the other two were developed as well as the other five, but I guess you can't have it all sometimes).
Cidade de Deus (2002)
The Hype and Acclaim is Real: Cidade de Deus delivers.
Long before have I seen movies being overly praised but were not worth the hype and time and vice versa for the rest. It's been like that for a few years already.
But now finally, I can see a film that's pretty close to perfection and one that everyone has been right about for four years already. This is the story of Rocket and Ze, one who becomes the most notorious criminal and dealer in the "City of God" and the other who tries to make a hard, honest living while tasting the temptation that is drugs, sex, and vengeance.
The movie portrays the "City" as a land of corruption but at the same time undeniably beautiful to look at. Through the cracked walls and deteriorated letterheads from decade old paint, there lies an incredible and breath-taking city. Through a style similar to Tony Scott's Man on Fire, Fernando Meirelles and Kátia Lund portray the city in a "grunge-shine" point of view, with a realistic shaky camera (complete with zoom ins and outs) to enhance the city and its inhabitants. Its use of colors and interesting angles throughout the entire film (with a few creative shots tucked in) gave it an edgy look that makes it near impossible to turn away from. The visual imagery I thought was incredible...but not the only reason to like the film.
The story is surprisingly well-thought out. Before you know it, twists are implemented here and there, which I think is fantastic. The best films, to me, let you soak into the atmosphere and characters and while you gaze and become fascinated with them, *BOOM*! The writers secretly add in a few flashbacks and interesting twists and slam them into the picture, which prevent you from guessing beforehand on what's about to happen. And how can you? The movie captures you and absorbs you, making you feel that you're apart of the "City". While I wish certain characters, like Angelica, were emphasized as much as all the other characters, overall what you get is definitely worth the price of admission.
The characters themselves are pretty memorable. We have Rocket the photographer, Benny the stylish dealer, Ze the notorious bad guy, Knockout the good guy gone vengeful, and the little Runts. We have a whole lot of other characters as well, but these are the main characters we focus on. Through clever and interesting flashbacks, we get to know each of those characters more and find out more about events that have happened in the beginning of the film. As we near the end, the piece of the puzzles come together, the evil are finally punished, and the story is finally told. Poetic justice involving Ze, Knockout, and the Runts is especially evident near the end. Its pretty sad, yet fulfilling.
Top #20 material? Maybe. It has the goods and it delivers. But while it entertains, it didn't impact me immensely or have any catchphrases and whatnot. But for what I saw, it was a good film. One that should be viewed by all. I would recommend this to anyone who's even remotely interested in film, gang life, or stories about coming together in the face of destiny in general.
Haute tension (2003)
High Tension - Missed Potential
What do you get when director Alexandre Aja steals...i'm sorry, "borrows" a bulk of the book "Intensity" (by Dean Koontz) and sees Fight Club right after wards? You pretty much get this. With a lot of gore too.
Its kinda disappointing, cause it really started out really well. The imagery, including the fantastic lighting and vibrant "grungey" colors, created a very realistic atmosphere. Actresses Cécile de France and Maïwenn Le Besco as Marie and Alex put up an incredible performance themselves, I loved the way the film was going for the first hour.
As a thriller and gore fest, it did its job very well. There were many intense scenes (the convenience store axe kill, the kid hunting, the car chase, and the final confrontation with Marie against herself) and many shockers (the throat cutting, the stairwell head crush, the oral sex with the severed head), plus the story itself was very good as well...up until the ending that is.
What ultimately killed the movie for me were two things: the length and the oh-so critically praised plot twist.
For one, with the length, I really wanted this movie to be longer than what it was. I liked the characters a lot from the beginning and the trucker persona was interesting "himself", and I think more elaboration and interesting plot points would've been developed had the time frame was even longer. Just what I think there.
Of course, the thing that REALLY killed the movie was the poorly implemented "Fight Club"-like twist: Marie and the Truckdriver killer were one in the same. Honestly, its an interesting plot twist no matter how overused it is nowadays, but the little twist ended up leaving a lot of holes, especially any instance where the Trucker and Marie were doing two different real-life things at the same time. On top of that, I didn't feel right with me because it felt "tacked on". I enjoyed a few movies with holes in them cause they at least were paced very well, well enough for you not to notice the holes and just enjoy the movie. Sadly, this is not one of those movies...but it could've been.
Maybe there's a deeper philosophical reason for it...or maybe its just really slopping last minute writing. Who knows? All I know is that I didn't feel entertained by it, it happened a little too soon. More background (and redone, more logical scenes) would've made this movie A lot better than as it is now.
Quite frankly, i'm a little ticked off. This had so much potential to be a really cool movie but the length and twist pretty much ruined the experience for me. Otherwise, it would've been a really good film I would've recommend to anyone who likes these kinda movies. So as I said in the IMDb boards for this movie in agreement to what another poster said, Alexandre Aja should be chained to the camera and have his writing desk taken away from him.
The man certainly knows how to tell a story through a camera but definitely not through paper.
Lady in the Water (2006)
Shyamalan's Formula doesn't seem to wear out
I liked the movie, but I can understand that anyone who hated all his other movies (including or disincluding the Sixth Sense) will not turn their heads for this one (especially my roommate).
But if you're one of those people who actually enjoy Shyamalan's subtle, mainstream "experimental" style, you won't be disappointed. I can guarantee you on that one.
The big difference between this movie and his other ones is the fact that his characters don't stare in to space and speak in monotone (well, minus one anyway). This time, the characters express a lot of emotion and personality, which ends up resulting in a lot of lighthearted moments mixed in with Shyamalan's signature "stare-into-space" thing. There are also a lot of "laugh out loud" moments, which is surprising since you don't expect that kinda thing in any of his movies. But I thought they worked well here, it made the experience more enjoyable.
The story is about the same as in all his other movies, which involve the supernatural and fantasy clashing in with our reality. I won't get into anymore detail than that, but you'll see that aside from this new change in character build up and personality, you'll still see the same "artsy" camera angles (a few in the beginning can hurt the eyes, like in Signs), subtle horror, and "surprise" scares.
The only thing I can say that disappointed me is that despite the fact I liked how all the characters got involved (and his ability to make you think "X" happens but instead it doesn't), I didn't think all the characters were fully explored. Sometimes I didn't even know what they were doing, the story doesn't exactly flesh out and explain itself very well. More details about the legend and the characters would've made a bigger difference.
Also, like I said, if you're one of those people who don't like Shyamalan's camera work and storytelling from his previous movies, then you won't like this one. So it's better if you just avoid it completely, don't waste your time and complain about it later. I warned you.
But for the curious and the Shyamalan fan, i'd say its worth it. Like any of his other movies that require you to be absorbed in the atmosphere and get into the moment, its more the same and its still a formula that hasn't completely worn out yet.
Clerks II (2006)
Lord of the Blunt: Return of the Clerks
I don't know what to say really, to me, both the original Clerks and the sequel are equally great.
But I have to give props to the sequel more for the very simple fact it took the original premise and took it a little farther this time. What was once a convenience store is now a Burger Joint, and what was once a duo is now a trio, and what was once Black and White is now...color! There was B&W for the very first and last scenes though, but that's pretty much all.
So yes, newcomer Trevor Fehrman as the lovable Elias adds great to the sequel. His love and affection for Lord of the Rings and Transformers can never get any better than that...well, I take that back. What's better than that is seeing the Star Wars loving Randal bash it to the ground, kick it, set it on fire, and spit on the ashes. Look out for everything else he spews out of his mouth, its all worth it.
Jason as Jay once again is nothing less than awesome as well. Despite his recent heroin abuse act a few years back, he came back clean and better than ever. He's probably funnier than he was in any of the other View Askew movies, with Bob kicking it back and providing some real laugh out loud one liners. I wish him the best, cause as the great guy he is in real life, he deserves it.
Dante, Becky, Emma, and everyone else (except for the Donkey Sacker) was just kinda in the background, unfortunately. While Kevin tried to do some of his "sentimental" moments in this movie to try not to make it a pure comedy, I just give him credit in trying. I thought the whole story was okay, it really had its moments (especially the Go Kart discussion and Randal's confession in the end, every girl in the theater were really tearing for the guy) but it was nothing more than that. The real show stealers for me were with the pessimistic Randal and the carefree Jay and Silent Bob, they really made the movie worth it and honestly they were the real reason why I wanted to see this anyway.
And be honest, that's the real reason why you wanna see it too. Kevin Smith "tell it like it is" wit + Jay + Randal = Clerks. Especially Clerks II. Overall, worth the time and money. Especially for the Kevin Smith devotee and View Askew-phile. And definitely worth the purchase as soon as it hits DVD shelves.
And yeah, Ben afflek and Jason Lee also make appearances too. Small but mildly effective.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Summer of '06 has turned out very good for cinephiles
I had a great time with X3, Da Vinci Code, A Scanner Darkly, and Click so far this summer but just when I thought there would be a drought in the middle of summer, along comes Pirates which makes a splash into cinemas and bring forth a tidal wave of...
Okay, enough with the puns. This movie was great, plain and simple. Even better than the original, in my opinion. And I didn't even like the original that much, I just saw it for Johnny Depp and Keira Knightly (yow!). But this time, there's a lot more to see than good ol' Johnny and Keira.
Yup, a lot more.
First off, the story pacing is a lot slower and steady. Something I loved very much. We explore the changes in character with Elizabeth, Will, and Jack even more (with two new recruits as the comic reliefs), with bits of comedy and incredible action here and there. While I thought the Skeleton Barbossa from the original was okay, the new one (the squid-like Davy Jones) actually felt pretty intimidating and incredibly 'wow' to look at. The same goes for the rest of the crew, the makeup effects are incredibly top notch.
The movie takes its time in telling the story, letting you soak into the characters and beautiful scenery. Gore and his team have a good eye, through realistic landscapes, makeup, and even with CGI (which is rare nowdays for people who heavily abuse CG).
The music seems a little better too, Hans Zimmer seems to carry the soundtrack on with more of an epic beat this time (and doesn't let it drag like it did in the original). The Pirates' theme sounds a lot more "adventerous" this time, the new beat really helps enhance the movie even further than I could've imagined.
The action was one of the things that surprised me the most. They somehow managed to top themselves every time a major action scene comes up. The over the top sword fights, the ship battles, the bar fight...every single one of them was great and better than the last.
Not a whole lot more to say that's not spoilerific other than...you have to see this movie! NOW!!
A Scanner Darkly (2006)
Surreality at its best - Keanu Reeves...well not at his best, but he wasn't bad
In fact, none of the actors in the movie were bad at all. The dialogue, pacing, art/movie direction...all of it was put to very good use and was well worth the effort.
The only thing that kinda killed it for me was that the story wasn't as mindblowingly awesome as I wanted it to be. No real shockers or anything here, which what I was really wanting to see. But hey, it was a funny and elaborate story despite it all (even with the heavy "anti-drug" theme to it all the way down to the epilogue).
You won't admit it, but you'll come in for the awe-inducing rotoscope visual style (or Keanu Reeves, whatever reason you have) but you'll come out having a thought provoking good time. Sometimes the movie can drag on a bit on psychiatric theme and whatnot, but it makes up for it with the "down to earth" druggie dialogue and great jokes from Robert Downey and Woody Harrelson.
Keanu himself wasn't that bad either and neither was Winona Ryder. Not groundbreaking performances, but they did their job and didn't detract from the quality of the film itself.
This turned out to be one of the best movies i've seen in the summer. Hopefully it'll be a sure fire hit when it comes on DVD (seeing its the film's more practical audience given the limited release it has).
Pitch Black (2000)
Pitch Black - An Enjoyable SCIFI/Action flick
Pitch Black is a very unusual movie. While action at its core, with Vin Diesel as Riddick (as Bruce Willis was to John McClane, Ah-nold Schwarzenegger was to the Terminator, Sylvester Stallone was to Rambo, and (more notably) as Sigourney Weaver was to Ellen Ripley), this movie somehow take a generic spin on SCIFI and make it incredibly captivating.
While I thought the beginning was kind of slow to start and a little "meh" considering the writers threw in Muslim stereotypes and other generic spaceship cadets, with Riddick being the only one who stood out as the more interesting one out of the bunch, that all changes 15 minutes into the film. As the movie stretches out and reveals what exactly is going on, the cast becomes more captivating. Cole Hauser (William J. Johns), Keith David (Abu al-Walid), and Rhiana Griffith (Jackie) are the ones I grew to like over the course of the movie.
The acting is not particularly strong thanks to the weak performances given by supporting cast members like Radha Mitchell (who's current claim to fame among fans is 'Rose Da Silva' in the 2006 Silent Hill movie) while Vin seems to come out okay and pop out the occasional 'one-liner' joke when he's not trying to be the "cold-as-steel" badass.
One of the things that I liked were the different hues used to portray the different parts of the world (which is inhibited by three different suns). I imagine some people wouldn't like that and will find it distracting, but I wouldn't agree. I think it gives the movie an interesting "edge" and makes it a little more captivating to look at.
By the end of the movie, I came to really like it. Despite the fact I didn't care for the sequel, Chronicles, Pitch Black actually made me walk away with satisfaction. While it's not the best SCIFI film i've ever seen, and it didn't have the best story or action either, for what it was and how it performed it...it was all worth the entire view. I recommend a rental, if anything.
Saw II (2005)
Wow, now this is how you make a thriller!
Jigsaw is back and it seems that he's improved his technique for this sequel.
Saw II is one of those rare Hollywood sequels that capitalize on the success on a small time film festival winner and somehow actually make it even better than the original. The story is primarily about a father and a son, Eric and Daniel Matthews, with the father being the cop who's thrown into Jigsaw's twisted version of Mousetrap.
For those who've seen the original, things get touched on a bit here in the sequel and it expands the story even more from it. Its pretty much beneficial to see the original (which is a good movie) as you can gain more insight on the soon-to-be trilogy, otherwise you'll be kind of left in the dark on some of the key events.
I won't say anything about the story or the nice little twists here, just see the movie for yourself or read other spoiler reviews. I'll just say its entertaining enough to keep your attention the entire way, but I was a little disappointed on how the story strayed away near the end from what's suppost to be its main purpose. But just a little, you'll see what I mean. As for the characters themselves, i'd say its overall solid. The acting was good and almost all of them served their purpose well.
The meat and potatoes, the actual traps, are more intense this time around. While you can tell why there were limitations in the original (it was a small time flick), the bigger budget implemented on Saw II meant they needed to be better this time. Thankfully, they actually went ahead and did that. The new traps actually look more agonizing this time, including the "shock" flashbacks too. Everything I wanted to see was all pretty much here, they delivered the goods.
All in all, I thought it was a great movie. Well worth my time and also the first recent movie in awhile to actually shock and keep me at the edge. I hope Saw III carries on the tradition, especially the way things are chugging.
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Back to the Future - the only '80s movie that's completely...timeless!
I love the original movie, so don't get me wrong, but I have a special thing for really cool looking futuristic things. Especially if they're made out to look really interesting like in this sequel.
The story is still very good, the characters are still lovable and have some great lines, and the ending is superb even if it leaves you wanting for a little more. Interchanging between this movie and the last (even the next) were great twists and turns, probably still the best achievement i've seen properly executed in a film to date.
While the original is probably an eleven on my scale now, this one used to be my all time favorite one in the BTTF trilogy. And there's still a whole lot to love about this movie, even the kids today will probably appreciate how much fun this movie is even with all the flash and more advanced CG effects they have in their movies today.
Superman Returns (2006)
A fun little ride, if anything at all
I didn't expect a whole lot from this movie, initially. I didn't like the trailers or spots except for one, which finally convinced me to see it anyway.
In the end, it was...kinda worth it. I guess. The story and the acting are decent enough to take the entire family or "lady"/"guy" friends with you, but don't be expecting a whole lot of action and lots of impressive shots of Superman on the go. But at the same time, don't be expecting a lot for character development and a story that will separate Superman from the rest.
In reality, its one of those slam bang summer movies that'll make you forget about it once you get out of the theater. Considering director Singer did the relatively entertaining X-MEN and X2 movies, that's a pretty big letdown. There are parts where they try to make Clark Kent into Peter Parker with the whole "pathetic nerd" stereotype, but it doesn't flow well here. Mostly in part because Peter is...well, human and believable. Clark obviously isn't, he's not even human for one. So there were some things that couldn't add or make up, instead of sticking with an "outsider" theme (which is much more appropriate), they did that instead.
Lois Lane herself was pretty interesting...to look at, anyway. Kidding aside, she (being pretty critical to the plot) did her job and had some interesting moments to help balance out the whole Superman-Lois thing. The only other noteworthy character was Kevin Spacey as the infamous Lex Luthor, possibly the best actor in the entire movie. His lines and the jokes were worth most of my admission price, I can see why the fans really wanted him to be Lex.
Jimmy Olsen, which is the only OTHER character I can think of that's worth mentioning, tries to be the comic relief here. Purely hit or miss, i'll let you decide on him.
In short, if you don't like decent-development and writing, then you're not going to like this movie. I won't say anything about the story except for the fact its a cliché'd plot with average execution (and a nice little twist). It's not going to bring the house down like Spiderman or cause fans to just up with glee like Batman Begins, but it will provide average entertainment for those who just wanna casually see another Superhero film that's brought somewhat more faithfully to the big screen.
But if you're expecting the big "Superman Comeback"...lemmie say this, don't give your hopes up. Just look for a decent movie to pass the time with your girl/boyfriend or family and you'll do just fine.