Reviews

I watched Star Trek TOS in its first run - I'm that old. And I've watched every Star Trek offering since. This was the happiest I've been with the franchise since the first Wrath of Khan! The cast has settled in nicely for a WILD ride. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, as Kirk and Spock, respectively, are far more nuanced this go-around. The look of the film is excellent and all supporting cast passable to very good. I know the action wasn't REALLY nonstop, but it seemed to be. The writing - the old switcheroo in the script - was massively clever. My only disappointment was that Benedict Cumberbatch didn't have more screen time. He is mesmerizing every time he's on. I was really hoping he'd have a big scenery-chewing barn-burning quotefest from Moby Dick, but no. To hear him say "From hell's heart I stab at thee..." in that VOICE...

I have assigned Quo Vadis as required reading several times at my school, and so I am intimately familiar with the book, which is superb. This movie holds up very well in comparison, though there are some wonderful things missing. This is basically the tale of the conversion to Christianity of a Roman soldier through his love of a Christian girl, set against the backdrop of Nero's rule and his eventual persecution of the Christians after the great fire in Rome. What I love about the book is the fact that Vinicius's conversion is neither easy nor instantaneous - he struggles, and only even bothers because he loves Ligia so much. He goes from being a boor who takes a Christian girl to an orgy to a Christian who is willing to die for his beliefs. Any treatment that skips over that aspect of the story is unworthy, and at least this movie does not skip over that lightly.

Robert Taylor is a bit wooden as Vinicius - the book reveals his inner struggles much more vividly than his movie does, and I think the movie loses points for that. Taylor's iron-jawed performance is adequate, though. Deborah Kerr is overwhelming for Ligia as written. Ligia is young and fragile -almost ethereal - certainly not the little spitfire that Kerr plays.Kerr was really too old for the part, but Taylor probably was too, so at least they match. Leo Genn has a nice, light touch as the charming, brilliant, and urbane Petronius, but not the godlike good looks of the character as written. Marina Berti is appropriately gorgeous as Eunice,the slave who loves her master, Petronius. Everyone comments on Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero - it is really quite good! He is simultaneously childish, diabolical, selfish, and pathetic. You really want to kill him by the end of the movie. Patricia Laffan is good (that is, supercilious) as Poppaea, Nero's empress who has the hots for Vinicius. Other standouts include Finlay Currie as the apostle Peter and Buddy Baer as Ligia's thick-witted and gigantic bodyguard, Ursus.

The movie itself is GORGEOUS - I don't know the budget, but it had to have been huge. The word "epic" definitely applies. The persecution of the Christians is not softened a bit - I still find it shocking, even today. The fire in Rome is also stunning. The music is also a fine example of the genre.

What I miss in this movie is Vinicius's near-death experience at the hands of Ursus. Because he is injured and cannot be moved, he HAS to see and hear how the Christians live and bear their persecutions with such patience. Vinicius is also brought face-to-face with what his selfish desires have done to Ligia - taken her from a loving home and thrown her into poverty and danger.Then he is left to wonder how she can still love him at all. And the revelation of Ursus's childlike beliefs is quite moving, and mostly missing. Vinicius is tormented by all of this until almost the last pages of the book. His having to fend off the empress's advances is mostly missing too.

Having said all that, I do like this movie very much and recommend it. See it if you get the chance.

I read many a Tarzan and maybe one or two John Carters in my youth, so I was familiar with the source material, but this movie got such execrable reviews I didn't go see it in the theaters. I should have realized that nothing could be as bad as those reviews! Really, this movie is quite good - certainly better than the dreadful Avatar, to which it's sometimes compared.When I think of all the rattletrap thoughtless pieces of junk that DO make money (I'm looking at YOU, Transformers, GI Joe, Clash of the Titans, etc.)I cannot see why this one failed. I can't speak to its fidelity to Princess of Mars, since I didn't read that one, but I found the plot serviceable and even unexpectedly moving for a Disney sci-fi extravaganza. John Carter's initial damaged mental state adds a dimension some of these other movies lack. Taylor Kitsch seems committed to the role, and is quite good. The home scenes cut with battle scenes on Mars were effective and sad. His palpable distress at leaving Mars and his desperate efforts to get back were rather rushed, but well-done, and I liked the bit with "Ned" at the end. You could spend a worse two hours at the movies.

I have been a Bond fan since Day 1 of Dr. No, and have followed the various iterations of Bond with varying degrees of delight and/or disgust. But I'm always there for the new films. I have been so pleased with Daniel Craig's turns as Bond - even in QofS. Now all the pieces so carefully placed fall in line. This is the most "full-on Bond" of the Craig movies. One hears familiar themes, sees familiar characters, and falls back in love with the familiar formula. AT last we have a worthy opponent again - Javier Bardem is a hoot, and almost runs away with the movie. But only almost. Craig settles into the role even better, and Judi Densch is, as usual, pitch-perfect. The movie looks as a Bond movie should - gorgeous, elegant, with every dollar right there on the screen. Shanghai is especially striking, as is an Istanbul chase with Hagia Sophia in the background. We've got a new Q and two new someone elses, all of which I think I approve. Music's good, sacrificial Bond girl appropriately hot, and my beloved Aston Martin DB is there, so I think we're all set. Go see it immediately!

...and I agree with almost all the complaints about idiot plot points!

This movie is so beautiful and asks such big questions that I found it easy to forgive or ignore the fact that the main characters acted very, very stupidly and/or improbably at times. I am a sucker for Ridley Scott's visuals, though - I always have been. But gosh, he blows the roof off with this one. Never has a movie (except maybe 2001) made me feel more insignificant. Scott just nails space and the alien planet. I'm not sure how I feel about the appearance of the Engineers, but I think I'm kind of OK with it - at least I can't think of a look I'd prefer. The scene with David at the controls of the Engineer ship was just magical to me. When I heard this was going to be a prequel to Alien, I was alarmed, since I consider Alien just about a perfect movie, right up there with Jaws. I am perfectly satisfied that not every "i" was dotted and every "t" crossed. I'm actually happy that the ending of this movie does NOT fit perfectly with the beginning of Alien. Again, I invoke 2001 - not EVERYTHING has to be explained. I prefer the mystery. The cast...hmmm. I could almost see Scott straining for the same mix of working stiffs with higher eschelons that he had in Alien. Did not love Guy Pierce at all. Noomi Rapace photographs very oddly at times, but I think she was acceptable. The whole cast is just so overshadowed by the film itself, I almost tend to forget them. I did very much like Michael Fassbender's turn as the android David. What a little Pinocchio he was. His performance was ALMOST ruined by some bad writing/inexplicable action, but it turned out OK. The story is basically compelling, but would have been much better served with competent and more realistic character development. Everything everyone says about stupid character actions is true - unprofessional behavior from supposed professionals, inexplicable mood swings, yep, all of it. It just didn't bother me as much because these people are just amoebas in the face of what they find, anyway.I liked Scott's take on religion as well. It has become quite the style of late to discount religion or reduce it to the products of simple minds. I like that smart people in this movie still "choose to believe." My biggest gripe? Same as everyone else's - the c-section. No matter HOW many drugs one takes, action will simply not be happening after that. She should have been flattened by the drugs alone. But I got over it. One more thing - this movie just MIGHT be more like Blade Runner than it is like Alien.

I started in a different mindset than most watchers, I think, because there are some silent films that I LOVE, namely Birth of a Nation, Nosferatu, and especially Metropolis. It was odd to consider going to a new silent, but I'm SO glad I did! This movie may not be what you expect (though in many ways it's quite familiar), but it is utterly affecting. The leads are likable beyond reason, and the supporting cast is great and sometimes familiar as well. Please, people, don't write this off because it's black-and-white and/or silent. (SPOILER - it's not ALL silent, and when the director chooses to use sound, it's a shocker because one so quickly gets used to silent mode!) Some of the music will be familiar to Hitchcock fans - name that tune! I'll bet this takes some awards, and justly so. Just see it.

I approach this review with such joy. Even though You Only Live Twice is my favorite Bond, I think Goldfinger runs a very close second. I have a theory that the best Bond movies all have themes sung by Shirley Bassey. The makers hit their stride with this one - villain, assistant villain, girls, and gadgets are all pitch-perfect. Connery seems even more at ease in the role (if that's possible), and everything plays out just right. And could I let this review go without mentioning the Aston Martin!?! I saw this movie when it came out in theaters and I was about 8. I didn't know from cars, but I knew I wanted that one! I'm now 55, and that lovely desire has never gone away. It has been a total gas to see the Aston back in the Craig films. (At 8, I also didn't get the joke about Pussy Galore's name - this was pre-any-kind-of-rating, remember). I did read the books when I was a little older, and it is rather interesting to note that Pussy is a lesbian in the book, because of, as I recall, a rape. Of course, our Mr. Bond would be the one to snap her out of it. I recently re-watched the movie and was struck by how good Gert Frobe was as Auric Goldfinger - he really has some nice little quirks you have to watch closely for. Just total Bond goodness - macaroni and cheese for your mind.

I ran across this on cable, and only watched it because I had NEVER seen Jeremy Northam in ANYTHING modern. This was really a stylish little thriller along the lines of - I dunno - Matrix (not much) + Italian Job (cross/double cross)+ 1984 (dystopia for everyone). Northam is excellent, as he always is. He himself is the cypher of the title, I think, and as he peels away the multiple layers of his identity, you can see the panic under the desperately cool exterior he tries to maintain. The end came as a complete surprise to me, but maybe I'm easily fooled. It's hard to get some of Lucy Liu's (ahem) LESSER roles out of your mind when you see her in this, but she acquits herself well enough. Well-written, and well-executed - I recommend this with great enthusiasm.

I wanted very much to like this movie. Conan books were the stuff of my youth. I even managed to enjoy the Schwartzenegger outings (the 1st much more than the 2nd). The commercials made me excited about the look of the film and the look of Jason Momoa as the eponymous lead. I always thought Arnold was too bulky for the as-written "lithe" Conan. But Lord have mercy - I just saw this and was SO disappointed. It's not the actors' faults, really.The script is just a by-the-numbers violent-guy-with-a-sword-and-an-agenda exercise with NONE of the panache of the source material. If only I could have for one fleeting moment seen the Conan of the books - "a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic wrath and gigantic mirth." You know, the barbarian that, though his manners may be lacking, has the great soul of a king. The movie was completely unencumbered by any pretense of stylish writing.

Maybe it is the actors' faults a bit - Rose McGowan is camping it up for sure, and Stephen Lang is just as dreadful and un-nuanced as he was in the equally dreadful Avatar. Rachel Nichols as The Spunky Heroine is just blah. Why would she be able to fight as well as men who constantly train and outweigh her ( a "monk") by a good hundred pounds? One of many things that is never really explained. Ron Perlman is always a treat in any movie, but is rather wasted as a Cimmerian who can perform c-sections without even looking. Who knew?

Who okayed this mess? The usual cabal of Hollywood hacks. Please guys, could we just for ONE MOMENT HAVE SOME DECENT, NOT PANDERING, WRITING? OK - I'm done.

Yes, it's silly and the plot BARELY supports the musical numbers, but as a piece of 80's musical frivolity, it stands alone. The funny part is how oldster Gene Kelly still manages to hold his own against much younger talents in what turned out to be his last singing and dancing role. God bless him - he looks like he was having fun. Olivia Newton-John was being groomed as a solo star in this - well THAT failed, but she's still wholesomely charming. Michael Beck in the romantic lead is NOT that good (I think he didn't even sang for himself), but he's a typical 80's hunk, so there you go. At least the culturally literate will enjoy the Muse references. The whole thing is a giant neon/short shorts/leg warmer throw-up, but it's darn cheerful. How serious we all were about roller skating... And the soundtrack is great - "Suddenly" and "Magic" are two of my real guilty pleasures! Give it a shot - it's fun to watch, even just to make fun of the wretchedly excessive costumes.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should state from the outset that I am a Christian, and I found nothing in this movie to upset me.

This movie tells at least a partially fictionalized account of Hypatia of Alexandria, renowned philosopher and mathematician. The viewer should remember that, in ancient time, philosophy and science were often thought of as one subject. Philosophy could account for science, in other words. What makes this particular story unique is that Hypatia was a woman, and one who influenced important men. This is what probably caused the alleged manner of her death.

Rachel Weisz makes a beautiful Hypatia (according to tradition, Hypatia was beautiful), and gives her just the right amount of social awkwardness, especially when she is pursuing philosophical questions. Standouts in the cast are Max Minghella, Oscar Isaacs, and Rupert Evans (gosh, he's pretty in this!), as respectively, the slave, politician, and churchman that Hypatia teaches and befriends. I like the way this movie did not demonize either side, but rather demonized fanaticism on any side. There are moderate Christians and fanatical ones, like those led by Cyril of Alexandria in this movie, and that's probably how things really were. Cyril, not all Christians, is the bad guy in this story. But there's so much more than even that - the story is sprinkled with lovely little vignettes of Hypatia's philosophy and discoveries, like the ellipse. The camera often pulls back for a global view, which turns out to be quite appropriate, given the subject matter. And at the end, when a human life must be taken, one begins to realize the import, how much is lost, every time a life is taken.

The film is gorgeous to look at, with some neat little tonal tricks - look how Hypatia stands out near the end, for instance. The music is stunning - I plan to purchase the soundtrack.

If you know anything at all about the subject, just watch. You won't be disappointed.

Having sat through Wolverine, I wondered if this franchise was doomed, but this movie was a pleasant surprise. The direction was witty and well-paced. I know it's odd to point out the set design, but it was FABULOUS. There is a definite 60's- James-Bond-Bad-Guy-Lair vibe to some of the sets, and it's quite fun. George Lucas could take a few lessons from this director about how and when to use CGI. The CGI enhances, but never dominates the story. The fights weren't SO protracted that you started wondering when they would be over. Standouts in the cast were, of course, McAvoy and Fassbinder. I had never seen McAvoy in anything before, and he certainly delivers the goods in the charm department. Who knew Xavier was such a smoothie with the ladies? And Fassbinder is one to watch - not only is he wonderfully easy on the eyes, but his acting in this role carried a welcome and dangerous intensity that was definitely called for. (He did seem to get very Irish near the end of the movie, though.) January Jones as Emma Frost is a hoot - just watching her deadpan around in one outrageous 60's outfit after another is pretty funny, and again, sort of a Bond throwback. One thing bothered me a little - Kevin Bacon as the villain. He's really not bad, but he's not a good enough actor to make me forget that he's Kevin Bacon. All the young 'uns were respectively good, and seemed to be having fun. The audience did too. Nice job all around.

To me, this movie is rather heartbreaking. Who would have suffered more from the effects of nuclear power (in all its manifestations) than the Japanese at that time? Who would have seen more radiation burns and sickness than they? Who had seen two of their major cities disappear in the space of seconds? Is it just possible the Americanization was designed, not only to make the film more marketable, but to obscure the metaphor? It's hard not to think of this, especially with the current Japanese nuclear troubles.

The film itself, whether in the Americanized or original version, is better than any of its descendants, and far less campy. Though I do enjoy the later ones because of their campy outlandishness, this one stands somberly alone.

Though I'm old and did read some comics in my time, Thor was never one of them. I do teach some Norse mythology, though, so that aspect interested me. There was an odd steampunk approach to the mythology, which was OK, I suppose. I really didn't expect this movie to be War and Peace, and I was certainly right on the money with that. It went for the snarky Iron Man approach more than I thought it would. It's hard to pull off without veteran snarkmeister Robert Downey, Jr., though. Chris Hemsworth is impossibly charming and good- looking in the title role, and does pretty well, considering some of the lines he had to say. Anthony Hopkins is a safe choice for his patented Older Mentor/Authority Figure performance (enjoy that check, Anthony), and Tom Hiddleston is somewhat intriguing as Loki. Stellan Skarsgard is completely wasted in a role that could have been phoned in. But you know who really stinks up the joint? Natalie Portman. It was DAMN hard to believe she was an astrophysicist, but it was even harder to believe that THOR (god of thunder, possessor of unspeakable power) would find her even remotely interesting. All she does is whine. The alleged falling in love is quite unbelievable, BTW. Yeesh. I hope the inevitable sequel loses her character.

I believe I've seen EVERY version of Jane Eyre, and I never get tired of the story. I can get tired of incompetent productions, but fortunately, that wasn't TOO much the case here. First off, this film looks great. It's appropriately, but not oppressively, gloomy. There is even an occasional blue sky! Thornfield looks majestic, as does Lowood School. Speaking of Lowood, Helen Burns was rather nicely played in this version. I WISH some production would show what happened at Lowood after Helen's death, but not many do. Which leads us to our Jane - Mia Wachowski. She's not bad, really. As others have pointed out, she's too pretty, but almost all the versions make that mistake. One of the great joys of this story is the gradually growing interplay and subtle intellectual sniping between Jane and Rochester. This movie is able to capture some of that, thankfully. Michael Fassbinder? Well, he's not the worst Rochester I've seen, but he's certainly not the best either. I would rank him in the top 5. He has the necessary charm, but he just doesn't seem QUITE broken-hearted enough over Bertha. I couldn't really believe he would try to save her. And then there's Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax. She's rather a big gun for what is usually a minor role, but she does fine in the definitely beefed-up part. DID she know Bertha was in the house? This version says a specific "No," when it's left rather up in the air in the book. St. John Rivers is presented more sympathetically than usual in this version, as are his sisters. I was REALLY thinking this version might reveal that they and Jane ARE relatives, but it didn't. Biggest problems with this version? It seemed a bit long - I was ready for it to be over about a half-hour before it was. And OHMYGOSH - Jane does NOT say "Reader, I married him." Nor does she reveal that Rochester at least partially regains his sight. Rochester's face is curiously unscarred for someone who had a flaming timber fall across it, too.

George Lucas could make films once - why can't he now? The answer may be painfully clear now that Eps I, II, and III are out - George Lucas never COULD make films. Now, stick with me on this - he didn't have complete control over IV, V, and VI. Lawrence Kasdan wrote dialog and the was SOME limit on his special effects. It has become evident that, when George is given an unlimited budget and full writing duties, he stops writing and just plays with the computers all day long. Seriously, the movie just Bataan-Death-Marches from one long, pointless CGI sequence to the next, occasionally interspersed with truly stultifying "political" sequences. Fun, huh? The love story sequences, such as they are, could not be more stilted and awkward. Whatever pleasant, magical nostalgia Lucas didn't ruin in The Phantom Menace, he ruins in this movie. Other folks have pointed this out, but THERE IS NO CLEAR HERO. For whom are we cheering here? Darth Vader? Obi Wan? Yoda?? This movie fails on that count alone - we can't even perform the basic act of choosing sides.

To add to my collection of Jane Eyre reviews, here's a late entry. This is a heavily- edited, fast TV movie of the book. The cuts aren't bad, though the action does seem rushed to those of us used to a more leisurely unfolding of the plot. What REALLY makes it jarring is Ciaran Hinds's truly awful performance as Rochester. I usually like this actor, but NOT in this. Rochester could be gloomy and gruff, but he should still be possessed of a charm and innate kindness that would have drawn the shy Jane to him. This Rochester yells and bullies everyone - who could like him, much less love him? How could Jane (as written) love a man who seems to be on the verge of striking her at any moment? Samantha Morton is not bad as Jane, but really, I can't recommend this one at all - there are MANY better ones.

This movie reminds me of Casablanca in that it SHOULD have been just a run-of-the- mill noirish potboiler, but it ends up being so much more than that, thanks to a happy confluence of talents. Just as Bogart and Bergman, with the help of Claude Rains, raise Casablanca to sublimity, so too do Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney raise this material with the considerable help of Clifton Webb. The performances (Vincent Price and Judith Anderson in SUPPORTING roles!?!) mesh together like gears in a Rolex, and it's a pleasure to behold. I know it's been said before, but Gene Tierney's amazing looks make one believe that a detective could fall in love with her portrait. This movie is a superlative exemplar of its genre, and anyone who is a fan of that genre should do themselves a favor and see this film immediately.

I saw this today, and it was just as good as I hoped it would be. Colin Firth should be headed for some awards, as should the rest of the familiar and excellent cast. Firth does not overly sweeten the character of George VI - he's certainly not a saint - but instead creates a character of stunningly real humanity. Indeed, I could have used a few more scenes on how Elizabeth handled her husband's temper. Geoffrey Rush is excellent, as always, as is Helena Bonham Carter in a slightly less Gothic turn than is her wont. The personal crisis of the king is so skillfully interwoven with the impending political crisis that one really feels something of what George must have felt, especially with his wastrel brother's abandoning the ship of state. YES, there is the inspiring ending you would expect, but every bit of it is earned. I recommend this movie with great enthusiasm. If only royals really looked like Colin Firth..

...steal from the best. And the best is Rostrand's Cyrano de Bergerac. I generally like Steve Martin's light-footed take on Rostrand's classic. The cast is jam-packed with talented character actors, and an appropriately handsome Rick Rossovich in the role of Christian. Daryl Hannah is refreshingly not dingy or dumb as the eponymous lead, and Steve Martin manages to give us a glimpse of the great soul that resides behind the ridiculous nose. But the biggest problem with this movie IS the nose. Plastic surgery was not an option back in Rostrand's day, but it certainly is now. This is breezed over by a reference that C.D. is allergic to anesthesia. I think any man with a nose that outlandish would probably do it under local anesthetics or a stiff drink. Cyrano refers to the "mockery behind the smile" in the women he meets, but we don't see that same torment in C.D. This is a comedy, though, without the sweet tragedy at the bottom that the original source has, so that's OK. What people are loving here is the basic story - what we all want to know - "Am I loved for myself?" If you love this movie, do yourself a favor and watch the French "Cyrano" with Gerard Depardieu. To me that's the definitive version. You'll then see how this movie pleasantly compares.

SO much controversy around this film - is Lazenby good or isn't he? Sadly, I come down on the side that says he isn't. He's not as bad as Moore at his worst, but that is faint praise indeed. I find him adequate, but stiff. And I just hate the way he looks (yes, shallow, I know...). He's far too mannikin-y for me - Bond should be, well, handsomer. But this movie is hitting on all cylinders in every other aspect - the score is superb, the story great, the bad guy appropriately loathsome, and the locales exotic. Dame Diana Rigg serves as the BEST Bond girl ever and fittingly, the only one who ever becomes Mrs. Bond. Oh, gosh, if it'd only been Connery in this movie...

This movie is so dear to me. I first watched it with my mom when I was very young. She loved it, and I did too. The older I get, the more beautiful I realize this movie is. All of you young'uns brought up on "chick flicks" give this movie a watch and see what real grown-up men and women act like. Rex Harrison was never more handsome or charming, and that's saying a good deal! Gene Tierney was impossibly beautiful and hits just the right tone in her interpretation of this role. The score by Bernard Herrmann is gorgeous - somehow it reminds me of the score from Vertigo, which I also love. The film itself is gorgeously photographed. And choke me up? Oh, my gosh - when he leaves her, and laments "...What we've missed...what we've both missed." I defy you not to cry.

I saw this version WAY before I saw Red Dragon, and so was not tormented by mental comparisons between the two. What I saw was a super-stylish, smart thriller with just about perfect casting. Mann's setups are all beautifully balanced, his music cues are flawless, and the editing superb. A much-younger-than-most-of-you-remember-him William Petersen plays the protagonist with a nice balance of haunted fatalism and odd intensity. He just can't really help himself - he HAS to solve crimes, no matter what the personal cost (and it is high). Tom Noonan is pitch-perfect as Francis Dolarhyde. Yes, he's loathsome, but it is truly pathetic how close he comes to saving himself. Noonan understands that no believable baddie can be without some pathos. But then there's Brian Cox as Lecktor. No pathos as all, but extremely good. He's more like the Lecktor of the books - smooth, sleek...like an otter, I think he's described. Not the virtuoso scenery-chewing of Hopkins, as everyone points out, but I really liked this performance. Do yourself a favor and check out this movie.

From the most beautiful title song to the spectacular destruction of the villain's lair, this is my favorite Bond. Some criticism has been leveled at the script, but I think it's one of the best. Roald Dahl, people? This movie serves up appropriate and welcome helpings of M, Q, Miss Moneypenny, and cool gadgets. Japan makes a lovely theater of action (I believe this was the first time I ever saw a ninja!), providing glimpses of sumo wrestlers, beautiful gardens, a Shinto wedding, and some rudimentary (compared to today's films) martial arts. And the sets! Lord have mercy - a hollowed-out volcano? With ninjas? And piranhas? And Blofeld's kitty? Really, just great buckets of fun. The Bond gang were at the top of their game here. Connery is alternately suave and wiseass, the ladies are lovely, the sidekick (Tetsuro Tanba) is great, if dubbed. A home run.