Reviews

This movie had some very neat visuals, a few of them ripped right from the pages of some of Batman's most memorable comics, and the dynamic between Superman and Lois was great to watch. However, I kept waiting for the story to start. For all its explosions, this movie had me checking my watch.

For a movie that is explicitly about Superman and Batman fighting, it skimps on foundation for why they would fight. The source material has plenty.

While this is an improvement over Man of Steel (no weird birth scenes) I found myself comparing it to Superman Returns, which, for all its flaws, really felt like a Superman movie. The question of what gives Superman the right to interfere in human affairs, which is a major issue in Batman vs Superman, is there answered very simply--because people keep asking him to.

Although Wonder Woman held her own, I would have liked to have seen more of her character and less sexy posing in skimpy costumes.

If you have more than two dream sequences, you need a rewrite.

I was not expecting that movie to be that good as art. It helps that Dane DeHaan looks like a young Mark Hamill with Alex Russel as his guy-in-the-rough Han Solo. We see an on-screen transformation of both characters, Andrew into a supervillain and Matt into a human being.

This was how three teenagers would act if they suddenly had superpowers. It's full of joking and wonderfully knuckleheaded guy stuff. Visually, the flight effects can be awkward, but that did help contribute to the sense of acrophobia during the cloud scenes that we don't experience in most superhero movies. With Superman, we feel safe. With Andrew, Steve and Matt, we're waiting for the inevitable shoe to drop.

This movie is daring. It leaves out information and expository scenes that most filmmakers would assume was required. As we see at the end: It's not about the answers; it's that the characters have grown to the point where they're finally asking the right questions.

This isn't only a wonderful deconstruction of superpowers; it's also a commentary on the psychology of friendship and group dynamics. What the character Steve keeps trying to say is that Andrew just needed to find one thing that he was good at, and it DID NOT MATTER what it was. When Andrew stops thinking that he's a loser, so does everyone else--as we see in the wonderful scene when Andrew's mother asks him to say, "I'm stronger than all of this," on camera. We see that it's the first time he believes it.

So I saw Green Hornet today. I was really looking forward to it and it only disappointed a little. The main problem is that they made GH into too much of a manboy. He doesn't really contribute anything. He's not the brains of this outfit; Kato and Lenore do all the real work. They could've played him as the unwitting impetus to two people who then unlock their potential, but they didn't. They could have played him as Maxwell Smart--a screwup but actually good at his job--but they didn't. They could have worked more with the idea of the Hornet as a counterfeit criminal, but they didn't.

My favorite scene is probably the second one. I'm not so familiar with the original Hornet series that I remembered who the main villain was. The upshot is that an older, shabby-looking criminal boss walks into the well-appointed, well-guarded office of the new upstart who's been moving in on his turf. As these guys talk, we can't tell which one of them will kill the other and be the real bad guy of the movie.

People who liked either the first movie or the New Moon book will probably have a great time at this movie. People who didn't like them still might have fun laughing at the moments of glorious teenaged awkwardness--Michael Welch returns as the hilariously down-on-his-luck Mike Newton.

As a sequel, New Moon is excellent. It maintains the same tone as the first movie, smooths out some of the rough edges and builds from there. On its own it's mostly quite enjoyable to watch. There were lots of intentional and unintentional humor and of course the movie takes only a bit of the edge off the book's more than slightly unbalanced story structure.

Things that impressed me? FIGHT SCENES. They actually let us see Felix toss Edward around like a rag doll. And they might have robbed us of the sight of spooky elder vampires petrifying in their old age, but they did let us see Edward's head literally crack like an eggshell as he gets slammed into the floor tiles.

I also like that they expanded Alice's role and showed Bella actually missing someone in addition to Edward. I really wish that both the books and movies had gotten more into the Bella-Alice friendship. Also, the idea that a person's spouse is the only relationship they need is a relatively new one. If even a romantically obsessed book series like Twilight can focus on the fact that Bella is reacting to the entire Cullen clan and not just Edward, then maybe we're moving toward a healthier idea of what love is.

Also, Michael Sheen is the champion of creepy. Sorry, Bill Nighy; he played Aro before you played Greyback! My final recommendation? Go see this movie with a big crowd for all the squealing and shouting at the screen. It's like a floor show but with body glitter.

That was the Batman Begins of Star Trek. They even found a way to explain the retcons that 1. fits organically into the plot and 2. would appeal to Star Trek fans and 3. leaves them completely covered. Roddenberry would be proud.

That alone would make this movie memorable, but not only does J.J. Abrams manage to pack a lot of action into this film without detracting from the story, but he also manages to give each of the characters in the ensemble enough screen time to come across in a satisfying way without making the film seem unbalanced.

Ordinarily, I don't think that most movies need sequels, but this one would manage one very well. It wouldn't require the characters to unlearn any of the lessons they learned in the first movie.

It's as if these comedians had a bunch of random family-related scenes that got cut out of other things and decided to cobble them together into a movie. It didn't work.

This movie has two good points. The very first scene, which introduces the two protagonists, is sharp and original. The very last scene is neat and funny. Almost nothing in the middle was any good.

The most crippling problem is probably one conversation that Vince Vaughn's character's has with his girlfriend. It's supposed to represent him coming to terms with the issue behind their last fight, but he does so by making a series of sarcastic jokes that are not meant to be taken literally and have no emotional depth. In other words, the scene is trying to tell us that the character can be serious but it's showing us that he can't. It just wasn't well thought out.

This film is primarily a comedy, and it doesn't disappoint. The audience was laughing its collective head off. The jokes are well-timed, well-acted, well-choreographed and all-around funny. However, I have never seen a comedy do action so well. The overall plot is suspenseful, and the fight scenes are as gorgeous as any I've seen (Ms. Hathaway's stunt double in particular). Meanwhile, the film is peppered with tributes to the original show that actually further the plot! The character of Maxwell Smart is portrayed as goofy yet competent, dorky yet lovable. He's a hamsterboy dropped into James Bond's shoes.

Probably the most enjoyable part is that everyone gets his or her moment: the old guy gets to kick ass, the fat girl gets to kick ass, the nerds get to kick ass in a nerdly manner. They could have called this movie Everyone Gets to Kick Ass at Some Point or Other; We're Cool Like That. And their old guy couldn't have been better if he'd been an SG1 alumnus!

I saw Prince Caspian. I haven't seen the recent LWW. I was surprised by the quality. It was lower than I'd expected. The pacing was iffy almost until the end. The writing was okay, but it could have been so much better so easily. To toss out an example, there is a scene in which Caspian leads the four into a cave and asks "Don't you know where you are?" Well, the "where they were" of it would have been much cooler if we'd panned back to see it right away. Caspian himself seems to jump between knowing nothing and knowing everything. We don't get a real lay of the land of how many Narnians are left and why anyone thinks there are enough. More importantly, I was expecting more of a redemption for Peter by the end because, by the end, Peter does need to be redeemed.

Still the tension and the "Who abandoned Narnia and made you king?" between Peter and Caspian was pretty good, and I did like what they did with Susan. It anticipates her final destiny without being too blatant or giving anything away. But mostly, I missed ordinary Telmorenes. I liked the way they played Miras's lords, scheming but not as bad as he was, but I missed the running through the villages with the Maenads. I had particularly hoped for the part where they pick up the students in one place and the teacher in the other. Oh wait... I think that might have been in book seven. Nope, it was this one. Crumbs. And don't get me started on what they did to Reepacheep! Oh wait... they absolutely nailed Reepacheep. Non-crumbs.

In short, even with its flaws, the whole movie, every frame of it, is worth the ticket and would be even if it were far worse: They kept the scene in which someone recommends resurrecting the White Witch. And. It. Was. Made. Of. AWESOME.

This struck me as a good film to watch with teen-aged cousins or other younger relatives. This is not nearly as funny, intelligent or well-timed as Mr. Pegg's other films, but it has enough redeeming qualities to be worth watching.

I found the ending to be just realistic enough to be enjoyable. The protagonist undergoes a transformation, but not so much of one as to seem hackneyed (I'm looking at YOU, Bell, Book and Candle!).

The shining star of this movie is Mr. Azaria's performance. He manages to portray a hateful character while still being an absolute delight to watch.

If you do not like complicated story lines, then do not watch this movie. The viewer must be able to keep at least three different threads in mind at once in order to understand what's going on. That being said, this is well-written, well-acted and beautifully timed.

One of my favorite things about movies is that sometimes they show us different kinds of genius. From Hell, though questionable overall, did this very well, showing us Aberdeen and his literary partner. Shawshank Redemption, which gave us the eloquent Red and silent, patient Andy, did the same thing.

Mr. Brooks shows us different kinds of evil: The killer who kills for fun, for the rush, for the challenge, for animal brutality. It shows us the killer with a soul and the killer without a soul. And yet, the amazing: We come to love our evil protagonist. They don't cop out and show him as a victim first; they don't cop out and celebrate his actions; they don't cop out and show him as the lesser evil to something worse. They just show him as what he is--all of what he is--and we love him for it.

First order of business, YES you should stay through the credits. There is a short tidbit scene at the end.

In the film's last minutes, I felt very cheated, but right up until then I was cheering my head off. This is every bit as sharp and funny as the first, with amazing dialogue and creature effects that had me shaking with delight.

This movie actively rewards the fans who memorized every last line and plot twist of the first. In fact, I highly recommend watching Black Pearl a day or two before seeing this flick. Pay attention to the rum and the sword! Dead Man's Chest has one gaping flaw: It doesn't stand on its own. This isn't one movie, really, but rather the first half of a movie. A sequel, even the inside second of a trilogy, should have its own beginning, middle and end and this one really doesn't. I only hope that all the marvelous questions raised will be answered in the third film.

This movie is an extremely entertaining experience for those of us with a high tolerance for cynicism and an ability to appreciate the sneaky. If you think Odysseus was a real smart guy for inventing the Trojan horse, then watch this movie. If you think he was a deceitful cheater who couldn't fight fair, then don't.

This movie raises spinning the truth to an art form, and shows the honor of a dishonorable man without glorifying, supporting or justifying his message.

The most notable part of this movie is the highly original scene cuts and narration by the protagonist. This is a film designed to make the user go ...?!?! every two minutes.

The sole drawback in this film was Ms. Holmes performance. If you're waiting for the film in which she doesn't look and sound like a little girl, then keep waiting.

Be advised, this movie is plot driven, NOT character driven. If you're looking for rapport, look elsewhere. If you want a twisty, original heist flick, then tune in.

Writing, directing, acting, pacing, visuals, plot... This movie had nothing below A-grade. This was a seamless knitting together of thought and love and hate. This movie's emotional triggers are perfectly wired.

Imagine all the hype that's been written about Maltese Falcon. Now imagine a movie that lives up to that.

Denzel Washington occupies but does not over-dominate the screen. Christopher Plummer's and Clive Owen's characters both manage to exude good, evil, guilt and respect. A person can spend decades trying to climb out, only to be drawn back into the fold. This isn't good vs. evil. This is good vs. temptation.

This was the best movie I've seen in years. I don't think I'll re-watch it for a few more. A favorite movie is like a good book, but this is a mystery. I need to forget before I'm reminded.

Finally. Someone hired the movie stars, arranged the stunts and special effects, and then also remembered to hire some guy with a pencil to write them a darn story.

An adequately cerebral rabbit-and-fox tale, this movie is fast-paced and more or less original as Bruce Willis' and Mos Def's characters evade crooked police officers bent on preventing Eddie (Def) from testifying before a grand jury. Just when things start to get over the top, something happens to release the tension and lighten the mood. Dear God, someone was actually awake in scripting class.

At first, I thought that Eddie's accent was going to kill it for me, but his lines are so well-written and delivered that his annoyance level drops from an eight to about a three in his first five minutes.

I just had a unique experience: I enjoyed a movie even though I knew that it was awful.

If you want an impressive, well-thought-out, surprising vampire/werewolf movie, then go rent the first Underworld. If and only if it completely steals your brain should you watch this movie.

I liked the first movie so much and felt so involved with its world and characters that I was able to sit down in the theater, enjoy the good moments and coast through the rest of it, which was mostly incoherent babble.

Writing: Underworld: Evolution is missing most of the strengths that made its predecessor so believable: The dialogue was poorly written, poorly timed and repetitive, as if they thought their viewers had the combined IQ of a moldy kumquat and needed to be reminded of what had happened a few minutes earlier.

Story: There was a similar effect with plot points: In the first movie, no one bothered to reiterate information that the audience already knew, even if some of the characters present didn't. The first movie gave the viewers four steps and allowed them to figure out the fifth themselves. Not so with Underworld: Evolution.

Tone: Gone is the straight-faced, humorless elegance that made the clichés of the first film workable. Also, certain moments that seem to have been meant to be meaningful just didn't make it. Supernatural indigestion, for example, doesn't need dramatic background music.

Characters: Although the protagonists on the screen were still very much Selene and Michael, the new characters were not developed well. Marcus's and Corvinus's motives were understandable on only the most superficial level. I missed the tortured, hypocritical Viktor who was just kind enough to care about.

Pacing: What disappointed me most, I think, was that there were moments of attempted drama with no buildup. This movie could have been much cooler than it is.

Continutity: There were a few major errors. I kept waiting for Marcus or Michael to remember Lucian's enzyme and either apply it to the problem with William or explain why it wouldn't work. Casual paint on a stone wall doesn't last for eight hundred years.

Lycans: (sigh!) For all that they need a cooler name... Sure, we see plenty of werewolves in the fight scenes, but I miss the brutish complexity of lycan _characters._

Effects: The special effects are mostly of the same relatively high quality as those of the first film. I'm mostly complaining about what they did to Michael's face in his hybrid form. He is not fun to look at any more. Come on, Mr. Wiseman! The guys all get to see the lovely Ms. Beckinsale in a tight costume. First you don't bring back Wentworth Miller's character, and now you make Michael ugly. Give us ladies back our eye candy!

Blood: I don't mean the fight scenes. This is a vampire movie; there is going to be some use of blood as a metaphor for intimacy. There not much bloodletting in Underworld, but that only made what little there was more resonant and moving. Here, someone gets slurped every fifteen minutes, but surely it just not given enough time and emotional energy. (Yes, I'm saying that the first movie SUCKED LESS! Let's all get that out of our systems.)

Bright spots: The interaction between Selene and Michael was pretty good, mostly because their characters were already established. In the first movie, Michael is pretty much an object, just reacting to what happens around him and it was nice to see him take a more active role. Also, the fight and chase scenes were pretty strong, if not always well-paced.

The biggest plus here is that this movie was bad in a way that isn't going to take away from my enjoyment of the original when I watch it again ...which I will. A lot.

Like I said, I enjoyed this movie, but I can't really recommend it to someone who's not already invested in the story. I have to warn you, it takes a lot to turn me off to something once I've decided that it's worth my time. Just to give you a hint, I didn't stop watching "The X-Files" until season eight. That's right! A whole year of, "What happened to our male lead?" before I gave up! Use that as your guideline. As for me, I'll cross my fingers and hope that they get their act back together for the next one.

There is something that I learned -- happily -- before going to see the first Lord of the Rings movie and it's served me well ever since. When I sit down and watch the lights go dim, I must recite to myself, "It's not going to be as good as the book. They have to change things to make a movie. I'm going to have a great time anyway, but it's not going to be just the same as the book."

They took things out. They added other things. Overall, the effect was quite charming and worked well in a non-print medium. Sure, there were parts during which I was saying to myself, "Hey! They left that part unexplained," but there were others during which I was more, "Wow. I am SO glad they removed that character." (People who have seen "Chamber of Secrets" will know of whom I speak.)

This is perhaps demonstrated in the scenes which deal with Harry's anxiety over asking a girl to the Yule Ball. There were moments in the book which had me laughing out loud, but they just would not have worked on screen. That is not to say that I wasn't doubled over in the theater.

Overall, this reminded me of the silver angel sugar bowl in the early chapters of Johnny Tremain. The filmmakers did not copy the details exactly, but the result was spectacular.

I'll save you the trouble of watching this movie in two words: DORKULA LIVES!

This is one of the worst things I've seen, EVER. It knocked John Carpenter's Vampires out of the #1 spot on my list of Worst Vampire Movies I've Ever Seen ...and I watched Dracula 3000! This movie has a good cast. I am amazed that there is so little good acting. It's been a long time since anything I saw in a film had me wanting to claw out my eyes. Half the reason I didn't was that doing so would require me to stop covering my ears. The dialogue was dreadful, but not nearly so dreadful as the cringingly stereotypical fake accents sported by half the cast.

Kate Beckinsale's character is supposed to be a gypsy, but neither she nor her brother not her entourage dress, act or seem to think like Roma. The word is just tossed in there. It would have been much better, I think, to refer to them as Romanian nobles and leave it at that. It doesn't help that she looks like she's dressed up as a pirate for Halloween.

Most of this movie had me wondering just how stupid the writers think their viewers are, but the ending topped it all. Since there are probably people out there who would enjoy this movie -- though I have little idea why -- I won't give details on it, but let's just say I was worried that the Care Bears were going to show up.

Redeeming points: Frankenstein is done fairly well, as are the patterns of movement on the vampires as they fly. This movie has the best werewolf visuals I've ever seen. There are also hints of a good story going on in the background with the mystery of Van Helsing's unknown past, but instead of playing these up as a real subplot, this movie buries them under piles and piles of some of the stupidest writing I've ever seen.

Let's face it, this movie has a stupid premise. Vampires and werewolves fighting? Okay... What this movie teaches us, it seems, is that if the writing is good, the story is good, the plot twists are good and the characters are good, it's okay if the premise is a little stupid.

Underworld surprised me, and that doesn't generally happen. The non-spiritual take on vampires and werewolves was a real treat, and Michael's flashbacks remind me of nothing so much as Niel Gaiman at his best, but I'd have to say that the most appealing part was the almost skeletal way they played the romance: The hero and heroine have only known each other for two days and... act like they've only known each other for two days? Brilliant! It made what was there so much more resonant and believable and highlighted the paranoia of certain other characters.

The biology referenced in this film was close to accurate, although not perfect. For Hollywood, it was Mensa.

There was one thing that I found particularly jarring, though: "Lycan," sounds too much like "lichen" for the name to be particularly intimidating. That and the ending was a little bit too "Hulk smash!"

Word of advice: I've seen the regular cut and the extended cut, and I have to recommend the former. Many of the "extra" scenes were good, but they just didn't fit into the whole.