Movie Review #2: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indy is back. After 19 years, one of the greatest heroes in film history returns to the theatres in the 4th instalment of the franchise, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This time, we see Indy race from North to South America to uncover the mystery of the Crystal Skull. Along the way he teams up with friends old and new, as he battles a new adversary, the Soviets, led by a sabre wielding dominatrix Irina Spalko.
I will admit a bit of trepidation when going into this film. Indy, in my mind, has been, and always will be the greatest action hero, and I was a bit worried how the relentless march of father time would dull the crack of Indy’s whip. Well let’s put that to rest right off the start; while the whip may not be as sharp, Indy still retains all the determination and charm from the previous three instalments.
The key here is that Lucas and Spielberg, rather than trying to deny the passage of time, they celebrate it and use it as a driving theme in the movie. They do this by morphing Indy slightly from a swashbuckling know-it-all with a twinkle in his eyes to a more grizzled veteran who’s learnt that experience is just as important as knowledge (with the twinkle still in his eyes). Numerous references are made to Indy and all that he has experienced in the years between the 3rd and 4th films, some heroic and some personally devastating, such as the death of his father. Indy has become a symbol of how it’s our experiences and not just knowledge that define who we are. The film further implies that a quest for knowledge, without the experience to guide us can lead to catastrophic results. This is symbolized in the film numerous times but one in particular comes to mind when an atomic bomb is exploded, wiping out a early 50’s style U.S. neighbourhood; a symbolic loss of innocence if you will. A scene where the rainforest is being cut down in the name of knowledge further brings this point home.
Also at least twice during the movie they allude to the sands of time. Once, where Indy nearly gets swallowed by it and is appropriately rescued by the right person, the other where he races against the falling sands of a massive ‘hourglass’ to his ultimate goal.
All this symbolism aside, don’t worry Indy fans because, like the other three installments, this film is chock full of huge action set pieces delivered with incredible pace and old school charm. Frankly, it almost seemed too over-the-top at times and once or twice I caught myself thinking that certain scenes were physically impossible. But you know what, on reflection that’s really how it should be. Indy has always been an updated version of the serials from the 40’s which were often over the top. Spielberg basically stays true to this style, so while a sword fight on two jeeps racing through two parallel tracks in the Amazon, or swinging like Tarzan through the trees seems implausible. Who cares? Throw that logic out the window and just enjoy. It certainly felt like Ford and company did. This is one of those films where you could really tell that the participants were really enjoying themselves while making it and they will pull you along for the ride if you let them.
Spielberg also did one more move that was brilliant in hindsight. He decided to make this movie on film, despite Lucas’ desire for a digital presentation. This was a great choice as the grains and textures that only a film can bring, really brought out the nostalgic feel of the movie. It really felt like I was watching a continuation of the Indy serials, something I feel that filming in digital would not have brought out quite as effectively.
Overall, this film is a true joy (especially for those who remember the 80’s) that harkens back to the glory days of action adventures, delivered with a true sense of fun by the likes of Lucas, Spielberg and Ford. In the echelon of Indy films, this one ranks 2nd behind the untouchable Raiders. My only real complaint, and one that stops it from getting a perfect score, is that at times it felt like they wanted to get too much into the film – completely understandable given the franchise’s absence from the screen, but noticeable nonetheless.
One final thought, as it’s alluded to in one of the final sequences in the film, while the winds of change may come and even as young ones like Shia LaBeouf may reach for the crown, as pretenders like the Mummy or National Treasure will offer their take, there can only be one Indiana Jones. (9.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: Cloverfield
2008 looks like a very promising year for movies and, while I’m not sure how many movies I’ll be seeing by the end of this year, there are four on my list that I rate as must-sees. Needless to say the caped crusader and the man with the fedora are on that list but in addition to a certain little animated robot the other movie on my list is a movie by one of the hottest and talented producers around right now. That movie is Cloverfield by J.J. Abrams.
First off, the story. We are first introduced to the main characters during a going away party for Robert Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) who is leaving for, appropriately enough, Japan. There we learn that he just slept with his best ‘girl’ friend, Beth and things are, well, a little complicated right now. Just as he’s going over those events with his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller) and brother Jason (Mike Vogel), an explosion rocks the city and the friends try to rescue Beth while at the same time they slowly discover the tragedy that is afflicting the city.
Ultimately the movie can be broken down into two concepts: the PREMISE and the GIMMICK.
The PREMISE is J.J. Abrams creating a monster along the lines of the classic Godzilla, but one that is made for the U.S. audience but with an added twist of having the film run from a ‘first person’ perspective rather than the traditional monster-centric view of most films of this genre.
The GIMMICK is that it would be delivered using a handheld video recorder so they could really punctuate the first person experience. I’m sure you’ve heard the comparison to “Blair Witch” meets “Godzilla”. Well, that’s certainly accurate though I would stretch it to the “Blair Witch” meets “Godzilla” meets 9/11 meets “Aliens”.
The premise is great, although it really doesn’t live up to its full potential, and Abrams and co. do a good job of leaving some frayed edges that really add to the movie. However, in the end the movie fails because, despite the fresh new look at the genre, it’s ultimately overwhelmed by the gimmicky use of a handheld that leaves you with a true sense of nausea. With a run-time of around 90 minutes, it’s a pretty short movie by today’s standards, but then that’s probably a good thing since it took me just as long to get over my general nausea. If the movie was any longer I might have left a little something on the floor. Next to watching Se7en from about 2 rows away and watching The Color Purple and Mississippi Burning back to back this might be the biggest headache I’ve ever had at the end of a movie. Actually, I take it back. This is the greatest sense of nausea I’ve ever felt at the end of any movie.
Some people who saw the movie were talking about how great it was because it was soooo non-Hollywood and how ‘real’ it was. Well frankly, that’s a load of crap. While the premise lent itself to that possibility, the ultimate storyline (of friends looking to rescue another) was as standard as you can get. You could even argue that the weak storyline actually tied things up too cleanly.
I’d rather have seen a movie that looked at the situation from multiple views and how each of them approached this disaster. You still could have used ‘real’ footage but looked at it from, say, a cop looking to help people and having that captured on his patrol car’s camera. Or a shopkeeper and their response to the crisis (maybe he locks the door or maybe he tries to get people to safety) all captured on a security camera. Or possibly a reporter and her quest for the story. Or maybe even some archival footage of a meeting of some army generals and how they want to respond to the crisis. A multi-linear approach delivered under the unforgiving eye of the lens would have been a fascinating approach. Instead we got a typical cookie-cutter storyline with a linear beginning and end where everyone is beyond heroic. That actually took away from the realism that they were trying to accomplish.
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a huge fan of the big monster genre with the original “Godzilla” being at the pinnacle of it all. And with it being slim pickings recently with the over-rated “King Kong” remake and horrendous “Godzilla” remake, I was really looking forward to this movie. And while I think that certain aspects of the movie will hit a chord with a targeted group of movie-goers, I think it’ll be a bit too nauseating for the general public to stomach.
The acting was solid overall. Not Oscar-worthy, but well delivered and very earnest. Odette Yustman (Beth) is ridiculously attractive and I can see her being the next ‘IT’ girl. One suggestion: If you do see this movie, whatever seat you normally sit at, go 10 more rows back. If you’re the type to get sea sickness, make it 15. Trust me. The special effects were great and were seamlessly integrated with the handheld style. That is one tough handheld. I’ve cracked a lens on mine just dropping it a couple of feet. That one survives through hell and back. Great marketing campaign and I’m sure this movie will do very well at the box office. There is a little something at the end of the credits but probably not enough to really keep you there. After watching the movie, wait about 30 minutes before operating any heavy machinery. Side-effects may include potential vomiting, nausea and headaches. (5 out of 10)
Movie Review #3: Batman Begins
Batman has always been one of the most interesting of superheroes. While Spider-Man always dealt with the human side of the equation, Superman with the nobility and the X-Men with the moral equation, Batman has always dealt with the most interesting of topics – the human psyche. At its best (ie. no camp, no Schumacher) Batman always tried to examine the dark side of humanity and the elements of the criminal mind.
With a return to the roots of what made Batman great, Batman Begins shows promise. Not that the full promise was realized, for while the psychological examination of Bruce Wayne/Batman was delivered well, it seemed to lack a sense of focus. Somehow the conflict within wasn’t as rich as I thought it would be given the choice of Christopher Nolan (Memento) to direct the movie. That’s not to say it was bad – it was very good – it just wasn’t great. And while this was examined for a good part of the movie, when it came to the climax, the turmoil had very little impact on what happened. Still it was an excellent first step and I look forward to having it fleshed out even more in any sequels/prequels that will inevitably follow.
As for the movie in general, on the plus side, Katie Holmes wasn’t nearly as bad as I thought she might be. While she wasn’t strong by any means, it’s more in the way she was written rather than the way she was portrayed.
On the negative side, the Batmobile was too gratuitous. While it was a pretty cool sequence, it added little to the movie and if anything distracted from the whole Bat-mystique. This was the one area that really seemed to be a studio executive add-on to sell more toys.
On the positive, the acting was very good. Christian Bale did an excellent turn as Batman and aside from his hair in certain scenes he interacted well with all the other notables including the always excellent Liam Neeson, the dry Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman. Gary Oldman was solid and I anticipate a greater role for him in the sequels. Ken Watanabe was wasted in his role though.
Again on the negative, there was no true villain to act as a foil for Batman. Now maybe this is a good thing, as they focused more on Batman rather than the villains like they did in the previous Bat-failures, but a strong villain would have really brought out some of Batman’s turmoil.
And finally on the positive, the movie looks good. While Tim Burton’s fantastical Gotham may have had more poetry, this version seems more real and as an extension more acceptable to the regular movie-going population. (I’ll be honest in that I personally like the Burton one but it’s really a matter of taste). This more realistic view also fits well into the overall approach that Nolan took.
Overall, this movie has far more positives then negatives and what we are left with is a far more ‘real’ Batman. This is the one that restores the Batman mystique and lays a solid foundation on more Bat-films to come. (8 out of 10)
Movie Review #3: Revenge of the Sith
OK Let’s start by saying that I am a Star Wars fan. Always have and always will be. Having said that I will try and give as fair an assessment of the last Star Wars movie (?) ever put to film (or digital film as the case may be).
For those few who don’t know EP3, takes place approximately 3 years after the end of Attack of the Clones. The Clone Wars is nearing its climax and in a bold strike the separatists have kidnapped the Chancellor in a daring move to turn the tide of the war in their favour. It’s up to the two heroes – Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker – to rescue Palpatine from the grips of General Grievous – a previously unmentioned – leader of the separatists.
Bear with me because I’m going to try and review this movie on three levels – as a stand alone movie; as the ending of the prequel trilogy (as it’s called these days) and as a member of the 6-part opus that is the Star Wars universe.
As a stand-alone movie
As a stand-alone movie, this movie is not without its flaws. Many of its strengths are clearly evident: breathtaking specials effects that are well integrated into the film as a whole (with exception of the opening sequence, which I’ll get to later); absolutely imaginative worlds with such painstaking focus on detail that one cannot help but admire the effort; a great job by Ian McDiarmid in creating a villain we can all hate; wonderfully Operatic music that balances the thrill of adventure with a sense of melancholy; and thrilling battles that are topped by an absolutely fantastic climax.
On the flip side, some of the films weaknesses are also quite evident: some (and I repeat, some) flat acting; characters that seem to come out of nowhere (ala General Grievous); and a few story flow problems mainly due to a somewhat overly complex plot.
Overall however the strengths far out number the weaknesses and if we were to take the movie as part of an overall series, many of those weaknesses become less so. I found that the beginning was the weakest part of the movie. While it was breath-taking to watch the adventure unfold, it was here that some of the action sequences and dialogue seemed the most forced. This was particularly the case with the scenes involving Count Dooku and Anakin Skywalker. Somehow it was all too easy and lacked some tension. In one scene in the elevator instead of shooting the intruders the robots just told them to freeze. This was a little corny.
If the first step was off however, the following sequences more than made up for it. The faint footsteps became louder and louder as the film progressed and the visual imagery became all the more poetic. The turning point is definitely the Opera scene, where Ian McDiarmid really delivers a standout performance. From here there is no looking back and we get a movie that becomes progressively darker and more powerful.
It has been said that George Lucas was influenced by a little known Canadian short called 21-87 that manipulated images and sound to create moods. In a way this is what Lucas does with Sith. While the images aren’t just pieces spliced together like 21-87, what we do get is sequence that effectively uses layers of colour and sounds to accomplish a visual symphony.
All in all it is a satisfying movie and one that should please most.
Score: 9/10
As Part Three of the Prequel Trilogy
One of the many complaints that people have had with the prequel trilogy is that it lacks the ‘fun’ of the original trilogy. And people inevitably compare the Old Trilogy to the Prequel Trilogy. (It’s a good thing that it was never called Old and New Trilogies. The religious connotations would be too great.) This has never been a fair comparison.
I think it was Steven Spielberg who once said when comparing the two; you can only be a virgin once. This is in some ways a fair comparison of the two trilogies. There was no way in which the PT could ever surpass a first love.
In addition the purpose of the two trilogies was always different. Where the OT was a story arc that was complete on itself – at least the Rebellion part – the PT was more of a character study. In some ways this is interesting. Name another villain in the history of film that has been afforded or would be afforded a film(s) studying how they came to be. Maybe Hannibal the Cannibal but I’m not sure if even he would rate a full trilogy. Not the same with Darth Vader, people have always been fascinated with how the man in black came to be.
Now while some would argue that it would be just as easy (and better) to make Anakin an adult from the beginning and make him become Vader early in the plot, this wouldn’t really be true to the Star Wars mythos. The story had to be about innocence lost through actions taken while growing up, for only then would Luke saving Vader have any real meaning. If it were the story of a man’s fall from grace the story arc of a son redeeming his father would have less meaning.
In this regard, Lucas had the compelling back story – the fall of Anakin – but he didn’t have the story arc of the rebellion that he had to work with like he did with the OT. He had instead the creation of the Empire. Now while many would argue that this is a great story (and it is) but who do you root for? Remember, the good guys are supposed to be winning in this era. It’s easy to root for the underdog, not so easy when the underdog wants to Force choke you and rule the universe.
When Lucas originally conceived the story it was with Nixon and his ultra-right wing agenda in mind. So the story is dated… or is it? Coincidently, history did repeat itself and in place of Nixon, today we have Bush and his mythical WMDs. The story arc regarding democracy and liberty and how quickly it can be lost is competed nicely in through ROTS.
While true political aficionados would realize that Lucas’ rendering is not without its flaws, what I was impressed was that he started this whole thing around 1996-97 (when he first started writing) and it somehow parallels what is happening today. Luckily, the US military, unlike the Clones, have freedom of thought and are there to protect the Constitution rather than serve the President.
Lucas does a reasonable job in creating a different era in the Star Wars timeline, one with similarities but sufficiently different. This new more constrictive environment was a necessity in what was to come. It was a necessary part of the messages that Lucas was trying to deliver all along. How one generation acts differently from another. How a stifling society can cause problems. Darth Vader wasn’t created by himself; Darth Vader is a product of society. How a ‘good’ society can lose its soul if it isn’t constantly vigilant.
Overall, I was very happy with the Prequel Trilogy, but I also feel that the trilogy was a bit inaccessible for the more casual fan and those who weren’t that interested in the political machinations of a long ago place, regardless of how it is reflected in today’s time.
One note and this one is a spoiler. For those Jar Jar ‘fans’ who wished for something more… painful, you will be a bit disappointed.
Score: 8/10 (10 for me of course)
As Part Three of a 6-part Epic
This is where it gets interesting. How does ROTS fit into the grand scheme of the Star Wars Universe? To paraphrase the immortal Darth Vader: “most impressive”. In this aspect the film delivers in spades.
We finally get to see how Darth Vader was created. We get to see how the Sith destroyed everything and took control. We get to see how Palpatine came to be. Everything clicks. Watching the movie as it nears its end you can almost hear the clicks as they occur, irrevocably linking the two diverse trilogies into one grand opus. The Prequel Trilogy becomes the Ying to the Yang that is the Original Trilogy.
For all those people who thought the language was too formal in the PT, we now see that even that had a purpose. Think of all those times you thought your parent’s and their generation was too stiff, too square. That is what the old generation in Star Wars is to the new generation in SW. It’s like we’re speaking a different language. It makes sense and from a tonal point of view is what you would expect between two different generations.
For all those who thought that the PT was ‘too pretty’ compared to the OT. We now see what happens over 19 years of dictatorial rule – things, especially art or culture, regress. Think the Stalin/Communist era in Russia.
We also see many parallels between choices that were made by Anakin and those made by Luke. And we see that being allowed to make one’s own choices ultimately lead’s to the better choice. We see that the weight of expectations can crush even the best of us. We even see that love flourishes when we have our own free choice (Leia/Han) where as if it exists in constant fear of reprisal it sours (Padme/Anakin).
Revenge of the Sith effectively adds to the whole Star Wars mythos. It not only makes more sense out of the first two movies but adds new layers to the original three. Quite an accomplishment considering the years separating the two and the near cult-like attention to detail that people give to the original trilogy.
In the end, Lucas for better or worse has accomplished exactly what he set out to do. While it will forever be debated whether a Spielberg or Howard could have done a better directing job, or whether Kevin Smith could have helped in the writing, no one can deny that in the end this is Lucas’ vision that is realized to film. There are very few people who can say that.
Score: 10/10 (9 out of 10)
Movie Review: Ocean’s Twelve
Danny Ocean (George Clooney) is retired – in so much as a master thief can ever be retired. After all who wouldn’t be after undertaking one of the greatest thefts in modern day history and getting the girl (Tess played by Julia Robert) to boot. He’s all ready to celebrate his second 3rd anniversary (taking a little time to case out a bank of course) when a certain motivation appears for him – Terry Benedict. It seems that somehow Mr. Benedict (Andy Garcia) has found out that Danny and the rest of his crew have something of his – the money they stole – and now he wants it back… with interest.
A sequel to the ultra-cool, ultra-hip remake of Ocean’s Eleven, this time we see Danny, Rusty (Brad Pitt), Linus (Matt Damon), Frank (Bernie Mac) and the rest of the gang jet of to the other side of the ocean for fun and felony. There’s one twist – this time they are being chased by the very beautiful and very determined Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who just happened to have a previous relationship with Rusty. Given how much I loved the first film, this one easily ranked among my top 5 in most anticipated movies of 2004. At the same time I was a little leery. After all, the first one was so cool, how could you top it? If anything, this movie could be a set up for one big letdown.
Well let me tell you, at least to this fan, this movie was no let down. It was fantastic. Hip and cool, funny and smart, this movie is on par and possibly better than the first one. Steven Soderbergh has done it again, Ocean’s Twelve delivers the same charm as the first film with the real difference being where the first one focused on the robbery – this one focuses more on the characters and the style.
Each character in the movie from the mainstays like Danny or Rusty to the less known gang members like Yen were given something – quite the feat by Soderbergh given the size of this ensemble. Now some Clooney fans may bemoan a lack of focus on their favourite or a Roberts fan could whine that their starlet wasn’t in half the movie nor nearly enough (though ‘Julia Roberts’ was in the movie – you’ll get it once you see the movie). And if you really want to get picky about it, you could. But this is an instance where the whole of the interactions is greater then the sum of the parts. These guys just seemed to love hanging out with each other, and all the egos were checked at the door with this endeavour. They were a real team and moved like a well-oiled machine.
Playing the critic. Was the heist entirely believable? To be honest – no it wasn’t, at least not when you compare it to the first one. While it was still a cut above the norm, it lacked the excellence in execution that was the trademark of the great casino robbery. Now to some this might be a pretty big sticking point but rest assured that the job isn’t that bad. It’s just not as good as the first one and it sort of had to be done a little worse. Once you see the movie you might understand. I’ve also heard some critics say that the story was too convoluted. This is something I don’t agree with. I understood everything just fine, at least plot-wise. In terms of dialogue, I constantly had the feeling that they were trying to pull a fast one on me (in a good way of course).
Now that I’m done playing critic…the big takeaway I got from this movie was that the stars really enjoyed making this movie. I’ve heard that the actors really partied hard when they were making this movie and that many passed on a pretty big salary. Given how much some of these guys do party, it was probably a money-losing proposition for them. Regardless, this sense of fun permeated throughout the film and kept a level of energy that carried the movie. Without it, the movie wouldn’t have been nearly as good. With it, this movie is a gem, and one of the better movies of 2004. It’s one that you can take your family to and everyone will come out with a smile on their faces.
One final comment is that they pretty much left this one wide open for an Ocean’s Thirteen. As long as the principles involved approach the next one with the same sense of fun, then bring it on. (9.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: Troy
I have always been somewhat of a mythology geek. When I was young I would voraciously absorb anything to do with mythology – Greek, Egyptian, Norse, I loved them all. Movies such as Star Wars or Raiders also drew my interest because of their generous use of mythological concepts. So when I heard that Wolfgang Petersen would be taking Homer’s Illiad and making Troy I was very excited. One of the greatest battles of mythology would be brought to the big screen.
The story begins, as Agamemnon is about to fight a battle that will bring all the kingdoms of Greece under his command. This final battle is to be decided on by a battle between the greatest warrior of each army. Fighting for the Agamemnon’s army is Achilles, played by a buffed up Brad Pitt. He’s so buff that I suspect some women will go see the movie just to see him. To make a short battle shorter, Achilles wins thus unifying Greece.
While all this is going on two great nations, Troy and Greece are concluding a treaty of peace. Representing Troy are the two princes Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom). For Greece is Agamemnon’s brother, Menalus and Helen. Everything seems to be going well until we realize that Paris is doing extra time with Helen and decides to take her with him to Troy. This of course leads to the famous Trojan War and what we’re waiting to see in the first place.
So how was Troy? Well in a few words, it was fantastic and I absolutely loved it. The movie moved with such a great pace, I didn’t even notice the over 2 1/2 hours the movie ran for. (I did notice a few of the more attractive moviegoers walking across the aisle in front of me though. It is finally warm here in Toronto after all! The battle scenes are amazing and culminate in an absolutely breathtaking battle between Achilles and Hector. If you’ve read the Illiad then you know the result of the battle but I won’t tell you who won for those who don’t know. Suffice it to say that that battle is nearly worth the price of admission alone. Another thing I particularly liked about the battles were the sense of honour that prevailed. Other movies focus almost exclusively on total annihilation but in these battles there was a code that existed throughout. Like the time when the losers of a particular battle were allowed to collect the dead without reprisal was somehow refreshing. Contrast to actions taken by violent men today and you get the idea.
Now Wolfgang Petersen and David Benioff (who did the screenplay) did take a lot of liberties with original story but each is understandable and should be applauded. Do I agree with all of them? No, but they were able to take a long story and keep all the key elements. They did play down the whole influence of the Gods that is so prevalent in all Greek mythology (and this was somewhat disappointing to me) but it was a necessary move. I’m sure if Petersen incorporated concepts such as Helen being the daughter of Zeus and was born from an egg; or that Achilles mother was a Nereid (water sprite) and he was dipped into the River Styx to make him indestructible (except his heel of course); he would have lost half the audience.
It actually would have been interesting to see this made as a trilogy so we could delve into the characters more but again I applaud the decision. There are just too many sequels out there these days.
The acting wasn’t Oscar quality (not that I agree with the Academy anyways) but it was passable, though I found the accents to be somewhat off. I thought Brad Pitt did a very good job with his role and didn’t try and make the movie all about him. Eric Bana was also good though a touch too stoic, and Sean Bean really shined as an underused Odysseus. Peter O’Toole was perfect as Priam the king of Troy. They probably should have given a bit more of a role to Diane Kruger’s Helen since she was the cause of the war but the women in general were left somewhat under-represented.
Unfortunately for all the Orlando Bloom loving women, you might NOT want to see this movie. It seems that he’s taken too many acting lessons from Elijah Wood and he comes across as a complete wuss. It might have been in character but I was gritting my teeth whenever he was on the screen. I thought it’d be hard to top the whiny Frodo from Lord of the Rings but this one comes close.
Overall, I found the movie to be a highly entertaining affair. The battle scenes were Herculean in nature, the story moves with the speed of Nike and was crafted with the skill of Hephaestus. I’m sure that this movie will prove to be as indestructible as Achilles at the box office. (9 out of 10)
Movie Review #3: Bad Boys II
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
The sequel to the 1995 hit, the “Bad Boys”, Will Smith as Mike Lowrey and Martin Lawrence as Marcus Burnett answer that question not with words but with righteous fury and anger. And what I mean by righteous fury is blowing the crap up out of everything. The opening sequence pretty much tells the audience what they should expect from this movie. For not only does Michael Bay direct the movie, but you see two lightning bolts strike a tree, which is the symbol of the producing team of Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer. Don Simpson, may he rest in peace, was if anything the more action-oriented of this explosive duo.
So given that these three gentlemen were associated with this movie, I expected a minimum of 10 exploding cars, one other large object used as a projectile, 5 women in thong bikinis and at least one famous 180 degree, from the bottom, actors looking off into the distance, Michael Bay money shot. After seeing this movie I must say I was wrong. I totally underestimated the three. There were at least 50 cars, one $60 million mansion being blown to kingdom come, a Cuban ghetto being trashed, cadavers flying everywhere, numerous lovely lasses and two Michael Bay money shots.
The story, or whatever semblance there exists thereof, revolves around a smuggling operation of millions of dollars worth of Ecstasy by a Cuban drug lord. Our two heroes, part of a group called TNT (tactical narcotics team), are out to find out who is flooding the streets of Miami with this stuff. All the time the two are trying to resolve issues that have created tension between them. In other words, pretty much your average Bay/Simpson/Bruckheimer collaboration. While the flow of the story is good the opinion seems to be why let a small thing like a decent narrative get in the way of blowing things up?
To put it more precisely, why let story, acting, plausibility, laws of physics, police financing or sensitive eardrums get in the way of what they do best: blow things up. And blow things up they do. This has to be one of the most destructive films to come out of Hollywood in the last 5 years. With an almost childlike glee the three set about getting in as much mayhem as you can possibly get into 2 hours and 20 minutes of film. There probably aren’t enough adjectives to describe the level of destruction they initiated on the screen.
In fact, the use of Ecstasy as the drug of choice might be an appropriate choice. For if the supposed mind numbing, sensory assaulting, over heating effects of Ecstasy are true, then this movie might very well be the visual equivalent of the drug. It might even be the extra-strength version. The violence was so far over the top, I actually began to laugh at the relative absurdity of what I was being treated to on the screen. And in between those explosions was some pretty good chemistry between the two actors. After the first twenty minutes of some forced dialogue, they began to mesh and the dynamic between the two really started to come out. That or my mind was beginning to go numb with all the explosions.
Either way, it was almost refreshing to see that much unapologetic violence on the big screen. Whereas movies today try to limit their violence in fear of alienating the general public, this movie was almost jumping at the chance to go R rated. I guess their take was that if your gonna go R might as well go R all the way.
As a word of warning if you are into foreign films with sub-titles or looking for an Oscar winning performance from one of its actors, do NOT go see this movie. To you it will be one of the most offensive movies to assault your sensibilities in a long time. In fact, you may very well question the state of humanity with stuff like this being allowed to be thought of, let alone created. My suggestion is to go watch a Fellini film instead; it’ll be better for your state of mind. On the other hand, for those who don’t mind watching these sensory overloading, guns blazing, bodies flying everywhere, summer blockbusters, go see this movie. You’ll get your money’s worth from the pyrotechnics if nothing else. (7.5 out of 10)
Movie Review #2: Finding Nemo
Do-do-doo-do-doo
Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale
Of Nemo a tiny fish
Who lived with dad on a coral reef
But was taken by a ship
Dory, a forgetful fish so blue
Dad, Marlin brave and sure (yeah right)
The two set out on an adventurous trek,
For a 90 minute flick
For a 90 minute flick
The ocean started getting rough
The tiny fish were tossed
If not for the courage of the fearless two
Nemo would be lost
Nemo would be lost
The fish met many friends on this
Well-made little romp
Like Bruce the shark, a pelican too,
A sea turtle that says “dude”
A great big whale, a school of fish, some jellyfish
Here on Finding Nemo
So this is the tale of the funny fish
You’ll have a good, good time
Pixar made the best of things
The ocean looked so fine
Disney made this tale so true
They did their very best
To make themselves quite comfortable
In their movie quest
Know fun! Know laughs! Know adventure too!
A children’s luxury
Like Pixar’s first film Toy Story
It’s as positive as can be
So do go see the film my friends
You’re sure to get a smile
From this underwater fantasy
Here on Finding Nemo. (9 out of 10)
Follow Us
Support Us
Click here to buy posters!
