blog.wddjr.com

Archive for the ‘Movie Reviews’ Category

This is another screen adaptation of one of Stephen King’s books. Cujo meets Starship Troopers on the set of The Birds after mutating with War of the Worlds and Alien as they came through Stargate. In fact it even had touches of The Mummy Returns (a la Brandon Fraser).The movie is very formularic and is definitely an interesting study in group think and makes you understand why people like Jim Jones can get a following. Special effects were ok but too mechanical for my tastes. The movie was two plus hours, but not tedious. It would seem that after all the carnage a relatively tasteful ending would be best. Most of the critics rave about the daring ending. I found the ending to be extremely horrific from a disgusting standpoint and in extremely bad taste. It provides a shock, which I am sure is the goal, but it was tasteless and leaves you wanting for restitution from the director. For horror movie fans, it’s matinee fodder, but don’t buy any concessions or you will feel you have wasted too much money on this typical King movie. If you leave just before the movie ends, it will leave a better taste in your mouth. The only real adaptation on a King novel worth its salt was The Shining and nothing he has written or ever will write again will top that thanks to Jack Nicholson.

Another long movie, 2 hours and 38 minutes, and based on a true story. From Wikipedia: “Frank Lucas (born September 9, 1930 in Lenoir County, North Carolina) was a heroin dealer and organized crime boss in Harlem during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was particularly known for cutting out middlemen in the drug trade and buying heroin directly from his source in Southeast Asia. He organized the smuggling of heroin from Vietnam to the U.S. by using the coffins of dead American servicemen (“cadaver connection”)” In the film, Lucas is portrayed by Actor Denzel Washington. Lucas and his former competitor, Nicky Barnes, sat down with New York magazine’s Mark Jacobson recently for a historic conversation between men who have not spoken to each other in 30 years. The story has two underlying aspects: (1) the rise of an African-American drug lord who used the principal of buying in bulk and underselling the competition while providing a superior product. It is sad to see the money made on addiction of your own people who are socioeconomically deprived – particularly in the era of segregation. It also demonstrated the closeness of family and demonstrated that family can be your downfall regardless of how careful you may be. The other storyline revolves around an honest cop surrounded by crooked cops on the take from the other drug lords. While his dedication to his job and sheer honesty he loses his wife and child through divorce while he is a beat cop attending law school at night. In the end, justice prevails and our honest cop get the bad guy, cleans up the police department, and passes the bar exam. While the story doesn’t go further with the cops career after he passes the bar exam, a supertitle at the end tells us that he becomes a defense attorney and his first client is our bad guy, Frank Lucas, who is doing a 70 year prison term. Frank’s story is one of incongruities. On one side he is a sophisticated businessman stressing honesty, integrity, hard work, and family; and on the other side he could kill someone without flinching. It is truly a story of a homegrown American Gangster competing with the tradition and organization of the Mafia for the almighty dollar. It was sheer ingenuity how he established the drug connection with the Viet Nam drug producers, cutting out the middle men. Another 2 hour and 40 minute movie. This one is most likely in the running for oscars, probably more for the acting of both Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, rather than a Best Movie. But look out for Russell Crowe getting the nod as well for his spectacular performance in the western remake, 3:10 to Yuma. I liked this move although I would have like to have seen a little more gratuitous violence in the style of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, since it was a gangster movie, but it’s still worth taking a look.

Caught up in an adulterous affair with his brother Andy’s wife (Marisa Tomei), Hank (Ethan Hawke) digs himself into a deep hole when he agrees to rob a mom-&-pop jewelry store at Andy’s insistence. Hank’s pressing financial problems are nothing compared to the spiraling trouble he gets in when the robbery goes bad, since the jewelry store in question belongs to Hank’s and Andy’s parents. Director Sidney Lumet (“Dog Day Afternoon”) twists suspense around terrific ensemble performances in screenwriter Kelly Masterson’s character-driven crime thriller that is at turns sexy, hilarious and devastating. Philip Seymour Hoffman is outstanding as the cunning Andy, and Albert Finney priceless as the father whose sons betray him. The title comes from an Irish saying, “May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you’re dead.” 50 years ago Sidney Lumet directed his first film, the courtroom drama “12 Angry Men.” It earned Lumet his first Academy Award nomination for directing, though he lost to the great David Lean for “Bridge on the River Kwai.” Since then, Lumet has been nominated for directing three more times (“Dog Day Afternoon,” “Network” and “The Verdict”). Some of his other films include “Serpico,” “Equus,” “The Wiz”, “Prince of the City” (for which he was Oscar nominated for co-writing the screenplay) and “Running on Empty.” He finally received an honorary Oscar in 2005. Now, five decades after he started, Lumet should earn directing nomination number five with “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.” With so many “directors” making movies today, it is inspiring to see a master like Lumet, still going strong at the young age of 83, leave most of them in the dust. Lumet has always been able to tell a story like nobody else, and here he produces some of his greatest work ever. By showing the robbery in the opening few minutes, and then piecing together the film with flashback, Lumet shows a masters’ touch behind the camera. And he has chosen a cast that is more than equal to the task at hand. Hoffman, in his first true lead role since winning the Oscar for “Capote,” is a bull of a man, a walking ball of furious energy. If I had to compare him to more familiar actors, it would be Lee J. Cobb or Brian Denehey. In fact, I can see him in another ten years (he just turned 40) following those actors in the role of Willie Loman in “Death of a Salesman”. Hawke is his equal here, showing a range only hinted at in “Training Day.” Tomei brings a sense of sadness to her role, one that is even braver as she’s often in various stages of undress. As the father who attempts to find out the truth, no matter what, Finney proves to be a wounded bear of a man. Lumet’s “Network” earned an incredible five acting nominations come Oscar time (three wins) and I wouldn’t be surprised to see “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” earn a solid four.

This movie is the first installment of Phillip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy. His Dark Materials consists of Northern Lights (titled The Golden Compass in North America), The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass. The first volume of the trilogy, “Northern Lights”, won the Carnegie Medal for children’s fiction in the UK in 1995. The Amber Spyglass, the last volume, was awarded both 2001 Whitbread Prize for best children’s book and the Whitbread Book of the Year prize in January 2002, the first children’s book to receive that award. The series won popular acclaim in late 2003, taking third place in the BBC‘s Big Read poll. Considerable controversey has arisen over the making of this movie suggesting it is pushing an athestic agenda, probably because of Pullman’s criticism of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia and their supposed religious agenda. Pullman in essence said of them, that for works that pushed a religious agenda that they lacked the one element, love, that is the foundation of New Testament Christianity. While I haven’t yet read the books, I will most likely do so now after seeing this first installment. In the movie, a teen girl named Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) who lives in an alternate world where everyone’s soul is represented by an animal “daemon” discovers that things aren’t what they seem as friends of hers start disappearing, pointing to a plot by a group called the “Gobblers” lead by the beautiful but cold Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman). With a magical compass given to her by her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), Lyra is led on an adventure to the kingdom of the bears where she teams with a group including the Armored Bear Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen) to find her lost friends. To go beyond this would spoil the movie for you. Suffice it to day, there are shades of Orwell’s 1984 and the epic battle of good against evil portrayed in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Throw in a little Harry Potter and you have a good two hours of fantasy entertainment. Taken at superficial value as a movie, I found it entertaining. You have to like this genre of movie to enjoy it, but it doesn’t tire you out, running at just under 2 hours. To keep you from being disappointed, I will remind you that this is the first installment of a trilogy, so don’t expect any resolution not should you expect all your questions to be answered. I don’t know if I would have been disappointed if I had read the books previously, but the movie definitely worth the price of matinee admission.

Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is an advice columnist who is doing the best he can as the widower father of three girls. Each year the brood head out to Maine to meet up with the extended Burns clan at their parents’ cabin to have some family fun, ending with the closing of the cabin for the season. This year is a little different as Dan’s professional career could take a new step with potential syndication, his home life is taking a turn as his daughters are each having a crisis, and Dan has a chance encounter that could forever change his future, or at the very least, his present. After arriving at the gathering it becomes clear to the audience that Dan is the odd man out in this family. He is the awkward brother who gets to sleep in the “special room”. Everything about Dan is summed up when his mother (Dianne Wiest) approaches him and says: “You do so much for your girls, but what do you do for yourself?” It is a good question. Dan tries to be the best father he can to his girls, pining for his deceased wife, whom we learn little about. The question also comes at a turning point in the evolution of Dan. While the father/daughter conflict and Dan’s attempts to do the best he can offer a lot of flavor to the film, it is not what is at the core of the movie. What it is is a pleasant look into the life of a man who does so much for others that he neglects his own needs, and the impetus that pushes him towards finding a new balance between helping others and helping himself. Shortly after arriving at the cabin an incident with his girls puts Dan a bit on edge. His mother, in all her motherly wisdom, sends Dan out to get the papers, a trip that will force him to spend some time with himself (it is quite a drive to the nearest newstand). This is a fateful trip that will lead to his encounter with the enchanting Marie (French beauty Juliete Binoche). The two talk for a long time, realizing that they have much in common and that there could be a future there. Before they can get too far, Marie is called away. Dan returns home, floating on air after the encounter. Marie is revealed to be his brother Mitch’s (Dane Cook) girlfriend. Talk about awkward. This is the first woman to spark any life in him since the death of his wife, and he is held back by societal expectations due to her involvement with his brother. You can probably tell where this is going to go without even seeing the film. What makes this movie worthwhile are the performances and the way the characters interact with each other, even if it does play the edges of believability. Steve Carell is perfect in the lead role. He doesn’t over act as you might expect him to do in this role which is probably more realistic and serious than any of his others. I think this shows a deeper side to his acting ability. Eventhough you are as pained by the angst he protrays when everything unravels, you are equally overjoyed that it actually had the predictable happy ending. Otherwise it would have been terribly disappointing. In the beginning, I questioned Marie cerebral ability as she appeared somewhat autistic or distant, but in the end it really did fit together. Dane Cook, who you either love or hate, was perfectly cast as the somewhat dimwitted always either in love or loving the one he is with. I think he actually has some acting ability if he would just not let his quick popularity go to his head. This movie is well worth the time.

No, I haven’t read the 1954 science fiction book by the same name by Richard Matheson. The original story takes place over a period of time between 1976 and 1978 in Southern California. The novel opens with the monotony and horror of the daily life of the protagonist, Robert Neville. Neville is apparently the only survivor of an apocalypse caused by a pandemic of bacteria, the symptoms of which are very similar to vampirism. Well from that you can sort of figure where this is going. This iteration in which Will Smith plays the protagonist is the third adaptation to the big screen. The Last Man on Earth In 1964, Vincent Price starred as Dr. Robert Morgan (rather than “Neville”) in The Last Man on Earth. (An Italian production, the original title was L’Ultimo Uomo Della Terra). Matheson wrote the screenplay for this adaptation, but later rewrites were changed, because he did not wish his name to appear in the credits. As a result, Matheson is credited under the pseudonym “Logan Swanson.” Nevertheless, the film is the most faithful of all three film adaptations, and adheres fairly closely to the book. The Omega Man In 1971, a far different version appeared as The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston (as Robert Neville) and Anthony Zerbe. Matheson had no influence on the screenplay for this film; it deviates from the novel’s story in several ways, completely removing the vampirical elements. I am Legend WARNING: The following synopsis contains spoilers! Will Smith stars in the film directed by Francis Lawrence, released on December 14th, 2007. This adaptation of the film changes more elements of the book than the past adaptations. Some big departures from the book include heavily toning down Robert Neville’s vampire-hunting (in the film he captures them alive as laboratory subjects in his search for a cure). The manner of Neville’s death is altered to allow a relatively upbeat ending. The Ben Cortman character of the book is reduced into a nameless recurring vampire leader who does not speak. The Ruth character is completely altered from the book to be an uninfected and immune human. The film also changes the origin of Neville’s dog. The story is relocated from Los Angeles to New York City. It is ironic that this film adaptation retains the book’s title ‘I am Legend’; the film’s rationale for the title is the diametric opposite of the one presented in the book (where Neville becomes a legendary figure for bringing salvation to humanity by developing a cure for the Infected, rather than for hunting and killing them). For opening weekend, the Will Smith version grossed $77 million dollars, which goes to show you that he is quite the box office draw. As to the movie, it was pretty weak. It was supposed to draw on the psychological effects on being alone in a land of monsters and it didn’t succeed very well. This is just another zompire movie. Hideous creatures that only come out at night to feed or kill. Superstrength. Can’t communicate other than in gutteral bleating. You might have well been watching Night(s) of the Living Dead, The Hills Have Eyes and its sequels, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later. Same basic plot, same basic outcomes. Nothing socially redeeming and neither was this movie. In a word, it sucked, and we all were suckered to the theater thinking Will Smith could pull it off.

This movie has hints of Malice and Flatliners. Unfortunately, Hayden Christensen again demonstrates his inability to act even in this one hour and 18 minutes movie. Much less tedious than his roles in Starwars I and II, but then again this movie was half as long. It was still boring. The primise evolves around the fact that some people remain consciously awake during anesthesia eventhough they are incapable of moving or talking. Thus we have the young, rich budding tycoon with a heart condition. He first falls in love with his Mother’s secretary, who in actuality was a nurse who had been involved with a cardiac surgeon with 4 malpractice suits against him. Well, you can figure it out from there. Marriage and inheritance. Murder during a needed heart transplant. Mother doesn’t like son marrying beneath his station. Mother wanted another surgeon than the one who had treated him and befriended him and who encouraged his marriage to … you guessed it. Well, things get a little mixed up with the murder plot, mother commits suicide, her blood type matches, of course, son gets second transplant before he was taken off heart-lung machine, all the bad guys get caught. I guess the socially redeeming aspect of the movie is supposed to be is reconcilliation of son and mother in the “after-life” before revived from the second heart transplant. I am sure this was a tax write off for the movie company and even the producer and director probably had a hard time stretching the movie out to an hour and 18 minutes once they saw how really horrible it was. I am even surprised this movie got to the big screen and didn’t go directly to DVD. Save your money and watch reruns on TV.

Grey’s Anatomy meets Snow White and Prince Charming sans the dwarfs in New York. This movie is an interesting 1 hour and 47 minute mix of animation, fantasy, and musical. Patrick Dempsey brings to this movie the angst and misdirected love interest theme to this movie as the divorced single parent with a girlfriend. All of a sudden the soon to be princess, banished from her animatino land to real world NY by the jealous stepmother of the doltish Prince Charming played by a gaunt James Marsden who soon also makes the transformation from animation to real world. It is quite an interesting romp with one of the highlights being the princess to be cleaning up McDreamy’s apartment with the local animals which happen to be rats, mice, pigeons, and the leftover cast of singing roaches from Joe’s Apartment. The movie is good entertainment for all ages and has something for everybody, including a King Kong type finish for the evil Queen. Who would have thought that Patrick Dempsey could sing or ballroom dance or that Jame Marsden could play a comic role compared to his role in the X-Men trilogy or some of the more dramatic roles such as 10th and Wolf or Gossip or his teen thrillers such as Disturbing Behavior and Campfire Tales. Even EW gave it a B+ average. Rotten Tomatoes says 93% fresh. I would have to agree. An entertaining movie with a few really good production scenes. Is there an underlying moral in there somewhere regarding true love, love and first sight, or good triumphing over evil? You can probably read one in there somewhere. Even sans interpretation, it is a movie that could make your worst day a little bit better. I do think, however, that they could have found a better looking “girlfriend” for McDreamy than Idina Menzel who has to have one of the biggest and ugliest mouths on the big screen. Not to give away the plot too bad, but the ending is as expected. McDreamy gets the animated princess come to life, and the Prince goes back to his animated kingdom taking the jilted girlfriend. And in both worlds they all lived happily ever after.

This movie is classic Cohen Brothers. I am still not sure I understood it. I liked the movie and thought I understood it pretty much until the ending. Then I really got ticked off because the movie ended abruptly after a strange monologue by Tommy Lee Jones who played the sheriff. I had intended the movie to have a formularic ending of good triumphing over evil and there was certainly enough gratuitous violence to satisfy the average movie goer. After thinking about it, I may need to go see it again because everyone I told that I hated the movie, they loved it and had a different interpretation. I don’t think I fell asleep and missed anything but evidently I wasn’t really paying attention. The more I think about it, it was an allegorical movie simply reminding us that there are varying degrees of evil in the world because several of the key players personified different levels of evil, except for the sheriff who was truly an honest and honorable man. In the end, without seeing again, the best I can figure out is the movie tells us that we have progressed from an honorable society to an evil on and that maybe in the war between good and evil, that good may win some battles but you will never eliminate evil. Also, there is such a thing as pure evil. Do the good become apathetic and just do the best they can? That question is up for grabs, at least until I see the movie again. I think I missed something in the translation.