Movie Reviews

There are a lot of movies about alien invasions out there. We have the numerous incarnations of War of the Worlds, not to mention The Missing and even shows like Invasion (which is not related to this movie except by common theme). Sometimes the movies are hit and miss; sometimes they are brilliant. The Invasion is neither brilliant nor a tremendous miss. What it lacks for visual appeal it gains in good characterization and suspense. The commercials gave the impression this was some sort of Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake, and in a lot of ways it is (except here the aliens actually take over your body rather than creating a whole new one, though it should be mentioned that the IMDB subtitle for the film is Invasion of the Body Snatchers). The result is that we don’t really see the aliens, nor are we entirely certain that they are aliens (it’s sort of explained, but really it could just be an advanced parasitic infection of sorts). Still the film benefits from having Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman as leads, bringing in solid characterization to make you care about what is going on, a factor which can become a problem in films these days with excessive amounts of explosions, CGI, and random characters who either don’t fit or fail to change in any recognizable fashion. So, without further ado, to the breakdown: Direction 3/5 I can’t say that the direction is perfect. Thankfully there aren’t a lot of annoying camera angles or visual problems that can be attributed to the direction. This is pretty standard stuff. It gets the job done and allows you to forget that someone is behind the camera calling the shots. That’s a good thing. Other than that there’s not much to say. Cast 3/5 It’s hard not to like Kidman in this film, and Craig does a lot to give this film some strength, by providing balance to Kidman’s heavy motherly role. Other cast members may be familiar to you, though likely not by name, and all of them serve to establish and excellent ensemble that don’t seem to have many problems with establishing a realistic connection. The romance between Kidman and Craig feels strained because it should be (Kidman plays a single mother dealing with a lot of issues over custody, so her desire to be protective of her son and realizing the importance of maintaining some distance comes through beautifully). I can’t complain about any of the cast because none of them managed to hurt the film. Adaptation N/A Although I am familiar with the original, I don’t really consider this a modern adaptation of the films that preceded it. It certainly has similarities, but I think the change in how the creatures take control makes it much more realistic and frightening. Writing 4/5 Since we’re dealing with an obviously cliche idea, or at least one used enough times before to be recognizable, I find that parts of the story simply fall a little short of the mark. The best thing about this movie is that it doesn’t give you the standard Body Snatchers idea. Instead of the aliens growing copies of real people, and subsequently destroying the originals, the aliens here manifest as a sort of parasitic virus of sorts. The symptoms they exhibit before fully infecting you look like any other flu infection. This is a really neat idea when you think about how easy it would be for such an infection to spread. Where the story is a little weak is in dealing with the aliens themselves. There is a lot of leading up to the big climax, but not nearly enough of the amazingly frightening reality that the aliens present. Still, the suspense provided was enough to keep me interested in what was going to happen in the end. Thankfully the end doesn’t disappoint. Visuals 3/5 There isn’t a lot in the way of CGI or anything like. Most of the visuals are simply the characters and the city. Having said that I can say that at least the visuals are crisp. Not the greatest visual work, but certainly movie quality. Nothing that will knock you off your seat, since there isn’t any CGI or anything like that. Overall I’d say the visuals simply get the job done and avoid being annoying, because what would any scifi movie be with annoying visuals? Exactly. Overall 3.25/5 To put it simply this is a good movie. Not the greatest, but definitely worth renting. It does exactly what it was made to do: entertain. If you don’t want to be entertained, don’t watch this movie. If you do, then give it a shot. If you like alien invasions and body snatcher stories, then this is another to add to your arsenal. The suspense and overall feel of the movie kept me interested from start to finish, plus there is an excellent cast. The short answer: good movie that doesn’t attempt to be anything more than it was advertised as.

Having missed this film in theaters I was forced to do the “rental” thing. I’m glad I didn’t see it in theaters. Seriously. The problem with Cloverfield isn’t that it is a bad idea, nor that it’s a cliche idea, since the whole monster attacking a major city thing has been done dozens of times before, it’s that the marketing for this made me so fascinated by the prospect of a truly illusive and downright original take on giant monster movies only to let me down when the actual film played before my eyes. I tried really hard to enjoy it as much as possible, and there are good parts within the film, but unfortunately the faults of the film simply outweigh the things that were done right. More to be said in the breakdown. Direction 1/5 What direction? I’m not kidding. That’s a very serious question. Whatever direction was given must not have been very thorough, nor very useful. Throughout most of the movie we’re subjected to Hub, or Hud, or whatever the hell that guy’s name is. Initially he wanders around being a complete moron while trying to get people to do quick “video goodbye’s” for the main character (who is apparently leaving for Japan), then attempts to get some girl to like him at the party (which he doesn’t stop doing there by the way). That last bit comes into play later for reasons that are just plain idiotic. When the sh*t hits the fan, Mr. Hubby Hud takes the camera with him and for the rest of the movie (until he dies) we get to hear his lovely idiotic commentary as the city descends into chaos. Now, on principle I have nothing wrong with having the “idiot character” or the “comic relief”, except where it’s completely unnecessary. The delivery is simply juvenile, with the character acting almost as if he has a mental deficiency when he should be acting, oh, I don’t know, scared out of his damn mind? Real people, which this movie is trying to give us, don’t act like buffoons 24/7. I really doubt anyone during 9/11 was running around and asking idiotic questions about unrelated nonsense.Having sufficiently ranted I can say that there really isn’t any direction here. The reactions are all over the place and the camera panning is impossible to follow. More on that last bit later. Cast 2/5The cast of this movie is nothing special. The only person who really inspires any sort of emotional response from me is Michael Stahl-David (who plays the main character Rob Hawkins). The rest of the cast doesn’t really do much for the film. Most of the characters spend their time crying and screaming incomprehensibly, or running around acting like a moronic buffoon who can’t even convince me for one second that he actually gives a rat’s butt about the fact that Rob’s brother gets killed by the monster. Basically, loads of disappointments. Adaptation N/AThis wasn’t adapted from anything that I am aware of. Writing 1/5Let’s see: take a cliched idea, attempt to make it new, but then revert to another cliched idea, throw in more cliches, and then never explain anything, thus leaving the audience wondering “what just happened?” Oh, and the movie ends on a cliffhanger, which means you really don’t know what happened. Essentially there is no resolution to the film. Spoilers ahead, by the way.So, basically here is the story:Rob’s friends and family throw him a going-away-party one evening in his New York apartment when a big mean monster comes into town and starts screwing things up. Somewhere in the middle of the party the movie establishes a relationship-gone-bad between two childhood friends (you know, the whole “we’ve been friends forever, let’s do it” thing). Well, Mr. Rob, or Mr. Hero, decides “oh I have to save her cause I love her” and goes across town against all better judgment, subsequently getting most, if not all, of his friends killed in the process only to die in the end of the movie along with Beth (the friend with benefits).Okay, now setting aside the numerous cliches already going on we can talk about the other problems: namely the lack of answers. Where the monster comes from is never answered, in fact, we’re not given much beyond random speculation. On top of that we’re never really clear what the whole infection thing is about, but people supposedly are turning into bizarre monsters (or so the shadows seem to show us). And in the end we don’t even know if the monster is killed. The tunnel the remaining characters are hiding in is bombed and that’s the end of the movie. So in the end we know less than we did when the movie started. It’s all a glorious mess that will apparently have a sequel to give us the answers. Visuals 1/5The greatest issue with the visuals is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is done via a hand cam, which means nothing but shaking and bobbing around for an hour and a half. This didn’t work well for Blair Witch and it certainly didn’t work well here. The biggest problem with a shaky camera is that whenever we are given the chance to get a really good look at the monster (up until the end at least) the camera shakes around so the view is impossible to focus on. I can handle this a few times. I understand why they wanted this in the film, but there just comes a point in the first 45 minutes where you really want a good look at the monster so you can really understand what exactly is so terrifying. But even in the end the view of the monster isn’t very good: it’s a long distance shot, which shows the monster in its entirety, but doesn’t give us the impression we really need. The only reason the visuals get a point here is that at least when there are views of the

Having never been a fan of the game franchise (I think they’re rather stupid myself, but that’s because I like FPS games instead), I have always loved the film adaptations. Why? Because I love zombie movies, even ones like 28 Days Later where the “zombies” aren’t really zombies (and actually all those Romero incarnations aren’t truly zombie movies either–look it up…try Haiti). Regardless of what you might think about the games, the first Resident Evil flick was darn good. It managed to terrify the crap out of us with those zombie dogs and the truly frightening zombified people. We were able to forgive the makers for the poor CGI too, since those weird mutation things were sort of bad, but didn’t take up the screen much.Then came Resident Evil 2 and those of us who liked the first movie were screaming “yes”, right up until we saw and we were screaming “no”. It seems that awesome cliff-hanger ending in the first film was turned into another relatively interesting idea that came off campy and, well, just bad. Let’s face it, a bad Russian accent is a movie killer almost instantly, not to mention forced dialogue.Now, we have Resident Evil Extinction, which takes off from the second film, but moves ahead years, rather than a few days or hours. This proves somewhat beneficial and somewhat confusing. At least we have hope that the movie will pull us away from all that was bad about the first one.Well, it does and it doesn’t. Yes, it gives us a whole new experience: the Earth has been decimated by the infection, which wasn’t contained after all and spread everywhere. Humans are, well, not extinct, which puts some considerable strain on the title–doesn’t it?–but struggling to survive in caravans of sorts (old buses, gas-guzzling SUVS, and the like). What happened to Alice? That’s just it, you don’t really know. She’s alone when we first see her again, and about halfway through the movie we find out she left the group because she was being traced by Umbrella and didn’t want to cause them any harm, which would have been nice if such a thing were shown to us so we understand, to some extent, why Alice is running on her own in a world overrun with zombies (couldn’t they show a task force try to acquire her and she just kills them off?). Super powers show up too, since Alive is some sort of freak accident/experiment and she can make things explode and what not.Okay, so I’ve laid out the story and I’ll leave how I feel about the movie to the breakdown. There is good and bad to this film, so let’s see how it pans out: Direction 3/5I don’t know how to say it. The direction isn’t great. It’s not horrible, but not great. The problem? This movie still falls prey to what killed the first one: some really badly executed lines from actors who are rather competent that should have been redone a few times to get them right. The good news? At least they’re not as horribly frequent as in the second flick, which would have received a 1 or 2 from me.Basically, there’s a minor improvement here, but it’s nothing like in the first film, which was, for the most part, rather solid. If you’re going to mess up a good movie franchise you can’t do it with bad directing. Look at The Matrix! The movies were, well, adequately directed from start to finish. It’s the writing that killed The Matrix, not the acting or the direction. So, there’s an improvement, but there are still some forced lines from actors that are better, and could be shown to be so if they were told to redo some scenes. At least it’s not as bad as the whatever it is that fake Russian guy said to the mutant dog that was about to kill him. “I’ve got this b***h” I think… Cast 3/5Well, I can say that there probably isn’t anyone else I would choose to play Alice. I think Jovovich is a strong choice. She has that slightly childlike quality to her that makes her perfect for the character that really doesn’t understand why all this crap is happening to her, and to some extent doesn’t understand why she’s suddenly become a super hero/total bad ass.Some of the other actors are probably good fits, but I think there needed to be some serious work paid attention to dialogue for a lot of them. Comic relief is fine, but you have to be careful for a movie as serious as this one not to be too comedic, because then it just gets ridiculous. These films deal with very serious, and pertinent issues and when you take something like that and try to put funny smelling cheese on top, it just doesn’t work.Still, I think issues with acting have a lot more to do with the writing and direction than the actors themselves as I have seen a lot of these actors in other works before and they are good actors (not great or anything, but not crap). Hence why I give it a 3. The good news is that almost all of the really annoying people are gone (either because they are dead or nobody gave them another contract…dead as in the characters are dead, not the people themselves). Adaptation N/AI only played the game a couple times and am not really qualified to make a judgment here. Writing 3/5The writing is good and bad at the same time. First the good:They’ve taken the original story and really drawn it out into something far more sinister than it was before. Alice is a super mutant of sorts and Dr. Isaacs, who was in the end of the second movie, is doing even worse things than before. We also have a dying world due to the infection. Thankfully, too, the plot movies at a good pace. You’re not really bored throughout,

I’m not a fan of Fantastic Four and never was. I saw the first movie on TV many years after it had already gone through theaters and made its run on DVD. The first film was, in a lot of ways, a poor excuse for a superhero movie and when I found out they were making a second, and saw the pictures of the Silver Surfer, I was prepared for ultimate suckage.Having said that, I can now say I was at least partially proven wrong on this film. Fantastic Four 2 is loads better than the first film. Where the first film failed, this one got it right. There is actually a progressive plot. The characters actually go from not doing a whole lot, to doing a little bit, to a bit more, and finally to the climax. The first film failed entirely on this point with the confrontation with Dr. Doom happening all the way at the end and the only other confrontations being personal ones between the characters. The writers for part two changed that so the confrontations between the characters happen alongside the big plot: the Silver Surfer is destroying Earth. This gives you a more even approach to the concept. While certainly not a perfect film, I at least enjoyed this one and found myself mostly thinking it was a decent film, if not a tad bit flawed. Certainly worth renting, watching on TV, or, if you’re a FF nut, buying. Direction 3/5I can’t say there isn’t anything really surprising or amazing about the directing. The good news is that it doesn’t seem to get in the way almost all of the time. There are some moments where I think some direction could have helped even out some things, but nothing that annoys too much. Since I can’t really say much else about the directing, other than it gets the job done, it doesn’t really deserve anything more than 3. If there were moments of pure brilliance I would go with a higher number. Cast 3/5I’m not a fan of Jessica Alba, and I’m still not. The biggest let down for me is probably Chris Evans. I like Chris Evans. He was awesome in Sunshine, but I think the problem with him here is that he tends to push that arrogance a little too much. This might have something to do with the directing, but I can’t say for certain. I like Chris Evans, and his banter with Chiklis’ character–the Thing–is almost always rather good (I particularly liked the character development in this one). I think if he had just pulled back just a little it would have worked even better.Other than that, I think the choice of actors works well. Nobody here is going to knock your socks off, but nobody is going to really make you want to break the TV either. Adaptation N/AI didn’t read the comics, so I can’t say anything about this. Writing 4/5In comparison to the first film, the writing here is really rather good. The story progresses at a reasonable pace, rather than the sudden jolt in the first film. This is all good because it means you get to know the characters, you see many different conflicts being introduced and/or resolved, and the general feel of the movie is more intense. Kudos to the writers for getting it right. Plus, the Silver Surfer is pretty darn cool.My only complaint is the final confrontation between the Silver Surfer and Galactus. It was just a little too quick for me. I know in the comic book that Galactus doesn’t die, but he does seem to die in this movie, which poses a problem since the Fantastic Four really don’t confront Galactus, just the Silver Surfer, who miraculously can destroy Galactus and has been able to all along. Why didn’t he do it before? I don’t really understand that. Visuals 4/5The visuals are good, but with flaws. The Silver Surfer is obviously CG when he’s on his board, but he looks a lot more real when he’s not. I’m not sure if they used a real person for the non-board scenes or if they are just really good at dealing with non-shiny silver colors, but for some reason he just looks more real. That is probably the only sad part: the lack of realism in some of the CGed scenes.The other problem was Galactus. I felt a little let down by him. In the comics he is supposed to be a humanoid giant/God who devours planets, and there is a scene in the movie where we see the shape of his helmet as a shadow moving over Jupiter (I think, or Saturn). But when it comes down to it, he’s just a molecular cloud of some sort. It was sort of a let down. I wanted him to be a giant thing, or at least have a more human quality to him than being a giant cloud without much form. What happened to his shape? It’s important! Overall 3.5/5Certainly worth watching and enjoyable. It deserves what it gets since it isn’t an award winning film at all. If you like super hero movies, you should watch this one. There is certainly a lot going on here that beats out the mediocre first film. It’s more enjoyable and, dare I say, fantastic. That’s important, I think. The return of Dr. Doom is at least somewhat intelligent here because we know he’s up to no good, and yet the conflict of his arrival digs deep into the characters and, gasp, actually does something important. Before? He was just there…and the fight in the end was lame. Here, it’s better! There’s a conflict that progresses. Not to mention you have the deal with the Silver Surfer there too. This film simply does it right. It gives you action and other bits to keep you interested in what is going on. In the first film? When it ended I felt like I had wasted

It’s been a long time since Disney really got something right. With Enchanted hitting a lot of the right buttons and the Pixar lineup hitting all of them, it’s really a treat when Disney simply gives you something quaint and likable.Meet the Robinsons is about a lot of things, but namely about the nature of family. Lewis is a semi-brilliant inventor who was left by his mother at an orphanage. By semi-brilliant I mean that he invents really cool things, but they pretty much always fail and cause mild disaster. But Lewis has little hope that he’ll ever be adopted. Then a brilliant idea comes to him: what if he can make a machine that will allow him to remember his mother, and ultimately can find her to have a family again? But when things go horribly wrong, Lewis finds himself dragged into a world of the future by a young boy who needs Lewis’ help to stop the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the past and destroying everything.The cliches are there. Yes, we have another story about an orphan boy who has to save the world. This is also yet another story about the consequences of time travel. Still, the characters are charming. All of them. The Bowler Hat Guy is creepy and comical, Grandpa Bud is slightly crazy, and Franny has a band of singing frogs. What more could you want? Well there is more: Adam West plays the voice of a futurist pizza delivery guy who comes off so much like a superhero that you can’t help but laugh and for some reason, Doris is an eastern European woman who races “model” trains, which aren’t really models at all. I found myself giggling here and there throughout the movie. This is a good thing because I was watching the film alone and I don’t generally laugh when I’m by myself (there’s just something missing from the environment). A lot of the funny parts were in the previews, but there are loads more that will have kids giggling too. The dinosaur is hilarious (we’ve seen the scene where it talks about its small arms).I think we should move to the breakdown now, since I’m giving away all the bits I liked already. Direction 4/5I can’t say that the directing is the best ever, but it didn’t annoy me. That generally means I liked the directing. If I don’t notice directorial faults, it’s usually an instant 4. One thing that becomes a problem with looking at the direction of animated films is that the process is somewhat different. I think the director here did a fantastic job pulling together all the elements of the characters. Every time the Bowler Hat Guy had his goofy, slightly creepy grin on I was grinning. Good directing for sure, but I don’t think it is award-winning (it’s no Finding Nemo). Probably the only thing that I didn’t find as enjoyable were the singing frogs. I didn’t get that “big band” feel that they were supposed to be conveying. Cast 5/5I’m basing this entirely off of the voice talent and on the fact that I don’t really know who any of the people are. I recognized Adam West instantly, because it’s hard not to, but the others weren’t recognizable simply because their voices were so brilliant. One fellow plays several of the characters and whoever played the Bowler Hat Guy was so perfect for the role (coupled with the visuals you really get this sense of emotion and hilarity).Basically, I would say the casting was perfect. There aren’t any voices I can think of that don’t fit. Adaptation N/AAs far as I know, this wasn’t based on a book or anything. Writing 4/5I can’t put my finger on it, but it does seem like there are some missing elements. The good bits are where we are presented with the future, which is somewhat wacky and, well, futuristic. It’s pretty fun to think about how different the future may be and with Disney this is a rather common experience (Tomorrow Land anyone?)The story itself moves well and there aren’t really any bits where you wonder just what is going on. It’s entertaining and I think that is probably the point. It does deal with some serious issues, but kids aren’t really going to care about that. What they will notice is a geeky hero rising up and succeeding in saving the world. Maybe there is some originality in that for kids. There aren’t a whole lot of geeky protagonists in Disney films (real geeks). Basically, it’s entertaining and it definitely drew me in. Visuals 4/5The biggest bonus for the visuals is what seems to me to be a good dose of originality. The Bowler Hat Guy, as I have said, is so wonderfully creepy that you can’t help but be fascinated by his enormous, grinning face and his skulking mannerisms. Goob has huge dark circles under his eyes and he actually looks rather tired. The style is very familiar, as are a lot of these Disney or Pixar CG films, but there are some fascinating changes to it, particularly in certain characters. My only complaint is that some things look a little too cartoony for this style and probably should have been made a little more layered and real (while still maintaining that it isn’t real, if that makes sense) Overall 4.25/5This is certainly worth watching. It’s a cute little film and kids will love it. There’s not much that is wrong with the film and that’s probably a good thing to say. I can’t think of anything that made me cringe.So, you should see this one. If you don’t, the Bowler Hat Guy will go back in time and make sure you are never born. Yeah. Okay, that’s an empty threat, but give this one a good look.

People have been giving this one mixed reviews ever since it came out. I got a chance to see it when I was in England, since some movies don’t play there until some months after they’ve finished their run here, and I have to say that I rather liked it.The story: David is sort of your semi-geek/outcast who discovers that he has the ability to transport himself instantly to anywhere he wants to go. His abilities are initially triggered by a traumatic event–nearly drowning–but he learns quickly that he is able to control his abilities and soon leaves behind his old life, while everyone else thinks he’s dead, by stealing money from a bank and “living it large”.But there are some people who think David and others like him are wicked creations that should be destroyed. Soon, David finds himself in the middle of a battle that has been raging for hundreds of years as one secret group tries to exterminate another.The basic idea is pretty good. One thing that I think is a bonus for this movie is that the people who are supposed to be the good guys are rather ambiguous and you find yourself rooting for them not because they are the “good guys” but because they’re not as evil as the “bad guys”. Now to the break down: Direction 3/5One of the things I think is a problem for Hayden Christensen is not that he’s an absolutely terrible actor, but that directors really don’t work with him. Yes, some of Christensen’s dialogue is stilted and often times he comes off amateur, but then there are times when he is actually decent, if not good. This makes me instantly wonder who the directors are who have direct control of how scenes go and why they aren’t making Christensen do several different takes of the same scene to get the one that works best. George Lucas aside, I think the direction in Jumper is decent, but nothing incredible. No awards needed here. It’s good enough to get the job done and I think that’s all that matters. Many of the scenes work well, some are a bit flawed. The problems with the movie stem more from the story itself rather than in direction. So a 3 out of 5 is pretty good I think. Cast 3/5I can’t say that the cast is the best choice for this film. Christensen works for the film, but many of the things people don’t like about him do show up here, but in lower frequency than we saw in Star Wars. Samuel L. Jackson is really difficult to dislike, and here I think he is at his strong point. He should play bad guys more often because his Pulp Fiction aggressiveness really plays well in that “bad guy” role, especially when there is a slight bit of ambiguity to the nature of the bad guy. After all, Roland (Jackson’s character) thinks that he is doing what is right because history has shown legitimate reason for him to hate these “jumpers”. Rachel Bilson as Millie is pretty strong too. There are no stellar performances here, but nothing that would make me hate the movie. Adaptation N/AI never read the book so I can’t make any judgment here. Writing 3/5Since I haven’t read the book I can’t tell you what the differences are and whether such changes were good. I also can’t tell you if the ending is different. The writing is decent, but nothing spectacular. The only problem I have is that there are loose ends that are never explained in the end. What happens to the other “jumper”? Does he die? Does he get away? What? I’m not a fan of loose ends. In fact, they tend to really annoy me. There’s no reason they couldn’t explain what happens to the other “jumper”. Couldn’t they just show David (Christensen) looking at a news report showing the guy being captured or something? Wouldn’t that work? There are some other minor flaws too. The movie tries to establish a rocky relationship between David and his father, but it’s never really clear that there is a “bad” relationship. We never see his father beat him, or treat him in any way that could be seen as “bad”. In fact, we only see his father showing concern in a very “rough”, fatherly way.Beyond that, the writing is solid enough. The action is pretty solid and entertaining. Visuals 5/5It’s hard not to like the visuals here. They did a fantastic job showing all the jumps. It’s cool to see regular activities (like walking to the fridge) turned into a jump fest. The action sequences are like an amped up Nightcrawler scene, without the scary monsterness to it. There isn’t really anything bad about the visuals at all, which is probably the strongest thing for the whole film. There’s never a point where you go “well that looks like CGed garbage”. Basically, the visuals are perfect, some of them even stunning. There isn’t a lot of heavy CG, and the scenery itself is really brilliant. They actually went to the Colosseum in Rome! Overall 3.5/5I think when it comes down to it I can say I enjoyed the film more than I disliked it. This isn’t an award winner, but certainly one worth remembering. The action was solid and really kept me fascinated. There is a lot of conflict between characters (even between the “good guys”) and the ambiguity really added to the suspense. The “bad guys” don’t seem so bad at first, but actually seem like the good guys, since the “good guy” (David) is technically a “bad guy” anyway. Then things change and you actually see how bad the “bad guys” really are, and when David meets another “jumper” it becomes even more ambiguous. The “jumper” is, in some ways, just as bad as the “bad guys”. I love this is films because it makes you really think about the nature of good and evil