Tag: movies

Twilight is the movie version for the first book by Stephanie Myers in
her teen-angst vampire series. It already has an intended audience
built into it, one which I am not part of. I've seen most of the
adaptations of book series: The Lord of the Rings (the gold standard),
The Chronicles of Narnia (boring), Harry Potter (exciting). This is the
first that I have not read any of the books upon which the series will
be based. I am an outsider which colors my reaction to the movie.I don't really care for vampire stories. They are not my usually
scare-fest fare. I prefer haunted houses and ghosts stories to creep me
out. The only vampire story I like is Stephen King's Salems Lot,
because it had a haunted house, the old Marsden place, in it, and it was
sufficiently creepy enough to keep me up till the break of dawn like
many of the ghost stories I read at the time.So vampires kind of bore me. They are too emo for my taste. The lead
vampire in the film is too broody and conveys his angst with furrowed
eyebrows. He reminded me of Brenden Fraser. Then there is the head
vampire who reminded me of Tom Cruise's vampire Lestat. This was a
brilliant casting decision. Although, less broody than the lead
vampire, his angst was summed up in his choice of becoming "vegetarian."
Why must I want human blood?The movie probably satisfies the fans of the book. They get to see the
characters in the flesh which they could only do in their imagination
until now. I now understand how it is to be an outsider to these fan
movies. I can't fathom what emotions the readers of the book are
investing in the characters and story of this film, but I know that
theirs are assigned with great heart. I can't really give a good
review, because I don't really care about the story. As a movie though,
it seems to be an opening chapter: incomplete and waiting for the next
to arrive. I don't think I want to see the next one.2 of 5 stars.

Quantum of Solace jumps right in where it left off two years ago. At least that’s what I thought, because I have only seen Casino Royale once in the theatres many moons ago.

I like the Bond girl who fits the classic Bond girl mold, Strawberry Fields. She doesn’t tell us her first name. She’s against Bond at their first meeting like the loyal henchwoman of Bond nemesis of old. Yet, she hops into the sack with Bond, and fatally winds up metaphorically being dropped into the shark pit or killed by the bad voodoo. She learns that you shake your ta-tas at Bond then you’ll take a dirt nap.

I really don’t have much to say about it, but maybe I might watch this on DVD more than its predecessor.

3 of 5 stars

Changeling is another Clint Eastwood flick that may be prestigious enough to warrant an Oscar nom if it was a better movie. It’s another of his explorations into the darkness of man á la Mystic River or Unforgiven. Yet, it wasn’t at first. It seemed to wander from theme to theme without a care.

I thought it was Angelina Jolie’s annual Oscar entry. Then it became a police procedural focusing on the corruption of the LAPD. Was the LAPD really just a bunch of no good thugs? Are they still? Are all cops just criminals with badges? Then the movie became about the Mira Loma serial killings. What?

One thing going for this movie is that it was short for a 140 minute movie. I was intrigued by how all the themes were introduced then twisted away for the next theme. The director’s slight of hand made it three films in one. It should’ve ended with the cowboy telling us the dude abides. We’re all LA now…. Who is the changeling?

3 of 5 stars

Role Models is too heavily steeped in Judd Apatow-isms.

You have one Paul Rudd as one of the leads. He’s famous as being the funny, straight guy, second banana, good buddy in Apatow films. He’s not a leading man, but a solid buddy to anchor the serious man stuff. You have McLovin’. Really, that’s all he is — McLovin’. He’ll always be — McLovin’. And that’s what we’ll always remember him as. Finally, you have the Apatow script of man-childs growing into responsibility as more manly man-childs.

As I watched the movie, I can’t help but think about an Apatow flick. There was bro comedies before Apatow, but once he hit in the summer of 2007, there is nothing left but Apatow bro comedies. It’s too bad as this would’ve been a really stupid fun flick to watch if not for the spectre of Apatow.

The one thing that this movie has that beats Apatow is a running time of reasonable length, and an ending that ended the movie.

2 of 5 stars.

The computer programmers and system designers in Eagle Eye should never build their system to resemble HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Just that shape alone, the iconic red, soulless eye, would signify that it is going to eventually turn on its maker. It will gain consciousness and decide to eliminate the human species because they are the problem.

The movie is hard to believe. It was setting up for a big twist ending, but never got there because they threw away reality and conjured up a big, fat, fake fantasy. If your going to make a paranoid thriller, you need tons of paranoia and a little bit of thrills. It was a movie that wanted to mix in paranoia about the government, but didn’t make anyone worried enough about how pervasive computer profiling is. I wish the Lone Gunmen were alive to make us remember that, “No matter how paranoid you are, you aren’t paranoid enough.”

The movie was good for what it was — car chases, loud noise, and quick-cut action. It’s good to let your brain wander, so that you don’t think too much about the computer profiling. Maybe, you should also be highly paranoid as well? Unfortunately, the movie plods along to a conclusion that you know is inevitable. You could plot it using a computer profile of many action flicks that have come before it.

2 of 5 stars.