32 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/13/07 4:00am)
New rule: Simply being absurdly violent in a purposeful manner does not make a movie what we might call "good." "Sin City" was good because of its unique style and memorable characters. I loved "300" because of its truly epic feel. And "Kill Bill" had a gripping story.\nBut when it comes to "Shoot 'Em Up," don't bother. Don't hope for its great cast to carry your interest. Don't hold out for any visual masterwork. Don't expect the action scenes to justify this 80-minute crapfest. Just, don't.\nI'd tell you about the story, but there isn't one. Dull drifter Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) wanders into a gunfight against the dumpy non-villain Hertz (Paul Giamatti) that lasts the whole movie. Along the way, Mr. Smith picks up a baby and a hooker (Monica Bellucci), and he pretty much only stops for ammo. I think somewhere near the end there was a negligible attempt at a plot, but by then I didn't care.\nFrom the poor gunplay to the big guitar music, this movie feels like little-known writer-director Michael Davis and his henchmen spent a weekend playing "Xbox LIVE on drugs" and thought, "Hey, we could make a cool action movie."\nWell, Mikey, you can't. And what's your great claim to fame, anyway? Maybe you should stick to projects like your direct-to-video classic "Prehysteria! 2" and its critically-acclaimed follow-up, "Prehysteria! 3." Seriously, if I were one of the pimple-ridden pre-teens in your target audience counting down the days until my mom buys me "Halo 3," I'd brand you as a "n00b."\nI feel sorry for the cast. Owen could be a great over-the-top action star, but his quirks are too lame and his one-liners render even the most-hardened action-film movie-buff limp. Giamatti could be a great villain if all his dialogue wasn't aimed at trying to make him funny instead of scary. And Bellucci? Well, she was admittedly a good hooker.\nSuccessful flicks in this narrow genre have to be willing to go all the way. This one tries just a little to be funny, just a little to have some romance and just a little to have incredible shoot-outs, but fails on all three counts. The only thing that saves "Shoot 'Em Up" from total failure is the last 15 minutes, when the fights actually get decent.
(05/10/07 4:00am)
I'm just about always willing to give a movie the benefit of the doubt. I can almost always find something halfway decent about any film to justify its existence. It takes a lot for me to call something a good movie, but I'll tolerate a lot before I call one bad.\nBut, with "The Invisible," I'm offended by how bad this movie is. I'm insulted by what passes for a plot for this film, which is actually based on a Swedish novel and film. Whiney, teenaged Nick Powell (Justin Chatwin) feels ignored by his rich mother ever since the death of his father. His mother (Marcia Gay Harden) is only worried about Nick's future and cares little for what Nick thinks and feels. Nick wants to go to a prestigious writing school in London after graduating high school. His mother just doesn't understand him.\nMeanwhile, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks feels similarly neglected by her family, but her chosen form of rebellion is to seek the rush of crime. Annie (Margarita Levieva) eventually gets picked up by the cops and, mistakenly blaming schoolmate Nick for ratting her out, beats him brutally and hides his body. Nick then wanders around the community as a disembodied spirit, trying, as the preview states, to get another chance at life by solving the mystery of his own death.\nThe problem is there's no mystery here, and the whole movie is torturously boring. We already know who the culprit is, so the entire film is Nick haunting Annie, slowly discovering how much they have in common. Nick realizes that he's just suffering from the human condition and blah, blah, blah. I expected a movie with such a potentially cool premise to at least try to pull off the suspense/mystery thing and not degrade to some teeny-bopper, emo-wannabe whimperfest\nEven if the acting hadn't been so horrible or the dialogue so melodramatic, I don't think there was any way to save "The Invisible" from its awful story. It must have been better in Swedish.
(11/29/06 10:48pm)
I won't lie. I'm a sucker for anything cute. Once a critter's eye-size-to-face ratio reaches a certain point, I'll follow it anywhere, giggling contentedly as I go. I'm like a Catholic schoolgirl.\nOr I was, until I saw "Happy Feet." Do not be taken in by the lies, my friends. Do not be swept away by the singing and the dancing and the pretty penguins, or even by the Robin Williams, for the sad truth of the matter is that this movie has little going for it besides fancy computer animation and bouncy, flightless waterfowl.\nThe premise of the film is pretty simple: Unlike all of the other emperor penguins in the entire colony, young Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood) is born without the ability to sing and is instead cursed with the inability to keep his tapping feet still and quiet. He is told he will never fit in with the rest of the colony, as their entire civilization is based on finding one's own "heart song" and singing it out. He'll never know the joy of romance, as the penguins mate through music. At one point, he's even banished from the group.\nI was hopeful in the beginning. I found myself feeling quite sorry for poor Mumble, and I was optimistic enough to believe that the movie would carry some real meaning. But the "happy feet" lose their rhythm partway through the film, when the storyline veers violently off course and becomes some sermon on happy-feely environmentalism. Yuck.\nThe problem is that the movie loses its focus. Other big animated films this year have managed to concentrate on a few key themes. Disney/Pixar's "Cars" was mostly about slowing down to enjoy the important things in life. Sony's "Monster House" focused on the fear of the unknown realm of adulthood. Even Dreamworks' flop "Flushed Away" stuck pretty stubbornly to a theme of cheap animation.\nWhen halfway through "Happy Feet" Mumble sets off on a quest to stop the humans from ravaging the Antarctic food chain, I lost interest. The movie stopped being about Mumble and his struggle to find acceptance, and I stopped caring. The film's great soundtrack faded into the background, there were too few dance sequences after that point, and we become disconnected from nearly all of the characters. What a shame.\nIf I wanted some suit to waddle around and squawk at me about how my wasteful habits are destroying our ecosystem, I would have rented "An Inconvenient Truth." I wanted the singing, dancing penguins to say something meaningful and personal to me, and I was thoroughly disappointed.
(11/29/06 5:00am)
I won't lie. I'm a sucker for anything cute. Once a critter's eye-size-to-face ratio reaches a certain point, I'll follow it anywhere, giggling contentedly as I go. I'm like a Catholic schoolgirl.\nOr I was, until I saw "Happy Feet." Do not be taken in by the lies, my friends. Do not be swept away by the singing and the dancing and the pretty penguins, or even by the Robin Williams, for the sad truth of the matter is that this movie has little going for it besides fancy computer animation and bouncy, flightless waterfowl.\nThe premise of the film is pretty simple: Unlike all of the other emperor penguins in the entire colony, young Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood) is born without the ability to sing and is instead cursed with the inability to keep his tapping feet still and quiet. He is told he will never fit in with the rest of the colony, as their entire civilization is based on finding one's own "heart song" and singing it out. He'll never know the joy of romance, as the penguins mate through music. At one point, he's even banished from the group.\nI was hopeful in the beginning. I found myself feeling quite sorry for poor Mumble, and I was optimistic enough to believe that the movie would carry some real meaning. But the "happy feet" lose their rhythm partway through the film, when the storyline veers violently off course and becomes some sermon on happy-feely environmentalism. Yuck.\nThe problem is that the movie loses its focus. Other big animated films this year have managed to concentrate on a few key themes. Disney/Pixar's "Cars" was mostly about slowing down to enjoy the important things in life. Sony's "Monster House" focused on the fear of the unknown realm of adulthood. Even Dreamworks' flop "Flushed Away" stuck pretty stubbornly to a theme of cheap animation.\nWhen halfway through "Happy Feet" Mumble sets off on a quest to stop the humans from ravaging the Antarctic food chain, I lost interest. The movie stopped being about Mumble and his struggle to find acceptance, and I stopped caring. The film's great soundtrack faded into the background, there were too few dance sequences after that point, and we become disconnected from nearly all of the characters. What a shame.\nIf I wanted some suit to waddle around and squawk at me about how my wasteful habits are destroying our ecosystem, I would have rented "An Inconvenient Truth." I wanted the singing, dancing penguins to say something meaningful and personal to me, and I was thoroughly disappointed.
(02/02/06 5:00am)
I have to be honest, when I first saw the trailer for "Nanny McPhee," I thought it looked trippy. I'm as big a fan of trippy movies as the next guy, but this one initially looked like it lacked the substance deep enough to see and enjoy it. How wrong I was.\n"Nanny McPhee" (based on a popular British series of children's books in the 1960s and 70s) comes out of nowhere as a crafty, funny subversion of the family movie norm, whose frank awkwardness becomes a point of intrigue. Bottom line: the whole thing is bizarre but in a good way.\nThe story is weird but absorbing. At some undisclosed time, in some undisclosed, British-sounding place, there was a man, Cedric Brown (Colin Firth), whose wife died, leaving him with seven disgruntled, poorly behaved children. After the nanny service in town blacklists him, he resorts to his only option: the strange, ugly woman who appears at his doorstep promising that she can make his children well-behaved. Of course, she will do this with magic and trickery and requires Sunday afternoons off.\nThe characters are odd but lovable, and the acting is top-notch. Emma Thompson (Nanny McPhee) shows that she could carry this movie solely on her character's wart-covered back, but she doesn't have to. Angela Lansbury, as the father's well-to-do, eccentric aunt, delivers a laugh-out-loud performance, and the children (especially the oldest, played by young Thomas Sangster) are believable and easy to get attached to.\nThe visuals are quirky but somehow appropriate. At any given time, the screen is filled with a number of vibrant, clashing colors that somehow manage to go together. The setting and clothing are battered and rustic, yet inexplicably comfortable. It all makes you feel uneasy in some happy way.\nThe film's only flaw is that it seems to drag on a bit too much in the second half. After seeing McPhee's antics in the first part of the film, making the audience suddenly anxious for more, the storyline shifts and Thompson's character begins to take a backseat to everything else in the film and is onscreen less and less. This is a huge mistake, given how much fun things are when she takes the wheel.\n Overall, though, "Nanny McPhee" is a funny and touching treat. It is weird enough to enjoy and happy enough to brighten your whole week, kind of like a good drug.
(02/02/06 1:22am)
I have to be honest, when I first saw the trailer for "Nanny McPhee," I thought it looked trippy. I'm as big a fan of trippy movies as the next guy, but this one initially looked like it lacked the substance deep enough to see and enjoy it. How wrong I was.\n"Nanny McPhee" (based on a popular British series of children's books in the 1960s and 70s) comes out of nowhere as a crafty, funny subversion of the family movie norm, whose frank awkwardness becomes a point of intrigue. Bottom line: the whole thing is bizarre but in a good way.\nThe story is weird but absorbing. At some undisclosed time, in some undisclosed, British-sounding place, there was a man, Cedric Brown (Colin Firth), whose wife died, leaving him with seven disgruntled, poorly behaved children. After the nanny service in town blacklists him, he resorts to his only option: the strange, ugly woman who appears at his doorstep promising that she can make his children well-behaved. Of course, she will do this with magic and trickery and requires Sunday afternoons off.\nThe characters are odd but lovable, and the acting is top-notch. Emma Thompson (Nanny McPhee) shows that she could carry this movie solely on her character's wart-covered back, but she doesn't have to. Angela Lansbury, as the father's well-to-do, eccentric aunt, delivers a laugh-out-loud performance, and the children (especially the oldest, played by young Thomas Sangster) are believable and easy to get attached to.\nThe visuals are quirky but somehow appropriate. At any given time, the screen is filled with a number of vibrant, clashing colors that somehow manage to go together. The setting and clothing are battered and rustic, yet inexplicably comfortable. It all makes you feel uneasy in some happy way.\nThe film's only flaw is that it seems to drag on a bit too much in the second half. After seeing McPhee's antics in the first part of the film, making the audience suddenly anxious for more, the storyline shifts and Thompson's character begins to take a backseat to everything else in the film and is onscreen less and less. This is a huge mistake, given how much fun things are when she takes the wheel.\n Overall, though, "Nanny McPhee" is a funny and touching treat. It is weird enough to enjoy and happy enough to brighten your whole week, kind of like a good drug.
(11/03/05 5:00am)
Sometimes overdue sequels fail to capture the magic of the original films. Sometimes kids in action movies ruin the experience. Sometimes movies advertised as "family adventures" only inspire the adventure of leaving the theater disappointed.\nAnd sometimes they rock. "The Legend of Zorro" does indeed rock.\nAntonio Banderas is back as the whip-cracking, high-flying people's champion Zorro, whose double life is straining his relationship with his wife Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and trouble-making young son Joaquin (Adrian Alonso). New enemies of freedom are terrorizing innocent citizens in their plot to employ a powerful new weapon to disrupt state and national unity.\nOf course, only Zorro can stop them.\nThis dances on the border of Saturday morning cartoon territory, but brilliant director Martin Campbell (1998's "The Mask of Zorro" and best James Bond movie "Goldeneye") makes good on the positive promises of such a genre while keeping the negative aspects suppressed. Audience members are treated to pretty faces, pretty places and strong characters.\nMore importantly, Campbell gives us incredibly well-thought and executed action sequences. When Zorro is on the screen, we get to revel in his elegant acrobatics and master-worked swordplay, not to mention the charisma Banderas once again brings to the role. Zeta-Jones also shines again, successfully bringing back the couple's on-screen chemistry while now getting in some swashbuckling of her own.\nBut having a child as a main player is always a dangerous idea, as frequently the kid's presence indulges a younger audience to the extent of becoming ridiculous.\nFortunately, Alonso gives an unprecedented good performance as a youngster in an adventure film. Even if you disagree, you only have to stomach the few short scenes where he takes center stage, which are worth sitting through for the sake of seeing the rest of the movie.\nThe only thing that could hold this movie back is the fact that "Legend" looks to have traded in the grit of a PG-13 rating that deepened "The Mask of Zorro" for the family audience of a PG rating. There's still the setup for the darker themes that strengthened the Banderas Zorro in the first movie, but it feels as though there was a conscious decision made not to act on them.\nThis slightly watered-down effect is the only thing that stops "The Legend of Zorro" from being as good as the first film. Watching it is almost like watching the edited-for-content version of "The Mask of Zorro" that keeps running on TBS; it's a teensy step from being perfectly complete, but it's still very, very good.
(11/03/05 1:26am)
Sometimes overdue sequels fail to capture the magic of the original films. Sometimes kids in action movies ruin the experience. Sometimes movies advertised as "family adventures" only inspire the adventure of leaving the theater disappointed.\nAnd sometimes they rock. "The Legend of Zorro" does indeed rock.\nAntonio Banderas is back as the whip-cracking, high-flying people's champion Zorro, whose double life is straining his relationship with his wife Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and trouble-making young son Joaquin (Adrian Alonso). New enemies of freedom are terrorizing innocent citizens in their plot to employ a powerful new weapon to disrupt state and national unity.\nOf course, only Zorro can stop them.\nThis dances on the border of Saturday morning cartoon territory, but brilliant director Martin Campbell (1998's "The Mask of Zorro" and best James Bond movie "Goldeneye") makes good on the positive promises of such a genre while keeping the negative aspects suppressed. Audience members are treated to pretty faces, pretty places and strong characters.\nMore importantly, Campbell gives us incredibly well-thought and executed action sequences. When Zorro is on the screen, we get to revel in his elegant acrobatics and master-worked swordplay, not to mention the charisma Banderas once again brings to the role. Zeta-Jones also shines again, successfully bringing back the couple's on-screen chemistry while now getting in some swashbuckling of her own.\nBut having a child as a main player is always a dangerous idea, as frequently the kid's presence indulges a younger audience to the extent of becoming ridiculous.\nFortunately, Alonso gives an unprecedented good performance as a youngster in an adventure film. Even if you disagree, you only have to stomach the few short scenes where he takes center stage, which are worth sitting through for the sake of seeing the rest of the movie.\nThe only thing that could hold this movie back is the fact that "Legend" looks to have traded in the grit of a PG-13 rating that deepened "The Mask of Zorro" for the family audience of a PG rating. There's still the setup for the darker themes that strengthened the Banderas Zorro in the first movie, but it feels as though there was a conscious decision made not to act on them.\nThis slightly watered-down effect is the only thing that stops "The Legend of Zorro" from being as good as the first film. Watching it is almost like watching the edited-for-content version of "The Mask of Zorro" that keeps running on TBS; it's a teensy step from being perfectly complete, but it's still very, very good.
(10/06/05 4:00am)
It's funny. I didn't know that "Serenity" was really just fancy Hollywood jargon for "purgatory." You know, that place where everything's not quite good, not quite bad, but just kind of there?\nThat's kind of how it is with this movie, which picks up sometime after the extremely short-lived 2002 television series "Firefly." "Serenity" is almost a sci-fi movie that's almost an action/adventure movie that's almost a western that's almost a comedy. It's got some good dialogue; it's got some bad dialogue. It's got some pretty special effects; it's got some ugly special effects.\nIt's not quite television. It's not quite a movie. And it's definitely not quite a TV movie.\nThe somewhat limited group of fans of the series will no doubt be pleased. Creator/director Joss Whedon (of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" fame) successfully brings back that unique "space western" feel in which heroes quick-draw six-shooters instead of laser pistols, everybody wears trench coats over their hip holsters and the good guys have that independent mean streak about them.\nThe casual moviegoer will pick up on the story quickly but will probably be disappointed. A rag-tag group of rugged space-goers for hire, led by Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), continues its struggle against a corrupt interplanetary government. One of their passengers (Summer Glau) is a natural telepath and victim of torturous government testing and conditioning. She might be the key to defeating their oppressors -- if she doesn't kill our heroes first.\nThe story is attractive enough to merit interest, but the movie's plot seems to wander in and out of normal plotline development, stopping and going here and there and coming to a dead stop more than once. \nThe rather unaccomplished but talented group of actors fit the roles comfortably. They help to spin believable, fun characters within the span of the film, but they're never given any really remarkable script to work with to create any truly outstanding moments. And, by no fault of their own, they get stuck with a couple of those overly melodramatic, barf-into-your-popcorn-bag exchanges.\nMost of the action sequences near the end are pretty good, and Whedon builds them with a flowing, pleasing visual style that brings creativity to fights that have probably been done before in the vast history of film. There's nothing really new here, but it looks new enough to get a little excited about.\nAnd there we are again: "Serenity" is lost somewhere in the blackness between stars. It's a tolerable limbo, but there's nothing amazingly good or unspeakably awful about it. Fans of the show and folks who relate more to Han Solo in "Star Wars" will enjoy it. Others might be a little bored.
(10/06/05 1:35am)
It's funny. I didn't know that "Serenity" was really just fancy Hollywood jargon for "purgatory." You know, that place where everything's not quite good, not quite bad, but just kind of there?\nThat's kind of how it is with this movie, which picks up sometime after the extremely short-lived 2002 television series "Firefly." "Serenity" is almost a sci-fi movie that's almost an action/adventure movie that's almost a western that's almost a comedy. It's got some good dialogue; it's got some bad dialogue. It's got some pretty special effects; it's got some ugly special effects.\nIt's not quite television. It's not quite a movie. And it's definitely not quite a TV movie.\nThe somewhat limited group of fans of the series will no doubt be pleased. Creator/director Joss Whedon (of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" fame) successfully brings back that unique "space western" feel in which heroes quick-draw six-shooters instead of laser pistols, everybody wears trench coats over their hip holsters and the good guys have that independent mean streak about them.\nThe casual moviegoer will pick up on the story quickly but will probably be disappointed. A rag-tag group of rugged space-goers for hire, led by Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), continues its struggle against a corrupt interplanetary government. One of their passengers (Summer Glau) is a natural telepath and victim of torturous government testing and conditioning. She might be the key to defeating their oppressors -- if she doesn't kill our heroes first.\nThe story is attractive enough to merit interest, but the movie's plot seems to wander in and out of normal plotline development, stopping and going here and there and coming to a dead stop more than once. \nThe rather unaccomplished but talented group of actors fit the roles comfortably. They help to spin believable, fun characters within the span of the film, but they're never given any really remarkable script to work with to create any truly outstanding moments. And, by no fault of their own, they get stuck with a couple of those overly melodramatic, barf-into-your-popcorn-bag exchanges.\nMost of the action sequences near the end are pretty good, and Whedon builds them with a flowing, pleasing visual style that brings creativity to fights that have probably been done before in the vast history of film. There's nothing really new here, but it looks new enough to get a little excited about.\nAnd there we are again: "Serenity" is lost somewhere in the blackness between stars. It's a tolerable limbo, but there's nothing amazingly good or unspeakably awful about it. Fans of the show and folks who relate more to Han Solo in "Star Wars" will enjoy it. Others might be a little bored.
(09/22/05 4:00am)
It has been a long time since a good "slasher" flick has graced the screen. It's been almost ten years since the last good one, "Scream," and over twice as long since the classics. And this is assuming you believe any slice-and-dice scary movie could be called "classic" or even "good," because most people do not.\nIt is a darn good thing that the surprisingly good "Cry Wolf" is a whodunit far removed from the realm of two-bit horror movies. Actually, this movie is probably closer to "The Game" than anything like "Friday the 13th." \nThe story follows Owen (Julian Matthews), an intelligent high school troublemaker whose father drags him to prep school after prep school. Owen starts at the campus of Westlake just when a townie is murdered in the woods, and his new school friends decide to make a psychological game out of the killing.\nAnd that is really what this movie is: a psychological game. Owen's new buddies, headed by the hot, smart Dodger (Lindy Booth), are introduced when their leader invites Owen to join a game of "Wolf and Sheep." The point of the game is, as Dodger says, to "avoid suspicion, lie to your friends and eliminate your enemies." \nBut Owen and Dodger decide to push the game a bit further by toying with the student body. Together, they fabricate a story about a serial killer in hopes of throwing the school into a panic. They succeed maybe too well, and things start to get out of hand when somebody starts sending creepy instant messages, vandalizing dorm rooms and stalking the main players.\nMy only major problem with this mystery thriller is the ending comes too soon. After the exposition and rising action have been meticulously woven into an intriguing tale, everything is suddenly over. The climax comes at what feels like the middle of the movie, probably because the whole movie is only an hour and a half long. \nWhile there are not any big holes in the storyline and most viewers will be kept guessing up until the very end, the resolution feels like somewhat of a cop-out. It makes me wonder why the powers-that-be would not have added an extra 20 minutes and finished constructing the film as studiously as they did for the first hour.\nThis is not the "Cry Wolf" that has been advertised in any preview that I have seen, and it is a shame that it will probably be wrongfully passed by. But it is a smart, solid thriller that will pleasantly surprise you if you hazard the second look. Speaking of pleasant surprises, check out Jon Bon Jovi as the ever-present English teacher. Nice touch.
(09/22/05 1:28am)
It has been a long time since a good "slasher" flick has graced the screen. It's been almost ten years since the last good one, "Scream," and over twice as long since the classics. And this is assuming you believe any slice-and-dice scary movie could be called "classic" or even "good," because most people do not.\nIt is a darn good thing that the surprisingly good "Cry Wolf" is a whodunit far removed from the realm of two-bit horror movies. Actually, this movie is probably closer to "The Game" than anything like "Friday the 13th." \nThe story follows Owen (Julian Matthews), an intelligent high school troublemaker whose father drags him to prep school after prep school. Owen starts at the campus of Westlake just when a townie is murdered in the woods, and his new school friends decide to make a psychological game out of the killing.\nAnd that is really what this movie is: a psychological game. Owen's new buddies, headed by the hot, smart Dodger (Lindy Booth), are introduced when their leader invites Owen to join a game of "Wolf and Sheep." The point of the game is, as Dodger says, to "avoid suspicion, lie to your friends and eliminate your enemies." \nBut Owen and Dodger decide to push the game a bit further by toying with the student body. Together, they fabricate a story about a serial killer in hopes of throwing the school into a panic. They succeed maybe too well, and things start to get out of hand when somebody starts sending creepy instant messages, vandalizing dorm rooms and stalking the main players.\nMy only major problem with this mystery thriller is the ending comes too soon. After the exposition and rising action have been meticulously woven into an intriguing tale, everything is suddenly over. The climax comes at what feels like the middle of the movie, probably because the whole movie is only an hour and a half long. \nWhile there are not any big holes in the storyline and most viewers will be kept guessing up until the very end, the resolution feels like somewhat of a cop-out. It makes me wonder why the powers-that-be would not have added an extra 20 minutes and finished constructing the film as studiously as they did for the first hour.\nThis is not the "Cry Wolf" that has been advertised in any preview that I have seen, and it is a shame that it will probably be wrongfully passed by. But it is a smart, solid thriller that will pleasantly surprise you if you hazard the second look. Speaking of pleasant surprises, check out Jon Bon Jovi as the ever-present English teacher. Nice touch.
(09/18/05 10:23pm)
Way back in 2002, "The Transporter" was a pretty good movie. It had the perfect blend of car chases through scenic France, not-too-crazy martial arts fisticuffs and appropriately interesting characters. It was shot with the finesse of a good martial arts movie and came with the right kind of charm to make it appealing.\nNow picture all of that, and toss it completely out the window. That's "The Transporter 2."\nIt would be a lie to say that Jason Statham "reprises" his role as confidential underworld transporter and ex-special ops man Frank Martin, because very little in this movie actually reprises the original.\nIn theory, the driver Frank (Statham) returns to dish out his fist-and-foot justice to the bad guys, and he is still bound by his own strict code of conduct. This time, all the allure that comes with a European setting is traded in for a pitiful vision of Miami. Here Frank must race and kung-fu through the streets to find the bright purple antidote to an awful, neon-green virus and save a little boy, the city and eventually the world from a Columbian terrorist's (Alessandro Gassman) plan for global domination.\nOr something like that. It seems as though the strategy for plot structure in "The Transporter 2" was just to make it up on the fly, throwing some weak dialogue in between endless martial arts showdowns, shoot-outs and wacky vehicle stunts and chases that actually do get boring after a while.\nThe real failure of this movie is that it is truly artless. Most of the heavy-handed attempts at action sequences fail to create any memorable moments that made the first movie. Remember when we got to watch from inside the peephole as Frank kicked down a door with a running leap in the first one, or when he swung into the cab of a semi from the roof and choked the driver with his feet? You will not see anything as smart or graceful in the sequel.\nBut this is not really an eye-candy movie. The whole film relies far too heavily on its special effects, which in fact aren't that good at all. The only eye-candy you will find here is the villain's lover/personal assassin/Victoria Secret model Lola (Kate Nauta), who never wears anything south of her midriff but her black lace undies and giant sub-machine gun holsters. But she disguises the top half of her body as both a nurse and a cop to avoid suspicion. Clever girl.\nSure, Statham puts out some great fighting and stunt work, and the all-action attitude of "The Transporter 2" might be welcome to audience members who have not seen a Bond movie in a decade. But the film's sheer ridiculousness is just too much to handle.
(09/08/05 4:00am)
Way back in 2002, "The Transporter" was a pretty good movie. It had the perfect blend of car chases through scenic France, not-too-crazy martial arts fisticuffs and appropriately interesting characters. It was shot with the finesse of a good martial arts movie and came with the right kind of charm to make it appealing.\nNow picture all of that, and toss it completely out the window. That's "The Transporter 2."\nIt would be a lie to say that Jason Statham "reprises" his role as confidential underworld transporter and ex-special ops man Frank Martin, because very little in this movie actually reprises the original.\nIn theory, the driver Frank (Statham) returns to dish out his fist-and-foot justice to the bad guys, and he is still bound by his own strict code of conduct. This time, all the allure that comes with a European setting is traded in for a pitiful vision of Miami. Here Frank must race and kung-fu through the streets to find the bright purple antidote to an awful, neon-green virus and save a little boy, the city and eventually the world from a Columbian terrorist's (Alessandro Gassman) plan for global domination.\nOr something like that. It seems as though the strategy for plot structure in "The Transporter 2" was just to make it up on the fly, throwing some weak dialogue in between endless martial arts showdowns, shoot-outs and wacky vehicle stunts and chases that actually do get boring after a while.\nThe real failure of this movie is that it is truly artless. Most of the heavy-handed attempts at action sequences fail to create any memorable moments that made the first movie. Remember when we got to watch from inside the peephole as Frank kicked down a door with a running leap in the first one, or when he swung into the cab of a semi from the roof and choked the driver with his feet? You will not see anything as smart or graceful in the sequel.\nBut this is not really an eye-candy movie. The whole film relies far too heavily on its special effects, which in fact aren't that good at all. The only eye-candy you will find here is the villain's lover/personal assassin/Victoria Secret model Lola (Kate Nauta), who never wears anything south of her midriff but her black lace undies and giant sub-machine gun holsters. But she disguises the top half of her body as both a nurse and a cop to avoid suspicion. Clever girl.\nSure, Statham puts out some great fighting and stunt work, and the all-action attitude of "The Transporter 2" might be welcome to audience members who have not seen a Bond movie in a decade. But the film's sheer ridiculousness is just too much to handle.
(07/14/05 4:00am)
Call me crazy, but sometimes I want my superheroes to act, well, super.\nSometimes I don't want to watch a multi-billionaire lose himself in the confusion of his chosen vigilante path. Sometimes I get tired of hearing Tobey Maguire unconvincingly whine about having both cool spider powers and the hot red-head next door.\nEvery once in a while, I just want to see good guys with cool superpowers beat the bad guys. And there should be some explosions and good-hearted chuckles along the way.\nThe beauty and fun of director Tim Story's "Fantastic Four" comes through its simplicity. In a movie market that has become flooded with comic book flicks it is somewhat refreshing to see a superhero movie that does not take itself too seriously.\nWhat the movie lacks in depth it makes up for with strong, clear characters. And while it has some poor dialogue and is rather predictable, it's still not a bad way to spend a hot summer afternoon.\nThe main strength of this movie is its characters. The beginning of "Fantastic Four" is devoted to trying to bring the viewer up-to-date with the storyline, which is somehow already in progress. Complete characters with full histories are introduced in quick succession before going on some space mission.\nFortunately, by the time they are bombarded by cosmic rays and developing superpowers, director Story has solidly built the characters with actions and dialogue. \nIn the style of the comic book, he foregoes trying to make dramatic changes within all the characters in a short two hours but instead explores the relationships between each and all of the major players.\nFans will for the most part be pleased with the accurate translations of the characters to the big screen. Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic), Jessica Alba (The Invisible Woman) and Chris Evans (The Human Torch) nail the comic characters perfectly. \nThough Michael Chiklis makes an excellent Ben Grimm, his Thing isn't physically large enough. But he earns major props and brings appropriate heart to the role by playing it in person instead of letting it be filled by a computer-generated Muppet.\nDoctor Doom (Julian McMahon) gets watered down in the movie adaptation, however. Like other major Marvel franchises "X-Men" and "Spider-Man," the "Fantastic Four" movie attempts to combine the classic comics with the more modernized, "Ultimate" series. But doing so sadly degrades Doom from a notorious supervillain to more of a tag-along friend that everybody else kind of hates.\nFor the casual viewer, you would want to see "Fantastic Four" for the same reasons you would want to see an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Sure, he won't be nominated for Best Actor, but it is still fun to watch the Governator romp around blowing things up.\nThe same goes for "FF." It's never going to win any Oscars. But what did you expect from a movie whose preview boasts "The Commish" running around in 60 lbs. of orange latex yelling that "it's clobberin' time"?
(07/14/05 1:01am)
Call me crazy, but sometimes I want my superheroes to act, well, super.\nSometimes I don't want to watch a multi-billionaire lose himself in the confusion of his chosen vigilante path. Sometimes I get tired of hearing Tobey Maguire unconvincingly whine about having both cool spider powers and the hot red-head next door.\nEvery once in a while, I just want to see good guys with cool superpowers beat the bad guys. And there should be some explosions and good-hearted chuckles along the way.\nThe beauty and fun of director Tim Story's "Fantastic Four" comes through its simplicity. In a movie market that has become flooded with comic book flicks it is somewhat refreshing to see a superhero movie that does not take itself too seriously.\nWhat the movie lacks in depth it makes up for with strong, clear characters. And while it has some poor dialogue and is rather predictable, it's still not a bad way to spend a hot summer afternoon.\nThe main strength of this movie is its characters. The beginning of "Fantastic Four" is devoted to trying to bring the viewer up-to-date with the storyline, which is somehow already in progress. Complete characters with full histories are introduced in quick succession before going on some space mission.\nFortunately, by the time they are bombarded by cosmic rays and developing superpowers, director Story has solidly built the characters with actions and dialogue. \nIn the style of the comic book, he foregoes trying to make dramatic changes within all the characters in a short two hours but instead explores the relationships between each and all of the major players.\nFans will for the most part be pleased with the accurate translations of the characters to the big screen. Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic), Jessica Alba (The Invisible Woman) and Chris Evans (The Human Torch) nail the comic characters perfectly. \nThough Michael Chiklis makes an excellent Ben Grimm, his Thing isn't physically large enough. But he earns major props and brings appropriate heart to the role by playing it in person instead of letting it be filled by a computer-generated Muppet.\nDoctor Doom (Julian McMahon) gets watered down in the movie adaptation, however. Like other major Marvel franchises "X-Men" and "Spider-Man," the "Fantastic Four" movie attempts to combine the classic comics with the more modernized, "Ultimate" series. But doing so sadly degrades Doom from a notorious supervillain to more of a tag-along friend that everybody else kind of hates.\nFor the casual viewer, you would want to see "Fantastic Four" for the same reasons you would want to see an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. Sure, he won't be nominated for Best Actor, but it is still fun to watch the Governator romp around blowing things up.\nThe same goes for "FF." It's never going to win any Oscars. But what did you expect from a movie whose preview boasts "The Commish" running around in 60 lbs. of orange latex yelling that "it's clobberin' time"?
(04/28/05 4:00am)
I used to listen to American Hi-Fi back in high school. I remember how I used to love the upbeat yet somehow melancholy songs on their self-titled album from way back in 2001. I turned up my car's radio every time "Flavor of the Weak" started to come on, and I still pop in that CD from time to time. Their latest release, Hearts on Parade, will most assuredly not be gracing my CD player four years from now. My biggest problem is that the album is simply too dull to listen to -- even for background noise.\nHearts on Parade is a surprising turn from Hi-Fi's original sound, which managed to keep a solid edge to it while still appealing to the feelings of an audience in the throes of adolescence. American Hi-Fi's new CD is full of songs that have absolutely no progression in them; most of them merely go back and forth from a very unadorned verse to an incredibly weak chorus. \nWhat's worse is that the group seems to have abandoned any semblance of retaining their own kind of music. The whole album sounds like a straight Carmen Sandiego-style crime spree of stolen Fountains of Wayne, blink-182, Maroon 5, the Offspring and even Smash Mouth to name a few. This unwarranted stew of other artists only breeds confusion in the listener. It's not even the good kind of confusion that comes from that cleverly blended themes of toughness and weakness, as was an aspect of their original music. This is a kind of confusion in which the listeners wonder what on Earth they are now listening to and how can they turn it off. This is the kind of confusion that ensues when the speakers blare the same dull melody for three minutes straight before switching to another, completely different melody for another three minutes straight. That is, except for the title track "Hearts on Parade," which spans a whole five minutes. \nThe album is not a complete loss. A few gems are hidden away in the middle of the CD, including "The Geeks Get the Girls" and "Where Did We Go Wrong." Some of the songs also spring a few unexpected and curious turns of lyrics, but they're lost somewhere in the redundancy.\nAnd speaking of absolutely boring, the cover and interior art look like all the graphic artists and photographers took the day off during that shoot. It's just a few unappealing shots of the band recording with some different colors thrown in, as though that's never been done before. Be sure to skip the handful of extra concert pictures on the CD as well, but feel free to watch the 12-minute video if there's no paint around that you can watch dry.\nHearts on Parade is no treat for fans of American Hi-Fi, but the new album might find use among fans of mindless repetition who are going on really, really long car rides. Maybe.
(04/27/05 5:08am)
I used to listen to American Hi-Fi back in high school. I remember how I used to love the upbeat yet somehow melancholy songs on their self-titled album from way back in 2001. I turned up my car's radio every time "Flavor of the Weak" started to come on, and I still pop in that CD from time to time. Their latest release, Hearts on Parade, will most assuredly not be gracing my CD player four years from now. My biggest problem is that the album is simply too dull to listen to -- even for background noise.\nHearts on Parade is a surprising turn from Hi-Fi's original sound, which managed to keep a solid edge to it while still appealing to the feelings of an audience in the throes of adolescence. American Hi-Fi's new CD is full of songs that have absolutely no progression in them; most of them merely go back and forth from a very unadorned verse to an incredibly weak chorus. \nWhat's worse is that the group seems to have abandoned any semblance of retaining their own kind of music. The whole album sounds like a straight Carmen Sandiego-style crime spree of stolen Fountains of Wayne, blink-182, Maroon 5, the Offspring and even Smash Mouth to name a few. This unwarranted stew of other artists only breeds confusion in the listener. It's not even the good kind of confusion that comes from that cleverly blended themes of toughness and weakness, as was an aspect of their original music. This is a kind of confusion in which the listeners wonder what on Earth they are now listening to and how can they turn it off. This is the kind of confusion that ensues when the speakers blare the same dull melody for three minutes straight before switching to another, completely different melody for another three minutes straight. That is, except for the title track "Hearts on Parade," which spans a whole five minutes. \nThe album is not a complete loss. A few gems are hidden away in the middle of the CD, including "The Geeks Get the Girls" and "Where Did We Go Wrong." Some of the songs also spring a few unexpected and curious turns of lyrics, but they're lost somewhere in the redundancy.\nAnd speaking of absolutely boring, the cover and interior art look like all the graphic artists and photographers took the day off during that shoot. It's just a few unappealing shots of the band recording with some different colors thrown in, as though that's never been done before. Be sure to skip the handful of extra concert pictures on the CD as well, but feel free to watch the 12-minute video if there's no paint around that you can watch dry.\nHearts on Parade is no treat for fans of American Hi-Fi, but the new album might find use among fans of mindless repetition who are going on really, really long car rides. Maybe.
(04/21/05 4:00am)
Some people believe that the spirits of the dead who have yet to atone for past crimes still stalk the Earth, bound until they make up for their sins. Maybe "The Amityville Horror" is evidence of this phenomenon. It all started with a less than tolerable 1979 film based on an allegedly true story of a Long Island family moving into a good old haunted house.\nTerror ensues when an evil army of bad sequels (including a few direct-to-video flops and even a made-for-TV movie) continue to be resurrected well into the '90s. The dark presence of the Amityville house has returned once again to the big screen perhaps in another attempt to settle past transgressions and lay its soul to final rest. Sadly, it looks as though audiences will be doomed to haunting by this demon of a franchise for some time to come. The new version of "The Amityville Horror," while far superior to the original, isn't worth the effort it takes to sit in the theater watching it, even for horror fans.\nThe new "Amityville" has basically the same premise of the originals: newlyweds Kathy (Melissa George) and George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) take Kathy's three children from a previous marriage and move into a new home. Only a year ago in the same home, twentysomething Ronald DeFeo (who bears a striking resemblance to George), murdered his parents and younger siblings, including a trio that matches in age and gender to Kathy's children. Scary things start happening in the house. Viewers are subjected to watching strange, unexplained scenes and ghosts wander through the backgrounds of shots (much akin to "The Ring" and "The Sixth Sense," only not scary), while the characters are oblivious to it all.\nThe characters also seem oblivious to how many times their gaze passes by an unoccupied space in the room, which a few seconds and a quick shot later will be taken up by some ghostly presence. This gets very old really quickly, mostly because it's done in seemingly every scene. George becomes progressively ill as the days go on. Delirium sets in and soon tension mounts as he gets closer and closer to killing his family. The youngest daughter starts seeing the ghost of the girl who died in the house, who tells her to do things like jump off the roof.\nNow if someone in your house started running around with an axe while mumbling about how everyone else in the family was dumb enough to deserve death, don't you think you'd take him to see a psychiatrist? And wouldn't you get help for the little girl after the first time she tried to jump off the roof of a three-story house? No. That would make too much sense. Instead, it's better if everyone acts as though life is normal until someone actually does go on a murderous rampage. This is where the movie starts to crumble. \nA few high points of the film include the attention to '70s detail in clothing, furniture and vehicles. Also of note are Reynolds' nearly (but definitely not completely) successful escape from another Van Wilder character.\nBut these in no way make up for the ridiculousness of it all and the sheer boredom of failed scares. "The Amityville Horror" doesn't even rate in that category of bad horror flicks to laugh at. If you want to actually be scared by ghosts in a house, watch "The Others" and stay away from "Amityville"
(04/20/05 5:14am)
Some people believe that the spirits of the dead who have yet to atone for past crimes still stalk the Earth, bound until they make up for their sins. Maybe "The Amityville Horror" is evidence of this phenomenon. It all started with a less than tolerable 1979 film based on an allegedly true story of a Long Island family moving into a good old haunted house.\nTerror ensues when an evil army of bad sequels (including a few direct-to-video flops and even a made-for-TV movie) continue to be resurrected well into the '90s. The dark presence of the Amityville house has returned once again to the big screen perhaps in another attempt to settle past transgressions and lay its soul to final rest. Sadly, it looks as though audiences will be doomed to haunting by this demon of a franchise for some time to come. The new version of "The Amityville Horror," while far superior to the original, isn't worth the effort it takes to sit in the theater watching it, even for horror fans.\nThe new "Amityville" has basically the same premise of the originals: newlyweds Kathy (Melissa George) and George Lutz (Ryan Reynolds) take Kathy's three children from a previous marriage and move into a new home. Only a year ago in the same home, twentysomething Ronald DeFeo (who bears a striking resemblance to George), murdered his parents and younger siblings, including a trio that matches in age and gender to Kathy's children. Scary things start happening in the house. Viewers are subjected to watching strange, unexplained scenes and ghosts wander through the backgrounds of shots (much akin to "The Ring" and "The Sixth Sense," only not scary), while the characters are oblivious to it all.\nThe characters also seem oblivious to how many times their gaze passes by an unoccupied space in the room, which a few seconds and a quick shot later will be taken up by some ghostly presence. This gets very old really quickly, mostly because it's done in seemingly every scene. George becomes progressively ill as the days go on. Delirium sets in and soon tension mounts as he gets closer and closer to killing his family. The youngest daughter starts seeing the ghost of the girl who died in the house, who tells her to do things like jump off the roof.\nNow if someone in your house started running around with an axe while mumbling about how everyone else in the family was dumb enough to deserve death, don't you think you'd take him to see a psychiatrist? And wouldn't you get help for the little girl after the first time she tried to jump off the roof of a three-story house? No. That would make too much sense. Instead, it's better if everyone acts as though life is normal until someone actually does go on a murderous rampage. This is where the movie starts to crumble. \nA few high points of the film include the attention to '70s detail in clothing, furniture and vehicles. Also of note are Reynolds' nearly (but definitely not completely) successful escape from another Van Wilder character.\nBut these in no way make up for the ridiculousness of it all and the sheer boredom of failed scares. "The Amityville Horror" doesn't even rate in that category of bad horror flicks to laugh at. If you want to actually be scared by ghosts in a house, watch "The Others" and stay away from "Amityville"