Displaying Category: Rating_3

Oh look, another movie about vampires and werewolves and vampire slash werewolves and humans and there's some blood. Alright, it's actually much better than that silly synopsis would imply (though that really is basically it). What's interesting and noteworthy about this installment of the Underworld series is that, unlike most vampire-centric movies where we're trying to hunt down the evil wicked vampires, Awakening actually casts the vampires as the sympathetic heroes trying to find a hold to grasp on to after the mass genocide of their race. There are at least a couple twists that turn out to be surprising (to my simple mind) and enhance the entertainment value. I also want to give this movie credit for consistently running at a break-neck speed, never pausing to catch a breath that doesn't at least have gravity. So while I am sure this movie will be tossed aside as just another sequel, I want to say that I found it very entertaining and, in a way, felt like it was over way too soon. Naturally, things are left open for the next in the series, so I expect my hunger for more will be sated in the next couple years.

3/5

It's possible my expectations for this movie were a bit high given all the Oscar buzz and general comments from folks about it being their favorite movie of the year. I found it to be enjoyable enough, but probably not all that memorable. Basic summary, a father who has generally been too busy to deal with his family for the last X years is forced to be the primary parent when his wife is left in a coma after a boating accident. Matt doesn't know how to care for his daughters, he doesn't know how to deal with the acting out and... well, that plot element drops away. It mostly becomes about Matt's wife's affair and how the family comes together to deal with that. That seems like an odd place to go and didn't develop into anything interesting for me. I guess where I'm left is that this movie didn't stand out for me, but did for everyone else. I don't know what made an impression on them, maybe they have families or maybe their spouses cheated on them? Maybe it's just that I can't relate? But in a way, that's where I find fault. A really good movie should be able to put me in that place even if my life experience can't get me there on its own. The Descendants mostly failed to do that for me.

3/5

Let's just get this out of the way, Ghost Protocol was a very entertaining movie. Except for all the usual weird mumbo jumbo tech talk that never makes sense, it was fairly well scripted and the action sequences were very well put together and even the acting was decent. And then there was Simon Pegg who pretty much stole the show whenever he was on screen. That really makes me look forward to the next Star Trek movie. Anyway, it's a fun movie, go see it!

3/5

Here's the thing, I really enjoyed this second movie in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes adaptation, but I think it's also fair to say that if you have seen the first movie, you've pretty much seen this one. What you get with Game of Shadows is more heavy weaponry, varied locations, and even more slow motion. While there are a number of complexities to the plot, the basic idea is actually quite simple and features a number of almost absurdly complex devices... but I guess that's the point. If everything was simple, they wouldn't need Sherlock Holmes to work it out. Regardless, I enjoyed it and I think I'd recommend it to others if they're just looking for something fun that you occasionally have to think about.

3/5

I'm not entirely sure what to take away from this movie. It's basically a story about two crazy kids in love and what happens when the couple is separated. Mostly it feels like a voyeuristic look into all the awkward moments in the lives of this couple from the awkward first date to meeting the parents to some uncomfortable fights. And that's pretty much it. There's nothing especially wrong with the movie, though the lack of decisive ending felt irritating after all that awkwardness, like "I went through all that and in the end there's no payoff or satisfying ending of any sort?" Well, no... but I also think that's the point. Life isn't easy and relationships in particular aren't easy and that's just how it is.

3/5

Okay, honestly, I wasn't expecting much from what basically looks like a 300 spin-off. Instead what I found was a fairly well put-together mythology story filled with spectacular action (of course) and watchable acting. Of course, Immortals isn't without its faults, the greatest of which is how characters who, in one moment seem to be fairly important members of Theseus' party, almost immediately fade into obscurity. Meh, it was still fun and even the 3D effects added pleasant depth to the experience. Note, there is full-on female nudity and graphic slow-motion dismemberments. I felt a little uncomfortable for the father and his maybe eight year-old son sitting next to me.

3/5

What if Shakespeare was a fraud and all his works were penned by someone anonymous? It's a question... though I'm not sure if it's an important question in the sense that we have all these great works and whether they were penned by someone named Shakespeare or not, it doesn't change the quality of the work. Anyway, the movie itself is very interesting, but nothing at all like I was expecting. Instead of being about the inner workings of some Elizabethan age theatre in London, it's much more about the backroom politics of nobles during that period, which is interesting, but I have no idea what the reality of all this is. There are some interesting things, though, to be said of the ability for a good play to move a people to revolution. Basically, it's a really interesting period piece about Elizabethan politics at court. And there's theatre and stuff.

3/5

In Time feels very much like a Philip K. Dick story in the sense that it leverages an interesting science fiction concept to provide some simple insights into what is normally a fairly complex system. That being the things that define class and economics in our world. That alone makes it pretty awesome, but there is the detractor that In Time is far from subtle. In fact, it's basically a large club with rusty nails sticking out of it. Although the trailers pretty much give it away, I'll try and summarize real quick. In the future described in the movie, time is the new currency. At age 25, a person's timer of one year timer starts counting down. No one ages past 25, but when the timer runs out, you die. A person's salary is paid in time and everything costs time. Four minutes for a coffee, an hour to get a hotel room for the night. The economics come in when you realize it's a closed system. The only time in the system comes from new people being born. If a person has 1000 years of time on their clock, they got it by taking time from other people. A lot of other people. So basically, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and these classes are enforced by Time Zones, which are basically toll booths that cost significant amounts of time to pass through... prices the poor could never afford. And then there are the Time Keepers who are basically police who work to keep the time economy in check. There's a lot going on, but it works... except for being so damned blunt.

Interesting things to note, there are no cell phones. I'm guessing the exorbitant price of a cell plan would kill everyone in a couple days. The cars have a sort of electric sound effect, but also all have exhaust systems. Vehicles are all 1960s-1970s in style. I don't really remember seeing any computers. Maybe information like that would be too dangerous? Or maybe when you're living day to day, spending all night on Facebook is a terrible use of time if you're dead in the morning. Still, it's a great ride that's paced well.

3/5

I should first clarify for anyone not familiar, this version of The Thing is a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter movie. It takes place in 1982 at the Norwegian camp in Antarctica and shows how the alien craft and creature (the "thing") were discovered. It shouldn't be a surprise, though, that the trajectory of this movie very closely follows that of the John Carpenter movie. Many people I've talked with about this movie (before having seen it) were of the opinion that you really can't do any better than that the Carpenter version, but I felt this new version was fairly close in quality. The biggest hurtle to this new version is that we already know what the creature is capable of and how it works. At least in the Carpenter version the capabilities of the creature were still a mystery and when you see a head split off from the body and crawl around like a spider it was unbelievably freaky... now when you see an arm split off and walk around like a spider-thing, you kind of feel like you've been there, done that.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie as a well put-together creature movie. It feels very much like other creature movies such as Alien and while not quite that good, is still a great deal of fun, well paced, and well acted. It should also be noted that, even in this age of spectacular CG effects, this movie still used a number of practical creature effects, though I wasn't really able to distinguish them from the CG effects. I'm going to say that's a good thing... Maybe the only major downside other than what I have already mentioned, are the numerous plot holes. I am generally willing to brush those off in favor of "stop thinking so much and enjoy the movie," but some were pretty questionable. These aren't really flaws with this particular movie, I think the original John Carpenter version also suffers from the same logical flaws. It's a little bothersome, but I don't think I've decided I care enough for it to negatively impact my feelings on the film.

3/5

Nice guy gets cancer and tries to adapt, along with his girlfriend, friends and family. This is definitely not an unusual premise, it's just mixed with a bit more "Apatow" style humor than most movies of this type. The trick with 50/50 is to satisfyingly manage the balance between humor (much of it pretty dirty) and the seriousness and emotional gravity of exploring our mortality through life-threatening illness. I suppose my only real issue with the movie is that the balance isn't always managed well. There are lengthy gaps that both aren't funny and aren't emotional or touching and that somehow impacts the sense of pacing. That's not to say this makes the movie bad, it does all build up to a very emotional and satisfying conclusion, it's just... there are these gaps... Meh, I should get over it.

3/5