I should probably put out there that I have not seen the original Dark Shadows series. I believe I've heard a synopsis, but I couldn't tell you much about it. So really, I have no idea how this movie compares with the source show, but I'm going to guess it mostly just uses names and locations and probably condenses everything else into a few minor points. I guess what I'm saying is, that shouldn't impact my view of the movie, I am merely judging it on what I experienced... and that was generally pretty fun. Although I feel like Tim Burton's characteristic style has diminished, it is still recognizable in a few scenes, but outside of that, the Danny Elfman music, and Johnny Depp, I wouldn't likely take this for a Burton movie. I will say that I enjoyed the film overall. It's fun and the characters are quirky and the general plot is, well, overdone, but I get it. Mostly there are just lots of set-ups for this "fish out of water" scenario that Johnny Depp's character is thrown into as a vampire unearthed 200 years after being buried in an iron casket by the witch who cursed him with vampirism. Barnabas is forced to acquaint himself with 1972 and the curious ways of the people then (mostly hippies). His language is dated, his world views are dated, everything about his behavior is out of place, and that's where most of the humor comes from. Most of the rest of it comes from some sort of sexual reference or euphemism, which I was tickled by, though it was all a bit unexpected. Perhaps the most curious part of all of this is that it all turns on a romance between Barnabas and a woman who may or may not be the reincarnation of the lover that the witch killed 200 years ago... but very little screen time is spent on that relationship. It almost feels like they kept forgetting about it and decided to toss in a quick little reference here and there to keep people reminded what the main plot is, but it's never really convincing.I guess the most difficult recommendation would be to those who are familiar with the TV series, since I haven't seen it, I can't recommend one way or the other whether you should see this movie. I enjoyed it, but that's pretty much the best I can do.
The director provides an introduction to this movie in which he strongly recommends you watch this movie while under the influence of your favorite adult beverage. As someone who watched completely sober, I think his advice should definitely be taken into consideration, because this movie is fucked up. But you know, in a good way.
I didn't know anything about this John Carter of Mars story before this movie. I'm a little ashamed of that. So let's back up a little... John Carter of Mars was a story written by Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912. Based on what I've read of the 
Depending on what you're looking for, Act of Valor may be the perfect movie or slightly annoying wannabe. If you're looking for an extremely accurate looking military movie focused on actual military tactics and capabilities, then this movie (seems to me) nearly perfect. There are some amazing action sequences that feel completely authentic. The tactics employed feel right and the cast clearly knows what its doing. Of course, the good guys are actually active duty Navy SEALs, so they should know what they're doing. Things break down when these guys have to act, when they aren't doing their job, but instead exchanging dialog. It felt to me, wooden and forced. Of course, given these guys aren't professional actors, I am perfectly fine letting this slide in favor of watching these warriors do what they do. Not only is it inspiring to see the effort, skill, and sacrifice these people employ for the United States, but it's enlightening to see the things this force is capable of. There's no other way to say it, these men kick ass. And I don't really care that they can't act. I definitely got what I went in for.
My expectations for this movie were not high. I feel like I enjoyed the first movie, but I can't remember much more than scraps and I don't recall the story. The sequel, Spirit of Vengeance was also entertaining, and probably won't be memorable either. What I found sort of odd is how much went into explaining the Rider's backstory. Not only was there a refresher course at the start of the movie, it seemed like there were several additional explanations sprinkled throughout the movie as if in response to anticipated viewer questions. For those who understand basically what the Rider is, that all felt remedial and almost insulting ("why would we be here if we didn't know who the Rider was?") but I guess the studio or film makers were assuming the majority of the audience never saw the first movie and this would be their first exposure to the story behind Ghost Rider. Fine... I'll go along with that if I have to. Things I can say in favor of this movie, it moves fast. It felt like it was under an hour, which I guess means it's a fairly tight movie or maybe that the action sequences, which almost felt too short, moved very fast. Maybe? It's also fun watching the Rider be a total badass and I did find myself frequently distracted by the special FX, which is mostly the cool flame effects. On the downside, there's very little substance to this movie. It's also, plot wise, very simple. No real subtleties, no gray areas, it's generally right out there. That's the point of the Rider. He sees the evil in people and it doesn't matter what sort of good they do, it's black or white with him. So while there wasn't anything to really dig into or anything that kept me thinking outside the movie, it was still fun. It was also pretty interesting seeing small parts from both Tony Head and Christopher Lambert. Who both play priests? Weird.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
