Movie Review: From Paris With Love

Just a bit behind on the review, but I thought those that have not seen the film yet might want to know. There have been quite a few comments detracting from the film, but I think many miss the pleasure this action feature presents.

From Paris With Love is hardly original. It's a bit buddy cop, a part spy thriller, with a dash of love story and politics. It won't win any awards, and likely will be forgotten long before the summer movies start coming out. But it's worth seeing in a theater.

The film is pretty straightforward. We have our ernstwhile low level CIA type who pines for work in the field while he works under the cover of an assistant to the Embassador of France. From time to time he gets called to do menial helper spy work, like changing car plates for missions he never gets to be a part of. Still our intrepid James (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) doesn't have it too bad. He has a girlfriend who wants to marry him, and he is in Paris.

If you can't figure out what will happen next, and at the end of the film you really haven't watched enough spy films. Suffice to say that Charlie (John Travolta) pops into Paris and takes James on the mission of his life.

The scenery is interesting. We get to travel around Paris, from the lower bowels to the Eiffel Tower, and much of the rest between. The photography is decent, but not outstanding. The chase scene could have been filmed better, but overall nothing to be too upset about.

The sound is likewise average. A couple of interesting musical choices throughout the film add a bit of flair and remind us that this is a film outside of the U.S. Which is something that is easy to forget surprisingly.

The acting is the key to this film. At times it keeps you interested, at other bored. The actors do a good job of conveying the fast pace everything is happening at, but without seeming to be completely out of control. Meyers does a good job of being a novice spy and a bright eager man way over his head. His characters development into a not quite hardedned operative, still clinging to his ideals and dreams of love make you root for him even as he comes to his personal climax in the film.

The down side of Meyers' James character is that he is rather boring and a bit too inept at the beginning of the film. By the end he looks more akin to the Charlie character, and emminates an aura in the final scenes of a far more expereinced operative than we would expect for a mere couple of days.

John travolta's character has his own journey. Though he is quite abrasive over the whole film, we eventually get to see a bit more of the man that probably once was just like James. The worst part of his character is really the early introductory scenes. It's too forced and put on. Even considering when his character is actively acting over the top it seem too much to be believed.

On the plus side this is not the worst film Travolta has done in recent years. It's not Pulp Fiction or Michael, but it's definitely not Wild Hogs. Once the film gets beyond the over the top scenes meant to ensure we know that Charlie is a expert killer, we get to relax a bit more and enjoy the character. There is a plan and brain in there, no matter how loose both may seem early on in the film.

Which kind of summarizes the film. It's almost 2 seperate films. And action film and a spy film. The elements of the spy film are far more interesting and better detailed. The actors as well seem or comfortable in that portion of the film's acting than the action. Blame that on the director, Luc Besson.

The film seems to copy aspects of the film Kiss of the Dragon, which Besson also directed. The pacing and style seem more of a lazy copy than a new take on a similar theme. Plus the film feels like Transporter 3, also by Besson. By that I mean that you know there is a better film in this, but it just never quite got on the scene. I think Besson either needs a vacation, or inspiration.

If you haven't seen From Paris With Love yet, it's worth the trip to the theater. Nothing else out right now is any more compelling, and films like Valentine's Day are completely one trick pony's not worth the time. A better idea is buying the DVD. This is a film that you can enjoy on a nice big screen television in your home. Plus I'm sure there were more than a few deleted scenes that will add value to owning the DVD.

This wasn't the best film for either Travolta or Myers, but it is adequate. That may not be a glowing reason to see the film, but it's not a film that deserves a better compliment.

Movie Review: Legion

What do you expect from a film that has the name of a demon, the revisioned plot of Armmagedom on Earth, and Angels that are anything but angelic? In general you get a mix of The Prophesy, Terminator, and perhaps a bit of the Road Warrior.

I realize that is an odd mix of generally good to great films. And to put them all together in one film sounds strange, and unlikely. Yet Legion does all of that. Sadly the end product is not as good as any of its parts.

Let's just jump right into the plot. God has suddenly lost faith in humanity. No reason why or why now. Yet there is an unborn child that can save humanity; from what is never stated. We can stop right there.

I'm not the most religious individual. But my understanding of God, in any religion, is that the closest non-religious word would be omnipotent. How could anything stop God? Ok, taking a slightly different tack, the Angels. They are powerful beyond belief, smoting entire cities and virtually beyond comprehension to see. The Archangels are even more powerful than that.

So in this movie, these powerful beings have no choice but to takeover the bodies of the innocent (children) and weak-willed to try to kill the mother of the would be future savior. Hello Terminator. Except not one of these possessed beings has a gun, blowtorch, lighter, not even so much as a wiffle ball bat. They won't even use their cars to get into a small, unfortified, old diner where the unborn child is at.

Ok, here I am thinking again. If this is all to kill the child, why wait until mere days before the birth? Angels are not restricted by time. Why not go back to the conception of the child, or the birth of the mom-to-be? Why not have Gabriel (one of the Archangels) walk in at the very begining and kill her then? Or have a city smoting lesser angel turn the diner and all in it to salt?

Ok, over thinking. Back to the movie.

Michael (another Archangel) chooses to become human to save this woman. So he goes out to the diner in the middle of nowhere just in time for fending off the horde of possessed humans that arrive. Not that their overwhelming numbers are used to swarm the diner. All of this leading to a confrontation between the now human Michael and Gabriel.

Simply put the plot sucks. There is just too much to try to suspend your belief on. This requires more than a leap of faith it requires absolutely the vaccuation of thought.

But if you think the action will save this film, give the movie a reason to charge $9 a ticket, you will again be disappointed. There is a small bit of gunplay, mostly after the middle of the film. It's short lived, much like half of the cast. Truely there is nothing impressive about the effects or the action. Many B-movies have more and better.

So what about the cast? Well there is Paul Bettany who is a good actor and becoming a known name. He also has a penchant for quasi-religious characters (he was the albino in The DaVinci Code). He is Michael and does a decent job of being brooding, direct, and less than comforting. His action scenes are fair, and he is moderately believeable given the shortcomings of the plot.

Charles Dutton plays a short-order cook with only one hand and a prosthetic hook. You get the feeling, though it is never clear, that he might have been in Viet Nam. Of course since my father had the same prosthetic and was a vet I may be projecting. Beyond that, the character is unremarkable. He looks concerned when he should, rushes around like everyone, and dies a noble but useless death.

Then there is Dennis Quaid. Like Dutton, far better an actor than this film deserves or requires. He is the father of a key character and owner of the forlorn diner. He is a grizzled man who gave up on life as all his dreams crumbled around him. Bitter about his divorce 5 years earlier, and as lost as everyone else in this film. Quaid is believable and adds a lot of credibility to the film, but can't save it. Ditto the noble death.

I have to mention Tyrese Gibson because he is the next most well known actor in the film. His role is the obligatory thug/gangsta wannabe, with a heart. The best that can be said about his role and acting is that it does not distract from the film. He is a useless character that likely got to die a noble (but obvious and stupid) death because of Gibson's ability to draw a female and/or ghetto audience.

The effects are common and less than spectacular. The best ones can be seen in the movie trailer for the film. Actually much of the action is in the trailer as well.

The photography is at times good and adds to the atmosphere of isolation and despair, like Road Warrior. At it's worst it is too dark and murky.

The directing is on par with a B-film. You never get to feel the intensity or impending doom after the first 10 minutes of the film. In fact it feels like there was 2 seperate ideas in the film - the first more of a Terminator feel, the second more of a Prophesy rip-off.

When it's all said and done, this film is forgettable. It does not live up to the quality of the movie trailer (whoever made that should get a raise and more work). I'd more likely buy this as a DVD ($10 or so) so I could see what extras were pulled from the film, or just watch it on cable some night when insomnia had hold of me.

Do yourself a favor and don't see this film. There is a reason this was released in January, and it lives up to that reason alone.

Movie Review: Smokin' Aces 2 Assassin's Ball

I realize that this film went straight to DVD. But this is only about the film and not any extras that might be on the DVD that might add to the value of buying this. And there would have to be a lot of extras of great quality.

Smokin' Aces 2 Assassin's Ball is hardly a worthy film. Given that it is a prequel and meant to suck up extra money based on it's original's success. It is also a given that sequels and prequels of mediocre films tend to be even less entertaining that the parent film. Aces 2 is no exception to these givens.



The films timeline seems to make this prequel close to the original, if you aren't paying attention you would never know. But it really doesn't matter. The goal is to get several assassins together to kill one man. In this case it's Walter Weed (Tom Berenger) that is the target, a meek FBI agent in his declining year of his career. The assassins are introduced, extermely slowly, and include:

Ariella Martinez (Martha Higareda) - a skinny killer that prefers a black widow kiss

Finbar McTeague (Vinnie Jones) - a "surgeon" that believes in medically precises torture

Lazlo Soot (Tommy Flanagan) - the killer with a multitude of faces [in the first film]

Kaitlyn "AK-47" Tremor (Autumn Reeser) - Well named and the opposite of Ariella in most any comparison

Fritz Tremor (Michael Parks) - Father of the Tremor family

Lester Tremor (Maury Sterling) - One of the Tremor boys [in the first film]

Baby Boy Tremor (C. Ernst Harth) - the other and favored Tremor son

And of course we have a team of agents that are on the job to protect Weed from this group, Agent Baker (Clayne Crawford) and Malcolm Little (Christopher Michael Holley) are the only ones of note.

Earnie Hudson has a small role in the film at the end, slightly more than a cameo, to tie up the loose ends of the story - much like Andy Garcia's role in the first film - as Anthony Vejar.

Now the characters include 2 from the original film. Neither is really all that important. Nor does this film break any new ground. It's formula is almost exactly the same as the first, except it's pace is slower and he events even less logical or intersting.

Basically Weed is taken to a location that is supposed to be secret to everyone, a safehouse in Chicago that the FBI has disguised as a functioning Jazz bar. Of course every single bad guy knows exactly where this is, and the schematics of the safehouse bunker.

After more time getting to the location than needed, and various scenes foretelling the final climax of the film, and an extened time in the Jazz bar itself, the killing finally starts. This is supposed to be the big payoff for watching the film to this point, but it fails to really deliver. Then enters Vejar after all the shooting is done, informing Baker of vital information that would have prevented all this, and Baker ending the film much in the manner as did Ryan Reynold's character from the first film - though without the negative consequences to his career.

There are 3 things I liked in this film.

"Hip hop is the unwanted bastard son of superior musical forms like Jazz, Blues. The Kids today don't know about Miles Davis, Dizzy Guilespe." - Malcolm Little discussing why he does not like rap that he needs to be a fan of for an upcoming undercover assignment.

The introduction of AK-47 Tremor. A gratuitous sex scene with a climax that you don't expect. The big question being, where did she hide the AK-47.

The facts about the history of a deck of cards.

Oh forgot one more. Watching Little play the saxaphone.

Yes, those are the best parts of the film. The instant love affair between McTeague and Martinez is just unbelievable. The pace of the film is slower than listening to Soot talk. The Tremor family is more interesting in thier incest driven conversations than anything else. It strains belief that only after all this happens that Baker would be given all the details, that he had a crew of people investigating for throughout the film.

The worst of the film is likely the political statement that is set up in the first 5 minutes of the film and brought back for the last 15 minutes. It's America bashing, and useless. But it does connect all the dots in the plot.

Why Berenger, Jones, and Hudson did this film I don't understand. They all should deserve, and are capable of making, far more money and working in far better films.

Hollywood knew this film was so bad it couldn't make money in theaters. They went straight to DVD to cash in on the name of the first film, since there was nothing else worth paying for in this film. Hollywood was right. Don't buy this DVD.

Movie Review: The Book of Eli

When you see the movie trailers for the Book of Eli, you get a feeling of Mad Max. A post-apocalypic world filled with violence and action. You get a sense of the lone gunsliner (ala Clint Eastwood's famous gunfighter without a name, or even the Samurai his character is based upon) wandering the land spreading a unique mix of justice, vengance, honor, and moral apathy. This is what the trailer brings to mind.

The movie itself is another thing though. It is slow in pace, like Once Upon A Time In America. It's bleak, like so many after the end of the world movies. It's a journey that is dark and harsh, and not quite enjoyable because it's not supposed to be. Which makes complete sense why the film was released in January. Execs didn't know how to market this.

The harsh lighting of the film makes you never comfortable with what you are seeing. Almost making you want to squint as much as the actors. It is a constant reminder that the world has become unpleasant, and brutal.

The soundtrack is filled with interesting notes. It easily matches the feel of the movie as it surges in confrontation and ebbs through transition. It's almost completely unheard, save for 2 songs that will strike a cord for anyone that listens to oldies channels. Personally I think either Classical or 60's rock would have been better, but the choices used make sense.

Book of Eli gives us the mostly silent, brooding hero that is imperfect in a far from perfect world. The early inaction to save a woman from being raped is matched with the compassion of allowing another woman that is bait to live. A good deed that has a reward just as painful as you might imagine it to be.

Early on we know what the book is, though there is a twist to it that you just won't expect. Even so this is hardly a religious film. It's a film about conviction and faith. The faith of Eli to do what he believes he must, and to walk though the valley of death to get it done.

Denzel Washington is not the action hero you would expect for this film. If you are hoping for Mad Max, you won't get it. But you do get a strong character with a presence that stands out in every seen. And you feel the burden of his character in every word and step.

Mila Kunis has a decent role. A far cry from her television personality, the role hints at greater acting depth. Hints at it but never quite makes it. You never get to feel for her character Solaris. You just understand that she is there. Not really helping, or standing out. But not a disteraction either. It's an odd role to fill and if she was intended to be so subdued then she did a great job.

Gary Oldman was probably the least pleasant of all the actors in the film. Not because he is a bad actor, but because he never really gets into the Carnegie character. You know that Carnegie is willing to do whatever it takes to keep control. That he wants power. That he can be ruthless. But you never feel the fear he seems to instill in the townsfolk, nor the loyalty of his key enforcers. He's a bad guy virtually devoid of his evil, like a Stansfield without the energy or panache.

Watching this film you feel like you are always waiting for something to happen. Not in an edge of your seat kind of way, but s in a "something big should happen" kind of feeling. And it never does. Even in the final scenes of the film you never get a sense of completion. It feels empty, like something was missed.

I can't balme the writing or acting, or visuals of this film. None are impeccable yet none are badly done. It's just not compelling. Interesting but not the rush you expect walking into the film.

The Book of Eli is a good film for watching on DVD. To pick at the subtle references, and specific lines. To let it simmer in your mind and to wonder about a world gone so wrong. To consider what price redemption might cost, and how it might be paid.

This is not an action movie fan's movie. This is not a Mad Max sci-fi fan film. It's just odd. Watchable, but odd. Almost like watching Grand Canyon - a film that is more just a moment in time than entertainment.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

There was a buzz among some when it was suggested that Robert Downey Jr. was going to play the classic Holmes. I and several of my friends were hopeful for a film that would honor the books, and still touch upon the proper English nature that Basil Rathbone presented so well.

Then news that Moriarity would not be in the film. Then came the movie trailers. Full of displays of fighting and raw brute strength without a hint of the supreme logic that defines Holmes. And hopes were dimmed.

The fact that the film came out in December for the holidays was an oddity. One that became clear once the film is seen. It also explains why the film was not the stellar financial success than many other films featuring Downey and Jude Law have been.

Sherlock Holmes is the intellectual, logic bound, British character brought to the screen in the modern age. The essence of the books and the Rathbone portrayal has endured, and dare I say modernized just a touch.

There is of course CGI in the film. I don't think a film today can be made without it. But unlike most films where the CGI is meant to envision the fantastical, and endeavor that if unsuccessful ruins the film, here it is meant to add to the atmosphere. How else might we get to see London Bridge as it looked while being built?

In fact the set designs are spot on. The film captures the gritty, crowded, and lesser quality of life that the masses in Old London faces so many years ago. The washed out colors and general grays, add to the feel of the film, almost giving it a Black and White film feel, a touch of the classic. Which all sets the mood in a delightful way, so that you are absorbed into the world of the film and not jarred by it.

The plot also has to be commended. There are no obvious loopholes, no unexplainable events that mystically occur - due solely to the inability of a writer to think, a director to direct, and/or the interference of studios that just want to save a buck to maximize profit while providing the least enertainment possible. This film makes sense all the way through, and clues you in just when you need it to.

They even were able to fit in some humor and fights. Nothing so gratuitous as to be a Schwarzenegger film, but enough to justify the movie trailers that mislead action fans into seeing a thinking film. They even turned the tables and provided a mostly naked Downey for the females in the audience, while only hinting at the curves of the lovely Rachel McAdams.

So we must give some credit to the director Guy Ritchie. It's been quite some time since he had a film of the enjoyment of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. If he was looking for critical acceptance, and commercial success this film finally provides both.

The actors though are the real gems of this film. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law mesh perfectly as the bickering, odd couple of partners that are inseperable on a case. The 2 banter and move like friends that have known each other too long. And they provide in their scenes the physical and emotional respect and admiration Holmes and Watson share.

Rachel McAdams really shines as Irene Adler. She brings as much wit as flair to the role. A woman that is instantly remarkable for her intellect as much as for her looks. McAdams strides the line as a powerful female character that never crosses into a bitchy or shrieking annoyance most mistakenly view as a powerful lead.

I really love one other thing. Professor Moriarty is not revealed, either by sight, name, or voice. He is an unknown that might, possibly, be revealed in the second film of what could become a series of films much like in the 1930's or James Bond. Which would also mean that Mycroft could also turn up at some point.

I recommend this film if you are tired of all the movies that go boom from start to end. There's nothing wrong with a good action film, but on occasion being able to engrosse the more mature and thinking parts of the mind never hurts either. This film provides that fix.

**Side note - if we must see Moriarty (which I think is best never shown fully if possible since there are liberties being taken to change aspects of the characters) who would be best? Some are whispering Brad Pitt which I think would be deadly to the series. Someone more refined, and possibly a bit older but dashing. Perhaps George Clooney (if he can do the accent). If not him then maybe John Simms.

Movie Review: Surrogates

Surrogates is the latest film to feature Bruce Willis. It's an action sci-fi combination that plays on familiar themes, and slips in a bit ot philosophy/politics when you aren't looking.

Starting with the plot, it does have one. It's not hard to follow and it is set-up well. The progrssion of AI and robotics eventually leads to the creation of human looking Waldo's. Initally meant to be an aid to the disabled, it is adapted by the millitary and then consumer versions. The device becomes wildly popular and soon the entire world is using this. The ultimate couch potatoe luxury item for everyone.

Well almost everyone. There are humans that are against the idea. And they set-up conclaves within the U.S. and presumably the world, where no machinery exists. Essentially they are ludites.

All of this you probably got from the trailers for the movie. But the plot quickly moves around. We start with a murder, actually 2 of them, via the surrogate machines. Then we shift to a conspiracy to another one, and then to a love story, and finally to a moral dilema.

All of the themes work on a level, to an extent. But they all fail as well. The biggest problem is that you don't feel like any side in this film is really all that compelling.

Ving Rhames character is a support role, but not very essential to the movie, though he is a key to the plot. In fact everyone except Willis is basically a weak minor support. Which would be fine, but the acting of Willis seems as weary and devoid of emotion as the surrogate robots the fill this movie world.

The special effects of the film are decent but not spectacular. The same can be said of the CGI scenes. Overall you geta bland feeling in looking at the various city scenes. Which is likely what was intended, as this is the effect of the surrogates.

Are there plot holes in the film? Many, and the pace of the film allows you time to wonder about them. Is there lots of gunplay and explosions? Not as much as you would thing. Though there are more than a few scenes of large groups of people being destroyed, except these are all robots so everyone is safe.

The big question of the film is, what makes us human? Is technology a tool for our benefit or a means of destroying us while we still live?

The end of the film is like the rest of it, a bit contrived and far too neat to be believable.

There is a bit of humor though in seeing what most of the characters really look like without their robotic counterparts.Not enough to make the film worthwhile but interesting for a few seconds. Similar to what we learn of the guy controlling the wife in the boring Gamer film.

There's not much to say about Surrogates as there isn't that much to speak about. The film is not compelling, you don't really feel engaged at any point. Overall it was a decent film but not worth a movie ticket. I'd propbaly buy the DVD to keep up with my Bruce Willis collection of films, but that would be the only reason.

The worst films since 2000

Having watched Stargate Universe, and learning of the upcoming V revisioned television series, I natually started to think about the worst that Hollywood and the entertainment industry has provided viewers. The list I could imagine is hardly small. And I wasn't the only one to come up with such a list.

It seems that the people at Rotten tomatoes had a similar thought. But I think the end of the decade had more to do with it than the latest slew of forgettable television fare. Still there is nothing like a list, especially of the worst as it confirms what you already knew.

I won't go thru the list of the worst films of the decade. There are 100 and the list contains several of the films you would expect. I will give you the top ten worst films, and several I think should have rated higher on the list of the worst excuses to steal your money.

10. Witless Protection
9. Redline
8. 3 Strikes
7. Strange Wilderness
6. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
5. National Lampoon's Gold Diggers
4. King's Ransom
3. Pinocchio
2. One Missed Call
1. Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever

If you saw any of these films I really feel for you. I sadly saw King's Ransom and Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever. The pain still haunts me in nightmares from time to time.

But the following I think were misrated on the list.

The New Guy - rated 94 was light on logic. laughs, or anything else, but it was cute in a 10 year old way. I wouldn't have put it on the list, but I wouldn't want to pay money to see it either.

Larry the cable guy: Health Inspector - rated 85. Any film with this character should be in the top 20 worst films ever, unless of course you happen to not have teeth, love moonshine, and got all your education when you finished 3rd grade.

Doogal - rated 83 should be much higher. In fact if there was a list of films for kids that should be illegal to show kids, this would be in the top ten. Truly, if you don't like to abuse children then don't show them this film.

Gigli - rated 73. It only made it to 73? The rest of the list has to be really bad.

The Fog - rated 66 is the first remake on the list. Considering how bad the first film was, why did they remake it anyway? Another in a long list of films proving why revisioned films suck.

BloodRayne - ranked 48. A decent game, a miserable movie. Bad writing, horrible acting, terrible action scenes. There is nothing in the film worth watching, except the leading ladies if you are pre-pubescent.

Zoom - rated 41 is really not that bad. I'm not saying it was a good movie, it wasn't. But for bored kids that don't have another choice on television or DVD this will work. it definitely isn't worse than the films I've already commented on.

Codename: The Cleaner - rated 37 it is the Black equivalent of Larry the cable guy. Cedric may be many things, but he is NOT entertaining as a lead actor in any movie. Someone stop giving him movie lead roles.

The Whole Ten yards - rated 36. It actually deserves this rating. Nothing from the original film carries over to this film, made just to get your money. Bruce Willis slipped big on this one.

Rollerball - rated 28. Remake and revisioned. That is almost all I need to say. Perhaps it might have worked if the director and/or writers ever saw the original movie.

But I know what you are thinking. There are movies missing from the list. Notably:

Soul Plane - perhaps the worst film ever. At least the worst I have seen. It as so bad I had to fast forward through sections to stay awake.

Little Man - the Wayans family are generally talented. Shawn and Marlon are so bad in this film as to make you wonder if they were adopted.

Ghost Rider - the special effects were too good to put it on the worst list, but the acting and script really tried.

No doubt there are other bad films. I'm sure that the list of 100 had others I would have hated. Thankfully I did not see more on the list. And I can't remember more horrible films at the moment (likely blocked from memory).

So do you agree? What do you think was the worst film since 2000?

Movie Review: Gamer

First there was Rollerball (the original) then came The Running Man. Add in a bit of Resident Evil (at least how it plays off of it's video game origins) and when you mix it all up you get Gamer. Well a handfull of hallucinogens helps too.

Perhaps its the fact that I'm a bit older than the target audience of Gamer. Or maybe I'm just not ADHD enough to flow with the kalidescope of scenes that dominate this film. But whatever the reason, this film sucked.

Let's start with the opening of the movie. It's frentic. Filled with explosions and and guns and lots of running around. Kind of like what you got in Saving Private Ryan, except not as focused or motivating. If you are prone to epileptic fits, good luck to you.

The film doesn't get much better from there. It's constantly trying to have things moving at hyperspeed at every step. Even just moving from one place to another without any gunfire is a series of jumpaction, shaky, flashes. It gives me the impression that the editor was on cocaine, and the director wanted the audience to feel that same kind of rush. Sadly though, it doesn't work in a positive way.

Aside from that, there of course is what passes for a plot these days. To say that it is full of holes and bad would be an upgrade of my opinion. The remake of Deathrace 2000 (called simply Death Race with Jason Statham) is almost logical and intellectual comparatively.

What are the problems?

**Spoiler**

Well let's go with the girl in the prison/holding area. How did she get there? Why doesn't anyone notice her interaction with Kable (Gerard Butler - our protagonist)? Why isn't she spotted since she stands out massively?

Another issue is the world domination theme. Was it really necessary? And why would the rest of the corporate lackeys go along with it, without being controled?

Or how about killing Kable in the most simple way possible. Just hold him in place as anyone shoots him. It's not like the film doesn't mention that there are internet drags and glitches just like now.

Or how does the kid, who had all his computers hacked, suddenly have the power to get back in control of Kable? Why is Kable a hero to the masses that have no clue what is going on? How does all of that get broadcast live?

Spoiler over

Seriously there are a dozen different issues in the film. But as bad as they are, the contrived end of the movie is just the worst part of it. Like they couldn't figure out what to do next so they stole the ending from Blade Runner, essentially.

Ok, skip what little plot there was. How was the acting?

Well I must say that Ludacris was not out of place. Which considering that I find his acting about as good as gangsta rap, is not a compliment. Yes, it was really that bad. He was about as emotive and compelling as watching static.

The shame is that he was on par with all the other actors in the film. Everyone was just here for the paycheck and it shows (Kyra Sedgwick, John Leguizamo, Amber Valleta, Keith David all included). Perhaps Michael C. Hall (of Dexter fame) was the best actor in the film. And he seemed asleep virtually every time he has a scene. Except when he was singing and dancing. That showed a bit of the talent that he has.

The soundtrack was good though. Several interesting revisions of older songs that really work well with the more stable scenes. And a few that hit the right tone for the more addict-looking-for-a-fix scenes.

I love videogames. I'm an avid fan of MMO's (I've played almost all the major ones to date). Explosions and gunfire are always a bonus to most any film. But none of these things can combine to make Gamer a good film.

If you haven't seen the film in theaters yet, congratulations. Don't buy the DVD. I wouldn't even recommend watching this when it hits cable.

If you want to spend 90 minutes watching something to entertain and distract your mind, try any of the films I've already mentioned. This film steals ideas from all of them, and they all do it much better.

Movie Review: GI Joe

The summer movies of 2009 have been a series of letdowns. Which is not to be confused with the amount of money that the films have generated. When all you have is the equivalent of sand instead of the water of entertainment, well many go and spend their money anyway. Add in the cost of going to a movie and the numbers look astounding.

GI Joe was a film that some hoped would defeat that trend. And having seen the film I can honestly say that such hopes are completely dashed. GI Joe is almost exactly what it seems. A waste of time and less entertaining than the Saturday Morning cartoon.

Let's start with the basics. The visual looks of the film are decent. Not great, not wonderful, just ok. Part of that is due to the constant use of massive amounts of CGI throughout the film. It just takes a bunch of the realisim the film was hoping to attain in live action, and throws it off a roof. Seperate of the CGI, well it's just not visually compelling.

The acting is another thing. If the visuals are just average, the acting takes the film to a new low. In thinking about the whole cast, I cannot name a single actor that sttod above the others. With the exception of Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and the 2 child actors portraying Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (Leo Howard and Brandon Soo Hoo, respectively).

Snake Eyes stands out for one main reason. He never spoke in the whole film. All he had to do was move around. We didn't even get to see his face, not even his eyes, once in the film. Which made this the standout role in the film. Literally this was the best acting and character simply because that role had the least problems.

The worst acting would likely be Marlon Wayans, or Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander. Followed closely by every other character in the film. There isn't a single character you could care about, nor that you might believe. Not one had any spark that would make you root for or against them.

But if you were wondering about the plot - perhaps it provides a reason to still see the film - don't worry. It too is as bad as every other element in the film. Obviously the writers were lost between making a kid's film and something for adults.

Start with the fact that the film rewrote the entire team. GI Joe is supposed to be an all American military force. But to make the film sell overseas they have been changed to a secret NATO force. So already the film revisions its source material.

Considering the intelligence of all the military forces involved, I would be surprised if the Boy Scouts wouldn't be a better choice for defending the nation. Not a single writer was probably involved in the military, nor the director or producers or the Hollywood execs.

***Spoiler Alert***

Destro (Christopher Eccleston) is a multi-national arms dealer that sells 70% of all the arms and defenses used in the world. Which is just dumb to start with. But he sells NATO, and the GI Joe team, all their equipment. So why is any of their gear equal to the COBRA troops? Or how about having a failsafe that prevents their weapons from working against his guys? Or why not just hack into their systems to find out what they know and when? Besides the fact that he should know where their secret bases are since he could track each and every item they have?

Then there are the accelerator suits. Really useless. Which is why they are unused throughout 90% of the film. Other than the big scene in the trailer. Because if they used the suits they should mop up the COBRA guys in minutes. Not that COBRA had any equivalent outfits, which they should since DESTRO sold them.

I won't even get into the nanobot issue.

***SPOILER END***

So back to the plot. GI Joe is so secret that the whole outfit is exposed some 7 minutes into the film. They are so good that all of 4 people handle 90% of all the work.

The one thing the team seems really good at is creating massive destruction as they go about their jobs. What they do in France is a contruction workers paradise. The cost in money and lives is enough to make you wonder why any nation would want these guys protecting anything. So much for never failing at anything.

Oh, and the "love story" or whatever is going on with Ripcord (Wayans) and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) fits better for kids in elementary school than anything else.

How dumb is the plot? Well unless you believe fire burns underwater, and that ice doesn't float in water, the plot is incredibly stupid. Even a 5 year old will see the plot holes and illogic.

I'd go into more detail but I don't want to spoil it more. If such a thing is possible.

I wouldn't take young kids to this film. As I mentioned earlier there is lots of collateral damage. You don't see the hordes that get killed, but it is obvious that they die. A lot.

Perhaps the one great thing is the fact that the battles between Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Snake Eyes is interesting. Short but decent.

So would I advise anyone to see this film? No. There is a reason why the film was not shown to critics (except a couple of guaranteed extra positive reviews). I honestly can't understand why this film was marketed to anyone over the age of 5. And that might be an insult to 5 year olds.

Don't see this film. Watch the cartoon version instead and at least enjoy you money.

Movie Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

What can I say about one of the more anticipated movies of this summer season? I was disappointed.

Wolverine is a movie with several things going for it, but it just doesn't seem to take hold of any of them. Fans of the comic books will have various issues on top of those presented by the movie. Regular fans of the X-Men will feel short-changed. It's like the bonus scenes at the end of the movie, neither is worth the time you spend waiting to see them.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is indeed a well produced movie. There is CGI and explosions to fulfill the testosterone needs, and more than enough scenes of Hugh Jackman without a shirt off to pass the time of most who enjoy that. Jackman has worked out a lot for the film. The explosions happen almost every 15 minutes with fights mixed in between to keep everyone busy. There is even a loose bit of plot woven into the whole thing to keep your mind stimulated, a little.

But it just doesn't work. Here is a problem, we start the film proper with Logan and Creed part of a secret superhuman squad of assassins. This is after an introduction explaining that they had been part of every conflict and battle America had since the Civil War (Interesting to note that both Creed and Logan were in Blue). We are introduced to every member of the group as they do their thing against some ambiguous African warlord with a stash of diamonds. Then they are all gone, essentially.

Zero, has one scene where we get to see he is really fast and accurate at firing a gun, and about 45 seconds throughout the rest of the film. Blob gets the scene against the tank, and another in the boxing ring. Then he is gone. Wraith gets about 10 minutes, of which only 1/3 has him talking. But he does get to be in 3 locations before he is gone. And Wade Wilson - well other than his opening scene, nada. Hey Ryan Reynolds got paid a likely $200,000 plus for 5 minutes of screen time. I don't hold that against him. It's a great job and life if you can get it.

Suffice to say, everything in this movie is just thrown at you, then tossed away. You barely get enough time to understand who a character is and what they might be able to do, before they are gone. So you never really get to care. Except for Wolverine and Sabertooth. Which you either like or not from early on in the film.

Plus you are left with a lot of why in this movie. Why are some mutants killed, others held captive, and yet others frozen in block of ice. Why don't certain people, besides Wolverine, remember what happened in the subsequent movies this is a prequel of. Why does Wolverine lose his memory even though he heals from all injuries perfectly. Why doesn't Sabertooth use any of the past on Wolverine in the X-Men movies?

And on and on.

You don't get a lot of time to ponder any of these questions. The movie keeps the pace high enough that you never get enough time to consider these questions. But you are left with the feeling that nothing is resolved. And once the film ends it just hits you like a brick.

As much as I was looking forward to the film, it just never got to a point where I was satisfied. Especially my interest in the Wade Wilson/Deadpool character. As a fan of that comic book character I was left with a Tim Burton Batman movie introduction and end to the character.

Bottom line, Don't see this in the theater. It will be a nice DVD, especially if there is extra scenes that expand on the characters and what they can do and/or give more details about them.

Let's hope that the ret of this years crop of summer movies just get better from this point on.

Movie Review: Dragonball Evolution

If for some reason you found yourself bored and wondered if you should go see a movie, don't make it Dragonball Evolution. If you are a fan of Dragonball and/or Dragonball Z, or even GT don't see this movie. In fact if you are above the age of 5, are of normal intelligence, can draw stick figures, or know what a circle is, don't see Dragonball Evolution. Anyone else not covered by these things should see the film or buy the DVD.

I hoped that the preview of this movie would be wrong. With 68 million fans worldwide you would think that the producers might have bothered to watch the entire series. Or at least more than commercials for the show on TV. But that is not the case.

In fact I find it hard to explain how bad this movie is. It's slow paced to start. It has a plot that has the creativity of a mouse. It follows the storyline the same way that a Ferrari is akin to a Yugo.

I was so insulted and bored by the movie that I almost feel bad trashing it. Still the producers of the film did this to themselves. They trashed a great cartoon series, loved internationally.

Yet the worst movie has some positives. The fight scenes in the film are interesting, at least compared to the rest of the film. The kid playing Goku almost looks like he has hair like the main character in the series. There are Asians in the film. ChiChi is in the movie and is Goku's love interest.

The net result is the answer to the question is this worth paying money to see in a theater? The answer is a simple, no. In fact I would almost demand that I get paid to watch this film again. So would I pay to have the DVD? Again I would say no, if it costs more than a dollar.

If you are in any way interested in Dragonball from the cartoon series, buy a DVD of that and watch it. It is infinitely more interesting, better written, has deeper character development, better fight scenes, and entertaining. If you do pay to see this movie, you can now only blame yourself.

Movie Review: Watchmen

Well after months of anticipation the Watchmen film has finally been released. From the crowds that were at the movie tonight I believe I was not the only one looking forward to the movie. Which is shocking as I have never seen such a crowd for any film in 5 years.

But opening day crowds are not a guarantee of a good movie. So what did I think of it?

Visually the film is awesome. The sets are highly detailed, with everything you might expect to see on a New York City street, plus a few subliminal messages here and there. It's dirty and crowded, in fact you get the impression that the city, like the world of the Watchmen's 1985, is angry and chaotic. The images of Mars are breath-taking (and a bit of commedy if you pay attention to the last scene there).

The soundtrack though leave a bit to be desired. Honestly much of the music is annoying. Perhaps the only song that felt like a good fit for what was happening was Jimi Hendrix's Watchtower. Beyond that, the music can be jarring at times.

The plot can be summed up as roughly 80 - 90% of that found in the graphic novel. Huge portions of the film are exact translations of panels. Often the dialogue is a direct quote. So at times this is great, and at others it's a little awkward as it's just slightly out of touch with what you might expect.

A couple of other things that are important to keep in mind is that this is not a film for kids. This film lives up to every reason a R rating exists. Frontal nudity, of male and female characters occurs more than just once. Full on sex, virtually what you might expect from a porn movie is shown. I mean it. Naked bumping and pumping, everything but penetration for an extended 2 - 5 minute scene.

And violence. Lots of it. Against men, women, kids - in fact everyone in this world seems to have suffered and then doled out their own portion of pain.

But is the long film good? Yes it is. It keeps yur attention at virtually every step. In fact a friend that saw the movie with me stated that except for the length of the introduction (that gives a pretty clear background on how the superheroes rose and fell)the film felt like it wasn't overly long.

The acting was particularly good too. The casting was well done, as there seemed a natural affinity among our heroes. They may disagree from time to time, but its like an old friend that you forgive even when they are dead wrong and you are angry.

I felt that The Comedian, and Rorschach were the best done of all the characters. In both characters the wrongs of society shone the brightest. The Comedian with his jokes that won't make you laugh, and Rorsach with his intense and absolute belief in every wrong being punished absolutely. One line I particularly liked was the statement of Rorsshach in Prison

"You all don't seem to understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked in here with me!"

But no movie is perfect. And like any translation there are changes made. Some are good, but others just don't work. One of the key changes was to the ending. An alteration of how things happen and how various characters react. It's just too simplistic and empty. It beguiles the imagination. Truely it annoyed me.

Still a couple of minutes after the climax of the film is no great lost, except if you are more of a purist about the graphic novel.

Be warned, this is not a fun film. By comparison the Dark Knight movies are a Charlie Brown special. As bad as the Joker might be (a sociopath to be sure) it's nothing compared to watching the Comedian shoot a pregnant woman. Or the attempted rape scene in the film. Or the cold blooded passionate murder of a criminal (not to mention the crime he commited to cause the event). That's just a few of the scenes that will change the opinion of what is justice, and what makes a hero.

Overall I recommend this film. It's not for everyone. Especially if you want to feel uplifted about your heroes. But if you want to be taken through a trip of human flaws and the shades of grey that is right and wrong, this movie will take you there.

Valentine's Day alternatives

So with Valentine’s Day around the corner I was wondering what I could speak about that might refer to it. And I decided to ask about the gifts women might want for the holiday. Considering the economic woes that we all are feeling, there are fewer options today than usually are available. Still there are a few things that are options.

Of course there is the classic chocolate and flowers. It’s a standard and there is no surprise why. Women love flowers and chocolate is a known aphrodisiac. In addition there is a ton of research that states chocolate has other benefits, especially for women. It may be boring, but it is an option that really doesn’t go wrong.

There are cards of course. While inexpensive, a nice card (or maybe a naughty one if that fits) with a few well placed comments is never a bad option. Still that may not be enough. I suggest that if you choose a card, do a bit of homework and seek out a poem you can include with the card. The extra bit of effort can really add to the generic gift. Plus, for those of us less eloquent in our speech it shows there is something working in the grey matter.

But if you choose that option, be honest. Few are in the realm of T.S. Elliott, William Wordsworth, and so many other greats. You won’t fool anyone pretending you wrote their work.

Going into the realm of something original I suggest clothing. Yes I own a clothing and other consumer goods store. And yes you can find a great selection of gifts for your significant other there (over 1500 items to choose). But you don’t have to limit yourself just to my stuff (but it would be nice).

And I don’t mean some piece of lingerie that you always drool over seeing her (or him) in. Unless they love to collect such fantasy wear all year round, you are better off getting something a bit more functional or comfortable. Emphasize comfortable.

If you know she loves shoes, get her a gift card at her favorite store to buy a pair of her choice. Or maybe she needs a new robe, slippers, or pajamas. Perhaps she is thinking of a new hat for Easter or some other occasion. Maybe she needs a new dress or outfit for work.

You'll do well to give her something pragmatic, plus she will remember that you did this for her every time she wears it. Which is a year long benefit. Just get the size right.

Another different idea is to get her a couple of DVD’s. Perhaps The Princess Bride, or A Good Day To Be Black And Sexy. Or some other non-action, explosionless, plot-driven movie that she prefers (unless she is in fact a Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jason Statham fan – lucky you). The point is that it’s a movie she wants to watch, that is romantic if she likes that, that you both can watch Valentine’s Day with a bottle of wine. And yes, you too will be watching the DVD, at least that day.

But if money is tight, like you just got a stupidly large electric bill because of an error at your electric company (thanks NYSEG), think way out the box.

How about a day of doing the laundry, cooking the meals, and a massage? Even if that means going to her and spending the day at her place. It may not be a material gift, but then again actions are louder than words I am often told. And I know of few women that don’t enjoy being pampered.

The main point I suppose is this. If you celebrate Valentine’s Day, make it an occasion. It’s not about money, as much as the media and the retailers would like you to think. It’s not about comparing material gifts, like a competition with the Jones’. It’s about your significant other.

Perhaps this will help someone out there. If it does I’m glad. Because this is a time that most of us really need the help.

And ladies, and guys too, if you can suggest things that are inexpensive yet memorable that I have missed (and I don’t doubt that there could be many) please do. Men aren’t mind readers, and if you don’t give us options, you shouldn’t be too upset if we go with the most obvious and simple choice.

DVD Review: A Good Day To Be Black & Sexy

I just finished watching A Good Day to be Black and Sexy, which is now out on DVD for those that missed it in the theaters, and I have to say WOW. No wonder it did so well at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.

I didn’t just watch the film; I watched the extras the DVD provided, auditions, deleted scenes, behind the scenes and more. Because the film captured me. And I’m trying to find a way to explain how.

The film is not your generic action, drama or so on film. This is more of an art house film. But don’t let that put you off on seeing this film. There is humor, and sensuality, moments of fear and disappointment, and a consistent display of daily life in all its forms.

The film is broken into several vignettes. Each is separate of each other, with the exception of Tonite (parts 1 & 2) though they are only connected by the character Tamala (played by Mylika Davis). And each expressed something very different about love, sensuality, sex and the pursuit thereof.

What will really blow the mind of some viewers is the fact that all the characters except Jasmine - Emily Liu - and her family are Black. This may not sound like a big deal. But once the film starts, it takes mere moments for your mind to wake up to the fact that you haven’t seen this before. It just doesn’t get conveyed in Hollywood. Except in the most superficial and more often than not violent manner.

I should also mention right off the bat that this is not a film for kids. This is R-rated and it deserves that rating. This is mature content. But it is also thought provoking.

For me the 3 best vignettes of the film have to be Her Man, Reprise, and American Boyfriend. Not that the other parts are not good, just that they evoked the most emotional reaction from me. Though I admit feeling the fear for the safety of Tamala in Tonite part 1, and anger at Julian - played by Jerome Anthony Hawkins - in Tonite part 2.

I can tell you that there was not one part of this film that did not evoke some emotional response from me. Whether it was a sense of unease, humor, a desire to punch one of the male characters in the mouth, or triumph, each part had me moving with it. And considering that the overall pace of the film is slow, taking it’s time to do what it needed to, its hard to have an audience follow so closely for so long. Yet Director Dennis Dortch succeeds.

Director/Writer Dortch hits a nerve in this film. He makes you want to know more about these characters. He gives you a glimpse and you want the extras as soon as you can get them.

And the cast of actors is a great find. If several of these actors and actresses don’t get more attention from Hollywood it proves the whole thing is rigged. Because the talent is just so apparent.

This is especially true with the character of Helena, played by Chonte Harris. Helena is bitter, unsatisfied, spiteful, loving, and quite possibly in love all at once. Her lines are short and simple, yet convey a huge depth of conversation. And her movements give the impression of a spring coiled and ready to explode.

For the male actors Alphonso Johnson, portraying Jesse, is the stand out. While he may not have a lot of screen time in which to work, he moves you. His desire to understand, his frustration at being ignored, his anger at being minimized all play thru. And his ultimate act of wordless defiance, and expression of love just rocket you with joy.

And there is chemistry among all the couples. Perhaps best personified by Nana Hill’s Candi and Kareem Grimes’ Russell. You can feel the trust, playfulness and wild abandon waiting for its chance.

I have to mention that I seriously think that Nana Hill will be seen a lot more. It’s no surprise that her image is the cover of the DVD, and her acting equally conveys that sensuality and something extra you just can’t describe.

And I strongly suggest watching the alternate ending to Tonite part 2. Which I felt needed to be seen, and if there must be a negative mentioned it has to be that this was not in the feature film. Or at least I wanted it to be as I was so angry with Julian.

Director/Writer Dennis Dortch has done a great job with this first film. In many ways I can imagine this leading to a career much like Spike Lee’s. Controversial yet in a gratifyingly different manner. And not afraid to place the viewer in a position they may not have expected to be in, while still making the experience worthwhile.

If I sound positive and excited about this film, I am. Far too few films these days give you an experience. Most of the time you can watch something and forget everything you saw in the last 2 hours 2 minutes after it’s over. When a film leaves you with something tangible it needs to be lauded.

I have many questions I’d like to ask Dennis Dortch, and I hope to have the chance to ask him sometime soon. But I can and do say that I recommend owning a copy of this film.

The Razzie Award nominations are out

Ah, what is January without the annual Razzie Award nominations. Not that 2008 was a year lacking actors, actresses, and films aplenty for the nominations. In fact I’m sure the judges had quite the time trying to narrow the field.

But the Razzies generally pick the top of the worst of any given year. And unlike the Oscars, the film nominated here you have definitely heard of, and sadly might have seen. Such is the shame of Hollywood year after year.

For 2009 we have the following, with my comments included:

Worst Picture:

Disaster Movie
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Meet the Spartans
The Happening - boring
The Hottie & the Nottie – any movie that would have Paris Hilton in it should automatically be nominated, if not win.
**Why is The Day The Earth Stood Still not in this?**

Worst Actor

Mike Myers - The Love Guru
Eddie Murphy - Meet Dave - What is wrong with Murphy these days. He can be so much better than this.
Al Pacino - 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill
Mark Wahlberg - The Happening and Max Payne - Neither film was worth the money
Larry the Cable Guy - Witless Protection - How he cannot win I can’t imagine.
**I know everyone seems to disagree, because he is dead, but Heath Ledger’s Joker sucked.**
***And Keanu Reeves deserves to be in this group more than Wahlberg does, for his work in The Day The Earth Stood Still***

Worst Actress

Jessica Alba - The Love Guru and The Eye - She is just really bad.
Cameron Diaz - What Happens in Vegas - Embarrassing
Paris Hilton - The Hottie & the Nottie - The must win choice. The other ladies may have tried but they all have far more talent in their sleep than Hilton at her best (if such a moment exists).
Kate Hudson - Fool's Gold and My Best Friend's Girl
The Entire Cast of "The Women" - Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Meg Ryan.

Worst Supporting Actor

Uwe Boll, Postal
Pierce Brosnan - Mamma Mia! - How far we have fallen since The Matador and Bond.
Ben Kingsley, The Love Guru, War, Inc., The Wackness - I like him, but War, Inc. just puts him over the top in this one.
Burt Reynolds, Deal and In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Verne Troyer, The Love Guru and Postal.

Worst Supporting Actress

Carmen Electra - Disaster Movie, Meet The Spartans - Hey, be nice she can’t do better.
Paris Hilton - Repo! The Genetic Opera; - Yet another film proving that were it not for money she would have nothing to justify her life
Kim Kardashian - Disaster Movie
Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - She deserves it just for appearing in the film
Leelee Sobieski - 88 Minutes, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Worst Screen Couple

Uwe Boll and Any Actor, Camera and Screenplay
Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, What Happens In Vegas - The only words I have are, I understand why they got a Razzie
Paris Hilton and either Christine Lakin or Jorel David Moore, The Hottie And The Nottie - Again the queen of too much money and no talent stands out.
Larry The Cable Guy and Jenny Mccarthy, Witless Protection; - Giving Paris Hilton the only kind of competition she deserves.
Eddie Murphy In Eddie Murphy, Meet Dave. – Not really a couple now is it?

Worst Prequel, Sequel, Remake Or Rip-Off

The Day The Earth Stood Still - Horrendous remake, the writer should be slapped.
Disaster Movie
Meet The Spartans
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
Speed Racer - Someone was on drugs when they filmed this. Give me the original cartoon anytime.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - George Lucas can’t need the money that bad, can he?
**Max Payne fits this category, as it is a ripoff of the video game. And a bad ripoff at that.**
***Again in the ripoff, a film that stole from at least 3 other films - Doomsday. If you missed it, be happy.***

Worst Director

Uwe Boll - Tunnel Rats, In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale And Postal
Jason Friedberg And Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - And anyone expected better in these ripoff ideas?
Tom Putnam - The Hottie And The Nottie - Paris Hilton, do I need to say anything more?
Marco Schnabel - The Love Guru
M. Night Shyamalan, The Happening. – The best film to put you to sleep.

Worst Screenplay

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer - Disaster Movie And Meet The Spartans - The obvious favorites to win.
M. Night Shyamalan - The Happening
Heidi Ferrer - The Hottie And The Nottie
Doug Taylor - In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
Mike Myers and Graham Gordy, The Love Guru
**Actually I don’t understand how The Day The Earth Stood Still missed this category**

Worst Career Achievement

Uwe Boll - "Germany's answer to Ed Wood" - Ed Wood was funny at least.

Such are my thoughts of the films worth of Razzie’s in 2008. Perhaps you know of a film that deserved to be on this list? Let me know because no one should need to own a DVD of films of this quality. Even if you need a Frisbee in an emergency.

Oh and here is an early prediction for 2009, Notorious will top a few of the categories here.

Hollywood movies: Remakes are king, or are they

There are a lot of remakes, or revisioned movies, coming out of Hollywood these days. And based on rumors and confirmed fact we can expect dozens more really soon. That says nothing of comic book, video game, and novel conversions to film.

So here are my thoughts on the bulk of these movies. Do you agree?

Movie Review: Transporter 3

$1.25 for gas
$20 for tickets to movie theater
2 hours of your life

"Are look upset?

But let me tell you why." - From the Birdcage

That I think aptly describes the experience of going to see Transporter 3. That isn't to say this was a bad film. It is to say that I should have waited for the DVD. Because the film is disappointing.

The Transporter series of films have come to make a few things expected. Great car driving, a couple of 5 or more on 1 fight scenes, Jason Statham changing his suits (and thus shirtless for the ladies in the audience), and explosions of large order. These are all very good things in a action film, which the latest does have. yet you feel somehow jilted by the end of the film.

The pace of the film is far slower in the feeling than the other prior movies. While the Audi has another staring role it seem to be held back from what you'd really like to see happen. Often you are just sitting waiting for something to happen. And you just never get a good payoff.

Part of the problem is the writing. And action fans are probably saying "what does that mean?" Action films are not known for their plots. Usually there are plot holes big enough to crash Mac trucks in. But the Transporter series has tended to be better than average in making it all make sense. Until this film.

Early in the film we are left with a big issue. Somehow our female lead is inexplicably asleep until a gentle touch from our hero. At this point one sorry soul has already failed to say 2 words that would have ensured his life. He said 4 or 5 other things, that make no sense to anyone out of the loop. But literally 2 words could have just kept him alive. And the lady also wastes time, and is highly insensitive to the situation, in cluing in Frank Martin (Jason Statham).

Later when Frank has ample time and opportunity to find out what is going on, the lady yet again is about as helpful as acid on your tongue (don't try it, it's just a bad idea). Had she been even slightly helpful everything would have changed. But instead we plod along.

I should mention that the relationship that develops between Frank and this young woman is unbelievable in virtually every aspect. Her whole purpose in the film seems to be to provide a love story so female viewers had a reason to buy the DVD. I felt it was a complete waste of film and did nothing for the story.

The 2 big fight scenes were decent, but not the best. The first movie had the best I think. The car scenes only had 1 that was really cool, and again I think the first movie was far better on this score as well. And when it comes to unbelievable actions, this film beats the other 2 in spades. I dare Mythbusters to try this escape-from-the-lake scenario and bust it wide open.

If you noticed I kept getting disappointed by the film. That includes the final bad guy fight, which ends stupidly. Perhaps one of the most believable parts of the film is Frank fishing with the ever so Columbo-ish French officer that seems to be is detached sidekick now. And that is not saying much.

For all these problems the film is not terrible. It's a decent action film and there are dozens far worse. It's just that I went to the theater for this. At $9 a ticket (and the Regal Theater in Binghamton smells bad by the way) I tend to want more than ok. especially from a film series that has done better than that in the past.

Jason Statham didn't have much to work with in this film. He tried and is just under par with his previous performances as Frank Martin. The French officer is exactly what he has been in the past. And the Audi excels as a top-end vehicle of choice for movers of questionable goods.

The problem is, in the middle of the film when the key bad guy says

"I just realized I don't need the best driver for this job. Any sucker that can drive can do it."

The audience has to say, 'He's right.' And then you wonder why you are watching this film anywhere but in your living room.

Movie Review: Max Payne

What can I say about Max Payne? Well perhaps I can start with the fact that this review is several days late, yes yet again because of the election. So some of you may have seen this film by now. But others may be waiting for the DVD or cable. Choose cable.

Now don’t get me wrong, the film is not bad. In fact if I had to pick one word to describe the film it would be dark. Not because of the subject matter, that’s the camerawork. The lighting, where there is any decent light, is drab and shadowy. I suppose because they are trying to set a mood. What they achieve is making the movie seem like a bore.

The film is based on a video game of the same name, and when I say based I mean they have the same title. Very little of the video game transfers over to the film. Just the motivation of the titular character, dead family, and the final scene. Everything else is more director’s license than anything else.

Like the video game the hero, Mark Wahlberg, is a cop who has serious problems. He seemingly sleeps little – as he trolls the city for clues to the person that killed his family and got away. Of course this has had a detrimental effect on his career, as he works in the dead files department. So the first 5 or so minutes of the movie are a complete waste as I’ve basically covered all of that here.

We then move on to meeting Natasha. That’s almost all you need to know about her, besides the fact she dies. The real mystery, or at least that is what you are meant to wonder about, is how she dies. In fact several people kick off at this point, each with a quasi-mysterious mannerism.

Now I will tell you this, the film does not have angels, demons, or other such creatures. Though the question is meant to be asked by the viewer. But you never get to a point of really caring about the question in the first place.

That’s the bad part. For all the action, which is fair but not gratuitous, you never really care what happens to Max or anyone else in the film. The various characters pop on and off screen just slow enough for you to know that they are not background characters. The plot keeps moving forward and you just don’t care if you missed anything prior. Because none of it is really important.

I like Mark Wahlberg. He’s come a long way in his acting, but he just not leading man material. At least not solo in a film like this. It’s not that he can’t make the moves look good, or that his acting is that bad. He just doesn’t convey interest from the viewer. Or maybe it was the writers just being lazy.

Hollywood has gotten too used to films where there is enormous back stories to work off of. Iron Man, Spiderman, X-Men, Hitman, Halo (when it comes out) and way too many television show revisionings. Because of all these films it seems the writers are just getting lazy, and this film shows it.

Is this film a waste of time? Not exactly. You won’t feel better for seeing it, nor will you feel worse. It won’t make any impact at all really. But if you have time to spare, and you have to see a movie right now it’s probably the best choice for a while.

Movie Review: Death Race

I was able to get out to the theater this weekend and went to see Death Race.

I had previously previewed the film, so I was walking into the film with relatively high hopes. This is not an Oscar worthy film; it’s an action movie and so has to be judged as such.

The film starts off with a bit of homage to Death Race 2000, starring David Carradine. It was driving me nuts throughout the film trying to place the voice, and the end credits were the only way I figured it out. Beyond that, the opening sequence gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect in the film.

That idea is a good one. The film is short on dialogue, easy on plot, and frequent with gunshots and explosions. It’s exactly what an action movie is supposed to be.

Let me stop to discuss the visuals. This is a gritty movie and the scenes match it well. Everything is dirty, and you just get a feeling of frustration and a breaking down of society. Even the daytime sunny scenes are gritty with dirt from the prison, and a body of water that is best described like the Hudson River. On a bad day. It’s a great tone.

The race scenes are filmed well, with an eye out to capture the speed of the race, yet not blurring the details. And when the film slows down to give us a bit of background everything is a bit more shaded and dark. In fact there isn’t a scene in the entire film that is cheerful or bright with the exception of the introduction of the female navigator prisoners. That lasts about 10 seconds. But the ladies do look good.

But there is a bad spot in the film. Just before the big race the camera goes to a steady-cam shot. It is anything but steady. It’s shaky, with bad angles, and distracting. The rest of the film had no scenes like this, or at least that you might notice, so the change is jarring. I imagine that this was a reshoot, separate of the main filming. Thankfully it only lasts about 1 minute.

The sound is good. The roar of the engines doesn’t overpower any of the vocals, but is a powerful background reminder that everything is happening at speed. Explosions are crisp and powerful, the big guns sharp and constant. And the crunch of another driver going down is painful, but not enough to really clue you into the violent deaths that just occurred.

Actually the race looks like it could be an excellent video game (if a designer actually took time to make it right and not just throw out something for a quick buck) which is a bit of a reversal on the theme these days.

The race is simple. One lap around the track to get speed and bump the opponents. On the 2nd lap electronic devices are turned on that activate weapons and defenses on the cars, all a driver needs to do is drive over such a spot before another driver. And there is a 3rd device that activates kill traps. Basically spikes pop up from the ground to impale an unlucky car, and retract with the pieces ensuring a kill. Honestly any person that’s driven a racing game in the past 15 years will understand the concept.

There are 3 laps to a race. 1 race a day for 3 days. Qualifying for the next race is as simple as surviving the race. The winner is the first to cross the finish line in the third race, usually also meaning that you are the only driver left alive.

The rules are only this, win 5 races (the winner of the 3 days) and you get to go free. In 7 years of races no one has won.

**Ok here come the spoilers – you are warned.**

Jensen Ames (Jason Statham) was framed for the murder of his wife, so he could replace a popular driver who wears a mask and is called Frankenstein. Frank as he is called has won 4 races and needs one more to win. Ames (Statham), in the mask, only needs to win once and he can go free – reclaiming his infant son from a court appointed family.

Adding to his motivation is the fact he recognizes the criminal that killed his wife, the white supremacist scum that picks a fight with him when he enters the prison. The aryan uses the false charges of killing a woman to ensure that no other prisoner will help out Ames – with full knowledge that this is a lie.

Of course the warden (Joan Allen), a ball busting woman with an eye to profits, has no intention of letting our man go free. Either he can chose to lose, win and elect to stay for further races, or she will kill him on the track and substitute another racer as Frankenstein in the mask. And she has no problem with the fact she organized the frame that got Statham convicted.

None of the other racers are allowed to know who Frankenstein is, except the pit crew and navigator. Anyone that tells the secret is killed, so there are no loose lips.

As the film progresses, and the number of drivers drops, Ames becomes aware of the plot to kill him. He comes up with a plot to escape based on a weakness in the prison that has been overlooked. To do so he needs the help of the key driver looking to kill him, or actually Frankenstein. Prior to that he does kill the white supremacist purposefully (getting out the car and walking over to the guy to snap his neck as he begs for his life)… and no one missed the character I’m sure.

The escape makes sense, and works – though the timing of a train being in the area, and so close to the prison is a bit silly. And of course at the end our hero gets the girl. He also may have acquired a gay male companion.

Perhaps one of the most interesting things in the film is Tyrese Gibson as Machine Gun Joe. This chatracter is constantly referred to as being gay. He is the only driver with a male navigator (actually several as he keeps killing them if actual racing doesn’t). It’s clear that he is not a nice person, but his actual sexuality – and the crime he was convicted of – are never revealed.

Now I find it interesting because the film goes a long way to convince us that he is someone to cheer. He wants out of the corrupt prison, he’s murderous and volitale. He severely hates Frankenstein, whom he does not know was replaced.

Yet by the end of the film he has not only escaped, he is with Ames and seemingly on friendly terms.

I also think it’s a brave move for Tyrese. His persona in most films and rap back up an image of a tough bad ass. Yet in this film the question of his sexuality is prominent. That would generally be seen as a negative to his career, and a difficult sell to Black women. Actually the thought of gay African Americans is so taboo that I can’t recall any film that touches on the subject besides the Crying Game – though that is a British film and seen differently here. So he gets a mention for the choice of this character, not that his acting is above average.

**End Spoilers**

Overall I love the film. It delivers on what it’s supposed to be. Mayhem and violence. No big statements on society or politics. No attempts at trying to be overly clever or artsy. Just simple get-your-pulse-up crashes, bangs, and booms – with just a dash of a cute girl for spice.

Movie Review: Doomsday

A while back I mentioned that a film called Doomsday would be out this year. I believe I described the preview as

“Could I be wrong? Sure, but the odds of this being good are about the same as television suddenly realizing the world is made up of more than just White people. I’d sooner bet on Britney Spears making a comeback and/or being named mother of the year than this movie being a hit. The only real positive for it is that the female lead is good looking, and there isn’t another action or sci-fi film out to compete with it. [Jumper is so bad as to not count.]"

Having seen the film I can say this – I was wrong. It was an even worse mash of Mad Max, 28 Days Later, A Knights Tale, and Equilibrium than I imagined. Oh and a touch of Escape from New York as well.

The film sucked. The best part of the film may have been the introduction. It was singly the most intelligent part of the whole film. Another positive in the film is that the Black actor (Adrian Lester of Hustle I believe) does not get killed off in 15 minutes, and he even has a brain (though he does get killed, have no doubt).

How they got Malcolm McDowell or Bob Hoskins I have no idea. The film did not have that big a budget. And it showed. And they were very wasted talent, though combined I think they had all of 10 minutes of on-screen time.

One positive was the way the film jumps from a nihilistic future, to Mad Max/Escape from New York, to Knight’s tale and back. Dumb, but inventive.

If there was a reason to see the film – like someone paid you – I can understand seeing it. If while playing Frisbee with a friend you realize that the Frisbee is actually this on DVD, keep playing Frisbee.

Seriously the film was dumb. And boring. And way longer than it needed to be. I was tempted to stop watching after the only Black guy in the film died, since he seemed to be the smartest person in the film and the best fighter. At least he made it ¾ of the way through.