Directed by Tony Scott, Top Gun is an incredibly cheesy action/bromance movie that catapulted Tom Cruise to mega-stardom and was the highest grossing movie of 1986 with total US take-in of $177 million. People who remember how great the action scenes were and how badass the characters may have been probably haven’t seen the movie in a while. The fact that the movie airs on US cable channels such as Oxygen points to the fact that this film hasn’t aged too well and in my view, it is now a barely watchable film which is intermittently cringe-worthy.
Tom Cruise plays gung-ho Navy fighter pilot “Maverick” who, along with his NFO “Goose” (Anthony Edwards) are chosen to undergo training at the Navy’s Top Gun program. There, the two encounter machismo-driven rivalry with fellow pilots such as Iceman (Val Kilmer). Maverick also becomes attracted with one of the civilian instructor (Kelly McGillis) and struggles to separate himself from his father’s legacy.
There isn’t much going on in Top Gun and viewers with low attention span will quickly lose track of the story although there isn’t much to be missed anyway. The best thing about the movie are the action scenes involving the awesome F-14 Tomcats which were made available by the US Navy. Unfortunately, even in some of those scenes, the planes don’t really do anything fancy like firing missiles, blowing stuff up or even doing difficult maneuvers. Right in the opening sequence of the movie, there is a pretty significant goof with the supposedly “enemy” MIG-28 enemy aircraft obviously some old American F-5 Tigers that just about anyone who knows a little bit about military hardware would recognize instantly. Also, there is no such thing as a competition or hardware to be won at the real Top Gun program, that was completely fabricated to introduce some conflict to drive the light-as-feather plot. No big deal though, just watching those awesome jets fly makes for a very good spectacle.
On the negative side, well just about everything else is mediocre at best. The plot is shallow, very straightforward and simplified down so even a degenerate hillbilly can understand every single aspect of the movie. The dialogue is downright embarrassing and contrived. The romance between Maverick and Charlie is forced and the chemistry between the two actors is nonexistent. The homoerotic banter between Val Kilmer and Cruise is hilarious in a bad, bad way and has become a staple for derision ever since.
Top Gun also suffers from archetypal characters and it all starts with the main character. Maverick is a hot-shot ultra-confident pilot that recklessly risks his life and others’ just for the sake of thrills. Of course, instead of being disciplined or sent to some desk job like he would be in real life, the Navy sends him to Top Gun. You have the trash-talking arrogant rival pilot in Val Kilmer, the tough-as-nail instructor in Michael Ironside, and best of all, the supposedly pretty civilian astrophysicist in Kelly McGillis (there is no such thing, anyone who has been to an engineering/scientific program knows that!)
A fancy homoerotic US Navy commercial, Top Gun has aged very poorly and is one of those movies that you can easily pass on even when it’s on TV. I once thought long ago that this movie was pretty damn cool! What was I thinking?
C-
4/10
Notes: 110 min
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is a movie that has received considerable acclaim and is widely seen as the leading contender for the Academy Award for Best Picture. The reason I haven’t reviewed this movie earlier is that I wanted to watch the movie a second time and reflect on how much the completely unrealistic premises and behaviors take away from this otherwise very highly entertaining movie.
The film starts with the quote: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is drug” and follows US Army Sergeant First Class Will James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) as they go about their EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) missions during their deployment in Iraq. James is a new member of the team and immediately rubs the two other members the wrong way. James revels in the adrenaline rush of disarming explosive devices while his colleagues are persuaded he is going to get them killed through his recklessness.
Simply put, The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense movie in recent memory and will keep you at the edge of your seat through the entire movie. The first sequence of the movie is a brilliant introduction to the movie and keeps your heart pounding through one of the most tense and suspenseful scene I have seen in a long time. The movie is highly entertaining and action packed from beginning to end and also manages to sidestep preaching any cheap political message about the war in Iraq. Numerous familiar faces appears in the movie such as Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly or David Morse. The spotlight, however, rests on the three relatively unknown actors Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty who keep the movie grounded. Renner gives a very good performance as James, a reckless character driven by the adrenaline of combat and numbed by it. Renner shines though when he shows his vulnerable side as a compassionate human being. The movie is truly a character study of SSgt William James. He eventually gets to come home but how does a man, who has put his life in intense life or death situations nearly every day for months, adapt to the passive civilian life again? Mackie gives a solid performance as the methodical voice of reason while Geraghty nails the most emotionally vulnerable character of the trio.
By far the biggest issues with the movie are the distracting and absolutely unrealistic situations as well as the lack of credibility from the main character, SFC James. I’m not talking about minor nit-pick offense but major problems. First of all, it is extremely unlikely that an EOD team would ever ride alone especially if they are composed of only three members. They would ride only with heavy escort in a large convoy with at the very least a full infantry platoon to back them up. You will also see numerous times Sanborn and Eldridge trying to secure no less than a couple city blocks all by themselves while the main character goes about his business. This is utter and complete horseshit as this would never ever happen in real life. Again, that heavy escort that is supposed to ride with the EOD team would create a wide perimeter and possibly evacuate the entire neighborhood. Nevertheless, it does make for some highly suspenseful scenes which is probably why Bigelow decided to go that route. The cardinal sin however comes late in the movie when our three characters decide to pursue suspected bombers deep into the city in the middle of the night. Yes… all three of them and without telling anyone. Even better, the three come upon a bifurcation and they decide to split. Yes you read that right dear reader! Each of them goes down his own alley in the middle of the night and in the middle of an extremely hostile city. There is so many hard-to-believe sequences that I have to make a list:
First scene of the movie: The C4 has to be minutiously placed on the bomb (using the robot’s “hand”) to minimize collateral damage to buildings and people. Hence, the use of the cartwheel is only a plot device to get the guy killed.
Half a dozen grunts abandoning their Humvee and huddling together in some type of concrete cave with no view whatsoever of what’s around them. Completely unrealistic and downright disrespectful of the men serving abroad
The smoke sequence: I don’t even want to say anything
Same sequence, a little later: A dozen grunts all standing around and huddled together watching while a potential suicide bomb car suddenly appears and accelerates toward James: Again complete and utter BS. Soldiers would never just stand around in the middle of the street, doing nothing but watch the EOD guy do his job while in a hostile city. In real life, they would have set up a defensive perimeter, have marksmen on overwatch and soldiers ready to intercept any suspect cars or people getting too close to them. In real life, that car would have been been riddled with bullet within 100 meters and never made it past them unscathed. Again, another plot device to have James in a tense situation.
That priceless sniping scene: EOD bubba just picks up a Barrett .50 cal and starts killing people like he went through sniper school. Extremely unrealistic.
James goes AWOL in the middle of the night and sneaks into the city by himself. Not only does he not get killed, but he gets to come back through the front gate with no consequences whatsoever. In real life, no one would ever even dare venture outside the gates, and trying to sneak in or out would most likely result in one’s death
Near the end, a Vietnam era UH-1 helicopter is used to evac Eldridge. I thought this movie was about the Iraq war?
A man strapped to a metallic cage with a bomb inside and all of that, against his consent??? I will have seen it all.
How unrealistic was SFC James behavior in the movie? Let’s just say that in real life, a guy acting like he does would eventually get himself killed and not necessarily by enemy fire (something hinted at in the movie). That’s how unrealistic his behavior was. Bigelow really sacrificed any semblance of realism to extract every single ounce of cheap entertainment she could get. Is the movie entertaining? Yes but at what cost?
A thrilling, tense and action-packed war movie from beginning to end. I have to dock off at least two full grades though because the movie is utterly unrealistic just for the sake of cheap thrills.
B+
Notes: Rated R for war violence and language, 131 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Let’s get it straight right away: Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie, is quite a riot and one of the most entertaining movie of the year. To be honest, I was quite mortified when I learned that Guy Ritchie ended up at the helm of the movie. Ritchie had been misfiring badly since the awesome Snatch all the way back in 2000 after all. Here, he gives us a movie which suffers from a sloppy screenplay and overbearing editing but is action packed, gorgeous looking and quite funny.
Synopsis: Just fresh off capturing and witnessing the hanging of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occult serial killer, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are stunned to hear rumors that he has resurrected back from the dead and resumed his killing spree. To complicate matters, Watson is planning to get married to pretty Mary Marstan (Kelly Reilly) and move out of good old 221b Baker Street to Holmes great despair. Holmes, hilariously resolved not to let that happen, attempts to sabotage his friend’s proposal while hunting down Lord Blackwood. Holmes perks up considerably though when his tempestuous old love interest, the fetching Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) pops back in town for some mysterious business.
Some “purists”, who should probably re-read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will complain that the movie is not true to Sherlock Holmes’ essence. However, it is made clear in the written stories that he is a martial art expert and an avid boxer (“The Adventure Of The Empty House“). Why would a man who often puts himself in danger not come into some physical confrontation at one point or another and you know… use his fighting skills? Next, it is often described that Holmes tends to come alive when his mind is kept busy with enigmas but he tends toward depression when his mind idles. Watson is his closest friend so it would not be so far fetched for Holmes to disapprove of Watson’s impending marriage for his own well-being. Guy Ritchie only attempts to break the old preconceptions of the characters while staying faithful to the material, which is actually highly open for interpretation. People have this preconceived image of this stern detective in a deerstalker hat, smoking a pipe, and saying “Elementary, my dear Watson” (which he never does in the novels by the way). I’m glad Ritchie gave a modern face-lift to the character because the original work itself is extremely conducive to a successful movie franchise and would bring a new generation of people to get interested in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work.
Many things are already assumed as the movie begins, keeping Ritchie from having to go through a laborious introduction of every single aspects of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. The best thing going for Sherlock Holmes is the lively homo-erotic relationship between the eccentric Holmes and the proper Watson. The two have been best of friends and been cohabiting for the longest of time. Hence, the upcoming proposal by Watson to Mary Marstan throws a big wrench into that idyllic picture in Holmes’ mind. The casting of the lead roles was simply perfect. It was daring for Guy Ritchie to cast an American actor to play a quintessential British figure and the charismatic Robert Downey Jr doesn’t disappoint: An articulate and quick-witted performer, he is one of the few actors who can play an eccentric genius convincingly. His Sherlock Holmes is unkempt, arrogant, socially awkward and has his vulnerabilities especially his feelings toward Watson and Irene. Holmes is also street-wise, larger than life, and a genius badass altogether. Jude Law gives a strong performance, holding his own opposite Downey. Without Watson, there is no Sherlock Holmes and this describes their relationship in the movie as well. Watson is not pictured here as some inferior acolyte like in most previous interpretations. He is a smart and tough cookie, an Afghan war veteran who knows how to take care of himself. Downey and Law obviously had great fun shooting the movie and it shows. Together, they have excellent chemistry and absolutely nail the hilarious and constant cat fights they have over anything and everything.
The near-total focus on Holmes and Watson hurts the supporting cast who tends to get lost in Ritchie’s frenzied excess. Nevertheless, the always reliable Eddie Marsan is perfectly cast as Scotland Yard’s hapless inspector Lestrade. Lestrade is rigid and does everything by the book which puts him at odds with Holmes unconventional methods. Lord Blackwood presents an intriguing case because of the arcane and supernatural aura of his character which challenges Holmes’ rigorously scientific mind. British actor Mark Strong showcases another solid job as the character in a role that could easily have been one dimensional. Strong has a deep booming voice which makes him ideal for bad guy’s role and it helps him here to turn his thinly written character into a somewhat worthy adversary.
The first victims in action movies, when it comes to cutting scenes, are usually the women and Guy Ritchie does the ladies no favors with terribly underdeveloped roles for the Irene Adler and Mary Marstan characters. Their story line could have been more compelling if they didn’t disappear for large chunks of the movie at a time. In the stories, it is made clear that Holmes has no interest or respect whatsoever for women except for his weird admiration for Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outwit him fair and square (“A Scandal in Bohemia“). She is here reinvented as an American adventuress with a personal agenda who randomly pops in and out of the movie and it is obvious from the trailer that several of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor to keep the movie at a reasonable duration. Her motives are kept mysterious throughout the movie but it is implied she is being used by some powerful man (guess who?) who is obviously the real bad guy. Aside from looking delicious, poor Rachel McAdams is completely wasted in a thankless supporting role but finds the resource to rise above her lady-in-distress part. She blends her femininity with guile, feisty mischief, and some affecting vulnerability but ultimately isn’t given much of anything to do!!! (Yes, I want to smash my screen with the keyboard). This may be a trick to expand on her character organically in the sequel but it’s not a good one at all!!!! In the meanwhile, the lovely Kelly Reilly is just as underused and given little to work with. Thankfully, she manages to give a spirited turn as Watson’s love interest in a nondescript role.
It’s true that Guy Ritchie has always been more about style than substance and this doesn’t change here as the movie starts with an eye-opening action sequence. Ritchie and his writers, however, were patient and smart enough to stay true to the original material. Sherlock Holmes’ fans will notice the numerous nods to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s material such as Holmes’ prized picture of Irene he stole in “A Scandal in Bohemia” or the references to Holmes’ defining traits and past experiences. The action unravels at a frenzied pace and are a nearly unrelenting mix of action and chase sequences. Much like in Snatch, the action scene progressively ramp up and when you think that you can’t possibly go higher, Ritchie tops it off with an even more extravagant sequence. In terms of solving the mysteries, Ritchie also avoids the laborious dialogues that have become so cliche and uses nifty visual flashbacks instead to great effect. At the end of the day though, it is the lively banter between Downey, Law and McAdams that keeps Sherlock Holmes together and the movie tends to slow down dramatically when Holmes is by himself.
The intermittently sagging and overlong screenplay, written by an army of scribes (ok, more like 4), doesn’t take anything seriously which makes it tough for the viewer to believe that the main characters are ever in serious harm’s way. The plot is easily the weakest part of the movie and felt overly intricate and yet too simplistic for a Sherlock Holmes story. You know what? It’s all right if everyone has no idea what’s going on as long as it unravels neatly because it’s the same way with the written stories. Please don’t dumb it down to the level of a 4th grader. On a good note, the screenwriter did a nice job of setting up the next movie by leaving some parts of the plot open-ended. The movie has a feel reminiscent of Batman Begins in that it’s only a stepping stone to establish the main trio, a couple side characters and the world they live in.
Wait a minute…
The weakness in the plot are somewhat compensated thanks to award-worthy production values. The movie was shot in and around London and its Victorian recreation has a brilliant Gothic feel with the city shown as a slimy, filthy, and murky place. The action sequences are well shot and the climactic scene above the Thames River is a highlight. The costumes and period sets are so painstakingly detailed that they merit a mention. Sherlock Holmes’ costumes are rumpled and bohemian looking to emphasize his lack of personal care. On the other hand, Watson’s clothes are neat and very proper to reflect his military background and his discipline. Irene’s dresses and suits are particularly colorful and detailed to highlight a woman ahead of her time, living on the edge of the law and straddling the line between love and distrust in her relationship with Holmes. The sets were carefully built and if you only take your eyes out of the action for a minute, you will notice the incredible details in the background which contribute to create a breathing, living world. On a final note, the musical score by Hans Zimmer is original, ostentatious, strangely memorable and completes the action on the screen well. I would almost call it a work of genius.
Despite significant screenplay flaws, Sherlock Holmes is a fluffy but entertaining action-oriented interpretation of the beloved characters which will please its targeted 15-30 male-based audience. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law form one of the most entertaining action duo in recent memory and give the audience a nice Christmas gift. Has a new franchise begun? Elementary, my dear Watson!
B+
Notes: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. 128 minutes.
A technologically advanced civilization shows up in a previously virgin place full of highly desirable resources but the native and “primitive” population is sitting right on top of it and is unwilling to move. Naturally, this native population lives in harmony with nature while the new comers destroy everything in sight with no regards. One of the young newcomers falls in love with the native princess and has to straddle the line between two colliding worlds. In case you are wondering, this is not a review of Pocahontas or Dance with the Wolves but James Cameron’s new movie Avatar.
Avatar is set in 2154 AD on Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri system which is home to the Na’vi, a “primitive” indigenous population of giant blue dudes and dudettes who are twice as tall as the average human being and quite frankly more awesome physically. The Na’vi live in complete harmony with their natural surroundings and only take what they need without wasting. Fortunately, some nameless corporation has set up a colony there to show them how it’s done back home in America. Pandora is also rich with Unobtainium (I’m not making that one up), a precious mineral for which humans will do anything for. Unfortunately, those stinky blue people live right on top of a massive quantity of this resource and that’s where the Avatar program comes in. In a diplomatic effort to solve the tense situation without turning the ground all blue and mushy, human scientists such as Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) were able to create avatars, human-Na’vi hybrid clones, which can be mentally controlled by its human owner. Those Avatars can then used to gain the trust of the local populace and convince them to relocate. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic Marine, is sent to take control of his now-defunct twin brother’s avatar. He visits the world of Pandora and is enamored to be able to use “his” legs again. Jake soon is transformed by this alien culture and falls in love with alien Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), who teaches him how to live in harmony with nature, and forces him to question his loyalties.
The highly anticipated Avatar has been in the works for some 15 years as James Cameron has been waiting for the technology to catch up to his vision of how the movie should look. The production cost which was reported to be around $237 milliondoesn’t make this movie the most expensive in history but add in $150 million for marketing and promotion and it does make for a pretty expensive price tag which may or may not be fully recouped. Anyways, let’s put it aside right away: I saw Avatar in 3D and it is a visual feast well beyond anything that can be seen currently and probably for the next 24 to 36 months. Much like seeing the liquid metal effect in Terminator 2 for the first time nearly twenty years ago, watching Avatar’s world will blow your mind the same way. The Na’vi computer-animated characters are as flawless and realistic as the real actors. The eerie world of Pandora is lush with strange looking vegetation, intriguing wildlife and those are so photo-realistic, it rarely looks like you are watching extended CGI sequences. The 3D glasses provided are fairly sturdy and decent but do dim the picture a little bit. When will we get non-dark 3D glasses or better… real 3D screens?
Avatar’s technical mastery is one brilliant aspect of the movie, however when you come back to basic story-telling principles the movie is overly predictable and uses too many cliches. Hang on to your seat because I will say it: Take away the phenomenal visuals and you have a fairly ordinary movie. Most of the turn of events are telegraphed from 10 miles away. The climactic 20-minute ending, although spectacular, is only an all-out battle scene with fancy explosions and military hardware. It feels like the story was used to showcase the visuals and not the other way around. There is a few feeble attempts here and there to lighten up the mood that extracted only a few soft chuckles from our audience. The movie also pushes a green agenda and attempt to comment on a profit-driven society that is pushing the Earth toward the breaking point but only in a very superficial way.
The characters are simplistic stereotypes that are never developed beyond the obvious. You have Colonel Quaritch (the fantastic Stephen Lang), a perfect stereotype of the gung-ho military officer who only wants to blow up everything in his path without any consideration whatsoever for anything but the body count of bad guys. Lang did a great job with a one-dimensional character making him larger than life and charismatic every time he appeared on screen but yet you have to be disappointed to have such a one-dimensional antagonist. You also have your usual arrogant corporate executive (Giovani Ribisi) who is predictably asked to look sorry and disgusted when his orders to blow everything up are followed. You have the geeky and slightly douchy scientist (Joel Moore) and I could go on and on. This is not to say that Avatar’s cast did terrible, far from that. Sam Worthington gives a worthy performance as Jake Sully and he looks primed to become Hollywood’s next big action movie star. James Cameron also continued his tradition of portraying strong women with Zoe Saldana who is entirely CGI-modeled and who gave an effective performance as Neytiri and provided a believable PG-13 romance. Sigourney Weaver and the heroic Michelle Rodriguez complete the tough-as-nail female cast.
Last but not least, the musical score by James Horner is a bit questionable since the first few notes of his main score are recycled from the one from Titanic. I had Titanic’s main theme going full blast in my head every single time I heard those first few notes in the movie. Not a good thing… While the musical score for Titanic was haunting and emotional, the one for Avatar was mostly generic and did not elevate the movie at all.
Avatar is a bit too predictable and has a fairly ordinary story-line, however it is such a technical masterpiece that it is still one of the top movies of the year. The gorgeous creation of the world of Pandora is by itself worth the price of admission. Here is to hope James Cameron doesn’t wait 12 years to come up with another movie.
B+
Notes: PG-13 (of course… can’t make the budget back with an R-rated movie), 162 minutes. Seen in digital 3D non-IMAX theater.
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
The premise of Terminator Salvation would make any sci-fi fan drool like a starving dog smelling bacon. Of all the memorable sequence in the Terminator Trilogy, I have to say that the Terminator 2 intro scene which took place in the future, where we see humans battling robots in 2029, was the one that captured my imagination the most. Hence, I was quite disappointed when critics nearly uniformly called Terminator Salvation a major disappointment last spring. It was with lowered expectations that I just saw the movie and in my opinion, it is a fairly solid action movie when taken on its own.
Set in 2018 with a post-apocalyptic California as backdrop, the movie picks up with Skynet having blown most of the world to bits which led the few surviving humans to hide below ground. John Connor (Christian Bale) is now a local leader of the resistance (meaning he is not the big boss yet) and doing all the stuff we imagine he should be doing by now, like organizing the resistance in his area, trying to kill some damn Terminators and of course trying to stay alive from assassination attempts. It’s tough being John Connor after all and he will need to decide whether to trust that newcomer Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) who isn’t as human as he looks. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the man who is later sent to save John’s mother, also is in the mix as he encounters Marcus early in the movie. The movie is a little light on the plot so I won’t go much farther so as to not spoil it.
Terminator Salvation is loaded with CGI action from start to finish. The ravaged landscape is beautifully shot and provides an austere atmosphere to the movie. A welcome change is that we don’t get as many chase scenes like we did in the first three movies and the movie has a lot more of a war movie feel. Sam Worthington is a revelation in the movie as he manages to upstage Christian Bale, who is reduced to play a thankless role as the shallow, high intensity John Connor who is seen screaming into some radio half of the movie. Worthington gets to have a budding romance with the sexy Moon Bloodgood and is easily the most intriguing character of the movie. Anton Yelchin did not do it for me and had some pretty mediocre line delivery which really made me question how he could be John Connor’s father. We also get to see a few scenes with Helena Bonham Carter and Michael Ironside but let’s face it, no one is going to come watch Terminator for acting lessons or to see a romance. McG uses the original Terminator theme score which is quite appreciated and uses some effective and extremely loud sound design throughout the movie. Watch out toward the end for a short but sweet “cameo” that should satisfy any Terminator fan.
The main problem with Terminator Salvation is that it does not have the spirit of the first three movies. It feels almost like a completely unrelated movie in many ways. The plot is also on the thin side and fails to capture the essence of the Terminator tradition, the unequal fight between humans and machines and the sense of inevitability of it all.
Little backbone in terms of story-telling but Terminator Salvation is an entertaining, fast-paced, all-out action flick nonetheless. Recommended
B-
Note: 118 min, PG-13
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Have you seen this movie before? Let’s see… Bad guys with evil plans to destroy the world with some super weapon, good guys trying to prevent it with incredibly fancy weapons and suits that defy the laws of physics. Pathetic excuses passing as loves stories to fill a nearly nonexistent plot line, ridiculously cheesy dialogue that make you cringe, one-liner that are supposed to be funny but aren’t? What about no character development whatsoever, CGI effects on every single frame and a bunch of destruction just for the sake of it? Oh wait! How about a couple attractive actresses being on screen just for the “hot” factor? Did you say Transformers 2? No you are wrong, I’m talking about GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra. I have to say, it’s a miracle the actors did not burst out laughing on every single take but I think they were too busy thinking about what they would do on their day off to realize… Needless to say, expectations were very low before the movie even started but I did like this movie better than Michael Bay’s trisomic step-child.
Yes, yes… The plot holes abounds. The laws of physics apply only when it’s convenient. The bad guys in the suit taking 50 cal bullets in the face and do not even as flinch a bit. Yet, one of the GI Joe gets to kill them with a freaking sword. You get an air-strike on a tiny building with the hero literally 3 ft from the building and of course, he is unscathed. A humvee takes a RPG square in the back and only a little bit of glass shatters. The same humvee then gets hit on the side by a freaking train, and the car goes flying straight… up? The whole weaponizing of the warhead is incredibly retarded. Since when are warheads not weapons already? You hear lines like “Deploy the sharks” or “Kill all the bad guys” or my all-time favorite: “I’m going to get you out of here” (no let’s wait for the ship to blow up…) that could have been screamed by a 4-yr old boy playing with the GI Joe toys. On the plus side, the action scenes are decently entertaining and are pretty much non-stop but unfortunately the CGI effects are somewhat questionable as they look too cartoonish and a little botched at times. Is this all the CGI a $175 million budget can buy? Also, GI Joe at least tries to have a semblance of a story so I guess that’s a plus. In all, this was expected so I can’t even complain too much.
The performances, on the other hand, were amateurish at best and downright atrocious at times. Combine bored third-tier actors with a pathetic screenplay and you get a catastrophe. Dennis Quaid looked like he was reading his lines right off the script. Channing Tatum has the exact same expression the entire movie and some of his scene are cringe-worthy. Marlon Wayans is trying his best to be funny but well, he fails miserably. Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols are in the movie solely to appeal to the male crowd and I guess they did real well in that department but they sure didn’t do anything else noteworthy. Did I mention Rachel Nichols is way hotter than Megan Fox? At least she is a classic beauty, not an overly pimped up bimbo. Because that’s pretty much the only reason I didn’t turn it off half-way through. Now again, I’m not expecting the world here, just some convincing acting that doesn’t break up the mood of the movie but we don’t get even a fraction of that.
Listen. I understand that this movie was based on the kid’s cartoon and one should not expect award-worthy direction, acting, or anything else for this type of movie. I am totally aware of that. Nevertheless, it is POSSIBLE and EXPECTED to make a good summer blockbuster movie that is a good movie experience across the board as long as it is made with care and competency. We get neither here in this movie or Transformers 2 for that matter. The directors are just hacking away with a minimal plot line, expecting us to gob whatever they throw at us, botching every aspect of the stories, having minimal expectation for their lazy actors and thinking fancy CGI is enough to satisfy the ‘dumb’ crowd. Oh and please stop thinking that your average movie-goer has the intelligence of a 4-yr old and that everything has to be spelled out entirely for us to understand what’s going on.
At the end of the day, GI Joe is a loud, dumb, fluffy summer movie and you know what, it’s fairly fun in an odd sad kind of way! At least it doesn’t take itself as seriously as the horrendous Transformers 2.
C
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Directed by Neill Blomkamp, District 9 starts with a highly intriguing premise as a mockumentary with plenty of TV-like news report about the current situation which sets up this alternate world creatively.
More than twenty years ago, an extraterrestrial mothership descended upon Johannesburg, South Africa. Humans, as puny and fearful beings that we are, expected an attack but nothing happened. Instead, they found a colony of malnourished and unarmed aliens (“Prawns” as they call it) inside who were unable to operate their ship anymore. A squalid area of Johannesburg, called “District 9″, was opened to house the stranded visitors. Over the years, the Prawns multiplied and became tougher to control while humans started to resent their presence. The Multi-National United (MNU, couldn’t they come up with something cooler???) was hired to keep order in the increasingly restless district and they decide to evict all non-humans and transfer them to District … 10 before things get out of control. Wilkus Van De Menwee (Sharlto Copley) is one of the MNU employee giving the bad news to the residents of District 9 and many of the Prawns are killed or tortured trying to resist the evictions. On one of his visits, Wilkus gets infected by a Prawn virus and starts to become a Prawn himself at which point the MNU decides to hunt him down for experimentations purposes.
District 9 is a treat, especially early on. The first half of the movie is smart, engaging, and could easily pass for some deeper social comments. Let’s see, a population that tries to settle in, doesn’t speak English, and is outcast and mistreated? This could easily happen, we have done it amongst ourselves and sadly, we could realistically do the same thing in the same situation. The movie is original in many ways such as trying to make an unlikable character the hero of the movie. The movie also moves at a frenetic pace, keeping the viewer engaged and on the edge-of-his-seat without insulting his intelligence (COUGH* Transformer 2… COUGH). Cinematographer Trent Opaloch shoots the film very much like a documentary, with hand-held cameras, which increases the intensity of each scenes. Some parts very much look like shots taken from Cloverfield. The CGI effects are top-notch and one of the highlight of the movie. Simply said, the Prawns are seamlessly integrated and the actions scenes are shot expertly and easy to follow. When it’s all said and done, District 9 is a nice sci-fi action movie with some brains and creativity, which is hugely lacking these days.
On a less-positive side, the movie has some serious plot holes which is quite bothersome for a sci-fi movie. It seems that the matter is a purely South-African matter even though it should concern the entire world. Realistically, the US amongst others, would have been all over this event. Why are humans not scientifically interested with the mother ship and its technology? Where exactly are the Prawns coming from and why do humans assume they are stupid? How exactly did their ship break down, and yet it has been hovering above Earth for almost 30 years. District 9 has uneven pace and tone. After an intriguing first half, the movie soon fades away from its creative start to your common blow-everything-up action mantra. Once Wilkus realizes he can control Prawns’ weapons, the violence goes up a couple notch… or fifty. The basic question of what happens to the Prawns is left unresolved. The ending of the movie is highly climactic but leaves you a bit unsatisfied.
The performance from the cast was solid although not much was required. The biggest issue is that there is only one real character in the movie: Wilkus, who was finely played by unknown South African actor Sharlto Copley. Wilkus is quite unlikeable at the beginning of the movie, he is not the brightest bulb out there and is quite annoyingly bubbly up until the point where he starts to morph into a Prawn himself. We become somewhat sympathetic to his cause by the end of the movie but not enough to really be emotionally involved. It would have helped to have a more likable character or at least have a side character that the audience would care about (and no the Prawns don’t really count). This was something that was lacking in District 9.
I’m not sure why? Maybe it was all the hype and overwhelmingly positive review that caused my expectations to go too high. I didn’t like District 9 as much as I thought I would. Don’t get me wrong, it is still one of the best movie of the summer and a nice change of pace especially compared to the brainless Transformers 2!
B+: District 9 starts out with a bang but soon fades back to superficiality. Despite its flaws, it is a highly entertaining and unconventional movie that will satisfy any movie goers craving for some sci-fi action movie.
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Megan Fox, Shia LaBeouf et al. running for their lives
The latest Transformers is the paramount of light and fluffy entertainment. Brilliant action scenes, (very) cheap comedy and romance, pretty ladies on almost every frame, big robots fighting each other all day long, tons of military hardware blowing shit up, and absence of any plot whatsoever.
No synopsis to the movie because there is essentially no story worth summarizing here.
Positives: The movie is action packed, from beginning to end. The fight scenes are actually viewable this time around. One complaint from the previous movie was that the action was too fast and blurry and most people had no idea who was actually beating the shit out of whom. Optimus Prime taking out those three Decepticons early on is a highlight. Second, you actually get that for 147 minutes. In these tough economic times, you are getting some bang for the bucks. Finally the movie is just one giant eye candy: Explosions, robots hammering each other, military hardware, and Megan Fox! Unlike the previous movie, you will get to have Megan Fox on the screen 146 minutes out of 147. Even though any half respectable man would be protective of his lady and ditch her at the first occasion so she can actually live to see another day, Sam Witwicky doesn’t seem to care enough about her to do so. This results in having Megan Fox running around with him although she doesn’t bring anything whatsoever to the story. I’m sure not one to complain.
Negatives: Some of the cheap comedy and all of the romance made me cringe enough to want to kill a chicken! Acting wise, props go to John Turturro for playing the psychotic former-Agent Simmons. Just about everyone else was going with the flow at best as the freaking robots upstaged the real actors!!! If you have watched Disturbia or Eagle Eye, you will notice Shia LaBeouf is exactly the same character in every movie. Megan Fox has very limited range and has troublesome issues delivering lines in a credible and assertive way which really hurt the romance part of the movie. The hallmarks of a good actor or actress is that you find a way to deliver sometime cheesy or terrible lines in a believable way. No one is asking for a oscar worthy performance but you have to make it credible.
Finally, well this movie will lower your IQ by at least 30% in a little more than 2 hours, and this won’t even be due to the lack of a coherent plot. The movie will bring you to Paris where a clown comes up to you while you eat escargot? You will go to Egypt where every frame has a camel wandering around. You will see a soldier radioing back to a command center in the US for reinforcement, and about 10 seconds later, a company of Marines with tanks arrive from the sea, and 20 aircrafts are strafing the bad robots. No one is going to go and see Transformers for its romantic story, cheap comedy, or to learn about the Egyptian culture but please don’t insult the viewer’s intelligence!!!
C-: Michael Bay’s Transformers does not pretend to be anything more than a quick and fluffy summer entertainment. You will be entertained and you will also forget about it the instant you step out of the movie theater.
More running while stuff blows up
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
By 
Loading ...
Most Popular