Friday, May 29, 2009

Friday, 5/29/09

Drag Me to Hell - 3 1/2 stars

This is the best horror movie I have seen in a long time. The trailers aren't showing it, but in addition to the scary stuff, there is a lot of humor. Very reminiscent of the Evil Dead trilogy. And unlike most horror movies, its actually a pretty good movie. You will not be bored when you are waiting for the next big scare. The characters are good, the dialogue is good, the acting is good, its all good.

"Here, kitty, kitty ..."

Up - 3 stars

Like all Pixar movies, this is good. But in my opinion, not as good as Wall-E was. In fact, the best part of this movie is the first 10 minutes. It will make you cry. Seriously. The funniest parts in the movie involve the dogs. Their inventor has created special collars that vocalize what's going on inside the dogs' heads. So unlike other 'talking dog' movies, the stuff they say is very random and very funny.

I think everyone will enjoy this movie, but its not a 4-star movie or anything. Just calm down, everyone.

Sita Sings the Blues - 2 1/2 stars

This is one of those movies that other critics seem to love. While I admire its originality, I was kind of bored by the end. I didn't love it.

Its an interesting movie though. It tells the epic Indian tale of Ramayana, but its a musical. The songs are 1920's jazz songs by Annette Hanshaw. Very strange and what a fascinating idea. The movie is animated 2-D style, and its quite brilliant. I almost went higher on my star rating, but I have to be honest. I just didn't like it much.

The Garden - didn't see
The Brothers Bloom - didn't see
Anvil! The Story of Anvil - didn't see

The Rocky Horror Picture Show - Saturday at midnight at the Tower

This summer, the Salt Lake Film Society is showing classic movies at the Tower at midnight. This weekend, its RHPS and according to my information, there will be a live cast there, just like we get at Halloween. Just a jump to the left ...

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Terminator: Salvation - 1 1/2 stars

This is no Terminator movie. This is just another version of Mad Max. Christian Bale is about the 10th actor to play John Connor, and while he may be a great actor, he gives the worst John Connor performance. Seriously. Michael Edwards was a better John Connor (he was old John Connor in T2).

Ever since I saw the first Terminator, I was interested in seeing more of the war against the machines. In T1 and T2 we see flashbacks of the war, and it looks cool as hell. Its always nighttime, the music and sound effects are great, and they all shoot really cool laser guns. Well, this is nothing like that. The sound is all wrong, the atmosphere and feel of it is all wrong, and they don't have the laser guns. Just regular machine guns.

I thought the resistance would be a rag-tag bunch of fighters without much in the way of technology or equipment. But in this movie, they are like the army. They have a submarine as their command center, and they have world-wide communication. Not the resistance I remember seeing in those flashbacks.

The first Terminator movies had great characters, and the relationships between those characters are what drove the movies. In the first one, it was the relationship between Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor. In the second one, it was the T-800 and John Connor. This time, nothing. I didn't care about John Connor or Marcus Wright or Blair Williams. I didn't even care about the relationship between John Connor and his wife Kate (I had to look it up on IMDb to find out who Bryce Dallas Howard was even playing, since we never once get the impression that they are married).

One of the worst parts of the movie for me was when they decided they had to give Skynet a face and personality. I'm spoiling it a little bit for you, but there is a point when a character is able to have a conversation with Skynet. Its like they thought audiences needed to see the villain and associate a face with the villain. I think Skynet is more terrifying when we just think of it as this worldwide computer network that is self-aware.

The makers of this movie have no idea why the first Terminator movies were great. They just thought it was all about the action. Well, the action does look good. But if you are not invested in the characters and the story, the action is pointless. What a letdown this movie is.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Sugar - 3 stars

This is an interesting movie. It starts at a baseball training camp in the Dominican Republic. Sugar is one of many people hoping to make it in American baseball. After the first 20 minutes or so, the movie shifts to America. We see Solo as he is sent to a training facility in Phoenix. He doesn't speak a word of English. The only thing he knows how to order at a restaurant is french toast.

Later he is sent to play for a small team in Iowa. The team has the players stay with local families. Sugar stays on a farm with a kindly old couple. This section is my favorite part of the movie. The couple don't speak any Spanish, but they try. They are the kind of people that repeat everything slowly, as if that will help him to understand. They follow the local team fanatically and they offer him advice about how to improve his game.

They also have a daughter who befriends Sugar. He thinks she may be interested in him, but she really just wants to be his friend. She also wants to get him to join her friends in their church group.

The movie takes a couple of other turns. I liked the way you don't know where the movie is going. Its not leading up to a big game or anything like that. In fact, there is not that much baseball in this movie. When we do see a baseball scene, we don't even care which team is winning. We are just focusing on Sugar and how he is adapting to life in America. The movie is really about what its like to be a stranger in a strange land, and we have no trouble relating to Sugar.

I enjoyed this movie a lot.

Goodbye Solo - 3 stars

The movie takes place in North Carolina. A Sengalese cab driver named Solo picks up an old man named William. In 10 days time, William wants Solo to drive him to a specific place up in the mountains and leave him there. Right away Solo realizes that this can't be good. The old man is probably going to kill himself.

The whole movie is basically Solo trying to become good friends with William. He is trying to get William to change his mind and not go thru with his plans. Solo is not afraid to try anything. When he gets kicked out of his house by his wife, he goes to William's hotel and talks William into letting him stay for a few days.

Of course, the two do become friends, but William still refuses to go into detail about what he plans to do.

The movie was shot on a small budget and it shows, but the performances are great. There aren't a lot of surprises in the movie, but this is one that will stick with you. Highly recommended.

Angels & Demons - 2 stars

Didn't like it much. It really didn't need to be over 2 hours long. It should have been about an hour forty-five.

The plot is pretty simple. There is a bomb planted somewhere in the Vatican. Its going to go off at midnight, but like all movie villains do, the villains have given the good guys plenty of warning. I guess they want to make sure that everyone can evacuate the Vatican, so all the bomb will do is destroy the buildings and stuff. Leading up the bomb going off at midnight, 4 cardinals have been kidnapped and one will be killed every hour. They needed to add this little plot detail because otherwise the movie would be boring as hell. At least we know every hour we will get to see some gruesome death.

Speaking of gruesome deaths, this really should have been rated R. We see a couple of people burned to death, screaming the whole time. We see people branded. There is a bit of blood and gore in this movie. But of course the movie still gets a PG-13 because there is no nudity. Horrific, gruesome deaths, but thank god we don't see a nipple!

The movie is full of nonsense gibberish. Every time Robert Langdon figures something out, the music lets us know. We get the 'a-ha' music cue, which is helpful because otherwise what he is saying wouldn't mean anything to us. At least the clues in The Da Vinci Code were interesting. Not so much in this movie.

I really don't have much to say about this movie. I didn't hate it, but I wouldn't see it again. I really can't recommend it.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Star Trek - 3 1/2 stars

This is the Star Trek movie I have always hoped for. The effects and action scenes are great, and there is more humor in this than most Star Trek movies. Its better than the last Star Trek movie (Nemesis), but to be fair, a Lifetime movie of the week is better than Nemesis.

What I liked:

Karl Urban as Leonard "Bones" McCoy. When I first heard he was cast, I couldn't picture it. The same guy who said "We cannot achieve victory thru strength of arms" in Return of the King calling Spock a green-blooded hobgoblin? No way. But holy crap, he is the highlight of the movie for me. Bones was always my favorite character in the original movies, and he plays Bones perfectly.

Chris Pine as James T. Kirk. I last saw Chris Pine in Bottle Shock, and I didn't think much of him. He looks like a pretty boy. But wow, he really plays a good Captain Kirk. By the end of the movie when he assumes the captain's chair, I really believed in him as a leader.

The humor in the movie. Its mostly not slapstick humor (with a few exceptions), but it comes from the characters and their relationships, which is always the best kind of humor.

Eric Bana as Nero. He was an entertaining villain. I love when he addresses Captain Pike as Christopher the first time they talk on the viewscreen.

What I didn't like (or I'm not so sure about):

Nero's motive. It was kind of stupid. He blames the federation, and Spock in particular, for something that happened to his home planet ... oh what the hell, I'll spoil it. His planet was destroyed and his family killed. But it was destroyed by a supernova. It wasn't anybody's fault. In fact, Spock was racing to try and save them. But because he didn't do it in time, Nero blames him. I can't believe that no one bothers to speak up and say this too him. Not that it would make much of a difference, but I wanted to hear someone make that argument to him in the movie.

The music. Well, that's not true. I did like the music. I just wanted to hear more of the original theme music, especially in the beginning.

Chekov. Anton Yelchin does an ok job as Chekov, and his accent isn't too bad, but its a little too over the top. Plus, why does the character have to be 17 years old? What's the point in that? Yelchin is 20, and I could have easily believed him to be in his early 20's.

The ages in general. It seems like every member of the cast is in their early 20's (except McCoy). Wouldn't they need to serve for years before getting into their positions on the ship? I also had a hard time believing that they would all go from cadets to running a starship in the course of the movie. Kirk has never served on a starship before, and suddenly he is first officer, then captain. More time should have passed in this movie.

In this movie, Kirk enters Starfleet, and then we see the words Three Years Later. Then we are into the Kobayashi Maru sequence. They should have had another few years pass and shown the crew serving in various capacities on the Enterprise or other starships. I know I'm nitpicking, and it would have been hard to make that work with this story, but I just can't buy them this young and in command this quickly.

I'm not so sure I like Leonard Nimoy in this movie. It kind of reminds me of Superman Returns. When I heard they were considering Superman Returns to be a kind of sequel to Superman I and II, and Marlon Brando would be used as Jor-El, I was excited. But when I look back, I think one of the things that hurt Superman Returns was how much it couldn't compare to the original movies. They should have made the new movie have nothing to do with the old ones. I think the same thing about Star Trek. I know the time travel thing makes everything work, continuity-wise, but it might have been better to have this be a true reboot/remake/whatever, and say this movie is not part of the original canon, and start a brand new franchise fresh.

Scotty. I love Simon Pegg. I love Shaun of the Dead and Spaced. And I like Hot Fuzz. I thought Simon Pegg was funny as Scotty, but I don't remember Scotty being this ridiculous. Just too over the top funny. And I hated his little sidekick.

Anyway, those are my feelings so far. I did enjoy the movie a lot, and I will go see it again. I know my list of 'likes' was shorter than my list of 'don't likes', but I am a fan, and I get to nit pick. When I see the movie for a second time, my opinion may change. I deliberately didn't list how I felt about Zachary Quinto as Spock, because I am still making up my mind about how I felt about his character. He's not quite the Spock I remember, but I guess that is kind of the point.

Is Anybody There? - 2 1/2 stars

Michael Caine is one of my favorite actors. I would almost rather watch him in a bad movie than watch other actors in a better movie.

Not saying that Is Anybody There? is a bad movie. Its not, just mediocre. Caine plays Clarence, an old, retired magician who goes to live in an old folks home. Bill Milner (Son of Rambow) plays Edward, a kid who's parents run the old folks home. The family lives in the home, and Edward is fascinated by death and ghosts. When one of the residents dies, he hides a tape recorder under the bed, hoping to record evidence of life after death.

At first, Clarence hates Edward. But Edward is curious about the old man, and eventually they develop a friendship. Clarence becomes almost a surrogate grandfather to the kid. This is a story we have seen before. I liked it ok, but it is very forgettable. I don't think I would ever want to see it again.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - 2 stars

I really don't think we need any more prequels. Star Wars was just fine when it was 3 movies. We knew all we needed to know of the characters' back stories. We didn't need to see Anakin as a kid, or Obi Wan as a young padawan, or know that Anakin built C3PO, or learn about midichlorians, or ...

We also know all we need to know about Wolverine from the first two X-Men movies (the good ones). But since they killed a bunch of the characters off in X-Men: The Last Stand, they figured the best way to make more money from the franchise was to make a prequel. My understanding is that the next X-Men Origins movie will be Magnedo. According to, there is a script for the movie but it has not been green lit yet.

I didn't love or hate Wolverine. It wasn't a bad movie, but I don't think I would want to watch it again. There were some lame bits of dialogue. The bit where Wolverine's girlfriend tells him about the moon and the wolverine, I wanted to smack the screenwriter. There were also too many shots of Wolverine throwing his head back and screaming at the heavens while the camera pulls back.

One of my favorite moments was the introduction of Ryan Reynolds as Deathstrike. He was funny, as he always is. The problem is we didn't get enough of him. I also didn't get why Wolverine and Sabertooth fought in all the wars. I mean, sure it makes sense that the government would want them since they can't die. But what made them want to serve in the army? It would have been nice if some of the movie focused on them from childhood to their war days. But unfortunately that is all over with in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The rest of the movie is Wolverine and Sabertooth working for General Stryker, Wolverine living with his girlfriend, Wolverine getting his adamantium skeleton, Wolverine running from Stryker and his men, Wolverine fighting Sabertooth and his men. That's about it.

And since the first X-Men opens with Wolverine not remembering his past, we know that at the end of this he will get amnesia. How it happens is really stupid. I don't know what is worse, the way it happens, or the fact that Stryker knows that is what will happen. I think it amounts to really lazy screenwriting.

12 - 3 stars

Twelve Angry Men is one of the greatest movies of all time. Its currently ranked at #9 on's top 250 movies of all time. I watched it last year for the first time since high school, and I was reminded of how good it is. The entire movie takes place in a jury room. A kid is accused of killing his father, but we never find out whether he did it or not. The movie is not so much about the case as its about how justice works. Its also about prejudice. When the jury retires, most of them think they will vote him guilty and be out by lunch. But when the vote is taken, its 11 - 1 in favor of guilty. Henry Fonda's character is the one voting not guilty, and since the vote has to be unanimous, they have to talk it out.

Over the next 90 minutes, they go over the case. We come to realize that the kid is a minority, and some of the jurors believe he is guilty just because of his nationality. There is a powerful moment near the end when the most racist member of the just lets his prejudices all out, and the other jurors stand and face away from him.

I realize I am focusing on Twelve Angry Men rather than 12, and that's because 12 is a remake of that movie. Its easy to say its not as good of a movie, which it isn't, but its hard to evaluate it on its own merits without comparing it to the former version.

This new version takes place in Russia in the current day. The jurors have to turn in their cell phones before they start deliberating. In this case the kid is Chechen. This movie takes place in the jury room, but this time we get to see the kid's backstory. The members of the jury also get more time to talk about themselves. Every one of the jurors gets a lengthy backstory.

The acting is incredible. I enjoyed the performances so much that I almost didn't mind the 2 1/2 hour running time. Almost. Twelve Angry Men worked just fine as a 95 minute movie. But adding an extra hour to this version doesn't make it better. The original gets 4 stars, this new version only gets 3. But 3 stars is still a recommendation.