Tactical Force

YEAR: 2011

DIRECTOR: Adamo P. Cultraro

on the last episode of the Watch It television podcast i was talking about new fall shows and specifically Persons Of Interest. in that discussion i mentioned that, not only did the program have an interesting premise, but it actually lived up to it. i bring that up because that is exactly what Tactical Force doesn't do.

so, without knowing anything about the film and who directed it or stared in it, etc... what would you think if you read this synopsis:

A training exercise for the LAPD SWAT Team goes terribly wrong when they find themselves pitted against two rival gangs while trapped in an abandoned Hangar, armed with nothing but blanks. (thank you imdb)

not bad right? i mean, it sounds pretty simple - but that can be good if you got yourself some good writing and acting and directing. and for me it was the whole "armed with nothing but blanks" part that got me. that could be interesting to see how they are able to maneuver and out smart the bad guys without weapons. but alas, no.

the movie takes 35 minutes to get to the point where the swat team is huddled in a room with the bad guys after them, knowing they are unarmed. at the 45 minute mark the team leader has sneaked out, beat up a guy in the s.w.a.t truck the bad guys had taken over and taken his gun (loaded with real bullets).

10 MINUTES!! really? that's all they are going to give me of the most possibly interesting thing about the film? and even those 10 minutes were lame: listen at the big door, sneak out when bad guys are outside planning next move, run to truck, beat up lone bad guy on said truck, take his gun, shoot him.

as uninteresting, unoriginal, unintelligent and unenjoyable as those 10 minutes were, the other 78 were pretty much the same.

okay, so i wasn't expecting great things from a, i think, straight-to-video action movie staring steve austin. but that still doesn't make it right!

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

YEAR: 2011

DIRECTOR: Michael Bay

i recently wrote about the new woody allen film, Midnight In Paris. about how the minute it started, from the opening credits you knew it was a woody allen movie. well, the same can be said about this film and how from the first, gratuitous low angle, panty-clad ass shot of rosie huntington-whiteley you knew it was a michael bay movie. and he wasn't going to leave any doubt in your mind over the next 2+ hours, who was directing this film!

before setting to writing this discussion of Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, i went back and read what i had written about the first two films: Transformers and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. doing that, i realized that i could pretty much copy and paste both of those discussions into this post and it would pretty well say what i have to say about this third chapter in the franchise. just "a little less."

i said that each of the first two films seemed to care very little about the story/characters and that they were basically just excuses to get to, and filler between, the huge action sequences. Well, in this third instalment, that is still the case, but "a little less" so. this time it actually felt like at least a little thought was put into the story and i actually kinda cared and was at least still somewhat interested when we got to the final third of the film (which in all cases is when the long, extended action/effects rampage begins).

by this point in the first two films i was actually pretty bored, but in this one, i was "a little less" bored. and i will say that, as always, the special effects are pretty unbelievable and the long action/battle that takes over the last third of the film is bigger then anything the other two films threw at us. it also probably helps that, like i mentioned before, i wasn't begging for it to be over by the time the battle started, as i had been with the other two films. john malkovich, john turturro and ken jeong all bring some actually funny comic relief which didn't hurt hurt either.

now, don't get me wrong. this isn't a good movie.

although there was some effort put into creating a story, the screenplay itself has a lot of suckage going on. there are some optimus prime voice overs about freedom and the future that will have you throwing up a little in your mouths. and, although it took me longer to get bored, by the end of the film i kinda didn't care anymore.

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is a huge testosterone, effects-filled attack on your eyes and it is easily the best of the three films. but given how crappy the first two were, that isn't saying much!

The Resident

YEAR: 2011

DIRECTOR: Antti Jokinen

so here we are, almost half way through the year and i have yet to see a movie that even has a chance of being atop my "best of the year list" come the end of 2011. however, the top of my "worst of the year" list looks to be filling up rather nicely. there was The Roommate which looked to be campaigning for one of the top spots... and then i saw The Resident! where to begin with this piece of junk?!... i guess we can start at the beginning.

everything starts off as expected with your basic suspense/thriller. we meet our main character (hilary swank) and we learn that she has just broken up with her boyfriend and is looking for a place of her own. she finds a great place (too good to be true) and moves on in. so far so good right?

then the film tries to pull the ol' distraction game on us. like when a magician makes you watch one hand, when the actual trick is taking place in the other. the film does it by presenting us with a creepy character that looks like he will be the source of the suspense/thrills, etc. but, actually it is the other guy.

this is actually a smart, and somewhat original, tactic that i can appreciate looking back at it. the problem is they give up on it too soon. all of a sudden the real "bad guy" is brought to light and it is all downhill from there (not that it was way up the hill at that point anyway).

the film makes a very brief and ridiculous attempt to explain why the "crazy" guy is crazy, but it feels really tacked on and doesn't make much sense - and not too long after that you are basically just waiting for the film to go through its predictable thriller progressions, get to the violent climax and end already! which is exactly what happened.

given that swank not only starred in the film, but was also an executive producer i can't help but think the film was better at one point. maybe the original script got slashed over time and what ended up on the screen wasn't what she initially read? or maybe the director or the studio ruined it? or maybe, it was always a horrible film and they just decided to make it anyway? whatever the reason, you can, and should, make the decision not to see it!

The Roommate

YEAR: 2011

DIRECTOR: Christian E. Christiansen

have you ever seen the movie Single White Female? well, if you have, than that means you have also seen The Roommate. the only difference is that, while Single White Female was somewhat original and suspenseful, The Roommate felt redundant, predictable, laughable and whatever the opposite of suspenseful is!

now, i haven't seen SWF in a long time, so i can't point out every single similarity between the two films, but i remember enough that i wouldn't be surprised to hear that the guy who wrote The Roommate, sonny mallhi, had watched SWF right before writing his script. actually, i wouldn't be surprised if he also had it on in the background while he wrote. and it also looks like he was on a tight schedule based on how quickly the film moves forward from opening credits/everything is fine to crazy!

then, in a little break from the predictable path, the "crazy" is briefly explained away as mental illness (cause they need to quickly explain what we have been seeing up to that point), then back on the path we go - but now the main character can finally see what we, the audience, have been seeing for over an hour and here we go towards the over the top, uninteresting climax...

at first i was trying to be a little careful about mentioning any spoilers in this discussion, but then i realized that there really are no spoilers, because you can see everything coming from a mile away in this movie. as various characters are introduced it is almost like the film is putting a big flashing arrow over their heads with a sign that says "the crazy roommate will hurt or kill this person at some point during this sucky movie."

having said all that, The Roommate isn't even the worst film i have seen all year. that honor, at this point, goes to The Resident...

Tron: Legacy

YEAR: 2010

DIRECTOR: Joseph Kosinski

i went to see this film on imax 3d the friday it was released. i saw it the way, i would think, it was meant to be seen. i gave it every opportunity to be good - or at least decent. and it failed!!!

i hadn't seen the first Tron movie in probably 15-20 years. i remember it being kinda cool when i was a kid, but i had no strong allegiance to the original story that this new one had to live up to. and i have to admit that i thought the trailers looked good. so they had me giving them the benefit of the doubt heading into the theatre. but, then the movie started...

the story for Tron: Legacy isn't anything new or original. it is a classic tale that felt like it was decided on by a bunch of producers who decided they wanted to do a Tron sequel, but needed a story. so, rather then do anything really different they went with a simple and classic mythology (good v. evil in the computer and the good guy's son trying to fight and free his dad, yada yada yada...) - probably with the idea that there was going to be so many special effects and cool visuals that the story didn't need to be anything more than a tool to get into the good stuff.

and you know what. that's ok. i mean, there is a reason we see so many of the same basic story lines. ok, two reasons. one: because hollywood is lazy. but two: because they often work. they have some basic universal appeal and speak to something that we can all understand... in this case, the problem wasn't the obvious storyline. it was how poorly it was executed.

the script was poor: the film was basically action sequences followed by long drawn out conversation pieces used to tell me everything and explain what happened between the times of the two films. i guess the writers don't believe in the idea of "show, don't tell."

this film is more like "show and tell." they will show us some really cool action sequence with cool special effects (the lightbike sequence looked pretty awesome i must say) and then they will tell us everything they think we need to know to follow and care at all about the characters. not only that, but it was just mediocre writing as well - full of clichés and dialogue that often felt forced and sometimes laughable.

the Tron world provided a real opportunity to the film makers to make something really good. something that pleased the visual senses, yet still had a script that made me want to keep watching the great visuals past the first 30-40 minutes.

but, instead they settled on a mediocre, poorly written piece that ends up being a waste of much of the $300 million budget, because, after a while, one can barely enjoy even how good the film looks since the script itself has given us nothing intelligent and nothing to really be that interested in (besides, maybe what we are going to do after the movie is over).

The Back-Up Plan

YEAR: 2010

DIRECTOR: Alan Poul

if you have read the Filmed But Not Forgotten blog or listened to the podcast recently you may have read/heard me talk about the film She's Out Of My League. i mentioned that i had watched the film expecting it to be not so good, but instead was surprised to find that it was actually quite good and really funny. with that in my recent memory i went into my viewing of The Back-Up Plan thinking maybe it would be better then i expected..... well, it wasn't. in fact it was worse!

this romantic comedy messed up on the two most important aspects of a romantic comedy: the comedy and the romantic. as far as the comedy goes, plain and simple, it wasn't funny. to be fair there was one kind of funny scene in which a woman is giving birth in a kiddie pool in a very new-agey ceremony. however, this scene comes so far into the film that it took me a while to even smile at it because i had been lulled into a sense of unfunny throughout the movie leading up to that scene. the fact that it was even somewhat humorous literally caught me off guard. i can tell you the movie was laughable - but it wasn't funny.

as for the romance, can you say "no chemistry"? because that is what jennifer lopez and her co-star alex o'loughlin had. we are supposed to believe they meet and feel this strong connection and then fall in love with each other because that is what the script is telling us - but, you definitely don't feel it between the two of them. in fact, it is almost like, as they speak, the two actors are trying to convince themselves of their feelings because they don't feel it either.

not only is The Back-Up Plan a not good romantic comedy, it is just simply a not good movie!

Beverly Hills Cop 3

YEAR: 1994

DIRECTOR: John Landis

i recently bought the Beverly Hills Cop dvd 3-pack. i had never seen the third one, but i remember liking the first two and it was like 10 bucks so why not right? well, let me just say, thank god the first two still hold up...

sure they might be a little dated, but Beverly Hills Cop 1 & 2 are still really fun and deserving of their status as great comedy/action films. as for number 3, that is a whole different story folks. i remember hearing it was bad when it came out, but this thing was more than just bad. Beverly Hills Cop 3 is awful. if you looked up the expression "dialing it in" you would see the poster for Beverly Hills Cop 3.

eddie murphy - once on top of the world - couldn't look less interested in making this movie if he tried. he truly looks bored half the time, just going through the motions and then randomly throwing in one of his big axel foley smiles and classic eddie murphy laughs as if to say to the audience "remember me? i'm axel foley. see the smile and the laugh."

what are two key things you look for in an action-comedy? if you said action and comedy then give yourself a nice pat on the back. what this film gives us is no comedy and bad action. the opening scene with the dancing and lip synching bad guys is really the only funny part of the movie (okay, and the bronson pinchot serge bit is funny too) and the action, like i said before, is just bad.

sure, i understand that bad guys always have great aim until it comes to shooting at the hero. i get that that. but at least try and make it look like the hero is making an effort to avoide the bullets. swerve the car, duck a little, do something!

actually, the funniest thing i watched on the dvd was the cast and crew interviews in the "special features." to hear them talk about the ideas for the third film that they didn't go with (the great robert towne even had a script version that they past on) and to listen to them talk so highly about the movie, the script, the characters, the acting, the directing was actually hysterical and sad all at the same time. how they all did so with a stright face is really the best acting i saw from any of them.

i could go on and on about this one (i literally have a list here), but you get the idea.

Moon 44/10,000 BC

Year: 1990, Director: Roland Emmerich

Year: 2008, Director: Roland Emmerich

i mentioned it briefly on an episode of the podcast a while back, that i actually enjoyed the film 2012. i thought it was a good big summer disaster film with crazy special effects and a story that took a somewhat interesting look at the decisions that mankind would have to make if such an event were to occur. unlike the last disaster film from director roland emmerich, The Day After Tomorrow which is didn't like at all.

anyway, i bring that up, because as i walked out of the film i started to think about mister emmerich and taking a look at some of his lesser known films and if this hit and miss film maker (mostly miss) had some hidden gems out there. and, given that i am writing about these two films on Not Good Movies rather than on Filmed But Not Forgotten, i assume you figured out whether they are hits or misses.

in picking the two films to watch i first went back and found one of his earliest films that i could get my hands on. that was Moon 44. then i checked out his films since the huge success of Independence Day and noticed that 10,000 BC was the only film of his last five that didn't make a profit at the box office and made less than $100 million. so, those seemed like to good ones to check out. or at least they did till i had to sit down and watch them... especially Moon 44.

wow, this is a bad movie. the story takes place in the year 2038 when all resources have been depleted on earth and humans must rely on the mining of other satellites and planets. but when the mining vessels start to disappear an undercover agent is sent to one of the last controlled satellite, Moon 44, to see what is going on.

where to begin with this one? the special effects are passable, the acting is bad (except for the great malcolm mcdowell), the dialogue is forced and so very corny and the characters are caricatures: you have the cool undercover guy, the bad guy prisoners (oh ya, did i mention they are getting prisoners to fly the dangerous helicopter missions on Moon 44 in order to get out of their prison sentences) who are pretty much always angry and bullying the computer nerds (these young guys are the ones that control the helicopters from the main ship).

the movie is boring, corny, predictable and laughable. i think if Mystery Science Theatre 3000 were still on the air they could have a great time with this one. but, otherwise there is no reason for anyone to spend an hour and half of their lives watching this thing. Now as for 10,000 BC my feelings aren't as harsh...

my initial reaction was to jump all over the movie for its complete lack of historical accuracy. i mean, the film is called 10,000 BC, yet the final third of the film takes place during the building of the great pyramids (which weren't built til around 2500 BC from what I read). also, there is a whole melange of american and european accents, horses are domesticated (which i read somewhere wasn't true for the time) and much, much more... but, then i decided to let that go.

first off, maybe my facts are wrong. and second, i assume that the film makers knew that they didn't have their facts straight, which would mean that was the whole point. so, if that was done intentionally, then how is the film beyond those things? well, its still not good.

and you know what. thinking about it - and this also kind of hit me as i watched it - while the film is grand in its idea. and if you were to tell someone the story it would seem pretty vast. watching the movie it didn't have that epicness that it should have.

the heart of the film is one mammoth hunters quest to save the women he loves from the hands of a tribe of horsemen who attacked their clan and kidnapped her and some other tribe members. he chases them through forests, mountains and deserts. fights off large wild animals, befriends other tribes and organizes a slave rebellion against the pharaoh during the building of the pyramids. that all sounds like the makings of a fun blockbuster to me (i actually did want to see this in the theatres when it was released).

but, in the end it is kind of plain and seems unsure of itself - is it a somewhat thoughtful grand action drama or is a big, dont-think-about-it-too-much-and-just-have-fun blockbuster. it looks to try and be both. but, unlike 2012, which did it successfully, 10,000 BC doesn't end up working as either one.

Gamer

Year: 2009

Director: Mark Neveldine/Brian Taylor

you know how some video games come with a warning that playing the game "may cause seizures"? well  this film should come with one as well. Gamer is a definite visual experience - to the max (as the kids like to say). and i will fully admit that i enjoyed that aspect of it for the first, maybe half of the movie. however, after that point, when the script had still not given my anything or developed anything story or character wise i just spent the last half of the film pretty uninterested.

the film was made by the same directing team behind the Crank series - which is ironic (okay, it probably isn't really ironic) because all jason statham would have had to do in those films to keep his heart rate up and stay alive was watch Gamer. as far as creating a style and visual appeal, these guys are like tony scott but without the talent (Man On Fire: visually brilliant and original and visceral... and a really good film as well)

its like these guys had the basic idea for the story and then decided all the standard points they would have to hit (main character is in jail but he really is a good guy, he has a family on the outside, etc...) and it hits each point but it feels just really deliberate in doing so.

so once we get past the fun of the in-your-face visuals and the description of the world we now live in (all "future" films spend the first part explaining how they work. basically giving us the "rules" in which the film will play out) there really is nothing there and it is all downhill.

speaking of jason statham, many people are comparing Gamer to Death Race, which on the surface makes sense given that both films are about a future where death row inmates play a violent game fighting for their freedom as the whole world watches... however, they differ in one very big way:  Death Race was good and Gamer is not. So, if you are in the mood for this type of film, go watch Death Race  or just have fun playing your own video games instead of going to see Gamer.

G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra

Year: 2009

Director: Stephen Sommers

yup, it sucked! they played that trailer so many times that i eventually wanted to go see this thing. i even went into it with low expectations and just ready to have a fun action time, yet they couldn't even deliver on that front.

the first big fight/battle scene in the G.I. Joe headquarters was pretty good and the crazy car chase/fight/action sequence through the streets of paris was just ridiculously fun, but thats pretty much it. the rest of the movie is mediocre acting, bland directing and a script that was literally laugh out loud bad much of the time.

if i had had a pen and paper in the theatre with me i would have written them all down, but needless to say the script was line after line of typical, predictable and corny dialogue in the vain of: "i'll be back for you", "i'm not giving up on you", "what we are about to do could get us in lots of trouble so if anyone wants to leave now, i will understand"(yup, you guessed it... no one leaves), "i know you still love me", "this was our mission, so we aren't leaving"... you get the idea (and those are just paraphrased and not as good as the real ones). oh yeah, i almost forget about the sunglasses-wearing-toughguy-cemetery-motorcycle-driveby... that's a classic move.

remember those really funny Hot Shots movies? the ones that used all those stereotypical moments and dialogue bits because they were making a satire of those kinds of films? well, that is what G.I. Joe felt like - except it isn't trying to be a satire of anything which just makes it funny and kind of sad.

Evan Almighty

Year: 2007

Director: Tom Shadyac

with a budget of about $200 million, Evan Almighty is the most expensive comedy every made. and if i was giving it a dollar:laugh ratio rating it would be about $100 million per laugh. okay, maybe i'm exaggerating. if i think really hard, maybe i can remember laughing three or four times during the film so to be fair lets put it at $500 000:1 laugh.

either way, this film is a huge piece of junk. not that laughs are the only thing that matters in a comedy. but, the term "comedy" does imply that jokes/laughs/humor are kind of important don't you think? well, obviously someone forgot to tell that to screenplay writer steve odenkirk and the rest of he people involved in this disaster of biblical proportions. even wanda sykes, who usually is able to bring the funny to things, couldn't even come close to saving this thing (although of the four laughs in the film, she provided at least three of them).

i love steve carrell on The Office, but he brings nothing to this film that is of any interest. i was pretty disappointed in the first film, Bruce Almighty also - it felt like a one joke movie idea - but at least jim carrey was funny and made the most out of that one joke premise. Evan Almighty is a one-joke premise without a joke attached to a rather predictable, family-friendly, safe, forgettable, huge-budget disappointment.

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen

Year: 2009

Director: Michael Bay

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, how can i put this? let me try it this way: megan fox is gorgeous, the special effects are great, the movie kinda sucks.

how about i give you a recap of the film: action sequence, blah blah blah, action sequence, attempted lame character development, blah blah blah, action sequence, attempted lame character development, action sequence, blah blah blah, action sequence, heart warming moment, coda, end.

i'm not sure what else to say really. the film is basically all about the huge action sequences and the story is just filler - and it feels like it. here is the basic plot for ya: decepticon forces return to earth on a mission to take sam witwicky prisoner, after he learns the truth about the ancient origins of the transformers by touching a sliver of "the cube" that wasn't destroyed in the first film. when he touches it the information gets transmitted into his head and now he is the only one holding the clues that the decepticons need to destroy the planet.

so, if i am correct, the writers were sitting around watching an episode of Chuck and decided that would be a good idea for their movie - or at least a good enough idea to fill the gaps between the huge action sequences and all the great special effects and sexy megan fox moments...

like in the first film, by the time we got to the huge action/battle scene i was pretty bored and fairly uninterested in the little bit of story they were giving me to justify everything that was going on.

as i left the theatre i was thinking to myself, "why didn't they learn from the first one and make this one good." but, then i realized that the first once made over 300 million dollars and this one is well on its way to that already so "they" are probably of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mindset. While some bad movies feel like the film makers tried and totally fucked up, Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen feels like they didn't even try!

The Limits Of Control

Year: 2009

Director: Jim Jarmush

i have talked in the past on filmed but not forgotten about what i like to call "big cojones film making". this is film making and film makers that take chances, buck trends, go against conventions and expectations. i have talked about it in terms of films like No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood and most recently, Hunger. now, these are all great films, but big cojones film making doesn't always prove successful as is the case with jim jarmush's latest, The Limits Of Control.

the film is about a hitman who is hired to kill someone and then spends the next bunch of days going from hotel room to hotel room, from cafe to cafe sitting, doing tai chi, having short random-yet-similar conversations with various characters at each stop until finally he gets to go take care of the guy he was assigned to take out. oh yeah, there is also some hot women who shows up in one of his hotel rooms naked and hangs around for a few days.

the film doesn't really make much sense, but i don't think it was supposed to in a traditional narrative way. rather the film feels like some kind of filmic/spiritual/poetic journey. however it just doesn't work. it is long and boring and there is absolutely no payoff at the end. i am not asking for a big emotional or action payoff, but how about a narrative one? the end really kind of feels like a cop-out. like jarmusch doesn't care about the end. doesn't care if nothing is really explained or the climactic scene is a let down in multiple ways. it feels like for jarmusch this movie is all about the journey and not the destination. which is fine, but the problem is that the journey wasn't that appealing.

and i am not saying this as someone that doesn't like or appreciate slow films. i loved A Straight Story, gus van sant's Elephant was excellent and malick's A Thin Red Line was a beautiful filmic meditation on war. i also really liked the two other films in jarmusch's "lone-man trilogy"(as i like to call it), Dead Man and Ghost Dog.

not only was the film narrative confusing/boring, but things got off to a visually confusing start right from the beginning. in his films like Dead Man, Down By Law (my favorite of his films) and Ghost Dog i remember i visual style that not only fit the film, but was consistent throughout in creating a mood and a vision. That wasn't the case with The Limits Of Control exactly.

While the last two-thirds, or more, of the movie feels consistent, with long shots, simpler camera movement and some beautiful framing, the opening 10-15 minutes felt visually incoherent. there is a ton of cuts and edits and various angles and jump cuts, and while some of it does look great, it just felt like the visuals were controlling the direction/editing and not the other way around. just because you have some random nice shots and some interesting framings doesn't mean they will all work together. i am a very visually visceral audience and i was all over the place during the opening of the film. i would go through moments of uncomfortable viewing, in which the shots just didn't work together nor were they all that appealing anyway - to times of recognition of a beautiful frame or angle or a really nice pan.

Maybe jarmusch was really testing the limits of control that we, the audience, could have over our boredom reactions.

Terminator Salvation

Year: 2009

Director: McG

christian bale should have spent less time ranting and raving at the cinematographer and more time bitching out the screenplay writers of this crappy film.

Terminator Salvation is the fourth instalment in what had been, up to this point, a really good franchise (yup, i liked the third one also). the film takes place in 2018 and while it is a sequel to the other three it is also kind of a prequel - in the first film the terminator and kyle reese (the man sent to stop it) are sent back to 1984 from 2029. so, what we are seeing in "Salvation" is happening 11 years before the terminator and reese are sent back in time. but, since it is 2018, all the stuff that happens in the first three films has already happened also... confused yet? well there really is no reason to be, because there is nothing complicated or interesting about this film.

rather, it is a basic, mediocre, futuristic/sci-fi/action movie that feels very separate from the trilogy that came before it. i think part of that has to do with the "prequel" thing i mentioned before, but i think it also has to do with the boring, superficial story. sure, the first three were good 'ol special effects laden action films... but, they were also more than just that. the ideas of mankind and fate and the future and the effect of today's actions on what is to come were all part of what cameron did with his two films and then was followed up on in the third. Terminator Salvation however was kind of like The Matrix 3: lots of cool explosions and action scenes, but no depth of story or intelligent "discussion? of ideas like the first films.

there are some fun references to the previous films, in the form of music, lines of dialogue and moments. but these are all in that winking way that have no connection to the overall story but will get a knowing laugh or smile from fans that pick them out.

the film is a slapped together, poorly written, uninteresting money-grab. throwing the "terminator" name on the film is going to bring in a lot of people, but what's in a name? in the case of Terminator Salvation, the answer is not a whole lot.

Watchmen

Year: 2009

Director: Zack Snyder

it seems like the place to start any discussion of Watchmen is to say whether or not you have read the graphic novel on which it is based. i have not. i know of it, but that is it. i have never read it, nor was i familiar with any of the characters/super heroes prior to seeing the film (although i did talk to some of my comic book nerd friends after seeing the film to ask them how the movie is similar, and not, to the original story... for those of you that don't know, i was told it is quite different.) anyway, on to the movie...

i was really looking forward to this film and after about 10-20 minutes in i was even more excited. the beginning of this movie is awesome. the opening scene is a visually stylized fight scene that gets things going right and then we move into the opening credits, which i have to say is one of the best opening credit sequences i have EVER seen. with bob dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changing" playing we get a good five minute or so opening credit sequence that takes us through a history of the watchmen and provides us with some basic info on who they are, and the historical and societal times in which they evolved and prospered and lost the faith and trust of the citizenry. unfortunately, it is all downhill from there.

sure the entire film looks great and plays with a visual style, but to be completely honest, the movie is long and kind of boring.

there are glimpses of a deep and intelligent story with large ideas and political and social commentary, but they fall to the wayside as the film drags along with its often corny and melodramatic dialogue and characters that we only get to know superficially, and don't really care that much about. the movie also feels like it gives in to basic expectations and turns into a generic superhero/action film, making all those interesting and intelligent glimpses seem even a little out of place.

i will say that the end, while very different from the graphic novel (so i have been told), was pretty good. the little twist on the whole good guy/villain thing and the idea of doing something bad for the greater good, were surprising and got me perked up a little. but the 2-2.5 hours it took us to get there were overall, not that interesting.

alan moore, who wrote the graphic novel, took his name off the project cause he knew there was no way they could transform his complex story into a movie, and unfortunately, he was quite right.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

Year: 2008         
Director: Scott Derrickson

i went into The Day The Earth Stood Still with a completely open mind.  while i have seen the original, it was many years ago and i honestly don't remember it at all, so i had no expectations about this one.  well, that didn't help, cause, expectations or not, this thing was pretty crappy... 

human beings are a violent and aggressive people who are going to end up destroying themselves and their planet because they can't seem to get along peacefully, or some version of that, is a pretty standard sci-fi theme, and one that The Day The Earth Stood Still is happy to use as well (as was that piece of junk The Invasion to name another crappy remake of a classic 50s sci-fi film).  however, while i think the theme is a valid one, it does need to be approached with some kind of originality and intelligence that this film just didn't have.

not only was the theme tedious and melodramatic.  but, so was the movie itself.  i was actually pretty bored for most of the second half of the film (once i saw where it was going and had no interest in the characters or the story and no fun action to at least mindlessly enjoy either).  the film is a one note movie and completly superficial at that.

i am a big fan of jennifer connelly, and she does her part well, but she had no chance of saving this thing. keanu reeves is fine, but only because he is playing an alien and so i guess he is supposed to be wooden and emotionally vacant.

the one thing the film did do, was it made me want to see the original again, which i will do, and we shall see if i end up talking about it here (bad) or at filmed but not forgotten (good).

James Bond: Quantum Of Solace

Quantum Of Solace and i got off on the wrong foot right from the beginning, when the film started without being preceded with the white circle coming across the screen as james bond walks and turns and shoots at the audience.  however, i took a deep breath and decided to forgive them and keep an open mind, which eventually turned into a 'bored' mind and then a 'going home thinking how crappy the movie was' mind.

as far as james bond fans go, i would put myself somewhere in the middle.  i have seen most of them (i went through a stage a few years back where i started from the beginning and went chronologically through many of them) but except for a few, i find that they kind of blend into each other and if you asked me what happened in certain ones, i wouldn't always be able to tell ya.

ok, so back to Quantum Of Solace.  there is so much i want to say, but it is a little jumbled in my head so lets go at this in point form...

no white circle opening: we have already established that this was disappointing.

opening scene: this is always the most anticipated part of a bond film (remember that awesome opening in Goldeneye, to name one of my favorites).  here it was pretty good.  the film opens right up in the middle os a car chase and this was cool.  the problem is that director marc forster is not an action director (which is a way the bond franchise likes to go sometimes) and so i didn't think it was that well filmed... the Bourne movies have made this quick edit, close-up, hand-held action filming style popular, but it isn't easy to pull off.  greengrass, the director of the last two Bourne films, does it well.  forster doesn't.  i had no sense of space or of the cars' relations to each other and it didn't provide as much visceral appreciation as it could have.  it was also hard on the eyes - and i was sitting near the back of the theater (i can't imagine those in the front row).

the song:  Another Way To Die by jack white and alicia keys.  this was awesome and probably one of the best bond songs ever.  the opening credit sequence was also pretty good, but there have been many better.

the lack of bond stuff:  Q isn't in the film at all.  there are no gadgets.  there are only maybe one or two bondisms/witty lines.  no money penny.  only one bond sexual encounter.  very little flirting.  no james bond theme music expect softly in the score in the background a few times.

the film: maybe i am being too old school, but i think there are some aspects of bond that just need to always be there.  they have played with the character a little in the past, but when i go see a bond film there are certain things i expect and i don't think that it is wrong of me to expect them.  i mean, if you want to take out all the indicators of a bond movie, then why bother calling it a james bond film?  and that is really how it felt.  it felt like this was a revenge-action movie they had lying around and that they just adjusted a few things to turn it into a bond film.

however, i do realize that maybe my expectations are unfair to put on the film and so i put them aside and tried to enjoy the movie as a movie in its own right.  but i couldn't.  not because of the missing bond stuff, but because it just kind of sucked...  the film felt like it had been about 20-30 minutes longer but the producers had made forster chop it up to get it to around an hour and 45 minutes.  the story jumped around, certain scenes felt like they ended abruptly and then cut to another scene without some part in between that should have been there.  the storyline was so superficial and any kind of development felt totally lost.

i think marc forster is a good director. i have really liked a few of his films (Finding Neverland and Stay to name a couple) and there were some moments in Quantum Of Solace that had me perk up and pay attention hoping it was the beginning of something good.  but, it never was.  it would go from a dramatic scene with some actual depth and interest (and not all of them were even that) to some poorly directed, not all that exciting, action sequence.

to end on a positive note: i like daniel craig as bond.  he was a bit dry and angry in this film, but given that he was on a revenge quest after the death of the woman he loved i can see it in the character.  also, dame judi dench is great as always and their relationship is the one bright note here (along with the awesome song).

Righteous Kill

this movie made me so sad and so angry!

i have been waiting my whole film-going life to see robert deniro and al pacino in a movie together.  ya we all know about The Godfather 2 and Heat (both great films), but they are on screen together for a few minutes in Heat and not at all in The Godfather 2, so Righteous Kill was going to be something special.  or at least that is what i hoped.  but like a kid that gets tube socks on christmas, i was so very disappointed.

i wasn't disappointed in deniro and pacino's performances.  they are both so smooth and have such presense on screen.  and watching them together gave me goosebumps.  if only the movie hadn't sucked so much!

and i will admit that i really wanted to love this film.  i wanted to say good things about it and i was willing to overlook some problems in order to do so, but this movie just wouldn't let me do that.  everytime i started to forgive something, something else crappy would come up.

i will say though, that therewas the germ of a good film here.  there were some moments of interesting ideas that looked liek the writer was trying to do something a little different then your typical cop film.  however, most of it was predictable and avnet made some real lame choices with the direction that frustrated me as well.

Stupidity

i love a good documentary, but Stupidity isn't one.

the film is basically about how society is becoming dumber and dumber. a look at stupidity in wester civilization and a history of intelligence, etc...

it sounds really interesting (which is why i watched it), but in the end it doesn't really tell us much besides showing us clips from the show Jackass and stupid celebrity moments to make its point.  this is just too easy.  the whole celebrity, reality tv, kids don't read, television is mindless, etc... argument is one that anyone can make in their sleep.  its kind of like they know those ideas have been thrown around so much over the last while and it has become so ingrained in our public lexicon, that they don't feel like they have to get into any depth of discussion or really back it up with anything.  we will buy it because that is what we have been told.

it is almost like in assuming our stupidity they haven't felt the need to make a smart documentary because our dumbed down minds wouldn't understand.

Burn After Reading

the coen brothers have ventured back into the comedy genre with Burn After Reading, a genre that has given them the most critical problems, although personally i have been a fan of their least well received ones (i didn't hate Ladykillers and i liked Intolerable Cruelty).  this one however, not so much.  actually let me rephrase that...  i liked all the elements of Burn After Reading, but unfortunately the film is not the sum of it's parts.

i liked the quirky and somewhat over the top characters.  i was interested in the story on a basic level and i did laugh out loud at parts.  the problem is that it just doesn't come together very well.  it is all over the place and nothing really holds together.  maybe that was the absurdest point of it all, but for me i was sitting there thinking to myself, "i like many of the parts, but why am i not really caring or enjoying the film as a whole more?"

it all came together in the character of the top guy at the cia that we meet played by j.k. simmons.  he is being kept up to date with all the goings on and the people and relations and deaths and craziness and at the end he basically looks at the guy filling him in on everything and says, and i am paraphrasing here, 'huh?  what the hell happened.  it makes no sense.'

for me, he was like the audience who had just seen the film, and reflected really how i felt.