Year:

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.

Year:

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.

Year:

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.

Year:

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!

Year:

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.

Year:

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.

Year:

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.

Year:

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).

Quantum Of Solace

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).

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.