Quantum of Solace trailer

Becoming Jane

I literally dragged my mother to this movie when I was back home in August, and she ended up liking it more than I did. That's not to say I didn't enjoy looking at James McAvoy, but that's pretty much the only part of the movie I liked.

Becoming Jane is basically the life story of Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway), 19th century author of the original "chick lit" books (this is coming from someone who loves Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Mansfield Park, etc., but come on, when it boils down to it, they are chick lit). Jane's family has very little money and, like the characters in her books, need the daughters to marry rich in order to survive. Enter in Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy), who Jane initially hates, but, predictably, falls in love with and they have to overcome obstacles of family objections and previous obligations in order to be together.

It's a boring and predictable movie, and it really annoyed me that they decided to cast Anne Hathaway as the most influential female British author of the modern period. I had a beef with the casting of Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, but jesus, at least she's BRITISH. *Deep breaths*, regardless, the plot is too much like Pride and Prejudice, and I know that's not exactly the writers' fault, seeing as it's her life and all, but it's a little soon after the Keira Knightley movie. Another complaint I have with this movie is the fact that they really only mention Pride and Prejudice. I understand that it is probably her most famous work, but at least mention her other novels. The only positive thing I can say about this movie is the fact that the supporting cast around Anne Hathaway were fantastic. James McAvoy is a great actor, and I think he's going to become one of the most sought-after leading men in the business, if he isn't already. He's already proved he can do bit roles (Wimbledon), fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia), drama (Last King of Scotland) and comedy (Starter for 10), and now he's proven he can be a romantic lead. Julie Walters and James Cromwell are great as Jane's parents, and Maggie Smith is obviously fantastic as the disapproving mother of a possible match for Jane.

Overall though, I wouldn't watch this again.

28 Weeks Later

It's been a full four years since 28 Days Later hit theatres, so frankly, I think this sequel is a little late in arriving. Actually, scratch that. I'm not even sure they should have made the sequel in the first place. 28 Days Later actually had an ending... and a surprisingly happy one, as the three (or two, if you watch the alternate ending) survivors presumably get rescued and the "infected" are dying off of starvation. So why the sequel? I'm guessing it did so-so at the box office, but the DVD sales made the studio realise that they could make more money off of this "rage virus infects Britain" storyline, so they decided to make a movie without the original cast, the original director and the same bloody plot. And by bloody, I mean bloody.The movie opens with the semi-predictable family gathering of survivors in an old farm house, but then the predictably dumbass young girl peeks out of a crack in the kitchen wall and is attacked by one of the infected, thus infecting the house. Only Robert Carlyle survives, at least, that's what we're supposed to think, as he deserts his wife in a bedroom full of infected and the audience presumes that she either becomes one of them, or she dies. Fast forward a bit (they go through a series of time periods on screen detailing what happened after all the bad dudes die... something to the effect of "infected die of starvation, american army comes in rah rah rah rebuilding starts". Robert Carlyle's two kids return to Britain from "a school trip" (they never say where) and are reunited with their father, who tells them their mum is dead. But *cue dramatic and creepy music*, the kids sneak out of the safe area to get some stuff at their house and find their mum alive and well, and most importantly, not infected, although she is a little crazy. So of course, the kids are pissed at their dad because he said she was dead, and the army medical officer Scarlett (Rose Byrne) discovers that dear old Robbie's wife got bitten, but due to some gene in her DNA, she is only a carrier of the rage virus. Cue scary music again. Robert Carlyle visits wifey, says sorry, kisses her and DUN DUN DUN becomes the first infected person in Britain in 6 months. Cue panic. Cue army shooting people. Cue predictable meeting up of medical officer Scarlett, the two kids, and hot army sniper Doyle (Jeremy Renner). Cue blood. Cue gore. Cue ridiculous open-ended conclusion leading to assumption that there will probably be a 28 Months Later.

I'm being a little hard on this movie actually, but considering how creepy the original is, 28 Weeks Later fell flat. The first half was fairly good, but after people started getting shot and the blood and gore started flying, it seemed like the writers forgot about the plot and opted for overwhelming guts and blood. What makes the first film so frightening was not the actual rage virus, or the bloodthirsty, blood-spewing, flesh-happy infected, but scenes like the opening sequence, as Cillian Murphy walks around a completely deserted London, or when they head to the army camp and they're the only car on the highway. The acting in the first one was pretty good, considering the plot, but you bought into the fear and panic and relief that the actors portrayed. The acting in the sequel, prior to the outbreak, isn't bad either, but it was weird to hear Rose Byrne (who is Australian) with an American accent. Once the rage virus hit, the acting was only so-so, but I was pleasantly surprised by the two kids, and Jeremy Renner, who always seems to play the bad guy (ie Dahmer and S.W.A.T.). The sequel lacked the humour and originality of 28 Days Later. There were no lighthearted moments, or even unpredictable moments when something would pop out at you. Granted, the last scenes in the sequel are freaky, mainly due to the setting, but overall it seems like the new director opted to make a horror film about zombies.

It wasn't completely awful, but if you like the original, there's no point in seeing the sequel; you'll only be disappointed.

DVD Review: Casino Royale

I'm not going to lie and say this was one of the worst movies I've ever seen... but I definately wasn't as entertained as I should have been, considering it's supposed to be one of the better Bond films of late. After the utter shit that was Die Another Day, I was really hesistant to go out and waste my money on this in the theatre... so I'm glad I waited until one of my friends rented it.

First of all, let me just get this out of the way: I have never, still don't and never will agree with the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond. A) He's blonde, B) he's a beefcake and C) just... blech. Never in my mind will he stack up with Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore and god help me, George Lazenby. I'm only expressing this so you understand how I felt going into this movie.

So it starts with... er... oh wait, I remember, in black and white, to which Maggie (who'd never seen a Bond film before) goes "is this whole goddamn movie in black and white? *sigh*", which was pretty funny. Anyway, so there's this dude, and he goes into his office, but of course Bond is sitting there being like "I'm a 00 agent now, so I'm going to shoot you in the head because I already killed your associate and it takes two kills to make me 007 and naner naner naner" etc etc. So I'm already bothered by the fact that Bond has mercilessly killed this guy in cold blood by drowning him in a bathroom sink because James Bond is supposed to be all quippy and dry wit when about to kill an enemy. But I digress...

Anyway, then there's some stuff in other places with guns and bad guys and chase scenes and people getting blown up, which is pretty typical of Bond movies... the good ones anyway. James Bond goes back to London, breaks into his boss' house, which she doesn't seem to perturbed about, and they decide he should go join a high-stakes poker game (or some other card game, who the fuck cares really) so that he can catch the bad guy. He meets a lady on the train, thinks she's pretty, makes some joke about her ass, or his ass, or something, I quickly make the call that she's either evil, or dead meat. Card game goes on, James Bond gets a drink (NOT a martini shaken not stirred). Blah blah blah... with most Bond films you can sum the plots up in about 5 seconds, and this one is no different. So I was a little thrown when along comes this 20 minute long sequence (could have been longer, or shorter, either way it felt like waaaaay too long) of Bond and the evil/dead girl being schmultzy. Gross.

I'm going to stop with the summary here, partly because I really don't remember a lot of the details and partly because I don't want to ruin the entire thing for those who haven't seen it yet. For those of you who *have* seen it, spare me the whole "but it's to explain WHY Bond is the way he is in the other movies" argument. I do. not. care. For that argument to hold up, this movie would have to take place in the past, not the present... frankly, I think the space-time continuim just got a little fucked up because of it. Isn't the world supposed to explode when that happens? I mean, how hard is it to base a movie about spies in the 1940s? You could have Bond fighting the Nazis! And he could earn his 00 status while retrieving ancient relics while his crotchety Scottish dad goes around and - oh wait.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Being the longest book in the series, it was pretty clear that the script writers weren't going to include every single scene from the novel, unless they wanted the film to be 7 hours long. In my opinion, books rarely translate well to the big screen, with the exception of the Lord of the Rings series, mainly because they got rid of all the stupid singing, and the part with Tom Bombadil. But I digress...
Maybe I was predisposed to be disappointed since I didn't like the fourth book, but the Goblet of Fire movie just wasn't as visually stunning as the third movie. Mike Newell did an okay job, but he lacked the creativity that Alfonso Cuaron brought to the Prisoner of Azkaban. Granted, the effects were still great, but the scene with the dragon really didn't have to last that long. They could've shortened that scene and inserted the scene where Barty Crouch Junior explains how he escaped from Azkaban, because the characters are always asserting how impossible it is to escape, and the lack of explanation makes the viewer assume that escapes are commonplace.
The acting was a lot better, however. These kids are improving brilliantly, and are getting to be quite talented. But the film overall was a disappointment. Sure, there were the humourous bits, and the quintessential action scenes, but there was nothing overly unique about it. The fourth book was distinctly darker than the third, but the third movie ended up being darker in nature than the fourth one. Let's all hope the fifth movie doesn't disappoint.

Kingdom of Heaven

Kingdom of Heaven

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this review mainly because there isn't a lot to say about this movie. It reeked of trying to regain some of the success that came from Gladiator. And let me tell you, Orlando Bloom ain't Russell Crowe. Sure he's beautiful, but he really shouldn't be allowed to try and make inspirational speeches. The end scene in which Saladdin's army lays a siege on Jerusalem (held by the Christians, and gee golly gosh, Orlando Bloom too) is a blatant rip-off of the climactic battle scene in Return of the King. I mean honestly! I am not joking. If you go see this movie (which I recommend you don't, but it's your money), you'll see what I mean. The only stellar bits in this movie are the scenes with Liam Neeson, though god knows those don't last long enough, David Thewlis, who is quickly becoming a favourite of mine, and Jeremy Irons, who kicks ass in any movie he's in, including the stinker Dungeons and Dragons. The female lead, Eva Green, is alright. She's not the greatest actress, but she's very pretty, so she compliments Orlando quite nicely. Did anyone else notice that three of the actors in that movie were also in Timeline?? No? just me? Not surprised. I was seriously disappointed by the movie. It was lacking in everything: plot, character development, character in general, action, drama, everything. The only reason why I would call the experience of seeing it enjoyable was the fact that it was so easily mocked. And mock it we did.

The Day After Tomorrow (old review)

The Day After Tomorrow

Saw The Day After Tomorrow last night... it was pretty good actually. It was everything I expected it to be and the animation was really good. Plus, you can't help but love a director that destroys American National landmarks not once, not twice, but THREE times. That's right, this director made Independence Day, which blew up the White House. He also made Godzilla, which, again, destroyed New York city in numerous ways.
Here's the breakdown for you:
It starts with a little wind, then progresses to a whole lot of tornados, climaxes with a few big hurricanes and ends with a disgusting amount of cheese.
It's a cool movie though, I'd recommend it to anyone who needs something to do on a rainy day.