27 Dresses

I went to see 27 Dresses last night. Yep, the romantic comedy starring that bitch from Grey's Autopsy and the hotness that is James Marsden.

The story is ridiculously predictable, as Skank Cancer plays Jane, a woman who's been a bridesmaid 27 times over. She's organised, reliable and, surprise!, in love with her boss (Ed Burns), who turns around and falls for her sister, Tess (Malin Akerman). Predictably, it falls to Jane to plan the wedding, all the while being harassed by Kevin (James Marsden), a journalist who wishes to break out of the wedding section and write real stories. Predictably, Jane and Kevin hook up, then there's an obstacle and then, what do you think, it ends with the standard big kiss at the end.

While I enjoy most romantic comedies (I admit that I liked both Just Like Heaven and Just My Luck, which are probably two of the worst I have seen in recent memory), I felt like I was losing precious brain cells by the second while watching this piece of crap. I'm not kidding. I know that people exaggerate using the "I lost brain cells" thing, but I swear I really did. I didn't grasp the concept of the credits, that's how dumb this movie made me. The best part about it was the audience, a majority of girls between the ages of about 18 to 35, who sighed and "awwwed" at the appropriate moments en masse, and one girl even shouted "YES!" after Katherine Heigl punched some guy. Personally, I would have done the same if someone had punched Katherine Heigl. While she annoyed me a tad in Knocked Up as the somewhat uptight A-personality woman, she was really testing me in this little number. I think I spent half the movie rolling my eyes at her doormat-ish ways and constant whining.And yes, I think I am considerably dumber from seeing it. Do not suffer the same fate, especially if you need that precious brain matter to, I don't know, launch a full-scale attack on the AMPTP offices to end this damn writer's strike so we don't have to suffer through shit like 27 Dresses.

Speed Racer Trailer, and other news...

I wouldn't normally subject others to an unwanted drug trip, but I feel as if the damage done to my brain should be shared. The trailer for the newest Wachowski brothers' flick Speed Racer... yes, *that* Speed Racer:

I love Emile Hirsch (if you want to know how much, look at the Into the Wild review), I love Matthew Fox, I enjoy John Goodman and Susan Sarandon... but this? This movie just looks like the biggest piece of shit ever made. It truly does.

And if things couldn't be any worse for the movies these days, the fucktards behind the Sex and the City movie have decided to make it into a goddamn trilogy. Trilogy. Of Sex and the City. Three movies with Sarah Jessica Parker. The movie industry hates me. This fact is supported by the horrible news that Wes Anderson (he of The Royal Tenenbaums, A Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and other movies about dysfunctional families accompanied by quirky soundtracks) is helming an adaptation of Roald Dahl's The Fantastic Mr. Fox. I... no... this... bad... mary... upset... no words... screaming.... forgive me while I use all caps for a moment, but REALLY COME ON NOW. WES ANDERSON YOU ARE ON MY SHIT LIST IF THIS MOVIE SUCKS. At least it's going to be an animated film. BUT, take a gander as to who's voicing the aforementioned "fantastic" Mr. Fox... George Clooney. GEORGE. FUCKING. CLOONEY.

Can't... process... childhood memories... ruined...

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

The original Elizabeth movie, released in 1998, dealt with Elizabeth's succession to the throne. Elizabeth: The Golden Age continues the storyline, as Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) is imprisoned at Carlisle (although it could have been Loch Leven, I don't think it was ever stated), and Elizabeth is being pressured to find a husband. Enter in Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), back from the Americas and full of idealism and rogueishness. He's all open doublets and heated stares, and the Queen gets sucked into his stories about his travels. Meanwhile, the Spanish are concocting a plan to spring Mary from prison and overthrow Elizabeth. Cue usual romantic scenes with Queen and Raleigh, drama with one of her ladies-in-waiting (Abbie Cornish), numerous scenes of the Spanish king practically drumming his fingertips together and going "eeeeeeeeexcellente mua hahahahaha!", etc etc.

I still haven't seen the original movie, but I doubt it can be as boring as its sequel. The battle scene at the end was, in my opinion, the only thing that saved it from being a complete waste of time. Cate Blanchett was, again, a perfect choice as Elizabeth, and she had the right amount of wit and regalness to stand out from the rest of the cast. I'm being unfair; Geoffrey Rush was great as well. Clive Owen was just ridiculous. I refuse to believe that Walter Raleigh paraded about in outfits suited more for an Elizabethan comedy than a dramatic historical epic (or so they wished us to believe). Personally, I would have loved to have seen a bit more of Samantha Morton as Mary Queen of Scots. I don't know who exactly was responsible for casting her, but well done. She was the perfect choice.

All in all, the only movie to depict the battle with the Spanish Armada (almost) in its entirety is kind of a stinker.

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.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Now that I've seen the 168 minute long third installment of Pirates of the Caribbean, I can safely say that I hope to God and all his minions that this is the end. The Jack Sparrow schtick is getting old, and I for one am sick to death of it. Granted, the first film was great, seeing as it brought new interest to the somewhat-ignored area of Pirate Movies. Jack Sparrow was the bumbling pirate who always seemed to be three sheets to the wind, and Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were still relatively new faces in Hollywood. The second film was just... unneccesary... especially with the inclusion of Barbossa at the end. I left the theatre scratching my head, wondering "didn't he die in the first one??" and disappointed with the contrived Jack/Elizabeth plotline, which did nothing for the movie except make me dislike both characters. The only redeeming features of the second movie were the visual effects, Bill Nighy as Davey Jones, and the fact that Jack Davenport had a beard. Which is not saying much.

So, with that in mind, you can see where I'm going with this review. The visual effects were still fantastic, and Bill Nighy was still great, complete with tentacley face. Jack Davenport apparently shaved his beard, and thus lost a little something, but he was really the only character I was interested in. Actually, the monkey was the only great character in the entire thing. Anyway, on to the plot. Like the Knocked Up review, I'm writing this a few weeks after seeing it, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details. I'm pretty sure it opened with Will, Elizabeth, Barbossa and their posse of pirates going to Singapore (or maybe Shanghai? I don't know) to propose teaming up with Chow Yun Fat, who says no and tries to kill them. Obviously, they escape, and sail around trying to find Jack, who's been sent to Davey Jones' locker. At this point, the scene changes to focus on Johnny Depp, who's apparently had an acid trip... either that or my M&Ms were laced with LSD because, for no apparent reason, there are about 40 Jack Sparrows wandering around. Needless to say, it's out of the blue and completely fucked up. Regardless, he meets up with the posse and they manage to escape Davey Jones' locker. The plot kind of unravels at this point (not that there was much of one in the first place), and this is only about 30 minutes into the movie. Somehow Elizabeth gets captured by Chow Yun Fat and his dudes, and Will gets trapped on Davey Jones' boat, but they all find each other and a huge naval battle ensues.

Of course, Keith Richards makes an appearance, and there's a needless meeting between all the pirate lords, who disappear at one point, even though there are like 8 of them, plus all their cronies. The ending is disappointing, open-ended and nauseating. I didn't bother to stay until the end of the credits, because I just wanted to get the hell out of there, but apparently there's a little scene at the end alluding to possibly another movie. To that I say, HELL NO. You could not drag me to see another goddamn Pirates of the Caribbean movie. What really disappoints me is just how greedy studios have become. Movies that were great by themselves and as such, big box office hits, have been needlessly turned into trilogies (Shrek, Pirates, The Matrix), and it just shows a complete lack of originality in Hollywood these days.

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.

Ghost Rider

While looking for this picture (which is laughable in itself) in google images, I noticed there was a variety of opinions on the film: "Ghost Rider is quite disappointing", "Ghost Rider wow it was a great film" and my personal favourite "Ghost Rider So Bad It's Enjoyably Funny".

I didn't go to the movie theatre last night planning to see this movie. But it was the only thing playing around the time that I got there, and, since 300 was sold out, I figured, why the hell not? It could be a laugh.

You don't go into a Nicholas Cage movie expecting to be wowed. Ever. I enjoyed National Treasure, sure, but I didn't walk into the theatre going "hm, I bet this movie is going to be fantastic". Maybe that's why I wasn't disappointed, seeing as my expectations were so very low to begin with. This same phenomenon didn't occur with Ghost Rider.

Going back to the three opinions above, I'd say I fall between the first one and the last one, because I wasn't completely disappointed, and I thought it was funny, but not enough to convince me that it was worth the money.

Essentially, the movie boils down to this: Johnny Blaze sells his soul to the devil (Peter Fonda) to rid his father of terminal cancer. But, once his dad is healthy, the devil kills him in a motorcycle accident. Blaze then grows up into Nicholas Cage, who has apparently become a huge celebrity by making incredible jumps on his motorcycle (we're talking over 20 18-wheelers through fire, etc etc blah blah blah). Once he's completed his super crazy Guinness Book of World Records jump over 6 helicopters with their rotors going and over a distance of a football field, he reconnects with his old flame (ha ha get it? flame??), but then the devil decides to use him to get a contract of 100 souls, which, for some reason, makes him turn into skull-on-fire dude who can transform his motorbike into a chrome monstrosity. So he goes through all the hooplah of becoming Ghost Rider, then meets up with the 4 main evil dudes of the movie, three of whom represent elements, and the main guy, who looks like he stepped out of a My Chemical Romance video (not a compliment), who is revealed to be the son of the devil (no his name is not Damien, sadly). Anyways, the gist of it is that he decides to become the "devil's bounty hunter" and fight these four dudes, while romancing his highschool sweetheart and creeping out his best friend.

The CGI wasn't that great, there was a ridiculous amount of terrible dialogue ("you sure you can keep up?" "no, thank you kid", etc), emo kid had way too much make-up on, water dude was creepy and gross-looking, wind dude looked like a caveman, plot holes, plot holes, plot holes. I ended up laughing for the last hour just because it was so unbelievably camp, and not in a good way.

One last thing: it seems that blouses that button all the way up were of short supply on the set, because Eva Mendes' boobs were popping out the entire movie.

The Lake House, The Omen

Final verdicts:

The Lake House: If you ignore the fact that the plot really doesn't make sense (ie the being able to contact each other even though they live two years apart) and the fact that they never explain how said contact is possible, it's actually an okay movie, if you enjoy romances. And I do. I also enjoy Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. Granted, neither of them will be awarded an Oscar anytime soon, but this movie was entertaining. Plus the ending was so very heart-warming and squishy.

The Omen: Sucked. With a capital S. Laughable and campy. I really REALLY wanted Liev Schreiber to kill the kid in the end. *I* wanted to kill the kid by the end. He was not scary. Every time he glared at Julia Stiles (or "mummy"), the entire audience LAUGHED. Ugh. Just plain stupid. The only parts where I jumped were when they basically threw shit at you (weird thing in mirror when Julia Stiles closes cabinet... crazy nanny jumping on Liev Schreiber's back, etc). Maybe I'm just not one of those people who get scared at "freaky weird kids who scare people shitless with their weirdness" movies, since I thought Rosemary's Baby was a huge waste of time (they never even show what the kid looks like!) and I thought The Grudge was garbage. I felt bad for David Thewlis' character though. Poor guy. Anyway, waste of money, Don't go see.

Mission: Impossible III

Mission: Impossible III

I'm going to bypass how annoyed I am that I'm going to miss all the season finales of shows that I watch and go straight into mocking Mission: Impossible III.

Forgetting the tiny problem of Tom Cruise being completely bonkers, this movie wasn't too bad. I actually found it hilarious to watch. It was entertaining, though I doubt in the way that J.J. Abrams planned it to be. Maybe it was the fact that I went with two people who found it just as stupid, or maybe it was the scene where Tom looks directly into the camera and says "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall" (I kid you not), but I was somewhat enjoying myself through the entire film.That is, until I went home, sat down for a while, and realised there was no plot. That's right, NO. PLOT. Sure, there's some cars blowing up, and disguises etc, but the kidnapping of the wife, plus the whole "Rabbit's Foot" theft leads to nothing. I think Billy Crudup's character tries to explain why the bad guys are doing everything at one point, but it's a terrible explanation, and it's probably only one line of complete bullshit. Granted, I thought some bits were funny (including the scenes that were meant to be humourous), such as Johnathan Rhys-Meyers and Tom Crazy pretending to be Italian while in Vatican City... or some of the lines exchanged between Ving Rhames and Tom Crazy, even though they were very cliched.

So many parts of MI:III disturbed me though. One being the fact that the lead, Michelle Monaghan, looks very similar to Katie Holmes (Tom's indentured slave- I mean girlfriend). Another being the disgusting way Keri Russell's character dies. This movie was way too much of an ego trip for Tom Cruise, and it's not like anyone's going to believe that you're acting, buddy, you really are that crazy.

The *only* redeemable character in this movie was Benji, played by Simon Pegg, mainly because he didn't have a big enough part, which meant fewer bad puns/lines. And frankly, any character that Simon Pegg plays is awesome.

Well, I felt like my money was spent well due to the fact that a) I laughed my ass off, and b) I got to see Tom Cruise die for a little bit. But that's just me.

American Dreamz

American Dreamz

I went to see American Dreamz last night with Jacqui after a yummy dinner at Spring Rolls.
I really don't know how to explain this movie... sure it's a comedy, I guess, but it's also kind of dark, and slightly doc-ish, due to the fact that Dennis Quaid basically plays a more likeable, smarter Bush. There are few redeemable features to "American Dreamz" but I'd say these are the best parts:- Dennis Quaid's performance, especially a scene near the end of the film where he gets feedback in the earpiece he's wearing- the Omer character and his family, as well as the sleeper cell guys ("They don't call me the Torturer because I don't like torturing people, you know?")- the surprisingly refreshing ending- Seth Meyers!!The rest of it was like watching a particularly annoying episode of American Idol, which is painful in itself. Mandy Moore was nauseating in it. The title song drove me crazy due to the fact that the line "dreamz with a zee" is repeated about six MILLION times (and us Canadians know it's zed). Chris Klein was boring, as usual, and Hugh Grant made me want to punch him in the face.This is definately not worth the 10 bucks to see in the theatre. If you desperately want to see it, WAIT. Wait until it's out on video. Or download it.

Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain

Ah, Brokeback Mountain. Why are you getting so much praise? Is it because you really are a great movie with an equally great story? No. Is it because the great acting overcomes the overall shittiness of the script? No. Is it because you're about a couple of gay cowboys during the 1960s, a story which hasn't been done yet? Most likely.

I don't want to overexaggerate, but this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. None of the actors in this hackneyed piece of crap should have signed on to be in it. I have lost respect for both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal for acting in this. My opinion of Michelle Williams, however, has improved, seeing as she was the only one who actually displayed any emotion or talent during the almost 3 hour marathon crapfest. Although, I do think Anne Hathaway did a good job with a role that was unlike anything she's done before. Kudos.

Firstly, Heath, man, when you're in a movie, there's something called pronounciation. You know how you do this? You open your GODDAMN MOUTH! I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't understand a single word Heath Ledger was saying. Gone are the days of 10 Things I Hate About You, when you were a gorgey long-haired Australian who projected your lines. Instead, you've elected to adopt an accent completely unlike your own, and close your mouth, clench your jaw and make the audience guess at your lines. At least Jake Gyllenhaal was understandable! He should be getting the Best Actor nod, not you.

Secondly, this movie is supposed to be about "two cowboys who fall in love"... I saw nothing but their selfish need for sex. There was absolutely NO chemistry between the two characters (I won't go into the lack of chemistry between the two actors because, well, neither of them are gay, so of course there wouldn't be a lot of chemistry, but I digress...) and the only emotion displayed was when a) Jake Gyllenhaal got pissed because he discovered he wouldn't be getting any gay lovin' for a few months and b) Heath Ledger starts crying when he finds his disgusting slightly bloodied shirt in Jake Gyllenhaal's closet. The emotional outburst at the end was, in my opinion, completely out of the blue.

Don't bother with this. Unless you enjoy a slow-moving, long, slightly boring movie that features completely dislikeable characters, don't bother. It's not worth the money or the time, and I personally don't understand why it's garnering such great opinions.

Alexander

Alexander

To sum it up... if you want to feel like you've lost 6 hours of your life, go see this movie. It's not that it's a terrible movie, it's just extremely long. At one point, the narrator (Anthony Hopkins) says "Alexander should have died in India.... but that was a myth" and I let out a HUGE "siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh" and Rachel and I laughed... we laughed maniacally for our brains had been turned into goo because the movie was so long. It's the sign of a bad film when you constantly check your watch to try and figure out how much longer it could possibly go on for. By the end, Rachel said "Okay Anthony Hopkins, just SHUT UP SO WE CAN GO HOME" hahahahahaa.
All in all it wasn't bad plot-wise. Though I guess you can't really screw the plot up since it's basically a Hollywood-ized biography of Alexander. The little things got to me though... like: graphically showing men stabbing horses and elephants, thank you, but I really don't want to see animals being shot... Hephaestion at the battle in India - got sliced in the femoral artery with an axe and DIDN'T DIE. Sure, ok, whatever, except he would have bled to death you idiots. What REALLY pissed me off about it was that it slightly glorified genocide and assimilation. When Alexander tells the Persians that their sons will be Greek-educated and be part of the Greek army, they're all like "Wheeeeeee! I'm SO excited for that! Praise Alexander!". Sorry, I don't believe that

Mindhunters

Mindhunters

This movie was probably one of the worst I've ever seen, including The Base 2 and any movie starring Dolph Lundgreen. It stars two washed-up actors (Val Kilmer and Christian Slater), two actors who are still vaguely great at acting (LL Cool J and Jonny Lee Miller... I'm stretching in LL's case obviously), one actress who continues to piss the hell out of me (Kathryn Morris, the annoying woman in Cold Case, the rip-off of the Canadian show Cold Squad) and the actress who played Imhotep's mistress in The Mummy, I forget her name, but this was obviously a step down for her career-wise. Oh, and some other guys who really don't matter much, since they both get whacked.
I still can't believe this movie was released in theatres. It honestly seems like something that would go straight to video, then sit on the shelves until someone utterly bored out of their mind would pick it up. Not only that, but they take the title of John Douglas' first book, add an 's', then don't give him credit. They also refer to "UNSUB" and "VICAP" without explaining what each of them are, which leaves those who haven't read anything on criminal profiling or criminal justice in the dark as to what they are. There are some killer lines in it as well, such as "Iny, miny, mino, mo. Who's the next motherfucker to go?" and "Now we know his weakness: bullets"... granted all these gems are from LL Cool J, but there are numerous others. The ending is pretty predictable. So although it was slightly scary seeing as the "profilers" are stuck on an isolated island in a creepy rundown building and they're being killed in gross and disgusting ways one by one until it's just the killer and the one who was told wouldn't "make profiler", it's really not worth seeing. It's not even worth the time to download.

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.

Sahara

Sahara

Summary: Matthew McConaughey swimming, Matthew McConaughey beating the crap out of some dudes, Penelope Cruz pouting, Steve Zahn cracking jokes and losing hats, Matthew McConaughey blowing up crap.......
I hate to be a downer AGAIN, so I will try and point out the good parts of the movie:
Steve Zahn - everything and anything he says. He is not only attractive, he is freaking hilarious too
The iron ship thingy they are searching for
The town they visit in the desert - it's all adobe style, pretty sweet
Ummm.... the bad guy in it, he was pretty cool
The banter between Steven Zahn and Matthew McConaughey (aka Al Giordino and Dirk Pitt)
William H. Macy playing Admiral Sandecker
Ok, I ran out of stuff... and now the bad points:
Matthew McConaughey playing Dirk Pitt
Matthew McConaughey cracking jokes as Dirk Pitt
Matthew McConaughey
Penelope Cruz
Matthew McConaughey using a plane as a windsurfer
The ridiculous idea that an iron ship could make it's way to a river in Africa
The severe lack of Al kicking butt
The severe lack of Delroy Lindo
The severe lack of William H. Macy
I gotta cut this review short since I'm getting more and more inebriated as the night progresses... It's not a BAD movie per say, it's just not what I pictured a Clive Cussler book-to-movie film to be like. I did NOT picture Matthew McConaughey as Dirk Pitt. I did not like the fact that he played Dirk Pitt as a pretty happy guy, considering Pitt is a pretty tortured individual who flits from girl to girl (like Bond) after the woman he loves dies in the first book. They're fun books to read... they did an alright job of transferring the action to the big screen, I just think it could have been a LOT better. And apparently Clive Cussler feels the same way considering he's sueing the filmmakers. HA TAKE THAT!

Closer

Closer

I don't know exactly what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Perhaps he was in the middle of a horrible divorce and figured, hey if I'm miserable, I might as well make everyone who watches this movie miserable too! Or maybe he's just this loveless little manic depressive freak who thinks that love doesn't exist.
Whatever the case may be, this was a horribly depressing movie. I guess he figured that if he put four beautiful people in it, then that would override the fact that you really just want to cry or kill yourself by the end. All of the characters were lying, cheating snakes without morals or values and the plot, honestly, felt like it went full-circle without getting to any sort of point other than if you fall in love, you will get kicked in the face for it because love doesn't exist. I mean, how can you watch a movie where you just don't care about any of the characters? I know I can't. And the really depressing thing about the movie was knowing I paid $8 to see it and not enjoy it!
I do have to say that I really enjoy Clive Owen. He is an incredible actor. Seeing him in this movie just made me like him even more, because I've seen him as a good guy, but he was sort of two-faced in this film. Natalie Portman did a great job too. She played the most likeable character in the movie, though that's not saying much.
Just... don't see this movie. Or at least don't repeat my mistake and pay to see it in the theatre. Either download it or wait till it comes out on video. And make sure you eat chocolate, or ice cream after you watch it... or watch Closer and then Monty Python or something... otherwise you might just... cry.

The Bourne Supremacy

The Bourne Supremacy

Maybe it was just the fact that I had just come off work and had a mega-migraine, but I thought The Bourne Supremacy was absolute crap compared to The Bourne Identity. But I didn't think particularly highly of that film either, so it's not saying much.
I got really sick of seeing Matt Damon look: 1- incredibly confused during the entire movie and 2- really smug whenever he escaped the "bad guys". And he whined throughout the film about how the bad guys killed his girlfriend. Oh shut up. In the original book by Robert Ludlum, both his wife and his child are killed and he doesn't even remember, let alone grieve for a full MOVIE. So basically the movie is about Bourne (not his real name, duh, as those who have read The Bourne Identity know) going on a bloody vendetta in order to avenge his girlfriend's gruesome, yet predictable, death. The camera work in certain parts was really awful, especially to someone who's got a headache and is really, really tired. I kept rubbing my eyes and trying to figure out why the cameraman had turned into a manic squirrel.
The only good part about the film was, obviously, Karl Urban's character Kirill. He's a hired assassin, so of course he's awesome. From the very beginning you know he's evil cause he has a Russian accent... and he kills two guys and frames Bourne for it. But that's beside the point. Matt Damon got *so* annoying that I was secretly hoping Kirill would finally end my pain and put a final bullet in the amnesiac's head. But alas, my wishes were not fulfilled, since Bourne pulls an impossible stunt and they get into a car crash in a tunnel in... er... somewhere exotic... perhaps it was Berlin... anyways, so the camera, uncharacteristically still, pans in on Kirill's bloody face. BUT you can still see him breathing, so I'm hoping that they bring that character back when they inevitably make The Bourne Ultimadum into a movie... if only so I have someone to look at and cheer for while Matt Damon bumbles around again.

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.

Troy (old review)

Troy

Yeah, went to see Troy on Saturday afternoon with Jacq, Jeffrey, Lauren and Shel. I have to say that it wasn't *that* bad for the kind of movie it is. For those of us who have read The Iliad, it was rather inaccurate.
Here are the pros and cons:

Pros:

• Amazing CGI


• Detailed costumes and scenery


• Peter O'Toole rocks as Priam and Eric Bana is an excellent Hector


• Nice man candy in Eric Bana, Sean Bean and Orlando Bloom (and please don't try to convince me that Brad Pitt belongs here too.. I am not a fan and Troy just reinforced that)


• There is a cool little allusion to Virgil's Aeneid near the end... if you've read it, you'll know what I mean
  

Cons:

• Not even freakin filmed in Greece, they cheaped out and filmed in Mexico (jaysus, even Gladiator shot inside the Colisseum)


• Speaking of Gladiator, there were many aspects of Troy that ripped off the fine Oscar-winning film... so much so that Jeff kept whispering "Roman Victor!!!"


• Dear Wolfgang, the Trojan war lasted 10 years according to The Iliad, not 17 DAYS... idiot


• Dear Wolfgang, don't try to redeem Achilles at the end by throwing in a pointless romance... sheesh... besides, rumour has it that Achilles and his cousin Patroclus were lovers *gasp*
  

I know that sounds like a LOT of complaining, but I usually hate movies that are based on books... at least, movies that are based on legends. I mean, come on, if they're historical texts that you read in school, or are in Mr. Leitch's infamous "canon", then you shouldn't fuck with it too much. My BIGGEST complaint with Troy was the time thing... Petersen could have snuck in somewhere that the war was longer than Brad Pitt's interest in some temple chick. Even if there was a small note between two scenes saying "9 Years of War and Troy still did not fall" or SOMETHING...
Anyhoo, yeah, well, I WOULD recommend this movie just for the entertainment value... and the eye candy (bwa hahaha)...