Change Your Image
themadhobbit
Reviews
Night at the Museum (2006)
Delightfully Silly
Sometimes what we need is a confection that has absolutely no nutritional value other than to delight the senses.
Switch off the logic, enforce all suspension of disbelief and let yourself see this through a kid's eyes and you will laugh and feel good about it.
It is ridiculous and is filled with logic and plot holes - so what. This isn't meant to be high art. Instead we get slapstick, silly humor that doesn't fall into the standard fart-joke nonsense that passes for comedy these days.
As another poster wrote, it is also true for me - EVERYONE was laughing in the theatre the whole time.
If you are looking for great cinema - keep moving. If you are looking for a delightfully silly movie filled with goofy, good natured laughs - this is IT!
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
MINOR Spoiler - more a reassurance for book lovers
In 1970, I was given a copy of Roald Dahl's book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". It was instantly my favorite book, only supplanted by "The Hobbit" in 1972.
I am a great re-reader of books. The Hobbit for instance holds the record 40 times. Other favorites such as Orwell's "1984" have been read 10+ times.
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was a book that I read and reread at least a dozen times in two years. I was enthralled, not only because of the story, but the writing itself. Mr. Dahl doesn't treat his readers like 'children'. The story could be downright grim in sections, but always ALWAYS rung true.
Thus, when my mother told me they were making a movie, I was excited. I was out of my mind the week before opening.
Then I saw it.
On the way out my mom asked me, "What's the matter? Didn't you like it?".
"It was okay, I guess, but it WASN'T the book!" I replied completely, irrevocably disappointed at what unfortunately proved thru the years to be a Hollywood pattern butchering books.
The movie was the story at a shallow level, but bastardized and worse still dumbed down, with all the edginess sugarcoated away.
Gene Wilder is NOT Willy Wonka. Great performance, but NOT the Willy Wonka of the book.
And so thru the decades I ignored the movie. Yes, I have watched it a few times since, but always seeing what SHOULD have been and always disappointed in the end.
I was very excited when I heard that Tim Burton was directing "PERFECT DIRECTOR for the material" I though to myself.
I was horrified by the asinine rumors that Marylin Manson would be cast as Wonka. Luckily they proved to be just that "asinine rumors".
Johnny Depp there's an actor I trust!
Then came the controversy the so-called purists railing against remaking a classic!!! I considered- no, HOPED it was Hollywood making it up to us book fans the REAL Charlie fans after all these years.
Assurances from Burtin that he would be faithful to the book gave me hope.
And so with quite a bit of anxiety, Lil Hob, Mrs. Hob and I ventured to the cinema this weekend.
And
.in the immortal words of Grandpa Joe
"YIPPPEEEEEEEEEE"
They did it!!! They REALLY did it!!! They made my book into a movie and kept the spirit of the book alive!!!!!
Depp's Wonka is not perfect I doubt anyone could be but I will say that he is far FAR truer to the character than I could have hoped and certainly superior to Wilder's "Wonka-be" version.
This time they created the OompaLoompas RIGHT!!!
This time Burton created a cinematic version of the book that made me tear up with joy the little boy inside elated that someone in Hollywood understood the material at last!!!
Okay they DID add some stuff to it specifically, the Wonka backstory. But it was in the SPIRIT of the story and I think Dahl might have approved were he alive to see it. (I hear he also HATED the original butchering).
The book the whole book INCLUDING the Oompa Loompa songs are here.
This one is spoiler free, because those who love the book know what I am talking about. And those who don't well you probably only know the original sin and may even love it. If so forget about seeing this because this version is the REAL version and is vastly different from the 1972 atrocity.
Instead of seeing this version, read the book FIRST, then see it.
I am so happy that Lil Hob is oblivious that there is any other version than this one.
Mrs' Hob never read the book and while she liked this she couldn't get over the fact that it was GRIM in places and not as insipidly "sweet" as the first.
ONE SPOILER
Tim Burton made a CHOCOLATE RIVER THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE A CHOCOLATE RIVER!!! Unlike that diarrhea-like abomination in the '72 film.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The Mad Hobbit's Review
I loved it! Let me begin by saying that in my mental order of preference for the films, "Star Wars" remains separate and beyond compare. Therefore, I judge the sequels against each other. My order of preference from best to worst goes like this: Empire Strikes Back, Attack of the Clones, Return of the Jedi, and then way down at the bottom, Phantom Menace.
So where do I rank "Sith"? I feel it gives Empire a good solid run for the money, but Empire still remains tops. But what a run Sith gives it!!!
I enjoyed Clones for the action sequences and Obi-Wan Kenobi. But I really feel that Anakin was miscast, the romance with Padme forced and without chemistry. And so I went into Sith with no small amount of trepidation.
I tried hard to stay "spoiler free". An amazingly difficult task, and yet with the effort I employed, I still "knew too much". However, as much as I did know (aside from the obvious example "Yoda survives, all the Jedi die" etc) I found that my efforts had paid off and I was able to view this last installment as pure as possible. I am SO glad I did so!!!
The first twenty minutes of the film were "scary" scary in that it appeared that my fears of another "disappointment" were true. But then, surprisingly subtle and yet shocking, the movie begins to get darker and darker. This becomes one very intense and grim film.
What was NOT good?
The acting for the most part remains as wooden as I have come to expect with these newer films. McGregor does very well as usual. Hayden Christensen remains high school drama class level. I find his portrayal of Anakin to be whiny and wooden. He seems to be trying and at times actually can be passable. I still think Lucas was temporarily insane or drunk when he cast Anakin in the first three chapters of the saga. His casting of McGregor as Obi-Wan really balances it out I love his interpretation and talent.
The dialog is sometimes stilted and at times cheesy. Christensen and Natalie Portman continue to do their best to portray a deep, intense love and yet seem to have all the passion of American Gothic in the process. Thus, I just decided to allow Lucas a "gimme", suspend disbelief and accept that they must love each other so powerfully that it transcends demonstration and perception. As it turns out, this will be critical in truly recognizing the depth of the tragedy that unfolds. This is the one true missed note, unfortunately a rather critical one as everything hinges on the love of Anakin and Padme. Portman has a critical scene towards the end of the film where she really shows her talent and I believe HER love. It is a testament to her acting rather than the chemistry. Too bad her stellar performance is opposite a wooden actor.
The plotting/story flow can be choppy at points and the pace uneven. There is even a definite lull early on that slows down the movie needlessly.
What was great?
The action, the STORY, the special effects, Ewan McGregor, and IMNSHO Lucas' forte, the THEMES. This is POWERFUL stuff thematically, at times brutal to watch not for the shown violence, but the inferences. We know that the Jedi die and yet I was unprepared for how it unfolded. Quite honestly I found myself tearing up during certain sequences. This is the true power of this film it literally changed how I feel about ALL the other chapters in the story.
Lucas delivers on the promise he made to "complete" the series. Sith not only "fills in" the gaps and sets up the second (first?) trilogy, it ADDS to the overall epic.
The settings, the special effects, the attention to detail are a delight. There is eye candy, action and light sabers galore. General Grievous is a great bad guy, though he is no Darth Maul or Jango Fett.
So while Sith begins somewhat stilting, it gathers speed and becomes the film I so desperately hoped it would be and more. I did not expect the change that would occur because of this chapter. I am a huge Han Solo fan, but I also liked Darth Vader. I dug his look and his bad guy coolness. Not any more. After Sith, I hate the b_st_rd. Sith transforms Vader from the super bad guy of the latter trilogy into a truly evil villain. I love that!!! Sure Vader has a scary cool mask, but now he is truly a monster. Far more evil and loathsome than I was ever led to expect in Chapters 4-6. A villain worthy of hating.
On a similar note, I have always been a non-fan of Yoda, and was actually hoping to see him get his comeuppance in this film. Not any more I definitely respect and care for the character now.
And Obi-Wan Kenobi??? Second in my preference ONLY to Han Solo, Obi-Wan kicks _ss. Ewan McGragor acts the hell out of his role and really shines.
The end result is a masterwork saga.
I can't wait to see it again. More importantly, I can't wait to get it on DVD and watch all six in proper sequence!!!
Constantine (2005)
Okay
I SWORE I wasn't going to see it.
See, I was a HUGE fan of John Constantine: Hellblazer in my comic days.
I really don't mind Keanu, sometimes he can act.
But just by watching the trailers I KNEW I was going to hate it.
The biggest problem is that John Constantine is British, Blond and a HUGE a$$hole. Not to forget that in the books his name rhymes with "valentine" not "Ovaltine". I used to think that Sting was a perfect match (in his younger days). My modern choice would have been Jude Law, but they didn't ask me.
But Mrs. Hob wanted to see it and well, I am the kinda guy that just HAS to sniff the spoilt milk.
Well surprise surprise. I actually liked it.
Sure they moved John to LA and changed his looks and nationality. Keanu does play him pretty good - though not as angry or as big an a$$hole, but I can honestly say I could accept it as a "version" or "riff" on the character.
As for the story - straight out of the comic!!! Not literally but figuratively. I actually felt like I was watching the comic on screen (aside from the main character).
I also liked that the director didn't necessarily fill in all the blanks or spoon-feed all the back story, and yet it was there.
So in the end, I liked it. A bit slow in spots, but never afraid to take its time.
WARNING: If you cannot reconcile the choices made in redefining John Constantine - avoid this. But if you have never read the books, you might wanna check it out.
Fei xia xiao bai long (1968)
A Classic
I agree with Q SPAWN Q - this is one GREAT Kung Fu flick.
What really stands out is that the "White Dragon" is not so heroic. He actually is a bit of a jerk in some ways, and subtly conceited. in the end he does the right thing, but not for the "right" reasons. In fact this guy is more 'dragon' in how he behaves than 'human'. But lest you start thinking "CHEESY" he actually underplays it and in doing so makes one of the best antiheroes I can think of. He "out-Snakes" Russell's Plissken (and I REALLY like EfNY).
He uses his spear in ways that are nothing less than phenomenal. The "big fight" at the end is intelligent and creative without getting comic book.
Don't get me wrong - this is just one more of the grindhouse Kung Fu flicks of its day. What makes it so memorable for me is the well written, well acted character of the White Dragon and the creative and intelligent fight scenes.
Well worth catching if you can.
And I, too, wish I could own this one on DVD!
The Ring (2002)
Silly and boring
Shame on Brian Cox for participating in this waste of celluloid.
I cannot reccomend this movie at ALL.
The whole premise is cornball joke.
I will say that it is stylishly shot, teh cinematography is slick and creepy when it needs to be.
But if I notice the filmmaking during a horror film then that means the director has lost my interest and this is fatal in suspense and horror.
My wife got nightmares from this film.
I got sleepy.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Who cares
Best Buy had it on sale for 9.99, the same as a movie ticket, so I bought it.
I finally viewed it last night.
I knew going in that it wasn't a "true" zombie flick, that it was a plague and the infected were 'alive' not undead.
I watched it with as open a mind as possible.
And in the end, I thought "It's OK but certainly not great and nowhere NEAR scary".
I do not play 'games' with horror movies, either I am scared, bored or somewhere in between.
I REALLY wanted to love this movie, but I do not. many friends recommended it highly - singing its praises.
!SPOILERS!
Yes, some very cool and original things, like the coma storyline, Selena's take out of her partner in the house, the rats and of course the empty streets.
But then again, for a national capitol's streets to be SO empty, soon became 'false' - I found myself thinking "Where is Everybody!!!" like that airline commercial. Not good. I mean if the infected are alive, then it would stand to reason that when they attacked, some of their victims would be killed and there would be a lot more corpses about. Not to mention abandoned cars. Finally, the city would be burning in a lot of places.
The opening sequence in the lab was ridiculously lame as were the Director's comments about his "statement" about the virus.
I like Brendan Gleeson, and actually thought the characters were as cool as those in similar movies. But a bicycle messenger's miraculous transformation into a soldier killing machine had me groaning.
As for the infected? REALLY disappointing. When they stopped chasing the cab at the end of the tunnel sequence, I realized these 'monsters' are pussies.
Easy to kill, the only scary things about them are that they ambush and they are super contagious. So why use edged implements like machetes with the STATED risk of getting blood in the mouth? Apparently the writer couldn't be bothered with his own movie's logic or continuity.
Don't get me started with the whole "Army Guys" as bad guys cliché. Ho-freakin-hum. Been there done that too often - Day of the Dead, Night of the Comet etc etc etc.
I suppose if I were female the whole "Joy Division" concept would have personally been more rattling, but by this point in the film, I was just waiting for it to end.
I just HATED the whole campout at the church ruins scene, from the insipid horses to the Valium nonsense to the complete breakdown of the character/circumstantial logic. I mean drugging yourself to sleep in the wide open when there are INFECTED running about??? Then the way they offed Brendan Gleeson's character...
As I type this I realize that anything I liked was just the occasional cool scene or concept that shored up a lot of rather uninteresting, repetitive and ultimately disappointing story.
And the endings? ALL OF THEM SH_TE!
The best thing I can say about this is that having bought it on DVD I can trade it in for credit.
I chalk this one up in that same bewildering category as The Ring. My sister and I were literally RAISED on horror films, we watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre as KIDS.
My wife and her friends got nightmares from watching The Ring. My sis and I got bored. How anyone could be frightened by a soggy chick crawling out of a TV set is beyond me. It was stupid in Videodrome and Shocker, it is stupid here. But I digress.
I really can't fault anyone for liking ANY movie; I certainly like some films that are greatly disdained. And in the end it is only opinion.
And in my opinion, if all I can expect these days for horror is The Ring, 28 Days Later, Resident Evil, The Others, House of a Thousand Corpses and the BEST is Dawn of the Dead 2004, then I must sadly conclude that horror as a genre is DEAD. I liked Dawn of the Dead 2004, but it is an anomaly and only very good not great.
How freaking sad.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Recommended!
Saw it yesterday.
WOW!
I wasn't sure I would like "fast" zombies (haven't seen 28 Days Later yet - so won't compare).
These zombies were SCARY.
Well acted, well shot and the editing is good (not great). The story is about as good as it gets for a zombie flick.
This version WORKS and it works VERY well.
The Opening scene is creepy to the max and before the title, you are in no doubt of what is to follow. Probably the best build up in a zombie flick yet.
It begins with a "normal" day in the hospital for an everyday kind of nurse, Ana (Sarah Polley), but soon, the world is turned upside down and shaken.
Ving Rhames, as Kenneth, is AWESOME and I actually felt RELIEVED when his character entered the picture.
The acting is solid with performances by Jake Weber `Michael', Mekhi Phifer `Andre', Micahel Kelly `CJ', Bruce Bohne `Andy' and a bit part by Matt Frewer that is poignant and effective.
I was impressed by the casting. I was immediately and easily able to suspend disbelief and accept the characters as `real'. I do not expect character studies in these films, I expect sketches and fairly 2 dimensional attitudes. Kenneth, Michael and Andy were my favorite characters, but all of the `A' parts were well acted.
What was REALLY nice to see is that they stayed away from the Survival Horror stereotype characters - perhaps even introducing new ones. The characters responded `realistically' and "logically" to their situations (based on THEIR perspectives and perceived values.)
Andy on the Gunshop was clever and a very interesting part of the story.
While there are indeed some SHOCKS, I regret to say that they did "pull some punches". While not as pornographically gory as the Italian Splatterflicks or even the original, there were definitely guts, blood and exploding heads. But Private Ryan still holds the title for pure gore (I haven't seen the Passion yet). This was disappointing because instead of an original zombie flick this was a remake of a classic, one that defined a genre. To whimp out on the gore is nearly unforgivable.
Also missing was the campiness of the original, though there are plenty of intentional humorous incidents to punctuate the horror. Also gone are Romero's social commentaries. This film isn't about society, it is about surviving the insane.
The original holds a special place in my heart and I was VERY concerned about the remake - Hollywood has screwed up a lot of decent opportunities lately. I am pleased to say that this film was "done right".
Could it have been done better? Sure, but it will do as is, at least until the "uncut" version is released on DVD.
BTW, I really liked Savini's remake of Night of the Living Dead and in many ways prefer it over the original. Not that it is better, but I think it is better executed and I liked his spin. Therefore, since I liked the remakes of NotLD and DotD, then I actually look forward to and HOPE they remake Day of the Dead.
The Mad Hobbit's rating: "See it now".
SPOILERS:
Setting the stage with longshots of the city were AWESOME - a LOT to look at and just enough time to look, before we go back to action. In the first long shot of the city, watch the lower center of the screen at first, before gazing at the rest - you will have time.
The meeting of Ana and Kenneth was a bit contrived, but trust me, the movie quickly gets back on track.
The intro of the mall brought a delighted giggle from me.
The editing is a bit muddled at times, occasionally `skipping parts' that you need to mentally fill in, for instance how they gain entrance to the locked mall. These are few, and easily ignored, but I couldn't help but wonder why the cuts were made.
I wasn't fond of the change in how the dead are created. Bite only seems to make it a virus, I always preferred the `we just don't know' explanation.
A lot of people complained about the absence of `character' zombies, like> the Hare Krishnans, cheerleaders etc. I actually didn't mind the loss, in fact it would have been distracting.
I didn't like the whole dog storyline and thought that they pussied out by passing on some zombie dog possibilities.
Also, when the girl `Nicole'(?) goes to 'rescue' the dog, not only did I groan at the cliché but I couldn't help wondering that if it was so easy for her to drive over to Andy's Gun Shop, why didn't they do it earlier?
When they finally leave in the shuttles, I still am not sure why the second one crashed - I felt it was again `contrived' instead of `natural or logical'.
BTW - do not jump up when credits roll, throughout the credits are glimpses of the REAL ending of the film. Which is not only cool but raises ANOTHER gripe, and a reason why I can't rave as heartily about this film, we really don't get to SEE the zombies in this film. Oh, sure there a few obligatory scenes, but the glimpses in the end credits really had me wishing there had been MORE.