Change Your Image
Laserwolf65
Reviews
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
A pointless and meandering mess
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a cynical, ugly, mean-spirited film that completely misunderstands the material that it is trying to adapt. But I could forgive that if the film had a compelling story. It doesn't. Trying to follow the movie's narrative is a nightmare.
Scenes are placed in a seemingly random order. There's never any indication that what you're seeing on screen correlates to any other earlier scenes. Characters will go into dream sequences only to wake up and have another dream sequence. Then the film will never bring up those dream sequences ever again. Characters will say that an event we saw a few scenes ago happened months in the past, but there's no visual cue to let the audience know this. As a result, the audience must question everything that is said and done, and the very basics of the story get lost in the shuffle.
Characters spend endless scenes talking about how much they dislike someone, but they never have any meaningful interaction with one another. For instance, Batman and Superman meet each other a grand total of 1 time in costume and 1 time out of costume (where it's unclear if they both know each other's identities) before they have the big showdown in the end. The rest of the time they just talk to their associates about how bad the other is. How are we supposed to empathize with their positions if they base their perceptions on absolutely nothing?
Lex Luthor is one of the worst villains put on screen in the last decade. His motivations are constantly changing, and the performance is as erratic as Eddie Redmayne's in Jupiter Ascending. His plan makes no sense, and it culminates in creating a creature (that he cannot control) that has the power to wipe out all mankind. Why? Because reasons.
The score is ear-bleedingly bad, too. Overwrought and pompous, the score wants you to notice how great it is, but it never concerns itself with matching the imagery.
With that said, the dialogue is the same way. Everyone talks about gods, demons, heaven, and hell, but the film doesn't actually have anything to say about that subject matter. Everyone has an important speech to give, but these speeches neither sounds like anything a real person would actually say, nor do they move the narrative forward. They exist for the sole purpose of sounding intelligent and padding out the run time. Don't bother trying to analyze this dialogue; the emperor has no clothes here.
The best thing in the movie is Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, but that's only because she's not in the film long enough to have her character ruined by this mess. She's not in it long enough to impact the proceedings either, but you could say that about most of the secondary characters, too. The other actors (Jesse Eisenberg excluded) do a fine job, too. It's just a shame they have nothing to work with.
As a fan of films in general, I'm annoyed, angry, and I want that two and a half hours of my life back. As a fan of superhero films, I'm baffled and vexed; I didn't even think that they were capable of making superhero films this bad anymore. As a fan of DC comics, I'm disgusted. Save your money and do something else instead of watching this.
Milk? (2012)
More informative than argumentative, and that's how it should be.
According to the narrative, Sebastian Howard was confused about whether or not milk is supposed to be good for humans. He then set out on a two-year journey to find the answer. He interviews industry veterans, food scientists, dietitians, proponents of veganism, and more in his heartfelt search for the truth.
Now, I don't know for sure how representative this narrative is to the man's real motives, but I believe it. Why? Because at the end, he admits to being just as confused as he was when he started. He advocates that people look into the matter themselves and interpret the data as best they can. I can't remember the last time I've seen such an unbiased documentary!
True, I don't tend to trust the anti-milk scientists all that much (they interview the guy behind "The China Study," a book which is pretty much useless, for instance). That's hardly the point, though. The most prominent people on all sides of the debate (pro milk, anti milk, pro raw, pro pasteurized) are given their time, and it's our job to judge their credibility.
Hopefully, in a few years we'll have more iron-clad scientific data on the subject. Until then, this documentary is a good place to start when looking into the subject.
True Grit (2010)
A very confused movie
Mattie (Hailee Steinfeld) is a 14-year-old girl whose father has been murdered. True Grit chronicles her search for the murderer as she is aided by a Texas Ranger (Matt Damon) and a drunken bounty hunter (Jeff Bridges). There isn't much else to say really... that's not just the plot in a nutshell; that's the entire thing.To say that True Grit is simplistic is an understatement.
It's been a while since I've seen a film with so much padding. For instance, Matt Damon's character leaves the party and rejoins it some three times. The first time it makes sense but after that it becomes simply repetitive. Characters and plot points also pop up for seemingly no reason (an encounter with a dead body and a medicine man which take up about 15 minutes or so together only give one useful piece of information that could have easily been delivered by some other means).
The characters don't fair much better. I, for one, did not believe Mattie's character for one second. She's supposed to be 14 but she acts like she's 38. There is not a single child-like quality about her. More damning, however, is the sheer lack of emotion on the part of her actress; the only time she genuinely showed an emotion (beyond being annoyed, mind you) was when she witnessed the death of her horse (but she doesn't bat an eye when two people are killed in a brutal fashion just fifteen feet in front of her). Matt Damon's character is both devoid of memorable characteristics and completely useless until the last twenty minutes. Finally, while I understand that Jeff Bridges' character was a drunk, does that really mean that not a single line of dialog that he utters should be intelligible?
The film is also confused as to what it's tone is supposed to have. This is a brutal movie with graphic murders and mature situations, but there is a constant stream of unfunny humor that is continually shoved on screen. The most glaring example of this comes near the end of the film where Mattie finds herself with the bandits who employ her father's murderer, and one of the outlaws is a short, fat man who only utters animal noises. I kid you not--the character does not speak one word, but instead bawks like a chicken and moos like a cow.
All in all, True Grit is a very confused movie. It doesn't know what tone it is going for and it doesn't know how to tell it's simple story. The characters are a chore to watch, and I just didn't care whether or not they achieved their respective goals. I have not seen the original movie, nor have I read the book on which the films are based so I cannot say which version of this story is the best, but if this movie is any indication, I won't be watching/reading either or those other versions any time soon.
EDIT: I have since seen the original film. The two films share similar problems, but the original is marginally better because Mattie doesn't seem to be a Terminator doing it's best Peggy Hill impression.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Bar none, the worst film I've seen all year
To anyone who is thinking about seeing this movie, I tell you to not waste your time. This film is an utter travesty. It is a film crafted for people with thirty second attention spans. If you think that that's a joke... it isn't. Every thirty seconds or so the scenes change and we're in a new location with new people talking about boring things unrelated to the previous events. This film's mere existence is alarming to me. How can this be passed off as entertainment? Apparently though, all the teens in my showing loved it death. No wonder our students are failing to keep up with the rest of the world.
So Scott Pilgrim falls in love for a girl (for no good reason) and has to defeat her seven evil ex's to continue dating her (again, for no good reason). You'd think that this would be all about fighting wouldn't you? Well no, because almost all of the fights end on complete deus ex machina anti climaxes. Nothing is riveting, and nothing is exciting. Apart from that, the movie has no sense of internal logic to it. Does this take place in a video game? Maybe it's a comic book world. Do people just always turn into coins when they're murdered? To quote the Nostalgia Critic: "EXPLAIN MOVIE! EXPLAIN!!!!" It also doesn't help that the whole affair is so lifeless. None of the actors emote. Never. They just stare into the camera delivering their lines as monotonously as possible. How can we possibly enjoy a movie where none of the characters/actors appear to be having any fun themselves? All in all, this film is a plague. I sincerely hope that it does not do well, because if it does we will have to sit through many year's worth of films imitating this travesty. I hated this movie, and if you go to see it, don't say I didn't warn you.
*/*****
Black Hawk Down (2001)
This could be the most unpleasant film I've ever seen.
What an awful experience. Do you remember all the buzz about the D-day scene from Saving Private Ryan? Imagine a whole movie that's just that. Black Hawk Down is that movie.
Giving a synopsis is very difficult simply because the film does a horrible job of explaining what's going on. Basically the Somalians are bad and the Americans go in and fight. We follow a bunch of random soldiers as they fight their way through.
The problem is that we don't ever get to know anything about them. They are just names and faces. One minute after the credits rolled, I could not remember the name of a single person in the entire thing. Not a single name! That is how unimportant these characters are.
It is impossible to care about what's going on if the reasons behind the chaos are vague at best, and the movie gives us no reason to care about its protagonists. Because of this, all I saw were random explosions and people getting maimed. Unfortunately that isn't even done right since I could never tell where anyone was in relation to anyone else or where/when these goings on were... well... going on.
I suppose that it could be argued that it was done this way to simulate the real confusion and chaos of the battle field, but I disagree. Real conflicts are complex things. They are not just random acts of violence. They involve real people; people with a past and family and friends. They involve complex political and social issues and conflicts. Ridley Scott's vision of war, on the other hand, has none of this so it cannot be simulating any kind of reality. Ridley Scott's vision of war is that of a hyper-active fourteen-year-old who just watched Saving Private Ryan and thought that the D-day scene was "cool" but that pesky story was boring and disposable.
1/2 out of 5 stars
Memento (2000)
Good, but not perfect
Memento tells the story of Leonard who has no short-term memory. He lost it defending his wife from a rapist. He compensates for this by writing down notes all the time about what has just occurred so that he might know who he is talking to and what he needs to do. He has a few facts about the man who raped/killed his wife and is on a quest to find him and kill him.
Since Leonard's confusion is the film's main premise, the story is told non-linearly so that we might also feel his confusion. A simple way to put it is that the film is shown in reverse order. This keeps the viewer constantly guessing what is happening and what are people's true intentions. It is very effective.
While the movie is quite good, there are a few flaws. The first, and lesser flaw, is that not all the vignettes are as interesting as the others. The beginning is fascinating, and the last hour as well. There is a good half-hour stretch in between these two points where the film drags a bit. The second flaw is that Leonard's condition does not stay consistent. Sometimes he can remember a seemingly twenty minute conversation, while at other times, he forgets what he was doing after only a minute. There are a few rules to his memory loss (like when a door shuts loudly it seems that this triggers memory loss), but on the whole, it seems like he only forgets when the plot needs him to.
Despite all these flaws, the movie is quite enjoyable. It is confusing, but in a good way. I could easily see myself watch this again in the near future. If you like Christopher Nolan, or if you just like a well-made film, I recommend Memento whole-heartedly.
4/5 stars (The movie is rated R for language and very brief drug use. There is some violence, but it's pretty PG-13)
The Last Airbender (2010)
It's sad to see so much talent wasted by the director. This is a bad film, and I pity it.
This is not really a film; it is half a film. Those who know me know that my most frequent complaint is that a movie goes on too long, but they'll be surprised to know that I think The Last Airbender needed another hour (yes, a whole nother hour!) for it to make sense.
The story has to do with four nations who can "bend" or manipulate a certain element (air, water, earth, or fire). The avatar can bend all four. He went missing a hundred years ago, and in his absence, the fire nation started a war. Aang, the avatar, is back and has to stop the war.
The movie literally jumps from location to location without any sense of time or purpose. If I was not familiar with the source material, I would not have understood a single thing that happened outside of the first 10 minutes. It's a poorly written, poorly directed, and incomprehensible mess that really needs more time to explain whats going on and why we should care.
Still, I did not hate the move; I pity it. By that I mean that it had so much potential, but it just doesn't work. For my money, all the actors were great, the sets and costumes were beautiful, and the majority of the effects were really well done. Seeing all the talent put into this, I feel bad having to give it such low marks, but Shamylan (or perhaps Paramount) has squandered all that talent to make a disaster of a movie.
1 1/2 out of 5 stars
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Good, but disappointing
In 1995, Toy Story was released, and my 7-year-old self loved every minute of it. Four years later, Toy Story 2 came out and, while not quite as good as the first, it was still an excellent film. The characters and plots of these films are, and will always be, near and dear to my heart. I, like everyone from my generation, couldn't have been more excited to see Buzz, Woody, and the gang for one last romp; the results of this 11-year wait for a sequel are commendable, but underwhelming.
The movie begins with a mind-blowingly fun action sequence taking place in Andy's imagination. We are then treated to a short montage relating the story of Andy and his toys as he steadily grows older. Both sequences are very satisfying.
As the movie continues, we meet up with Andy at age 17. He's ready to go to college and has to decide what to do with his old toys. Although he wants to put them in the attic, they accidentally almost get thrown out, but eventually they wind up at a daycare center. Everything seems great--what with a plentiful supply of children--but things are not what they seem. It turns out that the paradise is more of a prison, and thus the gang must escape and return home before it's too late.
Here is where the movie sags and seems to go on autopilot. Though I won't spoil anything important, I will say that this is the third movie in row where woody is separated from the gang, the third movie where there's a rescue involved, and the third movie where we see buzz in "space ranger" mode. There are a few good gags throughout all this (I laughed really hard a couple times) but it's pretty mediocre over all.
All of that changes in the last half hour though. To mention anything would spoil it, but suffice it to say that there's a harrowing sequence in a dump that's just heart wrenching. The ending moments are pitch-perfect as well, giving us the absolute best possible send off for the franchise. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried twice in this last 30-minute stretch.
It's a shame that a good half of the film is so average when the rest is absolutely superb. All in all, Toy Story 3 is a good, but disappointing and uneven movie. I was glad to see it, but whereas I usually can't wait for a Pixar DVD release, I probably wont pick this one up when it first comes out, rather I'll wait until the price drops.
3.5 stars out of 5
Mimi wo sumaseba (1995)
A complete lack of understanding of basic story structure
Any high school student should be able to talk about how to structure a story. First you start with the introduction, then you have the rising action, there's the climax of the story, you then have the falling action,and finally the denouement. This is very simple stuff. It is also completely ignored by the makers of this film.
Basically the film centers around Shizuku. This is where I'd normally explain the plot, but there really is none. Instead of build a plot, they simply wing the whole movie. If you really want something this is the best summary I can give: she has a friend who likes a boy and this subplot goes on forever but goes nowhere. It turns out that the boy likes Shizuku but she doesn't feel the same way. At some point, Shizuku finds a store and a cat statue inside. She likes it and keeps coming back but the store's always closed. She finally finds a kid who lives there (and this kid has been annoying her the entire movie) and after finding out that he plays the violin she instantly falls in love with him, but he's going away to Italy. This makes her want to write a story and she does. The two meet up in the end and all ends well.
It's so boring. There's almost no conflict in the whole thing. The whole writing a story plot (which is the closest thing to a conflict that this movie gets) doesn't even show up until after an hour into the movie, and it takes another hour for it to be resolved. It's not even interesting though. She spends the whole hour talking about how inadequate she is and how she doesn't thing she can but continues anyway. Let me repeat that... it's an hour of whining and montages of a girl writing in a journal. It's boring.
There are good ideas here, but the director just has no idea what to do with any of them. There's no tension at all. It just feels like a bunch or conversations, which wouldn't be bad at all if there was just some compelling reason to care.
The one thing I will grant this movie is that it's absolutely beautiful to look at. The backgrounds in particular are astounding. While sometimes, the animation itself leaves something to be desired, the majority of the movie is full of these little touches that really impress. For instance, in a scene where the characters play instruments, they capture every subtle movement of the fingers. Nevertheless, it cannot raise the overall quality of the film because the narrative brings it down.
There's definitely an audience for this film, but I cannot see anyone who isn't already enthralled with anime enjoying this movie. My verdict: 2 out of 5 stars.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
A visual masterpiece, but a failure at storytelling
Some call Hayao Miyazaki the Disney of Japan. In regards to this movie, I would like to offer my own analogy: he is the Don Bluth of Japan--he's an amazing animator, but a horrible storyteller.
The story starts out with Chichiro and her parents. They stop off at what looks like an empty carnival and the parents begin eating. This show of gluttony and greed transforms the parents into pigs, and as night falls, the spirits that inhabit this place come out. Chichiro winds up trapped with the spirits and winds up being captured by a witch who steals her name and forces her to work in the witch's bath house. Now it's up to Chichiro to get free and save her parents.
There are obviously more characters that I have not mentioned, but that in a nutshell is the plot. The problem is that Miyazaki doesn't want to develop it. Instead he opts for what seems like 1000 different sub-plots.
One deals with a river spirit, one deals with the witch's sister, another deals with a spirit called No-face, and the list goes on. The main plot is essentially forgotten until the very end of the film, and is resolved in the most trite of ways.
This is really the movie's big problem. It's as if Miyazaki and crew came up with a million ideas, and rather than pick one or two, they picked all of them. It doesn't only affect the plot, but also the look of the film. I understand that many of the creatures are traditional Japanese spirits (and I'll be the first to admit my lack of knowledge of Japanese culture), but there were simply too many weird creatures that serve no purpose. The witch for example has a baby that fills an entire room and three severed heads as assistants. Why? Because they could.
I honestly hated this movie. When it was finished I felt flabbergasted. It was uninvolving, nonsensical, pretentious, and boring. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I honestly cannot understand why this movie is so well-loved. In my humble opinion, it is complete and utter drek.
The Prestige (2006)
almost, but not quite
Every once in a while there comes a movie that is captivating. When watching such a movie, one forgets that he or she is even watching a fictitious story at all, and when such a movie ends, movie-goers excitedly try to remember every last detail of its plot and try to more fully appreciate every intricacy that went into it. More often, however, there are movies that seem to have all of that in the works, but just miss the mark. Christopher Nolan's (Batman Begins) newest film, The Prestige, is an example of the second type of movie. The acting, costumes, and editing that worked so well to immerse the audience are all but wasted due to the film's disappointing conclusion.
Christian Bale (of Batman Begins fame) plays Alfred Borden, a magician who at the start of the film is on trial for the murder of fellow magician, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman). Borden is convicted and sent to jail to await his execution. While in jail he is given Angier's diary to read which chronicles Angier's rivalry with Borden, and his obsessive attempts to recreate Angier's "disappearing man" trick.
The first element that comes into play is the editing. Nolan chooses to tell his story non-linearly, starting en media res and skipping from various points in time in each of the character's lives. In so doing he is able to take relatively simple subject matter (the rivalry between the two men) and maximizes its effect. Each scene is edited in such a way that it reveals something new about the character, that if done otherwise would not be as evident. Nolan also manipulates our emotions by constantly showing the darker sides of the two main characters in such a way that we don't know who we should sympathize with.
Of course without the wonderful performances all around, the editing would be rendered moot. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman play their roles pitch perfectly. How interesting it is to see both of these actors fresh off two comic book movies (Batman Begins for Bale, and the X-men trilogy for Jackman) both able to adjust themselves to more serious roles. Jackman's obsessiveness is always believable, never forced. Likewise, Bale' portrayal of the arrogant and selfish Borden is totally convincing. Bale, who is Welsh, once again proves that he is a master of accents, moving so easily from the American accent showcased in Batman Begins to a British accent here in The Prestige. Of special consideration is David Bowie in the role of Nikola Tesla. His character is called in near the end to help Angier finally create a better magic trick than Borden's "disappearing man" trick. Bowie owns the role, demanding out attention, being both sympathetic and cocky at the same time.
Finally, the costumes and set designs all work to immerse us in the story. The movie was shot on real locations, and it shows. The costumes look entirely period, and before we are even told that the movie takes place in 1887, we know right by looking at the characters. If the movie doesn't get nominated for academy awards in these areas it would be a real shame.
The sum of all these parts help to create the illusion of reality, or rather, credibility in the story. Here in lies the major problem with the film. The ending revolves around the murder of Angier, and how it relates to the machine used in the "New Disappearing Man Trick." While I cannot reveal the secret, all I can say is that it is terribly disappointing. It stretches credibility too far, as if the writers had finally come to the ending without realizing that they needed to write it. It also works to discredit the characters as true magicians and inventive thinkers.
In the end there is a lot to like about The Prestige. It is wonderful in both its simplicity of story and complexity of themes. It is a wonder to look at, and much can be gained from a second viewing. All you need to do is be prepared to really suspend disbelief.
***/*****
The Straight Story (1999)
Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
Alvin Straight lives with his "slow" daughter Rose. He is a stubborn man who when the doctor tells him that he needs to get hip surgery refuses on the basis that he simply doesn't feel like it. One day he gets a call telling him that his brother, Lyle, has had a stroke. Alvin decides he needs to visit his brother and make peace for the last 10 years (in which neither of them have spoken to each other), but since he can't see well enough have a driver's license, he decides to take his lawnmower on the 300+ mile trip, dispensing fortune cookie wisdom to anyone who he happens to come into contact with... and that's it. Yes, you read that right, "that's it". For two hours we watch a tired old man on a lawnmower.
The entire movie is an exercise in blandness and mediocrity. Whether it's the one-note acting, the countless repeated shots of cornfields and the open road, or the repetitive score (which recycles the same two musical cues over and over again for the entire movie). The movie is so bland that when we finally have a tender moment in the bar between Alvin and a fellow WW2 veteran we, the audience, no longer care because we stopped caring about Alvin over an hour ago. Then when he finally gets to his brother, they say two lines to each other and it ends. That's it. We don't even find out exactly why they fought in the first place, other than a fleeting reference about saying nasty words to each other.
Indeed we, the audience, find ourselves saying "that's it?" for the entirety of the movie. Early on in the movie, Alvin's mower breaks down so he gets a back ride into town, buys a new mower and starts all over again. That's it. There's a scene where Alvin stops to talk to some young bicyclists to tell them that he hates being old, and then the scene ends. That's it. There's a scene where a lady runs into a deer and goes off for minutes on end about how she hates continually driving into deer, and then she drives away. That's it. There is no conflict, there is no message. The only person who really learns anything is a runaway teenager who learns the importance of family, and she isn't even important to the narrative.
It has always been a tradition for conventional movie goers to wonder how critics have come to love certain movies. This is no exception. This movie, however, makes one wonder how it even got past scripting, let alone garnering the praise of every respected critic out there. There is not a single good thing that can be said about this movie, other than perhaps it is one of the first real attempts to show that G rated movies don't only have to be for the kiddies (though this movie probably should have been rated PG for some mild language and alcohol use, but it's a minor quibble really), but that effort is not enough for me to even consider this piece of celluloid to be anywhere near watchable or recommendable. All I can say is thank heaven that I didn't have to pay to see it.
one half star out of five
*I'd give it zero out of five, but even I recognize that it takes a lot of effort to make even a bad movie so the half star is for the hard work that went into it. Aren't I generous?*
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spiderman 1.5
Poor Peter Parker (McGuire) has a crappy life and can't ever catch a break. Then he gets powers and takes up the mantle of spider-man, but that only causes him more grief. One of his scientist mentors then undergoes a dangerous experiment that gives him powers but warps his mind, who then goes out of his way to attack May Parker (Harris) and Mary Jane (Dunst). I know what you're thinking "Laserwolf65, I thought this is a review for Spider-man 2, not Spider-man." Well my inquisitive friend, you have already found the major flaw in this sequel, it's the exact same movie as the first one, with only a few new cast members, and subtle sub plot changes.
The movie starts off with peter parker getting laid off from his second job as a pizza delivery boy. We then find out that he can't pay his rent, his aunt is about to lose her house, he's losing his friendship to Harry (Franco), Mary Jane and Peter still have a love-hate relationship, his report on doctor Otto Octavius (Molina) is late, and to top it all off, his powers are no longer working correctly.
As the movie progresses Peter tries to remedy all of these problems, slowing down the main plot and lengthening the movie to over two hours. Spider-man doesn't even make an appearance (besides a brief sequence of him delivering a pizza with the suit on) until about forty minutes into it. The movie might as well be called: Peter Parker.
After over an hour the villain finally makes his appearance. Doctor Otto Octavius has created a machine that will produce a small sun-like reaction, which will produce cheap, renewable electrical energy using a fuel source called tritium, an element so rare that only twenty-five pounds of it exists (because we all know that cheap energy uses a non-renewable extremely rare element). So if that bit of science nonsense didn't faze you, how about this: In order to control it the good doctor created a harness with four long arms to handle the reaction. He also gave them each artificial intelligence (for apparently no reason), but don't worry, he built an extremely small and flimsy inhibitor chip that will stop them from taking over his mind. A few minutes into the experiment, the chip is busted, and Otto goes rogue terrorizing the city.
The problems with this movie are rampant. First, almost every important scene in the first Spider-man movie is repeated in Spidey 2. The scene where Goblin talks in the mirror is changed to Otto talking to his arms. The scene on the bridge where the citizens tell their love of spider is changed to patrons on a train telling their love of spidey. The list goes on and on. Secondly, while Molina does an all right job as Octavius, he's hardly in the movie at all. Instead, his screen time is taken away to focus on the completely moronic and unbelievable love triangle between Peter, Mary Jane, and her fiancé John. Also, Raimi tries to infuse comedy into the movie where it doesn't belong. This includes an Asian lady singing the old spider-man TV show theme and Spider-man telling children to eat their green vegetables. None of these events are funny, and almost all of them are groan inducing. Indeed the only thing that is funny is J. Jonah Jameson, but sadly he's not too important a character and his scenes are few and far between. Finally there's the moronic explanation for why his powers aren't working ("maybe I'm not supposed to be spider-man" he thinks to himself.), and the painfully obvious setup for the next movie involving Harry Osborn.
This movie really only has two redeeming qualities; it's special effects (which are much better than the last movie's), and the Jameson scenes. Other than that it is simply a badly made remake of the first one. That said it's still better than the first movie (although that's not too hard a feat to achieve). **1/2/*****
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
Another disappointment this year
After Corpse Bride came under my expectations, I was really hoping this would measure up. Unfortunately it seems that this year has been nothing but major disappointments (at least for the movies I wanted to see).
The movie centers around Wallace (the inventor) and Grommit (the dog) who run a humane pest control business. They're humanly dealing with rabbits who're destroying the crops of the townspeople right before the giant vegetable contest. Unfortunately, after an attempt to "re-habilite" the rabbits, the were-rabbit shows up, and it's up to the pair to catch him.
The problems with the movie are many. First the pacing is off. It was a good 20 minutes before anything really important happened (keep in mind the movie is under 1.5 hours long). Second, the movie repeats itself. For example, everyday we see the same inventions used to get Wallace out of bed and get dressed. It's inventive and fun the first time, but it just gets tiresome. Also, the voice acting is uninspired. Wallace is quite likable in the shorts, but a whole feature of the monotone voice acting is boring. Also, there aren't any real laughs in the movie. Instead of witty British humor, or even dumb laughs we get stupid puns (ex. their company is called anti-pesto). The only time i laughed out loud, was out of embarrassment when there was a joke about the "male parts". Now obviously it went over the heads of the kids in the audience, but i was uncomfortable seeing that in a kids movie.
Make no mistake about it, this is a bad movie that never goes beyond being a cute kids movie. Perhaps Ardman should stick to short films.
** out of *****
War of the Worlds (2005)
Good enough for an evening at the movies
Simple plot, aliens, and Dakota fanning. I know what you're thinking, its a flop. Well I'm happy to report that it is quite the contrary. While its certainly not one of Spielberg's best works, it is certainly good enough to see at least once in the theater.
The plot goes something like this: Ray Ferrier is divorced. He lives in New Jersey and today happens to be his weekend to spend with his kids, Robby and Rachel. Unfortunately he's not that great a father and his kids don't really like him that much. Things start to go awry and before you know it alien tripods (activated by alien controlled lightning storms) start to rise from the ground and start attacking the city. While this happens all electronic devices stop working and Ray happens to get the only working car and takes his kids on a quest first to their mother and then just for survival. Thats about it. Its not exactly thought provoking, but since when has a Spielberg film have a great plot? (besides Minority Report of course) The movie can best be looked at in two ways. One way is as an alien movie, and the other is a movie where all the characters are hopeless and panicked trying to find any way to survive. When the movie sticks to the survival aspect it is quite successful. There is a scene where a group of people violently attack Ray and his kids because they are the only people with a car. I wont tell you how that scene ends but it is quite unnerving. Tons of scenes of human desperation make this movie quite interesting, and at some points very suspenseful and almost scary. The other parts where its simply the aliens attacking are less impressive. While the effects are quite good, spectacular at some points, it never is really too exciting. Once the machines start picking people off, the horror of whats happening seems to go down. The reason is that since we don't know these people so we don't care about them when they meet their demise. When the aliens are specifically attacking Ray and the kids, it becomes much better.
Now lets talk about the characters. Ray is completely unlikable for the first part of the film. He is ignorant and a horrible father. Its not Tom Cruise's fault, he does the best he can with what he's given, but nevertheless its not until the middle that we begin to like him. At this point, however, he's left to keep yelling orders and try to calm down his daughter for the rest of the film. Justin Chatwin's Robbie is a rebellious teenager who refuses to listen to his father. The part is well acted and I liked him even though he was a jerk. Dakota Fanning as Rachel is quite annoying. Her character is claustrophobic and constantly a cry baby. Even when the aliens aren't attacking she finds something to cry and scream (in terror) about. Needless to say of all the characters, I liked her the least.
The problems of the film are these. First we have no idea why the aliens are attacking us. I guess you could just say that they want to rule the planet but why? Do they want our resources, or do they just want to cause us trouble? The film doesn't make an attempt to answer this. As I said before I just wanted to shut Dakota Fanning up. Many questions about the plot are also left unanswered (those i will not go through because of spoilers) The movie does seem to last a little long, and along with that the ending seems rushed, Finally, speaking of the ending, its typical Spielberg, meaning its a happy ending meant to be uplifting. It would have been much more effective if it had a bitter-sweet ending instead.
All said, the movie is quite good. There are parts that are quite suspenseful and moving. Although the plot leaves something to be desired, this is a popcorn movie. Just sit back and enjoy. (Also if you have a girlfriend, bring her, you'll be in for some cuddling time when the "scary stuff" hits) Star rating: 3.5 out of 5