Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 63
Directed by Kevin Munroe
Patrick Stewart / Laurence Fishburne / Sarah Michelle Gellar
87 min. Animation / Action
MPAA: PG (for animated action violence, some scary cartoon images and mild language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 28, 2007
It doesn’t take much to impress the youth of America: “Buck Rogers,” “The Great Space Coaster,” “Voltron,” “Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” See what I mean?
But even if you are a Turtles person, you’ll be sufficiently happy with “TMNT.” It stays true to the four turtle brothers of the 1987 cartoon TV series who are named after great Renaissance masters.
As a Turtle fan, you’ll remember (and try to forget) that there were three full-length, live-action motion picture precursors to “TMNT,” namely “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (1990), “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze” (1991) and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III” (1993). This last one was most unfortunate.
But “TMNT” picks up where that trilogy left off in animated splendor. Of course, I’m talking about our contemporary computer animation, so, at times, the movie has an illusion of reality. In this sense, the movie is phenomenal to look at and is quite beautiful.
The Shredder is dead and his foot clan is without substantial leadership. And there’s no Rocksteady, Bee-bop or Krang, either. Since they have little to challenge them, the turtle boys are on a crime-fighting hiatus, doing relatively “normal” things like tech-support jobs or being birthday party entertainers (no, not that kind, you sicko).
But a new challenge resurfaces when the stars properly align, bringing back another formidable team of sibling warriors from long ago. When these ancient siblings return, 13 monstrosities also come back at the same time.
Now, at this point, I won’t go anymore in-depth into the plot summary: 1. Because this is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I’m writing about. 2. Because the more detailed my description, the nerdier I sound.
I will simplify by explaining that the turtles fight amongst themselves, the ancient sibling warriors, the 13 beasts, the foot clan and each of those groups fights one another. Although I’ve trivialized how the turtles must save the world and their bond of brotherhood, the movie is actually quite fun and entertaining.
My only disappointment was how the filmmakers sold out on Michelangelo’s nunchukas because they’re considered illegal weaponry in countries where this movie will be shown. Oh, they show Mike using them, but in a limited, mostly defensive manner. Yet, as my good friend, Steve, pointed out, Leonardo wields his samurai swords onscreen “like it’s his birthday.”
Speaking of trivial entertainment, I must confess to watching (and loving) WWF wrestling. The Ultimate Warrior, who died 26 times, was my favorite ... for some reason.
Whenever I start feeling bad about myself for my entertainment tastes, I just try to remember that, at one time, “The Dukes of Hazzard” was on at 8 p.m. on Friday nights because that’s precisely what America wanted to watch — prime time. (That TV show lost almost as many Dodge Chargers as wrestling lost Ultimate Warrior actors.)
At least I can say I was never into the lower-functioning kids’ delight: pogs and slammers (the equivalents of the 1930s toys, rocks and sticks — toys for which our grandparents were thankful). As for adolescent-karate turtles, OK, I can see their allure; but I’ll never understand the fascination with pogs.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0062 : 526
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Children of Men (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 96
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Clive Owen / Michael Caine / Julianne Moore
109 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
In celebration of today’s DVD release of “Children of Men,” I wanted to post this review for those who have not yet seen this film, because they should.
Though it is a rare thing, every once in a while a movie will contain a combination of elements that make it completely consuming to its viewers. “Children of Men” is one of those treasures, and it is excellent.
“Fargo” (1996), “Sling Blade” (1996), “Blood Simple” (1984), “The Godfather” (1972) and more recently, “The Departed” (2006) are similar examples of this phenomenon, just to name a few. Each of these is extremely entertaining and very well done.
And even though I love the popcorn movies, like “Jurassic Park” (which is remarkable in its own ways), those types of movies lack something that these films listed above have.
If I were to try to pinpoint a few of these mysterious conditions, I would venture to describe them as compelling, fictitious narratives illustrated with convincing realism. This is why films like “Children of Men” are so involving.
The year is 2027 (five years after “Soylent Green’s” setting) and the world is without hope. Inexplicably, the human race is no longer able to procreate. Mankind is dwindling toward extinction. A dark era has fallen upon humanity. The entire earth is discouraged. A popular product called “Quietus” enables peaceful suicides for those who wish to expedite the inevitable.
Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is among the hopeless, but he used to be a believer, a fighter, an idealist. The character of Theo is reminiscent of Bogart’s apathetic Rick character in “Casablanca” (1942). Both heroes follow the same path: the old flame shows up and sets their battling spirits ablaze, once again. “Of all the gin joints ... ” For Rick it was Ilsa, but for Theo, it’s Julian (Julianne Moore), the leader of a rebel group.
These rebels have a valuable secret: a pregnant woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey). The rebels kidnap and commission Theo to help Kee and her unborn baby get to safety with a mysterious organization called “The Human Project.” The film follows these two travelers’ perilous, exhilarating journey in the form of one big chase scene, and it reveals Theo’s change of heart as Kee’s baby ignites within him a glimmer of hope.
No, I didn’t just tell you the whole movie. Well, OK, maybe I did, but that was merely the premise; the trailers reveal as much. The core of this film is found in its subtext. There is more to this film for its viewers to ponder after the credits roll. Blatant points are made about racism, immigration issues, suicide and humanity.
The filmmaking is masterful. A bleak, dismal, gloomy future is tangible, insomuch that its sadness seeps into the viewer, a small price to pay for such atmospheric cinema. The film’s photography is predominately blues and grays. This fictitious, crumbled England resembles post-war Italy in its neorealistic films of the 1940s, reminiscent of the works of Rossellini, De Sica and Visconti.
“Children of Men” will be noted for its nearly miraculous, long, unbroken shots that enhance its suspense. (Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was hideously robbed at this year’s Academy Awards by “Pan’s Labyrinth,” another fine film that was surely beautiful but still no match for this “baby.”)
Speaking of one instance, in particular, there is an unusual “car chase” scene, unlike any I can remember, that is easily among the best sequences ever shot in the history of cinema. Easily.
“Children of Men” is, without a doubt, a masterpiece and a definite must-see. Rent it today; you won’t regret it.
X Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0050 : 597
Directed by Alfonso Cuaron
Clive Owen / Michael Caine / Julianne Moore
109 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language, some drug use and brief nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
In celebration of today’s DVD release of “Children of Men,” I wanted to post this review for those who have not yet seen this film, because they should.
Though it is a rare thing, every once in a while a movie will contain a combination of elements that make it completely consuming to its viewers. “Children of Men” is one of those treasures, and it is excellent.
“Fargo” (1996), “Sling Blade” (1996), “Blood Simple” (1984), “The Godfather” (1972) and more recently, “The Departed” (2006) are similar examples of this phenomenon, just to name a few. Each of these is extremely entertaining and very well done.
And even though I love the popcorn movies, like “Jurassic Park” (which is remarkable in its own ways), those types of movies lack something that these films listed above have.
If I were to try to pinpoint a few of these mysterious conditions, I would venture to describe them as compelling, fictitious narratives illustrated with convincing realism. This is why films like “Children of Men” are so involving.
The year is 2027 (five years after “Soylent Green’s” setting) and the world is without hope. Inexplicably, the human race is no longer able to procreate. Mankind is dwindling toward extinction. A dark era has fallen upon humanity. The entire earth is discouraged. A popular product called “Quietus” enables peaceful suicides for those who wish to expedite the inevitable.
Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is among the hopeless, but he used to be a believer, a fighter, an idealist. The character of Theo is reminiscent of Bogart’s apathetic Rick character in “Casablanca” (1942). Both heroes follow the same path: the old flame shows up and sets their battling spirits ablaze, once again. “Of all the gin joints ... ” For Rick it was Ilsa, but for Theo, it’s Julian (Julianne Moore), the leader of a rebel group.
These rebels have a valuable secret: a pregnant woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey). The rebels kidnap and commission Theo to help Kee and her unborn baby get to safety with a mysterious organization called “The Human Project.” The film follows these two travelers’ perilous, exhilarating journey in the form of one big chase scene, and it reveals Theo’s change of heart as Kee’s baby ignites within him a glimmer of hope.
No, I didn’t just tell you the whole movie. Well, OK, maybe I did, but that was merely the premise; the trailers reveal as much. The core of this film is found in its subtext. There is more to this film for its viewers to ponder after the credits roll. Blatant points are made about racism, immigration issues, suicide and humanity.
The filmmaking is masterful. A bleak, dismal, gloomy future is tangible, insomuch that its sadness seeps into the viewer, a small price to pay for such atmospheric cinema. The film’s photography is predominately blues and grays. This fictitious, crumbled England resembles post-war Italy in its neorealistic films of the 1940s, reminiscent of the works of Rossellini, De Sica and Visconti.
“Children of Men” will be noted for its nearly miraculous, long, unbroken shots that enhance its suspense. (Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki was hideously robbed at this year’s Academy Awards by “Pan’s Labyrinth,” another fine film that was surely beautiful but still no match for this “baby.”)
Speaking of one instance, in particular, there is an unusual “car chase” scene, unlike any I can remember, that is easily among the best sequences ever shot in the history of cinema. Easily.
“Children of Men” is, without a doubt, a masterpiece and a definite must-see. Rent it today; you won’t regret it.
X Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0050 : 597
Soylent Green (1973)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 61
Directed by Richard Fleischer
Charlton Heston / Edward G. Robinson / Leigh Taylor-Young
97 min. Science Fiction / Thriller
MPAA: PG (but I might suggest PG-13, instead)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
You cannot profess to be a true science fiction film lover until you’ve seen “Soylent Green” (1973). And I mean that.
“Soylent Green” has a devious secret, much like “The Sixth Sense” (1999), “Boys Don’t Cry“ (1999) and “The Usual Suspects” (1995). Each of these four movies has something in common: Once you know the twist, the film almost isn’t worth watching a second time.
The year is 2022 and the Earth is grotesquely overpopulated. New York City’s population, alone, is 40 million. Pollution and the greenhouse effect have turned the planet into a miserable habitat, almost completely barren of plants and animals.
Food is no longer a luxury; it’s a problem. But the Soylent Company produces foodstuff wafers made from high-energy plankton: Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and everyone’s favorite, Soylent Green.
Tuesdays are “Soylent Green Day” in the street markets but only while supplies last. As soon as Soylent Green runs out, riots erupt. But the NYPD has ways of dealing with the countless rioters: Garbage-truck-like vehicles called “scoops” come along and fill their buckets with people, scooping them off the streets.
Truly, this sequence has to be one of the most memorable moments in film.
“Soylent Green” delivers its dread through an investigation. A New York policeman named Thorn (Charlton Heston) is investigating the murder of one of the rich, higher-ups in the Soylent Company. Thorn’s investigation leads him (and us) to unsavory revelations that neither he nor we will forget.
The first 45 minutes of the movie slowly drag along, but the bizarreness that follows is worth the lull. The movie is sexist (in-house prostitutes are called “female furniture”) and anti-government. Ah, the ‘70s.
“Soylent Green” was also Edward G. Robinson’s final performance, and a fine one it is.
My eccentric Uncle Butch recommended that I watch “Soylent Green,” years ago. Sadly, he worked for a nuclear power plant where real-life “scoops” came for him once after he was exposed to nuclear radiation. “They” came in the night wearing their bright yellow hazmat suits, dragged him from bed, buried his clothes, scrubbed him down and isolated him for quite a while — just like in the movies.
Uncle Butch never was the same after that. He would always say the words “it’s a” after he laughed. But I still thought he was cool ... he had three thumbs.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0030 : 390
Directed by Richard Fleischer
Charlton Heston / Edward G. Robinson / Leigh Taylor-Young
97 min. Science Fiction / Thriller
MPAA: PG (but I might suggest PG-13, instead)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 27, 2007
You cannot profess to be a true science fiction film lover until you’ve seen “Soylent Green” (1973). And I mean that.
“Soylent Green” has a devious secret, much like “The Sixth Sense” (1999), “Boys Don’t Cry“ (1999) and “The Usual Suspects” (1995). Each of these four movies has something in common: Once you know the twist, the film almost isn’t worth watching a second time.
The year is 2022 and the Earth is grotesquely overpopulated. New York City’s population, alone, is 40 million. Pollution and the greenhouse effect have turned the planet into a miserable habitat, almost completely barren of plants and animals.
Food is no longer a luxury; it’s a problem. But the Soylent Company produces foodstuff wafers made from high-energy plankton: Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and everyone’s favorite, Soylent Green.
Tuesdays are “Soylent Green Day” in the street markets but only while supplies last. As soon as Soylent Green runs out, riots erupt. But the NYPD has ways of dealing with the countless rioters: Garbage-truck-like vehicles called “scoops” come along and fill their buckets with people, scooping them off the streets.
Truly, this sequence has to be one of the most memorable moments in film.
“Soylent Green” delivers its dread through an investigation. A New York policeman named Thorn (Charlton Heston) is investigating the murder of one of the rich, higher-ups in the Soylent Company. Thorn’s investigation leads him (and us) to unsavory revelations that neither he nor we will forget.
The first 45 minutes of the movie slowly drag along, but the bizarreness that follows is worth the lull. The movie is sexist (in-house prostitutes are called “female furniture”) and anti-government. Ah, the ‘70s.
“Soylent Green” was also Edward G. Robinson’s final performance, and a fine one it is.
My eccentric Uncle Butch recommended that I watch “Soylent Green,” years ago. Sadly, he worked for a nuclear power plant where real-life “scoops” came for him once after he was exposed to nuclear radiation. “They” came in the night wearing their bright yellow hazmat suits, dragged him from bed, buried his clothes, scrubbed him down and isolated him for quite a while — just like in the movies.
Uncle Butch never was the same after that. He would always say the words “it’s a” after he laughed. But I still thought he was cool ... he had three thumbs.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0030 : 390
Monday, March 26, 2007
Zodiac (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 69
Directed by David Fincher
Jake Gyllenhaal / Robert Downey Jr. / Mark Ruffalo
158 min. Crime / Thriller
MPAA: R (for some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 26, 2007
“Zodiac” begins as the American-movie masterpiece that it was hyped-up to be. But then, after about the first hour, “Zodiac” meanders and fumbles and drags to its arguably inconclusive end — 98 minutes later.
There’s an unfortunate trend in the movies these days. Filmmakers will choose a historical occurrence that’s almost worthy to film but not quite: Either the true story had no real resolution, or it wasn’t quite remarkable enough to make a movie about in the first place.
“Catch a Fire” (2006) is just one example of the latter: a story that had potential but wasn’t quite remarkable enough to immortalize on film. “Zodiac,” on the other hand, loses its steam because the writers ran out of conclusive information from the real-life tale. Again, this could be argued, but it’s no secret (so, this is not a spoiler) that the Zodiac killer was never officially captured.
Even so, “Zodiac” was a very well made film. What it lacked in story satisfaction, it made up for with the performances of all involved, the filmmakers — as well as the actors.
Based on actual case files, “Zodiac” begins on the fourth of July, 1969, in Vallejo, Calif. A couple on a lovers’ lane encounter unpleasant brutality while in their car. Four weeks later, in San Francisco, a letter to the editor is brought to Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), the San Francisco Chronicle’s Crime Beat writer.
The letter is a cipher, a secret method of writing in which letters are substituted by symbols. The author claims responsibility for the July 4 killing. This begins the mad reign of the serial killer called The Zodiac.
But really, this movie isn’t about the Zodiac killer as much as it’s about obsession.
The film’s tagline is excellent: “There’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer.” Paul Avery (Crime Beat writer), homicide detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the Chronicle’s cartoonist and puzzle lover, all become preoccupied with solving the Zodiac case, especially Graysmith.
This film is about how fierce determination can easily cross over into obsession. Because the movie is about its characters (and not a conclusively packaged plot), it is fairly entertaining. It might have been better if the movie weren’t so lengthy. But this investigation spanned years, and perhaps the filmmakers were trying to make the viewer feel a sense of what it was like to toil with the same question for so long: Who is the Zodiac?
The film’s R rating is primarily a result of some graphic killings. I’m fairly desensitized to such images of violence (for better or for worse), but one particular violent act that takes place on a lakeshore made me wince.
I admit that I’m oftentimes too hard on the films I review. Perhaps that’s the case with “Zodiac.” But the movie’s photography is beautiful. The soundtrack evokes the time period quite well, primarily the ‘70s. And the movie has suspense, to be sure.
I should tell you, “Zodiac” is based on the real Robert Graysmith’s book about his compulsive search for the Zodiac. With Graysmith’s conclusion, the filmmakers have made a noble attempt at closure and resolution for the film’s ending that will appease many. It just didn’t appease me; and if the Zodiac killer shows up at my door, someday — I’m gonna be ticked.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0061 : 557
Directed by David Fincher
Jake Gyllenhaal / Robert Downey Jr. / Mark Ruffalo
158 min. Crime / Thriller
MPAA: R (for some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 26, 2007
“Zodiac” begins as the American-movie masterpiece that it was hyped-up to be. But then, after about the first hour, “Zodiac” meanders and fumbles and drags to its arguably inconclusive end — 98 minutes later.
There’s an unfortunate trend in the movies these days. Filmmakers will choose a historical occurrence that’s almost worthy to film but not quite: Either the true story had no real resolution, or it wasn’t quite remarkable enough to make a movie about in the first place.
“Catch a Fire” (2006) is just one example of the latter: a story that had potential but wasn’t quite remarkable enough to immortalize on film. “Zodiac,” on the other hand, loses its steam because the writers ran out of conclusive information from the real-life tale. Again, this could be argued, but it’s no secret (so, this is not a spoiler) that the Zodiac killer was never officially captured.
Even so, “Zodiac” was a very well made film. What it lacked in story satisfaction, it made up for with the performances of all involved, the filmmakers — as well as the actors.
Based on actual case files, “Zodiac” begins on the fourth of July, 1969, in Vallejo, Calif. A couple on a lovers’ lane encounter unpleasant brutality while in their car. Four weeks later, in San Francisco, a letter to the editor is brought to Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), the San Francisco Chronicle’s Crime Beat writer.
The letter is a cipher, a secret method of writing in which letters are substituted by symbols. The author claims responsibility for the July 4 killing. This begins the mad reign of the serial killer called The Zodiac.
But really, this movie isn’t about the Zodiac killer as much as it’s about obsession.
The film’s tagline is excellent: “There’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer.” Paul Avery (Crime Beat writer), homicide detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), the Chronicle’s cartoonist and puzzle lover, all become preoccupied with solving the Zodiac case, especially Graysmith.
This film is about how fierce determination can easily cross over into obsession. Because the movie is about its characters (and not a conclusively packaged plot), it is fairly entertaining. It might have been better if the movie weren’t so lengthy. But this investigation spanned years, and perhaps the filmmakers were trying to make the viewer feel a sense of what it was like to toil with the same question for so long: Who is the Zodiac?
The film’s R rating is primarily a result of some graphic killings. I’m fairly desensitized to such images of violence (for better or for worse), but one particular violent act that takes place on a lakeshore made me wince.
I admit that I’m oftentimes too hard on the films I review. Perhaps that’s the case with “Zodiac.” But the movie’s photography is beautiful. The soundtrack evokes the time period quite well, primarily the ‘70s. And the movie has suspense, to be sure.
I should tell you, “Zodiac” is based on the real Robert Graysmith’s book about his compulsive search for the Zodiac. With Graysmith’s conclusion, the filmmakers have made a noble attempt at closure and resolution for the film’s ending that will appease many. It just didn’t appease me; and if the Zodiac killer shows up at my door, someday — I’m gonna be ticked.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0061 : 557
Friday, March 23, 2007
Amazing Grace (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 77
Directed by Michael Apted
Ioan Gruffudd / Albert Finney / Benedict Cumberbatch
111 min. Drama
MPAA: PG (for thematic material involving slavery, and some mild language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 23, 2007
Many film scholars argue that in 1975, "Jaws" was the first release that began the big, summer blockbuster tradition of flashy, high-budget movie excitement. And I love every bit of it, from "Independence Day" to "Armageddon." They’re like Burger King to me … more on that later.
But unfortunately, since many American moviegoers are conditioned to look for the sensational, I fear that the majority will pass up the beautiful "Amazing Grace," an overlooked treasure of modern cinema.
"Amazing Grace" has a story to tell, a real story, a true story. I will state upfront that the movie is almost entirely dialogue, but the writing is clever and pleasing. One must be attentive and listen closely. (I know that's a tall order for "Saw III" fans.)
It’s the late 18th century and Great Britain has a thriving business in the slave trade industry. Nightmarish slave ships transport hundreds of people (most of whom die) from Africa to the plantations in Jamaica. The methods for shipping these doomed individuals are described in unthinkable terms but never depicted onscreen.
But the slaves have an emerging champion who is tireless, William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd).
Now, I digress here to recognize that Ioan Gruffudd plays Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) in the not-so “Fantastic Four” (2005), a movie that approaches the hideousness of “Master of Disguise” (2002). Two movies that prove that actors sometimes engage in far worse things than prostitution to become stars.
It turns out that Gruffudd can act after all — given the right material — and has a formidable screen presence. He performs with, and is inevitably, understandably outshone by Albert Finney, but not by much.
Sting (the musician, not the wrestler) once said that you can tell a good song if you can sing it while accompanied by one instrument — and it still “works.” Well, I might adjust that to suggest that you can tell good scriptwriting if it could be performed as a stage play — and it still “works.”
“Amazing Grace” would be as excellent a play as it is a movie. This should tell the reader that “Amazing Grace” is good because of its writing, its casting, its acting, its sets, its costumes and its story. You don’t see that everyday, not even in the movies.
William Wilberforce is a “mover-and-a-shaker,” as they say, in the political arena. He is a passionate, fiery, political activist who is commissioned by a grass-roots team of abolitionists to lead the battle to do away with slavery through Parliament.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like Social Studies class. Yes, it sounds boring. But what makes the movie excellent is the emotion that is connected with its story. If you follow along, it’s impossible not to be stirred from within.
There are other magical touches, such as a cute romance and the story behind the song, “Amazing Grace,” but I’ll let Al Finney give you the experience for himself.
Watching “Amazing Grace” is like going to your health-nut friends’ house for dinner: That steamed carrot stir-fry with wheat-germ sauce isn’t nearly as appealing as the Burger King you passed on the way to their house, but after you eat it, you feel good, like you’ve done something nice for yourself.
“Amazing Grace” is wholesome in the same way.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent / theater option (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0060 : 544
Directed by Michael Apted
Ioan Gruffudd / Albert Finney / Benedict Cumberbatch
111 min. Drama
MPAA: PG (for thematic material involving slavery, and some mild language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 23, 2007
Many film scholars argue that in 1975, "Jaws" was the first release that began the big, summer blockbuster tradition of flashy, high-budget movie excitement. And I love every bit of it, from "Independence Day" to "Armageddon." They’re like Burger King to me … more on that later.
But unfortunately, since many American moviegoers are conditioned to look for the sensational, I fear that the majority will pass up the beautiful "Amazing Grace," an overlooked treasure of modern cinema.
"Amazing Grace" has a story to tell, a real story, a true story. I will state upfront that the movie is almost entirely dialogue, but the writing is clever and pleasing. One must be attentive and listen closely. (I know that's a tall order for "Saw III" fans.)
It’s the late 18th century and Great Britain has a thriving business in the slave trade industry. Nightmarish slave ships transport hundreds of people (most of whom die) from Africa to the plantations in Jamaica. The methods for shipping these doomed individuals are described in unthinkable terms but never depicted onscreen.
But the slaves have an emerging champion who is tireless, William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd).
Now, I digress here to recognize that Ioan Gruffudd plays Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) in the not-so “Fantastic Four” (2005), a movie that approaches the hideousness of “Master of Disguise” (2002). Two movies that prove that actors sometimes engage in far worse things than prostitution to become stars.
It turns out that Gruffudd can act after all — given the right material — and has a formidable screen presence. He performs with, and is inevitably, understandably outshone by Albert Finney, but not by much.
Sting (the musician, not the wrestler) once said that you can tell a good song if you can sing it while accompanied by one instrument — and it still “works.” Well, I might adjust that to suggest that you can tell good scriptwriting if it could be performed as a stage play — and it still “works.”
“Amazing Grace” would be as excellent a play as it is a movie. This should tell the reader that “Amazing Grace” is good because of its writing, its casting, its acting, its sets, its costumes and its story. You don’t see that everyday, not even in the movies.
William Wilberforce is a “mover-and-a-shaker,” as they say, in the political arena. He is a passionate, fiery, political activist who is commissioned by a grass-roots team of abolitionists to lead the battle to do away with slavery through Parliament.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like Social Studies class. Yes, it sounds boring. But what makes the movie excellent is the emotion that is connected with its story. If you follow along, it’s impossible not to be stirred from within.
There are other magical touches, such as a cute romance and the story behind the song, “Amazing Grace,” but I’ll let Al Finney give you the experience for himself.
Watching “Amazing Grace” is like going to your health-nut friends’ house for dinner: That steamed carrot stir-fry with wheat-germ sauce isn’t nearly as appealing as the Burger King you passed on the way to their house, but after you eat it, you feel good, like you’ve done something nice for yourself.
“Amazing Grace” is wholesome in the same way.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent / theater option (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0060 : 544
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Cronos (1993)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 65
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Federico Luppi / Ron Perlman / Tamara Shanath
94 min. Drama / Horror
MPAA: R (for horror, violence and for language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 21, 2007
“Cronos” is noteworthy because of its original spin on vampires and is an effective (though probably unintentional) metaphor for the downward spiral of drug addiction.
“Cronos” was written and directed by the capable hands of Guillermo del Toro, who is perhaps better known for last year’s masterful “Pan’s Labyrinth.”
A 16th-century alchemist/watchmaker constructs a bio-mechanical beetle called “the Cronos device.” This golden scarab is designed to grant its user significantly extended life, if not immortality.
This device is most intriguing. Only we, the viewers, are able to see the bug’s inner workings. It contains spinning gears of brass and a peculiar inhabitant: a grotesque, pulsating, bloody, bug-like larva.
I will not reveal the unsettling manner in which the Cronos interacts with its user; this uncomfortable oddity is one of the movie’s pleasures.
Four-hundred years later, when the alchemist is mortally wounded by architectural ineptitude, his possessions are sold. A kind grandfather and shopkeeper, Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi), eventually has the alchemist’s archangel statue for sale in his store.
Gris and his quiet granddaughter, Aurora (Tamara Shanath), discover that the statue hides the Cronos device within it. Soon, Gris is addicted to the Cronos’ seemingly symbiotic wonders and its horrors.
The evil is twofold. A disturbed old man named Dieter de la Guardia (Claudio Brook) and his bizarro-Will-Ferrell-look-alike nephew, Angel (Ron Perlman), seek the Cronos device with ferocity. Their determination to possess it gets ugly.
Besides an inconvenient craving for blood, Cronos users eventually take on a periwinkle skin color that’s reminiscent of “Faker” from the “He-Man” toys — minus the orange hair. (Here’s a tip: If you want to be a “faker” and pass yourself off as some white guy, you can’t have blue skin.)
Vampires are typically pitiful beings, but never have I seen a movie that made me feel as much compassion as I did for Gris.
“Cronos” is sufficiently weird and creepy to merit a viewing, even if you have an aversion to subtitles. Its macabre plot approaches dark comedy but is mostly ghoulish, gruesome and grim.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0059 : 339
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Federico Luppi / Ron Perlman / Tamara Shanath
94 min. Drama / Horror
MPAA: R (for horror, violence and for language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 21, 2007
“Cronos” is noteworthy because of its original spin on vampires and is an effective (though probably unintentional) metaphor for the downward spiral of drug addiction.
“Cronos” was written and directed by the capable hands of Guillermo del Toro, who is perhaps better known for last year’s masterful “Pan’s Labyrinth.”
A 16th-century alchemist/watchmaker constructs a bio-mechanical beetle called “the Cronos device.” This golden scarab is designed to grant its user significantly extended life, if not immortality.
This device is most intriguing. Only we, the viewers, are able to see the bug’s inner workings. It contains spinning gears of brass and a peculiar inhabitant: a grotesque, pulsating, bloody, bug-like larva.
I will not reveal the unsettling manner in which the Cronos interacts with its user; this uncomfortable oddity is one of the movie’s pleasures.
Four-hundred years later, when the alchemist is mortally wounded by architectural ineptitude, his possessions are sold. A kind grandfather and shopkeeper, Jesus Gris (Federico Luppi), eventually has the alchemist’s archangel statue for sale in his store.
Gris and his quiet granddaughter, Aurora (Tamara Shanath), discover that the statue hides the Cronos device within it. Soon, Gris is addicted to the Cronos’ seemingly symbiotic wonders and its horrors.
The evil is twofold. A disturbed old man named Dieter de la Guardia (Claudio Brook) and his bizarro-Will-Ferrell-look-alike nephew, Angel (Ron Perlman), seek the Cronos device with ferocity. Their determination to possess it gets ugly.
Besides an inconvenient craving for blood, Cronos users eventually take on a periwinkle skin color that’s reminiscent of “Faker” from the “He-Man” toys — minus the orange hair. (Here’s a tip: If you want to be a “faker” and pass yourself off as some white guy, you can’t have blue skin.)
Vampires are typically pitiful beings, but never have I seen a movie that made me feel as much compassion as I did for Gris.
“Cronos” is sufficiently weird and creepy to merit a viewing, even if you have an aversion to subtitles. Its macabre plot approaches dark comedy but is mostly ghoulish, gruesome and grim.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0059 : 339
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
300 (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 68
Directed by Zack Snyder
Gerard Butler / Lena Headey / Rodrigo Santoro
117 min. Action / War
MPAA: R (for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 20, 2007
My film history class thinks "300" is nothing less than phenomenal. The voters on the Internet Movie Database currently have "300" ranked 202 out of the top 250 movies. Maybe 10,000 movie fans can't be wrong, but something about these 300 Spartans is amiss.
That something is this: The movie doesn't ever go anywhere … literally. The battles take place in one spot. Moreover, the same fatal blows and administration of death occur over and over again. Really, it's monotonous. (Yes, we're all familiar with CGI, and we're all impressed.)
Moreover, the movie reduces to the baseness of a Balinese cockfight (although Clifford Geertz would have probably fought to the death over such an assertion).
It's this simple: Remember "Fight Club" (1999)? Well, "300" is basically "Fight Club," but it's set back in 480 B.C. The story isn’t the same, of course, but both movies are as macho as Randy Savage snappin’ into a Slim Jim. “Oh, yeah.” (Incidentally, it should be known: I believe Savage stole that catchphrase from Kool-aid man.)
“Three-hundred” is adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel (don’t even say “a glorified comic book”), which illustrates the battle at Thermopylae where 300 Spartans warred against a numerous host of Persian assailants.
King Leonidas of Sparta (Gerard Butler) receives a threatening request from King Xerxes of Persia (Rodrigo Santoro). (King Xerxes, by the way, might remind you of an upsetting blend between Mr. T and Rhu Paul.)
After kicking Xerxes’ messenger into “the hole” that Glen Phillips sings about on “Unlucky 7,” Leonidas consults some yucky monks on a mountain top, who then consult a scandalous oracle, who then indicates that Sparta should not go to war.
Without having the oracle’s blessing for war, and therefore, the support of Sparta’s political powers that be, the king takes 300 of his best men to “guard” him at this strategically special spot near the sea. From this point on, the Persians bring bigger and better onslaughts of fighting freaks and battling beasts to challenge the mighty 300.
“Three-hundred” isn’t a man’s movie as much as it is a 14-year-old’s movie. It has plenty of violence, action, blood, gore, nudity, sexual situations and some misplaced electric guitars on the soundtrack. What more could a pre-pubescent voyeur wish to view?
Just as a lot of people like "Fight Club," many like "300," too. The former is superior to the latter, however. Both movies have strong beginnings and lose stamina as they progress.
Though “300” has some entertaining scenes, which I could surely appreciate, I cannot whole-heartedly recommend it because the nudity and sexuality were exploitative and unnecessary. (But when are such things necessary?)
A movie with this much testosterone could pull a pre-pubescent teen through puberty in about 117 minutes … If only "300" were released back when I was in Mr. Homer's fifth-grade swimming class: Then that wooly mammoth, Cro-Magnon kid named Bruce wouldn't have made me feel so self-conscious in the locker room.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0058 : 493
Directed by Zack Snyder
Gerard Butler / Lena Headey / Rodrigo Santoro
117 min. Action / War
MPAA: R (for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 20, 2007
My film history class thinks "300" is nothing less than phenomenal. The voters on the Internet Movie Database currently have "300" ranked 202 out of the top 250 movies. Maybe 10,000 movie fans can't be wrong, but something about these 300 Spartans is amiss.
That something is this: The movie doesn't ever go anywhere … literally. The battles take place in one spot. Moreover, the same fatal blows and administration of death occur over and over again. Really, it's monotonous. (Yes, we're all familiar with CGI, and we're all impressed.)
Moreover, the movie reduces to the baseness of a Balinese cockfight (although Clifford Geertz would have probably fought to the death over such an assertion).
It's this simple: Remember "Fight Club" (1999)? Well, "300" is basically "Fight Club," but it's set back in 480 B.C. The story isn’t the same, of course, but both movies are as macho as Randy Savage snappin’ into a Slim Jim. “Oh, yeah.” (Incidentally, it should be known: I believe Savage stole that catchphrase from Kool-aid man.)
“Three-hundred” is adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel (don’t even say “a glorified comic book”), which illustrates the battle at Thermopylae where 300 Spartans warred against a numerous host of Persian assailants.
King Leonidas of Sparta (Gerard Butler) receives a threatening request from King Xerxes of Persia (Rodrigo Santoro). (King Xerxes, by the way, might remind you of an upsetting blend between Mr. T and Rhu Paul.)
After kicking Xerxes’ messenger into “the hole” that Glen Phillips sings about on “Unlucky 7,” Leonidas consults some yucky monks on a mountain top, who then consult a scandalous oracle, who then indicates that Sparta should not go to war.
Without having the oracle’s blessing for war, and therefore, the support of Sparta’s political powers that be, the king takes 300 of his best men to “guard” him at this strategically special spot near the sea. From this point on, the Persians bring bigger and better onslaughts of fighting freaks and battling beasts to challenge the mighty 300.
“Three-hundred” isn’t a man’s movie as much as it is a 14-year-old’s movie. It has plenty of violence, action, blood, gore, nudity, sexual situations and some misplaced electric guitars on the soundtrack. What more could a pre-pubescent voyeur wish to view?
Just as a lot of people like "Fight Club," many like "300," too. The former is superior to the latter, however. Both movies have strong beginnings and lose stamina as they progress.
Though “300” has some entertaining scenes, which I could surely appreciate, I cannot whole-heartedly recommend it because the nudity and sexuality were exploitative and unnecessary. (But when are such things necessary?)
A movie with this much testosterone could pull a pre-pubescent teen through puberty in about 117 minutes … If only "300" were released back when I was in Mr. Homer's fifth-grade swimming class: Then that wooly mammoth, Cro-Magnon kid named Bruce wouldn't have made me feel so self-conscious in the locker room.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0058 : 493
Friday, March 16, 2007
Breach (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 72
Directed by Billy Ray
Chris Cooper / Ryan Phillippe / Laura Linney
110 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, sexual content and language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 16, 2007
A good thriller makes its audience care about its protagonist(s). But “Breach” goes further: It makes you have compassion for its antagonist, too.
Based on a true story, “Breach” tells the story of what is said to be “the greatest security breach in U.S. history.” Surprisingly, the movie is intriguing and engaging without any car chases or shoot-outs. The filmmakers rely on actual suspense rather than action. Wonders abound.
“Breach” is quite good, almost excellent, primarily because of one actor’s performance: Chris Cooper. You’ll remember him as the coal-mining father from “October Sky” (1999). Cooper steals the show (and then runs it) as Robert Hanssen, an intimidator who likes to be called “Sir” or “Boss.” Either works for him.
Hanssen is exceptionally intelligent, a devout Catholic, a loving husband, a good grandpa and the former head of the FBI’s Soviet Analytical Unit. And he’s a sexual deviant. (Some of us have a weakness for marshmallow Peeps, others have weirder vices, but none of us is perfect.)
FBI agent Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney) assigns an ambitious, prospective agent named Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) to be Hanssen’s clerk (a.k.a. spy) to collect information about the veteran’s unsavory habits. It’s this cat-and-mouse spying game that produces the suspense.
I’ve just described what the movie is about without revealing what it’s about. I do not spoil movies (though I do like marshmallow Peeps).
While watching “Breach,” it’s fascinating to try to discern whether Hanssen knows O’Neill’s true purpose. We know that the rookie is naive and inexperienced, but he’s also capable and talented. Does Hanssen know all of that, too?
The key to “Breach” is Chris Cooper’s development of the Hanssen character. Everything he says and does is convincing. We can tell that he’s a good man, but something is amiss.
At one point in the film, we viewers are provoked to ask an inevitable “Why?” question. The answer is given to us, but with subtlety. Be sure you don’t miss it.
Again, I won’t spoil anything, so read on unafraid: At the end of the movie, we grow concerned that the filmmakers don’t know what to do for an ending. But then we’re delightfully surprised when “Breach” concludes on the right note. The very last scene rings true, and we believe it.
I walked out of the theater impressed, and with a smile of satisfaction. The only thing I was missing was marshmallow Peeps.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: Don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0057 : 385
Directed by Billy Ray
Chris Cooper / Ryan Phillippe / Laura Linney
110 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (for violence, sexual content and language)
Review by Jason Pyles / March 16, 2007
A good thriller makes its audience care about its protagonist(s). But “Breach” goes further: It makes you have compassion for its antagonist, too.
Based on a true story, “Breach” tells the story of what is said to be “the greatest security breach in U.S. history.” Surprisingly, the movie is intriguing and engaging without any car chases or shoot-outs. The filmmakers rely on actual suspense rather than action. Wonders abound.
“Breach” is quite good, almost excellent, primarily because of one actor’s performance: Chris Cooper. You’ll remember him as the coal-mining father from “October Sky” (1999). Cooper steals the show (and then runs it) as Robert Hanssen, an intimidator who likes to be called “Sir” or “Boss.” Either works for him.
Hanssen is exceptionally intelligent, a devout Catholic, a loving husband, a good grandpa and the former head of the FBI’s Soviet Analytical Unit. And he’s a sexual deviant. (Some of us have a weakness for marshmallow Peeps, others have weirder vices, but none of us is perfect.)
FBI agent Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney) assigns an ambitious, prospective agent named Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) to be Hanssen’s clerk (a.k.a. spy) to collect information about the veteran’s unsavory habits. It’s this cat-and-mouse spying game that produces the suspense.
I’ve just described what the movie is about without revealing what it’s about. I do not spoil movies (though I do like marshmallow Peeps).
While watching “Breach,” it’s fascinating to try to discern whether Hanssen knows O’Neill’s true purpose. We know that the rookie is naive and inexperienced, but he’s also capable and talented. Does Hanssen know all of that, too?
The key to “Breach” is Chris Cooper’s development of the Hanssen character. Everything he says and does is convincing. We can tell that he’s a good man, but something is amiss.
At one point in the film, we viewers are provoked to ask an inevitable “Why?” question. The answer is given to us, but with subtlety. Be sure you don’t miss it.
Again, I won’t spoil anything, so read on unafraid: At the end of the movie, we grow concerned that the filmmakers don’t know what to do for an ending. But then we’re delightfully surprised when “Breach” concludes on the right note. The very last scene rings true, and we believe it.
I walked out of the theater impressed, and with a smile of satisfaction. The only thing I was missing was marshmallow Peeps.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent / theater option (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: Don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0057 : 385
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
