Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
“Gone Baby Gone” is a good, hard punch in the face. Calling it entertainment seems inappropriate, but calling this movie excellent is right on the money. Few movies have left me frozen in the theater seat after the credits began to roll, but this one did.
More than disturbing, “Gone Baby Gone” is unsettling. If you think I’ve revealed the ending, or anything significant about the movie by writing that, you’re wrong. This review contains no spoilers. Consider all of the above mere warnings. Besides, you couldn’t possibly guess the film’s final shot and its penetrating reality.
A child has been abducted in Boston. An adorable, little four-year-old girl named Amanda McCready (Madeline O’Brien) has vanished. Seventy-six hours have passed. Maybe the unthinkable has happened (or is happening).
The little girl’s aunt and uncle hire Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan, the cool gal from “The Heartbreak Kid”) as private detectives to help with the search. Despite the Boston police’s not being thrilled about their new “partners,” the investigators all work together on their common goal.
We follow the police and the detectives during this investigation into a grotesque menagerie of seedy characters, and the vilest of all may be the missing girl’s drug-addict “mother,” a word that’s only true in the biological sense. That is all I will write regarding what the movie is about. The following describes how it is about it.
“Gone Baby Gone” is dreadfully sad and difficult to watch, but not for the reasons you’d think. If you’re human, while watching you’ll have tears, anger and anxiety close to the surface. And if you’re sensitive, some of those will spill over.
But it’s important to note that “Gone Baby Gone” is not cheaply manipulative. A horrifying look into a pedophile’s dwelling shows us unpleasant things, but not the all-too-common graphic, ghastly exploitation trend of the modern horror genre.
The movie notably raises questions about “justice” for pedophiles, child neglecters, abusers and killers.
“Gone Baby Gone” has many strengths, but its casting by Nadia Aleyd and Donna Morong is unrivaled all the way back to “The Godfather” (1972). Let me be more emphatic: If there were a casting Oscar, those two would get it, probably for the next two years. The people selected to inhabit the characters for these roles are picture perfect, as well as fine actors.
Speaking of fine acting, Casey Affleck (Ben’s little brother) has established himself as a dramatic force to be reckoned with. This performance and his role in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” are both stellar. And if you haven’t seen his experimental film that he starred in with Matt Damon called “Gerry” (2002), it would be a good choice for expanding your cinematic-viewing horizons.
Veteran actor Morgan Freeman delivers a shattering monologue that is unbearable to hear. It’s not that it’s graphic; it’s just potent. Ed Harris is nothing less than ferocious, and his goatee adds to his ferocity.
“Gone Baby Gone” is rated R for violence (which is considerable), drug content (which is significant) and “pervasive language” (which is an understatement). Pervasive, indeed.
This film isn’t perfect, though. At one point the movie becomes purposely confusing. Don’t worry: Even the most careful viewer will be lost, for that is what is intended. The twists and turns pile up a little too high, however, detracting from the realism of the film’s themes. This movie is too heavy to go out on a limb that far. But two primary episodic narratives told as a mini story sandwiched within a larger one makes up for some of the deficit.
Oh, and I can’t forget to compliment a momentary, stylistic use of silence that hearkens back to “Cop Land” (1997).
Ben Affleck has made a fine film, a movie about doing the right thing (and whether that’s always the best thing). Life-changing movies, if they exist at all, may only be fleeting and temporary. And that’s too bad, because films like “Gone Baby Gone” need to stick ... permanently.
Directed by Ben Affleck
Casey Affleck / Morgan Freeman / Ed Harris
114 min. Drama / Mystery
MPPA: R (for violence, drug content and pervasive language)
Copyright 2007. 202
Monday, October 22, 2007
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 22, 2007
In 1998, Shekhar Kapur directed “Elizabeth,” a film that depicts the so-called “Virgin Queen,” Elizabeth I’s (Cate Blanchett) turbulent inheritance of the throne of England, and her necessarily rapid learning curve.
During the course of the movie, which covers the first five years of her reign, we see an idealistic, young woman who is transformed into a mighty monarch.
Nearly a decade later, Kapur reassembles Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush again for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; and despite its continuation of superb performances and spectacular sets and costumes, alas, this new film falls prey to the sequel curse, which simply means “it’s not as good as the first one.”
This is why: In the first film, suspense and intrigue prevail because Elizabeth’s deadly enemies surrounded the unseasoned queen within her perilous palace. But in “The Golden Age,” the experienced monarch’s most fearsome threat, King Philip II of Spain, and his looming naval warfare, all seem afar off and less threatening ... probably because he is far off and therefore, less threatening.
Instead, this film is concerned with paying close attention to Elizabeth’s loneliness, and her fascination with the rugged adventurer-explorer Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). While the first film held true to its artistic merit, “The Golden Age” gives us the old reliable: a love story and battle scenes.
“The Golden Age” also succumbs to other common conventions that are beneath a movie of its quality. For example, each time King Philip is shown in his castle, or Mary Stuart, the sets are dark and gloomy, and the music ominous and unsettling. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s castle is bathed in sunbeams, moon dreams, dancing beans and a charismatic Clive Owen (which is funny considering that a movie about King Philip would place Elizabeth I in villainous environs).
As for the rating, PG-13 is a little gracious because the blood, violence, and torture scenes rapidly approach the subjective “R” status, especially when joined with mild sexuality and brief nudity.
In the end, the movie is worth seeing solely on the merits of Cate Blanchett’s performance. She is the foremost actress of her generation, the queen, indeed. None can rival her. Her stormy delivery of the “I have a hurricane in me ... “ line, shown in the trailer, literally floods me with chills each time I experience it.
And if you want to know just how talented Cate Blanchett is, look at her range by watching “The Golden Age,” then “The Aviator” (2004) and “Bandits” (2001). Wow. She does Katharine Hepburn better than Katharine Hepburn did Katharine Hepburn. A rose is a rose is a rose, but Cate can be anything she wants.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Cate Blanchett / Geoffrey Rush / Clive Owen
114 min. Drama / History
MPPA: PG-13 (for violence, some sexuality and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 201
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Heartbreak Kid (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 30
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
Based on an innocent 1972 film by the same name, the Farrelly brothers’ remake of “The Heartbreak Kid” twists its ideal premise (meeting Miss Right after marrying Miss Wrong) into sordid, romantic comedy squalor.
Something terribly upsetting is happening with so-called romantic comedies these days. They have degenerated, like inbred anteaters, into grotesqueries such as “Knocked Up” and “Good Luck Chuck.” Note to guys: These movies are not what your sweethearts have in mind when they say they want to see a “chick flick.”
For your convenience, the following are good choices for romantic dates: “Becoming Jane,” “The Lake House,” “Waitress” and “No Reservations.”
It’s not that “The Heartbreak Kid” doesn’t have some funny parts, because it does, especially if you enjoy an exasperated Ben Stiller’s “anger humor.” But when a movie’s message seems to be, “Don’t get married; and if you do make that mistake, leave your spouse for someone that you like better whenever the goin’ gets tough,” it quickly becomes disheartening. Can you see why this might not make a good date movie?
Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a single man in San Francisco who’s getting older and feeling pressure to settle down. His old flame is getting married. Eddie’s vile father (Jerry Stiller) harasses him with even viler words about his “deficit of nighttime companionship.” And his best friend (whose marriage is horrifying) unconvincingly pushes him to experience the joys of a nuptial union.
At about this time, Eddie meets Lila (Malin Akerman). She seems like the perfect gal. So, after a brief courtship and intense prodding from his cohorts, Eddie marries Lila, a woman he hardly knows. As their honeymoon to Mexico begins, Eddie quickly learns revolting revelations about his new bride. But amid his increasing misery, he discovers Miranda (Michelle Monaghan), the one he should have married.
Aside from its thematic moral offenses that won’t offend everyone, where “The Heartbreak Kid” derails, killing goats, kittens and small children, is when we’re shown not one but two graphic glimpses of Lila’s alarming, aberrant bedroom behavior. These scenes single-handedly ruin the movie, for they are neither comedic nor romantic; they forsake this genre and would be more at home in an explicit horror film or some NC-17 piece of trash.
Were it not for these scenes, “The Heartbreak Kid” would be decent. But even its underlying messages would be unsettling to those who have “traditional, middle-American values.”
Despite this lapse, the Farrelly brothers have a talent for comedy, even romantic comedy. Their movie, “Fever Pitch,” one of the best comedies of 2005, should not be forgotten. Indeed, it can be added to the favorable, heartwarming, humorous date movies listed above, outshining the likes of “The Heartbreak Kid” in its dismal dregs below.
Directed by Bobby and Peter Farrelly
Ben Stiller / Michelle Monaghan / Malin Akerman
115 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: R (for strong sexual content, crude humor and language)
Copyright 2007. 196
Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 55
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 10, 2007
“Resident Evil: Extinction” is the third installment of a video game-gone-movie series; and like the first two releases, it’s a zombie movie. If you haven’t seen either of the previous “Resident Evil” flicks, think “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider” meets “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” meets “28 Weeks Later” (2007).
Now think about what better movies you can go see, instead.
Are zombie movies fun? Yes. Why? For the same reasons that it’s fun for little kids to spread a blanket on the floor and pretend it’s a raft floating on lava. Or, the same reason why, since the invention of the balloon, people like to play that dumb game where you can’t let the balloon touch the ground. We like the thrill of things that “should not” but eventually, inevitably will. Zombie movies thrill us because they work according to this same principle.
Of course, there are much better options for zombie movies, if that’s your thing. There are those intentionally mingled with comedy: “Shaun of the Dead” (2004). There are those that are actually scary and have little-to-no comedy: “28 Days Later” (2002). Then there are those that are better than the “Resident Evil” series, which nearly covers everything else, including the original and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” (1978, 2004).
It’s not that “Extinction” is a bad movie. It’s fairly entertaining and funny, though the humor is probably, for the most part, unintentional. But the dialogue and the acting are more or less inexcusable. Some bad dialogue is quotable for its intrinsic mockery value, such as “I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here, everything is soft and smooth” (“Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones”). Other bad dialogue is best left unrepeated.
The outbreak continues. The viral infection that left most of the Earth in withered ruins still plagues the barren landscape, which is primarily inhabited by roaming undead who love to feed on “un-undead” (regular humans) flesh. Alice (Milla Jovovich) wanders about in solitude, keeping on the move and scavenging the smaller ghost towns for fuel, just as the other survivors are wont to do.
Meanwhile, a caravan of virus-free, tough customers who have banded together (which include some of Alice’s old peeps), plan to find enough fuel to travel from the deserts of Utah and Nevada to Alaska, a possible place of uninfected refuge. And, of course, the corrupt, international Umbrella Corp. continues its experiments and mad-scientist testing, which makes the fleeing caravan’s ambition more difficult to realize.
Overall, “Resident Evil: Extinction” is more of the same and about what you’d expect: intermittent suspenseful moments, easily anticipated jolts and lots of gory, blood-splattering zombie killings. Ah, the evolution of American entertainment … it just keeps getting better and better.
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Milla Jovovich / Oded Fehr / Iain Glen
95 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for strong horror violence throughout and some nudity)
Copyright 2007. 195
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Across the Universe (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
The following people will cherish the new Beatles-song musical, “Across the Universe”: those who love the Silver Beetles, those who watch for the synchronicity of “The Wizard of Oz” and Pink Floyd's “Dark Side of the Moon,” those who relish “Tommy” (1975) and “The Wall” (1982), those who risk eating Pop Rocks with soda, and those who do drugs.
Don't do drugs.
Not only has this been "The Summer of 'Suck-quels,'" (“Bourne” and “Ocean’s” excluded), but summer 2007 also seems to be the comeback attempt for faded genres, such as the western (“3:10 to Yuma”) and the musical (“Hairspray”).
And though many musicals are like eggnog (a little goes a long way), “Across the Universe” showcases an artistic richness, particularly with its colorful production design, vibrant visual effects and soundtrack ... unlike eggnog.
Indeed, the music alone is worth the admission price, featuring more than 30, well-done Beatles cover tunes that play more like music videos than musical numbers. According to Amazon.com, the CD soundtrack has 16 of the 30-plus songs, which would be money well spent.
By the way, “Across the Universe” is rated PG-13, but conservative viewers will likely disagree with this rating due to more than one instance of "artistically depicted" nudity.
Much like the Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which further develops the storylines of characters in Billy Joel songs, “Across the Universe” creates a screenplay that loosely incorporates The Beatles' songs'characters and concepts into the story.
It is the 1960s and the Vietnam War is underway. Jude (Jim Sturgess) travels from Liverpool, England to Princeton, N.J. to meet someone who played a significant, rather enjoyable role in his past. During his visit, Jude encounters Max (Joe Anderson) and his sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood).
The siblings become fast friends with Jude, so they eventually end up living in New York City, meeting other characters with Beatles song names, such as JoJo and Prudence. Max receives an unlucky invitation. Lucy passionately protests the war, supplying unmistakable parallels to present-day arguments against the Iraq War. And Jude wanders amid the colorful mayhem, singing songs, looking sad and being British.
In truth, not very much happens in “Across the Universe,” especially considering its overlong 131-minute runtime. But Beatles freaks, even the purists, will enjoy the buried nuggets that nod to the knowledgeable fans who, like Maxwell, are "silver hammer men" (or women).
Addenda:
Speaking of the Piano Man, Billy Joel himself will be performing at Salt Lake's EnergySolutions Arena Nov. 29. And, you can find out why Pop Rocks pop, the candy's history and other need-to-knowinfo at www.poprockscandy.com
Directed by Julie Taymor
Jim Sturgess / Evan Rachel Wood / Joe Anderson
131 min. Musical / Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 194
The Kingdom (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 4, 2007
“The Kingdom” may very well end up being the best movie of the year. It achieves many uncommon feats within the context of one film, which means that it is an effective action film, an effective drama and an effective thriller. Also, “The Kingdom” has poignant moments where it resonates with strong, emotional points that are minimally preachy. And, I might add, the acting is excellent, too, which is often uncharacteristic of the action genre.
The movie’s title refers to “the kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (a phrase used in the movie), which is where terrorists attack an idyllic picnic and softball game at an American compound. The victims include men, women and child of all ages. These images of horror, though shocking, are only part of the most horrifying elements in the movie.
Immediately, the FBI desires to visit Saudi Arabia and investigate the crime scene. But, of course, we are subjected to the frustrating moments of red tape, delicate diplomatic considerations and so forth. When a special, four-member, Evidence Response team is dispatched, there is a lengthy portion establishing the extreme differences in culture, including varying investigative practices and attitudes toward women.
Much of the plot is a police procedural, which has been equated with “CSI” (but is, in fact, not quite as extensive). We follow the team’s leader, Ron Fleury (Jamie Foxx), and his crew played by Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. The four actors work well together, and their camaraderie is credible. Perhaps the best performance, however, comes from the team’s friend and guide, Colonel Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom), a family man who doesn’t like profanity.
You’ve probably seen director Peter Berg’s work before: “Friday Night Lights” (2004), “The Rundown” (2003) and “Very Bad Things” (1998). But “The Kingdom” is his best. It seems real, like we’re watching a documentary. And thankfully, unlike other action flicks, there aren’t painful one-liners blurted in the midst of intense action, a sure-fire way to incorporate artificiality at the cost of a laugh.
“The Kingdom” is meant to entertain, but I suspect that this purpose is secondary. I’m guessing that this film is meant to be eye opening. This moment happened for me when we get to see some of the little, unpleasant surprises the terrorists include while building their bombs, namely marbles and nails. Absolutely chilling.
While watching “The Kingdom,” I had the most troublesome feeling: I literally felt dread come over me because I was worried about some radical extremist blowing up the theater. In addition to my tangible uneasiness, this also filled me with sadness. Naturally, experiencing a well-executed movie like “The Kingdom” might make anyone leery; but beyond that, I couldn’t help but feel that after six years, the chill of terrorism has sunk into my bones.
Directed by Peter Berg
Jamie Foxx / Chris Cooper / Jennifer Garner
110 min. Action / Drama
MPAA: R (for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007. 193
Friday, September 28, 2007
Mr. Woodcock (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 58
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 28, 2007
If you look on the wrappers of Hershey’s chocolate bars this fall, you’ll see a photo of country music star Brad Paisley. This is a strange sight for me. I grew up in West Virginia and attended John Marshall High School in Glen Dale, which is the same small town where Brad Paisley grew up and the high school he attended.
Though I never knew him, as he is a couple years older than I am, the locals say that he was introverted and quiet. Now he is rich and famous and married to Kimberly Williams, the bride from “Father of the Bride” (1991). Their connection is a remarkable story for another time and another review; faithful readers will encounter it someday.
In April of 2002, Paisley came back to our mutual stomping grounds and played “An Evening Back Home” concert (which was spectacular). I remember, while driving up to the concert, seeing a gigantic stretch limo headed for his parents’ home to pick them up. The capacity crowd in the Wheeling Civic Center roared, cheering for our hometown boy who made it big and become a hero. And he still is.
Similarly, John Farley (Seann William Scott) was a nobody from the small town of Forest Meadow, Nebraska, but he grew up and became the famous, inspirational, self-help book author of “Letting Go: How to Get Past Your Past.”
Apparently, Farley had a lot to let go of. He was traumatized as a middle school kid by an abusively demanding gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), and Farley’s father died leaving him and his widowed mother alone.
Farley is invited to receive the honorable “Corn Cob Key to the City,” so the celebrity writer returns home to a hero’s welcome, much like Braid Paisley. But to his horror, his sweet, single mother (Susan Sarandon) has begun dating the dreaded Mr. Woodcock.
This strain between the positive-thinking, self-help guru and the aggressive, critical Phys. Ed. teacher is the main conflict and supposed source of humor. And, at times, it is somewhat funny. Those times are few.
But as the movie progresses, “Mr. Woodcock” becomes remarkably similar to “Meet the Parents” (2000), especially the Robert DeNiro--Ben Stiller battle. In fact, the big, revelatory blow-up scene from “Meet the Parents” is echoed with precision in “Mr. Woodcock.” That being noted, if you have seen neither movie, “Meet the Parents” is far superior. But in both cases, you have a basically good guy who has everything go wrong for him.
I expected “Mr. Woodcock” to be much worse, as far as lewd content, considering its title and Billy Bob Thornton’s presence (“Bad Santa,” 2003). But surprisingly, it isn’t quite as crude and crass as I had feared, though its PG-13 rating is deserved, every whit.
Overall, “Mr. Woodcock” gains momentum, providing a couple chuckles later in the film, but it’s nothing to write home about. In other words, this movie isn’t going to earn director Craig Gillespie the same kind of warm welcome-home celebration that Brad Paisley receives.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Billy Bob Thornton / Seann William Scott / Susan Sarandon
87 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, thematic material, language and a mild drug reference)
Copyright 2007. 191
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 28, 2007
If you look on the wrappers of Hershey’s chocolate bars this fall, you’ll see a photo of country music star Brad Paisley. This is a strange sight for me. I grew up in West Virginia and attended John Marshall High School in Glen Dale, which is the same small town where Brad Paisley grew up and the high school he attended.
Though I never knew him, as he is a couple years older than I am, the locals say that he was introverted and quiet. Now he is rich and famous and married to Kimberly Williams, the bride from “Father of the Bride” (1991). Their connection is a remarkable story for another time and another review; faithful readers will encounter it someday.
In April of 2002, Paisley came back to our mutual stomping grounds and played “An Evening Back Home” concert (which was spectacular). I remember, while driving up to the concert, seeing a gigantic stretch limo headed for his parents’ home to pick them up. The capacity crowd in the Wheeling Civic Center roared, cheering for our hometown boy who made it big and become a hero. And he still is.
Similarly, John Farley (Seann William Scott) was a nobody from the small town of Forest Meadow, Nebraska, but he grew up and became the famous, inspirational, self-help book author of “Letting Go: How to Get Past Your Past.”
Apparently, Farley had a lot to let go of. He was traumatized as a middle school kid by an abusively demanding gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), and Farley’s father died leaving him and his widowed mother alone.
Farley is invited to receive the honorable “Corn Cob Key to the City,” so the celebrity writer returns home to a hero’s welcome, much like Braid Paisley. But to his horror, his sweet, single mother (Susan Sarandon) has begun dating the dreaded Mr. Woodcock.
This strain between the positive-thinking, self-help guru and the aggressive, critical Phys. Ed. teacher is the main conflict and supposed source of humor. And, at times, it is somewhat funny. Those times are few.
But as the movie progresses, “Mr. Woodcock” becomes remarkably similar to “Meet the Parents” (2000), especially the Robert DeNiro--Ben Stiller battle. In fact, the big, revelatory blow-up scene from “Meet the Parents” is echoed with precision in “Mr. Woodcock.” That being noted, if you have seen neither movie, “Meet the Parents” is far superior. But in both cases, you have a basically good guy who has everything go wrong for him.
I expected “Mr. Woodcock” to be much worse, as far as lewd content, considering its title and Billy Bob Thornton’s presence (“Bad Santa,” 2003). But surprisingly, it isn’t quite as crude and crass as I had feared, though its PG-13 rating is deserved, every whit.
Overall, “Mr. Woodcock” gains momentum, providing a couple chuckles later in the film, but it’s nothing to write home about. In other words, this movie isn’t going to earn director Craig Gillespie the same kind of warm welcome-home celebration that Brad Paisley receives.
Directed by Craig Gillespie
Billy Bob Thornton / Seann William Scott / Susan Sarandon
87 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude sexual content, thematic material, language and a mild drug reference)
Copyright 2007. 191
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Eastern Promises (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 90
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
“Eastern Promises” is an uncomfortably uneasy film. Watching it is like walking through a minefield. This is the kind of movie where you don’t feel safe, even though you know you’re seated in a cushy theater chair.
But don’t misunderstand me: It’s not that “Eastern Promises” is overly suspenseful; that’s not it. The reason this movie is excellent is its characters are so diabolical, we squirm with anxiety about what they might do next. Indeed, there are several loose cannons rolling around on board this ship.
If you’re a Mafia movie fan, as I am, then you’ll be familiar with Joe Pesci’s explosive roles, such as his Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas” (1990). But “Eastern Promises” has similar (but less flamboyant) nut-jobs who are sleeping tigers, and Naomi Watts’ character repeatedly kicks them.
Anna (Naomi Watts) works in a hospital in London. One of her less fortunate patients has to deliver her baby early, due to hemorrhaging. The tiny child is orphaned at birth. But Anna finds the mother’s diary, which recounts her dark, dreary days. The journal’s contents, written in Russian, are potentially deadly.
Also inhabiting London are some members of the Vory V Zakone (the Russian Mafia). Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a wealthy restaurateur with an emotionally unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel, “Ocean’s 12”). They employ the fearsome Siberian named Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) who coyly claims that’s he’s “just a driver,” but we know (and fear) that he’s so much more.
In true Mafia fashion, these three are capable of anything — especially any unthinkable thing. And Anna, incapable of apathy, insists on having the dangerous diary translated in hopes of finding out whom the baby should belong to.
Now, if you doubt whether Viggo Mortensen could ever pull off “frightening” and a convincing Russian accent, all at the same time, then you’re dead wrong. His performance, mark my words, is Oscar-nomination worthy.
“Eastern Promises” is an exceptional film. It is also gruesome and graphic. This movie isn’t your grandpa’s Mafia, in the vein of the 1930s gangster pictures. “Eastern Promises” has the same grit as a Scorsese film: atmospheric, moody, horrifying and wonderful.
Directed by David Cronenberg
Naomi Watts / Viggo Mortensen / Vincent Cassel
100 min. Thriller / Crime
MPAA: R (for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity)
Copyright 2007. 189
The Brave One (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Not to be confused with the 1957 film called "The Brave One," which is about a Mexican boy and his bull, this brave one essentially refers to a female superhero (minus the super powers), much like Batman, who becomes a vigilante by taking the law into her own hands. And just like many other superhero stories, the villains create their monstrous tormentor.
And though it has been getting mixed reviews, this critic is here to tell you that this flick "delivers the goods," which is to say, it gives us exactly what we want. Without question, "The Brave One" manipulates us with Hollywood conventions and unlikely occurrences, but it's a good time nonetheless.
I noted that Jodie Foster's character, Erica Bain, evokes the same torn feelings within us that Michael Douglas' William Foster makes us feel in "Falling Down" (1993), another vigilante flick where a regular person goes berserk, lashing out at the evil people of the world. At first, we enjoy this to the point of amusement. But as the afflicted one spins out of control, we begin to cringe and grow concerned.
Erica Bain walks the city with a microphone, recording its organic and inorganic, auditory wonders. She uses these recordings as the ambient backdrop for her radio talk show, "Streetwalk." Bain is deeply in love and unofficially engaged to David (Naveen Andrews, "L O S T"). The wedding invitations have already been ordered.
One fateful night, the two inexplicably enjoy a streetwalk through Central park … again, at night. They are attacked and while she is merely brutally beaten, David is killed. Be warned, this scene is terribly unsettling, especially if you're the type of viewers who identifies with the characters.
As she recovers weeks later, still sore with fear, she purchases a gun and learns how to use it. The rest of the movie depicts Bain's bitterness, enjoyment and guilt while she administers swift justice to the scum of New York. One of the film's great strength's is Bain's initial weakness: She isn't automatically a Rambo; instead, she is awkward, unsure and fumbling while mastering her firearm.
"Disturbing" movies used to be my favorite kind of films. But the older I get, the harder they are to take. "The Brave One" is remarkably relentless and fairly graphic, particularly the upsetting attack scene that serves as the inciting incident.
Interestingly, to help us maintain our support of Erica's onslaught, the filmmakers give us repeated, brief flashbacks to that horrid event, so we can stay angry and justify her actions, a theme that's reinforced and carried throughout the film.
Despite the contrivance, "The Brave One" is solid, if some suspension of disbelief is allowed. We see other recurring themes, too, such as dominant female characters, various forms of recording the events of the city and the moral wrestle between doing what's right and doing what needs to be done.
Directed by Neil Jordan
Jodie Foster / Terrence Howard / Naveen Andrews
119 min. Drama / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong violence, language and some sexuality)
Copyright 2007. 191
D-War (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 48
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
X Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / September 27, 2007
Back when I played with toys, it was only on rare, brief occasions that I would dump out the entire toy box and mix action figures, battling and blending different worlds. Why were those moments only rare and brief? Because it was just weird, and I knew better.
So I ask, why didn’t Hyung-rae Shim, the writer and director of “D-War,” know better?
“D-War” is a conglomeration of multiple other, much more successful fantasy films, with a comic-book quality plot. Oddly, the story explaining the movie’s events, which is already weak, is weakened further by additional, extensively complicated, uninteresting background elements.
Yes, “D-War” blatantly rips off (and poorly, I might add) so many other movies, I’d rather just plagiarize and copy and paste someone else’s review than revisit it by continuing to tell you about it.
Basically, if you’ve seen the droid-Gungan battle on Naboo in “The Phantom Menace” (1999), then you’ve already seen much of “D-War.” But I’m not talking about mere imitation, I’m speaking of potential copyright infringement. For instance, there are shields in “D-War” that you’ll recognize from “Phantom Menace.” And how about Phantom’s big creatures with big, round things strapped on their backs? “D-War” has those, too.
Do you remember seeing velociraptors in “Jurassic Park” (1993)? Because I remember seeing them in “D-War” (except they had wings). Oh, and remember the red-letter design for the CNN logo? “D-War” has the exact same design for its news station, CGNN. Why not simply use CNN, just as other movies do?
And another thing, let’s decide on a title. Although the IMDb.com lists this movie as “D-War,” the movie’s actual title screen reads: “D-War Dragon Wars.” That’s like writing my name “J-Pyle Jason Pyles”; it’s just redundant and repetitive. ... tee he. (Speaking of repetitive, the trailers make it seem like we will see a variety of beasts, but alas, there are only a few creatures repeatedly shown over and over.)
But, there are lots of martial artists. Yes, we go from a dinosaur-ish movie to a “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) meets “Shogun” (1980) amalgam. These characters don’t really work, either; nor do they fit.
I’ll do my best with the plot (and I’m not making this up): Every 500 years a woman is born with the power to turn a serpent into a dragon. A good serpent called “Imoogi” must unite with “Yuh Yi Joo,” which is something formed in the golden girl’s body, and then the Imoogi snake can turn into a dragon and ascend into heaven. But, there’s an evil serpent called “Buraki,” who has the same goal as Imoogi, but he’s evil. So, the last time the chance came, it didn’t work out. Now, 500 years later, the time has come for this opportunity again. Meanwhile, while these giant serpents try to find the Yuh Yi Joo possessor, they and their cohorts wreak havoc on civilization. I’m pretty sure I got all of that description correct.
I’m being so hard on “D-War” because I believe it could have been much better. Why not just make a movie where, without any explanation, monsters attack cities? That’s what we want to see from a movie like this, not Ryu Hayabusha’s (Ninja Gaiden) dating woes. This movie’s special effects, at times, are marvelous and occasionally rival any big-budget blockbuster’s CGI. The creatures will look convincingly real in one scene, then very crude in the next.
Yeah, I might like this movie if I were still seven years old. But maybe not. After all, I still kept the action figure sets separate during play, even at that age. I suggest that Hyung-rae Shim put all his toys back in the toy box and just focus on choosing one movie title. After that, he can work on writing a good story and screenplay. And if all goes well, then maybe he can play with his dinosaurs or ninjas, but not both.
Directed by Hyung-rae Shim
Jason Behr / Amanda Brooks / Robert Forster
107 min. Fantasy / Action
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and creature action)
Copyright 2007. 190
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
