Monday, May 31, 2010
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Star Trek (2009)
Since around 8th grade or so, I have been a pretty diehard Star Wars fan through and through. I loved everything Star Wars. It was my real catalyst into the sci-fi genre in general, despite being more of a fantasy-oriented space epic than actual science fiction. But yes, I played the video games, I read a bunch of the books, I bought a couple LEGO sets... I even named a few of my stuffed animals after Star Wars characters, or derived their names from them anyway. I was pretty well entrenched as a Star Wars guy, then as I am now.
Which meant, for whatever reason that I can't really explain, I was never all that into Star Trek.
I truly don't understand why I wasn't more interested. I liked the whole sci-fi thing, sure, but Star Trek just always seemed a little foreign to me. I've seen some episodes of Star Trek: Generations, and I probably saw more episodes of Voyager than I could even remember, but that was moreso just because it happened to be on TV, not because I was going out of my way to see it. I'd never seen any of the feature films, either.
That is, until this past week.
I'd been interested in seeing the new Star Trek movie in large part because of my personal history (or lack thereof) with the franchise. Basically, I felt like this would be a good chance to really introduce myself to the series, and to the characters. I mean, everyone knows who Captain Kirk is, who Mr. Spock is, and most people are familiar with characters like Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura. But to actually get a feel for the characters? Well, I was going to have to actually see them. Plus, the previews just plain looked awesome. How could I resist?
Well, I've seen it. And I can't really say much about it. Other than it's just plain awesome.
Seriously, why bother breaking down the plot or anything? It's a Star Trek movie. The main thing to understand is that it's truly a reboot of the series, with a literal alternate timeline being created to pave the way for an entirely new retelling of Star Trek however the producers want to take it. Other than that, it's pretty much two hours and change of delightfully brilliant sci-fi scenes intermixed with genuinely compelling drama and surprisingly hilarious comedy. I was literally blown away by how impressed I was. The characters were all spot-on, regardless of whether or not they protrayed their original counterparts correctly (I'm gonna go ahead and say they did), and every scene is just so darn good. About the only problem I had with it was that Scotty (deftly portrayed by Simon Pegg) was only on screen for the final quarter of the film. I could watch an entire movie dedicated to him and enjoy it. Hilarious.
Rating: 9 out of 10. The only reason I'm not giving it a 10 is because I'm going to attempt to really reserve that for what I believe is absolute cinematic perfection. This is close... but let's not overstep our bounds here. I really loved this movie, though. It gives wonderful fan service the whole movie through, referencing as many little things from the original series as I could remember ("Damnit, I'm a doctor not a physicist!"), while directing us through a spectacular sight to behold in every scene that flies by. The die-hard trekkie can't be disappointed by this (or it'd be difficult, anyway), and the casual observer ought to love it too. All-around great sci-fi action-y fun.
Which meant, for whatever reason that I can't really explain, I was never all that into Star Trek.
I truly don't understand why I wasn't more interested. I liked the whole sci-fi thing, sure, but Star Trek just always seemed a little foreign to me. I've seen some episodes of Star Trek: Generations, and I probably saw more episodes of Voyager than I could even remember, but that was moreso just because it happened to be on TV, not because I was going out of my way to see it. I'd never seen any of the feature films, either.
That is, until this past week.
I'd been interested in seeing the new Star Trek movie in large part because of my personal history (or lack thereof) with the franchise. Basically, I felt like this would be a good chance to really introduce myself to the series, and to the characters. I mean, everyone knows who Captain Kirk is, who Mr. Spock is, and most people are familiar with characters like Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura. But to actually get a feel for the characters? Well, I was going to have to actually see them. Plus, the previews just plain looked awesome. How could I resist?
Well, I've seen it. And I can't really say much about it. Other than it's just plain awesome.
Seriously, why bother breaking down the plot or anything? It's a Star Trek movie. The main thing to understand is that it's truly a reboot of the series, with a literal alternate timeline being created to pave the way for an entirely new retelling of Star Trek however the producers want to take it. Other than that, it's pretty much two hours and change of delightfully brilliant sci-fi scenes intermixed with genuinely compelling drama and surprisingly hilarious comedy. I was literally blown away by how impressed I was. The characters were all spot-on, regardless of whether or not they protrayed their original counterparts correctly (I'm gonna go ahead and say they did), and every scene is just so darn good. About the only problem I had with it was that Scotty (deftly portrayed by Simon Pegg) was only on screen for the final quarter of the film. I could watch an entire movie dedicated to him and enjoy it. Hilarious.
Rating: 9 out of 10. The only reason I'm not giving it a 10 is because I'm going to attempt to really reserve that for what I believe is absolute cinematic perfection. This is close... but let's not overstep our bounds here. I really loved this movie, though. It gives wonderful fan service the whole movie through, referencing as many little things from the original series as I could remember ("Damnit, I'm a doctor not a physicist!"), while directing us through a spectacular sight to behold in every scene that flies by. The die-hard trekkie can't be disappointed by this (or it'd be difficult, anyway), and the casual observer ought to love it too. All-around great sci-fi action-y fun.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Watchmen (2009)
I'm going to be blunt. Watchmen is a fascinating comic book/graphic novel/whatever you want to call it. I read it over the winter in anticipation of the upcoming film and decided that it was an excellent piece of literature, if extremely raw and untamed, and turning into a feature film would be both very simple given the story's scene structure and extremely difficult given the subject matter. So suffice it to say, the whole thing is fascinating.
The movie? Complicated.
The story itself is complex to begin with, so I'll try to be brief. Watchmen takes place in an alternate universe where superheroes are real, but aside from one real exception, none of them really have any actual superpowers. In fact, "masked adventuring" is actually considered something of an American hobby or pasttime, like flag-pole sitting or baseball. History basically goes on the same as our own until that one real exception, a being known as Dr. Manhattan, arrives on the scene, with the ability to manipulate matter pretty much on whim. With this new being at the disposal of the American military, Nixon wins the war in Vietnam in like a week or something, repeals the 22nd Amendment, and is reelected four times due to his overwhelming popularity therefrom. Meanwhile, masked adventuring becomes illegal due to its apparent subversion of the law, and superheroes (other than a choice two who're contracted out by the government, Manhattan and The Comedian) all go underground, mostly retired. The story really begins when The Comedian is unexpectedly murdered in his New York City apartment, causing a chain of events led by an investigation by Rorschach, a hero who never quits no matter what it takes (and usually, it takes killing people). And that's hardly scratching the surface.
As far as being faithful to the original source material, it's incredible just how much they did stick to the book. Really, only little bits here and there were altered, other than the ending (which pretty much had to be changed to make it even remotely understandable for the general viewing public). So for fan service, I have to give the film an A.
Ultimately though? B-? Maybe?
See, I watched this movie in two halves. The first half, up to the point where Rorschach is caught (there's the extent of my spoilers, but if you'd read the book, you'd obviously know that already), is nearly spotless. Metaphorically, of course, there's in fact lots of dirt and grime and gore and sex and ugly stuff throughout the entire film, but as far as sticking to the original story goes, almost verbatum, and giving us the real feel of the comic itself, the first half is unprecedented among its comic-book-movie peers in giving us exactly what any fan could've dreamed. It's well nigh perfect.
After that... it gets... accellerated.
Like, all of a sudden, nearly every scene seems rushed. And unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it had to be, given that otherwise the movie probably would've been about five hours long, give or take a half an hour or so. The comic book itself is so drawn out, the actual action sequences were like tiny bits of cream cheese sweetening an otherwise unexciting bundt cake of plot and dialogue. The movie deftly navigates through the sequence of events as they actually appeared in the book (with a few liberties taken with the flashbacks) up until that crucial hour and a half mark, at which point everything becomes very hurried.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is as good an adaptation of Watchmen as the world could've hoped for. It gets all the main points of the book out without sacrificing much of the flavor of the characters, although here and there I must admit the casual watcher probably would be a tad lost unless they'd read the original comic book. Still, the story is well told, and the ultimate morbid message that mankind is doomed to kill itself unless it does something very drastic is kept very intact, even without the giant vagina monster. (Or whatever it was. Yes. I'm thinking it was a good thing they didn't try to translate that one to the big screen. If you're very lost right now, that's okay. It kind of confused me when I read the book.)
The problem, I think, is similar to the problem with Knowing, actually, at least in part. The ending is really just kind of a downer. We're left to wonder if the heroes have done the right thing, as the entire film is basically one big ethical question really. It's left on a much more hopeful note than Knowing was (i.e., any hope), but even that hope ends up falling into question as everything they've fought for may end up overturned by a very small guesture. It's a difficult movie, no question, and the problems it wrestles with have no easy answers.
Well, other than the fact that it's all kind of moot since it's a movie about superheroes anyway, but that's beside the point.
Rating: 7 out of 10. I'm honestly hesitant to give it that high. It makes it to the seven-star mark because of just how well-done it is, and the overall cool factor is pretty darn high. Ultimately, I think it just flounders too much at the end, leaving us missing a lot of the good parts from the book and left with all of the gorey parts. It really lacks the heart of the comic, which serves to offset the otherwise morbid tone, giving the movie a much bleaker feel. Still, I can't imagine fans being very disappointed, and it does basically make the same ultimate point: we are our own worst enemies on this earth.
The movie? Complicated.
The story itself is complex to begin with, so I'll try to be brief. Watchmen takes place in an alternate universe where superheroes are real, but aside from one real exception, none of them really have any actual superpowers. In fact, "masked adventuring" is actually considered something of an American hobby or pasttime, like flag-pole sitting or baseball. History basically goes on the same as our own until that one real exception, a being known as Dr. Manhattan, arrives on the scene, with the ability to manipulate matter pretty much on whim. With this new being at the disposal of the American military, Nixon wins the war in Vietnam in like a week or something, repeals the 22nd Amendment, and is reelected four times due to his overwhelming popularity therefrom. Meanwhile, masked adventuring becomes illegal due to its apparent subversion of the law, and superheroes (other than a choice two who're contracted out by the government, Manhattan and The Comedian) all go underground, mostly retired. The story really begins when The Comedian is unexpectedly murdered in his New York City apartment, causing a chain of events led by an investigation by Rorschach, a hero who never quits no matter what it takes (and usually, it takes killing people). And that's hardly scratching the surface.
As far as being faithful to the original source material, it's incredible just how much they did stick to the book. Really, only little bits here and there were altered, other than the ending (which pretty much had to be changed to make it even remotely understandable for the general viewing public). So for fan service, I have to give the film an A.
Ultimately though? B-? Maybe?
See, I watched this movie in two halves. The first half, up to the point where Rorschach is caught (there's the extent of my spoilers, but if you'd read the book, you'd obviously know that already), is nearly spotless. Metaphorically, of course, there's in fact lots of dirt and grime and gore and sex and ugly stuff throughout the entire film, but as far as sticking to the original story goes, almost verbatum, and giving us the real feel of the comic itself, the first half is unprecedented among its comic-book-movie peers in giving us exactly what any fan could've dreamed. It's well nigh perfect.
After that... it gets... accellerated.
Like, all of a sudden, nearly every scene seems rushed. And unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it had to be, given that otherwise the movie probably would've been about five hours long, give or take a half an hour or so. The comic book itself is so drawn out, the actual action sequences were like tiny bits of cream cheese sweetening an otherwise unexciting bundt cake of plot and dialogue. The movie deftly navigates through the sequence of events as they actually appeared in the book (with a few liberties taken with the flashbacks) up until that crucial hour and a half mark, at which point everything becomes very hurried.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is as good an adaptation of Watchmen as the world could've hoped for. It gets all the main points of the book out without sacrificing much of the flavor of the characters, although here and there I must admit the casual watcher probably would be a tad lost unless they'd read the original comic book. Still, the story is well told, and the ultimate morbid message that mankind is doomed to kill itself unless it does something very drastic is kept very intact, even without the giant vagina monster. (Or whatever it was. Yes. I'm thinking it was a good thing they didn't try to translate that one to the big screen. If you're very lost right now, that's okay. It kind of confused me when I read the book.)
The problem, I think, is similar to the problem with Knowing, actually, at least in part. The ending is really just kind of a downer. We're left to wonder if the heroes have done the right thing, as the entire film is basically one big ethical question really. It's left on a much more hopeful note than Knowing was (i.e., any hope), but even that hope ends up falling into question as everything they've fought for may end up overturned by a very small guesture. It's a difficult movie, no question, and the problems it wrestles with have no easy answers.
Well, other than the fact that it's all kind of moot since it's a movie about superheroes anyway, but that's beside the point.
Rating: 7 out of 10. I'm honestly hesitant to give it that high. It makes it to the seven-star mark because of just how well-done it is, and the overall cool factor is pretty darn high. Ultimately, I think it just flounders too much at the end, leaving us missing a lot of the good parts from the book and left with all of the gorey parts. It really lacks the heart of the comic, which serves to offset the otherwise morbid tone, giving the movie a much bleaker feel. Still, I can't imagine fans being very disappointed, and it does basically make the same ultimate point: we are our own worst enemies on this earth.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A League of Their Own (1992)
It's occurred to me that perhaps I should include the with the title of the movies the year when they first hit theaters. After all, there's people out there who think The Wizard of Oz was released in the 1970's. (It was, in fact, released in 1939.)
And so we have A League of Their Own, the first movie of mine in the A's section of my movies that isn't a cartoon. I'm actually planning on skipping the cartoons and coming back to them once we're through the live-actions. So yeah, A League of Their Own, first released in 1992.
Back in the 1940's, World War II happened. It was probably the single biggest turning point in modern history for a variety of reasons, and perhaps one of the tiniest parts of that bit of change was that, for a period of about four years, sports came to a bit of a crawl. Players enlisted in the army and went off to fight the Nazis, leaving the major leagues suddenly devoid of some of their stars. Baseball in particular saw a lot of losses, with such famous ballplayers as Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, and Yogi Berra trading in bats and cleats for rifles and boots. To my knowledge none of the major sports actually stopped play, they just, well, abbreviated their playing time. However, there were some people that worried that the sport may very well have to fold with so few of its stars available for play. And so, in an attempt to ensure that there would be some form of baseball going in the event that regular baseball did fold play, the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was born.
This is where the movie comes in. A fictional version of the real league is presented from inception through the end of its first season, with the plot largely following two sisters who both end up playing for the Rockford Peaches. The sisters, Dottie Hinson and Kit Keller (wonderfully played by Geena Davis and Lori Petty), are a slugger and a pitcher, respectively, and help anchor both the Peaches and the overarching plot. Other characters include Mae (Madonna), a quick-witted bombshell with a bit of a shady past, Doris (Rosie O'Donnell), Mae's constant companion and sidekick, Marla (Megan Cavanagh), the token ugly girl who nonetheless can hit like Mickey Mantle, and of course Jimmy (Tom Hanks), the drunken slog of a fool who ends up managing the Peaches despite hating nearly every minute of it (from whom we derive the immortal quote, "There's no crying in baseball!").
The plot itself is pretty straightforward, although there are a few curveballs from time to time. Characters are added gradually and naturally, allowing us time to get to know each of them, rather than simply shoving them all in our faces at once. You really get the feel that this movie was intended specifically to tell the story of these women, who they were, and what they went through to do what they did, rather than simply being entertainment fare. A lot of the characters portrayed are based on real people (Jimmy Dugan was based on Jimmie Foxx, a former Major Leaguer who did end up managing one of the AAGPBL teams), and the script does an excellent job of blending fiction and fact without sacrificing either the integrity of the real story or the plot of the movie.
All that said, the movie is still at its heart a comedy, and it never loses sight of its fun side (Jon Lovitz's character still cracks me up every time). There are moments that will tug at your heartstrings, but at its best this movie is funny, lighthearted, and inspiring. And the sports part ain't half bad either, with the championship game turning into a true (and almost shocking) nailbiter. If I were redoing my Top Ten Sports Movies List, I'd probably bump this onto the list somewhere.
Rating: 8 out of 10. I'm not sure I'd be able to say there's any low points in this movie. No scene is wasted, the characters are charming and diverse, and the developing drama between Dottie and Kit is surprisingly captivating. Probably one of Tom Hanks' most underrated roles, too. Definitely recommended, even to those than don't much care for sports films.
And so we have A League of Their Own, the first movie of mine in the A's section of my movies that isn't a cartoon. I'm actually planning on skipping the cartoons and coming back to them once we're through the live-actions. So yeah, A League of Their Own, first released in 1992.
Back in the 1940's, World War II happened. It was probably the single biggest turning point in modern history for a variety of reasons, and perhaps one of the tiniest parts of that bit of change was that, for a period of about four years, sports came to a bit of a crawl. Players enlisted in the army and went off to fight the Nazis, leaving the major leagues suddenly devoid of some of their stars. Baseball in particular saw a lot of losses, with such famous ballplayers as Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, and Yogi Berra trading in bats and cleats for rifles and boots. To my knowledge none of the major sports actually stopped play, they just, well, abbreviated their playing time. However, there were some people that worried that the sport may very well have to fold with so few of its stars available for play. And so, in an attempt to ensure that there would be some form of baseball going in the event that regular baseball did fold play, the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was born.
This is where the movie comes in. A fictional version of the real league is presented from inception through the end of its first season, with the plot largely following two sisters who both end up playing for the Rockford Peaches. The sisters, Dottie Hinson and Kit Keller (wonderfully played by Geena Davis and Lori Petty), are a slugger and a pitcher, respectively, and help anchor both the Peaches and the overarching plot. Other characters include Mae (Madonna), a quick-witted bombshell with a bit of a shady past, Doris (Rosie O'Donnell), Mae's constant companion and sidekick, Marla (Megan Cavanagh), the token ugly girl who nonetheless can hit like Mickey Mantle, and of course Jimmy (Tom Hanks), the drunken slog of a fool who ends up managing the Peaches despite hating nearly every minute of it (from whom we derive the immortal quote, "There's no crying in baseball!").
The plot itself is pretty straightforward, although there are a few curveballs from time to time. Characters are added gradually and naturally, allowing us time to get to know each of them, rather than simply shoving them all in our faces at once. You really get the feel that this movie was intended specifically to tell the story of these women, who they were, and what they went through to do what they did, rather than simply being entertainment fare. A lot of the characters portrayed are based on real people (Jimmy Dugan was based on Jimmie Foxx, a former Major Leaguer who did end up managing one of the AAGPBL teams), and the script does an excellent job of blending fiction and fact without sacrificing either the integrity of the real story or the plot of the movie.
All that said, the movie is still at its heart a comedy, and it never loses sight of its fun side (Jon Lovitz's character still cracks me up every time). There are moments that will tug at your heartstrings, but at its best this movie is funny, lighthearted, and inspiring. And the sports part ain't half bad either, with the championship game turning into a true (and almost shocking) nailbiter. If I were redoing my Top Ten Sports Movies List, I'd probably bump this onto the list somewhere.
Rating: 8 out of 10. I'm not sure I'd be able to say there's any low points in this movie. No scene is wasted, the characters are charming and diverse, and the developing drama between Dottie and Kit is surprisingly captivating. Probably one of Tom Hanks' most underrated roles, too. Definitely recommended, even to those than don't much care for sports films.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Knowing.
I know, I know. It's been almost two weeks since I started this blog and I haven't gotten around to doing a thing with it yet. I said I was going to start on my own personal collection, and I'm gonna get to that gradually, but I actually watched a new movie last night with Angela, so I figured I should review that while it's fresh.
So yes. Knowing. Can I get a "double-you tee eff" up in here?
Let's start with the premise. Back in 1959, a little girl named Lucinda, who is a very brooding and tortured little girl who hears "whispers," suggests that her school place a time capsule in the ground for 50 years, which will hold within it pictures from all the students in her class depicting what they think the future will look like in 50 years. The pictures are mostly generic space-age Jetsons-looking stuff, but Lucinda's is... special. As in, it's just a whole ton of random numbers filling the paper to the brim on both sides. But, her "picture" gets put in the time capsule anyway, and after another scene showing her tortured by whispers, we fast-forward to Nicolas Cage in 2009. His son attends the same elementary school Lucinda did, and when they open the time capsule, he gets Lucinda's picture to see. He brings it home and his father (after about the third gallon of alcohol consumed over the course of the movie) ends up accidentally deciphering a sequential code within the numbers. Turns out the numbers aren't so random (gasp!), are actually dates predicting major disasters (what the criteria for "major" disaster is we're never given), as well as the number of people that would perish in the tragedies. Cage checks them all, and they show up to have been true, except for three dates that haven't happened yet... but will within the next week! Dun dun duh!!
Okay, so it's a shaky premise to begin with (the "whispering ones" that torture Lucinda end up torturing Cage's poor boy as well and are eerie as all get out, especially considering what they turn out to be), but that's not what bothers me about this movie. I can deal with shaky premises so long as the end result is compelling (or at least well done). It's not even that this movie isn't well done (I'd argue that it isn't).
Basically, this movie is the most hopeless film I have ever watched.
There is no happy ending. No matter how you try to look at it, this movie ends in horrible calamity, with only a raw, untapped glimmer of hope left for humanity (yes, for all of humanity). It strings you along for about half the movie in the hopes that maybe Cage will actually be able to help someone through learning about these dates (he doesn't) until the final fourth of the movie, where everything unravels into a pit of despair the likes of which even Westley from The Princess Bride would've dreaded.
I think they made this movie with the likes of Deep Impact and Contact in mind, hoping that we'd look at the special effects as "cool enough to justify the story," but I just can't bring myself to say it. The acting, apart from Cage, is about as unconvincing as it gets (the boy they got made Jake Lloyd look like Macaulay freakin' Culkin), the plot is so telegraphed it reads like a made-for-TV-movie, and the ending... ohhhh, the ending.
Ultimately, the movie is just too darn depressing. There really aren't any high points in the movie. It starts out low and goes downhill from there, hitting you again and again with slaps of tragedy left and right. Not Hamlet tragedy, which serves a purpose, but The Day After Tomorrow tragedy, which is just frightening and horrible.
RECOMMENDATION: Don't. Just don't. It doesn't make you think. It doesn't make you excited. It doesn't make you happy. It just makes you depressed. Not my idea of a good time.
RATING: 3. It wasn't B-list fodder, and the effects are pretty cool, but if I wanted to learn about the end of the world, I'd read actual info about it, not take Nicolas Cage's word on it.
So yes. Knowing. Can I get a "double-you tee eff" up in here?
Let's start with the premise. Back in 1959, a little girl named Lucinda, who is a very brooding and tortured little girl who hears "whispers," suggests that her school place a time capsule in the ground for 50 years, which will hold within it pictures from all the students in her class depicting what they think the future will look like in 50 years. The pictures are mostly generic space-age Jetsons-looking stuff, but Lucinda's is... special. As in, it's just a whole ton of random numbers filling the paper to the brim on both sides. But, her "picture" gets put in the time capsule anyway, and after another scene showing her tortured by whispers, we fast-forward to Nicolas Cage in 2009. His son attends the same elementary school Lucinda did, and when they open the time capsule, he gets Lucinda's picture to see. He brings it home and his father (after about the third gallon of alcohol consumed over the course of the movie) ends up accidentally deciphering a sequential code within the numbers. Turns out the numbers aren't so random (gasp!), are actually dates predicting major disasters (what the criteria for "major" disaster is we're never given), as well as the number of people that would perish in the tragedies. Cage checks them all, and they show up to have been true, except for three dates that haven't happened yet... but will within the next week! Dun dun duh!!
Okay, so it's a shaky premise to begin with (the "whispering ones" that torture Lucinda end up torturing Cage's poor boy as well and are eerie as all get out, especially considering what they turn out to be), but that's not what bothers me about this movie. I can deal with shaky premises so long as the end result is compelling (or at least well done). It's not even that this movie isn't well done (I'd argue that it isn't).
Basically, this movie is the most hopeless film I have ever watched.
There is no happy ending. No matter how you try to look at it, this movie ends in horrible calamity, with only a raw, untapped glimmer of hope left for humanity (yes, for all of humanity). It strings you along for about half the movie in the hopes that maybe Cage will actually be able to help someone through learning about these dates (he doesn't) until the final fourth of the movie, where everything unravels into a pit of despair the likes of which even Westley from The Princess Bride would've dreaded.
I think they made this movie with the likes of Deep Impact and Contact in mind, hoping that we'd look at the special effects as "cool enough to justify the story," but I just can't bring myself to say it. The acting, apart from Cage, is about as unconvincing as it gets (the boy they got made Jake Lloyd look like Macaulay freakin' Culkin), the plot is so telegraphed it reads like a made-for-TV-movie, and the ending... ohhhh, the ending.
Ultimately, the movie is just too darn depressing. There really aren't any high points in the movie. It starts out low and goes downhill from there, hitting you again and again with slaps of tragedy left and right. Not Hamlet tragedy, which serves a purpose, but The Day After Tomorrow tragedy, which is just frightening and horrible.
RECOMMENDATION: Don't. Just don't. It doesn't make you think. It doesn't make you excited. It doesn't make you happy. It just makes you depressed. Not my idea of a good time.
RATING: 3. It wasn't B-list fodder, and the effects are pretty cool, but if I wanted to learn about the end of the world, I'd read actual info about it, not take Nicolas Cage's word on it.
Monday, June 29, 2009
How to Read This Blog
Welcome to my double-half-handed attempt at a review blog! This is something I've thought about doing for quite some time, since I end up reviewing nearly every movie I see anyways. So I figured, what's stopping me, really? Other than the daunting task of reviewing every movie I can think of.
Yes, that's right. My intention here is not merely to review current films. My intention is to review any and every film. I'll start out with my own personal collection (which is, to say the least, an oddity) and go from there.
I'm not going to bother trying to figure out a fair and/or balanced system of grading every movie on a weighted scale. I'm simply going to give it a take based on what I felt the movie did for me, good or bad. I'll give it a number score, rated from 1 to 10, with 1-3 being a poor-quality, "I really wish I didn't see this" movie; 4-6 being an average, "you could do better, but it's worth the watch" movie; 7-9 being an above-average, definitely recommendable movie; and a 10 being what I consider an obvious winner.
I'm considering extending this system to other things, such as music and video games. I'm not sure yet. We'll figure that out later.
For now, here we are. I hope you'll find this blog useful and insightful, or at least mildly entertaining.
Yes, that's right. My intention here is not merely to review current films. My intention is to review any and every film. I'll start out with my own personal collection (which is, to say the least, an oddity) and go from there.
I'm not going to bother trying to figure out a fair and/or balanced system of grading every movie on a weighted scale. I'm simply going to give it a take based on what I felt the movie did for me, good or bad. I'll give it a number score, rated from 1 to 10, with 1-3 being a poor-quality, "I really wish I didn't see this" movie; 4-6 being an average, "you could do better, but it's worth the watch" movie; 7-9 being an above-average, definitely recommendable movie; and a 10 being what I consider an obvious winner.
I'm considering extending this system to other things, such as music and video games. I'm not sure yet. We'll figure that out later.
For now, here we are. I hope you'll find this blog useful and insightful, or at least mildly entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
