Please update your bookmarks, blogrolls, feed readers, etc.

I’m still in the process of getting things together over there, but I hope that by Monday I’ll be ready to let you all know of the new blog’s name and location.

Once I’ve settled, I’ll start deleting all the posts from here but I’ll keep Reel Reviews running for the next couple of months to direct people to the new blog.

Technorati Tags: wordpress, blog, domain name

Title: March of the Penguins
Year: 2005
Director: Luc Jacquet
Starring cast: A tribe of adorable Emperor Penguins!
Narrator: Morgan Freeman (English Language version)
Rated: G

Reel Reviews Rating:

Sometimes we all feel that life is tough. Maybe things aren’t going well at work, or perhaps we have issues with our families. At times we are thankful to just make it through the day.

At least you’re not an Emperor Penguin.

March of the Penguins is the Academy Award winning documentary on the lives of Emperor Penguins, who live in the harsh, merciless climate of Antarctica. Their story of survival is truly amazing, as they endure predators, starvation, and the extreme winter to ensure the safety of the next generation.

And what a cute generation it turns out to be!

As mentioned above, Morgan Freeman narrates the English language version of this French documentary. Apparently the original was “dubbed” such that the penguins were given speaking voices. I guess that was too cheesetastic even for English speaking audiences, so it was decided that we hear Mr. Freeman’s soothing narration instead.

There is some discussion as to whether or not March of the Penguins deserved the Oscar. After all, there are lots of terrific animal documentaries shown every day on stations such as The Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. In addition, some criticize the “Disneyfication” of the Emperor Penguins’ lives. Penguin deaths are underemphasized (older penguins “fall asleep”; baby penguins “disappear”), and Freeman’s narration tends to anthromorphize the animals In my opinion, I think that for the purposes of the film, the deaths were covered appropriately. For example, we see predators attack the penguins but don’t see their bodies torn apart. It’s unnecessary to show such a scene in this film. They do show penguins freezing to death, old and young alike.

And as far as anthromorphization, yes I agree to some degree that it’s silly to say that a mother penguin is overjoyed to see her baby since we know that penguins aren’t capable of such complex emotions. At the same time, there is one really baffling scene that made me question my way of thinking. Apparently in some cases, when mother Emperor Penguins lose their babies, some become so distraught that they try to kidnap another’s baby. Other tribe members stop her from doing this, and the real mother whisks the baby away.

Oh by the way, there is some hot, penguin-on-penguin sex, but the English version is edited such that you only see the upper bodies of the penguins. Then again, since the male is rocking back and forth behind the female, what they’re doing is pretty obvious (if you’re an adult).

Although this is overall made for kids, I don’t know if they will like March of the Penguins, especially the very young. Not because of the penguin deaths or penguin sex, but because it will bore the hell out of them. Kids have a short attention span, and if there’s no superheroes blowing up villians, explosions, or ninjas, then they’ll most likely watch for about a minute, squeal when they see the baby Emperor Penguins, then go on their merry way. Actually, I doubt that older kids will like it either. They’d rather watch The O.C. or some lame crap like that.

I definitely recommend March of the Penguins to animal lovers, animal documentary lovers, or to just anyone curious about the lives of Emperor Penguins. If you decide to show it to your older kids, it’s best to watch it with them so you can answer any questions they have. Don’t bother showing it to any child under 6 years old. They’ll just walk away.

March of the Penguins, Emperor Penguin, Academy Award

Sorry, no new movie review today. I haven’t had the chance or time to see any movies recently. I do have a few from Netflix, but I’ve been busy with schoolwork. I hope to do one for Friday.

However, I am considering running a little contest. I’ve never been happy with the name Reel Reviews for this blog since there are like, 5 other blogs/websites with that same name. I need a better, unique name for this blog. I probably won’t use it while I’m at this free wordpress.com account since the name won’t match the URL. I’ll use it someday, when I get my own domain and host this blog myself.

Anyway, the prize is that I design for you a button or a banner for your blog- whichever you prefer. I know it’s not much, but neither is coming up with a name for my blog

Reel Reviews, contest, button, banner, domain, host

Title: Watership Down
Year: 1978
Director: Martin Rosen
Voices: John Hurt, Richard Briers, Michael Graham Cox, Harry Andrews
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

Watership Down is another film that my boyfriend Netflixed because he saw this movie as a kid and wanted to see again. Wary of past childhood movies that he Netflixed and forced me to watch (e.g., Death Race 2000 and The Black Hole), I watched Watership Down with some trepidation. As it turned out, I didn’t have anything to worry after all.

Based on a children’s book of the same name, Watership Down is an animated film that focuses on a group of rabbits’ desire to establish a free and safe society, far away from the dangers of predators and other enemies.

The film starts off with a really cool Creation folktale about how the rabbit came to be the enemy of all predators. It threw me off a bit at first because the animation style differs from the rest of the film in that it’s somewhat South African-inspired, using a lot of earth tones (e.g. various shades of brown, yellow, and deep red-orange colors). The animals and scenery are drawn in an abstract manner.

When the main plot begins, the animation shifts to a more contemporary style. The animals are realistically drawn, unlike Disney renditions of animals, whose features are often exaggerated to add personality. Admittedly, the rabbits in Watership Down are drawn so realistically that many looked alike, much like most real rabbits look alike (IMO, at least). The scenery all look like paintings, but unlike Hayao Miyazaki’s work, the scenery in Watership Down makes it seem like the animators took a painting of a field, for example, and added the animated characters in later. The grass doesn’t rustle, nor do the trees sway. The background is very two dimensional.

Now, on to the plot.

When a young rabbit named Fiver (voiced by Briers) has nightmarish premonitions of the destruction of their warren, he and his brother Hazel (voiced by Hurt) try to warn the Chief Rabbit. Unfortunately, like Cassandra in The Iliad, the brothers’ warnings are ignored by the stubborn old rabbit. Hazel and Fiver escape, joined by several others. The rest of the film deals with the various dangers the group encounters on their perilous journey, such as cats, hawks, other rabbits, and the most dangerous of them all- man.

Watership Down contains some important social messages within the story. First of all, you have the concept of man as an ignorant and callous destroyer of nature. As some of the characters point out:

Blackberry: Men have always hated us.
Holly: No. They just destroyed the warren because we were in their way.
Fiver: They’ll never rest until they’ve spoiled the earth.

Second, Watership Down (both the book and film) has been interpreted as a political allegory demonstrating how extremist views can ruin a society. In their journey, the rabbits encounter two other warrens. One is called Efrafa, and it’s under a military dictatorship by an insane rabbit called General Woundwort (voiced by Andrews). The other warren (which wasn’t referred to by name in the film) featured rabbits who grew fat and reliant on food left for them by a nearby farmer. Although they’re fully aware that the food is only meant as bait, they risk their lives to get it.

Although Watership Down is an animated film, I often wondered who the target audience was. It’s not just because of the social themes, but because it’s more like a Miyazaki film than a Disney film. There are certain violent and disturbing scenes not suitable for little children. Fiver’s visions of his warren’s destruction are quite chilling, and even the opening fable has some violent situations. The rabbits themselves, as realistically drawn as they are, act a lot like humans. They don’t sing and dance like Disney’s animals. These rabbits had to struggle to survive.

Although it can be a little slow at times, Watership Down is a terrific movie. The animation is dated, but the story itself isn’t. I recommend renting this unheard-of classic.

Oh, and by the way, when you get to the end of the film, make sure you have tissues ready.

FUN FACT: John Hurt, who did the voice of protagonist Hazel in the 1978 version of Watership Down, did the voice of antagonist General Woundwort in the 1995 remake.

Technorati Tags: Watership Down, Richard Adams, rabbits, political allegory, social themes

Title: Team America: World Police
Year: 2004
Director: Trey Parker
Voices: Trey Parker, Matt Stone
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone switched from computer generated animation to old-fashioned marionettes in this 2004 film to deliver their political message with their usual razor sharp wit.

An obvious parody of the Bush administration’s War on Terror, Team America doesn’t choose sides and gleefully pokes fun at everybody and everything- American foreign policy, terrorists, left-leaning liberal actors, and ultra-right wing conservative action heroes.

The story is about Team America, a trigger happy, anti-terrorist organization. Team America lets nothing stand in their way, blowing up historical monuments all in the name of “fighting terror”. In preparing for a very special mission, team head honcho Spotswoode (voiced by Darran Norris) recruits Broadway actor Gary Johnston (voiced by Parker) to go undercover in a terrorist hideout. Little does Team America know who the real mastermind is behind the plan for world domination…

The plot sounds absolutely ridiculous, and it’s meant to be since it’s a parody of all those silly Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer action films. In fact, there’s a song in Team America called “Pearl Harbor Sucked, and I Miss You”. Actually, Parker and Stone originally wanted to simply recreate the movie Armageddon using the puppets but couldn’t do so because of legalities. They wrote their own plot instead, which if you think about it is not really any more far fetched than Armageddon’s plot involving a group of off-shore oil drillers who become astronauts to save the world from a giant asteroid.

The puppets themselves are awesome. They don’t look creepy like ventriloquist puppets but are actually able to express a lot of emotions in their wooden faces. However, like South Park, in which the characters are crudely drawn and animated, Parker and Stone chose not to digitally edit the puppets’ strings, as a way of reminding the audience that they’re promoting political and social messages in the silliest manner.

First of all, anyone who watches this movie should have a lot of tolerance and a huge sense of humor. It’s extremely offensive, but that’s the point. Parker and Stone have made a career out of pissing people off but making them think at the same time. Take South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. Sure, the movie was also offensive, violent, and dirty, but the take home message was that there’s a lot bigger things to worry about than making sure your kid doesn’t swear, and the whole notion of violence being more acceptable in films than dirty language. So if you are offended easily, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE and later rant about how offensive it was. If you do decide to watch it, just remember: it’s a comedy. It’s just a movie.

Second, some have speculated that Team America: World Police is a pro-liberal movie, which can’t be farther from the truth. Yes, this movie is politically charged, but rather than take sides, the movie points out that both sides can be extreme, and neither side is correct. It’s one of the reasons why I personally consider myself to be a moderate, and most likely why Parker and Stone are registered Libertarians.

Lastly, this movie is really, really, really funny. Everything about it is hilarious, down to the music. Listen to the lyrics- they’re absolutely brilliantly hysterical. Also, my boyfriend made a good point when he said that the sets are quite impressive. I can only imagine how long it took for them to build these intricate little sets of Paris, Mount Rushmore, Panama, etc. The infamous puppet sex scene is longer on the DVD than it was in the theatrical release. It pushed boundaries as to what can be shown in a movie, but it’s still not really that bad since the puppets aren’t *that* anatomically correct. Imagine putting your naked Barbie and Ken dolls together, as I’m sure many of us have done when we were young.

All in all, I highly recommend this movie for those with a healthy sense of humor. It’s not as good asSouth Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (which I own), but it’s still hysterically funny. I would also recommend buying the soundtrack, though from what I’ve heard, buying the CD may be a waste since the songs themselves only take up 19 minutes, but the rest are instrumental filler. Do what I did and get the songs off iTunes instead.

Team America, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, South Park, political satire, social commentary, terrorist, War on Terror

Title: The Black Hole
Year: 1979
Director: Gary Nelson
Starring Cast: Maximilian Schell, Robert Forster, Joseph Bottoms, Yvette Mimieux, Anthony Perkins, Ernest Borgnine; voices by Roddy McDowall and Slim Pickens
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

The Black Hole was apparently Disney’s pathetic attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon. However, it comes nowhere near the quality of Lucas’s magnum opus.

The wallpaper the DVD has for the menu selection screen is cheesily hilarious, but does give away something important that happens to a main character. I hate spoilers on the menu screen. Shame shame, Disney!

The movie starts with a- get this! A two and a half minute “overture”, which consisted of the crappy main theme playing, and nothing was on the screen but the movie’s title on black background. Yes, I know that the soundtrack was composed by John Barry, who did the Dances With Wolves soundtrack, and all I have to say is that old John sure learned a whole lot over the last 30 years.

Anyway, I yelled, “WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???”, and my boyfriend replied that this was probably for the benefit of people entering the theater a little late, still finding their seats. Ok, *maybe* I can deal with that, but it surely has no place for a DVD version of the movie. Needless to say, we fast forwarded to the real beginning.

Space, the final frontier- oops, wait, wrong movie. Anyway, we see the USS Palomino speeding along the dark void of space. Inside the ship we are introduced to its crew: Captain Dan (a bland Forster), his cheeky first officer Charlie (an irritating Bottoms, pun intended ), Dr. Durant (an out of place Perkins), journalist(!) Harry (a bad acting Borgnine), and Kate (a boring Mimieux). Last but not least is the charmless V.I.N.CENT (voiced by McDowall), a robot that seriously pales in comparison to R2D2, obviously thrown in the movie for comic relief for the kids.

The crew discovers a ship called USS Cygnus sitting on the event horizon of a nearby black hole. The crew is shocked to find this ship since went missing 20 years ago, and decide to investigate.

As you can see so far, this seems like the plot of nearly every Star Trek episode ever created, but instead of a random planet, they’re checking out a ship.

Inside the Cygnus they meet its lone survivor, the brilliant scientist Dr. Reinhardt (Schnell, possibly the only person in the whole cast who can act), and his pet monster robot Maximillian. Of course, as every Star Trek episode has taught us, any “brilliant scientist” who’s been out of touch with civilization for 20 years is bound to be crazy as a loon and should be watched carefully.

The plot itself leaves much to be desired. Yes, I know that a certain suspension of belief is necessary in science fiction movies. Fine, I’ll accept that a ship can sit on the event horizon of a black hole and not get sucked in and torn apart six ways from Sunday. However, this movie bends the laws of physics inconsistently. For example, when we first see the Palomino crew, the actors simulate lack of gravity in the ship by floating around. Fair enough. Yet in a later scene, the crew is walking OUTSIDE the Cygnus WITHOUT any protective suits or breathing apparatus for about 10 minutes. Come on man! They wouldn’t have been able to last for 30 seconds, let alone 10 minutes!

As for the actors: They pretty much sucked eggs. Borgnine was especially painful to watch as he overacted in every scene. Yes, we know that you’re worried. You don’t have to bug your eyes out like that. Now keep your voice down. Forester was boring as Captain Dan, and not once was he believable as an authority figure. Jean-Luc Picard you ain’t, pal. Hell, I didn’t even realize he was the captain until 20 minutes into the movie. Bottoms was irritating as hell. It was obvious that the only reason he was in this movie is to have a hunky young guy for wannabe Mouseketeers to swoon over. Mimieux was another useless character. At first I thought she was the ship’s doctor, until we find out that she uses ESP to communicate with V.I.N.CENT when he’s separated from them.

What’s even stupider is that the robot also has ESP.

What. The. Fuck?

Speaking of V.I.N.CENT…as I mentioned before, a charmless character. Roddy McDowall’s crisp British accent didn’t help give this robot any personality. In fact, he was irritating, as he’d spew stupid philosophical phrases at inopportune moments. Strangely, I thought that Old B.O.B (voiced by Pickens), V.I.N.CENT’s beat up, older counterpart, was pretty cool. I dunno. I kind of liked his crumpled, beat-up look.

As I mentioned, Disney created this movie as an answer to Star Wars: A New Hope. It’s really sad how they copied parts of it. For example, the scene in which the Palomino is flying under the massive Cygnus is a direct rip off of the opening scene in ANH when the camera going under the Star Destroyer, indicating its enormous size. And I swear to God, the bad robot soldiers have Darth Vader masks. Seriously. However, The Black Hole does have some plot elements to call its own, such as a robot shooting gallery in which the robots practice their mad skillz.

Another shitty aspect of this movie were the horrible special effects and costumes. For example, the strings on the actors’ harnesses (when they simulate weightlessness) are clearly visible! Also, for a “metal” robot, V.I.N.CENT sure looks a whole lot like he’s made of plastic! Oh, and by the way, when someone hits something, the sound isn’t supposed to come a half second AFTER the action. It’s supposed to occur AT THE SAME TIME!

Although this was a PG movie by Disney with cute robots, there are some dark elements to it. Dr. Reinhardt is creepy in a realistic sort of way rather than in a cartoony manner, with his crazy hair, wild eyes, and calm demeanor. There is also a gruesome (at least, in relation to the rest of the movie) death scene, and the end is almost as bizarre as the ending from 2001: A Space Odyseey.

Some of you may think that I’m being too harsh. After all, this was made in 1979. It can’t compare to movies of today. But I’m not comparing it to movies of today. I’m comparing this movie with Star Wars: A New Hope, which came out FOUR years prior, and is immensely superior in so many ways. I just kept thinking to myself, “My God, this was a DISNEY film?!?!?!”

I give The Black Hole 1 reel, namely because I liked Old B.O.B.

Disney, Black Hole, V.I.N.CENT, Ernest Borgnine, Anthony Perkins, Roddy McDowall

Tommorow’s going to be a fun review. My sarcasm level was on full tilt when I wrote it

Title: ���尋�神隠� (Spirited Away)
Year: 2001
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Voices: Rumi Hiiragi, Miyu Irino, Mari Natsuki (original Japanese version); Daveigh Chase, Jason Marsden, Suzanne Pleshette (American version)
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

Ah, now I get to review my FAVORITE Miyazaki film This will be my pleasure.

The film opens with a family in a car, on the way to their new home. Upset at having to move away from her friends, 10-year-old Chihiro (voiced by Hiiragi/Chase) mopes and whines to her parents in the back seat. Somewhere down the road her father takes a wrong turn, and they find themselves in what they think is an abandoned themepark. Unbeknownst to the family, this is actually a magical town where spirits and gods come for relaxation. When Chihiro’s famished parents unwittingly eat food meant for the spirits, they’re punished by being turned into pigs. With the help of a mysterious boy called Haku (voiced Irino/Marsden) and some of the employees at the nearby bath house of the gods, Chihiro resolves to break her parents’ spell and escape from this strange place.

When I first saw this film, I admit that I found it weird. Because I’m unfamiliar with Japanese folklore, I couldn’t relate to the spirits and gods, and I definitely was thrown off by some of the characters (e.g. a giant 12 foot tall baby, a half-bird woman, a 6-armed man). But at the same time I enjoyed this unique twist on what’s basically a classic coming of age tale, as we see Chihiro grow from a spoiled and whiny child, to a responsible and mature young lady.

As expected from any Miyazaki film, the artwork is amazing. The looming, colorful bath house contrasts nicely with the sea of green grass during the daytime scenes, and stands out like a beacon against the black sky at night. The spirits who frequent the bath house are a fascinating cast of characters. One for example, is a “radish spirit” who looks like a cross between a mastadon, a radish, and a sumo wrestler. Another is a river spirit, with the face of an old man but the body of a centipede.

Then of course, there’s the greatest, most AWESOME spirit of them all.

My favorite.

The one.

The only.

Kaonashi.

Words cannot explain how much I heart this guy. I don’t know why I even like him. He doesn’t speak much and has a strange food addiction, but he fascinates me so much that I named my first (and current other) blog after him and made him my mascot. Kaonashi Ga Suki means I like No Face!

Anyway…

I re-watched Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi last week to refresh my memory, but since the DVD remote was missing, I was forced to watch it under the default English dubbing. I thought it was pretty ok. Daveigh Chase and Suzanne Pleshette did really well in their renditions of Chihiro and the bath house owner/witch Yubaba, respectively. I noticed though, that in the American version, there were added lines that aren’t in the Japanese version. Although some of the lines were to make certain scenes clearer to English-speaking audiences (for example, Chihiro commenting “It’s a bath house,” as she stares at the building), at times I feel that they spoonfed certain pieces of information to us.

In spite of the PG rating, I think that Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi is appropriate for all ages. Kids will love the cute magical characters, older children will find certain scenes funny, and adults will appreciate the story. In one scene a main character gets badly injured and bleeds heavily, but I don’t think it’s enough to scare little children. However, because of unfamiliarity with Japanese folklore, some children (and adults!) may not understand or relate to the movie well enough and get confused during some moments.

In general, I say…BUY the film! You won’t regret it!

Hayao Miyazaki, Japanese animation, anime, Spirited Away, Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi, Kaonashi, No Face, kami, bath house, spirit

Title: も���姫 (Princess Mononoke)
Year: 1997
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Voices: Yoji Matsuda, Yuriko Ishida, Yuko Tanaka (Japanese version); Billy Crudup, Claire Danes, Minnie Driver (American version)
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Unlike the cute and cuddly Tonari no Totoro, Mononoke Hime is much darker and carries a serious message about the delicate but strained relationship between human technology and nature.

The story takes place in ancient Japan. When Prince Ashitaka (voiced by Matsuda/Cruddup) saves his village from a cursed, rampaging boar-god, he himself is infected by the curse. Desperate to find a cure before the curse kills him, he leaves his village. Unfortunately, the young prince winds up caught in a battle between a human iron mining town and the animal gods of the forest. Because he is an outsider and tries to help both sides, neither group fully trusts Ashitaka and pay little heed to his warnings.

Ashitaka’s role as mediator becomes more difficult when he meets and falls in love with San (voiced by Ishida/Danes), a human girl raised by wolves. San is obsessed with killing Lady Eboshi (voiced by Tanaka/Driver), the leader of the mining town.

(NOTE: San is the title character’s name, not Mononoke. The title translates to something like “Princess of the Spirits”.)

At first glance, Mononoke Hime seems like the typical anti-technology film that features human technology destroying the environment. Not quite. What’s interesting about this film is that the humans aren’t portrayed as stereotypical, one-dimensional bad guys. Lady Eboshi cares about the people in her town -which include outcasts such as lepers and hookers- and only wants to protect them from neighboring lords who want to control it. In return, the townspeople care a lot about their lady and would do anything for her.

This film is a classic. It perfectly embodies the elements that make a Miyazaki film special: beautiful scenery and artwork; rich, in-depth characters; and an important message in the plot that doesn’t sound too preachy but simply causes the audience to think.

It has been said that Miyazaki didn’t like the way that Kaze no Tani no Naushika ended and considered Mononoke Hime to be an improvement over that earlier film. I can see that. It has very similar messages and themes as Naushika, but the plot is more complex and the characters are more well-rounded. No one in Mononoke is perfect. Both San and Lady Eboshi are caring and defensive towards their own families, but are bloodthirsty murderers when it comes to fighting their enemies. Ashitaka, hard as he tries, is simply overwhelmed at the task of mediating between the two groups.

Note that Mononoke Hime is rated PG-13; there are some scenes not for very small children (i.e., limbs get chopped off). Older children and teens (and adults!) will just think it’s cool

I highly recommend watching with subtitles. The first time I watched this, it was in the dubbed American version, and I felt distracted by the celebrity voices. I also didn’t think they did a good job with the American dubbing. I especially hated Gillian Anderson’s voice acting of Moro, the head wolf god. She delivered her lines in a bored, monotone voice, as if she didn’t care what she was doing. Fortunately, this weekend I got to watch the film in the original Japanese, and I have to say that it sounds better without the American dubbing. Whoever did Moro’s original voice was way better than Anderson’s half-assed work.

Mononoke Hime is an excellent film; definitely a must see for those new to Miyazaki’s work.

Hayao Miyazaki, anime, Japanese animation, Mononoke Hime, Princess Mononoke, technology, environment, Billy Cruddup, Claire Danes, Minnie Driver, Gillian Anderson

Title: 風�谷�ナウシカ (Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind)
Year: 1984
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Voices: Sumi Shimamoto, Goro Naya, Yoshihiko Sakakibara, Ichiro Nagai (original Japanese version); Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, Uma Thurman, Edward James Olmos (American version)
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

Kaze no Tani no Naushika takes place one thousand years after “The Seven Days of Fire” resulted in nearly wiping out the human race and destroying the earth’s environment. The human survivors were scattered throughout the planet, forming small pockets of society. Most of the earth is covered by the Fukai, a dense jungle with giant ferocious insects and poisonous plantlife. Humans who venture into the Fukai are required to wear a facemask, or else risk inhaling spores that will slowly rot their lungs.

Nausicaä (Shimamoto/Lohman) is a princess of the Valley of the Wind- a small, pacifist town near the Fukai. She’s courageous, intelligent, very loving toward her people, and has the ability to understand insects. Lord Yupa (Naya/Stewart) is the best swordsman in all the land and Nausicaä’s mentor.

The people of the Valley of the Wind have long learned to live in harmony with the Fukai in their backyard, but that harmony is horribly disrupted when two warring societies, the Tolmekians and the Pejites, literally coming crashing in the peaceful little town. It’s up to Nausicaä to guarantee the safety of her people and the survival of the Valley of the Wind.

Even though this film was made in 1984, I didn’t really feel that it was dated. Sure, the animation is not as polished as subsequent Miyazaki films, and yes there were some cheesy sounding 80′s electric drums during some parts of the movie. However, the art is still beautifully done. For example, there is a lot of detail in their renditions of the Omhu, the insect featured on the movie poster.

As for the characters…I really liked Lord Yupa. He is a badass, and I wish that they had featured him more prominently. I thought that there was too much focus on Nausicaä. Yes, she’s the title character and all, but it would have been good to develop some of the other characters more. In spite of focusing a lot on her in the film, she still seemed a little two dimensional and not have any faults. As someone pointed out in the IMDB Nausicaä forums, she seemed too perfect. Similarly, Kushana (Sakakibara/Thurman), the warrior princess of Tolmekia, was also very two-dimensional. I guess they were trying to establish her as the foil to Nausicaä- cold, savage, calculating, and willing to destroy anyone or anything that gets in her way. I would have liked for her to be a little more well-rounded.

Unfortunately, since our DVD player doesn’t have a working remote, we (my bf and I) were unable to watch Kaze no Tani no Naushika in the original Japanese with subtitles. I feel though, that the American dubbed version was relatively ok, but I can’t make a complete judgment since I can’t compare it with the original version. Patrick Stewart was in fine form as as the voice of Lord Yupa. Then again, Patrick Stewart is good at almost anything he does. Alison Lohman was pretty good as Nausicaä, though on the IMDB, some complained that her voice was too high pitched. I was pleasantly surprised that Uma Thuman didn’t portray Kushana in an over-the-top manner. I was almost expecting her to reprise her irritating, overacting version of Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin.

The plot itself carries strong anti-war, pro-environmentalism messages that are a trademark of Miyazaki films. The idea of primitive post-apocalyptic societies struggling to survive is nothing new in movie plots, but Miyazaki puts his own spin to it. I find it interesting that the humans are portrayed as small, relatively weak creatures compared to the insects of the Fukai. The tables had turned on the most powerful race on earth; in Nausicaä, it’s the humans who are at the mercy of nature.

For those new to Miyazki’s films, this is a good start since it’s one of his earliest works; however, it’s not as good as his subsequent films. Like I said, it’s kind of dated, the characters could have been more interesting, and the anti-war message could have been delivered with a less heavy hand. Furthermore, it was said that even Miyazaki himself wished he could change the film’s simplistic ending, which in a way he does so with Mononoke Hime, a more well-balanced film with a similar message. Regardless of its weaknesses, Kaze no Tani no Naushika is a classic, and I highly recommend watching it.

Hayao Miyazaki, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Kaze no Tani no Naushika, Patrick Stewart, Alison Lohman, Uma Thurman, anti-war message, environmentalism, nature, Omhu, anime, Japanese animation

Hayao Miyazaki is a legend. One of the most famous and highly respected creators of Japanese animated films, Miyazaki is sometimes called the Walt Disney of Japan*. Although Miyazaki does credit Mr. Disney as an influence in his work, Miyazaki’s own creations differ significantly from anything generated by the Mouse House.

Unlike most Disney animated films, Miyazaki doesn’t need to rely on gimmicks like flashy dance numbers with singing animals in his films to get the audience’s attention. Instead he weaves a breathtaking, colorful world replete with multidimensional characters and a provocative but engaging plot. He often uses his films to tackle difficult topics such as the balance between nature and technology, the ravages of war, or how children can deal with a severely ill parent.

An avid feminist, Miyazaki’s films often feature strong female main characters. They’re often younger so they aren’t sexy, and they don’t exude alluring feminine charms like the “Disney Princesses”, but in my opinion they are far more interesting characters than Snow White, Ariel, and Jasmine.

Nature plays a big role in many of Miyazaki’s films. Many scenes focus on calm fields with a gentle breeze blowing, or of a dense forest, full of life. Fantasy creatures are another common element in Miyazaki films, ranging from the cute and cuddly to the grotesque.

Since some characters in Miyazaki’s films are based on Japanese life, culture, and folklore, one might assume that non-Japanese audiences may not be able to relate to them. In fact, one can say this about Miyazaki films overall. On the contrary, highly positive praises from critics, the dozens awards earned, and the popularity of these films have demonstrated that they have indeed, been wildly accepted by foreign audiences.

Here is a listing of Miyazaki’s films via Wikipedia. As you can see, it’s not a very long list; however, what he lacks in quantity he far makes up for in quality.

* The Castle of Cagliostro (Lupin III) – (ルパン三世カリオストロã?®åŸŽ Rupan Sansei: Kariosutoro no Shiro), 1979
* Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind – (風ã?®è°·ã?®ãƒŠã‚¦ã‚·ã‚« Kaze no Tani no Naushika), 1984
* Castle in the Sky – Laputa: The Castle in the Sky (天空ã?®åŸŽãƒ©ãƒ”ュタ Tenkuu no Shiro Rapyuta), 1986
* My Neighbor Totoro – (ã?¨ã?ªã‚Šã?®ãƒˆãƒˆãƒ­ Tonari no Totoro), 1988
* Kiki’s Delivery Service – (魔女ã?®å®…急便 Majo no Takkyuubin), 1989
* Porco Rosso – (ç´…ã?®è±š Kurenai no Buta), 1992
* Princess Mononoke – (ã‚‚ã?®ã?®ã?‘姫 Mononoke Hime), 1997
* Spirited Away – (å?ƒã?¨å?ƒå°‹ã?®ç¥žéš ã?— Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi), 2001
* Howl’s Moving Castle – (ãƒ?ウルã?®å‹•ã??城 Hauru no Ugoku Shiro), 2004

I had originally planned to do mini reviews of the Miyazaki films I’ve seen, with two reviews at a time. However, when I finished writing them, they were so long that I couldn’t really consider them to be “mini” reviews anymore. I tried editing them, but I felt that making them too short was a disservice to the review. So instead, I’m going to spread them out over the course of TWO weeks. I hope you don’t get sick of reading anime reviews over the next two weeks

I’ll be referring to them by their Japanese titles because I feel that it’s more appropriate, though I will indicate the American title.

I recommend to watch these films with subtitles rather than dubbed. Although you won’t understand what the characters are saying, you’ll be able to hear what the characters are feeling through the inflection and tone of the actors’ voices. It just seems artificial and flat to watch these films with American actors’ voices. At the same time, it has been said that Miyazaki urges audiences to watch his films in their respective languages so that they can focus on the art and not get distracted by the subtitles at the bottom of the screen. Whatever floats your boat.

*(Which he hates, apparently.)

Hayao Miyazaki, Japanese animation, Studio Ghibli, Japan, anime, Lupin III, Castle of Cagliostro, Nausicaa, Laputa: Castle in the Sky, My Neighbor Totoro, Kiki’s Delivery Service, Porco Rosso, Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, Howl’s Moving Castle

Title: The 40-Year Old Virgin
Year: 2005
Director: Judd Apatow
Starring Cast: Steve Farrell, Katherine Keener, Paul Rudd
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Steve Carell is in the title role as Andy Stitzer, a good natured, shy, reserved guy who works at an electronics store (which looks suspiciously like Circuit Shitty City). Andy is, for lack of a better word, a geek. An otaku nerd. His apartment has wall to wall action figures, all still in their original packaging. He doesn’t go out with friends, content in playing video games. He painstakingly paints little figurines for his board games. He reads comic books in bed. Now, while lots of guys nowadays have similar hobbies (my boyfriend for one, has a lovely little Star Wars collection at his parents’ house), Andy is still different from most guys in that at age 40, he hasn’t bumped uglies with anyone. Ever.

When his co-workers (Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, and Seth Rogen) learn about Andy’s extreme inexperience with women, they take it upon themselves to help him finally get laid. Each friend has his own perspective of how to meet and treat women, and poor Andy tries his best to follow each person’s advice. Things get a little more complicated when Andy meets Trish (Catherine Keener), a lovely and outspoken woman who runs an eBay store.

Steve Carell is brilliantly cast as the unfortunate virgin, with the puppy dog eyes and the sweet smile. I first saw Carell in Bruce Almighty, as Evan, Bruce’s pompus ass nemesis, and in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, as bizarre weatherman Brick Tamland, and I loved him in those small roles. He’s absolutely hysterical. Paul Rudd seems to be doing better as a comedian than as a romantic lead in a romantic comedy. Although I developed a GIANT crush on him in Clueless, his funny, funny characters in Anchorman and Virgin are convincing me that he should stick to this comedy thing instead…at least, for now.

This movie is hysterically funny. I was laughing my ass off the whole time. The misadventures Andy gets into while trying to follow his friends’ advice are really hilarious. The interactions between the friends is also great to watch. One of my favorite scenes is between Rudd and Rogen, who throw barbs at each other that start with, “You know how I know that you’re gay?” while playing Mortal Kombat. It’s really funny to see these two adult men acting like complete 12 year old boys. On the DVD, there’s an extended version of this scene, and by the sound of it, I think the actors were adlibbing most of their lines.

That being said, this movie is definitely for mature audiences. My parents rented this a few weeks ago and complained that it was too “dirty”. Um duh, the movie is called The 40-Year Old VIRGIN. What the hell did they think it was going to be about- puppies and butterflies? Of course not! It’s about a virgin trying to get laid, for god’s sake! That’s why you should all read the ratings, people. This movie is rated R. There’s a lot of sexual content in different forms (not just people having sex), and the dialogue between Andy and his friends is really dirty. Funny, but dirty. Also, people who are easily offended shouldn’t watch this movie. Older folks, feminists, politically correct sticklers- stay away from this film. Parents- do NOT let your young children watch this.

On the other hand, everybody else- rent it! Rent this movie! It’s hysterical!

40-Year Old Virgin, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Catherine Keener

Back in November, I did a review on a shitfest called Death Race 2000. I mentioned how I was scarred for life from seeing David Carradine in nothing but a mask and tiny black briefs.

Well folks, you’re in for a treat. I actually found a screenshot of said scene. Mercifully, the picture quality isn’t very clear, so your eyeballs won’t be that badly damaged.

As for me, I watched this scene with a plasma TV.

I will never be the same again.

So, here it is folks. Click on the thumbnail…if you dare.

Death Race 2000, David Carradine, black briefs

Title: Frank Miller’s Sin City
Year: 2005
Director: Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez (and Quentin Tarantino for one small scene)*
Starring Cast: Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Benicio Del Toro, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson
Rated: A nice, big, fat R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Sin City is based on Frank Miller’s graphic novels of the same name. There are actually 3 separate plots (from 3 of Miller’s graphic novels) that are not really connected, except that you sometimes see a character from one story appear in another story. What unifies the three stories, however, is that they all take place in Basin City, which is pretty much an analogy of Hell. Basin City is controlled by a corrupt senator and a bishop, extremely powerful men who are not to be messed with. They pretty much own everyone in the city, and the police can’t do anything about it since they’re also corrupt. The three main characters in the stories- played by Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, and Clive Owen- are not your typical heroes. They all have specific strengths and weaknesses. In the sea of corruption that is Basin City, they struggle to stay morally afloat, but they end up in circumstances that test their morality and devotion to their friends.

While most comic book movie adaptations try to stay true to its origins, many are compromised due to factors such as time constraints, the director’s artistic freedoms, and the desire to capture a larger (read: PG-13) audience. However, Sin City breaks away from these restraints since Miller himself co-directed the movie (with Robert Rodriguez), thus preserving nearly every detail of his graphic novels. The movie nearly captures the graphic novels frame by frame, and each of these frames is visually stunning. Much like Bound and The Matrix, Sin City is filmed as if it came straight from a comic book, and the use of black and white with splashes of color make this film all the more visually and artistically gorgeous.

That being said, I’ll be straight up with you all: it’s violent.

It’s really, really violent.

Violent and visceral.

I thought Braveheart was bad. I thought that Saving Private Ryan , Starship Troopers, and the Kill Bills were bad.

Nope.

There are lots and lots of guns and explosions. Swords neatly slice body parts, and people are literally beaten to a bloody pulp. I won’t even mention the more disturbing scenes. At the same time, in a way the black and white appearance of the movie offsets some of the violence, like the badass “Crazy 88s” scene in Kill Bill: Volume 1 where The Bride fights O-ren Ishii’s army. Furthermore, in my opinion, Sin City is still not as violent as the many horror films out there. The Howling franchise is definitely grosser.

A cool thing when you watch this film is that, although it contains an all-star cast, most are so convincing in their roles that you don’t see them as the actors but rather, as the characters they play. Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke in particular are excellent in their roles as a grizzled old cop and an brutish ex-con, respectively. I didn’t even realize that it was Mickey Rourke until my boyfriend pointed out his squinty eyes. If Pulp Fiction brought John Travolta’s career back to life, I believe that this movie will resurrect Rourke’s own dead career.

Most of the supporting cast is as good. Their roles were small, but highly effective. The actresses played their parts relatively well. They were also all gorgeous, sexy, and hot. Yes, Jessica Alba did a great job portraying a stripper who doesn’t take her clothes off. I know that this goes against the graphic novel, but get over it, fanboys. What intrigued me the most is that several actors played against type. Elijah Wood is unbelievably scary and disturbing as Kevin. He completely destroyed his Frodo image with this role.

Overall, I enjoyed Sin City in spite of its excessive violence. It’s creative, visually and artistically breathtaking, and the actors do a terrific job (except for Brittany Murphy. She sucks). If you’re a Frank Miller fan, then I’m preaching to the choir since you obviously have this DVD by now. If you can take violence, and horror movies, then go rent/buy it. If you don’t like violent movies, then still see this movie and appreciate it for its artistry, but cover your eyes during the more violent, grosser scenes.

*FUN FACT: Tarantino directed a small scene in Sin City for $1 as payment for Rodriguez doing the score for Kill Bill: Volume 2 for the same price. If you’re familiar with Tarantino’s work, you can easily guess which scene he directed.

Sin City, graphic novel, Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba

Title: Office Space
Year: 1999
Director: Mike Judge
Starring Cast: Ron Livingston, Steven Root, Jennifer Aniston, and Gary Cole
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

I saw Office Space when it first came out. I recently rented it because my boyfriend had never seen it and had heard positive reviews about it. After having seen it for a second time several years later, I don’t think that my opinions about it have changed much.

Peter (Livingston) is a hapless employee in a typical computer company. Like 90% of the population, Peter spends a good chunk of his life commuting in horrible, bumper to bumper traffic, sitting in a tiny, gray cubicle for 8 hours a day, answering to 8 different bosses about the stupidest mundane shit possible, and enduring a never-ending battle against malfunctioning office equipment. His dream in life is to quit his job and do…nothing. Absolutely nothing.

At the behest of his girlfriend, Peter visits an “occupational hypnotherapist” (or something like that) to help him ease his anxious feelings towards his job by hypnotizing him and giving him the command that he will feel completely relaxed towards his job; that his cares about it will disappear. However, an unfortunate incident at the doctor’s office leaves Peter still under hypnosis.

Needless to say, Peter stops caring about his job, much to the surprise of his friends and boss Bill Lumbergh (Cole), especially when the company is in the process of downsizing. Strangely enough, Peter is commended for his approach to work and is actually promoted while his friends are fired. They decide to get revenge on the company that sucked out their souls.

Most people will agree that Office Space should be watched by anyone who has ever worked (or still does) in a dead-end, lifeless white-collar job; anyone who has ever sat in a cubicle and punched numbers in a computer; anyone who has ever wanted to strangle the weird coworker in the neighboring cubicle; anyone who has ever had a patronizing, irritating boss who waits until near the end of the day to assign a new task. I’m sure that the Dilbert fans are Office Space fans.

I thought that the supporting cast did a great job. David Herman and Ajay Naidu are hilarious as Peter’s friends Michael and Samir. They’re such strange but really funny characters. Steven Root is great as Milton Waddams, who originally was one of director Mike Judge’s animated characters. I used to see Milton sketches on MTV, and it was kind of cool to see him brought to life. Milton is so pathetic and sad, yet I can imagine that if I had a coworker like him in real life, I’d want to strangle him.

Gary Cole is terrific as Lumbergh, the irritating boss who tries to be his employees’ friend by visiting their cubicles and making useless small talk. At first he doesn’t seem so bad because he doesn’t yell at anyone, just walking around with a coffee mug…but when he opens his mouth and starts talking, you can just feel the condescending tone emanating from him, and you think of your OWN boss who’s JUST LIKE THIS GUY. We’ve all had a boss like Lumbergh at some point in our lives, and we can’t help but feel sorry for Peter when he asks him to come work on Saturday and Sunday.

Although the supporting cast was awesome, I wasn’t too impressed by Livingston himself. Sure he’s very cute and charming, but other than that he wasn’t that memorable a character. And as the biggest name star in the movie, Aniston’s character was pretty much useless to the plot. I feel like they wanted Aniston in the film for “star power” and created the role of Joanna just for her.

Overall, I thought Office Space was a good comedy. There are many funny moments. I can’t give any examples since that would spoil things Those who work in an office and/or hate their jobs will most likely relate to the movie and enjoy it. However, some people may not really get it because they’ve never experienced the work environment (e.g. teenagers). I gave it 4 reels because on one hand, I liked the basic plot and the supporting cast; but at the same time I thought that Peter wasn’t interesting enough, Aniston’s character was completely useless to the plot, and that there are a few unnecessary scenes.

Office Space, Mike Judge, Milton, work, office, boss, Ron Livingston, Jennifer Aniston, Stephen Root, Gary Cole

Title: Merlin
Year: 1998
Director: Steve Barron
Starring Cast: Sam Neill, Miranda Richardson, Martin Short, Isabella Rossellini, Helena Bonham Carter, Rutger Hauer, James Earl Jones
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

Technically speaking, this wasn’t an actual movie that came out in theaters, but a made-for-TV miniseries. This translates into about 4 hours of hell for me. However, because my boyfriend foolishly rented it, and because I stupidly watched it, I’m doing this as a sort of public service announcement so you can avoid my fate.

As the title suggests, the movie focuses on the life of the legendary wizard Merlin (Neill, rocking a mullet). It takes us from Merlin’s creation by the eeeeeeeeevilll sorceress Queen Mab (Richardson), to his young n’ hunky years, to his middle-aged adulthood, and up to old age. Most of the movie however, deals with Merlin’s lifelong struggles against Mab. Ya see, the times in England, they be changin’. People are converting to Christianity and forgetting the whole magic nonsense. Mab doesn’t want things to change, so she creates Merlin as a weapon to fight this tide of change. When Merlin turns against her, Mab launches a private war against Merlin by corrupting the humans he tries to help out.

Naturally the movie covers the Excalibur/King Arthur story, but if you want a crash course in Arthurian mythology, you’re better off watching another movie since it takes about 2 1/2 hours into the movie before we finally see young Arthur pull the sword out of the stone.

So, where do I begin?

Let’s start with plot.

Needless to say, it was a watered-down version of Merlin’s origins, which is understandable since there are many different ways of telling this story. The movie plot was very straightforward and linear, as we follow Merlin meeting important people such as King Uther Pendragon, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, Morgan LeFay, and of course Arthur himself. However, as straightforward as it was, there were still several scenes unncessary to the plot. For example, there was too much focus on young Merlin’s wizard training. I found it pointless and felt that it was just an excuse for Martin Short (who played Queen Mab’s sycophant Frik) to try to be funny. It’s far more entertaining to watch Harry Potter and his friends at Hogwarts learning spells.

One thing that drove me crazy about Merlin was its schizophrenic nature. There are scenes which are supposed to be serious, but are shot in an amusing manner. For example, in some cases when Mab and Frik are walking, the camera speeds up to give the illusion that they’re walking very, very quickly. It looks funny, but the scene itself is not supposed to be funny. It’s as if the film doesn’t want to take itself too seriously. Of course there are many movies out there that blend comedy and drama, but Merlin does a very poor job at it.

Now, as for the actors. When you look at the starring cast, you see that these aren’t unknowns, nor are they B-actors. You’ve got Helena Bonham Carter, Isabella Rossellini, James Earl Jones, and Miranda Richardson. When I read this list on the DVD I thought to myself, well, this movie may not be so bad after all. These are primo actors.

Wrong.

Not only was there horrible miscasting involved in Merlin, but for some reason most of these seasoned, respected actors were so hammy, I thought bacon would come out of their mouths. It was downright awful to watch them. Sam Neill was totally unconvincing as Merlin. He seemed to act too “modern”, for lack of a better word. Miranda Richardson was annoying in her double role as Queen Mab and the Lady of the Lake. Her Mab was such a cartoon villian with goth attire (what’s with the purple hair??), and her Lady of the Lake was comatose. No, seriously. She’d be like, “Merrrrr…liiiiiiiiiin…you must. Find……a……good…….maaaaaaannn…” Rossellini was absolutely boring as Merlin’s love interest, Nimue. I often forgot she was in the movie. In yet another example of miscasting, why did they cast a girl with a British accent to play the young Nimue, when Rossellini has a thick Italian accent? And poor James Earl Jones wasn’t technically in the film, but did the voice of a talking mountain. Somehow, I’m betting that old James leaves this role out in his resume.

Surprsingly, some of the actors were actually ok. Helena Bonham Carter’s Morgan LeFay was quite entertaining, as was Rutger Hauer’s Lord Vertigern. Hauer has perfectly honed his skills at playing bad guys and overall jerks, and it shows even in this craptastic movie. Bonham Carter’s Morgan was a fine balance of a comedic and tragic character. She’s supposed to be evil and you’re supposed to hate her, but instead you laugh as she speaks with an Elmer Fudd accent (“I want the thwone”), and feel sorry for her when her own son turns against her.

Special effects were another thing that was botched in this film. They look practically homemade, like they were done by a 12 year old for a class project. For example, there’s a scene which involves a fire breathing dragon, whose flames looked unreal and cartoony. The dragon looked Photoshopped. I laughed my head off when I saw that scene.

I know what you’re thinking: since this is just a made-for-TV miniseries, we can’t expect high budget special effects. No way. There are so many tv shows that used special effects, and the quality is high caliber. Watch any episode of CSI, The X-Files, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and Stargate. The special effects on these shows are amazing.

Now you might think, well maybe there wasn’t enough money in the Merlin budget for better special effects. Bullshit. If they could afford the fancy costumes and sets, rent all those horses, hire tons of extras, AND pay the salaries of the big name actors, then they should have had enough dough to make better special effects. No, they just did a half assed job on it, and it showed.

Some of you may think that I’m being overly critical towards Merlin. After all, it’s not *really* a movie so I shouldn’t hold it according to the same standards as a film shown in theaters. I disagree. There are many great movies made for TV. Granted, most are on HBO or Showtime, but still!

I was shocked to find on the IMDB that Merlin was actually nominated for 4 Golden Globes and even won a few Emmys. I’m thinking that either most of those wins/nominations are for technical categories like Best Sound or Best Costume, or that there were slim pickins in nominees in 1998.

Merlin gets 1 Reel from me, mainly only because of the big name, respected actors.

Merlin, King Arthur, Excalibur, Sam Neill, Miranda Richardson, Helena Bonham Carter, Martin Short

Title: Catch Me if You Can
Year: 2002
Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Is it possible for a 16-year old boy to impersonate an airline pilot, a doctor, and a lawyer- AND get away with it?

Sound unbelievable?

Not if you’re Frank Abagnale Jr.

Catch Me if You Can is loosely based on a book of the same name written by Abagnale himself. The book and film focus on Abagnale’s true story of his escapades as a teenage con artist. Distraught by his parents’ divorce, young Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) runs away to New York City at age 16. Faced with the reality that he had to fend for himself, Frank resorted to check fraud. Since no adults took him seriously as a teenager, Frank started taking on false identities to gain respect and to facilitate his schemes. As I mentioned earlier, he successfully impersonated a Pan Am pilot, a doctor, and a lawyer. Frank’s forged checks eventually catch the attention of FBI agent Carl Handratty (Tom Hanks), who pretty much chases the young con man all over the US and Europe.

Leonardo DiCaprio was in fine form as usual, but young as he looks, I found it somewhat unconvincing to see him play a 16-year old boy. During the first part of the movie his bangs are combed down his forehand to make himself look younger, but his body just looks too mature. At the same time, I can’t really think of a younger actor who could have played this role. Tom Hanks did ok as Carl, the stalwart but often stiff FBI man hot on Frank’s trail. However, I think that anyone could have played that role. Hanks didn’t really make it memorable or anything. Ed Harris could have done it, William H. Macy perhaps. Christopher Walken was very charming as Frank Sr., young Frank’s biggest role model. I don’t know how close Abagnale was to his father in real life, but the film establishes that Frank Jr.was strongly devoted to his father, constantly writing to him and trying to give him gifts.

Overall, I thought that the movie was ok. I wasn’t wowed by it, and I definitely wouldn’t have paid to see it in the theater, but it’s something decent to rent or to watch on cable. It’s rather long (about 2 1/2 hours), but it definitely could have been shorter since several scenes kind of dragged, while others were unnecessary.

I am curious about something. In Catch Me if You Can, early 1960′s airline pilots were portrayed as (albeit highly respected) playboys, always surrounded by a gaggle of gorgeous flight attendants. What I’d like to know is whether or not is an accurate depiction of how people perceived pilots back then. Furthermore, I’m just curious if during that time, all flight attendants were stunning 21 year old girls, or if this is just the usual Hollywood embellishment. Go to any airport nowadays and you’ll find that most flight attendants are rather old- with the exception of those who work for Singapore Airlines. I’m sure those women were hired primarily for their youth and looks.

What I did think was cool about the film was seeing how Frank created those fake checks and was able to cash them in, not to mention how he managed to trick so many people with all his impersonations. I kept thinking to myself as I watched, that this really happened. This movie is based, albeit loosely, on a real person. A teenage boy was able to pull all of this off!

Today, Abagnale uses his knowledge and experience with bank fraud for good. As mentioned on his website:

Frank W. Abagnale is one of the world’s most respected authorities on the subjects of forgery, embezzlement and secure documents. For over thirty years he has lectured to and consulted with hundreds of financial institutions, corporations and government agencies around the world.

Mr. Abagnale has been associated with the FBI for over 30 years. He lectures extensively at the FBI Academy and for the field offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. More than 14,000 financial institutions, corporations and law enforcement agencies use his fraud prevention programs.

Looks like being a crook paid off!

Anyway, if you want you want to rent something lighthearted this weekend, rent Catch Me if You Can. If you’re a DiCaprio, Hanks, or a Spielberg fan, you’re better off watch one of their many other films.

Catch Me if You Can, Frank Abagnale Jr., Steven Spielberg, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, bank fraud, check fraud, impersonator, forgery

I just wanted to get some feedback from you guys. I’d like to know what you guys think so far about my reviews. Have they been helpful? Are there some things you’d like me to focus on more? Focus on less?

I’d also like to add certain elements to my reviews, and perhaps introduce different kinds of posts as well.

Here are a few things off the top of my head:

Regarding the reviews themselves
1.) I’m thinking of adding more basic information to the beginning of each review such as a short list of the main actors, the year of production, the director’s name, the rating, and a one-sentence description of what I thought overall of the movie.

2.) I’m also considering using a ratings system (eg. 5 stars, that sort of thing) at the beginning of each review.

Other potential types of posts in addition to reviews
1.) Once a month I can do a “Spotlight On…” a certain actor, actress, or director.

2.) Do some theme posts. For example, once a month do a review on certain trilogy movies.

Any constructive feedback and advice are welcomed. Please, just don’t be too harsh on me

Title: EuroTrip
Year: 2004
Director: Jeff Schaeffer
Starring Cast: Scott Mechlowicz, Jacob Pitts, Kristin Kreuk
Rated: R, though for this review I watched the DVD “unrated version”

Reel Reviews Rating:

When Eurotrip first came out I saw the trailer and deemed it too stupid to watch. It looked like a typical teen comedy with naked, horny teenagers cavorting all over the place. My brother and sister however, went out and saw it because of Michelle Tracthenberg, who played Buffy’s little sister Dawn in the tv show Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and because of Kristin Kreuk, who my brother thinks is hot. My siblings came back from the movie absolutely loving it, and when the DVD came out they bought it immediately. They convinced me to watch it with them, and by jove, I didn’t regret it at all.

After Scott (Mechlowicz) is unceremoniously dumped by his girlfriend (Kreuk, in a bit part eons away from her goody two shoes Smallville character Lana Long), he goes off to Europe in search of his German pen pal (Jessica Biehrs). Scott is joined by his best friend Cooper (Jacob Pitts, who reminds me so much of a younger Matthew Lillard), and in Europe they meet up with their friends Jenny (Tracthenberg) and Jamie (Travis Wester). The foursome traipse all over Europe, getting into one hilarious but embarrassing mess after the other.

NOTE: Eurotrip is definitely NOT for everybody. It’s crass, obnoxious, offensive, and features male (franks and beans and buns) and female nudity (boob shots). There are about two lesbianic scenes (e.g., naked women giving each other massages) It’s basically for South Park audiences. The DVD Unrated Version is more graphic since there are added nudity scenes (mainly of topless women). Although there is only one actual sex scene which doesn’t really show that much, rest assured it will offend some people- especially Catholics.

The movie also depicts many European stereotypes (e.g. British soccer/football hooligans) that European audiences may find insulting. Catholics may also be offended at some scenes near the end of the movie. Hell, gay men may be insulted at how they’re portrayed in the film (as perverts trying to hit on unsuspecting teenage boys). Yes, Eurotrip tries to take jabs at everyone.

That being said, I don’t get offended easily. I am a long time South Park fan, and I enjoyed Eurotrip. It’s really, really funny! The situations the four friends get into are just so ridiculous and way out there, you can’t help but laugh. Furthermore, there is a great song called “Scotty Doesn’t Know” (by rock band Lustra) featured in the movie that’s just so catchy, you want to sing it over and over. Yes, the song is crude as well, but it’s really fun to listen to. I have it as an Mp3.

The acting by these relative unknowns is unimpressive. They’re not horrible, but not exactly Oscar-worthy material either. After all, what can you expect from a teen movie like this? It’s clear that these actors were mainly picked for their looks rather than their talent. Biehrs, for example, is a very pretty girl (or in guyspeak: smokin’ HOT!), but she says and does very little in the movie. Her “finest” moment is when she appears in nothing but her panties. Yep, that’s some quality acting there. The Matthew Lillard lookalike though, stands out a little from the rest. He’s pretty funny. But then again, there’s already a Matthew Lillard in the movies, and people barely know who HE is.

The movie also features a couple of cameos by bigger name actors. One in particular is by a HUGE A-lister, and I was pleasantly surprised to see him in this movie. I won’t mention who they are, but it’s fun to see them in a role different from what they usually play. In fact, they often stole the scene from the four main actors.

In sum, those who don’t get offended easily or can handle crass humor (e.g., teenage boys and college guys; me) will love Eurotrip. It’s right up their alley. Most adults will probably just think it’s offensive, or stupid and mindless, with too much nudity. Watch at your own discretion.

Eurotrip, teen movie, Michelle Tratchenberg, Kristin Kreuk, Lustra, Scotty Doesn’t Know

Title: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Year: 2004
Director: Charlie Kaufman
Starring Cast: Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

What if you could erase painful memories from your mind? Is it possible to completely erase someone from your mind? What are the moral implications involved? These are some of the questions posed by this movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

The basic story focuses on the volatile relationship between Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet). No members of a couple can be any more different than these two. Joel is quiet, reserved, and frankly, lacks any personality. Clementine is loud, obnoxious, impulsive, and an alcoholic. It’s not surprising that they break up.

When Joel learns that Clementine had undergone a procedure to have memories of him and their romantic past erased from her mind, he is thunderstruck and deeply hurt. So he decides to do the same thing.

There are two subplots involving the young employees (Elijah Wood, Kirsten Dunst, and Mark Ruffalo) and the doctor (Tom Wilkinson) at Lacuna, the medical facility that conducts the memory erasure, both of which reveal to overlap with the main story.

Now, this film was categorized as a romantic comedy. I remember commercials on tv that featured scenes from the movie while playing upbeat music. I thought too, that it would be a comedy. However, after having watched it, I think that it’s more of a drama. There are a couple of funny moments, but by no means is it a romantic comedy. Reliving both the happy and painful memories of an ex is not fun or funny.

I thought the acting was pretty ok. Jim Carrey was very different from what we’re used to seeing. In Eternal Sunshine he looks glum, depressed, and somber. Even his appearance was different. He looked old and craggy, with wrinkles down his face. I guess it adds to the feeling that this is an “indie”, non-Hollywood film. Kate Winslet’s Clementine is downright annoying. I guess she was trying to come off as being a free spirit and all that, but I didn’t like the character at all. However, I think that Winslet did a better job at this type of role than Jennifer Aniston did in Along Came Polly, though admittedly Aniston’s Polly is not supposed to be as erratic as Clementine.

This being a Charlie Kaufman film (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation), Eternal Sunshine is simply weird and trippy to watch. First of all, the events don’t follow a straight chronological order. This alone isn’t a big deal since these days more and more films use this approach. Second, because much of the film takes place in Joel’s mind, there are heavy elements of fantasy and bizarre (but cool) scenes. Third, the film quality of Eternal Sunshine seems to have a raw and more realistic feeling to it. It’s not polished and smooth looking like typical Hollywood movies, where the actors are all airbrushed to hell. Like I mentioned before, Jim Carrey looks like hell. The younger actors still look pretty good though, like Kate Winslet, Elijah Wood, and Kirsten Dunst.

There are lots of cool special effects employed to create the scenes in Joel’s memories. According to the IMDB, most were created using forced perspective, old fashioned lighting, editing, and props, much like in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I’m really not sure what to make of this film. I didn’t quite like it, nor did I dislike it. I think it’s mainly because I’m just not used to Charlie Kaufman’s style. In fact, I kind of felt the same way after watching Being John Malkovich. In both movies, the plot is really weird but cool, and you don’t really like any of the characters. I suppose though, that some people can relate to Joel, as someone who wants so badly to forget about a lost love that he literally has his memories of her erased from his mind.

That being said, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is not for everybody. Older folks may not like the jumbled timeline and the MTV-like cinematography. Some people may just be plain confused. But others may consider it an artistic film, and appreciate it for its unique plot.

I rented this movie because I had heard so many positive reviews about it. Now I’ve seen it, and I think one viewing is enough for me.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Charlie Kaufman, Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Elijah Wood

Title: Moulin Rouge!
Year: 2001
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring Cast: Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Set in 1900 France, Moulin Rouge is narrated by and focuses on Christian (McGregor), a young, naive, and idealistic writer. Christian comes to Paris to experience the “Bohemian” movement, which emphasizes the film’s motto: freedom, beauty, truth, and love. A strange incident at his apartment leads him to meet the one and only Henri de Toulouse Lautrec (John Leguizamo) and his merry band of actors and writers. They then encourage Christian to ask to work at the Moulin Rouge, the most popular nightclub in the city.

At the Moulin Rouge Christian meets and falls in love with Satine (Kidman), an ambitous singer and the star attraction of the club. Unfortunately, Satine is already promised to the Duke (Richard Roxburgh), a dangerously jealous man who can make Satine’s dreams of becoming an actress come true. Will Satine choose the penniless writer or the wealthy Duke?

I’m going to say it upfront.

I LOVE THIS MOVIE.

So very, very much.

Here’s why.

1.) Baz Lurhmann is an awesome director. The use of lighting, of shadow, and of angles is brilliant.

2.) The sets are fantastic. I watched Lurhmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet several years back and (except for Claire Danes, who looked like a confused dog the whole time) loved it. Loved the directing, loved the sets. It’s so artistic. Perhaps I should praise the cinamatographer instead?

3.) Moulin Rouge is anachronistic in their use of musicals. Some may find it corny or gimmicky, but I think it was really clever to use modern pop music in the musical numbers. The best example is “Elephant Love Medley”, a duet by McGregor and Kidman. Here is a sample lyric.

4.) It’s funny. Although the overall film is more of a romantic drama, there are many lighthearted moments.

5.) Ewan McGregor is good at whatever role he plays. Since my younger sister is a huge fan and has several movies that feature him, I ended up watching a lot of these films and have realized that he really is a talented actor.

6.) It’s a movie musical not based on any pre-existing live musical. Granted, the plot is based on three operas/operettas (La Boheme, La Traviata, and Orpheus and the Underworld), but at the same time these operas were also based on other stories. But still! It’s one of a kind. How often does that happen these days? I would absolutely LOVE to see this performed live. Too bad though, that you likely won’t have the original cast.

7.) The musical numbers are lots of fun to watch. One of my favorites is Nicole Kidman’s “Sparkling Diamonds”, her version of the Marilyn Monroe classic “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend”.

When Moulin Rouge! first came out in 2001, it was like a breath of fresh air in the movie industry. Sure, it was risky. Who the hell watches musicals nowadays? And one that features actors instead of singers? What were they thinking?

Well, Lurhmann’s gamble paid off. Moulin Rouge! went on to win a whole bunch of awards, including Golden Globes for both Kidman and McGregor for Best Actress and Best Actor, Best Director for Lurhman, and Best Original Song for “Come What May”. It’s a shame that it didn’t win for Best Picture. Personally, I liked this film a lot better than Chicago.

If you like musicals, or if you like Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor, or if you’re just curious to see what they sound like when they sing, check out Moulin Rouge! I assure you, by the movie’s end, you’ll be humming a couple of the songs from the movie

Better yet, own it. There are cool easter eggs on the DVD, such as silly antics by the cast during the film’s shooting.

Moulin Rouge, Baz Luhrmann, Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, John Leguizamo, Jim Broadbent

Title: Dark City
Year: 1998
Director: Alex Proyas
Starring Cast: Rufus Sewell, Keifer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Dark City is one of those well made, underrated science fiction films that now seems dated since the advent of The Matrix. A disenchanted viewer may look at this DVD and think, “Oh, great. Another sci-fi movie in which our reality as we know it may not be what it seems. Yawn. Been there, done that.” But the thing is that Dark City came out a year before Neo learned that there is no spoon. In fact, there are so many similarities between the famous Keanu Reeves movie and Dark City that I’m willing to bet that it was a major influence on the Wachowski brothers when they wrote their story about the Matrix.

Before I begin, I need to let you know that you have to make a choice when you watch this film: to (somewhat) understand from the get go or be left in the dark (pun intended).

Ok, here’s the thing.

During the first two minutes of the movie, you’ll hear Keifer Sutherland’s deliciously gravelly voice setting up the story. Apparently, the studio execs figured that people would be too stupid to figure out for themselves what the hell is going on, so they added it in. And I reckon that they were right to do so. Let me put it this way: I first saw Dark City when it came out, and I made the mistake of arriving late to the theater. I was lost throughout a good chunk of the movie. I was just like, “Hummana hummana what the fuck is going on?!”

Anyway, Keifer’s voiceover gives you a whole lot of information in those two minutes so if you choose to do so, pay attention to what he says. Now, if you prefer to try and solve the mystery you can mute the TV until you first see Keifer actually appear onscreen. On the other hand, if you’re the type who gets confused easily (like me) and need as many clues as possible, then by all means pay close attention to what he’s saying in the beginning.

I won’t reveal what Keifer says in those two minutes, but I’ll give you the basic plot. John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up in an unfamiliar hotel room and becomes alarmed that he has no memory of anything. He doesn’t know who he is or what he’s doing in the hotel room. John finds out later that he’s the prime suspect in several murders of prostitutes. His concerned wife (Jennifer Connelly) and a police detective (William Hurt) are looking for him. However, they aren’t the only ones searching for John. A mysterious group of slender, pale, bald men with black trenchcoats are also desperate to find him. Who is John? Did he commit those murders? Who are these strange men, and what do they want with him?

One thing I really liked about Dark City were the sets. They are gorgeous. They kind of remind me of Gotham City from Batman Begins: dark, dangerous, but beautiful. Whoever was the cinematographer did a fantastic job. Second was the plot. If you miss Keifer’s exposition at the beginning, you’ll swear you’re watching a regular detective movie, a film noir type of film. The characters appear to be straight from the 1940s.

As I mentioned, there are many similarities between The Matrix and Dark City. Both question the meaning of reality, but in the case of the former, it looks to the relationship between memories and reality. Is the human soul composed of the sum of their memories and experiences? What happens then, when a person has no memory of anything? Is he or she less of a person? Does a person even exist without any memories? Deep philosophical stuff like that.

I think that overall Dark City is a really good movie, often overshadowed by The Matrix. I bet it’s because Dark City didn’t have any cool ju-jitsu fights and badass lobby shootouts. Perhaps it’s because it didn’t pioneer kickass special effects such as “bullet time”. Maybe it’s because Rufus Sewell is not nearly as pretty as Keanu Reeves- nor is Jennifer Connelly for that matter. Mind you, I absolutely LOVE The Matrix. I own it on DVD. In fact, I think it’s better than Dark City. Dark City may have great cinematography, but the way The Matrix is filmed is pure genius. As my boyfriend once said, “Every shot looks like a panel from a comic book or manga.” At the same time however, people should know that Dark City came first and it’s pretty obvious that it was one of the inspirations for The Matrix. In fact, I read on Wikipedia that some of the sets from Dark City were actually used in The Matrix.

If you loved The Matrix and all this questioning reality kind of stuff, you’ll enjoy Dark City. In fact, play a little game with yourself (or with friends) as you watch. Count the number of factors from Dark City that have something in common with The Matrix. Ooh, better yet, make it a drinking game!

Dark City, The Matrix, Alex Proyas, Rufus Sewell, Keifer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt, memory, reality

UPDATE: Oh hell, now MY blog is messed up too!

———————————————————————————————————

Is it just me, or is my WordPress.com blog the only one working right now? Foo, you and Steve have something wrong with your comments section and your permanent links. So does ground level coffee.

Title: Fight Club
Year: 1999
Director: David Fincher
Starring Cast: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

The first rule about Fight Club is…you do not talk about Fight Club.

The second rule about Fight Club is…you do NOT talk about Fight Club.

Looks like I’m going to have to break this rule

My boyfriend and I didn’t have anything to watch on TV this past Tuesday night, so we decided to pop in the Fight Club DVD.

It’s been a while since I last saw the film, so I was glad I got to watch it again. It’s such an amazing movie with so many levels.

Based on the novel of the same name written by Chuck Palahniuk, the basic plot centers around a young white collar employee (Edward Norton) who works for the insurance department of a major automobile company. The young man narrates the story, and so the audience sees everything from his perspective. On a plane flight home from one of his business trips, the narrator meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), an enigmatic but charismatic soap salesman. Tyler leads the narrator to question his humdrum, materialistic life and his need for consumer goods. Together they create Fight Club, a group that allows men to briefly free themselves of the shackles of civilization and consumerism, and revert to basic primal instincts. Their small group grows and evolves, to a point where the narrator starts to realize that Tyler’s agendas grow more ambitious- and more dangerous.

The title of the movie is very deceptive. It gives the impression that it’s only about these two guys that create a club in which men beat the hell out of each other. But it’s so much more than that. Fight Club is an intelligent social commentary about the three Cs: capitalism, consumerism, and commercialization. Tyler put it best when he remarks to the narrator, “The things you own end up owning you.” Fight Club is about men finding what they’re really capable of. It’s about questioning the meaning of your life and what you can do with it.

Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are spectacular in their roles, serving as perfect foils of each other: Norton as the skinny, mousy guy with the boring 9 to 5 job; Tyler with the chisled body, always speaking his mind, someone who doesn’t take orders from anyone. Helena Bonham Carter was also great as Marla, the odd woman who both irritates and fascinates the Narrator.

Fight Club also has really witty dialogue- quotable stuff, if you will. One of these days I really should read the book. I don’t know how closely the film follows the book, but I have to say that Palahniuk is a brilliant writer. The Narrator’s dry comments are so smart but sardonic at the same time, and Tyler’s rants on corporate culture are so well done, they really make you think about your own life and your material possessions- do you really own them, or do they really own you? Is it really important to work your ass off your entire life at a meaningless job so you can afford to buy more stuff you don’t really need? Those are some of the questions this movie provokes.

A friend of mine once said that people either love Fight Club or hate it if they watch it for the first time. I think it’s mainly because of the level of violence. Yes, there are some scenes in which men beat the living shit out of each other. Their faces look like raw hamburger, and they spit out loose teeth. It’s nasty, and some people get put off by that sort of thing. But if you can get past the violence, you will see a brilliantly made film.

Another reason I think that people may not like this movie is because of its message. The whole movie promotes anti-mainstream society, anti-corporation, anti-consumerism, and anti-materalism. The second half of the movie adds anarchy to the mix, taking these messages to a dark and almost frightening level. For example, there’s one disturbing scene I didn’t like that involved Tyler threatening a random man at a convenience store. Although Tyler explains the reasons for his actions, I disagreed with them completely. Yes, Tyler Durden is scary, and a little unhinged. It makes you wonder why these men would follow him, but then you realize that Hitler was also a charismatic leader. I’m not saying that the character of Tyler Durden can be compared to Hitler; I’m just saying that a charismatic leader can get his people to do almost whatever he wants.

There is also a great twist near the end of Fight Club, and those who have seen it understand that in order to gain an even richer understanding of the film should watch it at least twice, or even three times.In sum, I highly recommend this film. I may not agree with all of its messages, but it is so well made and wonderfully written. Check it out if you get the chance. And for those of you who have seen it at least once, see it again.

By the way, for more information about Fight Club, read this Wikipedia article- but only AFTER you’ve seen the movie. After all- you don’t want to ruin the ending for yourself, do you?

Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk, David Fincher, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Helena Bonham Carter, Meatloaf, anti-consumerism, anarchy

Title: Mitchell
Year: 1975
Director: Andrew V. McLaglen
Starring Cast: Joe Don Baker, Martin Balsam, John Saxon
Rated: R

Title: Mystery Science Theater 3000 (TV show)
Year: 1988-1999
Starring Cast: Joel Hodgson, J. Elvis Weinstein, Trace Beaulieu, Frank Conniff

Reel Reviews Rating of just Mitchell:

Reel Reviews Rating of The MST3K version:

All right, before I begin, I have to say that on its own, Mitchell sucks ass. It’s so horrible and extremely painful to watch.

What you need to do is watch this with a guy and two robots who heckel the living hell out of this POS movie.

Friends, your wish has been granted.

Since this is technically a movie within a TV show, I’ll review the movie first and then the TV show.

Joe Don Baker plays Mitchell, a hard boiled detective in a soft boiled body. His interests include porn, cheap beer, and arresting hookers (Linda Evans) after having sex with them. He goes after rich old white guys who are actually drug lords or something like that. The end.

This movie sucks so bad that I can’t even remember half of it. All I remember is that it’s basically a cheap imitation of those 70′s cop movies, which is saying a lot. Certain parts of the plot make absolutely no sense. For example, why the hell does Mitchell get all up in Walter Deaney’s (John Saxon) face? The guy was defending his home from a burglar, for heaven’s sake. Oh yeah, and the car chase scene was seriously pathetic. It’s like, ooooo look at these ginormous land boats going at 40 miles an hour!

Now, what makes this craptastic movie fun to watch is through Mystery Science Theater 3000. For those who don’t know, MST3K (as fans like to call it) was a TV show that involved a guy named Joel (Joel Hodgson) and his robot friends. Joel was a janitor who worked at a research center. For some reason the mad scientist (Trace Beaulieu) and his assistant (Frank Conniff) imprison Joel in the Satellite of Love and shoot him into space. They try to torture him by sending him the most godawful movies ever filmed. Fortunately, Joel is no ordinary janitor, and to maintain his sanity he builds a group of robot buddies to keep him company, two of which sit with him to watch the shitty movies. They basically spend the entire movie making fun of it.

Mitchell is often cited by fans as one of the best MST3K episodes ever, with ‘Manos’ the Hands of Fate being the other movie fans like the best. Incidentally, Manos is #15 on the Top 100 Worst Movies ever made, according to the IMDB. Mitchell is #47. I haven’t seen Manos, but I will say that the MST3K version of Mitchell is hysterical. Joel and his robot friends Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot come up with one zinger after another. My boyfriend has seen Mitchell twice, and he says that it’s even funnier when you’re really drunk. Shame that I wasn’t at the time. Perhaps when I watch Manos.

Here are a few quotes from Joel and the robots while watching Mitchell:

Who’s the puffy guy who’s a big dirty sex machine? MITCHELL!

Mitchell…Licensed to Slouch.

Mitchell – Heart’s poundin’

Mitchell – veins’ cloggin’

MITCHELL!

He looks like the Wrathful Buddha!

If these quotes don’t make sense, then you’ll just have to rent the movie and watch it yourselves. So one of these days, if you’re drunk off your ass and have nothing better to do, check out the MST3K version of Mitchell. Soon you’ll be quoting brilliant wisecracking remarks as well.

UPDATE: I found more MST3K Mitchell quotes from Wikipedia. They are brilliant, I tell ya.

Mitchell, Joe Don Baker, John Saxon, MST3K, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Joel Hodgson, Tom Servo, Crow T. Robot

Title: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Year: 2005
Director: Andrew Adamson
Starring Cast: Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Tilda Swinton
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

I haven’t read the books, so I will be basing my review completely on the movie. Then again, I would have done so anyway since I don’t think it’s fair to compare film adaptations to the media of origin (e.g. book, play, TV show).

The story focuses on four children who are sent away by their parents for protection during World War II. The children end up living in an old professor’s (Jim Broadbent) home, where they spend their days restless, but also extremely concerned for their parents.

One day while playing Hide and Seek with the others, the youngest child Lucy discovers a beautiful wardrobe in an empty room in a remote corner of the house. She hides in the wardrobe and suddenly finds herself in a whole other world where fantasy creatures such as fauns and unicorns live, and animals talk. Naturally she tells her siblings, and although they disbelieve her at first, they find out for themselves that the magic of the wardrobe is very real. When they get to Narnia, the children find themselves caught in the middle of a war between the armies of the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton), and the armies of Mufasa Aslan, the noble Lion King…er, god (voiced by Liam Neeson).

Although the child actors are relative unknowns, they did a really great job in this film. Skandar Keynes did an especially good job in his portayal of the moody, greedy, and jealous younger brother Edmund. You really hate this kid during the first part of the movie, especially in his treatment of his younger sister, and cheer when misfortune strikes him.

The battle scenes were spectacular. A colleague of mine remarked that it was like the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, but with animals and fantasy creatures instead of men. I totally agree with her. The Battle of Pelennor Fields was still way cooler in my opinion, but the battle in Narnia was definitely pretty awesome.

I also loved how the animals were portrayed in the movie. They had so many human personalities that you almost forget they’re animals. For example, when the children meet Mr. Beaver, he takes them to his home. Upon seeing the children, Mrs. Beaver suddenly feels self conscious about her looks. She says something like, “Couldn’t you have given me a 10 minute warning so I could have freshened up a bit?”, while trying to smooth down her fur,much like a woman who nervously smooths her dress when greeting important guests. Aslan the Lion King God was especially done well. The looks of concern and despair in his eyes are so realistic that you forget you’re watching a CGI lion. I was in tears at the end of the crucial scene when he faces the White Witch and her minions.

Although I really enjoyed the movie, one main thing nagged at me the whole time. Yes, I can suspend reality and accept that animals talk, and there are centaurs, hippogriffs, and other funky animals, but I have trouble accepting that these kids who have never held a weapon in their lives suddenly know how to use a bow and arrow or a sword, or that a 15-year old boy can suddenly command an army. Or that the same boy can take down a minotaur that’s 5 times his size. Hell, even the Hobbits couldn’t fight when they first encountered the Ringwraiths.

An interesting thing about The Chronicles of Narnia (not the the film, but the books themselves) is that there are supposedly many allusions to Christianity. Aslan is to represent Jesus Christ himself. Like Jesus who arrived on Earth to save mankind from our sins, Aslan arrives in time to save Narnia and deliver the good from the clutches of evil. It dawned on me that the oldest boy, who becomes one of Aslan’s most trusted knights, is named Peter- like Jesus’s closest and most trusted disciple. I hope though, that something like this doesn’t dissuade nonbelievers from watching the movie, because it’s not like Narnia is meant to be a tool to convert people to Christianity. To be honest, the allusions to Christian ideas are not really very obvious. In fact, as the Wikipedia article I linked mentioned, some argue that Narnia does not share many parallels to Christianity after all.

Regardless of your religion or lack of it, don’t let it influence your decision on watching this film. Enjoy it for what it is- a children’s action and fantasy film great for the whole family.

Chrnonicles of Narnia, Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe, Aslan, Christianity

Title: The Phantom of the Opera
Year: 2004
Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring Cast: Emmy Rossum, Gerard Butler, Patrick Wilson, Natasha Richardson
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Sad to say, I have not yet seen The Phantom of the Opera onstage.

I knew the basic plot and of course the famous songs such as “Music of the Night”, but I haven’t had the chance to experience it live.

When I heard last year that a movie was made based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, I thought to myself, well, at least I’ll get an idea of what it was like.

My parents and sister had gone to New York a few years back and saw Phantom, so naturally when the movie version came out they went out to see it.

Strangely, my mom said that she preferred the movie version better, namely because she was able to follow along easier and because she could see the actors’ faces.

They bought the DVD a few months ago, and this Christmas I was at their house so I got the chance to watch it.

When I looked at the box it came in, a sense of disbelief suddenly filled me when I read the name of the director: Joel Schumacher.

Oh shit.

This is the same guy that nearly destroyed the Batman franchise with Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

How good can this movie be?

Then again, Schumacher did direct The Lost Boys, one of my all time favorite vampire movies. Besides, how bad can he screw it up?

The answer: not bad.

Not bad at all.

The movie opens in Paris 1917, with the scene of an auction taking place in what appears to be a dilapidated opera house. There are cobwebs on the ceilings and the seats look shabby. An old man sits in a wheelchair, listening quietly as the auctioneer peddles off artifacts from the opera house. Across from this man stands an old woman, and from the knowing looks they give each other, it’s understood that they share a past, something they experienced in the opera house that changed their lives.

Suddenly you’re thrust 47 years further in the past, to 1870. You see the Paris Opera House in all its glory: gleaming chandeliers, gorgrous velvet seats, gold trim everywhere. There is an opera troupe rehearsing onstage. Two gentlemen have recently taken over the Opera House and are inspecting their new investment when they learn it came with a little surprise- a Phantom.

The Phantom is a mysterious “ghost” who terrorizes the Opera House and the opera troupe. When his demands aren’t met, he disrupts their performances. A musical genius, the Phantom has also been mentoring Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum), a young chorus girl, molding her into a star. Over the years the Phantom has fallen in love with his protege, and he will stop at nothing to get her to the top. But what happens when Christine falls in love with Raoul, the handsome young Vicomte de Chagny? You’ll just have to watch the movie to find out.

Since I haven’t seen the musical, I can’t use it as a basis of comparison with the film. Then again, even if I have, it wouldn’t be fair to compare the two. Even though they have the same plot, same characters, etc., movies and musicals are made for different audiences, and audiences expect different things from each. Therefore, I’ll just review the movie itself.

In short, my fears of it being a Schumacher film were unfounded. I thought it was fantastic. The story was beautiful, the sets were amazing, and I loved the singing. I couldn’t believe that Emmy Rossum did her own singing. Hell, I saw her play Jake Gyllenhall’s girlfriend in The Day After Tommorow, so I figured she was an actress, not a singer.

I loved Gerard Butler as the Phantom. Not only did I think, “Whoa, the Phantom’s hot!” when I first saw him, but I thought that he played the part well. And although Butler is more of an actor than a singer, I thought that he sang wonderfully. Minnie Driver is hilarious as La Carlotta, the haughty, tempermental diva. And no, that’s not really her singing those supremely high soprano notes. In fact, I think she’s the only one who didn’t do her own singing in the movie, but it’s understandable considering she’s not a real opera singer.

I highly recommend The Phantom of the Opera. If you’re a big fan of the musical, don’t fall into the trap of comparing it with the movie, or comparing say, Emmy Rossum to Sarah Brightman. Appreciate the film and musical for their own worth.

Phantom of the Opera, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Joel Schumacher, Emmy Rossum, Gerard Butler, Minnie Driver, Christine, Phantom, Raoul, Paris Opera House

Just wanted to wish everyone a Happy 2006! Yes, this is a pre-written post. At this moment I’m probably at a restaurant dancing with my boyfriend, drinking lots of champagne, and sharing a New Year’s kiss. I just wanted to have a post right at the stroke of midnight

Party hearty!

Title: The Island
Year: 2005
Director: Michael Bay
Starring Cast: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Sean Bean
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Every time I hear the name of this movie I think of that one weird Simpsons episode where Homer creates a website and finds out information that lands him on a mysterious island (with tropical animals and pandas with harlequinn masks) that he can’t escape. From then on, every time I say the name of this movie, I have to say with a Lisa Simpson voice, “The Island”.

But I digress.

The Island is your classic, typical summer blockbuster directed by that guy who loves to blow stuff up, Michael Bay. There are explosions, shoot outs, car chases, fistfights, love scenes- all the trappings of an action film. Yet strangely when it came out this past summer, it bombed. How come? Is it deserving of such harsh treatment by people?
Let’s find out.

The story is set in the seemingly distant future. You can always tell it’s the future when everyone is wearing identical white jumpsuits. Apparently, something catastrophic happened on Earth, forcing its survivors to live underground. At the same time however, folks can get the chance to live on the last habitable place above ground, simply known as “The Island”. By winning some sort of lottery, a person can pack his bags, leave the bowels of the earth, and spend the rest of his life on some sunny beach and swim in the clear, blue sea.

Of course, as anyone who has ever seen ANY science fiction film will tell you, there is a lot more to this island than these citizens think.

Ewan McGregor plays Lincoln Six Echo, a guy who grows bored of the monotony of his life under the earth. He questions why he has to wear the same white jumpsuit every day, why he can’t eat certain foods, and what his job is really about. Naturally, every hero needs a heroine on his side. This case, it’s Jordan Two Delta, played by the glowing and gorgeous Scarlett Johansson. Together, they uncover the secrets behind the island, but at their own peril.

Ya know, I actually liked The Island. Sure, it’s got a predictable plot. Hell, it rips off elements from The Matrix and about a million other sci fi movies. At the same time, there’s a slight twist to it. Somehow, the plot becomes a social commentary that makes you question biotechnology in the real world. Sure it’s a typical Michael Bay movie with the car chases and explosions. And yes, it was really long. What’s up with Bay making these long ass movies nowadays? But the thing is that this movie was fun to watch.

There was nothing wrong with the acting. Ok, it was pretty clear that Ewan McGregor struggled a lot with maintaining an American accent. Unlike most of his fellow UK actors, McGregor just can’t get it right*. Still, I have always thought of him as a great actor and liked his performance in The Island. Johansson was pretty good too, but like most heroine sidekicks, she wasn’t really given a lot to work with in her role. She gets to shoot a gun once or twice, but really- most of the time she’s just running alongside Ewan’s character as they try to escape the bad guys.

So, I don’t really know why The Island tanked at the box office. The plot was predictable but still had enough of a twist to keep you interested, the acting was good, and it was an action packed movie that came out in the summer. I think one of the reasons was the confusing marketing. When I first started seeing posters for this, I didn’t understand what the hell it was for. I didn’t even know it was for a sci fi movie. Perhaps people stayed away when they found out it was a Michael Bay movie. I don’t know. It’s a shame really, because I thought it was pretty good. Not nearly as good as the awesome Batman Begins, but nowhere near as bad as the supreme suckfest that was The Fantastic Four.

If you didn’t catch The Island in theaters this summer, go rent it.

*For other Ewan McGregor films in which he attempts an American accent, check out Nightwatch, Down With Love, Big Fish, and Robots.

The Island, Michael Bay, Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Steve Buscemi, Sean Bean, cloning, clones,

Title: Brazil
Year: 1985
Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring Cast: Jonathan Pryce, Robert DeNiro, Katherine Helmond, Michael Palin
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Brazil is one of those movies that are often highly praised by movie critics (and armchair critics) because of how artistically it was filmed, because of its message, and so on.

I am not one of those critics.

Directed by Terry Gilliam, Brazil is an homage to Orwell’s 1984. The setting is a futuristic society in which beurocracy, industry, and technology control people’s lives. Nothing gets done unless mountains of unnecessary paperwork is filled out first. This obviously however, doesn’t suit everyone’s taste. Law enforcement are on the lookout not only for terrorists, but for people who do their jobs without the proper paperwork and those who question the system too much.

The story begins when a critical error in paperwork processing leads to the arrest of the wrong man. This mixup is caught by lowly civil servant Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), who resolves to get it fixed. Meanwhile, Lowry has recurring dreams, envisioning himself as a sort of Icarus soaring through the clouds. In his dreams he keeps seeing a beautiful woman calling out to him. When he sees a woman in his real life who looks remarkably like his dream girl, Lowry becomes obsessed in tracking her down. This leads him to question, and even rebel against, the stringent beuracratic system he has been seemingly comfortable with all his life.

I didn’t really like Brazil. Yes, I understand that it’s supposed to be a social commentary, a satirical take on this society etc. I understand that it’s supposed to be kind of weird. Perhaps I didn’t like it because it was directed by Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame, and I’ve never really found Monty Python films funny. I know it’s damn near sacrilegious to say something like that, but I never really “got” that sort of odd British humor.

One of the things that didn’t settle right with me about this movie was that it felt somewhat schizophrenic. One minute there were some really funny scenes, but the next minute it would be downright serious, with people dying. I kept thinking, “Ok- I thought this was supposed to be a comedy”. Another thing I didn’t like about the movie was the character of Sam Lowry. He actually started out ok, but he became downright irritating once he became obsessed with chasing his dream woman, breaking every rule in sight.

Monty Python fans wil definitely love Brazil, others will appreciate the movie for its satire or its artistic value, and some will have fun comparing it to 1984. Still, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. If you don’t get Monty Python-esque comedy, then this isn’t a movie for you.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention. There are two versions of Brazil: Gilliam’s original version with the unhappy ending, and the Hollywood, “Love Conquers All” version with happy ending. I suggest to watch the original version since it wraps up the whole movie better than the Hollywood version.

Brazil, Terry Gilliam, Jonathan Pryce, Monty Python, Ian Holm, Michael Palin, Icarus, 1984, Orwell,

I wrote out a whole rant about how I think WordPress.com isn’t doing a good job in promoting members’ blogs but deleted it. It’s pointless to do so.
Anyway, Merry Christmas and all that. I may be back on Monday.

Title: The Breakfast Club
Year: 1985
Director: John Hughes
Starring Cast: Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

When you hear the Simple Minds’ song, “Don’t You Forget About Me,” what immediately comes to mind?

That’s right. The Breakfast Club.

Another brilliant, classic John Hughes film.

Like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Breakfast Club has a very simple plot. Five teenagers reluctantly spend their Saturday serving detention. Also, like Ferris Bueller, The Breakfast Club has a lot of great, funny and quotable lines.However, unlike Ferris Bueller, this film is more serious.

In my opinion, the main message of the film is that people are not always what they seem to be. Everyone has problems that can’t easily be understood by others. The 5 protagonists represent stereotypical characters in high school- a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a princess, and a criminal. Each one has their own prejudices about ther others. When these characters are placed in a room together, they at first express the personalities expected of them. The “criminal” John (Judd Nelson) acts like a complete jerk to everyone; the “athlete” Andrew (Emilio Estevez) immediately hates John and sticks close to the “princess” Claire (Molly Ringwald). However, they soon learn that they have a lot more in common than they thought.

What’s great about this film is that it gave a deep, honest look at teenagers. They weren’t just these oversexed, bubbleheaded morons nor were they innocent angels. They cussed and swore, and were angry at their parents. My own parents never liked this movie because the teenagers blamed their problems on the parents. DUH. Doesn’t EVERY teenager feel that way?

In spite of the seriousness of the movie, there are many lighthearted and funny moments, and hilarious lines. Take this exchange between Claire and John, for example:

Claire: What’s your name?

John: What’s yours?

Claire: Claire.

John: Claire?

Claire: Claire. It’s a family name.

John: Oh, it’s a fat girl’s name.

Claire: Oh, thank you.

John: You’re welcome.

Claire: I’m not fat.

John: Well not at present, but I can see you really pushing maximum density. See I’m not sure if you know this, but there are two kinds of fat people: there’s fat people that were born to be fat, and there’s fat people that were once thin but became fat… so when you look at ‘em you can sorta see that thin person inside. You see, you’re gonna get married, you’re gonna squeeze out a few puppies and then, ooop…OOOOP….

The Breakfast Club appeals to so many people because we all were teenagers at one time. We remember what it was like to feel neglected by our parents, to feel that no one understands how we really feel or what we’re going through. We remember forcing to put on a face every day at school, to act in a way that’s expected of us. We remember the prejudices and intolerance we held towards other students because they were “not like us” or “uncool”, or because they were “poseurs”. We have all known at least one person who was either a brain, an athlete, a basketcase, a princess, or a criminal. Hell, some of us have BEEN at least one of those.

The Breakfast Club, John Hughes, high school, Judd Nelson, Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy

Title: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
Year: 1986
Director: John Hughes
Starring Cast: Matthew Broderick, Alan Ruck, Mia Sara, Jeffrey Jones
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

The first time I watched this movie, I was in sixth grade. It was a particularly rainy Friday, so they decided to just make it a film day for the whole school. They cleared out all the tables and chairs in the cafeteria and we sat on the floor.

I thought at the time that it was the most brilliant movie ever made.

Not because it was so funny, not because I thought Matthew Broderick was cute, but because there were tips on how to fake being sick.

I actually took notes during the first ten minutes of the movie, as Ferris explains the proper way to fake an illness without going overboard.

The key to faking out the parents is the clammy hands. It’s a good non-specific symptom. I’m a big believer in it. A lot of people will tell you a good phoney fever is a deadlock, but you get a nervous mother, you could wind up in a doctor’s office–that’s worse than school. You fake a stomach cramp, and when you’re bent over, moaning and wailing, you lick your palms. It’s a little childish and stupid, but then so is high school.

I thought that this guy was a GOD.

Over the years and even now I’d catch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off on HBO or some other channel, and I still never tire of it.

For those too young to remember this movie (or those unfortunate enough never to have seen it for some reason), the movie is basically about a guy (Matthew Broderick) who skips school with his friends and gallavants all over Chicago.

Sounds like a pretty simple, almost boring plot, doesn’t it?

There’s more.

Ferris is such an unbelievably charming and likeable person, that he can pretty much get away with anything. His parents coo and fuss over him. He convinces his pessimistic best friend Cameron (Alan Ruck) to take his father’s beloved 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California for a spin. The whole school worships him. The whole town loves him as well. However, two people unaffected by Ferris’ charms -his older, jealous sister Jeannie (Jennifer Grey), and his archnemesis, Principal Ed Rooney (Jeffrey Jones)- are determined to catch Ferris playing hooky.

This movie is great on so many levels. First and foremost, it’s hella funny, especially in the scenes where Principal Rooney tries to catch Ferris. The dialogue is extremely quotable. Check out this list of memorable quotes from the movie. EVERYONE and their mother knows that when someone says the name Abe Froman, you immediately want to follow up with, “The Sausage King of Chicago?” Second, the cast is top notch. The scenes in which Cameron disquises his voice while making prank phone calls. Third, the silly misadventures Ferris and his friends get into makes you wish that you could be with them playing hooky too. Finally, you get a great tour of Chicago.

Ferris Bueller is a timeless classic. My 17-year old sister and her friends adore the movie (along with other John Hughes films), while I still watch it whenever it’s on TV.

In a nutshell, rent it! Or better yet, buy it! It’s a great movie.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, John Hughes, Ferris Bueller, Matthew Broderick, Jeffrey Jones, Alan Ruck, high school, ditching, Chicago, Abe Froman, 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California

Hope you enjoy.

UPDATE: I just made a banner. Hard to believe, but it took me freaking forever to do it. I’m a total amateur at Paint Shop Pro 8. Hope you guys like it.

Title: The Goonies
Year: 1985
Director: Richard Donner
Starring Cast: Sean Astin, Josh Brolin, Corey Feldman, Joe Pantoliano, Robert Davi
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

Before Sean Astin accompanied Elijah Wood to Mount Doom in the widely acclaimed Lord of the Rings trilogy, he went on an adventure with another set of friends in the 1985 Steven Spielberg movie, The Goonies. Set in an Oregon coastal town, The Goonies follows the escapades of a group of teens in their search for a legendary pirate’s buried treasure while evading a duo of incredibly stupid escaped convicts and their domineering mother.

Dismayed that land developers are arriving the next morning to bulldoze their houses to make room for shopping malls, the kids feel that the only way to save the town is to pay off the developers with the pirate’s booty, and so they go off on an adventure similar to that found in the Indiana Jones trilogy. Dangerous booby traps, riddles, and bad guys hinder the groups’ progress every step of the way, but their determination to save the town they love is so strong that they risk everything. I think Spielberg made this film as a kind of Indiana Jones for the kids, especially since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was made the previous year.

Granted, this movie isn’t perfect. The dialogue can be corny at times, and some of the characters are your typical teen stereotypes: the Fat Kid, the Cheerleader, the Smart Aleck, etc. And yes, it’s predictable that some of the kids have special abilities that help them overcome certain obstacles: one of them can speak Spanish, so he translates the pirate’s map for them. But hey- it’s a kids’ movie, so one can’t exactly expect Shakespeare out of it. Besides, it’s definitely a lot better than Harriet the Spy.

In addition to Astin, the young cast includes Corey Feldman (before he started making those awful movies with his namesake Corey Haim), Ke Huy Quan, fresh from his role as Indy’s sidekick Short Round in Temple of Doom, Josh Brolin, Martha Plimpton, Kerri Green and Jeff Cohen. The adult cast includes Robert Davi and Joe Pantoliano as the dim-witted Fratelli brothers, Anne Ramsey as their not-so-charming matriarch, and the late John Matsuzak as the famous Sloth.

I tell ya, I absolutely ADORE this movie. It’s one of my all time favorites. I still watch it every time it’s on TV. I first saw this movie when I was about 9, and I seriously wanted so badly to be a Goonie. I imagined myself in their shoes- how cool it would be to go through the adventures they had, to outsmart the bad guys, etc. I had the BIGGEST crush on Sean Astin. I mean, look at him- he was so totally adorable with those braces!

Incidentally, there has been talk since 1987 about making a sequel to The Goonies, but so far no one has been able to confirm nor deny these reports. Some have said that the cast is ready and willing to revisit their childhood roles, but for some reason Warner Brothers hasn’t given the green light. I’ll bet it’s mainly because no one has come up with a good enough script that captures the fun and adventure of the original movie, but deals with the characters as adults. Part of me thinks it would be cool to see a sequel, but part of me worries that a sequel would ruin the reputation of the original movie.

Check out this comparison of pics of the original cast as kids versus what they look like now.

The old guy in the back is Richard Donner, the director.

The Goonies, Steven Spielberg, Richard Donner, Sean Astin, Corey Feldman, John Matsuzak, pirates, One Eyed Willie

Not like anyone’s reading anyways…

Title: Blade: Trinity
Year: 2004
Director: David S. Goyer
Starring Cast: Wesley Snipes, Jessica Biel, Ryan Reynolds
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Here’s the thing- I LOVE the first Blade movie. It’s so freaking awesome and badass. Wesley Snipes was so cool with that Brazilian kung-fu thing that he does when he’s killing vampires. Even Stephen Dorff was tolerable. Actually, I thought he was great in it. I especially like the scene where Blade is getting his ass handed to him and is crumpled to the floor, and Stephen Dorff’s character is like, “Look at you. You’re a little BITCH.” Man, that was funny.

(I haven’t seen Blade II.)

So when I heard that Blade: Trinity was featuring two other main characters I thought, “What the hell? Blade works alone!” Yeah I know, he has Whistler with him (played by Kris Kristofferson) but Whistler kind of remains in the background most of the time. And when I realized that one of these characters was be played by Jessica Biel, I thought, “Oh shit. Another one of those pretty actresses trying to jump on the asskicking female bandwagon.” Needless to say, I didn’t expect much from the movie. And I’m glad I didn’t.

In case you’ve never seen any of the Blade movies, here’s a little backstory. Blade is one Eric Brooks, who by a twist of fate was born half-human, half-vampire. Also known as “The Daywalker” by vampires since his human side allows him to walk in daylight, Blade has made it his life’s mission to hunt and kill them. At the same time, he struggles every day to maintain his human side and not give in to “the hunger”.

In Blade: Trinity, a group of young vampires decided that a good way to keep Blade off their backs is to get the FBI after him by framing him for a bunch of crimes and murders. Meanwhile, they resurrect Dracula, who they hope can destroy Blade for them and usher in a new era for vampires. Blade meets a vampire-killing group called the Nightstalkers and reluctantly teams up with them in the quest to defeat Dracula.

Sounds pretty cool, right? Not quite. First of all, even though this movie has the word “Blade” in the title, you barely see poor Wesley Snipes. Why? Because he has 2 co-stars who take up part of the screentime. Because you have Parker Posey (who was just so corny and overacted it was ridiculous) as the vampire leader taking up screen time. Because the rest of the Nightstalkers also take up more screentime than they should have, in spite of the fact that it was so predictable that these useless characters would all die anyway. Because there’s a goddamn KID they had to save, and she took up screentime. I hate it when movies force totally unnecessary child characters into the plot for some lame reason (the cuteness factor; to tug at your heartstrings, to feel sorry for the kid and all that crap).

Second of all, I couldn’t stand the blatant product placement. There were times I’d forget I was watching a movie and thought I was watching an Apple commercial. Ooh, the Nightstalkers use Powermacs to track down vampires. Fancy. Meanwhile, Jessica Biel’s character Abigail listens to her iPod while she fights. Are you fucking kidding me?!?!? Wouldn’t your sense of hearing be kind of important when you’re up against the undead????

Third, I want to know what the hell they were thinking when they picked Dominic Purcell to play Dracula. I was like, “The Father of all Vampires is an Italian male model??” This guy is supposed to be intimidating and threatening, yet sexy. He was neither intimidating or threatening. I could not take him seriously.

Fourth- What is up with Jessica Biel as a vampire hunter? Wasn’t she from that 7th Heaven TV show? How is she suddenly doing kung fu and using bows and arrows all over the place? The image just seems so forced, like Kate Beckinsale in those Underworld movies. She just didn’t fit the role. Again I ask, what is up with these actresses wanting to appear more badass? I’m waiting for the day that Reese Witherspoon and Gwenyth Paltrow bust out nunchuks in their movies.

In spite of my complaints, there are some good points. One is that some of the fight scenes are still relatively cool, but not nearly as cool as the opening scene in the first Blade movie. Oh my God, what an awesome scene.

Another sorta good point is the presence of Ryan Reynolds. I’ve never seen The Fast and the Furious so I didn’t know anything about him, but in Blade: Trinity he was hella funny. I especially like the DVD outtakes that show him ad-libbing a certain line several times, and each time was funnier than the last. Plus, he was very good eye candy. Hot damn, he has a HOT BOD! Holy shit man! He’s got some killer abs!

Overall, I don’t recommend renting Blade: Trinity. It just pales in comparison to the first Blade. Rent Blade I instead.

Blade:Trinity, Blade, Wesley Snipes, comic book, vampires, Jessica Biel, Dracula

Title: Cinderella Man
Year: 2005
Director: Ron Howard
Starring Cast: Russell Crowe, Renee Zwelleger, Paul Giamatti
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

There are times when film companies take risks that pay off, such as allowing then-unknown director Peter Jackson to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to film 3 movies at the same time over the course of 7 years.

Then there are times when they do not.

Take the film Cinderella Man, a quiet little feel good film. You have three talented actors (Russell Crowe, Renee Zwelleger, and the wondeful Paul Giamatti), a great director (Ron Howard), and a simple plot (with the magic words “based on a true story”). It’s one of those inspirational types of movies that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The kind that makes tear up just a little. In short, it screamed OSCAR.

Then why in God’s name was it released at the beginning of the summer?

Why was it forced to compete with action packed movies such as Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, and of all things, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith?

Were they asking for a death wish at the box office?

I don’t know what they were thinking at the time. Perhaps they figured that people would appreciate a little break from the loud, action blockbusters. Perhaps they thought that they would have much less competition in the Oscar race since it was released among movies of a non-Oscar worthy genre (unless you count Special Effects and Costume Design). Whatever the reason was, it hurt this movie bad. Although critics praised this movie, Cinderella Man barely made 50$ million at the box office.

Now with Oscar nominating season drawing near, film execs need to remind people about Cinderella Man. After all, summer was so long ago. Before Thanksgiving, I heard on the radio that the movie was on “limited release” in theatres- before the DVD comes out tommorow.

But enough of my prattering about that. What’s the film about anyway?

For those of you who didn’t see it, Cinderella Man is based on the true story of aging boxer Jim Braddock (played by phone tosser Russell Crowe). Like most people in the United States during that time, Braddock’s career plummets when the Great Depression hits. Suddenly he and his family are penniless, and Braddock is forced to take a number of low paying jobs in order to survive.

Suddenly, due to a small stroke of luck, Braddock finds himself in the ring again. He does fairly well, and slowly he regains his confidence as a prizefighter. But can he stand against the current heavyweight champion of the world, a big mofo said to have put two previous opponents in the morgue?

I thought that the film was relatively ok, but too sappy. There are so many scenes involving Braddock’s family’s plight that you just want to scream, “Ok, I get it! They’re poor! The kids are hungry!”. Sheesh. Yes Ron, we took history class in high school. We know that the Great Depression was awful for everybody.

The acting was, not surprisingly, great. Although he’s such a dick in real life, Russell Crowe is a terrific actor. There is one scene, in which Braddock swallows his pride and begs for money, which I thought was really sad and touching. You really feel bad for this guy. But as far as favorite actors go, that prize goes to Paul Giamatti. he played Braddock’s manager, a tough but kindhearted man who is more than what you see on the outside. As for Renee Zwelleger, I thought she was ok, but definitely not memorable. She didn’t really “wow” me, and anyone could have played her role as Braddock’s wife.

If you want a feel-good family movie, won’t mind the sappiness, and the predictable ending, go rent Cinderella Man when it comes out next week. If you’re a Russell Crowe fan (like my mom), buy the movie and add it to your Russell Crowe collection. However, for everyone else, I suggest that you save your money and wait until it comes out on HBO.

Cinderella Man, Ron Howard, Jim Braddock, Russell Crowe, Renee Zwelleger, Paul Giamatti, boxing, Great Depression

Title: Closer
Year: 2004
Director: Mike Nichols
Starring Cast: Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen
Rated: A filthy, dirty R

Reel Reviews Rating:

Closer is based on a play, which makes sense given the very small cast. There are only four characters in the whole film, and the plot focuses entirely on them. For such a small cast, Closer has a complex story, with elements such as love, loneliness, jealousy, trust, deception, betrayal, and lust.

Some people may dismiss this movie as a soap opera, with people simply cheating on their partners or being cheated on. However, it’s more than that. First of all, there are no protagonists; everyone has some sort of weakness or flaw. Yes, even Anna, played by America’s Sweetheart herself. At the same time, none of them are complete scumbags either. Well…actually, Jude Law’s character (Dan) comes pretty close, but then again, it’s a role that probably comes second nature to him.

Second- there is the theme of deception. Each character is not necessarily who the audience (nor the other characters) first perceives them to be. For example, when we first see Anna, we get the impression that she’s a confident and independent woman. She’s a successful photographer and appears to be happy. Later we find out that Anna may not be as strong as she seems.

Third- I think the actors did a great job in providing depth to their characters. Even Ms. Julia was able to make it throughout the whole movie without flashing her ginormous, movie star smile. Clive Owen is especially good as the pervy but sensitive brute Dr. Larry. Check out the crucial scene between him and Julia Roberts. He’s absolultely electrifying in it. At the same time, I question Natalie Portman’s portrayal of Alice. I don’t know about the Alice from the play, but IMO Natalie seemed out of place. She just looks so much younger than the other three. She looks 12 years old, and everyone else is an adult. Her tiny frame certainly doesn’t help. Julia looks like she could be her mom. And I found the flirt scenes between her and Clive Owen a bit awkward since she looks like a child standing next to him.

Fourth- the film looks at the underbelly of relationships. Most of the time we see the smiley, charming, birds-fluttering-around-hearts-dancing scenarios of love in movies. Sure, at times we see a couple with some problem in their relationship, but near the end of the movie more often than not that problem is fixed somehow. All is forgiven. Everyone wins and goes home happy. Closer shows that no, not all relationships will live happily ever after. There are some things people do to each other that can never be forgiven. People do dumb shit that even they can’t explain, but do it anyway. It’s harsh, but that kind of stuff does happen in real life.

Fifth- despite the seriousness of the plot, there are funny scenes. The best one is when Dan (Jude Law) and Dr. Larry (Clive Owen) are chatting to each other online. It is pure comedy gold.

Overall, I would definitely recommend Closer. There are just so many levels to it. This is the kind of movie that keeps you thinking- mulling over the characters and the plot- even after it’s over.

Closer, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Natalie Portman, Clive Owen, play

Title: Memento
Year: 2000
Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring Cast: Guy Pierce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

I had started hearing about Memento before I was about to move to Japan (back in 2000), but it came out some time after I had left the country. When I returned in 2002 and moved back in my parents’ house, I started making a mental list of movies I wanted to watch in my absence. Sure enough, Memento was one of them, especially since I’d heard my boyfriend talk about it. Over time, I had forgotten about that mental list, especially since my family has seen all those movies and weren’t exactly willing to rent them again. Oh sure, I got to catch up a little via HBO, but not completely. However, since I now have my own place, I can rent whatever the hell I want and watch it on my own terms. So I got Memento.

Before I started watching, I knew what the premise was about, but it was still kind of strange to go through the whole movie. The story is about a man named Leonard (Guy Pierce) who, because of a terrible incident during a home invasion robbery, suffers from short term memory loss. He can’t remember anything for more than 10 minutes and has to write everything down. He becomes obsessed with finding the man who destroyed his life.

It sounds like a simple enough plot, but the appeal of Memento is in how the story is told. Basically, the film is run backwards. You first see about 10 minutes (the same length of Leonard’s memory) of a scene and are left wondering about the context: How did he get there? Who’s that person he’s talking to? Can he/she be trusted? The following scene then refers to events that occur prior to the scene you just saw, which provides the audience with more clues, but at the same opens new mysteries. This pattern continues until you get to the beginning of the story. Furthermore, in between these scene snippets are black and white scenes which help tie the snippets together, give the audience an idea of time, and also provide more clues to the mystery. Pay special attention to these black and white scenes, especially of the stories Leonard tells about another man with a similar condition. They are crucial to solving the mystery.

Memento really makes you think what it must be like for people with short term memory loss. Imagine not being able to remember anything you see or read, nor anyone you meet after a few short minutes. Imagine the difficulty in doing the most simple tasks and making sure you haven’t already done them. Imagine the thousands of little notes you have to write to yourself just to make it through the day. Your whole life depends on those notes, even your trust in people. For example, Leonard takes Poloroids of the people he meets and writes little notes about them to remind him if they are friend or foe. It’s pretty sad if you need photos and notes to remember who your friends are.Now, imagine all these same problems but at the same time plotting revenge. How can you trust what anyone is saying to you? How do you even remember why you’re so vengeful? If you complete your task, how will you get any satisfaction if you can’t even remember it 10 minutes later?

I didn’t get to see all the DVD extras, but there was one in particular that I thought was cool. I’m not sure if it inspired the movie or vice versa, but you can read a short story about a man with short term memory who wakes up in a hospital. There are notes all over his room, including the ceiling, obviously written by him. I think there were deleted scenes, but I really can’t remember.

There is a twist at the end -or shall I say, the beginning- that leaves you shaking your head in disbelief. When you mentally arrange the scene snippets in chronological order you’ll just think to yourself, “Whoa.”

I thought that the acting was great. Guy Pierce is good at any role he plays, and he was terrific in playing this often confused, but determined man. Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano also did a great job. It’s funny that they were both in The Matrix, but I guess they wanted to do something a little different from sci-fi.

Overall, I thought that the movie was very good. Some people may not be impressed by the movie and call it gimmicky by playing the story backwards, but hey- I thought they pulled it off well. It definitely kept me thinking even after it was over, and I like those kinds of movies. I would definitely recommend it.

Memento, Guy Pierce, Carrie-Ann Moss, Joe Pantoliano, short-term, memory

Title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Year: 2005
Director: Mike Newell
Starring Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Yes, I finally actually get to review a current movie. I saw this particular one this weekend.

I’m a huge Harry Potter fan. I have read all the books more than once and am currently trying to collect first editions and first printings of the books. Naturally I get excited when I hear that the latest film adaptation is coming out. It’s cool to see the scenes that I had visualized in my head come to life on the big screen, not to mention the physical representations of beloved characters. But of course, that is also the most difficult and challenging task that faces filmmakers who adapted books for film.

- First and foremost, you have to stay as true to the original book as possible and not alienate/piss off the loyal fans.

- Second, you have to make it appealing enough to attract people who have never read the book and are just interested in seeing a movie.

- Third, since you obviously can’t translate the entire book scene for scene, you have to take great care in keeping in the most important scenes, stories, and characters while removing the ones not necessary to the plot.

With this in mind, it’s kind of tough for me to review this film separate from the book since there are many differences between the two, but I’ll give it a whirl.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is the fourth movie/book in the Harry Potter installment. Harry’s wizarding school Hogwarts hosts a very special event called the Triwazard Tournament to promote friendship and goodwill among the magic community. During the course of the years, the school hosts student athletes from two other wizarding schools, who also plan to compete in the event.

Although the winner of the Triwazard Tournament is promised “eternal glory”, it comes at a very high price. Contestants compete in 3 very grueling and extremely dangerous tasks. In past Tournaments, contestants have been killed. Because of this, contestants have to be 17 years old or older. One champion is to be chosen to represent his or her school. Naturally, due to sinister forces, 14-year old Harry is inexplicably chosen as the fourth champion, and he has no choice but to compete in the deadly contest.

In addition to the Triwizard Tournament, Harry must face other obstacles throughout the movie: puberty. Yep, our lil’ ol’ Harry is growing up. He’s noticing girls for the first time, and feels nervous in asking them out.

Then of course there’s still that sticky situation with his archnemesis, Lord Voldemort.

As you can see, Harry’s got a lot on his plate.

This movie (like the book) was the longest of the first four movies, yet it still seemed rushed, especially in the first half hour. You get no sense of time. I know that they couldn’t put everything from the book into the movie, but they could have done a lot better. For example, in the book Harry and his friends attend the Quidditch World Cup, and the movie does a great job in portraying the opening ceremony. But suddenly- CUT. The next scene features people celebrating because their favorite team had won. I thought it was extremely abrupt. They definitely didn’t have to show the whole thing, but at least a small montage would have been cool. In another example, the scenes that introduce the students from the other two schools was somewhat choppy. First you see Harry and his friends on the train, and the next thing you see the arrival of the foreign students. There is no explanation for who they are until several minutes later.

In some cases, the editing just didn’t make sense. For example, Harry is walking through the forest and stumbles upon something important. In the very next scene, he goes to Professor Dumbledore’s office, which gives the audience the idea, “Oh, he’s going to tell him what happened”. But when Harry gets there, he doesn’t mention the incident at all and talks about something else. Wha???

I think that the biggest problem with Harry Potter and the GOF was that it didn’t allow for enough exposition and spent too much time on the action sequences. For example, the first task took a lot longer in the movie than it did in the book. Obviously they were going for a Hollywood, larger than life, action sequence with a chase scene in the air. At the same time however, you never find out, for example, why Neville became so agitated in class during the demonstration of one of the three Unforgivable Curses.

Another issue was with the characters. I know that it’s tough to give enough screen time on so many characters but hey- they managed to do it in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Harry Potter and the GOF introduces several new, supporting characters but we know very little of them. For example, although there are 3 other contestants in the Triwizard Tournament, two of them barely have any lines. Even some the adult cast seemed somewhat wasted. I know that Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman were in this film, but I barely saw them. Granted, their Sirius Black and Professor Snape characters were not as important in this film (though both play a significant role in the next two books), but I still felt that their talents were wasted.

Upon reading some of the other reviews on this movie last night, I have to add something that they noted, which I agree with. Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Professor Dumbledore had completely missed the mark. In one scene he violently grabs and shakes Harry, which is, as any Potter fan will tell you, something that Professor Dumbledore had never done in the book. It’s completely uncharacteristic of him. I’m not saying that Gambon should copy Richard Harris’s portrayal of Dumbledore from the first two Potter films. I’m just saying that he should stick closer to the character in the book.

In spite of these issues I had with the film, I still enjoyed it because it mostly stayed true to the film and kept pretty much all of the important scenes. There are several funny moments, which are refreshing given the overall somber mood of the plot. The Weasley twins, played by the Phelps twins, were especially good; they’ve finally been allowed to stretch their funny bones. I’m looking forward to seeing more of their comedic talents in the next movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Harry Potter and the GOF is the first in the series to receive a PG-13 rating, and rightfully so. There are several scary scenes that young children should not watch. It’ll give them nightmares. It’s only natural that this film get this rating; not only is it a lot darker and more serious, but there is some mild sexual innuendo, as in the funny scene with Harry and the ghost of Moaning Myrtle in the Prefects’ Bath.

Because of the poor editing, and rushed feeling in the beginning in this film, I wouldn’t recommend this movie for Potter novices. At the least, novices should have seen the previous film, Harry Potter and the Prison of Azkaban, to understand what’s going on in this one. Non-diehard Potter fans on the other hand, would not have this problem since they can fill in the blanks with their knowledge of the book. Diehard Potter fans (like any diehard fans of a book adapted to a movie), will just complain the whole time and not be happy that the movie isn’t “as I imagined it”.

Harry Potter, Goblet of Fire, JK Rowling, Daniel Radcliffe, Ralph Fiennes, Triwizard Tournament

To be honest, I wish I can customize my theme and not have to stick to the ones provided by WordPress.com. The least I’d like to do is be able to download and install other themes, but I hear that pretty soon we’d be able to use customized themes.

Title: The Aviator
Year: 2004
Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Alan Alda
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

I had wanted to rent this movie for a long time now because I heard that the plane flying sequences would look great on a big screen plasma TV. A few weeks ago I finally got to rent it, and I definitely got to see more than just cool flying sequences. I got to watch a great film.

Before I begin, let me just warn you all that this movie is LONG. It’s about 3 hours long. You’d probably need to take a lot of bathroom and snack breaks. But then again, so was the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I didn’t mind those at all.
As everyone knows, The Aviator depicts the story of eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes. It starts off with Hughes as a very young boy talking with his mother, and although it’s a very short, quiet scene, it’s an important one so make sure you’re paying attention.

The very next scene jumps forward about 20 years, as we see Hughes as a young man filming his first movie “Hell’s Angels�, and it is here that the audience first catches a glimpse of Hughes’ character as a perfectionist, and his cavalier attitude toward money.

The Aviator focuses on a number of important events such as his flight on the H-1, which set record speeds of 352 miles an hour, and his disastrous flight on the X-11. It also highlights Hughes’ reputation as a ladies’ man, dating classic leading ladies such as Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner, and Jean Harlow. Naturally, the film also tackles Hughes’ downward spiral into obsessive compulsive disorder and paranoia. It’s pretty sad to see this confident, brilliant man reduced to a babbling fool whenever his OCD kicks in.

The film does a good job in depicting Hughes’ public life equally with his personal life. On one hand you have Howard Hughes the innovator, the visionary, taking on challenging projects even at the concern of his staff. Howard Hughes the dashing billionaire, with a different woman on his arm every night. On the other hand you have Howard Hughes the troubled man, privately dealing with his demons. He’s fully aware that his mind is falling apart and worries he can’t do anything about it.

Now, as for the actor. I know some people don’t like Leonardo DiCaprio for a number of reasons.

-Because he’s a pretty boy.

-Because he looks gay.

-Because he’s too young to play serious roles.

And so on.

Well let me tell ya: I’ve always liked DiCaprio as an actor. Yes, he’s good looking but the kicker is that he really can act. Instead of capitalizing on his good looks by taking shitty roles, in my opinion, DiCaprio likes to challenge himself by taking tough roles, the kind that actors his age and appearance would pass up. Most actors his age are comfortable with the “hero� roles or appearing in a romantic comedy, but not DiCaprio. He’s played a variety of roles that range from a mentally retarded boy in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?, to a drug-addicted teen in The Basketball Diaries, to a vengeful man in Gangs of New York. And with The Aviator, I thought that he did a great job in playing Howard Hughes. For those who think that DiCaprio was too young to play Hughes, consider that most of the movie focuses of the billionaire’s early life. Many of Hughes’ accomplishments took place during his late twenties and early thirties. It’s not like you could have gotten Tom Hanks to play the guy.

By the way, here’s a little bit of trivia about the movie that I got from the IMDB:

Martin Scorsese designed each year in the film to look just the way a color film from that time period would look. Achieved mainly through digitally enhanced post-production, Scorsese recreated the look of Cinecolor and two-strip Technicolor. Watch in particular for the scene where Howard Hughes meets Errol Flynn in the club. Hughes is served precisely placed peas on a plate, and they appear blue or turquoise – just as they’d have looked in the primitive two-strip Technicolor process. As Hughes ages throughout the film, the color gets more sophisticated and full-bodied.

I KNEW that the colors looked a little weird near the beginning of the movie! Another scene to pay attention to is the one where Hughes flies the H-1. He flies over a corn field, which look blue/turquoise instead of green. That Scorsese- he’s a clever man.

Anyway, if you don’t mind watching DiCaprio in a film, if you don’t mind hunkering down for the next 3 hours, then check out this movie. If Ray, Ali, and other biopics bore the hell out of you, or if you just can’t STAND Leonardo DiCaprio, then this movie isn’t for you.

Aviator, Howard Hughes, Martin Scorsese, Leonardo DiCaprio, Spruce Goose

Title: Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow
Year: 2004
Director: Kerry Conran
Starring Cast: Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie
Rated: PG

Reel Reviews Rating:

The first thing I thought of when I first heard the title of this movie was, “What a load of cheese!� I mean, really- what the hell kind of title is Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow?

Now that I look back on it, this is remarkably the exact same thing I thought of when I heard that the title of Star Wars: Episode II was to be called Attack of the Clones. Attack of the Clones?!?! What- like, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes?!?!?!

Anywho…

In spite of such a long-winded, corny title, I thought well, you have these A class actors in the film- Jude Law, Gwenyth Paltrow, and Angelina Jolie. Big time people. Not to mention that I heard it looks great on a big screen TV. So I gave it a chance.

And got a plate full of queso.

Sky Captain reminds me a whole lot of The Rocketeer. In fact, it shares the same formula: you’ve got this alternate universe where there are robots and all sorts of flying machines during the 1930s. You’ve got the dashing hero, the stubborn but plucky female sidekick, and mysterious bad guys. At least Sky Captain didn’t have Timothy Dalton. I dunno. The guy never really sat well with me. Pierce Brosnan was a way cooler -and hotter!- James Bond.

But I digress.

The plot of Sky Captain comes right out of a 1930s children’s TV (or radio) show. Scientists are mysteriously disappearing; meanwhile, strange robots have invaded New York City! Oh, who will save us? Why it’s Sky Captain and his plane. Hurray! But where did these robots come from? How are the scientists connected? Stay tuned next week to find out!

As I mentioned, I had heard that a main reason to watch this movie was because it supposedly looks great on a big screen TV. I guess it has something to do with the whole movie being done in CGI (with the exception of the actors, of course). It’s nothing new- after all, consider Star Wars: Episode II and Episode III. And yes, those CGI rendered scenes look great; however, it didn’t look nearly as good in Sky Captain. I understand that they were trying to give that 1930s film noir kind of look by using sepia tones, and though it looked cool in the beginning, you get kind of sick of it after a while, especially since most of the time the actions take place in the shadows. Hey, I’m all for directors flexing their artistic muscles by bathing the actors in shadows but when you can’t even tell what the hell is going on in a scene because it’s so damn dark, they’ve overdone it.

I couldn’t figure out for the life of me why A-listers such as Jude Law, Gwenyth Paltrow, and Angelina Jolie would choose to appear in such a cheesefest. Then I realized: they purposefully wanted to be in a cheesefest, to do something for fun. It must get tiring to always appear on Oscar worthy films. I think though, that Angelina should watch herself and not get trapped in the “cheesy action film� genre. The Tomb Raider movies should have given her enough frommage, but I guess not. At least Gwenyth did that Sylvia Plath movie last year, even though she also did View from the Top. And Jude should just take a breather in general. I mean, he was in FOUR movies last year (granted, his role in The Aviator was really just a cameo, but still)! Slow down, my friend. How you were able to do four movies AND fuck your kids’ babysitter while engaged is beyond me.

In sum, I don’t recommend this movie, especially if your eyes tend to tire easily. The fuzzy sepia colors will drive you nuts after a while, and you will get a headache trying to make out what’s going on in the shadows. It’s also a relatively predictable plot with an attempt of a twist at the end. Blah, whatever. I’m glad I didn’t spend 8$ to watch it in the theater. I’m glad that I didn’t spend 3$ to rent it from Blockbuster. Good old free 6-month Netflicks membership courtesy of my bf’s brother. No, this is the type of movie that you just happen to catch on HBO while channel surfing and there’s nothing else better on TV.

Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie

Title: Death Race 2000
Year: 1975
Director: Paul Bartel
Starring Cast: David Carradine, Simone Griffith, Sylvester Stallone
Rated: R

Reel Reviews Rating:

In a word, this movie sucks.

It sucks beyond all levels of suckitude.

I am peeved that my bf made me watch this because this is 90 minutes of my life that I will never get back.

Death Race 2000 is what I guess one might call a “cult film�, though that would be an insult to cults. No, let’s just call it for what it is- a bad 70s movie, which is kind of redundant I know, but this movie is just all sorts of crap.

The story takes place in the year 2000, in a twisted sort of America run by a dictator. Gee, I’ve never heard of that plotline before. And in this future violent car races are the national pasttime. Contestants compete in a cross-country race where extra points are scored when they mow down pedestrians. Oooh, how cruel. And just to show the audience that they mean business, the contestants’ cars are equipped with all sorts of knives, spears, and other pointy things meant to maim and kill their prey. Ya know, I would be more impressed with their death cars if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious that the spears and pointy things were made out of paper mache, and the blood was nothing more than orange paint.

Oh yeah, and there’s some lame plot mixed in somewhere about a group of terrorists, led by some stiff looking old woman, who try to off the contestants to get their message across to the public that the race is barbaric. Um, wha??? Yeah because killing the contestants is not barbaric at all!! Oy.

Yes my friends, this is a total B movie with a B movie budget, in spite of actors such as Sylvester Stallone and David Carradine.

Oh hell, who am I kidding? It’s not like THEY’RE A-listers. They were PERFECT for this movie.

Titty fans may want to know that there are several bare breast scenes, many by the lovely and perky nippled Simone Griffith, a woman I’d never heard of before until this movie. And I’m sure I’ll never hear about again.

I for one, however, am scarred for life after seeing David Carradine wearing nothing but black briefs. YOWF.

So, do I recommend this movie? Hell no, are you kidding? Of course not! It sucks! The plot sucks! The acting is painful to watch! The supporting actors are irritating as hell! The fake blood is orange! The explosions look like they were done with firecrackers! The props look like paper mache! Need I go on???

Don’t bother watching it, unless it’s 2:30 am, you’re stoned with your pals, and there’s nothing on TV except informercials. But even then I may pick the informercials over this movie.

Death Race 2000, David Carradine, Sylvester Stallone, corny, race

The first time I watched this movie, I couldn’t sleep for a week. I just couldn’t close my eyes. I kept thinking about the images from the film and imagining that when I open them, that damn creepy kid would be staring at me. What is it with Japanese horror films with creepy kids?

You may be surprised to learn that this is actually the third movie in the Ju-On series, as the first two films are simply called Ju-On and Ju-On 2. Nevertheless, it’s not really necessary to watch the first two movies to understand the events in this film; however I would recommend watching the first film.

The plot is based on Japanese lore that says that when someone dies in a violent rage, a powerful, evil curse is released. Such a curse is left behind in a home quietly nestled in a typical Japanese suburb. Anyone who ventures inside the house picks up the curse and is doomed to die. Often the victims are tormented by evil spirits for a certain period of time before they meet their end, but sometimes they just up and die.

The layout of the film is such that it follows several characters’ stories, separated in chapters. Sometimes though, an earlier character may be found in a later character’s story because there is a connection between them, such as friends or family members. Another aspect about the plot is that it isn’t always in chronological order, a la Pulp Fiction. Because of this, I was confused the first time I watched it. For example, in one scene, a character is listening to the radio and hears news of the death of another character, but when the next chapter begins you see the “dead” character very much alive! I would recommend keeping track of all the characters’ names to avoid confusion.

One more wacky thing about this film was that it didn’t only play with the chronological order of the stories- it played with the concept of time itself. There is a very strange scene which involved a man experiences a moment of precognition at the same time that his daughter experiences retrocognition. I didn’t think that the scene was necessary to the plot but it was cool.

Now, as for scariness factor, I would say YES! This movie is hella scary. Like I said, I couldn’t sleep for a week after watching this. Director Takashi Shimizu does a great job in setting up the scenes for maximum scariness: darkly lit hallways, characters hesitantly peering around corners, and a creepy soundtrack. That damn unnerving throaty “A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a” sound made by one of the evil spirits especially makes my hair stand on end. My sister does a great job mimicking the sound, and when I had first watched the movie she would turn off the lights in the room and make that sound to freak me the hell out.

The ending is rather confusing. It doesn’t provide a sense of closure, but at the same time it doesn’t hint that there will be a sequel.

I wouldn’t recommend Ju-On: The Grudge for everyone since it can be kind of confusing. However, you can always rent the American version instead. Not only does it touch upon the events that lead to the curse, but the storyline is chronological and straightforward. There are also less characters in the American version, which makes for less confusion and a slightly shorter running time. However, if you want to appreciate Japanese horror films for what they are, don’t mind the jumbled chronology of the plot, and want to avoid the pain of Sarah Michelle Gellar trying to speak Japanese, then watch the original Ju-On: The Grudge.

Then again, you can always watch both, as I did.

Technorati Tags: Ju-On, The Grudge, ghost, curse

“No One Puts Baby in a Corner�

Ah ,yes- one of the most famous lines in this movie. When Dirty Dancing first came out, it didn’t open to blockbuster ratings and results. It was what you would call a sleeper hit- a movie that flew under the radar of most critics and audiences, but at the same time was watched by enough people that made it a huge success and Patrick Swayze a household name.

A teenage girl nicknamed Baby (Jennifer Grey) spends the summer vacationing in a resort in the Catskills with her family before going off to college. Young and naïve, Baby was idealistic, wanting to save the world. She becomes embroiled in the affairs of the resort staff, and when something happens to Penny (Cynthia Rhodes), one of the lead dancers, Baby agrees to take her place temporarily, much to the reluctance of Johnny, Penny’s dance partner. Johnny of course, is played by the one and only Mr. Swayze, and a majority of the film is devoted to scenes that depict the transformation of Baby from a person with two left feet to a good dancer.

Not surprisingly, Johnny and Baby fall for each other and a forbidden romance develops between this privileged, well-to-do girl and a young man not used to having the world hand him opportunities on a plate. Dirty Dancing is a tre romantic movie, and the closing dance sequence is simply awesome. When my mom and I first rented this movie, we watched the closing so many times we thought we’d break the tape.

“Ditto�

Ok, here’s the deal- do not watch Ghost unless you have the full intention of crying afterwards. Period. If you want to maintain your composure and not be reduced to a weeping, puffy mess, then DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. My college roommate and I once stumbled upon this movie while channel surfing and we thought, “Eh, there’s nothing else on TV,� so decided to watch it. About an hour later we were sobbing like two idiots.

Ghost is the story of the power of a couple’s love that is so strong that not even death could stop it. Swayze plays Sam, an investment banker (or something like that) who is killed in an apparently attempted mugging. Sam’s ghost doesn’t immediately leave for the Great Beyond and remains close to his girlfriend Molly, played by the lovely Demi Moore, absolutely adorable in her pixie haircut. Sam tries to find out who killed him and enlists the aid of Oda Mae Brown, a medium played by Whoopi Goldberg. This role garnered Goldberg a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

The scenes in which Sam tries to make contact with Molly are so heart wrenching that it makes you think, “What would happen if MY significant other suddenly dies? Would I be able to see him/her again? I sure would like to, just one last time.� The closing scene is so emotional. If you aren’t reduced to tears by watching it, then you are simply a heartless freak. Or a guy. Overall it’s a very enjoyable movie, recommended to those in the mood for a good weep fest.

Technorati Tags: Patrick Swayze, Jennifer Grey, Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Dirty Dancing, Ghost, sexy, dancer, actor

Title: Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy
Year: 2001
Director: Scott J. Gill
Rated: R

No Face Rating: 3 1/2 reels

No, it’s not quite what you think.

This isn’t a porno.

It’s a documentary.

Of the life of Ron Jeremy.

For the sheltered few who don’t know, Ron Jeremy is a porn actor. Yeah, I know- he doesn’t quite seem the type, does he? I mean, look at him. Hell, his nickname is the Hedgehog. He’s fact, sweaty and greasy looking, and hairy. How in the hell did he ever get hired? Well for one thing, he didn’t always look like this. If you watch the documentary, you’ll be surprised to find that he used to be a not-so-hairy, slender, relatively good-looking guy back in the 70s. With a huge dick. And he still has a huge dick. Which is why he still has a job.

The documentary covers Ron’s whole life, starting from childhood. There are interviews with family members, which surprised me since I didn’t think family would approve of his profession. Along the way you find little interesting tidbits about Ron’s life. For example, did you know that Ron actually was a teacher for a while? He received a Master’s degree in Education? Well, now you do.

The documentary quickly gets to Ron’s entry into the porn industry. How did this mild mannered, sensitive teacher end up in this business? You’ll just have to watch the movie to find out. It continues on with interviews from some of Ron’s friends, some in the industry and some from the real world.

Obviously there is some nudity in the documentary. There are many clips from Ron’s movies, so expect a lot of boobie shots and of Ron’s best asset. There are also boobie shots from female fans who ask Ron to sign their cleavage.

The documentary itself is a lot of fun to watch. It’s mostly lighthearted, though there are a couple of serious moments.

If you want a laugh and don’t mind seeing naked bodies, then check out this movie. If you have no idea who Ron Jeremy is or could care less about him, then go rent something else for the yuks.

Porn Star, Ron Jeremy, porn, sex, documentary

Title: Hero
Year: 2002
Director: Yimou Zhang
Starring Cast: Jet Li, Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Maggie Cheung, Zhang Ziyi, and Donnie Yen
Rated: PG-13

Reel Reviews Rating:

Since the international success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, over recent years Chinese swordfighting films have suddenly become more mainstream. Whereas for decades they were considered campy and cheesy (it’s soooooo obvious they’re on wires!), loved by only the biggest film geeks, these days Chinese swordfighting films have been elevated to the level of Artistic Foreign Independent Film. Or something like that.

But I digress.

The other night my boyfriend and I watched Hero. It stars Asian It Boy Jet Li, Donnie Yen (who strangely resembles Lou Diamond Philips), Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Maggie Cheung, and of course, Asian It Girl Zhang Ziyi. Since the movie was made in China, you obviously have to deal with subtitles. Big deal. I prefer subtitles to dubbed voices any day. You lose so much in the movie when you hear emotionless actors speaking in English over the original actors’ voices. The story takes place long, long ago, when China was still composed of several warring states. A mysterious man called Nameless is brought before the ruthless King of Qin to tell his story of how he defeated the three dangerous assassins- Sky, Broken Sword, and Flying Snow. What’s interesting about the plot is that there are several perspectives to the story, somewhat similar to the classic film Rashomon. What really happened between Nameless and the three assassins?

The best part about this movie aren’t the fight scenes, though they are way cool and kick ass. No, the best part about this film is that it’s visually stunning. The use of color is simply amazing, as each scene looks like a painting. One of my favorite scenes takes place in the forest. The two characters, both dressed in robes of the richest red, stand in a blanket of fallen gold leaves and as they fight, the leaves are rustled, enveloping the characters as they leap in the air or swish their swords. Another breathtaking scene doesn’t really involve a fight. It simply has two characters standing in front of a waterfall, their swords drawn. Both characters are wearing identical green robes, which look gorgeous against the waterfall background. The fight scenes themselves are indeed, spectacular. Often times it’s quite obvious that the actors are on wires since they practically fly through the air, but I think that it was intentional. I don’t know much about Chinese fighting cinema, but I think in many cases there is a small supernatural element -call it magical realism, if you like- in that warriors are different from the rest of us. It may also be that in Chinese cinema, swordplay is graceful, similar to a dance. The warriors aren’t just trying to kill each other. It is artistic, flowing, beautiful.

That being said, I felt that there were a couple of moments in the movie which I thought was a bit too artistic, too slow. In one scene, two characters were supposedly acting out the fight in their minds. Wha? So you see the two characters just standing there, facing each other with their eyes closed, juxtaposed with scenes of them fighting. It’s cool for a little bit, but I think that it went on for too long. It’s weird to sit there and watch a fight scene that, according to the plot of the movie, is only happening in the minds of the warriors.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. If you can, watch this on a large TV. If you watch this on a tiny laptop or portable DVD player, you won’t appreciate the movie’s beautiful scenes and use of color. To truly appreciate it, you need to see the movie on a large screen. We are fortunate enough to have a plasma TV, and hot damn- the colors just pop out, but not to the point where it sears your eyeballs. I highly recommend it.

Hero, Jet Li, Zhang Ziyi, Maggie Cheung, Chinese, swordplay, historical

Dammit.

I was too hasty in coming up with a name. I should have checked first.

Now I’m torn. Should I just change the name of my blog? But the URL still refers to it as “reel reviews”. What should I do?

I’ve decided that this should be a movie review blog. Yeah yeah yeah, everyone and their mother has a movie review blog- but I think that many of them tend to review only the newest releases. I’m planning on also reviewing older movies as well- classics from the 80′s and such.

I’d also like to invite guest reviewers to post a movie review on my blog. The only rule I would have for guest reviewers is: NO SPOILERS!!! I can’t freaking stand them.

Anywho, let’s see how this works out! On with the show!