Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Dark Knight (2008)
Should I see it?
If you're a sycophantic, comic fanboy: yes.
If you like big, loud, flashy, but hollow things: yes.
If you're into well structured, good movies: no.


Short Review: Its a movie about the fall of Harry Dent, his aspirations, his moral courage and his collapse into madness...oh yeah, Batman and The Joker fight in the background.


Disappointment. That's the word that swims through my head when I think of this film. I have disappointment over the opportunity that was missed. What should have been a tale of chaos versus order, good versus evil, winds up being a unfocused yarn that tries way too hard.

Disregard the gleeful, fanboys wetting their trunks who claim this is the best film ever. This simply is not as great as people desperately want it to be. This film has little to do with the battle between The Joker and Batman and has everything to do with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Structurally speaking, Dent is the hero of the film and a tragic hero at that. Batman himself is a bystander in his own story. He doesn't drive or control any aspect of the narrative. His choices do not bring about the climax. These things fall to Dent, who, if this thing was written properly, would have been a supporting member until the final moments. Dent's fall from political hero to the evil Two-Face should have been saved to set up the next film. As it is, he acts as Batman's stand-in for the whole movie.

The real shame to this film comes with the handling of The Joker. First, he simply does not have enough screen time. Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) has to spend so much time developing Dent that he has to sacrifice displaying The Joker. The result is what appears to be a stunning performance by the late Heath Ledger is choppy and incomplete. The conflict between Batman and his eternal nemesis is well known to the audience and little development would be needed to get to the meaty parts of the story. Nolan, if he would have keep himself in check, could have given The Joker his due and allowed him to play in all of his trickster glory. Instead, Ledger's rendition feels forced at times with his jerky speech patterns and stabbing tongue. Given space to grow, Ledger's performance could have flowered into something special.

Opposite Ledger, Christian Bale's Batman seems like a faded copy of his former self. With nothing to do but watch those around him, this outing leaves the caped crusader sulking in the shadows. Reduced to little more than a gruff voiced prop.

Nolan's problem is the same one that tanked Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Having multiple villains, multiple stories, and multiple themes is like tying three baskets to the bottom of a hot air balloon and expecting it to fly. A story needs to have a singular point supported by related themes and represented by a lone conflict between an individual hero and villain. It would be nice if multi-arced stories worked but they don't. This is the way of the world. Nolan exhausts all his time chasing down all of his narratives. He can't move his story forward.

Beyond the multifaceted plots, Nolan weighs the film down with obtuse references to the War on Terror™. IEDs, the burning 9/11-esque wreckage, hostage videos, concerns over spying and on and on the references come. These references have a place in the film but the film is so crammed with other competing points that they aren't fully explored and only provide rude nudges to the audience. Look see, he's waffling on spying on Gotham because spying is wrong - just like when we do it. Again, the references to the War on Terror™ are perfectly fine and I don't have an issue with them if they were allowed space for explanation.

Ridiculously, Nolan has been telling the press that the political overtones to the film are essentially unintentional:

"To be honest with you, in the writing of the films we try not to be too conscious of any political parallels or any thing that we might want to include from the real world because I think the terms of the storytelling demand that you be a step removed from today's political environment." - Christopher Nolan, Director Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight, Crave Online.com

Its fine if he wants to make these arguments, but please have the manhood to stand next to your own work. The problem here is that his War on Terror™ branch seemed wedged in and obscures the real reason for the film - to watch Batman and The Joker kick each other's backends across Gotham.

Overall, this is a flashy movie that is good enough to entertain. The same can be said of many films. Most people will probably find it worth their while. My stance is that it could have been a thousand times better and Nolan dropped the ball. This is not a great film. Its not even a great superhero movie. Sure it is big and it is flashy, but in the end it's nothing special.




Click on Bat Mope to view the trailer

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 8:30 PM



10 comment(s)






Sunday, July 13, 2008
Movie Trailer: The Dark Knight
Looks good. It does look good.


Click here for the official site



Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page
Director: Christopher Nolan (Memento)
Screenwriters: Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer (Batman Begins)
Actors: Christian Bale (3:10 to Yuma), Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain), Michael Caine (Sleuth), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko), Gary Oldman (Romeo is Bleeding), and Aaron Eckhart (Thank You For Smoking)


Labels: , , , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 12:00 PM



0 comment(s)






Thursday, June 12, 2008
Movie Trailer: Wanted
This should be like Timur Bekmambetov's other movies, it will look fantastic and have some clever shots but as a whole it will be little more than an amusement ride with no lasting value. I do find it interesting that at they say at the beginning of the trailer that the lead "is just like everyone else" and he is then later referenced as "coasting through a miserable existence". Apparently, the filmmakers believe you to be a useless slug of a person who amounts to nothing. Nice. What he's missing in his life is "purpose". His "purpose" is apparently to murder people. Again, nice.

Is it me or is Angelia Jolie looking like she needs to start snacking more? I know I'm supposed to think she's beautiful, but I honestly think she's looking a little sick. C'mon Angie, eat the Kit-Kats and nuts over on the craft table.


Click here for the official site

video

Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page


Director: Timur Bekmambetov (Nochnoy Dozor "Night Watch")
Screenwriters: Michael Brant (3:10 to Yuma), Derek Haas(3:10 to Yuma), Chris Morgan (Cellular)
Actors: James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland), Angelina Jolie (Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Morgan Freeman (Evan Almighty), Terrance Stamp (The Limey), Common (Smokin' Aces)


Labels: , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 12:00 PM



3 comment(s)






Monday, April 7, 2008
Gone Baby Gone (2007)
Should I see it?
Nope.



Short Review: Ben Affleck is to directing what Ben Affleck is to acting

Ben Affleck is living proof that a nice smile can get you far in Hollywood. Its probably a good thing because by the looks of things, actual raw talent doesn't help much.

Affleck co-wrote and directed this adaptation of Dennis Lehane's novel about a couple who work as private investigators who look into the disappearance of a young girl. The plot is nothing spectacular and it never cuts any new ground. The couple Patrick (Casey Affleck) and Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are inexperienced in investigating but know the streets quite well. Casey Affleck (the actual talented one in the family) does a passable job, but never fills in his character completely. I don't believe this is necessarily his fault since his performance is hindered by a stuttering script and poor pacing. Each scene begins strongly enough but by the end it feels like the screenwriters (Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard) got bored with their own work and couldn't wait to start on the next scene. Then again, that could have been me, I kept finding myself pleading with Affleck to get moving with his predicable story.

Ed Harris also haunts this piece as a worn down cop who acts just like Ed Harris does in every movie he has ever done where he is strapped with a mediocre director. Harris is one of those actors who either gives a stunning performance (A History of Violence, Glengarry Glen Ross) or completely phones it in (Radio, Enemy At the Gates). Harris' job here is to say his lines and be angry and he does his job quite well. Morgan Freeman also shows up to nab a paycheck. Freeman nearly naps through all of his scenes.Like Harris, Freeman doesn't do much to get beyond his own face recognition and offers just enough of a performance to not hurt his career. Both men could have easily of been replaced by lesser actors and the same results would have been achieved.

Its not like Ben Affleck wasn't seated with a talented pool to pull from. He had everything in place except that he insisted on directing and writing the movie. Perhaps (and probably) his involvement is what got this film made in the first place. This doesn't mean it should have been made. This movie offers nothing new, nothing fresh and nothing lasting. It was made simply for the sake of making something. Since it isn't revolutionary, fresh or thoughtful, there's no reason to watch it. Forget about this one, anything about it that may be worth seeing, you've seen a hundred different times in a hundred different movies.


Related Reviews:
Ben Affleck movies
Boiler Room (2000)
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Paycheck (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Critics United
The Stop Button


Labels: , , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 7:25 AM



2 comment(s)






Monday, March 17, 2008
Movie Trailer: Wanted
Click here for the official site

video

Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page


Director: Timur Bekmambetov (Nochnoy Dozor "Night Watch")
Screenwriters: Michael Brant (3:10 to Yuma), Derek Haas(3:10 to Yuma), Chris Morgan (Cellular)
Actors: James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland), Angelina Jolie (Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Morgan Freeman (Evan Almighty), Terrance Stamp (The Limey), Common (Smokin' Aces)


Labels: , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 10:37 AM



0 comment(s)






Movie Trailer: The Dark Knight
Click here for the official site

video

Click here to return to the Movie Trailer Page
Director: Christopher Nolan (Memento)
Screenwriters: Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer (Batman Begins)
Actors: Christian Bale (3:10 to Yuma), Heath Ledger (Brokeback Mountain), Michael Caine (Sleuth), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko), Gary Oldman (Romeo is Bleeding), and Aaron Eckhart (Thank You For Smoking)


Labels: , , , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 10:33 AM



0 comment(s)






Monday, July 9, 2007
Evan Almighty (2007)
Should I see it?
Nope.


Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) begins his new position as a Senator. After moving his family into a posh development he gets visited by God (Morgan Freeman). God asks him to build an ark and to warn the world of an impending flood. The remainder of the piece focuses on Evan building his ark while also deciding if he should sign piece of environmental legislation being pushed by the senior senator from his state (John Goodman). Evan begins to take on the physical appearance of Noah while animals begin to swarm around him and his ark.

This is simply a bad movie.

This is the costliest comedy ever made with a budget upwards to $175,000,000.00. This proves that all of the money in the world can’t fix bad ideas. This piece is poorly written, poorly constructed and poorly directed. Even as a simple distraction, a cinematic bauble, it fails to please. I’ve seen screen savers with more narrative punch than this tone-deaf waste.

The premises are interesting but left relatively untouched. Instead of playing off of the comedy that is inherent in a materialist being confronted by God, the film delves into poop humor and groin shots. Its not that I’m completely against a good, solid groin shot gag or a poop joke for that matter. These things do have their places. In this instance however, its just too much salt for the soup. Furthermore, they make strange decisions such as Evan taking on the physical appearance of Noah as he continues to work on the ark. There’s no reason given for this transformation and it comes across as a forced gag that doesn't resonate. It’s a hollow joke which doesn’t play – in other words it matches the rest of the piece.


Worldview: The central question posed is how one can find happiness. In the beginning, Evan is consumed by his position and material goods (including his looks). Under the gentle coaxing by God, Evan reconnects with his family and nature and finds real happiness.

This overarching concept is then buttressed by an environmental subplot involving Evan signing a piece of legislation that would open portions of the national parks to developers. All of this is handled with some caution until the final act.

***SPOILER WARNING - the ending is given here***

In the end, the ark is built just as a damn breaks and floods the valley where Evan lives. The ark is then shuttled by the flood to a balcony of the Senate where the questionable bill is about to be signed. God allows the flood to occur to stop bad law making. It is important to note the flood is not one of vengeance but one made by man. This of course then puts the question of how far does our free will extend into play.

Jesus is not present in this piece nor is he referenced. Given the story and how it is expressed, this is not a “Christian” movie. This is more of a “Jewish” one. There are Biblical elements at play but they are not fully realized and come across as concessions more than lessons. This is a “spiritual” film, meaning it wants to appear Biblical without the commitment.

This film has caused quite a stink in Christian circles because of the presence of God (Morgan Freeman) on screen. Many have quickly dismissed this film based on the low brow humor of its predecessor Bruce Almighty. Others have claimed this piece runs afoul of the Second Commandment:

Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

While having Morgan Freeman on screen portraying God in a dumb comedy may make some uncomfortable, I don’t believe it breaks the law. We are not asked to worship this image. While he imparts wisdom not spoken by God, we understand he is Morgan Freeman and not actually the real deal.

Another concern is the revisiting of God being involved in a flood when he promised not produce another one. In the context of this film he doesn’t make the flood, we do through our actions. Problem solved.


Cautions: Given their lack of depth combined with their need to be completely family friendly, the filmmakers go wall-to-wall poop jokes in this film. Why is it that family films always have to have poop and fart jokes these days? This goes hand in hand with the sexual innuendos that most family fare now has to contain in order to amuse the adults. While this film avoids sexual humor, you will gag on all of the feces gags.

The language is tame and there isn’t a butt or nipple to be found. This film is safe for all ages but certainly not all sets of I.Q.s, Children will probably become bored, as will the adults, with the long spans of needless talking (without being funny).


Other Movie Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
FilmJerk


More Steve Carrell Movies:
The 40-Year Old Virgin (2005)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)


Labels: , , , , ,


posted by Scott Nehring at 7:33 AM



2 comment(s)