Review: The Ruins

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: While The Ruins has virtually no plot, the characters aren't cardboard cutouts and if you're looking for a cringe-inducing horror movie you may actually enjoy it.

Yes, folks, you read that rating correctly: The Ruins is better than 10,000 B.C.

No, it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible for this sort of movie. The saving grace here is a combination of the actors' performances and the direction they were given by writer/director of the film Scott Smith.

I'm not saying they were Oscar-worthy, but I actually felt like they were people and not just stereotypical cannon fodder. By the time the bad stuff starts happening you can at least feel some sort of connection to them, as opposed to say, the disposable characters in Aliens vs Predator: Requiem.

Plot? One short sentence: A group of young, cornered American tourists try to survive man-eating plants.

Review: 21

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Loosely based on real events, this movie has the potential to be powerful and poignant, but instead it settles for being a mildly entertaining popcorn flick. If you check your brain at the door and don't mind style over substance, it's good for a couple of hours of mindless entertainment.

When I first sat down to see this movie, the reality of my situation started to sink in. I was about to see a movie directed by Robert Luketic, the same guy who directed Legally Blonde, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, and Monster-in-Law. Plus, one of the executive producers was Brett Ratner. Okay, so maybe I shouldn't expect Citizen Kane here, but would it at least be enjoyable? To be fair, it is reasonably enjoyable, but it falls far short of its potential.

Before I go into much detail about the story, I should mention that the real standout in this movie is Jim Sturgess. The script doesn't give him much in terms of character, but his acting ability seems to rise above the relative mediocrity of the script. Not only that, but he is a British actor doing an American accent, and I don't recall a single slip-up in his American accent throughout the film. Granted, he is playing a guy from the East Coast, which makes it a little easier, but still... I thought he really stood out from the rest of the cast.

Review: In Bruges

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: While the individual parts of the movie satisfy, In Bruges doesn't really come together as a whole.

Back in November I posted the trailer to In Bruges and commented that it looked like a movie that would not be a hit with mainstream audiences but those that like indie movies would probably love it. Well I just watched it and I'm more certain than ever that my first reaction will turn out to be accurate.

Right from the opening frame of the movie it seems that the director is intent on keeping the audience off-balance. The camera pans across various landmarks and streets in the beautiful town of Bruges, Belgium with music that sounds like it comes from some French romance movie. But as this is happening, we get quick cuts to the two main characters, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) making funny comments profusely laced with the F-bomb.

It wasn't the F-word or the humor that struck me as odd, heck, I thought Superbad was really funny - it was the incongruity of the scenery and music against what the actors were saying and doing. On a side note, if profanity in films bothers you, this is SO not the movie for you...

Review: National Treasure 2: Book Of Secrets

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: National Treasure 2 works hard at being as entertaining as the original, but doesn't quite manage it.

In National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the whole gang is back, plus we have heavy-hitters Helen Mirren and Ed Harris to round out the cast. It's far from awful, but unfortunately "heavy" is a good word to describe this sequel, at least as it compares to the original.

The film opens five years after the end of the Civil War, where we find out that Ben Gates' (Nicholas Cage) heritage as a code breaker goes back to his great-grandfather Thomas. A pair or men bring Thomas a cypher to decode since he is known for his code breaking abilities. As it turns out (not suprisingly), these are bad guys. In particular they are Confederate spies trying to help win the war for the Union.

Apparently they didn't get the memo that the war ended five years prior.

Review: 30 Days Of Night

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Kind of a cross between John Carpenter's The Thing, zombies and vampires that while not really great, isn't awful, either.

30 Days of Night is one of those movies that's hard to assign a star rating to when reviewing it. There are some movies that I just don't examine too closely because they're basically just designed to provide a thrill. You could argue the point that this only deserves 2 out of 5 and I really wouldn't argue with you about it too much. Also, you need to know that I have not read the graphic novel the movie was based on.

The film opens promisingly enough with a number of very cool shots: From closeups on the face of a man who looks like he's been through hell to vistas of the desolate icy wilderness surrounding the little Alaskan town where the movie takes place. The Stranger (Ben Foster) has obviously come a very long way and heads out on foot towards the town of Barrow. Barrow is the northernmost town in Alaska and we arrive to see it's final afternoon of sunshine before it is plunged into 30 full days of night.

Review: Superbad

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Funny, with echoes of Revenge of the Nerds and believe it or not, a bit of heart.

Let's cut to the chase: If you're not a fan of explicit sexual humor and dick jokes in mass quantities, this is not the movie for you. However if that's right up your alley and you have not-so-fond memories of high school regarding your luck with the ladies then you'll probably enjoy Superbad.

Many of my online movie website buds seem to be worshiping at the altar of Superbad, and while I thought it was OK, I can't say that I share their enthusiasm. It had a few laugh out loud moments for me and was mildly funny overall, but I didn't leave the theater thinking it was the funniest thing ever. For that feeling I recommend you check out Hot Fuzz which I found far funnier overall.

Review: Stardust

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: The "Pirates" crowd will probably love Stardust, but if you're expecting something like the just about perfect The Princess Bride you'll be disappointed.

Stardust tries to be a newer version of The Princess Bride, and while exceeding that film by far in special effects, it lacks almost any of it's charm or humor. That's really too bad because both the very beginning and the very end of the movie are pretty good. Unfortunately what's in between - while pretty to look at, left me feeling quite empty. I understand that this story is based on both graphic and text-only novels by Neil Gaiman. I've never read either and for all I know they may be excellent but any excellence was left between the pages of those books.

Review: Sicko

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Calling Michael Moore a documentary filmmaker is, at best, a stretch. However, his latest film is entertaining, enjoyable and yes, even a little balanced at times. Overall, it's a much better film than Fahrenheit 9/11.

Considering how underwhelming I found Michael Moore's last movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, I was skeptical about his newest entry, Sicko. Make no mistake, Sicko deserves to be called a documentary just as much as Hostel and Saw deserve to be called family movies. However, Sicko turned out to be better than I thought. Unlike Fahrenheit, it has a more coherent point to make, and it (mostly) sticks to that point. As with Moore's other films, there is a noticeable dearth of research, facts and quoted sources that I would normally expect from a true documentary film. Ultimately, what this film sets out to do is entertain, and in that sense, it does its job quite well.

Before the movie even started, there were two things in particular that struck me about this film. First, the theater was quite crowded, more so than I had previously seen in that theater. Second, the overwhelming majority of the audience consisted of senior citizens. There were a few people around my age in there as well, but that particular showing belonged to the elderly. I did not find that surprising at all, since the older members of our society are the ones who have the most to lose or gain, depending on if/when we choose to revamp the way we do health care in America.

Review: Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surver

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Although at times it felt like a made-for-TV movie, a far better film than the first and more entertaining than the super-serious Spider-man 3.

So it's possible.

Not only can a sequel be better than the original, but it can be done with the same director and writer. By process of elimination, it would seem that the blame for how bad the first film was can perhaps be laid at the feet of the one guy missing from the new production crew: writer Michael France. I can't say for sure, but at the top level it seems like pretty much everyone from the first film was still there for the second one. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

Anyway, on to the review...

Review: Spider-Man 3 (IMAX)

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Although Spiderman 3 is the weakest of the trilogy, it's still good enough to be a member of the club.

Man... where to start on a review of a movie like this? Spider-Man 3 has been one of the most wildly anticipated movies coming out this year, so could it possibly live up to expectations? (By the way, this review is spoiler-free.)

My answer would have to be: Almost.

While the story of Spiderman 3 fits very nicely into an overall three-movie arc, there are problems with it that keep it from being as satisfying as it might have been. In the first film we meet Peter Parker as the geeky, picked-on teenager and watch him acquire his newfound powers, experiencing with him the initial giddiness and then the weight of responsibility that comes with those powers. In the second film we meet a character who has come to terms with who he is, but struggles with the amount of responsibility, difficulty and loneliness that comes with his new life.

Review: Grindhouse

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: While Planet Terror was a wild ride and a retro blast, Death Proof was a crushing disappointment and absolute torture to sit through.

It really stinks that I have to give a rating to Grindhouse as one film, because the two movies within that make up the double feature are so incredibly on the opposite ends of the scale in terms of a viewing experience. While Robert Rodriguez' Planet Terror was an absolute BLAST, Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof was excruciatingly boring. We're talking boring to the point where if I didn't have to review it I would have walked out. Boring to the point where I wanted to gouge my eyes out just to keep myself occupied, and frankly, that sucks.

Review: Rocky Balboa

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: A great goodbye to Rocky that will remind you of the original.

Oh no, not a SIXTH "Rocky" movie?!

That was my reaction when I first heard about this project, but guess what? Rocky Balboa really works. I'm glad Stallone revisted the character that put him on the map because he did a heck of a job with this film. Instead of suffering from "sequel-itis" it feels like the closing chapter of a great story.

Review: Shooter

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: A decent action movie that tries to be deeper than it actually is.

Shooter, starring Mark Wahlberg is the story of a Black Ops sniper who is falsely accused of an assassination. Wahlberg plays Bob Lee Swagger, one of the top marksman in the world, who lives in a self-imposed exile after an operation in Africa goes badly. The film also stars Michael Pena who delivers a decent performance and Danny Glover as an effective bad guy. Ned Beatty does a really nice job as a dirty senator and Kate Mara is in the film to serve as the inevitable romantic interest, damsel in distress and eye candy.

Review: The Host (aka Gwoemul)

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Although The Host is unusual, unpredictable and at times funny, it's undercut by a running time that is way too long.

The Host is a South Korean horror-comedy film with a serious side to boot. It was made in 2006 and is being released in the U.S. on March 9th, 2007.

I'll start off by saying that this movie won't be for everyone. As a matter of fact I think that some people will really love it while others will wonder what all the fuss is about. If you're a fan of Asian horror and monster movies this one will be right up your alley. On the other hand if you're not a fan of the genre you'll be alternately entertained, bored and entertained throughout the film.

The film opens with what I would have to call a sterotypical "bad American" character: a doctor instructing an assistant to pour dozens of bottles of very old formaldehyde down the sink in order to dispose of them. He insists, despite the assistant pointing out that it will all end up in the Han River, which flows all around the local city. The doctor dismisses the comments, almost seeming like the devil. Really odd and no further explanation given as to why he didn't want to dispose of the chemical properly.

Review: Smokin' Aces

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Strong acting performances and skillful direction make up for the deficiencies in the script.

Every now and then, I have to put myself in a filmmaker's shoes. After all, if I had poured my soul into writing and directing a movie, it would matter to me what people thought of it. The release of my movie would be an invitation for critics to play Monday-morning quarterbacks and start finding flaws in my labor of love, whether perceived or real. Of course, after a while, I would have to develop a very thick skin and essentially ignore those critics if I wanted to avoid going insane. So why did such an esoteric thought enter my head after seeing Smokin' Aces? It was mainly because after seeing it, I wanted to pick it apart and really dissect what the filmmakers did wrong. That doesn't mean I hated the movie; my overall rating ended up being mildly positive. However, I found myself frustrated by some deficiencies in the script, which I'll discuss later.

Here's something to file under the "Duh" category: This is primarily a "guy movie." Blood, guts, violence, profanity, nudity... all the necessary elements are there. If your girlfriend (or wife as the case may be) goes with you to this movie, she's a real trooper. If she actually likes the movie, she might just be a keeper.

Review: The Good Life

By Vic Holtreman
Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Well crafted, excellent performances, but not exactly entertaining.

For me, this is one of those rough reviews to write... where I really have to think about what my criteria is for deciding whether a movie is "great", "good", or "bad". I'll admit my reviews can be subjective - I don't just rate films based on technical quality, but on how they make me feel. They don't have to be "entertaining" (see my 5 star review of Enemies of Happiness as an example), but I like some sort of sense of positive "take-away" or satisfaction when I'm done.

Technically, is The Good Life a great film? Based on the script and the performances I would have to say yes. Overall, for the average viewer, is it great? I'd have to say no. At most I would call it a good movie.

Review: The Fountain

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: This movie is very original and the filmmakers are technically competent, but it's much too bizarre and confusing to be very enjoyable.

Watching The Fountain is kind of like eating a breakfast burrito from one of those 24-hour drive-thru places. You have to digest it for a while before you realize its full impact on you. To be honest, I kind of feel guilty that I didn't give this movie a better rating. After all, it was directed and co-written by Darren Aronofsky, whose last directorial effort was Requiem for a Dream. That movie was rough, to say the least, but it was also riveting. Six years later, his follow-up seems to fall squarely into the "artsy-fartsy" category. Don't get me wrong; I have immense respect for Aronofsky because he has clearly dedicated himself to making movies that matter to him, as opposed to movies that appeal to the masses. I also respect his ability to make intelligent and thought-provoking movies. The problem with The Fountain is that it suffers from an extreme overdose of subtlety and symbolism. I had to struggle to figure out what the heck was going on most of the time. There is nothing wrong with being a little artistic with a movie or telling the story in a unique way that challenges the viewer, but when I have a hard time following the storyline and there's a look of confusion on my face even after it's over, that's a problem.

Review: Crank

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: An insane, bloody, gratuitous, funny rollercoaster of a movie that doesn't pretend to be anything beyond that

Going in, the one thing I didn't expect this movie to be was funny. I had more laugh out loud moments during Crank than I did while watching the supposed comedy Clerks II. Before you decide to go see this, be aware that it earns its R-rating on every level: content, situations, language, violence, gore, sex and nudity. (Fine, now everyone will rush out to go see it.)

Review: X-Men: The Last Stand

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Much like the popcorn I ate while watching, it was kind of tasty but not very satisfying.

OK. First things first... I have to give props to Brett Ratner for stepping into this X-Men film at the last possible moment and putting it together in an insanely short amount of time. It was barely a year between the time Ratner came onboard and the movie showed up at your local multiplex. I still don't know how they managed to do it.

Right here is where I wanted to say "And now for the bad news...", but really it's not so much bad as it is tepid (you know, lukewarm). :-)

Review: Slither

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Gory and gross, as it should be, but not as funny as it could have been.

I was really looking forward to watching Slither. It looked like one of those "wink at the audience" horror flicks, with the sense of humor found in Tremors and great NON-CGI special effects. Plus it starred Nathan Fillion of Serenity, and I've become a big fan of his laid back and slightly Southern acting style.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it, I just didn't love it.

It was a great combination of a monster/alien/zombie movie and it did in fact elicit a few laugh out loud moments, but overall I thought it was just ok. It wasn't great enough to generate killer word of mouth ("you have GOT to go see it") and that probably accounts for its fairly abysmal box office. It may get a lift this weekend if word of mouth is good, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's a bummer too, as Fillion has now been in two movies that had pretty good expectations that were not lived up to as far as box office.

Review: Hostel

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Horror, nudity and gore reminiscent of early 1980's horror films, but with a stronger story.

Be warned: If you are not a fan of movies that splash gore, body parts and guts across the screen, Hostel is most definitely not for you. Hostel is rated "R" and for damn good reasons.

When I review movies, depending on the film, I sometimes try to judge a movie not only from a general perspective, but when applicable also as it fits into a specific genre. As a horror movie, I think Hostel achieves it's goal of, well, horrifying the audience and it gets points for going in a different direction than I expected from the trailer and commercials. On a broader scale it wasn't too bad either.

Review: Closer

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: This movie was better than I thought it would be, but the characters are such idiots that I found it hard to enjoy the movie more than just marginally.

There's something I really don't understand. Why does Hollyweird always have such a huge need to adapt stage plays into movies? It doesn't make any sense. With the recent release of Rent and The Producers, I feel like I'm in movie hell. The film adaptation of Closer, written by Patrick Marber and based on his play, is a classic example of why I hardly ever go to see stage plays. Most of them are just too morbid and depressing to be enjoyable. I mean, think about it... when was the last time you saw a happy, uplifting stage play? And take my word for it, the words "happy" and "uplifting" are in no danger of being associated with this movie.

For all its faults, Closer is actually quite well-made. In fact, it was better than I thought it was going to be. It basically involves four people who talk for an hour and a half, so I wasn't expecting to be blown away. The subject matter is unpredictable and edgy enough to be entertaining, though, if not a little shocking at times. (Children should not see this movie for more reasons than I have room to list here.) The bottom line is that if you're going to direct a stage play, it's hard to find someone better than Mike Nichols. My biggest issue with Nichols' films is that he tends to focus on keeping the material edgy and challenging, rather than entertaining the audience. In some cases, that works really well, but with others, that's not quite the case. Overall, I mildly enjoyed Closer, but the movie is an exercise in frustration to watch, as I'll explain.

Review: King Kong (2005)

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: When it's good, it's very good, but when it's not, it feels really, REALLY long.

Watching Peter Jackson's version of King Kong, it is abundantly clear that the man feels as strongly about the original 1933 film as he did about Tolkein's Lord of the Rings books. One can really feel how earnestly he guided this film, paying homage to the original while expanding on it more than just a little bit. Unfortunately the "expansion" is one of the problems with the movie, but I'll get to that in a bit.

I don't suppose I really need to go into the story itself, but there are a few changes from and additions to this version when compared to the 1933 film. Here, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is shown to be a stage performer at the outset of the film, basically doing Vaudeville shows during the Great Depression in order to make a living. Time is spent up front showing the state of things in New York City in regards to the struggle to survive in that devastating economic downturn (to great effect). We meet her co-perfomers, a tight-knight little family including an elderly gentleman who passes for a father figure for her, and we get to know at least Ann and this gentleman well enough in the few early minutes of the film to really feel for them when the theater where they perform is unceremoniously closed down.

Review: Corpse Bride

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Overall, this movie is enjoyable, but it suffers from mediocre musical numbers. Some parts of the plot are so tragic and morbid that I'm hesitant to recommend this movie for young children, despite its PG rating.

Sometimes it's hard to know what to expect from Tim Burton. On the plus side, the guy really knows how to tell a story, and with only a few exceptions, you can tell that each of his movies is truly a labor of love. On the minus side, he's a little too weird and morbid to fit into the conventional Hollyweird mold. The latest example of that is Corpse Bride.

The first thing I found puzzling about this movie is the fact that it has a PG rating. It has been a long time since I was a kid, but it seems to me that most children would have a hard time "getting" Tim Burton's directing and storytelling style. I have enjoyed most of his movies, especially Ed Wood, but it's hard to see how any of his movies (except perhaps The Nightmare Before Christmas) could be considered appropriate for children. Such is the case with Corpse Bride. Overall, it has elements of charm and humor, but some parts of the story are just so morbid, and sometimes even sad, that I'm hesitant to recommend this movie for young children.

Review: Transporter 2

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Ridiculously over the top, but still enjoyable.

I wasn't sure what to think of this movie. At first, I was tempted to give it one star out of a possible five. After all, the movie has a very thin storyline. Most of the stunts revolve around events that are pure luck, physically impossible or both. The acting isn't even that great. Amber Valletta does the best acting job in this movie; what does that tell you? Still, even after considering all the downsides to this movie, there was one simple fact that I couldn't escape: I enjoyed the movie. Call it escapist, call it a guilty pleasure, whatever. I walked out of the theater remarking, "That was cool!" A little silly in spots? Yep. All the laws of physics violated during the action scenes? Oh yeah. Ridiculously over the top? Absolutely. But so help me, I enjoyed it.

I only saw part of the original Transporter, but I feel confident saying that it's not necessary to see the original to enjoy the sequel. Frank Martin (played by Jason Statham) is still a driver, but now he lives in Miami, and he's a driver/mentor to a little boy named Jack Billings (played by Hunter Clary). Jack happens to be the son of America's newly-appointed drug czar, Jefferson Billings (played by Matthew Modine), but that's where the good times end. Jefferson has had very little contact with his son, and his marriage to his wife Audrey (played by Amber Valletta) is seriously on the rocks. Luckily for Jack, he has Frank as a father figure. They're bestest buddy pals. All together now: Awwwwww... Now here's a tough pop quiz: What must inevitably happen when a butt-kicking tough guy with a heart of gold starts to bond with a little boy who's like a son to him?

Review: Freaked

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Probably the wierdest movie you've never heard of, a bizarre combination of Monty Python, Mad Magazine, Freaks and Airplane!.

I have no doubt that 99% of the folks reading this review have probably never heard of a film called Freaked. It was shot back in 1993 with a surprisingly substantial budget ($12 million) for this type of film, but it never saw the light of day beyond one or two film festivals. I can only guess that the writers/directors managed to get it made without any studio oversight, and once the final print was screened the execs recoiled in abject horror at what their millions had given birth to and immediately buried it. However, like a zombie it has risen from the dead and was recently released on DVD.

Freaked is one of those movies that puts you in a dazed and confused state until you finally settle into the rhythm of the thing. Imagine a Abraham/Zucker film (Airplane!, Kentucky Fried Movie) without the (cough) subtlety. 8) It's gross and at times cornball, but it has a spirit of reckless abandon to it that puts a grin on your face when you think of the brass it took for these guys to make this movie.

Review: War of the Worlds

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: The visual effects are impressive and the crew does a technically competent job. However, the heart and warmth we have come to expect from Spielberg's films are missing. Has Spielberg already forgotten why he became one of Hollywood's most successful directors?

Didn't I already see this in 1996, and wasn't it called Independence Day? (I'm only half-joking.) Actually, this movie is better than the aforementioned schlockfest, but to my surprise, it wasn't all that much better. I haven't read the book by H.G. Wells, on which this movie and its previous incarnations were based, but after seeing this latest remake, I really want to read the book. I suspect I'll enjoy it more than I enjoyed this movie.

Before I really delve into the review, I want to lament the loss of the old Steven Spielberg, the one who gave us such classics as The Goonies, the Indiana Jones series and, of course, E.T. I remember watching A.I. a few years ago and expressing surprise at how bad it was. I still feel that way, but despite that, what really permeates throughout A.I. is a high dose of sentimentality, and yes, even some warmth at times. But since then, Spielberg movies have been almost entirely devoid of warmth. I thought Minority Report was a decent movie, but it had almost no warmth at all. Even Schindler's List had some warmth to it at times, but War of the Worlds is almost completely devoid of the heart and warmth we have come to expect from Spielberg's movies. (Vic wrote an article about Spielberg's changing directorial style here.) Of course, Spielberg is free to do as he chooses, but he would do well to remember why he became one of the most successful directors in Hollywood.

Review: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: With far more strong points than weak, the curse of Episodes I & II has been lifted at last.

Redemption.

No, not for Anakin Skywalker... for George Lucas.

Although not perfect, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith rises far above the awfulness of Episode I and the mediocrity of Episode II. Time will tell, but for me I think this one will fall right behind The Empire Strikes Back in terms of overall Star Wars excellence. This says a lot considering that I'm in Lucas' "over 25" group that was weaned on the original trilogy and thought I & II were pretty awful.

I'm going to keep spoilers to a minimum.

Review: Sin City

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: A gritty, violent, and overall impressive film that may not go over big with the general public.

Wow... where to start with this review? To be honest I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about it. It's one of those films that takes multiple viewings to really take it all in.

First off, folks, can you please leave the kids at home for this one? It's rated R, and despite the use of color (or more accurately the lack of it), Sin City is not for the young 'uns. If you simply have to see this, do me a favor and fork out a couple of bucks for the babysitter, would 'ja please?

Sin City is based on a series of graphic novels written and illustrated by the great Frank Miller. For those of you unfamiliar with the world of comic books, he's the guy that invigorated the Batman and Daredevil titles with his realistic, film noir, gritty approach to these titles. His most famous work is probably The Dark Knight series of graphic novels where he painted a picture of an aging, bitter Batman living in a dark, apocalyptic future. This was a new take on the Batman mythos: realistic, gritty, and showing the slightly psychotic side of a guy who dresses up in a batsuit to fight bad guys in the middle of the night.

Review: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Not so much a remake, as a different take on the original that is actually more horror movie and less social commentary than George Romero's film.

This is actually a review of the unrated director's cut of 2004's Dawn of the Dead, and not having seen the theatrical release I have no basis for comparison to that version. So let's move on, shall we?

Right off the bat, you have to be a fan of movie gore effects if you're going to watch this movie. If not, please don't even bother, because there's quite a bit of it and what there is, is quite explicit and bloody. Being a long time fan of the genre (although my tastes have mellowed a bit) there was quite a bit of "ick" factor, but I couldn't begin to gauge what it might be like for the "average" movie viewer.

Another major issue, at least for die hard fans of George Romero's original version of Dawn of the Dead, is that in this film the zombies move blindingly fast as opposed to the (thanks to Romero) long accepted convention that the undead move rather slowly and awkwardly. I must admit that I had a problem with this and it did affect my enjoyment of the film. As portrayed, they almost seemed like the zombie effect was akin to steriods, turning them into super athletes.

Review: Constantine

By Mike Reiter

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Very forgettable, but fun while it lasts. Unfortunately, a hole-riddled story squanders a thought provoking theme.

I guess there is something to be said for instincts. When I first saw the trailer for Constantine I thought the concept of a character devoted to destroying evil, but who was too tainted for heaven was an intriguing idea... however, the cartoon-like CGI demons set off my alarm bells. Now that I've seen the film, after two hours I find myself wishing the visuals had been the only deficiency.

For my money, the theme of Constantine is its greatest asset. Because it had such great potential, it?s poor execution is cause for even greater disappointment. Movies that tackle important subjects like "the meaning of life", "the reason for evil", and "the after-life" can cause one to reflect on a scene, a one-liner, or a captivating visual effect for months, even years later. Unfortunately you?ll be forgetting about this one on the way back to your car?

Review: House of Flying Daggers

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: While sometimes visually stunning, this movie suffers tremendously from a weak script. In most aspects, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is a better movie.

One of the first things that struck me about this film after it ended was how similar it was to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Lots of martial arts battles, at least one of which is fought in the trees? Yep. A man and a woman develop an intense love for each other that's fraught with obstacles? Yep. Actress Ziyi Zhang even starred in both films. After all the comparisons are done, though, Crouching Tiger still comes out the winner.

One thing that really separates House of Flying Daggers from Crouching Tiger is how many plot twists it has. Some of them you can see coming from a mile away, while others are so nonsensical that you don't really know what to make of them. For the most part, the tone of the movie is playful and informal, almost like a stage play. That approach didn't work, at least not for me. The casting for this movie was really uneven. I liked Ziyi Zhang's performance, but both Takeshi Kaneshiro and Andy Lau seemed ill-suited for their respective roles. Kaneshiro always seems to have the "Look at me, I'm every woman's dream" look on his face, while Lau always seems to have the "Look at me, I'm in deep thought" look on his. Neither actor gave me the impression that he had really immersed himself in the character he was playing.

Review: Ju-on: The Grudge

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Ju-on: The Grudge is another Japanese example of how a low-key approach to horror can be more effective than a gore/special effects laden mega-budget movie.

Ok, when the DVD menu is scary you know you'd better brace yourself for some serious creepiness, and Ju-on: The Grudge doesn't disappoint.

The opening titles are very simple, with a quote stating that "Ju-on is a curse of those who die in the grip of a powerful rage". Now I have to admit that I wasn't sure if that meant it applies if you die at the hands of someone in a rage, or if you were in a rage when you died...

The film opens in black and white in what appears to be a flashback scene indicating a violent murder has, or is in the process of taking place. The use of sound as a creep-inducing device is established right from the outset, as a cat which is annoying the killer is grabbed, taken off-screen, and wet/crunchy sounds immediately follow. From here (after a black screen showing only the name "Rika" in a corner), as do a number of Japanese horror films that I've seen, the film cuts to a thoroughly mundane scene at a social services office where we get to meet Rika. She is a shy volunteer at the office and is talked into visiting a client's home when the case worker is not available.

Review: The Grudge

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Very scary and creepy, but very similar to The Ring. In most aspects, The Ring is a better movie.

Didn't I already see this movie two years ago, and wasn't it called The Ring? And wasn't the female lead a much better actress? Okay, granted, there are quite a few differences between The Ring and this one, but at least to me, they seemed only superficial. In The Ring, bad things happen when people see a certain VHS tape; in The Grudge, bad things happen when people set foot inside a certain house. The Ring was based on the Japanese film Ringu; The Grudge was based on the Japanese film Ju-On: The Grudge (click on the link for a review). The Ring has a headstrong female lead who manages to stay alive while everyone else dies; ditto for The Grudge. About the only obvious difference is that The Ring was set in the state of Washington, while The Grudge is set in Tokyo, Japan. (If you believe all the TV shows and movies, Tokyo is the only city in Japan. That's unfortunate, considering that Tokyo ranked #1 in a recent survey of the world's most expensive places to live.)

Review: Team America: World Police

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

The short version: An extremely rude and crude satire of action movies and our post 9/11 world that is effective and sometimes funny, but uneven overall.

Team America is most certainly not for everyone... it's rude, crude and foul. It definitely earns it's R rating due to dialogue and a puppet love scene that will leave you blinking hard to make sure your eyes are really conveying to your brain what it thinks it's seeing. If explicit and foul language offend you, do not go see this film, as you will not be amused.

The premise is that America has a special police force that does not recognize international boundaries when it comes to going after terrorists. The film opens with a typical day in downtown Paris (3,628 miles from America, the center of the universe), when suddenly a bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists are seen milling about, one of which is carrying a briefcase with a blinking light. There's no subtlety here: Although the terrorists are in Paris, they are wearing the typical desert-type clothes we've come to associate with them, and they look as dirty and scruffy as they would holed up in the mountains of Afghanistan.

In flies "Team America" by helicopter, with members being lowered to the ground and firing from the sky. What looks like a Humvee is deployed from the chopper once it lands, tearing around the streets after the terrorists and wreaking it's own brand of havoc by demolishing fruit stands and causing civilians to dive out of it's way. Gunbattle ensues, with one member of the team firing a rocket which hits the Eiffel Tower, knocking it over and into the Arc de Triomphe... demolishing them both. The reaction of said team member? "Damn, I missed."

Review: Underworld

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: If you watch this you won't get "the great American film", but you will get a cool concept, a tough heroine, and a pretty wild, if sometimes silly, ride.

I finally got around to watching Underworld today. I tried the other day, but the first 10 minutes led me to believe that I was about to waste the following 110 minutes of my life, which could be better spent say, reorganizing the garage. But, I did have it home from Netflix, and the wife and daughter were out, so I figured what the heck... it might make for a good napping opportunity.

Imagine my suprise when I found this to be the first movie I've seen that breaks my "if the first 10 minutes stink the entire movie will stink" rule. Now understand that I'm talking strictly "popcorn flick" level here, and nothing beyond that, but for what it was, it actually got better as it progressed.

Either that or I just became numb to the whole thing.

The plot is actually fairly interesting (and might have made for a better film if done by a different group of people): Werewolves and vampires have been at war for 600 years and the vampires are winning. Our hero(ine) is Selene (played by fanboy favorite Kate Beckinsale), a soldier-class vampire who enjoys her work and is actually getting melancholy over the fact that there are so few werewolves left to dispatch.

Review: Exorcist III

By Brian Rentschler

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: The storyline takes a back seat to mood and effect, and the ending is weak, but if you like movies that scare you and/or creep you out, don't miss this one.

With Exorcist: The Beginning due to hit theaters this week, I thought I would make the experience complete by seeing Exorcist III. Later on, I plan to see Exorcist II: The Heretic, but the comments I have heard about it have been unflattering, to say the least, so I'll take my time with that one.

The comments I had heard about Exorcist III were quite polarized. One person told me simply, "It sucked," while several film critics called it one of the scariest films ever made. After seeing the film, I would tend to agree with the film critics for the most part. William Peter Blatty, who adapted the screenplay from his novel, Legion, and directed the film, has a directing style that kind of reminds me of Steven Spielberg. He does an excellent job of achieving the mood or effect he wants, but the details of the story end up being overlooked as a result. The beginning is very melodramatic, almost to the point of being ridiculous. The only thing missing is a neon sign saying, "Something other-worldly is happening here." The scenes towards the end of the film feel out-of-place, almost like an afterthought. (The suits at Morgan Creek reportedly insisted on adding an exorcism scene, even though Blatty's original story had no such plot point.) But the rest of the movie, with only a few exceptions, is very well done.

Review: The Village

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Suspenseful, creepy, and provides a number of good scares.

Seems like people are pretty evenly split on this film... I'll cut to the chase and say that I liked it. Now I didn't like it enough to buy it on DVD when it comes out, and maybe my positive review comes from the fact that 30 minutes prior I had come out of the very weak comedy Anchorman and this was vastly superior.

Nah, this is a good flick on it's own merits. And oh, BTW, this will be a spoiler-free review.

I feel kind of sorry for Shyamalan... he's really been put up on a pedastal, and it seems like people have higher expectations for his films. To be honest I think that people are waiting to see him fail. No pressure, though. Really.

Review: Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3.5 out of 5

Short version: Except for one miscast role and an over the top ending, this is a crude but extremely funny satire of the fitness industry.

If you're a guy, and you still have any hint of a teenager in you, you're probably going to like this movie. I've stated in the past that there is a very fine line when it comes to movies between "stupid funny" and just plain stupid. With just a couple of exceptions, where Dodgeball veers into just plain stupid, it's a very funny film.

The basic premise is small, friendly, rundown gym vs. uber-yuppie (can I still use that term?), glitzy mega-gym across the street. The owner of "Globo-Gym" (White Goodman, played by Ben Stiller) wants to buy "Average Joe's" across the street from it's owner (Peter LeFleur, played by Vince Vaughn) in order to turn it into a parking lot. These guys have been rivals for a long time and it comes to a head in the events that follow. I won't bore you with further details except to say that a professional dodgeball tournament is the answer to LeFleur and his nerd buddies problem.

Review: The Chronicles of Riddick

By Vic Holtreman

Rating:

3 out of 5

Short version: Amazing production design and lots of action make up for the huge plot holes in this surprisingly decent movie.

I honestly cannot believe I'm about to type this, but... I enjoyed The Chronicles of Riddick.

I had just come off of two previous days of bad (Van Helsing) or at the very best, forgettable (The Day After Tomorrow) movies when I decided what-the-heck-let's-throw-the-dice on this one. I completely expected this thing to stink, even as a "check your brain at the door" movie, but I was pleasantly (and shockingly) surprised.

The movie opens with Riddick in hiding from "Mercs" (you're just not cool if you don't abbreviate) due to a $1 million+ price on his head. His "badass quotient" is established immediately in a segment involving a ship flying through a tight canyon, where he takes out a few bad guys single handedly and without a weapon. There was something about the way the exteriors were shot that told me I might be in for something cool.

At least visually, I was right.