Resident Evilist?

A fitting end to Resident Evil Trilogy is executed in "Extinction". Although not as strong as the first one, the movie itself is a decently satisfying conclusion to the story arch. Don't look for a deep, or emotionally involving movie; come on, it is zombies in Vegas. All the elements are there: kick-butt shero, monsters, evil scientist, genetically mutated monsters, guns, knives, mutated birds, firestorms. In general some to like and some to dislike. All the elements are there, but somehow the movie never truly grabs the audience's attention. Yes it is as likable as a zombie movie can be, but it isn't anything to write home about.
"Extinction" occurs five years after "Apocalypse" and, while global events of the past time are touched upon, most of the characters from the last movie are not addressed. Valentine is not in the picture, nor is the the virus creator's daughter. We never know what has happened to them. Alice is now a loner whose telekinetic powers are growing exponentially. A few character from the last movie, Carlos and L.J., have joined a caravan of survivors trying to stay alive.
As I said earlier; all the elements are there for a pretty solid movie, but somehow what the movie should have been was never tapped. There is something dissatisfying about this movie (besides the fact that a chain-linked fence can somehow hold back hordes of the animated dead). I cannot state specifically what the dissatisfying element is, but it is there. (Sorry I can't be more specific than that.) In many ways it is like Van Helsing, a satisfying beginning but disappointing end.
Over all a decent, if not fabulous, end to the trilogy. While the possibility for another movie suggested in the final scene of "Extinction", I hope that they let the series end here on a adequate note.

Dragon Wars will slay you, but not the way it intended

Monster-movie + Geek-tastic effects - sensible plot = amusing mess that should wait for video

I went to see this movie for Jason Behr, and to see some effects, but for nothing else, and that is exactly what I got. I took a friend with me who owns all of those Godzilla, Mothra, Godzilla vs. Mothra, etc. movies, thinking that at least he would enjoy it and give me someone to discuss the movie with. My dearest wish is that we could have been in one of our apartments, throwing popcorn at the screen and laughing out loud at the preposterous "acting" and lines of the characters. Seriously, this movie is best viewed while imbibing a little and being as loud as you want; it would be terrific fun that way.

Not an option for us, unfortunately. The theater wasn't exactly filled with parents and their eleven-year-old sons, but they made up all of the rest of the audience besides the two of us. I saw the movie for free (never a sign of a high-grossing movie if they will let you use a pass the weekend after a movie comes out; it means they are desperate to get some behinds in chairs), so I figured it was all gravy.

The effects were actually pretty cool; my favorite was the evil snake-dragon wrapped around LA's Liberty Building. The downtown LA-decimating battle was interesting to watch, even though I would not have been surprised to see a Transformer run through on its way to tackle a Decepticon. (Where were they anyway? Seeing them square off against the mini-dragon-ish beasts or the snake would have been worth the price of admission!). Some of the creatures in their battle-formations reminded me so much of both Lord of the Rings and Star Wars that I had to admire Hyung-rae Shim's brass for opening himself to intellectual-property litigation. We know what his geek-pedigree is! My favorite creatures were the aptly-named Dawdlers.

At the end of the movie, scratch that, during the entire movie, I was stuck wondering what this film says about Korean moviegoers. I have hears all about how this movie is a smash-hit over there, and I know that it is flopping over here. I didn't expect much, but I certainly did not expect such sub-par acting from Amanda Brooks. I have only seen one other movie that I cannot recall her in, but given this evidence, I hope never to see here again. I wish her well as a person, but she got her chance to impress me, and she blew it so spectacularly that I don't think I will ever look at one of her characters without wanting to laugh scornfully. Jason Behr managed well enough, given the drivel that he had to work with. Roswell showed me that he could be more than a pretty face (and nice abs, sholders, etc.), but this movie does not give him much of a chance to be more than not-bad. (If you are not going to let him act, will you at least allow him to shrug off those 70's-terrific button-down shirts? I know that the costume designer is hiding his wonderful physique on purpose. Could I at least have the joy of a clinging- t-shirt? Please?)

Seriously, Mr. Shim, this is not your first film! I think it's great that you can both write and direct a movie, but seriously, you need to think about letting someone else put words into the mouths of your characters; you are awful at it! Maybe this mush of over-wroughtness makes tons of sense in Korean (a language I know nothing about), but it doesn't translate at all into English. I can do better. I know how pompous that makes me sound, but I can tell you that while I am not particularly good, I am at least not as stultify-ingly bad as this script showed him to be. The exposition was so heavy-handed that I had to ask my buddy "What? I've lost the plot." (Plot? <>) I can put up with a lot, and suspend my disbelief, but I abandoned that within the first 5 minutes of the movie. Shame on you, and your investors.
Could someone also explain to me how Korean dragons can fly with no wings in evidence? I suppose that they are meant to be so magical that they don't even need to be propelled. I'll take a nice Western mythical creature like an pegasus anyday; at least they pretend to obey the laws of physics.

I knew walking into this movie that I would have to be entertained mainly by the monster-effects, which I was. I had no idea how much of a let-down it would be to have one of the human characters speak up during the climactic battle scene. If this movie had been made entirely out of graphics, like the Final Fantasy movie, I would have been fine, but in this case, the real world should have minded its own business. The mix of the two was entirely inappropriate and distracted me from my enjoyment and appreciation of the costly special effects. A giant snake slithering down the streets of LA, knocking cars, trees and everything else out of the way with each sinuous coil? Cool!

Now, all this having been said (and I know I am not the only one; other people have touched on these points too); wait until video and have an awesome night excoriating the awful dialog and cheering the effects with your friends in the freedom of your own home!

'Eastern' is full of 'Promises'...

...just not very pleasant ones...mostly death threats.
Viggo & London-sexy+depression=gritty good time

Wow, after watching this movie, I am glad that I am neither Russian, nor living in that particular section of London. And hats off to David Cronenburg, who can make even a naked Viggo Mortensen uninteresting; that takes some talent. The talent though, lies with Viggo for making the bathhouse scene look so desperate and un-staged. You know the fight scenes I am talking about, where the good guy never gets more than a scratch while fending off a horde of baddies? Not so here; he barely crawls away. I hope the dude stretched first, and I bet that the two days it took to film that scene were pretty long and exhausting.

But back to Mr. Cronenburg; even though the movie is somewhat centered on a Russian sex trading ring (among other things), there is no titillating material here. In fact, I think the director despises flesh and sex in general. I have A History of Violence to back me up here. The level of contempt that he shows for the act of copulation and for naked humans spreads his disinterest of flesh to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that gangsters aren't wont to cuddle the nameless, faceless recipients of their carnal attention, but the sex scene between the husband and wife of Violence made very little sense to me, and was almost as cringe-worthy as the one in Monster's Ball (bleck!).

I imagine that working for such a director would be both exhausting (particularly in the emotional sense) and a bit depressing. And why does Naomi Watts' character look surprised when it rains? She lives in London, and has for all of her life, as far as we can tell.

Hats off to Viggo, who really put a lot of effort into his character. And what a character! You don't know whether or not to fear him, or to look for the heart of plated gold. Once the audience learns more about his character, the reasons behind certain of his actions are more apparent, but still more of them are made even more inscrutable (the ending, anyone? What was that about? To what purpose?). The overall effect for me is "wow", and I have to admire the time the actor put into researching his character. Some information on that can be found here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765443/trivia
The worry-beads are a nice touch.

--see 'comment' for more--

Labyrinth - "This is not an ordinary gift for an ordinary girl"

Goblins, mazes, fairies, ballrooms, bogs of eternal stench; all portrayed with the joy, enthusiasm and ability only found in a team like Jim Henson and George Lucas. This musical, comedic-fantasy is one of my all time favorite movies. The music is true 80s David Bowie, full of synthesisors and echoes and the special effects are "old school" but effective. I will be clear in stating that I am bias, I love this movie and can find few faults with it. Goblins are done by the same puppeteers that created some of the best loved characters of all time. Costumes are wonderful (who could take their eyes of Bowie's codpiece?) expecially in the ballroom scene. That scene "when the world falls down" has fueled costume ball fantasies in my brain for years. In fact, many of this movie's elements have fuled my fantasies.
David Bowie and Jennifer Connely shine. Bowie plays the Goblin King, who is somewhat creepy and not human, but finds himself in love with a human girl. The girl, Sarah, is played by Connelly (I believe this is her first big role) with just the right amount of innocence and adolescence to create a sixteen-year-old with a preoccupation for fantasy and fairytales. Perhaps some of my love for this movie comes from the fact that, growing up, I related very well with the character of Sarah (even though my life had nothing in common with her).
All told, the puppetry, acting, special effects, attention to detail and wonderful story create a magical movie that shouldn't be missed. However, if you didn't see it as a child, some of the wonder will probably be missing.

Atonement

Young hot actors+tragedy=bearable Atonement
Here is another book that I have 'read' in preparation for the film version. I don't think that I would have picked it up if the lovely Ms. Knightly hadn't seduced me in to it. First of all, I don't like stories that are too tragic; the book seemed like a big downer, and in some ways it is (sexual assault, particularly of a minor, is never fun to me). On the other hand, it is also a beautiful character-study for so many of the main players and I am content with the time I spent listening to the audiobook.

I think James McAvoy is going to be a great Robbie and Romola Garai is good enough to make the audience not totally despise Briony, the younger sister whose misunderstanding instigates the the tragedy. I am in; this cast has sold me on the hope that the sadness of the story and the bittersweetness of what little redemption the book affords will not turn into a lachrymose mush on-screen.

I can tell you right now that my best movie buddy will not be interested in seeing this with me, so I may have to review it all by myself. While I think it is too early to talk about a movie's chances at an Oscar (it is always too early, particularly if a movie hasn't even come out yet. Wait until November, people!), this movie seems like a jury-pleaser, from what I know of the book and the actors. Admittedly, the actors are still the biggest draw for me, but the cinematography also looks fantastic. We shall see.

Going to see it: No Country For Old Men

I just finished the audiobook for this title, in preparation for the movie coming out. I prefer to read (or 'read', in the case of audiobooks) the text a movie is based on, before I see it. This may not be the best plan, since I am usually a little disappointed with the movie's comparatively limited scope, but I do have fun agreeing or disagreeing with the casting choices (Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon? Please!).

I liked the book a lot. Tom Stechschulte's voice did the gritty landscape of the novel justice, and from the previews, the movie will too. Javier Bardem (a great actor, even if I don't appreciate him very much) is super creepy, even in an awful haircut. I think he is going to be terrifyingly good as the psychopath Chigurh (on cd, pronounced more like a deeply southern slur of "chigger" than "sugar"). Josh Brolin is not an actor that I think very highly of, but he certainly looks the part, as does Tommy Lee Jones (a great actor, who makes some unfortunate choices). I adore Kelly Macdonald, so I will see her in almost anything. I will be even more impressed if she can pull off the deep-southern vulnerability of Carla Jean without being overbearinly needy. I am not so sure about Woody Harrelson; I can't take the guy seriously, even if he is set up to be the 'problem solver' deployed to reign in Chigurh's killing spree.

Now all I have to do is hope that the producers don't try to 'update' the setting; for me, that would ruin it, even though all the way through the book, I was dying for a good CSI team and some DNA-tests.

We'll see how well the translation from the page to the screen works out. I am prepared to like it, although I don't think that Lunanshee will be eager to see the movie, much less like the ending. I think the dark, gritty, rangy prose of the novel will come to life on-screen.
I am glad that I read the story first, because I know what a deliciously unsettling scare I am going to be in for with the killer's calm application of the cattle stun-gun. Maybe the metallic chunk of a high-pressure tank being set down on concrete will make me jump for years to come. (Darn, and I really like to scuba-dive!)

'Speechless' with laughter

Romantic Comedy of Errors+ 2 good actors' chemistry+wit=Speechless
You know what movie I would really like to watch? Speechless, the 1994 comedy with Geena Davis and Michael Keeton.

I haven't seen this movie in about 8 years, but I remember really liking it straight off. Perhaps if I saw it again, I would not find it nearly so engaging. I have the IMDB page up right next to this blog, and it is hard to believe that I would like the movie any less today than I did then, particularly with a cast such as Ernie Hudson (sadly, always an underdog), Christopher Reeve at his dry-comedian best, and Bonnie Bedelia. How many thirty-something comedies come along? Or comedies about political campaigns? Comedies are usually the territory of people in their twenties, like Just Friends or Old School (in that case, people who are acting like they are in their twenties, which is even sadder and less entertaining). Why do rom-coms these days all seem like You, Me and Dupree? Or, if they address more 'mature' characters, you get things like Must Like Dogs. Bleh!

Nope, I loved the sparkling chemistry between Geena and Michael and sizzling wit of Speechless's dialog. Unlike other relationship movies featuring people older than 22, these characters have just enough baggage to make things interesting, without making them "damaged goods." This movie has been on my mind for almost a week, and I need to go hunt down a copy. I hope you like it too; if not, I would be interested in why you didn't. Maybe I will even add a post as an "after", so that what you read now is the "before" column.
In any case, I am off to the video store to see if my initial affection for this movie has stood the test of time.

Stardust

First, let me say that I really enjoyed this movie. Cleaver plot, well-defined characters and wonderful actors really brought this movie to life. Definitely one of the best fantasy movies I have seen in years. There is some predictability for anyone who is familiar with the fantasy genre; you know how the witch will die, who the hero ends up with and how the story will end. In many ways Stardust is a fairytale, but the film is so well done that you don't mind the bit of predictability.
Many have compared this movie to The Princess Bride but, while they are both in the fantasy epic genre, I believe this is a mistake. The Princess Bride is the ultimate parody and requires a certain level of intelligence from its audience to recognize it's brilliance. Stardust is a different type of film. It is not a parody, but rather a sometimes comedic fantasy adventure. Sure there are amusing moments on par with anything found in TPB, but it is not the same type of comedy.
Danes plays a disdainful Yvaine well, while Pfieffer and De Niro each play their characters to the hilt. However, it may be relative newcomer Charlie Cox who truly carried the show. Cox's character grows from a humble, bumbling shop boy to a confidant, intelligent man. The transformation is almost as magical as the story itself.
Bottom Line: This is a must for any fantasy lovers.

Shoot 'Em Up

Why? Really. Why? Three great actors in a pretty worthless movie. Other critics are correct in that the title accurately describes the movie; for all intents and purposes this flick is nothing more than a string of improbable and frivolously violent action scenes. Shoot 'Em Up is rated "R" and certainly earns that rating. This movie encompasses everything from carrot killings to non-traditional "houses of ill repute" and the fondling of corpses. Once again I ask: Why? The three main actors are all wonderfully talented, but the script demeans their ability. I think they may have lost a bet, or owed someone some money. That is the only reason I can think that these people would be involved in production of this kind. There were a few light moments and some funny lines, but not enough to redeem the film. Don't waste your time. Wait for video, or better yet, wait until it comes on television and don't waste your money. (I have much better hopes for Clive Owen in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.)

Purpose

Lunanshee and Naps-A-Lot Bear are movie fanatics. We watch scores of movies, old and new, and for years have despaired over the state of movie reviews. Together we decided to begin reviewing movies together, since we often have different opinions on movies. And in doing so, offer the public a chance at balanced movie reviews. Cheers!