"Land of the Lost" Review: Like Matt Lauer, This Movie Can Suck It

First and foremost, I want to get something out of the way, just so you, the reader(s), can fully understand just how bad Brad Sildeberg’s, who made A Series of Unfortunate Events in 2004 (which I liked by the way) new take on a not-so-obscure kids’ fiction, aptly titled Land of the Lost is. Before even seeing it, many critics trashed the movie over the filmmakers’ decision to reimagine it as a comedy. “Why did they make it a comedy?” they cried. “It’s serious, they’re just going to make fun of it!” they bellowed. Well, get the fuck over it. It was a show about a man and his two kids who ran around evading retards dressed in lizard costumes and clay-mation dinosaurs with names like “Grumpy,” not to mention ape-men, crystals, your occasional random old crazy person and multi-dimensional vortexes that meant nothing to the 8-year-olds watching. The show is virtually a parody upon itself, like Scrubs or one of those interchangeable random generic ghost/cop shows on NBC every other freaking week. So yeah, I think it should be a comedy. And you know what? I think that most of the people who watched the thing back when it was on are probably in their 40s right now, so yeah, put Will Ferrell in it, who I personally think is a one-trick pony (which I’ll talk about later) but has a monetary track record on par with the Master Chief and God. So yes, to hammer it home, I think they made the right decision making Land of the Lost a comedy, so there, you know I’m not just going to jump on the bandwagon of every other movie critic in the world.

The problem, though, is that’s a fucking stupid comedy.

It’s one thing to have a stupid comedy when you have a simpler plot. Talladega Nights was a stupid comedy but people loved it because it was about a stupid guy with a stupid story about a stupid sport. But you throw in time vortexes and lost worlds and inter-dimensional crystal thingies and “tachyons” (which I originally thought were just made up to badly parody the word “tacky” but Microsoft Word isn’t correcting my spelling of it so maybe there’s more to it) and you have to, as a filmmaker, give it a little more depth, which Sildeberg simply doesn’t do. I know that when I’m watching a movie about lizard-men using crystals to open different dimensions, and with Will Ferrell in it, I shouldn’t be expecting the scientific depth of a Michael Crichton novel but come the fuck on! How the hell can someone who demonstrates himself to be a complete idiot throughout the movie create, in one night, a dimension-ripping device? How can a woman learn from a mysterious ape man from a land of the fucking Lost learn the ape language in about 5 seconds? How come the raptors, who make their obligatory dinosaur movie appearance, pass up the three protagonists to attack a goddamn ice cream truck? How can the Sleestaks possibly be a threat when they walk like constipated blind people trying to make their way to the mall bathroom after dropping their cane? And, finally, how the fuck can you be pooped out of a dinosaur, alive, about 30 seconds after being eaten?

Who wrote this thing? Oh, a writer for Saturday Night Live. That makes sense considering that, like the monuments scattered about the Dali-esque desert landscape, everything in the movie seems completely fucking random. There’s a scene where a dinosaur is blown to bits after swallowing a tank of liquid nitrogen followed shortly by Will Ferrell dancing across a lava pit singing show tunes and followed after that by a stoned Ferrell and McBride eating a giant cooked crab and sprinkling it with a totally random giant orange slice.

Knowing this you can start to get a sense for what kind of film Land of the Lost really is which is made even more evident by the sources behind its writing: a series of skits, hit and miss, jammed together into an incoherent mess of a movie. And when I say hit and miss, I mean more like barely scratch the surface and miss, because there really isn’t anything in the movie that “hits” in the traditional sense, there are just some scenes that are slightly more bearable than others. For example, there’s a scene in the desert where a T-Rex and an Allosaurus are chasing Will Ferrell around that’s actually somewhat enjoyable. And though you never get a sense that our heroes are in any danger, which is expected since the film dubs itself as a “comedy,” it still manages to be somewhat fun to watch. This, though, is complimented by a scene where Marshall, Will, and an ape-man named Chaka are whacked out on some primordial narcotic and contemplating kissing each other. The scene is basically a single continuous take that goes on for-fucking-ever! It’s arduous and painful to watch, just like most of the prolonged scenes throughout the movie’s running time. There are a ton of these, ranging from discussions over a miniature model to Ferrell sitting in an old car with his hands halfway down his pants. Seriously. It’s like that guy at the party telling the same fucking joke over and over again hoping that eventually someone will find it funny.

There are “homages” to the original series sprinkled throughout the movie but they lack any subtly whatsoever. Take Star Trek, another adaptation this year, and you’ll find that it’s written in a way that pays great respect to its source material, enough for any layman watching it to figure the references out. They never overdo it, and put the various homages and throwbacks into the script naturally. Land of the Lost on the other hand feels the need to repeat its callbacks to the original series. There’s a scene at the beginning where Holly says they’re going on a “routine expedition,” Will Ferrell repeated it, then she did again, then practically looked at the screen with a wink, and repeated it yet again. Then later, when they encounter the T-Rex (who, incidentally, may be the most likeable character in the movie), Holly makes sure to say, “Boy, he’s grumpy.” They could’ve easily stuck with that line and everyone would’ve gotten the memo, but no, she had to add on to the pit of intolerable idiocy, “We should name him Grumpy.” These are not just writing problems, these are directing problems. If you see something that sucks, cut it out! Later on, Ferrell, in a pointless move, actually has the audacity to sing the Land of the Lost theme song. Hmm, that’s not an attempt to put in an obvious homage, is it? Retard.

If there is a bright spot, many thought it would be Ferrell, but the one (the only one) who shines is Danny McBride, who is by far the only (human) character who actually makes us laugh. He seems to be the only one who realizes the kind of movie Land of the Lost should be in that he balances the perfect amount of seriousness and comedy and outshines Ferrell in nearly every scene.

I can also compliment the visuals but saying a movie has good visuals these days is like saying cars have power windows and Miley Cyrus isn’t a virgin, it’s just something that should go with the territory. CGI has pretty much made it so every movie has good visuals, even the shitty ones, though I will say that the cartoony style of the dinosaurs compliments the wonky (aka retarded) style of the movie. The landscapes and backdrops are also quite impressive, even if the desert gets a little monotonous after awhile.

And on to Will Ferrell himself. Personally, I’ve always felt he was a one-trick pony (like I said before if you actually have the patience/balls to read the entire review) who’s made a career from that staple brand of “comedy” involving dim-witted middle aged men that has legions of fans lining up to bathe his scrotum in saliva. I’ve never cared for it, but I’ll give it the credit it deserves considering everything he makes brings in money like a hooker with 3 vaginas. In Land of the Lost, though, the dim-witted middle aged man he supposedly always plays is spliced with a brilliant scientist and it just doesn’t work. Either he’s a fucking moron or a genius, and when you try to make him both you just end up epitomizing everything wrong with the movie.

LOTL is a movie that can’t really decide what it is. It’s too stupid for adults yet to vulgar for children. We go from talking about power crystals in one scene to giant vibrators in another. It feels like a kids’ movie but there are too many piss and dick jokes to really merit anyone seeing it under the age of 15 (well, these days, 12). This contrasts sharply with Sildeberg’s earlier film A Series of Unfortunate Events which, while dark, always knew that it was a movie for kids and acted as such. Land of the Lost on the other hand can sometimes border on disturbing, with velociraptors ripping the limbs off an ice cream man. So, based upon this, I’ve come to the conclusion that Land of the Lost is not a movie for kids, nor a movie for adults, but a combination of the two; a movie for child-like adults. And not the kind who still love Star Trek (2nd reference) and talk about it on computer forums while living in their mom’s basement, but the wild abusive boyfriend kind, the kind who drinks more beer than water and still goes to frat parties a decade after graduating. That guy. That’s who Land of the Lost is for. For the rest of us normal people, it’s an exercise on how to take $100 million dollars and the childhood memories of middle-aged Americans and turn it into an hour and a half of Will Ferrell’s jack-off material.

Also:
-Catch my very subtle televangelist joke?
-I think it’s time to retire velociraptors. Once you find out they were just prehistoric turkeys, they kinda lose their pizzazz

Score: 2.5/10

Updates coming

Sorry for the lack of updates. The problem with being an "independent" critic is that I don't get paid, so if I want to review a movie, I have to work 3 hours at $7 per hour to go see it. Also, I'm planning on putting everything on a dedicated site (not a blogspot site) sometime in the future, hoping that may increase my chances of actually getting paid for this one day. Anyway, new trilogy chop shop coming next week and a Land of the Lost review later today.

"Up" Review: Brilliant

Warning: Up is a movie that is best gone into blindly, for any information on the intricacies on the plot can seriously hurt its emotional value and as such the film as whole. So if you haven't seen Up, yet, don't read this review. Go see it. Now.

Once in awhile, a film comes along that gets a free pass because, not only were there little expectations for it, but in Up's case practically no expectations. If you weren't a movie guru, you probably didn't even hear about Pixar's latest film until recently. It didn't have the marketing of Wall-E, who had a seat at the NBA finals in 2008. Hell, Finding Nemo has its own fucking ride at Disneyland. Up, on the other hand, approached subtley, not with a bang, and as a result, it's not destined to make nearly as much money as previous Pixar efforts, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the elites. It is. In fact, it may just be the best film this studio has ever churned out. And considering the source: Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Monsters Inc, that is saying a whhhoooole damn lot.

Up is the story of Carl Fredericson, who, with his loving, outgoing wife, has lived a life of (apparent) missed dreams, as their lifelong dream of visiting Venezuela and having a house atop paradise falls is abruptly ended by tragedy. On the brink of losing his-their-house, he decides to finally set into action and take his precious Ellie to the land they both dreamt of, bringing along, inadvertently, a young wilderness explorer named Russel who essentially represents every under-loved child who isn't going around robbing convenience stores. The journey that follows isn't epic in scope. There are just a few characters, one big locale (that happens to be beautifully rendered), and no real one-liners, with the exception of one spouted by Dug, a dog with a collar that vocalizes his thoughts.

Wall-E, for all its wonders, was a film that basically got by through injecting its veins with concentrated cuteness, creating coos and awes that resonated with audiences everywhere. Not that Wall-E was bad, I just don't think it would've been as good if Wall-E wasn't so goddamn cute. Finding Nemo was incredible because of its animation, the underwater landscapes were breathtaking. And Toy Story, well, it was the first time anyone had ever seen anything like that before, so it has its obvious place atop the pantheon of CGI films.

Up, on the other hand, is anchored by its fabulous writing. It's an emotional, heart-wrenching, tear-jerking story that will, and not just because of innate sadness but its overwhelming sense of adventure and the joy you'll get from watching Frederison's house soar through the air near the film's climax. No, it doesn't have the cute robots, nor is it full of one-liners, and that's really more of a marketing problem than the film's. Note that this really isn't a kids' movie. While, obviously, it's a cartoon with talking dogs, the themes present throughout its runningtime are really more on par with adults.

Pixar's latest isn't Pixar's most extravagent. Kids will fidget. It won't make as much money. It doesn't have the cutsey characters. But it has the best story of all of them, and should be a serious consideration for Best Picture and not just Best Animated Film at 2010's Oscar ceremony. It'll keep you enthralled, make you care about the characters, and a final sequence involving a zoom-out of paradise falls will bring tears to even the biggest Pittbull-lovers eyes. Up isn't Pixar's biggest film, but it may just be its grandest.

Score: 10/10

"Terminator: Salvation" Review: My Name is John Connor, and I'm an Asshole

Terminator: Salvation is the "4th" film in the Terminator franchise that, believe it or not, began all the way back in 198-fucking-4. That's way before I was born. Like the humanoid machines featured in every movie, it seems to be a franchise that just won't fucking die, so as the years progress the studios will keep finding ways to suck its tits and in the interest of capital gain. In this film, because they really have nothing left to fall back on the from the "present day" Terminator movies, we get to see the legendary battle with Skynet as mentioned in all 3 previous films. John Connor is now in his 30s with a badass goatee and, strangley, feels the need to use the Bat-Rasp throughout the film's entirety.

McG, the director with the name of a rapper who really likes big macs, does a pretty good job with what he has to work with script-wise. From a narrative standpoint, T:S really doesn't do much, but I think that's the fault of the screenwriters. The story is there, somewhere, but it's not fleshed out whatsoever, and everything seems more like a vehicle for the explosively exhilarating action sequences. Those scenes are the meat and bones of T:S; McG handles these very well and every one (which take up about and hour and a half of the movie's two-hour running time) is well-constructed and keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

The story, the soul of any movie, is too cliched and riddled with contradictions and excess, unecessary sequences to really have any meaning. For example, in scene near the movie's beginning, Connor jumps into a helicopter to escape, only to have the helicopter lose control and twirl about for about 2 fucking minutes of your life before crashing right back down to the ground, in the same spot it took off from, thus negating any reason to have gotten in it in the first place. I can buy big, blood-thirsty robots in any movie, but for some reason I can't buy another sequence shortly after this one where Connor jumps into the ocean to enter the Resistance's HQ, and the next shot shows him soaking wet, glistening in a submarine. My BS-a-Meter went off so loud most people in the theater probably thought it was a cell-phone. All in all, T:S plays like a video game, with non-stop action that takes only brief pauses to progress the subpar story.

Christian Bale's John Connor sort of epitomizes T:S, whereas its head is so far up its ass with ego that you kind of want to see it die. Marcus Wright, the new character introduced in the film's opening, is a convicted murderer but he's still way cooler than John Connor, just because he's not a complete douche the whole movie. There's a "revelaton" about 2/3 of the way through the film about Marcus Wright, but considering the fact that they give it away in the damn trailer it carries no emotional gravity whatsoever. Also, Arnold's in it for a few seconds, and while neat, it really just hammers in the point that T:S is trying to so hard to be like its big brothers despite its conviction not to be that you realize halfway through it that your watching a (very expensive) fan film.

Terminator: Salvation uses its narrative as a crutch for action sequences, which, thankfully, it does quite well. McG can direct action, there's not doubt about it, it's just that the movie thinks it' soooo cool that it forgets to be cool. It runs for a clean 2 hours, but not a whole lot happens story-wise. Alas, it's fun; watching Marcus Wright, who seems like he gets more screentime than Connor despite Christian Bale's top billing, is a good character who the screenwriters really don't do justice with. There's a missed oppurtunity with him, to explore what makes people people and machines machines. But despite its predictability and hollow characterization, T:S succeeds at being that big summer action flick that we need this time of year.

Also:

-according to IMDB, this movie cost $200 million to make. Where?! Michael Bay's movie about big fucking robots cost $150 million and looks worlds better

-I feel like Gears of War was an influence, on, well, the whole movie

-I don't think Christian Bale actually ranted on the set, I think he was just rehearsing lines from the movie

Score: 7.5/10

"Star Trek" Review: This is what happens when nerds take steroids

So there's this thing I do whenever I want to see a movie but don't want to admit to anyone I want to see that particular movie: I take my younger siblings. See, as the oldest brother of a 10-year-old and a 7-year-old, I can basically always use the excuse, "They want to go see it, so I'm taking them." I used this most recently with Star TreK, J.J. Abrams' reboot of one of the most celebrated...and nerdiest...shows of all time. The series has become syonymous with geeks, 40-year-old virgins that live at home, guys with long beards and glasses who snort in laughter whenever someone refers to Captain Picard as Patrick Stewart and spend their days arguing over internet forums about which episode is the best and which alien is the hottest provided they have any interest in women.

J.J. Abrams, essentially, took all the geekiest elements of the Star Trek universe and injected them with Jason Giambi's special blend, because I'll tell you what, the most appropriate thing I could possibly say about this 2-hour thrill ride is this: it kicks Vulcan ass.

Star Trek is a movie that achieves a perfect balance between pleasing the old followers while updating it, bringing it into a more modern pethora of action film. See, as much as you watch it and see all the explosions, the effects, Eric Bana trying to act badass, you still are never lost from the feeling that this is Star Trek that you're watching. Abrams does a good job of never deveating so far from the source material that it becomes something else entirely (ala The Honeymooners) while at the same time bringing a fresh look.

I've never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Never. Not once. Maybe clips when I was a kid, but nothing I can actually remember. Yet, the miraculous thing, is that I recognize all the characters. It's so perfectly cast, so perfectly written, and so perfectly directed that even though the only familiarity with the original characters I have is what I know from pop culture references, I still know who everyone is. It never feels forced, though. Abrams doesn't point t the people and say, "Look! This is how he got started! See! I'm a genius!" Instead the characters and famous lines (set phasers to stun) just feel like part of the framework of the film and not needless, obvious homages.

If I do have a complaint, it's that much of the plot centers around time travel, and while I know that's a big part of the whole Trekkie thing, it gets really annoying at times, and (spoilers) feels more like an attempt to get Leonard Nimoy on screen rather than what the writers may have originally envisioned. Nonetheless, it's not enough to really scare you away from the expereince it has to offer from beginning to end.

Star Trek is a movie you need to chuck your ego aside for. You need to put away all your prejudices, especially you Star Wars fans, and go see it. It's got heart, it's got humor, it balances homages with originality, and there may never be a more perfectly casted remake, anywhere.

I know I usually try to be funny with my reviews, but it's hard to when a movie is so good. So I will say this, I went to a Saturday afternoon showing and there were at least 5 or 6 middle-aged guys in there by themselves, undoubtedly there so they can go home and argue about it with their friends online while sipping their mom's tea in her basement.

There you go. Now go see it. Because unlike all the Star Trek movies before it and all the nerdinss associated with it, Abrams version stands apart as something everyone can enjoy while never spitting in the faces of what came ahead of it. It boldly goes where no remake has gone before. (Except for maybe like, Batman Begins)

Score: 9/10

---------------------------------------------------

Another Take:

By Scott

[Scott is a regular guest blogger on Geoff Klock's popular blog Remarkable (geoffklock.blogspot.com), and for the sake of comparison I've posted his review, which can also be found o Geoff's blog.]

Star Trek was everything that X-men Origins: Wolverine was not; more than that, it has everything that an ‘origin’ movie should have that XMO: Wolverine did not: fun, emotionally engaging, beautifully paced. The characters have depth and beloved icons are brought to life in a way that is both faithful to the original interpretations and entertaining for new viewers.

I’m not a huge Star Trek geek, but I’m just familiar enough with the mythology to get most of the references. That being said, you don’t HAVE to get the references to enjoy the movie; they are done in such a way that they are just seen as another part of the story. Case in point, the film depicts a famous instance from Star Trek mythos, Kirk beating the supposedly unbeatable Kobyashi Maru simulation at Starfleet Academy. Fans of the series will immediately recognize the scenario and will love getting to see it played out on the big screen but, for those who aren’t fans of the series, it is an entertaining scene that further establishes and develops the character of James T. Kirk (none of the ‘and that’s the origin of that’ feeling of Wolverine).

In another case of Wolverine versus Star Trek, let’s take a look at how the two movies brought a fan-favorite character, known for having a particular accent, to life. Wolverine has Gambit. The actor playing Gambit cannot do a Cajun accent but he still tries. Also, he can’t act and he’s just sort of there so you can go “Oh, look! Gambit!” Star Trek has Simon Pegg as Scotty… ‘nuff said. (The guy playing Dr. McCoy was also great for that matter).

Most importantly, the use of time travel in the film is not merely a device for Leonard Nimoy to make an appearance; it actually serves an important purpose, not just in terms of plot, but for reinvigorating the franchise as a whole. In addition to explaining any continuity gaffs for the hardcore Trek geeks, it also allows the franchise to be rebooted while still acknowledging the original all within the same film. A pretty daring feat if you ask me. Also, it allows us to have a ‘new’ James T. Kirk; one who is, essentially, the same character we know and love but, due to events depicted in the film, experiences a different formative history which allows him to be a little darker, a little edgier, a little more modern.

All this and Scotty even gets to have a cute little alien buddy!

You might have heard that it's 'this summers Iron Man'... it's not... it's better!

New "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Trailer

The second big subscripted movie of the year comes out in June, and Michael Bay is already working on ways to completely fuck it up. The first trailer came out a few months ago, and it was great. The film seemed to take itself more seriously, with a darker, more realistic and story-driven tone. When Bay realized, however, that this is how people were perceiving his new film, he took drastic action to solidify it as just another goofy, poorly written kids film with the violence of a grown up's film. So he released this new trailer, which starts out with Sam in college, Bumblebee upset about not being able to go, and (gasp!) egyptian symbols and, of course, a big old American flag.

For all those who were worried that Bay was actually going to make his new Transformers movie into the film the first one should have been, don't worry, you can rest easy tonight.

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Back to the Future"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

The film series that made Michael J. Fox into the Michael J. Fox and immortalized the Delorean has stood like a Spartan against the army of time. Visually striking in its set designs, tightly-written, and wonderfully casted, the Back to the Future series epitomizes the much-tried but often-failed science fiction comedy with one of the widest audiences of any film anywhere. Though it has its bumps in the road like any trilogy, it never quite wears out its welcome (ala Jurassic Park III, which I examined previously).

Back to the Future (1985)

The Good: Everything. Far ahead of its time, the first installment in the trilogy borders on perfection. Surely one of the best scripts ever written, the performances of every character involved, from Michael J. Fox to Crispin Glover to Christopher Lloyd, there may not be a more well-casted film with such great chemistry in the history of cinema. It’s smart, it’s funny, it’s charming, it’s one of the best movies ever made, period, that is destined to be an icon now and for decades, maybe centuries, to come.

The Bad: His mom was way hotter than his girlfriend. That’s not really bad, just an observation.

Score: 10/10
Avg. RT Score: 8.3/10

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

The Good: The writing is once again the key to the film’s charm. Biff is the primary antagonist, Doc is back and no one needs roads. The highly exaggerated future (which we now realize probably isn’t too farfetched whatsoever) is cartoony and fun to watch. The way the scenes and stories intertwine never get too complex while remaining smart and witty enough to not need a PhD in physics to understand it. Part II is often considered the “bad one,” but that’s really not fair. It’s the “least best” movie in the trilogy, and the least best always gets a bad rap (see: Return of the Jedi).

The Bad: While the effects are neat and not really meant to be taken seriously, they do go a little overboard. The darker tone of the film’s climax also makes it a little tougher to watch, not to mention there’s no Crispin Glover.

Score: 8/10
Avg. RT Score: 6/10

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

The Good: The series wraps soundly with what’s probably the most comedic installment in the series. The old west set designs are stereotypical yet wonderful, the inclusion of an old west Biff and an old west McFly family works better than it should. It’s lighter than the second, wittier, and far more charming. If you could only watch two films in the trilogy, make sure it’s the original and this one.

The Bad: The old west theme is gets a little bland at times, but it really doesn’t detract from what in the end is an excellent finale, maybe one of the best third movies ever made.

Score: 9/10
Avg. RT Score: 6.4/10

Trilogy Chop Shop: "Jurassic Park"

[the following is a new feature I’ll be posting whenever I feel like it, like in between new movie reviews, where I’ll take a look at (significant) trilogies throughout the history of film. When I say significant, I don’t mean it has to be an Oscar winner, it just means that it isn’t one of those movies found in the $2 bargain bin at Wal-Mart (for example: Babe Island Adventures 1, 2, and 3 do not count (also they are not real movies))]

In 1993, the world looked up in wonder as living dinosaurs rumbled across American theaters. Since then, the Jurassic Park franchise has been one of the most successful in the history of cinema…from a financial standpoint, anyway. I’ve used these films to examine first because they are, in my opinion, the perfect example of diminishment, whereas they get progressively worse as the series continues despite the epic, grandly nature of the original, which is to this day one of my favorite films of all time.

Jurassic Park (1993)

The Good: The effects, the effects, the effects. Despite a story that had little, if any, character development, Jurassic Park succeeded because, for the first time, the dinosaurs we saw on screen were so realistic they practically breathed. It’s rare that a movie is carried simply by its effects, but JP was so groundbreaking, that the eye candy it delivered was enough to captivate audiences even now. Add that in with the fact that from a story standpoint, it’s by far the best written, best acted, most complete film in the series, and you have a true modern masterpiece.

The Bad: The characters are just a vessel for the effects, but that really isn’t a bad thing.

Score: 9.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 7.2/10

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

The Good: See above. The Lost World ups the ante in the effects department, with more dinosaurs, more special effects shot, a gloomier, more prehistoric atmosphere and an awesome finale.

The Bad: It lacks in the story department. The science and wonder and drama from the original has all been lost. While the book was excellent, the film differentiates itself so much from it that the magic really goes away, and you’re left with a clichéd action adventure, but it has just enough brains to keep you interested, and truly feels like it belongs in the series.

Score: 7.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 5.7/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

The Good: Sam Neil.

The Bad: For some odd reason, I’m guessing to make the movie more accessible and easy to make, the filmmakers decided to use a generic rescue mission story and figured that the effects, which at this point weren’t anything new, could carry it. Nope. JPIII is the outcast of the franchise. It doesn’t feel anything like a Jurassic Park movie and instead like a money magnet aimed at kids. If you have Jurassic Park III in your DVD collection, then you are not a fan of Jurassic Park, and as far as I’m concerned are spitting on Crichton’s grave.

Score: 1/10 (because I don’t like to give zeros)
Avg. RT Score: 5.2/10

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine": Just what you expected

There’s something that can be easily deduced about movies with subscript in its title. I’ll go ahead and name some and maybe you can figure it out: Punisher: War Zone, Dragonball: Evolution, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. I’m going to stop now, because if you haven’t discovered the pattern, then chances are you’re also illiterate and can’t read any of this, anyway. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has a title that only the bottom rung of geeks (and by that I mean the top, elite geeks) will find acceptable, and is the first clue as to exactly what you’re getting when you sacrifice your hard-earned $10 and walk into the theater.

XMO:W, which I think could’ve benefited at shaking at least one stereotype of Marvel movies by just being called Wolverine (but of course that wouldn’t imply that Marvel is going to just keep making Origins movies and make tons of money…from geeks), is about the origin of everyone’s favorite, or at least most marketable, X-Man, Wolverine, played stoically by Hugh Jackman. He’s a nearly-immortal, self-healing muscle junky who, along with his brother, fights in both the Civil War and the Great War, all in the span of 10 minutes!

Okay, so here’s the meat of XMO:W’s problem: it seems to see itself not as a serious film or even respectable piece of cinema but simply a cash crop, and that’s a shame, because Jackman does a really decent job at portraying the clawed hero despite the script’s every attempt at putting him down. Every other character is a viable throwaway, some of them don’t even have dialogue. It’s a shame that the film advertising all of these X-Men and mutants only gives them a few frames of screen time before disposing of them, and it only hammers in the point that this movie isn’t really designed to please its audience, it's designed to get them to come spend money on it.

The story falls into more clichés than should be acceptable with superhero movies at this point. Yes, we all want emotion and drama with our heroes, these days, but XMO:W goes to extents that are so blatantly lame attempts at cheap-shotting us into feeling anything for the characters presented that it’s downright insulting sometimes. Consider that in with its short running time of just over an hour and a half, and I really don’t think you need any more proof that the movie’s only objective is to suck cash from your wallets at the whim of your children, who whine about wanting to go see it. Oh, did I mention that the effects aren’t much more impressive than a made-for-TV science fiction fare? Well they are, another cost-cutting move, no doubt.

By now you have the idea that XMO:W is a bad movie, but let me assure you that it’s not. But it’s not a good one, either. But nope, not quite decent. It’s right below decent, teetering in between that and “bad.” There really isn’t anything glaringly wrong with it, but it’s so rushed and convoluted in its story telling that it doesn’t take the time to get anything right. Logan's real name is James. His brother is Victor. They fight a lot. The end.

I can’t honestly call the film a failure. To me, a movie fails when it performs below expectations. XMO:W, though, is exactly what you expect it to be when you sit down to watch it. It’s full of action (though cheesy action), and I’ll be damned if Hugh Jackman doesn’t give it his all. So, despite its poor, poor direction, its few saving graces are enough for it to proudly be christened the King of the Movies with Subscripts. Congratulations.

Score: 5/10

2008 in Review

I know this is extremely late, but I've just finished about every major movie in 2008, allowing me to come to legitimate conclusions.

Biggest Surprise

Twilight
“one of the rare films that seeks to outdo the expectations set before it, positive and negative, and succeeds grandly in both”

Biggest Dissapointment

Quantum of Solace
“Instead of the human element that made Casino Royale so good, we’re left with a short, brutal, mindless action flick”

Worst Movie

The Spirit
“achieves a nearly impossible feat of being beautiful to look at it, while simultaneously painful to watch”


The Top 5 Movies of 2008

5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
“…a bio epic, a look at a very unique person’s life that doesn’t outstay its welcome and will make you wonder just how amazing of a film it might’ve been without its numerous failures”

4. Wall-E
“…a funny, incredibly smart, touching story that works on a small scale that incorporates beautiful writing with extravagant animation that pushes the limits of human imagination”

3. Kung Fu Panda
“...it manages to take an old formula and make it fresh, funny, and wildly entertaining. Not as thought-provoking as Wall­-E, but a lot more fun"

2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
“ultimately proves and achieves is that a great comedy can also just be a great movie”

1. The Dark Knight
“nearly flawless”

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": Fails yet wins

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of those movies I had absolutely no interest in seeing until it was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. So when it came to our $1 theater, I took the opportunity and sacrificed almost 3 hours of my life to sit through David Fincher’s attempt at being dramatic without having hallucinating dorks beating each other up.

The movie goes Titanic on us in that the whole story is essentially a flashback; an elderly woman, Daisy, lies dying in a New Orleans hospital while her daughter reads from the diary of Benjamin Button, which recounts most of his life. I didn’t really care for this, and feels like an attempt to add emotional depth and symbolism in a movie that makes its symbolism far too obvious to really be counted as symbolism any more (I just used 'symbolism' 3 times in once sentence). For example, the whole thing starts out with a blind clockmaker’s giant clock being put into storage, only to be revealed once more at the end of the movie. Who cares? It’s one of those things that retracts from the story and feels like a cheap shot at giving his movie more emotion, and Fincher does this once more later in the film in a truly annoying fashion I’ll discuss later.

Benjamin, as it turns out and as you probably know already unless you live in like North Korea, was born an old man and is aging backwards, becoming physically younger as the years progress. What’s interesting, though, is that you never real feel that way. The trailers made the film seem like a whimsical journey in the spirit of vintage fantasies, but this I assure you it’s not. This is an autobiography, an epic life story, and the whole aging backwards thing really feels more like a side not than the premise of the movie.

From here on out, we’re pushed through Benjamin’s life. At age 12, when he has the body of a 70-year-old, he falls in love with Daisy, a little girl he meets at a gathering. This also fails, because the love between Daisy and Benjamin never feels genuine. It feels like two actors pretending to like each other, and their entire relationship seems to be based off of sex. I swear Benjamin Button gets more action than Fitty-Cent.

Okay, here’s the thing that you may find shocking considering I’ve spent the first 3 paragraphs of the review telling you all of Benjamin Button’s faults: it’s good. It’s strange, really, and somewhat disappointing, to see this happen. Despite its pitfalls, the things that don’t work like Benjamin and Daisy’s love and a hummingbird that’s supposed to symbolize death (very, very lazy of you, Mr. Fincher), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button still manages to be an enjoyable film.

Like I mentioned before, his aging backwards never really becomes too much of a nuisance until the end of the film, when the love between he and Daisy finally feels genuine, granted it’s in the final scene. It’s depressing when we watch an entire life from beginning to end, especially with this unique perspective put on it. Brad Pitt does an amazing job. He never goes over the top and by the end of the movie we truly do believe that maybe there really was a Benjamin Button. Though his interactions with Daisy early on are not particularly moving, the way he perceives life, the choices he makes, and even his final words in the film all feel very, very real.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button really isn’t the fantasy, sci-fi that I think most people thought it was given the trailer’s whimsical style. It’s bogged down by some excessive attempts at symbolism, and the chemistry between Benjamin and Daisy early on isn’t sold. But it’s never, ever boring. It’s a bio epic, a look at a very unique person’s life that doesn’t outstay its welcome and will make you wonder just how amazing of a film it might’ve been without its numerous failures.

Score: 8/10

"The Spirit": Just Add Pot

I have a firm belief (that many will probably challenge) when it comes to filmmaking. I believe that a good story with good acting and good dialogue will always triumph over shaky visuals. The Mist’s visuals were average, if not bad, but it still managed to win over most critics. Another obscure monster movie, Eight Legged Freaks, had CGI spiders that stuck out like sore thumbs against the screen, yet the witty story and smart dialogue made it one of my favorites. Alas, it’s not a two-way street. Strong visuals cannot overcome a bad story, and though it can make a movie entertaining (Transformers), visuals alone can never make it truly good.

But I’ll be damned if The Spirit doesn’t try.

Frank Miller’s latest effort to filiminize lesser-known comic icons* achieves a nearly impossible feat of being beautiful to look at it, while simultaneously painful to watch.

The Spirit is another monotone, film-noir type story in the same vein of 2005’s Sin City, with most of the colors washed out with the exception of the ones we’re focused to symbolize moods and tones. Many people dub it the Sin City effect but I prefer the Pleasantville effect because I liked that movie and everyone seems to have forgotten about it.

Anyway, this comic-book cinematography does wonders as eye candy. The grey of the city is strangely beautiful, the slight sepia in certain parts truly thrusts you into the gritty underground world in an amazingly genuine fashion. The Spirit walks across nothing but a red background. He dances underwater with beautiful women with blazing blue eyes. His cute little red tie glows eerily and proudly as he scrambles across rooftops. Any way you slice it, The Spirit truly is, from a cinematography standpoint, a work of art that begs to be watched while under the influence of foreign substances.

But there’s a big problem with everything else in the movie: everything else sucks.

Frank Miller, who penned the screenplay, should be banned from the WGA and not permitted to write scripts ever again. From the opening, the dialogue is blatantly laughable. The story is one of the most unimaginative I’ve ever come across. His motivation for being a super hero is never truly defined, and Samuel L. Jackson’s villain, the “Octopus” (who makes sure to tell us he has eight of everything…except probably points on his IQ score) seems more like a parody rather than anyone we should take seriously. That’s contradictory of Miller, for the film takes itself so seriously that when you throw in a villain like Jackson’s it kind of makes you wonder what exactly they were aiming for.

Gabriel Macht does a decent job of portraying the masked vigilante, but he’s an unfortunate victim of circumstance. The characters around him overact so much and his dialogue is so corny and clichéd that it completely takes you out of the experience the amazing visuals try so hard to push you into.
There’s one scene in particular I watched with my roommate that I think epitomizes everything you need to know about The Spirit:

The Spirit is tied to a chair in some Nazi interrogation room, while Jackson explains to him dubious plans involving the DNA of Hitler and drinking the blood of Hercules all while melting a cat. Seconds later, a beautiful woman who is supposed to kill the Spirit sets him free, then tries to kill him anyway after they escape.

If you’re wondering, I didn’t make anything above up. And you’ll probably say the same thing when you see it that we both did: “What. The. Fuck. Is. Going. On?”

The Spirit tries so hard to be a stylistic Batman with unique ideas that it ends up falling off the edge of the Earth and into a vat of ludicrous plot turns and a muddled story that feels more like it came from the mind of a 3rd grader entering a “Make Your Own Superhero” contest rather than from a respected figure like Frank Miller. It’s a shame that such fabulous visuals are wasted on what in the end is 2 hours of Frank Miller trying to imitate The Dark Knight while at the same time not imitating The Dark Knight. There’s potential here, there really is, but it seems that any chance that The Spirit had of making a good movie was dashed the second Frank Miller sat down to write it.

Score: 2/10

*lesser known to people who don't read comic books or know comic book history

Note:

I'm trying to be counted as an RT reviewer so you'll see a lot of old stuff I never posted. To get to the newer stuff like Twilight and Watchmen just scroll down.

"The Dark Knight": Spoiler Alert: it kicks ass

Where do we begin? Not only is this uttered by the Joker in the trailers and the movie, but it's also the same question I have to ask myself when sitting down to write about one of the few event movies to ever live up to the expectations so reverently.

Everyone knows the story. I won't even discuss that. So first, in the true objectivist way, I'll get the negatives out of the way first. I don't care what anyone says, replacing Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal was not a good idea. She's not a better actress, and it hurts the continuity between The Dark Knight and it's equally brilliant predecessor Batman Begins. Second of all, Two-Face falls victim to Venom syndrome (Spider-Man 3), he is introduced too late into the film and his run seems to be over too early. He's a great villain, probably the second most recognizable Batman foe (behind, of course, the Joker), and it feels as if he should've had a whole movie to himself, not just the final half hour of this one.

And that's it.

Everything else about The Dark Knight is nearly flawless.

Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is so haunting, you get goose bumps when he's onscreen, talking calmly yet at the same time maniacally. He's all about simultaneousness; he's funny but at the same time scary, calm but at the same time mad, and crazy yet at the same time intelligent. Nearly everything he says will be quoted in AIM away messages around the globe (including my own) from his final "madness is like gravity" to even his simple "yea..." when a mobster asked him if he stole his money. Every word that emanates from his scar-littered mouth is memorable. This Joker truly is the definitive version of the villain. He's brutal and terrifying, yet at the same time never loses that casual hilarity about his crimes that makes him the Joker in the first place (one particularly good moment shows the Joker frustrated that his bomb isn't going off, so he presses the button in frustration like a little kid with a video game controller).

If you asked me who I'd take in a battle between Ledger's Joker and Jack Nicholson's Joker, it wouldn't be much of a contest: Ledger's new, edgy, brutal Joker is more terrifying than Nicholson's could ever hope to be while killing people with shampoo and dancing to Prince.

With that said, and it needed to be, lest we forget the other performances, all of which are equally good (with the exception of Maggie Gylennhall, who really doesn't do anything with the Rachel Dawes character except hurt continuity). Christian Bale is once again a solid Bruce Wayne, and is slightly better as Batman than in Batman Begins (the "bat-rasp" has been enhanced, but not quite fixed). Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius, and Michael Caine once again reprises his role as the surrogate father figure to Bruce Wayne, with every line he speaks being some sort of lesson about morality.

The film itself, minus the performances, succeeds not just as an actioneer but a drama that attempts to blur the line between right and wrong and succeeds on many levels. There are many, many "WTF?!" moments (including two particular plot twists that made everyone in the audience gasp). It's incredibly violent, and at times, very disturbing as well. The Joker really has no limits when it comes to who he kills or how he kills them, and this is something that not only Batman discovers, but the audience as well, and it has quite an impact.

The action sequences are better done that in Batman Begins, and the IMAX cameras give a breath of scope to the overhead cityscapes that's never really been seen before. The Dark Knight is the Empire Strikes Back of the Christopher Nolan Batman series. It serves as not only a sequel, but a standalone film that succeeds on its own solid ground while also laying out the future. Its epilogue somehow manages to tie up all of the film's loose ends, while at the same time leaving everything in chaos for the (inevitable) third installment. There is conclusion, but no closure.

Oh yeah, also, Cillian Murphy-the Scarecrow-is in it, but only for about a minute. Here's hoping he's back for the next Nolan-Batman movie. Here's hoping that Robin never shows up. And here's hoping that director Christopher Nolan finds some way, somehow, to top this masterpiece.

But as Lucius Fox says to a young lawyer threatening to out Batman: good luck with that.

Score: 9.5/10

"Hancock": Featuring Will Smith as Will Smith...again

If Hancock's last half hour was even half as good as its first hour, it would probably be Will Smith's best movie since 2004's I, Robot. As it stands, though, it becomes another fun, yet disposable and ultimately forgettable, summer spectacle that is surprisingly limp of special effects. The movie can be compared to the Lakers-Celtics game 4 in the NBA Finals this season (I think it was game 4, could be wrong) whereas the Lakers were up by about thirty or so, only to have the Celtics come back within a few points. The Lakers still won, but barely and not nearly as impressively as they began.

The same holds true for Hancock. It begins with promise, with a deep, brooding superhero who no one seems to like and creates more collateral damage than he's worth. Hancock seems to relish that he's publicly hated, yet privately wishes he was indeed cared for. It hinges on emotion and the conversations between characters are often more entertaining than the action.

It's when we discover the "truth" about Hancock's abilities that things go very bad very fast, and the laughable origin, and the way it is "discovered" feels more like an excuse than a reason. It's really bad, and, in all honesty, ruins the rest of what starts out as an excellent film. It's a complete turn-around that I didn't see coming.

Stephen King wrote recently in an article that he hates when directors and authors feel the need to "explain" everything. I didn't agree with him then, but I do now, for Hancock would've worked much better if it concentrated on the boy-to-man storyline which worked so well for the first hour and abandoned its "origin" story that so dampens the film. We DON'T NEED to know why Hancock has superpowers, and we don't care, and never once questioned it during the movie. It feels like Peter Berg fell out of the director's chair near the film's third act and was replaced by an intern.

So, even though it's last act is disappointingly hollow and nearly kills the movie, Hancock is still high in entertainment value and well worth seeing...at least the first hour of it.

Score: 7/10

"Wall-E": Better than rats, not quite as good as fish

Wall-E is inflicted with a bad case of Halo 3-itis. When you go into a movie expecting it to be the best thing you’ve ever seen, to completely blow your mind, and it ends up being "just" great, you tend to walk out the theater disappointed. So I know that after that statement you probably assume I didn't like Wall-E because it didn't enthrall me in the same way Finding Nemo did, so let me write this: Wall-E is a great film. But that's it. It's "just" great.

Getting the basics out of the way, Wall-E is about a little robot left on Earth who, with his only friend being a cockroach, spends his day scouring the abandoned planet, cleaning up, and collecting numerous artifacts that serve as memoirs to humanity. One day, Eve (earth vegetation extractor) comes to Earth in search of a proof that the atmosphere is livable, and finds it in the form of a plant Wall-E collected. There really isn't much need to tell anymore. It would ruin the rest of the story, and what a story it is.

Therein lies the problem, the lone problem, with Wall-E: it's complexities. Despite its "G" rating, the story of two robots in love who must save a lone seed, proof that life on Earth is possible, from the hands of an evil autopilot aboard the Axiom, a giant space cruiser upon which humans have lived for 700 years and have become giant immobile gluttons. There is very little lazy exposition. Everything is given off through visual clues that help progress the story, and while this is great for adults, I know that about 90% of the storyline went right over the heads of every person under ten years old in the audience.

It's a beautiful, simple story, but the complexity with which it is executed and progressed is too intelligent for most kids to understand, and because of this many of them in the audience fidgeted and yawned while the adults watched on in sheer awe.

The story is much smaller than the trailers would have you believe, it involves but four characters really: Wall-E, EVE, Captain Macrea (human captain), and the evil autopilot. Other than that, the other characters, most of which are robots and synonymous looking humans, are obscure, with the primary focus of the story on Wall-E and EVE. It's not epic. Wall-E doesn't travel to many far off lands and meet tons of colorful characters like earlier Stanton effort Finding Nemo. It's small, with two locations, Earth and the Axiom, and runs a little short with a somewhat flippant climax.

The first half hour of Wall-E is by far the funniest and most memorable, with the little robot, who speaks with electronic beeps and tones, collecting things around the planet and displaying his unhealthy affinity for Hello Dolly. This is where the makers of Wall-E shine. Despite the fact that he is surrounded by humans for the latter hour of the movie, the piece of junk is easily the most human character. He knows waves, and hand holding, and basic gestures that human beings had forgotten amidst their growing reliance on technology.

The statement Wall-E makes about commercialism ruining the planet is very hypocritical indeed considering the source being one of the biggest commercial companies in the world, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the product is always grand. Wall-E is a funny, incredibly smart, touching story that works on a small scale that incorporates beautiful writing with extravagant animation that pushes the limits of human imagination. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than Finding Nemo? No. But it is the best thing Pixar, the best thing any animation company has done, since 2003.

Score: 8.5/10

"The Incredible Hulk": Another Hulk movie bites the dust

The second tentpole film of the Marvel giant for this summer is entertaining...but empty. A remake. Already. No, it's a 'reboot.' Whatever, how about this: "we're running out of superhero movies (Ant-Man, are you serious?) so we're going to remake movies that are only 5 years old and make tons of money in the process."

Just thought I'd get that little gripe out of the way first. Now on with the review.

The Incredible Hulk is the epitome of the summer blockbuster: lots of effects, little brains (see Transformers). The 2003 Ang Lee version, Hulk, was flawed by the fact that it was just too artsy, too long, too focused on character development and not enough of the green protagonist himself. While it was still a decent enough picture, it was critically panned by many for just being too dramatic and too intelligible for the target audience. It's kind of like that really smart kid who gets picked on by the "cool" kids.

2008's The Incredible Hulk has the right idea of moving away from that and into a more action-oriented, fast-paced film, but goes too far to the point where what you're watching is nothing short of mindless action sequences slopped together with some heavy metal playing in the background. It tries so hard to not be 2003's Hulk that it forgets to have any brains at all.

The entire origin story is done and over in about a minute, the characters are not well developed and stereotypical, and the dialogue is so by-the-numbers that you can predict exactly what characters will say: (eg, Bruce Banner: "There's only one thing that can fight that thing, and it's in me.") Oh. Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Much was said about the casting, a lot of good things, before the movie was released. The truth is that very few of the cast members actually work in their respective roles. Don't get me wrong about Edward Norton, I like him and I like every movie he's ever made, but he's just so damn boring as the Hulk. I thought he was great in The Italian Job, as with everything else he's done, but this is easily his worst role. His heavy lisp and geeky appearance just doesn't make him mysterious enough to be Hulk, and add that with the fact that the big green guy looks nothing like him in the face at all. In fact, Eric Bana in 2003's version was much better suited for the role. He was more mysterious, more compassionate, and still managed to look like the dork we know as Bruce Banner.

I'm not trying to rip on Edward Norton, but Eric Bana is a much, much better Green guy. As far as the other roles go, it's tough to really get a feel. Can Liv Tyler pull off Betty Ross? We don't really know, because there's not enough development to judge. William Hurt as the general? Meh. In fact the only role/performance that really stands out is Tim Roth. He may be the most underrated actor in Hollywood. His creepy looks yet badassness make him one of the best badguys out there, and I honestly thought he was scarier as Emil Blonksy than as the Hulk-wannabe Abomination. Roth, even though he's been in critical failures, has never done a poor job, and single-handedly made Planet of the Apes. I'm glad to finally see him in a semi-lead role.

I know it feels like I've ripped The Incredible Hulk for the past few paragraphs, so I'm going to focus on its single saving grace that prevents it from being a bad movie: it's somewhat fun to watch, even if it doesn't suck you in. That's mainly due to the effects-laden sequences and the breathtaking (albeit predictable) finale. Like I said, the action scenes are fun to watch, but the over-reliance on computer generated imagery just isn't very convincing, and sitting at the preview screening I got the feeling I was watching a videogame rather than a feature film.

For all it's flaws, 2008's The Incredible Hulk is not horrible. Is it worth seeing? That's up to you. Take it or leave it, maybe rent it, something. But the fact is that this very very very dumbed down version of Ang Lee's Hulk tries so hard to improve upon its predecessor's failures that it creates its very own.

Score: 5/10

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull": Indy's "back"

Like many of Indy's amazing feats throughout the years, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull narrowly escapes death from the clutches of the all-powerful Hype Machine. I love Indiana Jones. I wanted to be him growing up. And the movies, even the crappy one, Temple of Doom, are all movies that everyone needs to see before they die. The stories were supernatural, yet at the same time plausible and not too far out there. The action was great, the dialogue humorous, and the stories engaging.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, however, while still very entertaining, does not feel like Indiana Jones. It still has all the action, all the humor, and even Shia Labeouf, who everyone questioned, does a great job at delivering some of the much needed comic relief. There's one scene where he even combs his hair before prepping to be executed by some native, and for some reason, it actually works. The special effects are engaging and fun to watch, even if it does succumb to using too much CGI at times, and damn it if Harrison Ford can't still swing around and do a great job as Indy. He hasn't lost anything. And even with the gray hair he doesn't seem physically dematerialized at all.

So what's the problem, Brent?

The story.

It sucks.

The stories in the Indiana Jones films have always walked that fine line between plausible and implausible very well, sometimes teetering over the edge a little bit but never enough to make us believe that what we were watching just couldn't happen. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on the other hand jumps over that line of implausibility, sprints, and never looks back.

I'll buy the Holy Grail turning someone to ashes, I'll buy a temple where guys rip other guys' hearts out, I'll buy the Ark of the Covenant cursing those who open it... ...but I'm not buying aliens hiding a spaceship underground and planting the seed of civilization.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg turned Indiana Jones into sci-fi. Granted, there's nothing wrong with sci-fi, it's just that this story simply does not belong in Indiana Jones. It just doesn't. And it just gets better and better (aka worse and worse in this context) as it leads up to one of the most ludicrous endings I've ever seen. Which would've been fine if it WASN'T Indiana Jones.

Ultimately, this a movie worth seeing. It's fun to watch, the acting is solid, and Harrison Ford is still Indy. It just doesn't feel like a true Indiana Jones movie, though. Thanks to its farfetched, sci-fi, kiddy story that is borderline fantasy, what was supposed to be the greatest movie of the summer has tripped over a rock, with The Dark Knight and Wall-E nipping at its heels.

Score: 7/10

"Iron Man": As entertaining as real iron

So how good was Iron Man? I couldn't tell you. He was only on screen about 5 minutes.

Marvel is making a lot of money lately. There's no doubt about that. And after the crapfest that was Spider-Man 3 and Fantastic Four 2 I wasn't expecting much from Iron Man. And I didn't get much. I'm probably going to get a lot of heat; Iron Man has generated a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's Spider-Man 2 numbers. That's like the Tom Brady of superhero movies. I, personally, just don't get it. I'm not a hater, but I'm not a lover. Here's why: Where's Iron Man?

This isn't so much a super hero story, but an origin story. It does this very well. Robert Downey Junior is perfect for the part and seems to be having a good time on screen. After all the drugs and alcohol and other stuff, it's good for him to remind us that he can act. Act like Tony Stark. As Iron Man, not so much. In fact all of the characters fit well, even Gwenyth Paltrow even though she just looks like an older version of Mary Jane. The only one who doesn't is Jeff Bridges' character. He is trying WAY to hard to pull off the evil badass thing and it just ends up looking clichéd and silly. It's like when an actor is sucking in a play and all the other actors are trying to cover for him, glancing at each other back and forth.

See the problem I have with Iron Man is that it's not really about Iron Man, which ironically seems to be why every other critic in the world loved it. This is a movie about Tony Stark. It's a movie about how a man changes emotionally after witnessing the effects of his business. It feels genuine, and Downey pulls it off flawlessly. Iron Man himself just feels like a side note, and that's why the film suffers so much. Iron Man is only on screen for about seven minutes total, and the whole thing feels like it's about an hour and a half of setup with about a half hour of movie. It jumps straight from Act I to Act III with nothing in between.

Iron Man shows up about 2/3 through the movie, and again at its tail end. And that's it.

It feels like a prequel.

It feels like this is but a prelude to something grander in the future, just a stepping stone, and though it is decent enough, it just feels incomplete and rushed and spends too much time concentrating on pre-Iron Man. In my opinion, since they knew they'd be making a sequel, they should've called this movie Stark, and have the next movie be called Iron Man. This is not Iron Man. This is Iron Man Begins. It's an origin story that focuses very little on its title character and squarely on the man beneath that mask. And while this does not kill what is still a decent movie, it definitely hurts it, even if only in my eyes.

Score: 6/10