Change Your Image
Chas_Wolf
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
Funny and subversive as hell!
Just got back from an advance screening of Kingsman: The Secret Service.
Found it funny and subversive as hell.
Not a film for everyone. Some are labeling some of the humor (especially at the end) "laddish" or "juvenile" and getting PROFESSIONALLY offended. That was kinda the point of the humor in the first place.
This an affectionate James Bond/Jason Bourne send up where the protagonist is a chav.
The training sequence kinda drags a bit, but the film would be gutted without it.
Colin Firth just absolutely STEALS the film though. Staid, proper, gentlemanly and will absolutely, positively kill you and everyone else in the room with you while barely breaking a sweat! The Church scene in this film absolutely has to be SEEN to be believed.
Samuel L. Jackson is a very...quirky...villain (he can't thtand violence). And his right-hand man is a "handi-capable" killer with swords in her feet.
Oh, and EVERYONE'S mission? Save the world! If you don't mind a bit of "laddish" humor, go see the film. It definitely deserves to be seen.
And now I'll leave you with three words and this reminder of what I said about the humor earlier.
Swedish Princess Ending
Sparks (2013)
Not a bad little indie superhero film.
Okay, if you're looking for "The Avengers", or even "Watchmen", forget it.
This is a shoestring indie film and it shows. Most of the special effects are crude, the acting is a bit wooden, and some of the props just don't fit in well (Jake Busey's mask and the like stick out, literally, being somewhat cockeyed whenever he's wearing them).
Still, for what it is, the film isn't half bad. Sure, it can seem a bit campy or schlocky. But, as Grindhouse (and its legacy films) have shown us, there is still room for that sort of thing in cinema.
If that's not your cup of tea? Go get a coffee.
This story is about a young man who's motivated to do good, but in many cases winds up making all the wrong choices, or being given false choices. He dances back and forth over the line between good and evil throughout the film deciding what he really wants, and then going for it with no remorse.
All in all, not a perfect film. But I enjoyed it.
Ratatouille (2007)
Loved it.
Okay, my employers keep a few pet rats in the office (caged of course). They're fairly cute (when they're not crawling over your food and stuff). Additionally, they subscribe to a newsletter for rat owners published by Debbie "The Rat Lady" Ducommun, one of the people Pixar consulted with to get a proper look for the rats.
As such, Ratatouille was a company outing for us. Hey, free movie preview, food paid for by the boss. Pixar. What's not to like? I found the film hilarious. Yes, it's about rats in a kitchen (blech!), but the way they handled it was great (especially the scene where the rats are "cleaning up" in the kitchen).
As to the storytelling itself, the film was good, but not great. It was a bit slow in some areas, then proceeded to jump around rapidly in others.
This is likely because of editing and timing choices for the film.
The film is still eminently watchable, it's just that in a few cases, the changes brought about by the story come up in a rather jarring way.
Superman Returns (2006)
Damn you Bryan Singer!
From the get-go, this movie reached out and grabbed me in the gut (no comments please). And, for over two and a half hours, it didn't let go. Every time one of the plot lines would slow down, almost as if on cue, you'd flip over into another that was just catching fire.
Routh: As Superman, excellent. As Clark, nearly as good.
Bosworth: As noted (ad infinitum ad nauseum), she seemed a bit young for the part. But as the movie progressed, she disappeared into Lois Lane. Also, after thinking on it a bit more, I'm not sure they SHOULD have tried to duplicate Margot Kidder's Lois. Had they tried, it probably would have come across as cartoonish.
Spacey: Dear sweet lord he looked like he was having fun! He evoked enough of the Hackman rendition to keep him totally interesting without chewing the scenery the way Hackman did. As such, we got a much more serious, and FAR darker portrayal of Lex than we've seen in movies.
Langella: As far as I'm concerned, Frank was about the only portrayal I had a problem with. Of course, I'm somewhat biased towards the hard-nosed Jackie Cooper rendition. Frank's portrayal was just a bit too calm and fatherly.
Okay, now I'm going to address some of the complaints people had.
Plot: Yes, the plot was quite similar to Donner's original Superman movie. SO? This movie is set in continuity with the first two Reeve films. Is it so hard to believe that Lex was going to be a bulldog about achieving control of large quantities of real estate?
Superman having extramarital sex: Okay, this IS the 21st century here. We acknowledge that all sorts of people have sex outside the purview of marriage. As to it being so horrendous, why not complain about Superman II? That's where it took place for Bob's sake! Again, this movie in in continuity with Superman and Superman II.
Jason: Okay, he's the rugrat of steel. Big Flipping Deal! I can't say it was TOTALLY unexpected. And it DID supply a few chuckles.
Henchman: "He, uh, got hit with the piano." Lex: "Oh. It's time to leave!"
Superman as deadbeat dad: Okay, he had a one-night stand, and left Earth very shortly afterward. It wasn't like he ran out on her in the second or third trimester.
Lois hopping from Superman to Richard so fast: Who said it was fast? Were talking months and months of time here. When a significant other leaves, do you become a permanent eunuch/nun because of it? Plus, exactly how long is the gestation period for a Kryptonian-human hybrid? Superman left mere days or weeks after the Zod incident.
Repetition: Okay, yes, a lot of dialog was used from the first movie. Again, Superman's been gone a while. He's trying to re-establish himself. And he's going to do it by drawing on familiar things. One-liners, conversations, etc. He's not going to be "Well how about the current world events that just sprang up the day before I got back."
Okay, all in all, I liked the movie. I liked it enough that I went back to see it again in IMAX. Oh, and the 3D prompting DID kind of take out out of the moment in the film a bit. But some of the 3D effects were quite exciting.
My one little nit-pick with Langella was the only reason it didn't get a 10 out of me.
To those who haven't seen it yet (all 3 of you), go see it. Make your own choice about liking it.
To all the people naysaying the movie, I have the following to say to you.
Ultraviolet (2006)
Just a mess...
I'm not sure where to start.
It's supposed to be a super-action flick. Suspension of disbelief and all.
Okay, but give me something more than just mindless fight after mindless fight.
Give me something better than cheesy dialog in awkward spot.
I'm a guy, and I like looking at well-formed specimens of womanhood as much as the next guy. But a nude butt shot (even of Milla), can't save this flick.
At least give me a story that can be followed from one end to the other without having to do a series of mental gymnastics that makes this film's physical gymnastics look like "Empire Strikes Back Yoda" next to "Attack of the Clones Yoda".
This movie is just all over the place. I pretty much just walked out of the theater wondering "What was I thinking" and wanting my money and time back.
Save your money, con an associate into renting it for you if you must watch this.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Excellent movie.
The acting was fairly dead-on for the children. (Seriously, how would YOU react at 12-14 years old if someone started addressing you as "Your majesty." and expecting you to fight a battle?)
While some of the creature animation early on is shaky (almost enough to jar you out of the movie), most of the later scenes appear to be spot on, save for some close-ups of Aslan on the Stone Table. At that point, the effect of the magnificent animation was broken, and it looked as though they were using a pile of gold felt.
Though a repeated viewing will tell more, by the end of the film, I was in stimulus saturation.
All in all, I liked the film. A lot.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
The Good, The Bad, and The Animagus
Okay,it doesn't follow the books very well at all. I see that, and so will anyone who's read the books. Now that isn't, in and of itself, a Bad Thing.
HOWEVER, much of what was sacrificed to bring this down to a manageable length as a film is what damages it as a film as well. Many of the subtle nuances and interrelations between events and characters and historical issues are simply cut, wholesale. This has lead to a movie that is choppy, and has a somewhat confused, lurching quality to it.
Indeed, this movie could probably have benefited from adding about 10 minutes, which would have brought it up to the running time of the first film. This would have added immeasureably to the film and would have given some sorely needed exposition that the movie, in it's current form, seems to just want to race right over the top of.
Now, onto the film as it relates to the first two.
This film is quite different in visual style than the first two. And layout in the film doesn't really maintain continuity with the first two. This is NOT a Bad Thing. Again, we're talking about films, not the books. So alterations will happen. Especially when the director changes, since the vision of the world held by that director will be different as well.
So, while lacking the familiarity of the first two films, PoA gives us a lush visual style that's actually quite appealing and very coherent within itself. Not Bad. Just different.
As to the acting, which some people cannot seem to NOT carp on. Remember, we're dealing with TEENAGERS here. Children playing children's roles. This isn't a Shakespearean company doing A Midsummer Night's Dream. These are children, portraying children, and all the unsubtle and overly dramatic emotional swings that children evince. Anything more adult would just confuse children in the audience and would make the characters not ring quite so true.
As to the adult cast, all the returning regulars are quite spot-on. As to the new additions. Gambon does well with his Dumbledore. Emma Thompson, while not QUITE as dramatic as Trelawney, captures the dippy, scattered quality of Sybil quite well. Thewlis' Lupin is jarring for some reason I can't quite explain, but still quite well done. And Oldman's Black is, as with most of Gary's parts, exceptional.
So, what we have with this movie is a mixed bag. It has some rough areas and failings, both as a film, and a book adaptation. However, it delivers well despite these failings.
But see for yourself.
50 First Dates (2004)
If you hate Sandler and someone tries to get you to see the movie, do it. You might still hate Sandler, but you'll like the movie.
Okay, I plagiarized the summary from jjs402's comment. But it pretty much summarizes how I felt about the movie.
I hit a late (late, late, late) showing Friday night. I'm DEFINITELY not a Sandler fan. I find him, at best, dreadfully repetitious.
I liked "Little Nicky", but mostly because it avoided most of Sandler's signature histrionics. But just about everything else he's in, I've avoided like the plague.
So, with a bit of trepidation, I caught the flick.
And I liked it.
I still can't stand Sandler, but I liked "50".
Heck, one of the best parts was Drew giving a beatdown, Sammy Sosa-Style, to a certain obnoxious comic.
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
Nice premise, excellent ending? (No spoilers)
So where should I being? With the ending of course!
I was halfway expecting them to take the "happy happy" ending or the "horrific and neverending" route that most of today's films try to take.
To put it mildly, I was pleasantly surprised when they chose an ending that was an excellent fit with the material, and quite powerful in and of itself.
A very good choice, defying today's morass of instant gratification and cynicism.
While the performances weren't QUITE spot-on (Kutcher's a bit shaky at points..though, if I was hopping paradoxes, I'd probably be a bit shaky myself), they're not awful.
A bit more definition probably could probably have been given to the circle of friends surrounding Kutcher and Smart, though I'm unsure if this would have lessened the impact of the somewhat drastic changes they go through.
The only flub in the movie was the prison sequence. Evan does something to "prove" his ability to another inmate. However, in all actuality, the inmate's perception would have modified WITH the change in history. So he wouldn't have been convinced of anything.
So one slight, but important ding on the plot. Nevertheless, still kinda a funny-scary moment with the manufacturing of that proof. And in a sci-fi/psych thriller like this, it's one of those "payoff" moments that makes people sit up in their seats.
All in all, I liked the film.
About the only thing I have to say "bad" about it is, I REALLY wouldn't take kids to see it. Some of the subject matter's just a bit too "adult" for them.
Hulk (2003)
An insightful think-piece about a being of blind, unthinking rage.....
Okay. I understand why some people are disappointed with this film. These are the same people who rah-rah Jerry Bruckheimer films. And, while I have nothing against films that can be summed up with "Crash! KABOOM! or BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! DIE SCUMBAG!", this film isn't one of them.
For Bob's sake. This is Ang Lee. The director of Eat Drink, Man Woman. And Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. His films are ALL think-pieces. And they all have a great deal that is conveyed without needed to break into explosion-filled scenes ever other second or so.
Okay. Enough of my ranting at Hulk-haters.
Personally, I feel this is one of the best, and most serious treatments of the comic book genre that I've ever had the privilege of seeing.
Most of the Superman films, while somewhat serious, had their tongue planted firmly in their cheeks. Ditto for the first two Batman flicks (the later ones were just camp, plain and simple).
The X-Men films tended to be fairly good. But, because of the ensemble nature of the material, sub-plots tended to water down the story a bit.
Spider-Man was quite good actually, though it (as was the comic book that spawned it) was focused entirely on a "kid" who actually found his powers "cool", even if they WERE somewhat inconvenient.
The Hulk doesn't have that. Inflating into a 15' tall, bright green behemoth isn't exactly as easy to hide as the fact that you can scale walls without a rope. Plus there's the duality of the simultaneous acquisition and loss of control implicit in the Hulk (can do pretty much whatever he wants, but has no mental/emotional grounding to prevent him from doing LITERALLY "anything" (caber-tossing a tank might sound fun, unless you're the poor so-and-so in the drivers seat of the now-airborne hunk of steel).
All in all, I think this was an EXCELLENT film. Maybe not an excellent "action film". But it was an excellent film nonetheless.
My summary says it all.
A Walk to Remember (2002)
What? Me? Cry? NEVER!
Okay. I bawled like a little kid who just lost his teddy bear.
So I have a sensitive spot! So what? Sue me!
Every so often, I despair at never seeing anything of decent quality come out of modern Hollywood (other than SFX-laden blockbusters). Then something like this comes along and smacks me upside the head.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
DON'T LEAVE BEFORE THE CREDITS END!
(Note: Take the summary line seriously. You'll miss a nice bit of humor otherwise.)
I won't tell you more about that. I'm just chucking it out as a warning.
The acting was a lot less wooden this time around, not that the first movie was really that bad.
Everyone was a lot more relaxed. And it paid off. Especially in the copious amounts of physical comedy.
The scenes within the Chamber of Secrets had everyone, myself included, jumping up out of their seats. So it might be just a little intense for younger viewers. However, in no way was even mild gore in evidence during the movie.
As I noted, there's a lot more physical comedy this time around. Lots of sight gags, falls, and a fairly wide range of fearful expressions on Rupert (Ron) Grint's face keep the film a lot lighter, even during some fairly tense scenes.
All in all, a good film. I paid full price to get in and consider every penny well spent. I'd even pay full price to go see it again.
One note to parents: Take the kids to the bathroom right before the film starts. At nearly 3 hours long, it's a long sit. ESPECIALLY if you've bought them the super-humongo (value) sized beverages. The movie is fairly dense, and missing even a few moments of it could be disappointing.
Shrunken Heads (1994)
Cheesy, Ridiculous, Stupid.....but strangely compelling....
Okay. Yes. The movie is cheesy. The effects are Just Plain Awful.
And yes. The plot (what little there is) is, frankly, ridiculous.
And I agree. The developmnet of the nearly non-existent plot is stupid and quite undirected.
Maybe the only reason I find this piece of unremitting schlock compelling was Rebecca Herbst. Hey! If she'll open her shirt for a nasty little shrunken head, there may be hope that, one day, a troll like me will get similar treatment!
;-)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
It's not the novel. Get over it!
Okay, Christopher Tolkien was correct.
You cannot make Lord of the Rings into a movie and remain 100% faithful to the book. You'd wind up with something utterly unwatchable if you did. Not only that, you'd have to break down each of the 3 volumes (Fellowship, Two Towers, Return of the King) into their component books (Fellowship is books 1&2, TT is books 3&4, and Return is books 5&6), or you'd be watching 16-18 hours of LOTR.
And, quite frankly, none of the individual books would be capable holding up as a self-contained movie.
While Jackson is a fan of the books, he also knew that, were he to do a literal production of the books, he'd never finish it. Nobody except a VERY hardcore section of the movie-going population would watch it. Seriously, how many people today would actually sit through the meeting with Tom Bombadil (*singsong* Tom Bombadillo!)? And while I regret the omission of the Barrow Wights (now the hobbits swords were given to them by Aragorn), it again tied into the diversionary Bombadil subplot.
Another area is the betrayal of Saruman. In the books, this happens completely in an after-the-fact narrative by Gandalf. Yet it's MIGHTILY important to the main plotline of the book. So it was expanded upon in the movie. Or would you rather Jackson just put the main plot on hold while Gandalf goes into a rambling 15-minute monologue?
What he's done is NOT give us a literal translation of the books. He's given us a movie that we can actually watch, and enjoy as something that evokes the awe and admiration we felt for the novel.
If you went, expecting a syllable for syllable translation, you're BOUND to be disappointed. If you went, expecting an adaptation of the novels, and reminding yourself that it wasn't going to be the novels, but on film, then you should have found it to be a fairly enjoyable (if slightly lengthy) film.
I went and saw it in IMAX. And I was blown away.
I give the film an 8 of 10. Mostly because I would have handled some of the initial character interactions differently.
Instances:
1: Boromir having already heard of a nameless ranger named Aragorn.
2: Gimli's rather "abrupt" introduction.
3: An explanation of Frodo's familiar relations to Merry and Pippin.
4: Gimli's interaction with Lady Galadriel.
Oh yes. And the Xenarwen thing. It irked a bit. But hey, most people who'd never read the books would have been like "Who's this bimbo?" at the end of Return of the King, since she has only a VERY small mention in Fellowship.
Things I DID like:
1: The visualization of the Shire (and Hobbiton in particular).
2: The visualization of what one sees when putting on The Ring. Especially during the scene on Weathertop.
3: The gates of Moria.
And one last thing. Do you ever think we'll see Hugo Weaving get a part where he actually LIKES humans?