Reviews

The film offers a unique take on the Santa Claus legend. It's kind of a mash-up of "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" and "Hatfields vs. McCoys." There's a version of Burgermeister Meisterburger (played by Joan Cusack). I only typed that because I wanted to type Burgermeister Meisterburger and maybe you'll read it aloud.

This movie was better than I thought it would be. My opinion of Netflix-produced content was way down in the dumps after watching the really terrible, really awful "Rim Of The World." Now I may actually keep the streaming service.

"Klaus" is entertaining and worthwhile. Watched it with my whole family (wife and tween kids). Really a visual holiday feast too, which is the aspect that i appreciated the most. It never really lets you down.

I have to admit, it took a while for this one to get my attention. Once it gets going, and you start to get invested in the story and characters, it ends up being very worthwhile. It's a small, understated film with zero flash whatsoever. That's its appeal. It's a really nice father-son road movie where they don't go anywhere. Clive Owen is a treasure. One of our greatest living actors. Steaming on Netflix and other services.

Is saying my 6-year old daughters raved about this movie after seeing it a good thing? They thought it was scary at times but in a fun way. "Sometimes scary is fun" to quote the oldest. It's often silly but not stupid. It doesn't take itself seriously at all (like say, the last Dwayne Johnson movie I saw did, Fast and Furious 6). This movie aims low and ends up hitting its mark (FF6 on the other hand aims somewhat high and misses badly).

I recommend seeing 20000 Leagues Under the Sea (the excellent 1954 near-musical Kirk Douglas version) before seeing this. We saw it last year before I had any intention of seeing "Journey 2" but after "Journey 2" was released. That's all I'll say about that because to say more might be considered a spoiler.

So that's my review. It's better than the last Fast and Furious movie and 6-year-olds love it. Take from that what you will.

Most Superman or Batman movie fans would name 'it's dark' as Christopher NOlan's main signature on Man of Steel. But I say the man Christopher Nolan signature here is the non-linear storytelling style. It worked for Batman Begins and it works here. The way story information is disseminated is impressive. This is carried out through a combination of the writing, directing and editing. It all works together well, culminating in a really new kind of movie experience. This retelling of the Superman story highlights the sci-fi aspect of Superman's origin. It features huge fights between super-beings, more destruction seemingly on NYC than we've ever seen (oh sorry Metropolis), but it's all wrapped into a coherent story that should satisfy any movie fan, and targets both super hero fans and sci-fi fans. That's why the re-introduction of the Superman brand to the marketplace was inevitable. Sci fi and super hero movies are the two top-grossing genres there are.

I have a couple of nitpicky questions, however, that go toward the Superman story in general. The first will become more of an issue as the years go by and it is: Why do the people of Krypton look exactly like humans? Humans who all look like they're from Kansas? And here is the biggest issue with the people of Krypton all looking like they're from Kansas: The coincidence of the spaceship containing Krypton's last son LANDING IN KANSAS. This issue will never be resolved because the Superman story is too old and too beloved to be altered.

Next question: Why does Superman have muscles? Simple answer is that he's strong, right? How can he be strong without muscles? Well in both Superman 2 (the half-Richard Donner one) and in Man of Steel, we have super villains with less muscle than Superman who seem to be faster and stronger than our hero. The explanation has to do with Earth being closer to its sun than Krypton was and having a different gravitational force as well (which really actually answers little). So then, back to the original question: Why would Clark Kent/Superman have muscles? How would he have even developed muscles? It would be like Neal Armstrong living on the moon and lifting weights there and expecting to develop muscles. He'd have to lift cars instead of dumbbells. So I just don't get it.

Still, all that aside, I was entertained.

Given the intense run-up to this film, I was far too aware of studio machinations behind it. I could almost smell the ink on the contract Downey Jr. signed to the franchise that certainly guaranteed him a minimum amount of face time. It's ludicrous how much time he spends as just plain old Tony Stark, running around with a gun or with self-made gadgets or wearing only part of the Iron Man armor (careful to keep his face exposed). The character seems to have gone far beyond anything the comic envisioned. The movie version of Stark is more complex and that's great. Except, the armor has become no more than a metaphor for the theoretical armor Stark hides behind. They come up with many imaginative ways 42 suits of armor (all built by Stark alone because he can't help it), but in the end they just seem like more excuses to get Downey Jr's face in front of the camera and STILL have scenes with armor so it can be an Iron Man movie. I would reckon that the armor spends very little time on screen, if anyone were to sit down and calculate it.

One other issue I noticed: Disney bought Marvel. Disney's animated movies move along at a bullet pace. They seem to be pushing for that same style with these comic book movies now. The way IM3 is cut, there's no time to even consider what you just saw, no time for emotion whatsoever. I wanted to raise my hand and shout, 'whoa just take it easy! Slow down!' For instance, the movie's best action sequence, where Iron Man rescues the passengers of Air Force One, starts and ends before you can even soakin what just happened.

Oh and I didn't see it in 3D or IMAX but I can't imagine why anyone would want to.

Don't expect a masterpiece.

The film starts out in an old kingdom, with the parallel stories of a farm boy and a princess the same age, growing up in different worlds. The princess grows up headstrong and wants to "have adventures." We've all heard/seen this one before, right? We've even heard the Jack and the Magic Beans story.

But as this one unfolds, it gets better, it gets bigger, and is worth the while of seeing it (I caught it in IMAX 3D, the final day it's available in my town in that format).

It's to be noted that this is a fantasy adventure film so there are annoying unlikely coincidences typical of these kind of film, that drive the characters and story along and the characters are not deep at all. still, the script has an economy and efficiency that I appreciated and the film is full of great visual ideas.

Also, try to see it in 3D if possible.

I was an avid reader of the Captain America comic up until the mid-nineties, about the time it seemed to be coming off the rails (about the time he got caught in the meth lab explosion). I think it was revitalized later and gained popularity as a result (he was saved by a Red Skull blood transfusion? Bucky Barnes resurfaces as a villain, the Winter Soldier! The discovery of a black Captain America from WWII! a Super Hero civil war--culminating in Cap beating up Iron Man(!?) Wow! I dropped off at THE wrong time, apparently). Still, I was delighted that they were making a gigantic summer movie out of it and getting fully behind it. Top-notch talent was being put together for the project with the SFX to go with. The result is what I expected: A huge, action-packed (though it does drag a bit at times) movie that's immensely entertaining. They really get the character right, as best as a condensed movie version could be expected to. It's amazing how the writers and director deal with how he becomes Captain America, how he gets his abilities, how he gets his name (he's a propaganda piece, selling war bonds). The costume he uses on his U.S. bond tour is just about exactly the one from the comic (sans chain mail). Then, when Rogers chances upon real action, his costume is modified for real combat. There are some bad one-liners in it, which shows that the production may have been more rushed than, say, Thor or Iron Man, which where more polished. But overall I found that Joe Johnston (highly underrated as a director) finds just the right combination of heart, fantasy, and action here. Time should be good to Captain America: the First Avenger.

I went in knowing that the first KFP could not be topped. The newness of the concept, the opening fantasy sequence, the Tai Lung escape scene, the clumsy humor of Po, I could go on...no beating it or duplicating it. The sequel doesn't beat it. But it's still very good. And for very different reasons from those that made the original was so awesome. In KFP2 the Furious Five have grown, moved on. They've improved their kung fu. They work as a unit, with a new leader, Po the Dragon Warrior, whom they've fully accepted. The banter between the team is raised to a new level. The rocky relationship between Tigress and Po is replaced by friendship. The action scenes where they're all fighting together are...something not seen in the first movie, actually. The story is excellent, centering on Po's search for his real parents. It's a little bit more intense than the first, with a lot more weapons used than last time. It's just more of an action movie. There were a lot of kids there when I saw it(ages 6-12 I'd guess) and I heard a lot of comments during and after the movie. Universal approval. There will be another in this series. Hopefully we'll see more of Shifu, who only shows up at the beginning and end of '2.'

One person walked out halfway through. At the end, when the words, 'Written and Directed by Terrence Malick' appeared on the screen, the man in the row behind me said "Thank God" (and the rest of that sentence isn't "...for Terrence Malick movies.") As we exited the theater, employees were there asking how we enjoyed it. The guy in front of me said, "Didn't. Didn't care for that at all." This film has received wildly mixed reactions from audiences. It's a matter of what you're expecting. A strong narrative should not be expected and was not sought by the filmmaker. The film opens with parents dealing with the death of one of 3 boys, who's only shown briefly as a young boy. This paves the way for the film's theme of change, the how of it. Malick also deals with the How, as in its occurrence in nature. The Tree of Life is very thin on plot. But the story and themes of the film are strong. The characters are strong and well portrayed. Malick gets impressive performances out of everyone, most notably the 3 boys who play the O'Brien sons. No two people will view The Tree of Life in the same way. Everyone will get something different about it, if they can tolerate it. Understandably, some won't be able to. Though strong, The Thin Red Line (which I hold to be one of the best films of all time) and The New World are both better Malick films than Tree of Life. Some scenes and editing choices are culprits in its shortcomings. For example, some scenes seem to begin too late, not allowing the viewer to catch up with what's going on. The reason for some shots is not known. I'm OK with cutting in shots whose meaning is not known, as pieces of a puzzle, to be put together later in the viewer's mind. But some parts of these proceedings take you right out of the film and you're left to get yourself back into it. There are a couple such instances. So it's not perfect but if you've got the right attitude going in, you might like this film.

This is one of my favorite films of 2008. I think my opinion is skewed by the fact that I admire the work of its principle players so much. I've been with The Edge the longest, having followed U2 since nearly the beginning. His guitars are certainly one of the main reasons, if not THE one that that drew me to the band. I discovered Led Zeppelin and Jimmy Page's work in 1990 when their expansive "crop circle" box set came out. Then of course is Jack White, who seems to be everywhere these days and has carved himself a place into today's music monument with his guitar playing. And the concept of this film--I admire Davis Guggenheim for bringing this all together to honor the legacies of these men, the formation of songs, music careers, and what it takes to be successful in music (lots of talent, then even more luck--and heaps of it). Many reviewers have commented on Page playing air guitar to 'Rumble' by Link Wray, which is one of the finer moments of this. It's one example of how Page becomes the ol' softie of the bunch, the sentimental one. He may have gotten more out of this than anyone involved. White emerges as the unexpected tone-setter and leader. Edge, well...(I write this with a silent laugh) he looks a bit lost at times and often gets schooled. Or it may be that he's the only one not reared in blues form playing. Both the White Stripes and Zeppelin pattern their music on blues interpretation. U2 came straight out of punk and melded it with New Wave. Edge also started playing later in life than the others. Page and White devoted themselves to the craft at very young ages. No doubt though that they are all very accomplished musicians in their own ways. You see the pattern of all beginning early in life and paying their dues, and not giving up when times were tough. The thread that connects their stories is that each just wanted to play guitar. Whatever opportunity allowed that was where they dug in. The concept is nice, as I said. Guggenheim sets out to call together these three godfathers of electric guitar, let the cameras roll, and see what transpires. It's a gamble that pays off.

Was that how the pitch meeting for Avatar started? You have to admit, there are parallels, in story and in theme, with the 1990 successful-in-every-possible-way Kevin Costner film. A soldier joins the ranks of an oppressed culture and becomes one of them. Eventually he is fighting against the society he swore to protect.

Seems to me that in the look, the culture, even language he gives to the Na'vi, James Cameron wants them remind you of native Americans. I thought as I watched it, how could the American military be so cold as to force people off of their land out of greed? Ah but we did do it. Avatar is meant to symbolize what happened to America's aboriginal people.

Doug Liman's short directing career is remarkable. Look at his track record. An instant classic in "Swingers," then two movies later an unexpected blockbuster "Bourne Identity" due in no small part to his guidance, and now another overachiever, "Mr. And Mrs. Smith." I have to say I wasn't overly impressed with the trailers i had seen for this. But with Liman's name on it and an interesting premise, and because my girlfriend and I missed "Cinderella Man" by five minutes, there we were watching it.

From the beginning I had a feeling I was going to like it. Its humor seemed to hit the mark and it had just the right tone. It starts out appropriately enough with the couple (who unfortunately we know from the trailers are both assassins) in marriage counseling. Both actors seem fully invested in their characters. A strong start.

Sure there's a lot of killing and the film seems to sort of make light of it. But this is just a big fantasy, a huge stretch of reality as any good action/adventure film should be. It's a study in the marriage relationship and reminds those so wed of how they just want to wring each other's necks sometimes, even thought they love each other deeply. Why? Communication. Turns out real problem with the Smith marriage is that they're hiding the biggest side of their lives from each other. They're the only ones each other has to talk to about assassination-related issues buy they can't (how frustrating is that?) Then once their occupations are discovered and their pitted against each other, the film slides toward the couple's reconciliation--or rather, will they or won't they? If they do, will it stick? Will one kill the other before they give it a fair shot? There's a lot of possibilities during this section of the film, a great luxury for a film to have.

This achieves for "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" one of the most important elements of a good film story most these films days are lacking: a true sense of jeopardy for any main character. At any point during this film I thought it was possible for either of these characters to get bumped off. Somehow, it would've made thematic sense for it to happen to either of them. What's more, you give a damn! This suspense lasts to nearly the end of the film until the satisfying conclusion is reached.

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is my favorite film of the year so far and one of only a few I actually want to see again (a definite DVD purchase).

Don't be fooled by my seemingly high rating for this film. This one was a big disappointment for me. It's just one of those films that, after having seen it, I found...unnecessary. Even from the first time I saw the teaser trailers I thought, how is this in any way different from "Independence Day?" Then the Super Bowl ads piqued my interest and my anticipation grew. It looked like it would be what Independence Day wasn't--a grim tail of invasion that pulled no punches. This one might actually be scary. but then, I thought, we got scary aliens (or creepy at the very least) in Shyamalan's "Signs" 3 years ago. How then can Spielberg's HG Wells update stand apart?

Well, it does begin with a lot of intensity. Aliens start vaporizing people within the first 20 minutes, right after some character introductions. I found it interesting that the aliens' Beams of Fury (my name) were very similar to the "spray of sparks" from the 1953 original--which at the time must have been terrifying in themselves. "War" circa 2005 shares many common traits with the original film but probably only because both are adapted from the same book.

After the invasion from below begins, Spielberg maintains the level of intensity throughout...which becomes a problem. The intensity never lets up enough to create genuine fright. You need to let people breathe easy for a while, then let them have it, then repeat. "War of the Worlds" is all peaks, no valleys.

Other than never letting up, it never lightens up either. There is little humor to be found in this, making it not much fun. That's trouble, during the summer season especially.

Spielberg seems intent on giving audiences a study of fear in an age of terrorism. For a time, this works. But the suspension of disbelief, at least for me, expired early on this one. Few of us are genuinely afraid of an alien invasion. But most people these days are afraid of terrorism. The invasion analogy worked well in 1953 but doesn't work now...or does it?

Perhaps the invaders in the analogy aren't terrorists at all but American planes and bombs. Let's do a little calendar pointing. A year ago Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg had openings in their schedules at the same time. The Iraq occupation had by that time become a hellish nightmare. So this project that had been a blip on both men's radars now was possible. And what's better, it had a context. But perhaps the assumed terrorists = aliens analogy was too simple. In 2003 we had a massive invasion, followed by uncertainty and destabilization, followed by hell (which Iraq still is anywhere outside the Green Zone).

So "War" may not be a protest film, but may well symbolize the violence and chaos that we have been seeing for over two years now in Iraq. We witnessed a normal society in which people felt relatively safe walking around on the streets, thrown into chaos by an invasion that few there understood. All they want is for life to go back to normal again.

Sounds like a movie I just saw.

For what it's worth, I'd rank the big alien invasion films of the last decade as follows: 1. "Signs" 2. "Independence Day" 3. "War of the Worlds"

The four gospels do not go into much detail about Jesus' beating and crucifixion. Mel Gibson expands greatly on John 19:1 (`Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged'). If Pilate really had believed in his innocence, his failure to release Jesus is one of history's greatest failures. The film supposes that he had him whipped in order to calm the crowd, thinking that if the beating were severe enough the crowd might not ask for his execution. Instead, Jesus' flogging (by far the most brutal scene of the film) is added to his crucifixion at a time when a prisoner would suffer either one or the other but not both.

Pilate is made to be too humane in his portrayal here. Jesus was handed over to the mob as a form of crowd control. Roman laws forbade the people from executing their own. The Roman officers crucified Jesus under Pilate's orders, so Pilate's `hands clean' claims have always been empty. Crucifixion is a way of punishing insurgents and publicly proclaiming Roman authority over its conquered people. Why did the mob want Jesus crucified? Could it be because he wasn't an insurgent (and Barabbas was) and did not appear to be the king he claimed to be? If he were the king of the Jews, if he were their savior, they wondered, why wasn't he leading his people to freedom? Scripture even seems to show Pilate firing up the crowd to make himself appear less culpable in Jesus' death. `Shall I crucify your king?' he asks them, also from John 19 (but not in the film). Jesus would later pray to God the Father, as he was being crucified, `forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.' (Luke 23:34)

Gibson takes many liberties with the gospels, though, expanding the proceedings to fulfill his cinematic vision. Not enough has been said about Gibson's weird idea of Satan, who reminded me too much of the Grim Reaper from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (a character based, of course, on Death in Bergman's `The Seventh Seal.') nor the demonic children (whose facial transformations is stolen straight from `Devil's Advocate') who torment Judas into hanging himself. If any one thing ruined `The Passion' for me, it has to be these sorts of film school flourishes interwoven into historical events. If the Beelzebub character had been given any thought or imagination I could at least have given Gibson credit for trying. It's as if Gibson had two Passion films in mind, one surreal and one real, and never divorced the two in his mind as he wrote the script and shot it.

I'm surprised at how Christian believers have embraced this film. Yes, it does basically endorse the purpose and message of Jesus Christ and (briefly) features his resurrection in the end. To have said, ‘yes we endorse the film. Christians, it's okay to see it because it basically reflects our beliefs' would have been enough. But they wrapped their arms and words around it until it became more than just a film. It had to be an event.

In that way, the now-phenomenon of `Passion of the Christ' has become political. Evangelists who previewed rough cuts of the film earlier in the year adopted the film for Christians everywhere, making sure they did not squander the rare opportunity to bring Jesus' message (in the form of a `gift' from a big-name Hollywood star) to the offices, kitchens and living rooms of Christians and non-Christians alike. They made sure that the voice heard loudest about the film was theirs.

But here's the thing: it is just a film (and not a very good one). It's one man's vision, which has every right to be expressed. The film's brutality is the rare unique aspect of this latest passion play (as well as the aforementioned pasted-in depiction of Satan and his demons). Otherwise it has nothing new to say about Christ's ministry and message. Unfortunately many Christians have embraced it as an evangelism tool. As a Christian, my hope is that non-believers will want to know more about who Christ was and is, whether they enjoyed the film or not. I cannot recommend anyone see `the Passion,' but do highly recommend its source material.

Rating: 5 of 10

Postscript: An Entertainment Weekly reviewer wrote that he thought that Pilate's wife was an invented character. But she's there in the gospels. Matthew 27:19 reads, `While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: ‘don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.'