Reviews

This episode was very entertaining but at the same time quite annoying due to its ending (a hyped confrontation that is not allowed to carry out). Viewers will have to wait another week to see the results of the 'brawl'. The episode's final scene showed nothing more than the opening teaser. Disappointing as the middle of the episode contains classic Shelby antics.

Be on the lookout for Shelby's initial, one-word reply to a concerned cameraman, as it could be the best scene in the entire season (not to mention what he uses for a pry bar). Great to see the return of the hog-man.

The Matrix Trilogy - Andy and Larry's Not So Excellent Adventure

Initially I left the Maryland premiere of Matrix Revolutions felling happy. After all I was one of the first viewers to find out where the Matrix Reloaded's lame cliffhanger was going. I saw the film in one of the best theaters on the east coast, The Senator. I saw an action sequence that equaled the motorcycle chase in the previous film. Heck there were even numerous players from the Baltimore Ravens in the theater with me. Everything was great until the film's bitter aftertaste hit my pallet.

A friend asked me, `When you review a film do you hold it up to previous films for comparison?' Of course I do. It is extremely rare for a film to redefine or reinvent a genre. The first Matrix did. Pulling off a successful movie trilogy is a tricky endeavor. Looking to the past one finds a great deal of good and bad movie trilogies. Some are destined to be great but many, like the Matrix franchise, aren't so fortunate.

Star Wars episodes 4-6 are timeless because limitations in film technology forced the actors and screenplay to carry the film. There is genuine chemistry between characters that allows you to care about what happens to them. There is no over-dependence on CGI and bloated action sequences to make up for a weak story.

That is not to say that CGI is a bad thing. The Lord of the Rings trilogy evolved from a time tested set of successful novels. The use of CGI in the series adds to the enjoyment of an already proven story. The success of the trilogy is again based on strong screenwriting and powerful acting. This is not the case in the Matrix trilogy.

Other trilogies start off strong and continue to amaze only to implode during their final installments. The Alien, Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard films are prime examples of two hit wonders. These series stormed onto the scene with unique approaches to old formulas. The films then investigate dynamics left unexplored in the first films and should have stopped there.

Instead the final installments of these series became laughable parodies of their predecessors. (Some would say the Terminator films fall into this category; refer to my T3 review to see why they don't). Sadly, these are not examples of the Matrix trilogy either.

Some series are hit or miss as they trudge along. Look to Indiana Jones, Axel Foley, Rocky and Rambo for proof. These films had a formula that was replayed multiple times with varying degrees of success. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. Often the socio-political climate that made one film work had changed causing subsequent films to fail. What were they thinking when they made Temple of Doom anyway?

So what is the Matrix's place in the trilogy landscape? There is yet another trilogy class that unfortunately dominates the movie industry. Some films explode on the scene and wrap their story up in a nice neat little package. Unmercifully they return to cash in on their predecessor's success.

The first series that comes to mind is the Back to the Future franchise. The first movie did what it needed to and did it well. Then mimicking Sherman and Peabody in their time machine, Marty and the Doc return for more disastrous adventures. Unlike the Peabody cartoons, which contained an interesting history lesson, 2nd and 3rd films were a horrible waste of film stock. Coincidentally those 2nd and 3rd installments were also filmed concurrently. My question to the Wachowski brothers is, `Hello, McFlys, did you see what followed Jaws?' Finally we have found a category for the Matrix trilogy!

The first film was so new and different that viewers were able to see past the mediocre acting. A smaller budget led to a conservative use of CGI and a heavier reliance on the story of, and the character's interaction with, the matrix. It was a great concept on the same level as the `so if our universe is an atom on somebody's finger, there could be a tiny universe on my finger,' Pinto recites in Animal House.

The second and third films still have the same weak actors, but now also have weak plots to contend with. Take away the motorcycle chase sequence from Reloaded and what are you really left with? Take away the defending Zion sequence from Revolutions and what do you get? You get a mediocre action film that..

*** Spoilers in the following paragraph ***

.. pauses just long enough for people to deliver trite dialog usually prior to dying. Why didn't the sentinels stomp all over 'Kid' while he was listening to Mifune drone on and on? How did all those sentinels miss killing Link's girlfriend? What exactly is the machines motivation for killing the humans? Why did Neo talking to the machine god remind me so much of the final stage of the Arkaniod arcade game? Did we really need to see Trinity experience the sun? Why did all those Smiths just stand around and watch?

*** End Spoilers ***

So many of the Matrix Revolutions scenes made me sicker to my stomach then the `There it is..Jurassic Park!' and the `Grandpa! Grandpa!' scenes in the 'epic' Jurassic Cheese Park. The Wachowski brothers had a tough act to follow. If they had brought in other writers they might have developed a better direction to take the Matrix franchise. They didn't. Their trilogy now sits along side the likes of Smokey and the Bandit, Jaws and Highlander leaving viewers wondering why didn't they leave well enough alone.

The Matrix is and will continue to hold a well-deserved place in the imdb.com top 50. I doubt we will see its followers there or anywhere near the top 250. Both Reloaded and Revolutions belong in the bottom 100, rotting away with the plethora of other failed sequels that rule that category.

** (out of 5) The defending Zion sequence saved this from * (out of 5).

Overall The Human Stain was a decent film. The acting was good but the story had way to many conveniences. There were also many secondary characters whose actions were not properly explained or justified. I heard later that many portions of the book were ignored, which is normal (as 1 page of a book = at least 1 minute of movie) but missing pages are normally resolved in the screenplay. For instance the Firm eliminated the whole subplot of the Mafia trying to kill Mitch McDeere by having a single scene, `I am your lawyer and can never testify against you.' In contrast the Human Stain seems to just trudge along at times leaving a bewildered viewer.

STOP NOW to avoid SPOILERS….



There are many fine filmic techniques that save the film. The opening scene's missing students echo the disconnection Coleman Silk suffers from his brother and sister. The long shots of the porch dancing are masterfully filmed. The posts of the porch simulate the negative space between the frames of film stock and the effect is very pleasing. The set-up is duplicated later in the films closing scene and the two are the most appealing scenes in the film.

Gary Sinise turns in the strongest performance in the film, but there are some strong smaller supporting roles as well. Iris Silk's dialog at the end of the film is a sounding board for all that everyone who is fed up how silly the current political correct climate has become.

Annoying that we never really find out why all the Coleman's colligate colleagues abandon him. This is probably the biggest single flaw in the screenplay. There are many unexplained scenes involving the dean of the school. Maybe I should have read the book first.

I saw this as an advance screening and despite the screenplay issues would probably pay to see it again. *** (out of 5)

Not only does Jackie Chan produce some of the best action sequences of the year, he produced 'The Medallion,' literally. The result: a modern kung-fu movie that retains its eastern heritage. This movie feels like one of Chan's early re-releases. Those films, produced for Asian markets and imported to the US Big Screen, had the feel of a 70's Bruce Lee movie. The only thing keeping 'The Medallion' from fitting the mold of the past is a heavy injection of 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' special effects.

The movie starts out slow, spending a great deal of time introducing characters and establishing back-story. Some of the early scenes must have ended up on the cutting room floor because there is a very confusing abrupt jump to the future after the first sequence. After regaining my senses, I realized the scenes in early Hong Kong were over-dubbed, a very cool homage to the films that made Chan popular in this country. The movie is lightly sprinkled with nearly disappointing action sequences until the power of the medallion is finally revealed.

From that point on the movie is full throttle and works on every level. Mixed in with all the newfound action is a ridiculously silly plot, incredible gags, and for good measure a slap (courtesy of Claire Forlani) of romance. After the back-story scenes ended and the action picked up, I stopped caring that everything that followed completely defied logic. The film became so blatantly over the top that my suspension of disbelief circuits overloaded. I just sat back and enjoyed the film for what it was: one of Chan's best.

The film knows its role. It tries to be nothing more than the fun filled action romp it is. It is great to see that Chan play the buddy role with actors other than Chris Tucker. In this case he does it with three of them. Lee Evans steps up and is hilarious as the bundling Interpol agent Watson. The only disappointment is that we don't get more of an explanation of his home life (you will understand this complaint after you see the film).

I don't see how anyone could not like this film. The advanced screening audience was very diverse and all applauded when it ended, and again after the out takes (like always they were hilarious). I highly recommend it and will see it again when it opens nationwide.

What a let down. I read the myriad of reviews already posted for this movie and was really looking forward to it. Ugh! I predict it will be gone from American theaters within 28 days of its release. The concept is good but the forced themes and predictable plot structure hurt the film.

As a movie patron one is expected to suspend disbelief and allow them to be drawn into the world of the movie. Unfortunately film writers often push suspension of disbelief so far that even a 5 year old would question what they were seeing. Welcome to `28 Days Left'; a story that spans 60 days in a world where the mass evacuation of London leaves no abandoned cars anywhere (except in the tunnels), zombies that hide off camera until the film needs some shock value (to wake-up the bored audience) and the `Rage' virus will turn you into a stark raving lunatic within 30 seconds of exposure.

Where did everyone in London go? Judging by the weekend grosses they were at the Cineplex watching `The Hulk'. Why are there only dead people in church? Why don't the zombies get food at all the abandoned grocery stores? Why was this movie ever made?

Some questions are best left unanswered. The movie did have some good scares but they were merely cheap gags. There was no tension building, no sense of impending doom, and no sense of fear for the characters wellbeing. There was no gore. That is right, the `scariest zombie film yet' had less gore and violence than Friday the 13th, on broadcast TV shown in place of Saturday morning cartoons. By the end of the film I wanted the main characters to be infected with the 'Rage' virus and start killing each other. Sorry that was spoiler. The main characters don't kill each other in the final scene.

Which brings me to the ending. Not since the Keifer Sutherland version of `The Vanishing' has there been a more ridiculous example of a Hollywood happy ending. The director would have better served the audience by leaving the last 3 minutes of the film on the cutting room floor. He had an opportunity to give us a 'Jules et Jim' ending and salvage a shred of his integrity. Instead the audience is force-fed a `Scorpion King' happy ending.

If this review is more incoherent and disjointed than my usual ones, consider it my homage to the film. Consider it an echo of the plot. My advice is rent `Night of the Living Dead' (either version) instead.

Wow, what a let down. A great director and the magic of Industrial Light and Magic didn't stand a chance against a horrible screenplay. The audience and I that were "lucky" to see this advance preview should have realized something was amiss when Stan Lee and Lou Ferrigno showed up in a cameo 15 minutes into the film. Unlike a Hitchcock's cameo, which allows the viewer to focus on the film, this was the first coherent element in a meandering plot. It was the first, and one of the only things in the film that made any sense.

The action sequences were great, nothing compared to the Matrix 2, but still very impressive. The problem was that by the time the action sequences happened the audience and I were practically in a coma. The Matrix had its slow times as well (everything leading up to Neo clobbering agent Smith with the concrete post anchor) but at least I was looking forward to where the story was leading me. I found myself looking around the theater in disbelief that there were 500 other people suffering through this madness with me. So many of the scenes seemed to just go nowhere. It was a shame because there was some very interesting editing lost in the story's shortcomings.

Ang Lee created a filmic comic book with multiple, simultaneous camera angles. This technique was changed from that of the TV show "24" by enclosing the multiple shots with comic book frames and scrolling them off the screen. It made you feel like you were reading a comic book and was a unique transition tool.

You can have too much of a good thing though. The comic book font "One Year Later" blurb at the end of the film drew reactions of anger and disgust from the audience. These emotions were masked with that confused laughter one uses when they are in shock at the ridiculousness they are witnessing. Spoiler?? I don't think the following is, but you may stop reading now just to be safe...





There will be another Hulk movie and Bruce Banner will still warn you not to make him angry. He and the films producers should heed his own advice. If you really want to play it safe, stay home and read a comic book instead.