I knew going in that this was not going to be a great movie but I did expect it to be a fun movie. Unfortunately it lost me from the opening scene when establishing that there was an alien to earth race that just happened to look and sound like contemporary earth humans. They also have a mysterious mission that just happened to take them by earth without any indication whatsoever of how they could cover faster than the speed of light distances yet still find themselves in an asteroid belt in a solar system. It only went down from there. Apparently earth was populated by carnivorous dinosaurs that were very reptile like, and no herbivores. In reality late Cretaceous dinosaurs were not ectotherm but are endotherms (warm blooded) and did not slink around like reptiles. Also, the Cretaceous ending meteor or comet smashed off the yucatan peninsula into the ocean. Anyways, if I was ignorant of all of that I would have liked the movie better. There was some good stuff in the movie, in terms of production values and such, and the lean plot flowed as well.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Independence Day: Resurgence
(2016)
fun like a theme park ride
26 June 2016
For popcorn movies I use a different set of parameters for rating movies. I go with the fun factor and internal consistency. I found Independence Day:Resurgence pretty much the same in terms of fun factor as the first installment. In the Age of Trolls, it is getting hammered by some for not being the movie some wanted it to be, of for not exploring various facets, or for not having Oscar caliber acting. They are missing the point. Yes, there are many ridiculous coincidences, but they are consistent with the elements established within the movie. There is a stark difference between this movie and say Warcraft, where there were internally inconsistent episodic jumps. In any event, I enjoyed this ride and look forward to the third installment. The makers astutely included Chinese characters into the fray, probably ensuring some good international box office.
George W. Bush would not be this dumb
11 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Talk about disappointing. This movie had a big budget and a pretty good cast. It even had a real decent premise for a hard science fiction film, having uplifted the 1951 original story. Unfortunately, it also had a clueless director, a horrible script, and some really bizarre editing decisions.
Visually, there is much to like. The cinematography is actually really good. The actors are for the most part good with what they have to work with. It is, however, a bit melodramatic with absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.
There was obviously a lot of scenes that were left on the cutting room floor that might have improved things. As it is, relationships are established and discarded, or alternatively, spring from who knows where. Case in point: The Jennifer Connelly character is whisked off to a secret base with a whole bunch of other experts in science, engineering, etc. They arrive whereupon a character yells out for her to be let through a screening line and whisked away to a briefing meeting. We never find out how the lead relates to this person who pops in for the rest of the movie as some kind of moral compass. Furthermore, during that same sequence, she arrives to the briefing whereupon she sits by characters that were in the screening line. Somehow, while she took the shortcut to the briefing, those in a very long line beat her there. My guess is that there were intervening character establishment scenes that were cut.
The most absurd aspects of the film involve the official response to the alien arrival. Here you have an alien object speeding toward earth at a velocity so great, that upon impact it would not just leave a crater but literally obliterate the earth. Seconds before impending impact it decelerates and makes a relatively gentle landing. This is clearly way beyond our understanding of physics, let alone our technology. So the initial response is to send out a bunch of army guys with rifles, backed up by local police with pistols. These guys would have to be way beyond stupid, and sincerely suicidal to act aggressively without provocation and with such puny manpower. The further military actions are just as illogical and harebrained.
Ultimately, this movie fails to engage the viewer. It is boring. This is hard for me to say. I try really hard to promote and talk up these kinds of movies. Sure, Armageddon was dumb, but it was fun. The Day After Tomorrow was cliché ridden and of scientific claptrap but it too was fun and the characters were engaging. The only sci-fi movie that was as bad as this was The Core and at least that was a B movie to begin with. There is no excuse for this movie to not work better then it does. The only thing that stands still here is one's sense of wonder.
Visually, there is much to like. The cinematography is actually really good. The actors are for the most part good with what they have to work with. It is, however, a bit melodramatic with absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever.
There was obviously a lot of scenes that were left on the cutting room floor that might have improved things. As it is, relationships are established and discarded, or alternatively, spring from who knows where. Case in point: The Jennifer Connelly character is whisked off to a secret base with a whole bunch of other experts in science, engineering, etc. They arrive whereupon a character yells out for her to be let through a screening line and whisked away to a briefing meeting. We never find out how the lead relates to this person who pops in for the rest of the movie as some kind of moral compass. Furthermore, during that same sequence, she arrives to the briefing whereupon she sits by characters that were in the screening line. Somehow, while she took the shortcut to the briefing, those in a very long line beat her there. My guess is that there were intervening character establishment scenes that were cut.
The most absurd aspects of the film involve the official response to the alien arrival. Here you have an alien object speeding toward earth at a velocity so great, that upon impact it would not just leave a crater but literally obliterate the earth. Seconds before impending impact it decelerates and makes a relatively gentle landing. This is clearly way beyond our understanding of physics, let alone our technology. So the initial response is to send out a bunch of army guys with rifles, backed up by local police with pistols. These guys would have to be way beyond stupid, and sincerely suicidal to act aggressively without provocation and with such puny manpower. The further military actions are just as illogical and harebrained.
Ultimately, this movie fails to engage the viewer. It is boring. This is hard for me to say. I try really hard to promote and talk up these kinds of movies. Sure, Armageddon was dumb, but it was fun. The Day After Tomorrow was cliché ridden and of scientific claptrap but it too was fun and the characters were engaging. The only sci-fi movie that was as bad as this was The Core and at least that was a B movie to begin with. There is no excuse for this movie to not work better then it does. The only thing that stands still here is one's sense of wonder.
decent for what it is
3 December 2008
OK, I am not a big High School Musical fan. When I first heard the songs my kids were playing the CD on a trip and I banned it after awhile. I sat through the first and second movies on Disney Channel, not exactly thrilled. My wife was to take the kids today, as it just opened here in New Zealand. At the last minute I got the honor of escort.
I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it is a silly plot, high school was never like this, and the characters are more archetypes then real. My response is...so what. Films should be judged from the context in which they are presented. This is presented as a song and dance musical that children can enjoy. From that context, the filmmakers did a good job. The transition to the big screen was well thought out and planned. My girls enjoyed it, and were singing the songs. To me, that says it all. I think people are way to cynical and polarized these days. There is no way that this film should receive so many one star votes if people were voting objectively. It seems that unless people are being trashed, or some kind of drugs, sex etc. is presented as the REAL high school experience, then the movie is worthless. It is a sad comment on society if good natured fun is considered a bad thing that should be derided. High School Musical is not my world, nor is it the world my children live in. It is, however,a place where those experiencing it can put aside their cynicism for a couple hours.
I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it is a silly plot, high school was never like this, and the characters are more archetypes then real. My response is...so what. Films should be judged from the context in which they are presented. This is presented as a song and dance musical that children can enjoy. From that context, the filmmakers did a good job. The transition to the big screen was well thought out and planned. My girls enjoyed it, and were singing the songs. To me, that says it all. I think people are way to cynical and polarized these days. There is no way that this film should receive so many one star votes if people were voting objectively. It seems that unless people are being trashed, or some kind of drugs, sex etc. is presented as the REAL high school experience, then the movie is worthless. It is a sad comment on society if good natured fun is considered a bad thing that should be derided. High School Musical is not my world, nor is it the world my children live in. It is, however,a place where those experiencing it can put aside their cynicism for a couple hours.
Quantum of Solace
(2008)
Puzzled by Negative reviews
26 November 2008
Potential Spoiler Quantum of Solace is not a stand alone film. It is more than just a sequel to Casino Royale, it is really a continuation. Si I am puzzled. How could those who liked Casino Royale find fault with this film? The whole premise of this long movie broken into two parts is that Bond has not yet become the suave and professional Bond we have come to know in various incarnations. This is a re-boot of Bond similar to the re-boot of the Batman.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film because it was intelligent. One had to think while watching the action. There was also some excellent interplay between Bond and the woman character who assisted him. Both were looking for something in terms of vengeance/redemption and that searched shaped them, as made clear with the ending.
Some have indicated that the water control "villainy" was laughable. I guess if you live with access to free clean water this might be so. If, however, 60 per cent of a countries water supply was controlled by a ruthless multi-national corporation and they were successful in privatizing its delivery, it would not be so laughable if the country wanted to go its own way. It would entrench poverty and assure long term control of that country by the multinational with a controlling interest. In other words, realistic villainy. All part of the re-boot.
Overall, the subtlety beneath the action lent a lot of coherence to the plot. Also, it was also helpful to watch Casino Royale again prior to watching Quantum of Solace. A great ride if one pays attention.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film because it was intelligent. One had to think while watching the action. There was also some excellent interplay between Bond and the woman character who assisted him. Both were looking for something in terms of vengeance/redemption and that searched shaped them, as made clear with the ending.
Some have indicated that the water control "villainy" was laughable. I guess if you live with access to free clean water this might be so. If, however, 60 per cent of a countries water supply was controlled by a ruthless multi-national corporation and they were successful in privatizing its delivery, it would not be so laughable if the country wanted to go its own way. It would entrench poverty and assure long term control of that country by the multinational with a controlling interest. In other words, realistic villainy. All part of the re-boot.
Overall, the subtlety beneath the action lent a lot of coherence to the plot. Also, it was also helpful to watch Casino Royale again prior to watching Quantum of Solace. A great ride if one pays attention.
Cloverfield
(2008)
Well Done
16 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I grew up on a diet of giant monster movies like Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan, Gorgo and the Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. I waited trepadatiously for this movie, doubting that the hype would be justified, but hoping none the less. The movie succeeds, and delivers as promised.
As reported elsewhere, the film unfolds from the point of view of some people being filmed on a hand held video camera. When things start happening they are totally clueless, as are the military personnel that show up.
People panic and make irrational decisions. Unexpected heroism leads to tragedy. People find hidden strength they did not know they had. The monster rampages, confused and deadly. People die.
The interpersonal drama is what makes this movie work so well. The scarcity of direct views of the monster help rack up the tension. In saying that, one does get to view the monster, and it is impressive. It has a certain weird realism to it that makes it that much more intense.
Overall, this is one hell of an intense ride IF one just accepts it as if it is real footage while watching. The hand-held stuff can be a bit disconcerting at times,but it also lends itself to making things seem more real. I highly recommend Cloverfield. It is innovative and involving.
As reported elsewhere, the film unfolds from the point of view of some people being filmed on a hand held video camera. When things start happening they are totally clueless, as are the military personnel that show up.
People panic and make irrational decisions. Unexpected heroism leads to tragedy. People find hidden strength they did not know they had. The monster rampages, confused and deadly. People die.
The interpersonal drama is what makes this movie work so well. The scarcity of direct views of the monster help rack up the tension. In saying that, one does get to view the monster, and it is impressive. It has a certain weird realism to it that makes it that much more intense.
Overall, this is one hell of an intense ride IF one just accepts it as if it is real footage while watching. The hand-held stuff can be a bit disconcerting at times,but it also lends itself to making things seem more real. I highly recommend Cloverfield. It is innovative and involving.
Troy
(2004)
Flawed Epic
17 May 2004
This almost $200 million dollar epic is loosely based on the 3000 year old classic the Iliad. The question has to be asked of those who spent the money is what planet do they live on? They had to be sitting around with the screenwriter and director talking about how to make the film. One bright spark said, `You know, that Homer guy is a bit old fashioned. His story is alright but after 3000 years it has gotten a bit stuffy. We can do it better than some old Greek guy.' Hmmmm. Not good judgment. If the story worked for 3000 years, why change it?
Anyways, things meander about in earnest but plodding fashion until we finally get to Troy (Ilium). Brian Cox chews up the scenery as a pretentious Agamemnon, the High King of the Greeks. Brad Pitt does well as the egotistical but fatalistic Achilles. The real star is Eric Bana as the tragic Hector.
For some reason, the 10 year war is condensed to a couple weeks, detracting from the epic Troy strives to be. In that time, the classic confrontation between Achilles and Hector plays out. This is the heart of the film and it works very well. The satellite characters don't work well, and at times come off very awkwardly. There are no Gods or Goddesses personified and so major characters who were heavily influenced by same are axed as well (eg. Diomedes).
Overall, Troy is flawed by a misguided attempt to rework an epic story. The central theme of the two heroes works very well, but even that is somewhat muddled by story changes. The cinematography is first rate, it has a forgettable musical score (another flaw, all classic epic films has a memorable theme), but it also has pretty cool battle and fight scenes. The violence and blood is not too graphic, but it is a bit too long for younger viewers and there is some brief gratuitous nudity. Fans of the Illiad will be disappointed, but Troy is worth seeing for those who like epics in spite of its flaws.
Anyways, things meander about in earnest but plodding fashion until we finally get to Troy (Ilium). Brian Cox chews up the scenery as a pretentious Agamemnon, the High King of the Greeks. Brad Pitt does well as the egotistical but fatalistic Achilles. The real star is Eric Bana as the tragic Hector.
For some reason, the 10 year war is condensed to a couple weeks, detracting from the epic Troy strives to be. In that time, the classic confrontation between Achilles and Hector plays out. This is the heart of the film and it works very well. The satellite characters don't work well, and at times come off very awkwardly. There are no Gods or Goddesses personified and so major characters who were heavily influenced by same are axed as well (eg. Diomedes).
Overall, Troy is flawed by a misguided attempt to rework an epic story. The central theme of the two heroes works very well, but even that is somewhat muddled by story changes. The cinematography is first rate, it has a forgettable musical score (another flaw, all classic epic films has a memorable theme), but it also has pretty cool battle and fight scenes. The violence and blood is not too graphic, but it is a bit too long for younger viewers and there is some brief gratuitous nudity. Fans of the Illiad will be disappointed, but Troy is worth seeing for those who like epics in spite of its flaws.
Two Loves
(1961)
Non-New Zealand New Zealand
10 September 2003
It is interesting to note that this movie, purportedly set in New Zealand, has no one speaking with a New Zealand accent. It is also interesting that the "natives" ( Maori) are all Mexican or Japanese. This film is condescending, inane drivel. What were the likes of Jack Hawkins, Laurence Harvey and Shirley McLain thinking?
The Matrix Reloaded
(2003)
B Movie with A grade production values and special effects
16 May 2003
Talk about disappointment. Here you have a sequel to a surprise hit, tons of money to play with, top notch actors, and the corniest dialog this side of Iowa. The story concept is fine, the writing is not. The action scenes are pretty good, although dragged out too long in some instances. The existential ponderings are superficial claptrap, and the wooden direction really detract. What a shame.
The Shawshank Redemption
(1994)
Number 2 all time?
21 April 2002
Great movie but number 2 all time? Get real. Morgan Freeman is great, Tim Robbins is at his pinnacle and the screenplay keeps things interesting throughout. At times the direction is a bit klunky, and not all of the supporting characters are believable. It certainly deserves a place in the 100 top movies, but not in the top 50.
American Pie 2
(2001)
It sucks.
20 December 2001
This has to be one of the worst "major" releases in recent memory. This should have gone straight to video. I can enjoy gross out humour ala Something About Mary. I can find redeeming qualities in teen movies like the excellent 10 Things I hate About You. There was nothing enjoyable or redeemable in this boring and unfunny thud. (I must admit to chuckling at a couple of technical gaffes though). This movie can only be enjoyed by people who are on medication, are self medicating, or are suffering from withdrawal symptoms of American Pie.
Tell Your Friends