dsmgdesign Reviews

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Here we go again

[6/10 · 20 May 2013]

I wrote about the JJ Abram's Star Trek in 2009. This sequel is not an improvement over the first. Kirk is just as clueless, reckless and guided by what's happening at that moment. Spock is even more human in this then he was in the first. Bones, Scotty and Checkov seem to be there to provide comic relief and no more. Uhura seems to have no more professionalism than a high school teenager. What happened to my Star Trek crew that I once knew and loved? They are certainly not present in this movie. So, I've given up hope of something better.

As the old saying goes. If you can't beat them. Join them.

What do I mean by that? Well, if you can forgive the poor characterizations, this movie is fun, albeit in a bubble gum kind of way. It is fast-paced, full of energy, colors and life. It is the kind of fun that families could enjoy watching together. And maybe that was the point of this movie. If it was the point, then the movie was a success! I am giving this a 6, because if I'm being honest, it was a disappointment compared to the first movie. And, even though I got caught up in the fun, it really had no other redeeming qualities. So it deserves a 6.

Live long and prosper.

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

A moving, well-written story

[7/10 · 24 August 2009]

In the first 10 minutes of the film, I thought I would be writing a negative review about this movie. That's because the first few scenes with Bana and McAdams were a bit forced and lacked substance. It wasn't until Bana confronted his father that the tension started to take shape. From that moment the tension seemed to build, and the time traveling just added to the depth that this move actually did have. The movie had plenty of twists, funny moments and tearful hurdles to move me.

Brilliant casting, I must admit. Bana owned the real, flawed, believable and thoughtful family man role. The irresistibly endearing McAdams is probably not the strongest actress in the bunch but she certainly pulled her own weight when it counted. The young McCann sisters that played the juvenile daughter in different time periods were adorable indeed.

Being a sci-fi fan, the time traveling sequences did not lose me. In fact, it actually helped tell the story in a clever and intricate way. Truly, this is not only the best love story that I have seen this year, it is one of the best love stories I have seen in a very long time. By the end I was captivated and I had forgotten most of the negative stuff that was so bothersome in the first 10 minutes of the film.

Star Trek (2009)

For better or worse: A re-imagined Star Trek

[7/10 · 17 May 2009]

I can understand why hard core fans hated this film. And, I can understand why those unfamiliar with Canon loved it. I'm one of those fans that falls somewhere in between and can be slightly more objective. I admit I don't study the Star Trek Canon and I've never been to a convention. But still there are a few things that bother me, even if I'm supposed to believe this is an alternate reality.

Lets start with the core character, the hero of the movie, Kirk. Kirk was a reckless, womanizing maverick in the original trek. Yet, tactically, he was as clever as a fox. He knew how to boldly save lives, and that made him indispensable as a Captain. The producers captured this core essence of Kirk, and offered a more animated version of it. He seemed destined for star fleet but was an undisciplined train wreck at the same time. I think the change in his history and the loss of a father figure in his life had something to do with this. Was he promoted to first officer? Yes, but Pike saw something in Kirk that the rest of didn't see in this edited 2-hour fast paced movie, I suppose Pike was something of a cowboy himself, and these were desperate times. Afterall, Vulcan was under attack. Even with all this, I do agree it was a reach for his to be promoted so suddenly.

Spock. The young Spock (or even Nimoy himself) wasn't Vulcan enough for my taste. They both seemed a little bit too much in touch with their human side. Could this be explained by being emotionally conflicted due to the destruction of Vulcan: perhaps.

The destruction of Vulcan bothers me. Yes, I understand, this is a different reality, so the producers feel they could take liberties. But the Vulcan home world means something tremendously to the Star Trek Universe. A good analogy would be: destroying Vulcan to Trekkie's is a bit like burning the American flag to veterans and patriots.

Star Trek does mean something else to Trekkie's that was not captured in this newest film, and I believe the hard core fans do deserve more. Now, for the younger audience, who know little about Star Trek, I'm not one of them, so I really don't know. But I would have to imagine they thought this movie was breath-taking.

Here's the rub. The Star Trek franchise has not been doing so well. The previous two movies were box office flops. I guess the producers felt making a Star Trek film that was true to Canon and 100% accurate with characters who were created in the 60's wouldn't make much money. You know what? It's hard to hear, but they were probably right.

I think the producers were hoping bringing a villain in from the future would give them liberties to change the time line and they hoped this would satisfy those who follow Canon. And, it would provide them with a great story for the younger crowd at the same time. They were half right. Hard Core Trekkie's would still find holes, and they did. And, some of those unfamiliar with Canon might find this movie to be just remotely cooler than transformers.

Having said all this, I liked the movie. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure. I think it started out fast and furious, the characters weren't as developed as in a true trek film, the story was predictable, implausible and not in keeping with star fleet's code of conduct. But I enjoyed Seeing Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Ambassador Spock. I was not completely offended enough to enjoy seeing fresh faces take on the roles introduced so long ago. Star Trek does mean something to hard core Trekkie's. But it means more to the history of film. If making a 100% canon film meant the further deterioration of a franchise that I feared faced extinction, then bring on the re-imagined movie! Despite its flaws, it also breathed new life and rejuvenated the franchise and, in the process, it quite possibly made some new fans. Yes, the Trekkies deserve more, and I hope they get more in the films to follow. But this movie does not deserve a rating of 1, 2 or anything below a 5. It was a good movie. I didn't feel like I was watching Star Wars, or Transformers, or even Superman Returns. I felt like I was watching something much, much smarter. On its own merits, it was wildly entertaining, a great thrill ride, the writing was smart (for the most part), the story was solidly told (again, for the most part), it was brilliantly directed, and the acting was exceptional.

Bottom line: If you don't have a Star Trek reference book of any kind on your book shelf, or Vulcan ears in your closet, then see this movie on the big screen and enjoy. Then go home, scratch your head and hope for something a little better next time.

The Happening (2008)

Fool me once...

[5/10 · 10 January 2009]

Ah, good ol' M. Night Shyamalan. Those who have read my other reviews know that I am a fan of Shyamalan's earlier films. The Six Sense leveled me, Signs was brilliantly conceived and very well played, The Village was a work of genius. Then came Lady in the Water, a bizarre and uninteresting work of self-indulgent fluff. Fool me once.

Then, I watched the Happening. Did he actually fool me twice? Well, sort of. The Happening had more interesting concept than Lady: Nature enacts its revenge on Man. And, it started out and actually ended better than Lady. While its not nearly in the same league as Signs and Six Sense,it is clearly more bearable to watch the Happening than Lady in the Water. But the similarity in regards to muddled dialog and misguided performance makes me nervous for the fate of Shyamalan's films.

I actually do think the lead was miscast. I don't think Mark Wahlberg understood the role of a flawed everyman. Zooey Deschanel didn't make it easy for us viewers to sympathize for her. John Leguizamo was the only actor who brought a sense of paranoia that was absent in the other actor's performances.

This won't make me very popular, but I do disagree with many of the comments on this site. This movie actually made me think. I didn't really think about how we are destroying the environment or that the trees and bushes would actually make us suicidal. But, like Signs and The Village, I thought about the point that Shyamalan pieced together. If you put aside the below-average script and poor acting, Shyamalan did cleverly tell a story that nobody else is capable of telling. The movie was undeniably flawed at times, but it was also quite intriguing at times. Not enough for a come back, but perhaps not enough to proclaim "shame on me."

The Dark Knight (2008)

Dark is right!

[8/10 · 23 August 2008]

I sat down at the nearest IMAX theater to watch this film in the hopes of seeing a great Batman story. I learned from the movie hype that Keith Ledger's Joker was supposed to be grittier and I loved Christopher Bale in Batman Begins, so I expected a good film. But then, right from the first few minutes until the very end, I experienced something beyond my wildest expectations. This movie was certainly dark. More to the point, it was surprisingly tense. Ledger's performance certainly drove most of the tension. And, you could feel that Gotham was truly terrorized by the Joker's sadistic "social experiments", hands-on villainy and love for knives, gun powder, explosives and gasoline. The tension was also driven by the dark cinematography and booming sound track. District Attorney Harvey Dent and Gotham's finest Lt. Gordan's earlier scenes together added a gritty crime drama element to this movie, while Morgan Freeman's "Q-esque" side kick performance in the bat cave added another dimension that can only be compared to the latest, and grittiest, bond film.

My only gripe, and it's a small one, is that the Joker had no redeeming qualities when comparing him to Jack Nicholson's Joker in the Batman movies of the late 1980's. Yet, Ledger's portrayal as a complex, misunderstood Joker made up for it. He gave us a new joker who did some cold, calculated and down-right nasty things. On the same token, the Two-faced Harvey Dent was considerably more interesting in this movie than Tommy Lee Jones two-face in Batman 3.

All and all, The Dark knight is a deserving remake best described by words such as "tense" and "booming." My hope for the sequel is that they give us a Catwoman that we have always been wanting to see.

Lady in the Water (2006)

self-indulgent

[4/10 · 2 June 2007]

I've always been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan. That's why I was anxious to see his next offering. And, while most who have written a review here have either loved or hated this movie, my feelings lay somewhere in the middle. M. Night Shyamalan shows us a piece that is a bit more self-indulgent, unnatural and ill-conceived than Six sense, Signs or even The Village. Unlike previous Shyamalan films, I found it difficult to fall in love with the characters. Rather than face imminent terror most of these characters were called to fantasy. This film did have a few redeeming qualities, such as artfully crafted chills and a unique, creative, albeit off-beat, story. Not enough to rank high in my book though. I really hope this is not the direction of Shyamalan's future films. If it is, he has lost one fan.

Superman Returns (2006)

Great visual candy, little depth

[7/10 · 27 December 2006]

I must admit, I was captivated by the visual experience in Superman Returns, and generally intrigued by the premise. However, I felt a longing for more. I wanted more depth, more richness, more something after a 20-year absence from the silver screen.

Brandon Routh was believable enough as a superhero and farm-boy turned reporter. One could not mistake his likeness to Christopher Reeves and the wholesomeness that he brought to Clark Kent. But what was missing was his struggle with his alter-ego, his intense passion for the human race, and the cleverness and charm that Reeves brought to the big screen as the man of steel. Kevin Spacey was brilliantly casted as Lex Luther and is probably one of the only actor's in Hollywood today who could hold a candle to Gene Heckman's past performances. Kate Bosworth was a weak Lois Lane. Lois Lane is a smart, clever, spunky, sharp-witted reporter and in this movie all I saw from Bosworth was a fragile, scorned ex-girlfriend who pinned after you know who. Her rooftop scene with Routh as Superman was just plain bad.

I did enjoy some of the other attempts that were made to be in keeping with the original Superman movies. I cheered when I saw Marlon Brando's face appear as Jor-el., along with his unforgettable booming voice. Brandon Routh's attempts at being awkwardly shy and clutzy as first played by Christopher Reeves as the mild-mannered Clark Kent were right-on and put a smile on my face. The general style and mood of the movie (perhaps with the exception of the Superman/Lois Lane romance) was very much in keeping with the original feature films. When Clark Kent super-whistled for a cab behind Miss Lane's back, he reminded us that he had the ability to be super even though he is dressed in a reporter's dress suit (very much like the original feature film). The sets were very much in keeping with the legacy of Superman: from the Kent Farm, the Daily Planet and the ice crystal fortress. And, Lex Luther's plans for world domination and destruction were fair enough of a challenge for Superman in my book. The movie makers were smart enough to add their own creative thinking to the movie. For example, I didn't know Superman got his energy from the sun. And I didn't realize his love affair with Lois was consummated.

Oh, and don't bother buying the bonus DVD set with the extra footage. The making of Superman was extremely long-winded and seldom meaningful. It took the magic out of movie-making. The Jor-el feature was worse than a Max Headroom video. And the selected deleted scenes made me say, "well-duh, no wonder they took that out". Not at all worth it, and if I were able to score the features DVD, I would give it a 1 out of 10.

All and all, Superman Returns was a fine adaptation. But after 20 years, I guess I just wanted more if only for the sake of truth, justice and the American way.

Firewall (2006)

Harrison Ford is back!

[7/10 · 17 February 2006]

I wasn't sure what to expect with a movie called "Firewall." I knew it involved a kidnapping, money and some high-tech stuff. But, I didn't realize how fun and entertaining it would be. This movie strings together multiple tried-and-true plot lines to provide a fresh modernized thriller for fans who still enjoy Harrison Ford movies. The villains, a crew of heavies led by a diabolical thief, contribute enough tension and twists that I found myself genuinely routing for Ford's character to strike back. Sure Ford is not Hans Solo anymore or even the older Indiana Jones. But he brings plenty of punch to this movie. All and all, Harrison Ford's, Virginia Madison and Paul Bettany's finely crafted performances really gives this movie some old-fashioned fun. Well done!

King Kong (2005)

A masterful remake

[8/10 · 30 December 2005]

I actually did not know the director was the same man who directed The Lord of The Rings. Having found this out on IMDb, it makes complete sense that he would want to turn King Kong into a Lord of the Ring length film.

But I went into this movie, not as a Peter Jackson fan (sorry guys), but as a King Kong fan, and this was a very worthy remake. I liked that the movie retained the classic scenes in both the 1933 film and the 1976 film and converted them into very fresh and exciting action sequences. The depression-era historical content, very scary island villagers, a troubled boat crew and of course the edgy special effects helped tell the King Kong story in a very meaningful, powerful and poignant way.

Although, unlike Fay Wray's and Jessica Lange's sympathetic character, I have to say I found the leading lady's raw devotion to Kong and emotional isolation from human life a bit distasteful. Make no mistake, Kong is a killer ape for sure, and you felt Fay Wray and Jessica Lange's character knew that, while this seemed to be oblivious to this leading lady. But I liked the actress who played the Fay Wray/ Jessica Lange part (whatever her name is...I'll have to look it up). After this movie I'm sure she will be in some more big films. But then again I thought the same thing about Kate Winslet when I first saw her play a love interest opposite Leanardo DiCapprio, and what blockbuster was she in after Titantic....none! The development of Jack Black's character in the beginning of the film could have been sped up a bit, as it bordered bad sitcom-type acting at times. But when things got serious, so did Jack Black's character. His producer in the spotlight persona was a nod to Orson Welles, and perfectly suited for this period. In the end, he really pulled it off. The hero was brilliantly brought to life by actor Adrien Brody, and reviled Jeff Bridges hero in 1976. But two of my favorite characters were actually the newly created boat hand characters played by Evan Parke and Jaime Bell. The elder boat hand seemed to look out for the new kid on the block in a very fatherly way. Their appearance in this version added a richness and flavor that I did not expect to find.

All and all, because I thought this movie could have been shortened a bit, the movie didn't make me a Peter Jackson fan. I still don't know anything about the man. But, because he told the story of King Kong in such a masterful way, he made me a fan of this movie. Excellent!!

Wicker Park (2004)

A dreadful movie

[1/10 · 23 January 2005]

This movie started out with a hint of intrigue, but as the plot developed it took a turn for the worse. It was quite simply dreadful and painful to watch. "Single White Female" threw up everywhere and I just wasted 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. This summary really does not deserve 10 lines of text, but since I can not submit this without it, I will give it a try. I should have left this movie on the shelf and kept going. Josh Harnetts character, who the movie makers wanted you to feel for, was really just as selfish, obsessed and shallow as every other character in the film. Did I also mention this movie was dreadful, awful and not worth a second more of my time?

The Village (2004)

Another classic makes history!

[9/10 · 22 January 2005]

M. Night Shyamalan is a true genius. He defies today's bloody, slasher or bang-em-up flics for classic offerings only dared by such movie makers as Rod Sterling and Alfred Hitchcock. Some may say he lives in the shadows of "The Six Sense". I happen to think he is only getting started in developing a true craft that no one else in Hollywood today can master.

What is also forgotten in many reviews that you may read here is the signature "everything-is-not-as it-seems" factor that is masterfully created in The Village. Within this controlled environment lies a secret pact held by elders to protect their young from the sins of the world. A promise to create a community where innocence can prosper. Keeping them there are mysterious creatures...boogie-men of sorts....who liive in the woods that surround them. This story is about protecting love ones from harm (whether it be a parent to a child, or a young man and young woman), from protecting the weak from evil. Yet it is the "weak" who surprise us. And innocence lives on. A well-thought and well-executed tale that can only be told by this master of suspense.

Just as in "The Six Sense" and "Signs", there are frights and chills. Just as in "The Six Sense" and "Signs", there is a twist in the plot. Just as in "The Six Sense" and "Signs", I loved the characters and loved the ride for which I was taken. The twist may not be as powerful as The Six Sense, the chills may not be as fresh, but the story is just as meaningful and awe-inspiring. And the "everything is not as it seems" factor is just as developed. That is what makes M. Night Shyamalan is a true genius.

Brilliant! Can't wait for the next M. Night Shyamalan film.

Signs (2002)

Brilliant, Powerful and Scary!

[10/10 · 9 February 2003]

There are two kinds of people in this world who have seen this

movie or plan to see this movie. Those simple-minded folk who

want to watch little green men come down to earth on their flying

saucers to blow up buildings and incinerate people. And the

second group, those who can appreciate intense, brilliant,

powerful theatrical events with more substance than your typical

special effects blockbuster! I am in the second group and I LOVED

THIS MOVIE!!! I really had no expectations that this would be a

blockbuster action packed shoot-em-up flick like Independence

Day. With M. Night Shyamalan (The Six Sense) writing/directing

and starring Mel Gibson, I expected a taught, entertaining

mind-blowing thriller, and this film delivers all that and more.

Signs also had some very funny moments, a change from The Six

Sense. It also contained many very moving dramatic scenes with

focus on Mel Gibson's character and his family. But mostly, it was

a movie enriched with very subtle hints and clues that unlock the

real meaning of the story. Sure, any untalented hollywood director

can blow up buildings these days. But very few have the genius to

pull off a very meaningful, engaging, suspenseful, mind-blowing

film that leaves you hanging on the edge of your seat. I am

definitely a M. Night Shyamalan fan, and I can't wait to see his next

movie. Swing away!

Spider-Man (2002)

What a ride! More Fun Than Batman!

[9/10 · 25 May 2002]

A fun, enjoyable action flick with a super cool story line, this is without a doubt the best movie I've seen all year! If I were the casting director, I might have picked someone other than Tobey MaGuire. But the chemistry between MaGuire and Kirsten Dunst is undoubtably what landed them the parts. Also, William Dafoe is no Jack Nicolson (as the Joker) no question. But then who is as great as Jack -- NOBODY! And, compared to Batman, this script was written for a younger audience. But ya know what? You could also argue Tim Burton's Bruce Wayne was too dark and mysterious. You couldn't help but like Sam Raimi's Peter Parker. But if you take Batman and Superman and put it on a shelf, and look at Spiderman for it's own value, this movie is genuinely good clean fun! The special effects just blew me away. It raises the bar for movie makers. I can't wait for the sequel.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

"The Top Ten list"

[7/10 · 25 May 2002]

OK, here are top ten reasons to watch this movie:

#10. The romantic story was genuinely intriguing. It was interesting to see, despite how enraged Anakin got, Amidala still fell for him. He admitted he slaughtered an entire village of sand people, and she comforted him. Even in a galaxy far, far away, love is blind.

#9. No talk of "metichlorines." There was too much of this Scully-esquire approach to explaining the force in "Phantom menace". Good Riddance.

#8. To see Luke's old home. Not just his home world as in Phantom Menace, but his home. Anakin and Amidala sat at the same table as Luke did when he dreamed of exploration with his Uncle and Aunt. It raises questions in the complete story line as a whole. Like, it will be interesting to see in part three why Anakin is unable to figure out his son was brought to this very place to be raised. Anyway, it's fun to see the old set after all these years.

#7. The special effects. I don't care what anybody says, the effects are impressive, most impressive. The scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin chase the assassin was pretty darn amazing.

#6. The characters and the acting was better than "Phantom Menace." But that's not really saying much. Hayden Christenson, not my favorite actor, but a lot less annoying than that young brat in the first movie. The scene that really made me aware of how good these actors were, was in the "gladiator arena" scene played out in true Star Wars fashion of the original trilogy. The three lead characters were chained to over-sized pillars, and what was played out here was very reminiscent of Luke, Leia and Han. No, Portman, Christiansen and Ewan McGregor still don't quite have the same chemistry as Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford, but they came pretty darn close.

#5. To watch more of George Lucas's back story---as fallible, inconsistent and contradictory as it might be (I see at least one other commenter also had a problem with Threepio and Owen Lars living with each other in this story line. Wasn't the fact that Darth Vader built threepio bad enough? Did Lucas forget Owen Lars purchased Threepio years later in "A New Hope"--somebody ought to point that out to him). With that said, this story does have more depth than "The Phantom Menace" or "Return of the Jedi." This installment is simply a stronger piece in the puzzle. Glad to see Lucas still has a magnificent mind, and still knows how to tell a good story.

#4. Much like the second installment in the first trilogy ("Empire Strike's back), this was a darker tale. I liked it!

#3. A lot less Jar-Jar!! I almost forgot he was in the movie at all. THANK YOU, George! and if you cut him out of the script completely in the third one, we really won't miss him...really!

#2. More Threepio and R2. Yeah baby, Lucas knows what we want to see.

#1. Without a doubt the number one reason--by far--this movie was worth watching just to see Yoda's light saber scene! He truly floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. Absolutely funny, yet so great to see the little guy fight! While I was watching that scene, I remember thinking "this is so great! Yoda RULES!!" I laughed, I cheered! All of us who watched Yoda in earlier films wondered, "how can he be a Jedi? Jedi must defend peace and this must entail being a skilled light sabersman." Now we know, we finally know! Bravo George, Bravo!! But, can someone explain to me how Yoda can move that fast, jump, heck nearly fly in the air, then afterward pick up his walking stick and slowly move about . I'm sure there is a reason, perhaps something to do with the force, but it escapes me.

Now, I won't go as far to say this movie is better than "A New Hope" or "Empire Strikes Back". But, Lucas has learned his lesson from "The Phantom Menace" and made significant improvements. Not quite enough for my taste, but it's still Star Wars. In what other movie can the "story teller" disappoint us, yet we still line up to pay $8.50 to see it. And gladly do it all over again.

The Sweetest Thing (2002)

The Horrible thing!

[1/10 · 21 April 2002]

I usually don't comment on these things, but I felt compelled when I read so many positive reviews about this movie. What movie were those people watching? This one was horrible! In one of the trailers for this movie, they say "If you liked 'Something about Mary' or 'My Best Friend's Wedding' the you will love 'The Sweetest Thing!' Like many here, I liked Cameron Diaz in those movies. 'The Sweetest Thing' , however, was nothing like either of those earlier films. Putting aside for a minute the raunchiness and bad taste, this movie had no story...the characters were shallow and downright disturbing...and the overall production - directing, writing, etc. was incredibly poor. The only redeeming quality about this movie was the brilliant casting of bit players Parker Posey, Jason Bateman and Georgia Engel. If you liked "Something about Mary" or "My best friend's Wedding" then rent 'em again and enjoy. THEY were really funny movies. "The Sweetest Thing", on the other hand, was the biggest waste of time and money. If I only wish I had both back!