Change Your Image
jtho116
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
THIS FILM BELONGS NOWHERE NEAR THE TOP 10 MOVIES OF ALL TIME, AND NEITHER DOES THE SEQUEAL
After reading my opening sentence, I'm sure there is a large offended group of people so let me clarify. I enjoyed the movie. It was fun to watch, good entertainment and decent action. However it is lacking in a few key areas. As I list them, I consider the two movies as one so keep that in mind.
Most importantly for me, very few of the characters show any depth. The guy that plays Alec Trevlyn in GoldenEye (I forget his characters name and the name of the actor but I'm sure you all know who i'm talking about) was one of the few who did exercise multiple levels of character and demonstrated internal conflict. Deep down he really wanted the ring and the associated power, but he over came this and ended up dying nobely for the survival of Frodo and the success of the destruction of the ring. Golem projected a similar struggle, but at this point we (the movie goers and not the book readers) are unsure of weather he does succede in snuffing his desire. All the other members of the fellowship had their personalities shaped early on and their actions are becoming painfully predictable; espicially Frodo.
Acting is often regarded as "brilliant" or "stunning" by the members of the cast. But as mentioned above, the hobbits, elves, men, wizards and so forth are not multilayerd. "Superficial" isn't the right word, but it's the first to come to mind. Honestly, I care much more about a character who is dealing with internal conflict as well as external. Undoubtedly, our "wee people of the Shire" face extreme conflict from other sources, but little from them selves. (The struggle with desperation over the ring could be labeled as "internal" but I got the impression the ring's power was too much for most beings. But feel free to place it where you like.)
Another common speaking point for LOTR fanatics is the cinema-tography. Aside from a few too many (although impressive arials backed by strong music) nothing comes directly to mind as good camera work, mainly because there is far too much computer generation. I understand that the effects are necessary for the credibilty of the film, but it loses cinematic appeal in the process becasue, as of yet, CG scenes are still quite evident.
There are parts of the film that are exceptionally strong. The story speaks for it self as one of the greatest adventures I'm aware of. But you all know as well as I, that the story does not make the movie. However, little of this credit can go to any one involed with the film becasue it is a very near and accurate account of the novels.
Maybe every thing I've written is wrong and out of line. Maybe I just did this because I'm bitter that these two movies keep other films out of the high ranks tey deserve. (ie. Memento, Dr. Strangelove, Pulp Fiction etc.)
Overall, 6/10
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
It's hard to top the original Matrix. (spoilers)
It seems obvious that The Matrix series is quickly becomeing a Star Wars type trilogy. The first of each series was predicted to fail, while both became successies (the difference, however, is that Star Wars became a hit over night while it took fans a little longer to respond to The Matrix). The first film in each series is dedicated to being a quality movie to capture attention and hold it. The sequal then expands on the inner workings behind all the actoin and drama, opening the society and politics to the audience, instead of actually focusing on plot and character devlopment.
In addition, the amount of dialogue has incresed from TM to TM2. Unbelievably, the quality of this dialogue has decreased. Certain lines were chosen just to throw sand in your eyes. The originality behind the first movie was amazing and, on a first viewing, it may have made little sense, while the second and third viewings put confusing items into perspective. I do not feel this is the case with TM2. The plot is a little better and actually might have an underlying metaphore built into it. It is explicated as follows: The people of Zion are darker skinned, they are very earthen and triabl and exist in poor living conditions. The people in the Matrix live in a paradise and are unaware of the poor state of the rest of the people. These two groups represent an upper and lower class in a society (most likely America) that lives totally seperatly from the other. The lower class is divided on the idea of weather they should except their sate or fight it as well. The machines play the obvious role of the governing body, to exercise control and authority. They attempt to destroy the people by travelling deep into the core of the city and erradicating all life. Neo, of course, is the voice of the people, stading up against opression. Their is one last character: the architect behind the Matrix. His role is probably the most obvious. This man acts as a God responsible for the peaceful exceptance of a way of life. Religion is the opiate of the masses. In his conversations with Neo, he also points out that the matrix has been redesigned several times becasue of failures and that eachtime, Zion (a biblical title) was destroyed. This exemplifies the emmense power of God for he can start and end life when ever he choses. Choice plays anoter important role in the film. God tells Neo he has no choice, but he stills feels that he does, thus introducing the concept of fate. Fate can be interpreted and applied many different ways over the film and I will spare you those connections for now.
Next i get to the action in the film and I'll keep this brief so i don't spoil anything. Overall, there is to much repetition, the fights go on too long and there are too many "computer" fights, and not enough "wire" fights. (Though this last point sounds insignificant, it takes away large amounts of credibilty). With all of that said, most of the fighting is pretty sweet.
Storm (2002)
Worth seeing, even if you don't like skiing.
I haven't seen many ski films before, but a family friend showed up recently with the latest Warren Miller flik. I'd heard the name, but could associate it with any work. The movie is still in theaters touring the country, but this friend has a few connections so I got and early release copy of the DVD. So we sat down to watch it and i honestly didn't know what to expect...
The opening sequence gives a taste of severl sports and sets the mood for the rest of the film. In addition to the skateboarding, mountain/street biking and a little bit of backpacking there are many skiing and snowboarding segments. But the part that excited me the most was that the skiing wasn't only the normal straight edge type where olympians simply go down crazy steep slopes. With the exception of Glen PLake, all the athlete are very young and many of the areas they use and tricks they pull are new. One piece ventures into cities where the charaters ski on stone, metal and wooden rails, catch big air and even jump of comercial roads. Later camera crew and four athletes venture to South Georgia (an island 800 miles East of the falklands) where they spend several weeks backpacking, skiing, boarding, respectfully engaging the local wildlife and even surfing.
Becasue of the documentary style, there is no plot to speak of, but it shows a side of free riding that I was unaware of. The filming is respectable with several rather impressive and defamiliarized shots. I was surprised to see that the film wasn't just a bunch of sweet moves pasted together with a cheesy hard core sound track, but an insightful look and young, upcoming athletes and the history of many well known American ski resorts.
(7/10)
Minority Report (2002)
Fun to watch, but too many plot holes.
* * * Contains Spoilers * * *
The trailer for this movie got me very excited about seeing it not only becasue of the way the plot appealed to me, but also because it was the latest Steven Speilberg project. I could barely stand still in line opening weeknd when I was at the theater. And before I knew it, the movie was over and i was throughly satisfied. So of course, my next move was to promptly add it to my Christmas lis for this year, unable to wait to see it again. So i opened it up christmas morning and, wasting no time, watched it again. And although I was annoied at the time that I had to wait so long, retrospectivly it allowed me to watch it for the first time again. And that was when plot holes started to jump out and hit me in the face. The inconsistant abilities of the "precogs" is bothering. Why could he pull the bandages off his eyes after only 6 hours and not go blind? Why did that man he put in jail bother to help him at all? How are the two murders of Anne Lively so similar that no one noticed? How are the "precogs" unaware of people when one grabs Anderton and speeks to him? And the biggest one: Why did Burgess set him up in the first place? But despite my uncertanties and some inaccuracies, the movie is fun to watch and his decent cinematography.
The chase through the assembly factory is spectacular and I think the the concept for that "pulse gun" is great. The sequence with Anderton jumping from car to car is also great. Some of the shooting is also nice. At one point Anderton and Agatha embrace while speaking to eachother and the heads face opposite directions and it's very dynamic. And the shot when Burgess shoots Danny in the head is also quite artful. As for the acting: not terrible, but nothing to write home about. Collin Farrel is a little weak at times, but what can you expect for some one up against a heavy weight like Tom Cruise?
Over all, I think I gave it six or seven or something like that becasue of major holes yet still quite entertaining.
The Boondock Saints (1999)
I bet you're wondering why no one has heard of this movie...
I was wondering the same thing when I first heard the title. I like to consider my self a fairly knowledgeable movie goer and was shocked when i saw The Boondock Saints because I had never heard of it and it was so good. I thought of possible reasons of why the film had never been heard of and the first thing that came to mind was that it was a box office flop. I had trouble believing this because i enjoyed it so much, but I checked on it anyway. It turns out that The Boon Dock Saints was released only a few months after the Columbine school shooting. Unfortuneatly for the people behind it's making, it did end up flopping becasue no one wanted to watch a movie about people judging evil and taking action against it in their own hands.
Although the movie title sounds religious and the brothers to get their orders from God, most of the religious references are very subtle. For example: toward the end Rocco looses a finger in a gun fight. After he is captured, the matching finger on his opposite hand his shot off as a form of torture. He is swetty and terrified at the time and he has long, brown, unkempt hair. His appearence and the fact that he has matching wounds on both his hands make him seem a lot like Jesus. Shortly after he looses his second finger, he is shot and killed. The two borthers feel guilty for this becasue they are the reason he was killed...almost like he was dying for their sins. The movie is filled with other small biblical references like this one. I recommend seeing this and I hope you all enjoy.
Pitch Black (2000)
Rock on with your badness!!
I am a big fan of movies all together and and I especially like those cheesy action/sci-fi movies full of errors and bad acting. And that is exactly what I had in mind for Pitch Black when i bought it at Best Buy. I had never seen but I figured that i knew what i was in for when I saw that it only cost $9.99. So I picked up a copy, dragged it home, and thoroughly enjoyed the next hour and forty minutes. The beginning is a little thin and extremely circumstantial, but it is easy to get past that because with out it there would be no movie. Despite periodic inacuracies with lighting, the rest of the film works well and is consistant. Vin Diesel's acting is not terrible and he is one bad mofo too. The movie is loads of fun and is coolness at it's best!