Movie: Limitless (3/5 stars) (2011)

Limitless is a soft sci-fi/action/thriller movie starring Bradley Cooper as Eddie Morra, an aspiring writer who is, to be blunt, a complete loser. He happens across an old acquaintance who happens to be a drug dealer dealing in the perfect drug. NZT doesn't get you high, just focuses the mind, clears your thoughts and gives you all the motivation you need to get things done.


I've been following Bradley Cooper since his Alias days, and thought that he was perfect for this role - he looked like a loser and cleaned up into a believable winner with all the answers and the confidence and charisma to win anyone over. Along with Cooper, there were supporting roles by the lovely Abby Cornish playing Eddie's girlfriend and veteran Robert De Niro playing a rich and powerful boss. Both did solid jobs with their roles.

This is a fun movie, and covers one of my own fantasies... what would you do if you were the smartest person on earth ("A 4 digit IQ") and could figure out any problem? It appeals to me for that reason and the does a decent job at tackling that question - super-intelligence and the world being against you. However, it suffers from the lack of a real, challenging opponent for Cooper's character as well as a plot hole you could drive a truck through that I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

I now feel like re-watching Phenomenon with John Travoltra.

Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (4/5 stars) (2010)

If there was a Harry Potter book that could have used some editing, #7, "The Deathly Hallows" was it. The last thing I wanted to hear was that they were splitting it into two movies. That was such a money grubbing move from JK Rowling and Warner Brothers. Hold on to the cash cow just a few months longer! We can make another $400M!

That gripe aside, I liked the movie. It has its flaws, patchy pacing issues (just like the book's 200 pages of Harry, Hemione and Ron in the forest hiding out and trying to figure things out), some questionable acting and some random departures from the book, however, it's HARRY POTTER!!

While there are pacing problems, 200 pages of the book translates into half an hour in the movie, during which, pretty interesting things happen and I'm entertained. I won't be lining up to see this again, but it was a good time at the movies.

To talk from a neutral position, my wife, who hasn't read the books, didn't mind the last book beingsplit in half - it was exactly like another book, which was fine.

If I were to rate this movie against the others , it was in the middle of the pack somewhere. I would say that it was the most like the book of all the movies and I liked it as much as I liked the book, maybe a little more, unlike "The Goblet of Fire", which was my favourite book and one of the least favourite movies, and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", my least favourite book (why does the rat stay with the Weasleys for TEN YEARS!!!), but one of my favourite movies - different stresses I guess.

Movie: Salt (2/5 stars) (2010)

Get ready for Jasina Bourne, except not as good as Jason.

This is a run-of-the-mill action/spy movie staring Angelina Jolie as Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent with a mysterious past. It was gimmicky action, with attempts at doing what no other movie had done, something that's become cliche in its attempt to avoid cliches. The worst was Salt using a taser to make someone press the gas pedal on a police car - it was just too ridiculous to keep a viewer watching without rolling their eyes.

I really have nothing more to say about this one. It's just not worth your time. I am glad that I saw it on cheap night, otherwise, I would have felt ripped off completely.

Movie: Inception (3.5/5 stars) (2010)

On the way back from my recent holiday in Canada, schedules didn't work and I ended up with 2 days in Los Angeles. I watched Inception in Santa Monica at a crappy little theater called the Santa Monica 7. Pretty much any Wellington theater is better. The seats had almost no incline and we were hoping (against hope apparently) that no tall people would end up sitting in front of us.

Enough about the theater itself, on to the movie.

There is lots that is great about the movie. The concept, people stealing ideas in shared dreams, is immediately interesting to a science fiction fan. I liked the action scenes, the special effects (especially the weightless scene - very cool), and almost all the characters. My favorite scene has to be the kick, kick, kick sequence which I will say no more about.

Leonardo DiCaprio is consistently good. I know he gets labeled as a bad actor, since he is a teen heart throb and ends up in Hollywood blockbusters regularly, but he has starred in a string of good movies that are all worth watching (Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road, Body of Lies, Blood Diamond, The Departed and The Aviator to go back only 6 years). His body of work is solid and I will watch anything he stars in.

Ellen Page , on the other hand, has a reputation of being a great up-and-comer. I love that she's from Halifax, where I lived more than 10 years, but I don't get the big fuss over her. She's good, but I find that she is a little off in most of her movies (there are LOTS) and I can't quite put my finger on it. Still - she's today's superstar and ended up in this movie.

All the other main actors do their job well. The directing is good - it tells the story clearly and simply (despite the many twists and turns and the levels of dreams).

The problem for me was the writing. I've written a lot of first drafts. I know what a first draft feels like and there is lots in this movie that feels like a first draft. It seems that Leonardo DiCaprio's character Cobb is the only person who knows everything about dreams and when something surprising happens, Leo throws out another gotcha that no one else knew about. These are just rough edges that could have been smoother, and it feels like the dream "physics" was just made up on the spot and never revised or made consistent. It's a slap in the face since it happens so often in the middle of the action and is no where near as clean as everything else in the movie.

It could have been The Matrix all over again. It tries to be, but fails. Too bad - I would have loved another Matrix.

Movie: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (3.5/5) (2009)

If you haven't heard of this movie or the novel, then you've probably been living under a rock for the last two years. It's new to DVD, and we rented it last night.

I wasn't sure what to expect, since I'd never read the novel. I knew there was a female hacker with a dragon tattoo and that's about it. AND - just so you know, it's not a cute, little tattoo of Mushu from Disney's Mulan, it's a honking, huge, evil looking dragon tattoo that covers her whole back.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was simple and didn't try to over reach itself. There was no pretension, just a nice, simple mystery movie that was interesting the entire way through. The fact that it was in Swedish didn't hurt it at all, and I really loved comparing the Swedish to the English subtitles and noticing how similar many of the sounds were. There are several sentences that are identical ("Are you ok?") and lots of nearly identical words that added a positive dimension to the movie.

Mikael Blomkvist is hired by a rich businessman named Martin Vanger to solve a 40 year old murder. Vanger's favorite niece Harriet, who he loved like a daughter disappeared in 1966 and he wants to know what happened to her. He isn't really expecting results, but wants someone working on it who won't give up.

Mikael doesn't know it at first, but the title character Lisbeth Salander takes an interest in his case after hacking his computer for another job. Lisbeth is by far the most interesting character and comes from a dark and sordid background. She is 24 years old and still has a guardian assigned by the state for some reason. Eventually, Mikael and Lisbeth track various tenuous leads and get pulled into a mystery bigger than either imagined.

The movie taught me quite a lot about storytelling. Since I've been writing my own novels, I pay close attention to how movies and novels progress their stories. The main thing it taught me is that motivations for your villains is a nice to have, but not 100% necessary. You can just have them just being evil with almost no explanation - the success of the book and movie are proof of this. Another lesson that I've already learned from Taken with Liam Neeson - if you make the villains evil enough, your hero can do whatever they want to them and you will feel absolutely no sympathy.

Movie: "I Am Legend" (3.5/5 stars) 2007

A good, solid action movie about he end of the world where a cure for cancer turns the population into a bunch of sunlight hating vampires.

Enter Robert Neville (played by Will Smith), a doctor working on a cure, all alone in Manhattan, hunting vampires by day, holed up in his house by night.

It successfully gives you a sense of loneliness and what it does to you, and idea what a completely lonely man does with his time and has some really cool action scenes.

In the end, a little too Hollywood for me though.

Movie: Little Children (4/5 stars) 2006

We just got this out on DVD. I had no expectations at all with it.

I loved the movie and thought that it was an absolutely excellent film with strong characters with believable motives and actions.

Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson and Jennifer Connelly star in an intense movie about what lonely and controlled people do when their life just isn't going the right way.

The movie built up so much, that I was actually nervous about how it might go, how these characters who I really cared about and had a vested interest in might be hurt or humiliated. It was torture in the last few minutes.

Any movie that can do that to me deserves my praise. A simply excellent movie.

movie: "Pan's Labyrinth" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

A gorgeous movie, it is subtitled throughout in Spanish. I read the subtitles as quickly as possible so I could get back to the stunning visuals.

A fairy tale set in a horrific location at the end of WWII, we see a little girl, Ofelia (played by Ivana Baquero) struggling with two challenges. One is her new life; her mother has married a man (Sergi López) after her father's death, and she tries to understand her new life and this new man. The 2nd, is the magic world of faeries and the underworld. She meets a magical faun in the labyrinth near her new home who tells her she's a missing princess from the underworld and has to prove herself so she can return.

Ofilia's magical quests and the violent, war-time setting resonate making each all the more real.

Guillermo del Toro, the director, is a genius who achieves his vision with incredible clarity.

With recent movies adding to world mediocrity, this one stands out as a bright, shining star. I can't recommend it enough.

movie: "The Last King of Scotland" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

An amazing movie from beginning to end. I love, love, loved this movie.

The only SLIGHT detriment to the movie is that is felt real, but it ended up being fiction. In the end, I thought if they could make it feel that real, I could hardly fault the writers.

Forest Whitaker and James McAvoy pull off excellent performances and the movie kept my interest though every second.

Run to the rental store for this - it is awesome.

Movie: "The Fantastic Four - The Rise of the Silver Surfer" (1.5 stars) 2007

I love comics, and there have been a few good adaptation for the screen - this was NOT one of them.

I thought the first Fantastic Four movie was ok, and this had it's moments, but the ending was SO, SO, SO bad, that it completely ruined the rest of the movie.

And what is it with Jessica Alba in this movie? For one of the hottest women on the planet, she was just weird looking. Maybe it's the bad fake blond hair, or maybe it was the strange blue contact lenses, but when you have a beautiful girl in your movie, why make her up until she looks fake? It was off-putting.

Still - Jessica Alba's looks aside, the movie's climax was stupidity incarnate! The only stars that I have are for the rest of the movie - the funny bits and a few of the special effects. Still - nothing great.

SPOILER WARNING

Please read no further if you haven't seen this movie and want to watch it. I am about to give away the ending and it would be bad if you don't want to know!

In the end, the Silver Surfer stands up to his master Galactus and takes him out in some giant cosmic explosion (that doesn't destroy the earth that is right next to it!).

If the Silver Surfer is so noble and is willing to sacrifice himself to destroy his master, why didn't he do it before he destroyed so many other planets? I think they mentioned that 8 other planets had been destroyed before he got to earth. That's just dumb! Stupid!

That by itself if dumb, however, it gets even dumber when you know more about the original stories. Of course, the Silver Surfer is noble and pure, and he has tried to stand up to his master before. However, since Galactus has given the surfer his power, he can easily take it away. He can't lose to the surfer. This just doubled up the dumbness from the already dumb ending.

Movie: "The Squid and the Whale" (4/5 stars) 2005

Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Owen Kline, Jesse Eisenberg, Anna Paquin and William Baldwin star in "The Squid and the Whale" , a quirky story about a dysfunctional family and their love interests in the throws of an unfriendly divorce.

Hyper realistic with solid performances and fantastic dialog all the way around , we see Bernard Berkman (Jeff Daniels' character) as a washed up writer teaching at a local college who becomes jealous when his wife Joan (Laura Linney) sells a novel while he struggles.

While well meaning, these parents are so far from capable of insulating their kids from the divorce that the two children (Owen Kline and Jesse Eisenberg) are completely unable to cope. They act out in the most inappropriate, but still understandable ways.

I have to say, Bernard Berkman (Bernard is the perfect name, as it's repeated often and is almost a character of its own) is one of the superbly written characters in cinema history, as the pseudo-intellectual who is just not that smart. He so wants to be, but just can't reach the top shelf and judges everyone but himself. His son Walt (played by Jesse Eisenberg) is following in his footsteps, but barely even managing to mimic his father.

A real sleeper of a movie that I enjoyed tremendously.

Movie: "Enduring Love" (3/5 stars)

Our new Bond boy (Daniel Craig) plays a philosopher in this unusual drama about an intense experience and how personalized everyone's experience is as they walk away from it.

Four strangers are brought together when a hot air balloon goes awry, and while trying to save the occupant, one of them falls to his death.

The survivors wonder if they did the right thing, "who let go first" and lots of second guessing. At the same time, Daniel Craig's character has a new stalker, one of the other survivors believes that something has passed between them, but won't tell him what. "You know!", he says.

This movie is interesting, and completely unpredictable, but in the end, doesn't really know if it's a drama or a thriller. I liked it, but not much.

Movie: Spiderman 3 (1.5/5 stars) 2007

The worst of the Spiderman movies for me.

They emphasized the nerdy nature of Peter Parker, when they didn't really before. They showed how little the relationship between Mary Jane and Peter had grown or changed. They emphasized the lame soppy speeches from Aunt May. The CG was SO overused, it was turned into a cartoon. The attempt at making the Sandman a sympathetic character was so weak as to be laughable... every time he had the opportunity to kill Spiderman, he took it without hesitating, yet he was so sorry he'd killed Uncle Ben. Please!

For a huge Spiderman fan, this is a disappointment. I would say that unless you are a big fan yourself, you can certainly wait until the DVD release.

Funny, this was THE most expensive movie of all time to make, on the order of $300 Million. While watching the movie, I kept seeing things that could have been removed, made the movie cheaper and not affected the story at all.

By far the best scenes in the movie were centered around J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) who was at his humorous best!

movie: "Eragon" (2/5 stars) 2006

Eragon is a kid's fantasy movie based on the popular book by Christopher Paolini.

I thought that the movie was ok, but affected strongly by a large number of continuity errors. The person responsible for continuity was either fired, or incompetent. Is it day time or dark outside? Is it raining or sunny? Does that dragon armor have eye holes or not? Was it REALLY 4 days ride in the opposite direction?

All of your questions will be disappointingly answered in this weak fantasy movie that does nothing for the genre and will end up in the cheap bin shortly beside "Ladyhawke" and "Dungeons and Dragons", which is too bad, since it could have been really good.

Notable guest appearances include Jeremy Irons as the mentor, Robert Carlyle as the very scary evil wizard (best character), the overacting John Malkovich as the unfortunately named Galbatorix (they said the name far too often - his dragon looks cool though) and the voice of Rachel Weisz as Saphira, the good dragon. None of these actors help the movie past a 2 star rating though.

I feel bad about it, since it is a rich genre with lots of potential, as Peter Jackson showed with Lord of the Rings.

Movie: "Pathfinder" (1.5/5) 2007

Saw this at the theater today.

Below average film that could have been so much better.

Premise: Viking ship crashes in North America 500 years before Columbus. A Viking boy is the only survivour and is taken in by the natives.

Jump ahead 15 years, and the boy has grown into Karl Urban, kiwi mega-hunk. Now, the Vikings have returned and they aren't there for tea and crumpets. Urban has no problem carrying the role. He's got loads of presence, and I see lots of leading roles for him in the future.

The main problem is that the direction is muddled and hard to follow. Not enough time was spent on the action sequences and choreography, so there are only quick flashes of sequences that are blurry and indistinct.

Of course, the direction is just one of the strange decisions from the film makers.

- The colour scheme is bordering on black and white, but with bright colour every once in a while; the scenes with colour weren't important or significant, and the choices seemed somewhat random (maybe trying to ride on the success of films like "Sin City"?).
- There were all kinds of strange anachronisms, like stairs in a native village (believe me - never happened - it's like finding a samurai sword there)
- Rituals were thrown in from lots of different Indian tribes that had nothing to do with the one they were dealing with in the movie, and even some Indian rituals and practices given to the Vikings - very odd.

While a film like Apocalypto put significant effort into being historically accurate, it felt very much like they didn't want to bother in Pathfinder. It comes through strongly in look and feel.

Movie: "Casino Royale" (4/5 Stars) 2006

Best Bond film ever. Nothing silly, no missles being launched from cars, ejection seats, evil genius hideouts and so on. High on action, well executed, fun to watch (often painful looking) - what other Bond films should be.

If you like Bond movies, I don't know if you'll like this, it's significantly different from the last 4 or 5, which were, in my opinion, Hollywood fluff and written by committee.

If you don't like Bond, but like other action movies, then give this a go - it's high octane spy action.

I'm still not crazy for Daniel Craig - he's a good Bond, but has this silly little pout he does - as far as Bond girls - Eva Green is exotic ou la la! I've been a fan since I saw "Kingdom of Heaven".

Review of recent movies - April, 2007

I've gotten a little behind on my movie reviews - I've seen a few in the last 2 months and have not kept up:

Recent good movies (4+ stars):
300 (****1/2) - reviewed here.

Recent Ok movies (3-4 stars)
Monster House (***) - funny animated movie about the neighbour's animated house.
Ice Age II (***1/2) - better than the first - lots of funny bits
The Departed (***) - could have been better without 1 scene
The Illusionist (***) - good in many ways, but the ending was too easy, and was baby fed to the audience
Children of Men (***) - great concept, good actors and sets - pacing and story let it down
Rozencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead (***) - had some hilarious pieces (the question game), but is dependent on how well you know Hamlet - great if you do
Wedding Crashers (***1/2) - much funnier than expected. Liked it all the way through - a character in a suicidal mood was reading a book called "Don't Jump"
Naked State (***1/2) - ended up being an excellent documentary about an artist taking photos of large groups of naked people - the photos are amazing.
The Dark (***) - Had all the stereotypical creepy stuff - pretty well done
The Most Fertile Man in Ireland (***) - Some amusement - only ok though

Recent Bad movies (less than 3 stars):
Babel (**) - Acting, directing, production value, writing, all awesome, but the scenes don't belong all in the same movie. It was distracting. AND, there was a strobe scene that went on FOREVER!
Half Light (**) - dull Demi Moore comeback movie. Not worth it.
The Wicker Man (**) - Nicolas Cage in a somewhat unpredictable, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller
Beowulf & Grendle (*) - complete pants! Despite liking Gerard Butler, nothing saves this completely lame adaptation of the classic epic.
I Love Your Work (*1/2) - Weirdness. Giovanni Ribisi plays a superstar actor caught in a decadent life, however, you're never sure what is actually happening, as the flashbacks and side scenes blend together with a confused main character imagining his life differently and his past... I don't recommend it.

Movie: "300" (4.5/5 stars) 2006

A !MANLY! romp of a movie with a wall of indestructible Spartans meeting an army of a million Persians bent on capturing all of Greece.

I thought that the initial trailer looked bloody awful and camp, but the campy scenes from the trailer actually fit nicely into the context of the movie. I ended up loving the movie - thought that it was a brilliant display of style and action with an excellent cast and some very exotic Persian excesses even as they march an army of a million people forward into Greece.

Things I loved:
cinematography, directing, cast, action sequences, comic book feel, the Persian army, tough lines from various Spartans

Things I didn't like:
The voice over at the beginning, the lame special effect of the oracle floating in mid-air (a total of 5 minutes of the movie)

I have to say, 20 or 30 Spartans turning around in sync with their shields and spears all ready was very cool.

I know there is probably a mile of critics who will pick on the inaccuracies of the historical content and the actual Battle of Thermopylae but I know it's based on a comic, and the comic took great liberties so I can ignore that problem and just sit back and enjoy.

It isn't for everyone, and I think that there will be many polarized critics either loving it or hating it. I am firmly in the "love it" camp and will certainly be seeing it again, probably in the theatre.

movie: "An Inconvenient Truth" (5/5) 2006

I've been incredibly slow with this blog entry and have had it in "draft" for weeks. Time to finish it while I'm procrastinating on my Kiwiwriters Easter Writing Challenge.

Al Gore has been an environmental proponent for decades. This isn't a recent phenomenon for him. He's done what he calls his slideshow at least a thousand times.

During and after the movie I was both appalled and worried. I know many people who will avoid this movie simply because it is scary and who wants to watch a movie to be scared of the big bad outside world, after all, movies are about escape. Right?

Please, please, please don't do that with this movie. This is information everyone must know. If this helps you change one thing about your life that means you are more of an activist, then we are one step closer to solving the problems.

All the technology we need to solve this issue is available now, but governments are slow to react and legislate its use now, things are changing faster than predicted and everyone can contribute to the solution.

I beg you to take a look at this movie and listen to what Al Gore has to say. It's worth listening to!

Movie: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1/5 stars) 1964

This is one of those movies you always plan to see but never do.

I see why now. It just was not my thing, i.e. well made, well written cinema.

I don't quite see why it's the classic that is #19 on imdb's top 250 list. It's next to good movies, there are good movies before and after it, but I don't think it is a good movie.

I think everyone thinking back remembers the few good lines in the movie, specifically, "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"... I can't remember any of the other ones, although I vaguely remember that there were more.

Peter Sellers and George C. Scott are good, but are sitting in the middle of something even they can't save. Sorry, but I have to give a thumbs down to a 'classic'. I think the pressure is always why this movie consistently ranks high on people's lists - they think they may have missed something and come out looking stupid. Fair enough... I suppose I could give it a 1.5/5 - nah!