shiftyeyeddog Reviews

The Spirit (2008)

WORST film of 2008 - a flop of epic proportions

[1/10 · 25 April 2009]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new winner for WORST film of 2008.

Where to start? The look? It's easy to compare its style to Sin City based on its spot-color, cgi-background visuals. But it didn't work for that movie, and it's even less worthwhile here. Between the annoying look and the HORRIBLE writing, I don't know if they worked in the graphic novel, but it damn sure don't here. There is such a thing as too faithful to source material. The acting? A new low for every actor involved, especially Scarlett Johannson - she never could act, but is worse here than ever. I have to think that every actor in it looks at the finished film and is simply embarrassed. But the worst of the worst here - the biggest share of the blame - is writer/director Frank Miller. He manages to fail at every imaginable aspect of the film. Stick to the comic medium, Frank. You're first directorial effort is officially a steaming pile of crap and a disaster of epic proportions.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Making a direct sequel was the biggest mistake.

[6/10 · 14 November 2008]

Making a direct sequel to Casino Royale was the biggest mistake. Bond has never had them, and Ian Fleming didn't write it. Why mess with a proved formula? But they did, and the result is one of the more mediocre Bond films in recent years, and one that feels short and somewhat unsatisfying.

Quantum of Solace is a curious thing. All the pieces are there, but it simply never feels like James Bond. The villain is bland and unthreatening. The women are bland. And aside from one or two decent sequences, even much of the ACTION often feels hollow. ...and it doesn't help that Bond himself mopes his way through the entire film.

Marc Forster, director of "Monster's Ball", "Finding Neverland", and the UNWATCHABLE "Stay", just doesn't know how to handle action, and he tries to make up for it with chaos. But while some movies like the Bourne series use the so-called "shaky-cam" style effectively, Forster's is closer to the "what the hell is going on" version seen in films like Transformers. No, Forster is usually more at home with angsty, conflicted character pieces, but even the characters aren't particularly satisfying.

I do love Daniel Craig as Bond, and he does his best here, but it's no Casino Royale. And while defenders say "this is just like the second part of Royale", that doesn't excuse its deficiencies; it only supports the idea that they'd be better off sticking to stand-alone stories and getting back to the Bond we know and love.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

I am BAFFLED by the negative reviews. This is the film the prequels SHOULD have been!

[9/10 · 15 August 2008]

I had a bad feeling about this...

The reviews going in were overwhelmingly negative. The movie started, and it just felt odd to see the WB logo instead of 20th Century Fox. Then the strange altered Star Wars main title theme. Then in place of the traditional opening crawl of text, we get a visual synopsis of what's going on, complete with a voice-over straight out of WWII newsreels. But then the strangest thing happened: I absolutely LOVED this movie! This is the movie the first two prequels SHOULD have been. It's exciting, fast-paced, and feels perfectly in line with the spirit and fun of the original trilogy. I have to wonder if George Lucas was far more hands-off on this and let others have the majority of the control over writing, directing, etc., because it's a massive improvement over Lucas' recent efforts.

The animation itself is excellent. It's obviously going for a more stylistic look rather than trying for photorealism or Pixar-style perfection, and while I was wary at first (the faces and eyes for some reason remind me of "Team America"), I ended up really liking the style.

The musical score is done by Kevin Kiner, with only minimal use of the original themes by John Williams, and it is extraordinary. It sounds like a combination of Williams and Hans Zimmer, and to me that's like having a symphony jointly composed by Mozart and Beethoven. I actually stopped on the way home (at 11pm) to pick up the soundtrack. I can't even remember the last CD I bought, much less felt the need to get ASAP.

I am absolutely BAFFLED by the negative reviews this film is getting. I honestly don't know what flaws people are finding with it. Are they just jaded fans who feel betrayed by the prequel trilogy? I'm hearing people say this is the last straw - the nail in the coffin that's making them finally close the door on Star Wars for good. They say it doesn't even "feel" like Star Wars. Did we see the same movie? I could not feel more differently. After the prequels, though having their moments, tarnished the saga and even somewhat diminished my devotion for the originals, Clone Wars has completely restored my faith and excitement in the series. If they can keep this up, we're in for a long run of great stories.

I liked the Clone Wars (non-CG) cartoons that aired on Cartoon Network, but they absolutely pale in comparison to this new project. I cannot wait for the series to begin. This level of story, animation, action and fun on a weekly basis? I've never been so excited for a TV series

Pineapple Express (2008)

The Weakest of the Apatow Gang Films

[4/10 · 14 August 2008]

Easily the weakest of the movies from the Apatow gang. Seth Rogen and James Franco both do fine jobs at portraying their characters, but this one just fails in the writing. The movie is actually quite dull, and all but the two main characters are fairly lame. The story is simply not engaging and individual scenes aren't even funny on their own. And what is the deal with Danny McBride?!? He's not the slightest bit funny, but suddenly he's getting all these featured roles. Let's hope he disappears as fast he appeared on the scene.

Maybe it's funny if you watch it while high yourself. But for the rest of us, it's just humorless and boring.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Quite Disappointing... and Tom Cruise is HORRIBLE

[5/10 · 14 August 2008]

So much unrealized potential. It's a funny concept, and it has its moments, but is ultimately disappointing. A much-hyped gathering of an all-star list of actors, yet of the 3 major players, only Robert Downey Jr turns in a performance worth watching. Surprisingly, one of the strongest in the bunch was supporting player Jay Baruchel. Danny McBride manages to not be funny now for the second time this month after Pineapple Express. Why are they trying to make this guy a star?

Then there's Tom. Tom Cruise's role here would not have even been amusing as a cameo, but they go even further and stretch it out into an entire supporting role, and in all his scenes, he fails to elicit even a single chuckle. To top it off, he is featured in a pointless scene at the very end and over the credits that was so annoying and unfunny it was almost enough to make me dock its rating another whole star.

Starman (1984)

Blatant E.T. rip-off with minor alterations

[4/10 · 13 August 2008]

Guess the movie: Alien gets stranded on Earth, is dying, and must reach rendezvous or be stuck on Earth. Alien forms special bond with first human contact and has healing powers. Government agents in pursuit except for one who befriends them. In the end everyone watches as he says goodbye to his human friend and goes home. E.T.? No, This is Starman!

A blatant E.T. rip-off, just altered for an older audience and the alien takes human form. Oh yeah, and with drastically inferior acting, directing, score... everything. Why do I even try to watch John Carpenter movies? I keep thinking, "maybe this one will be the one I enjoy, and I'll understand why people like this guy (and why decent actors will work for him)," yet every time I just get burned again. Starman was no different.

I thought the always-reliable Jeff Bridges would be enough to make it good, yet he turns in one of the worst performances of his career under Carpenter's direction. Then I see he got an Oscar nomination for this??!? Wow, must have been slim pickings that year.

Doomsday (I) (2008)

Fun Hardcore Action... but slightly incoherent

[6/10 · 31 July 2008]

This may be the biggest budget fan film of all time. Sure, much has been made of all its admitted "homages" to other films, but essentially this whole film is just a series of copycat scenes strung together - Escape from New York, The Road Warrior, Gladiator,The Warriors... hell, they even have a guy head-to-toe in leather who is called "The Gimp". Almost every scene can be directly traced to another film.

Originality (and coherence) aside, it's a fun action flick. It's not afraid to go all-out with its hardcore action and gore, and the stunts are predominantly non-CGI. The story itself is okay, but the movie can't seem to decide its tone, shifting greatly about every 30 minutes. The biggest drawback may very well be its lead actress, Rhona Mitra. They successfully portray her character as a skilled, bad-ass soldier, but she is quite wooden as an actress, and sports one facial expression through the entire film (Not to mention many shots of her suggest the filmmakers seem to think she's way hotter than she is).

..as for that ending: PLEASE tell me they aren't going to try to make more of these. As a single film, it's a decent adventure, but I don't see it sustaining more than one.

One last note: It's a little odd seeing Adrian Lester playing another of the soldiers. I watched him just last week in the Shakespeare comedy As You Like It, and am more used to seeing him in things like Primary Colors or the series Hustle.

Taken (I) (2008)

Best (non-superhero) action flick of the year

[9/10 · 27 July 2008]

Liam Neeson: Bad-Ass?? Hell yeah he is. Believe it or not, Neeson stars in the best (non-superhero) action movie of the year. This movie was the out-of-nowhere surprise of the year I've been hoping for.

As an ex-government agent out to find and rescue his kidnapped daughter, Neeson's character is like Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer combined, except that this guy could take either of those two down in a heartbeat. He's skilled, intense, and won't hesitate to take down anyone who stands between him and his daughter.

This film opens in the U.S. in September, and it's a shame that it is getting virtually no promotion. Neeson isn't the biggest box office draw, much less as an action star, but I urge everyone out there to give this a chance. It's a thrilling action/drama that truly impressed me, and it's full of moments that make your jaw drop, make you cheer, and make you yell, "Daaaaaaamn!"

The Dark Knight (2008)

Let's be honest - They should just call this movie "The Joker"

[8/10 · 18 July 2008]

Let's get this out of the way right off the top: Heath Ledger is nothing short of amazing in this film. ** Heath Ledger's Joker makes Jack Nicholson's Joker look like Cesar Romero's Joker. ** Less cartoony and far more menacing, this Joker actually feels dangerous. Every moment he's on screen your eyes are simply glued there, just soaking in this iconic performance. His look, his mannerisms, his voice... they all come together to make the perfect Joker, and probably the best villain ever seen on screen in a superhero movie... or any movie, for that matter. It's really quite a shame Ledger passed away, as I would love to have seen him portray that character again and again.

Does the rest of the movie match this level of excellence? Well, not entirely... It's got plenty of action, just enough humor, and a good script for the most part, but there are a couple minor things that bothered me slightly:

If they have to recast Rachel Dawes, fine, but Maggie Gyllenhal is a big step down; Bale's gruff "Batman" voice still sounds a little over-the-top and almost humorous at times; and the movie takes a few unnecessary turns, especially towards the end. Much off this is due to the involvement of "Two-Face." This film didn't need a second villain. His time on screen does nothing but make the audience wish they'd hurry up and get back to the REAL villain. I've never cared for the character, and I suppose it's good they didn't wait to try to use him as the sole foe in a future film, but he simply didn't do anything for me. Aside from those aspects, however, it's difficult to find much to criticize in this movie.

I struggled greatly with the rating for this one, as without The Joker, the rest would only have made for another above-average film like Batman Begins. But Ledger's Joker is undeniably the star of this show, and based on that performance alone, I spot it the higher rating. Forget The Dark Knight - they should just call this The Joker. Ledger simply OWNS this film.

In Bruges (2008)

Much Better than I Expected

[8/10 · 15 July 2008]

Another case of failed marketing. The trailer for this film did nothing to interest me, but I finally saw it based on a glowing recommendation. I'm glad I did.

The film is at times alternately laugh-out-loud funny and touchingly dramatic. Its success hinges greatly on the performance and chemistry of its two leads, Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, and both do phenomenal jobs (especially Farrell) helped by a witty script by Martin McDonagh. It had a very "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" feel to it.

Colin Farrell's role is an excellent departure from his usual characters, this one odd, hilarious, and almost child-like. I would love to see him (and Brendan Gleeson) score Oscar nominations for their performances in this film... but they won't.

The Last Starfighter (1984)

Star Wars + Atari = blatant cash-in attempt

[4/10 · 15 July 2008]

What do you get when you decide to use CG effects before they're good enough to use? You get The Last Starfighter. Every time they go to a computer-created shot of a ship or planet, it's quite jarring - takes you right out of the film. Technology just wasn't up to where it needed to be yet.

The movie felt like a giant cash-in attempt, trying to suck in kids based on both their love of video games and their love of Star Wars. That Star Wars envy is most obvious in the score. While decent music, you can hear the SW inspiration in almost every piece, and a few cues almost sound like direct copies.

24-year-old star Lance Guest LOOKS every bit of 24, though we're supposed to believe he and his friends are teenagers, getting ready to go off to college. But at least he's a passable actor, which is more than I can say for most of the supporting cast.

I think if I saw this as a kid, i might have enjoyed it (as I was one of those kids into video games and Star Wars), but I had never seen it until now; and as an adult, it's just another silly, mediocre Star Wars knockoff.

Mamma Mia! (2008)

Surprisingly Infectious Fun

[8/10 · 14 July 2008]

In my mind, this movie had a lot of negatives to overcome: Christine Baranski, Meryl Streep singing, a cast that didn't exactly scream "hit", ...the music of ABBA, for pete's sake! But as difficult as it is to say, I'll say it.... I am a heterosexual male, and I enjoyed Mamma Mia!

There's plenty to like - Amanda Seyfried's infectious joy (and beauty), the stunning Greek isle scenery, and yes, the music. It won me over practically from the start. The positives far outweighed the negatives - in fact, the negatives turned out not to be.

Abba's music never did much for me as pop songs, but in the context of a musical, they work quite well. There are a couple numbers I think could have been left out, specifically Baranski's "Does Your Mother Know" and Streep and Brosnan's "Winner Takes It All", but even those weren't bad. The singing is good pretty much across the board. Even the weakest singer, Pierce Brosnan, did a surprisingly good job. His voice has a certain Peter Gabriel quality to it (with a dash of Randy Newman).

For those friends of mine that refuse to see anything not considered a "manly" movie (and you know who you are), skip it. But for everyone else, take a chance on Mamma Mia. You may find yourself tapping your toes and smiling along.

The I Inside (2004)

Starts off great, then stumbles

[6/10 · 14 July 2008]

I've never liked the idea of test screenings. The changes they make just end up neutering a movie and making it "safe" for the general masses. But if ever a movie needed feedback to prompt a rewrite and alternate ending, this is it.

The first half of this movie is spectacular. It's atmospheric, tense, and confusing (in a good way). It kept you guessing the whole way. Much like Memento, it's an intelligent film that makes you watch closely and think. The story could have gone a number of directions.

...but the last half, it all falls apart. They start changing the "rules", the suspense gives way to straight storytelling, and the ending goes a completely different direction than it could have, and SHOULD have. It's not just that I didn't like the ending or that it didn't match my predictions. The problem is the truth is still unclear and viewers are left confused. Too much is left unexplained.

As it is, the film is wasted potential. A good story and a good movie, but one that could have been so much better with a different ending.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

A Hell of a Disappointment

[5/10 · 12 July 2008]

The GOOD: Prince Nuada and Princess Nuala, the character of Hellboy himself, and a couple of the one-on-one fights.

The BAD: Most of the supporting characters, the creature designs, and a lot of bad creature voice dubbing - especially in the dumb "young Hellboy" prologue that served as nothing but blatant exposition.

The UGLY: Selma Blair's acting, the drunk/singing scene, and the love stories (especially the LAUGHABLE Abe Sapien/Princess Nuala relationship)

Overall, I just found Hellboy II to be a step down from the first, and left me disappointed.

Funny Games (2007)

A pretentious film that is FAR from what it THINKS it is.

[2/10 · 11 July 2008]

What a complete pile of crap. A decent basic story concept, but written, directed, and filmed with complete ineptitude and lack of talent. The film thinks it's so smart - thinks it's so creative and stylish - thinks it's such a deep commentary - pretending its more mature and meaningful than any of the "torture porn" films of late. But no, it's just a terrible movie. It gets two stars only due to a decent cast.

...and to those who think i just don't "get it": I get it. I get what they THOUGHT they had to say. But knowing a film's intentions doesn't excuse it being a horribly-made pathetic waste of film.

Hancock (2008)

Great Concept, Flawed Execution

[7/10 · 5 July 2008]

Hancock is getting a lot of undeserved criticism. Is it a perfect film? No. But is it a mess, or even the massive disappointment it's been made out to be? Not at all.

Hancock is a movie that tries to tell too much story, and ends up telling too little. I've heard it said that this film feels like all setup (similar to my comments about Jumper). But I believe differently in this case. I think if it was hoped this character would continue in subsequent films, they should have kept this first film just the introduction of the character, with his down-and-out reluctant-hero attitude, and his transformation to a more positive image and attitude (with a new subplot/villain to make a complete film). The second film could have delved more into his origins and history and his encounters with and relationships to others with his power. Then from there, they could go anywhere they wanted. As it is, though, I hope this remains a stand-alone film with no sequels. It's a great concept (both his early film personality and his origins), I loved the cast, and the film was entertaining; but it has left itself nowhere to go from here without just being the typical superhero movie.

The film also feels very incomplete, like there was more to it - and from what I hear that's exactly the case. I'm very curious to see the inevitable (hopefully) director's cut of the film. Reportedly Peter Berg had to cut and alter quite a bit (it now runs barely 90 minutes) to get the desired PG-13 rating and the film the studio wanted - a safe family-friendly Will Smith summer flick. I think there's a good chance that in trying to increase the success of the film by mandating a PG13 film, they actually may have hurt its chances by neutering it.

Wanted (2008)

A fun actioner that suffers from being a Fight Club wanna-be

[7/10 · 27 June 2008]

Wanted WANTED to be Fight Club with guns. It WANTED to be The Matrix, without the actual Matrix. It WANTED to be Mr. & Mrs. Smith: The Single Years

But try as it might, it's not quite on par with those films. It has cool action, and plenty of it. The story is interesting enough as well. But when it tries to have some sort of message, that's where it stumbles.

From the very beginning, its Fight Club envy shows - the self-loathing of the humdrum, meaningless, comfortable life; the narration that is remarkably similar both in content and tone; the sudden appearance of a stranger who can break you free of this mediocrity and let you truly live through pain and violence... From there the story kicks into gear, and is quite enjoyable. It's just that first 10 minutes (and a snippet at the end) that are trying too hard to make the movie something it is not and be a social commentary.

The director has a flare for staging some crazy action, and creates some amazing visuals. Unfortunately, the movie, entertaining as it may be, is much emptier than than the film I suspect he thought it was. It's a case of style over substance, though not to the extent of, say, 300 - another movie that was great fun and had extraordinary visuals, but was light on substance.

What it is, is exactly what the trailers sold it as: a great over-the-top suspend-your-disbelief actioner in the spirit of things like Transporter and Crank. Leave your brain at the door and just enjoy it.

WALL·E (2008)

Charlie Chaplin, Pixar-style

[9/10 · 27 June 2008]

Animation, especially CG animation, has found its success largely through making things talk that normally don't - animals, toys, cars, etc. So it's ironic to find that one of Wall-E's greatest strengths is that is practically a silent movie.

There are sound effects and (very) limited dialogue, of course, but this very well COULD have been a silent movie, and you wouldn't have missed a thing. Wall-E is like a Charlie Chaplin movie brought into the 21st... well, actually, 28th century. It has a definite Chaplin "Little Tramp" feel to it.

What sound it does have is extraordinary. The score is probably the best of the year, though I swear I heard music cues from all kinds of other films, from Indiana Jones to Star Wars to composer Thomas Newman's own American Beauty. Ben Burtt, Lucasfilm soundman extraordinaire, crafts the beautiful sounds that carry the film, so it's fitting that he also gets to provide the voice of Wall-E himself. It's easy to overlook the contribution and the pure beauty of the sound, as well as the outstanding animation. We've come to just expect greatness from Pixar, plus it's so perfect, you just don't even notice the technical stuff.

At its heart, though, in spite of its technical achievements, this is THE love story of the year. Wall-E is simply a thing of beauty.

Get Smart (2008)

A mixed bag, but Carell and Hathaway carry the film

[6/10 · 20 June 2008]

I struggled on whether to give this film a slightly positive(6) or slightly negative(5) rating. Carell, Hathaway, Johnson, and Arkin all do a fine job and are quite enjoyable, but the writing is fairly lame in parts, and the rest of the supporting cast has major issues.

Steve Carell has shown with Dan in Real Life and Little Miss Sunshine that he can do some different roles - which is good, because when he does straight-up comedies he seems to play the same character every time. It is a very entertaining character, but he's in danger of being typecast. He and Anne Hathaway have a good chemistry here, and carry most of the movie fairly well. I wish Dwayne Johnson had more to do, as I find him quite entertaining, but his career is going in directions I'm not liking.

The inclusion of characters Bruce and Lloyd is the worst kind of shameless marketing. They exist here only to justify the release of a direct-to-DVD tie-in movie, "Bruce & Lloyd Out of Control", releasing only ELEVEN DAYS later. The film's lowest point is the completely pointless, humorless cameo by Bill Murray. What the hell was the point of that? Like the cast, the writing has its ups and downs as well. In the end, though, the appeal of the leads won out and I can give a reserved thumbs-up to the movie as a whole.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Marvel is on a roll

[7/10 · 13 June 2008]

The new Hulk is not quite as drastically different from the previous one as they'd have you believe in terms of being action-packed. The Hulk still shows up rather sparingly for the first 3/4 of the movie, then finally takes center stage for the extended climactic finale. Not that I think it should be any different - I just don't think this one piles on the action much more than the last, as has been said. That being said, this film is a huge improvement over the mess that was the last Hulk film. From the acting to the writing to the effects, this blows away Ang Lee's version. The CG is not bad, and I'm sure it's probably the best possible at this time, but still looks very artificial, especially faces and when interacting with real characters. But such is the nature of movies - suspension of disbelief.

The movie is pretty enjoyable, though, and chalks up another success for Marvel. If only the film rights to other characters like X-Men and Spider-Man would revert back to them so they can do them properly.

Regarding the cameos: I have no problem with other Marvel characters showing up in cameos in these films - why shouldn't they all exist in the same universe? But I'm getting a little tired of the rest of these wink-wink cameos - this time we get Stan Lee AGAIN (seriously, in one movie it was funny, after that it's just annoying) and TV Hulk Lou Ferrigno. Stunt casting like that really takes you out of the story, and you have to listen to everyone in the theater turn to their friend or kid and say "hey! that's _______!"

The Happening (2008)

Unintentionally hilarious

[2/10 · 13 June 2008]

Here I thought M. Night Shyamalan had finally made a movie I would like. The movie even started out very well, setting up a mysterious and interesting premise. But once they start tossing theories around, and acting on those ideas, the film becomes an unintentional comedy. Outrun the wind! Nature only hates us in groups larger than five!

The few moments of intended comedy are the least funny moments in the film, completely out of place and forced. Pointless subplots and relationship issues don't help the matter any. In the end, it's just a boring mess. As one critic stated, "The Happening is a movie to walk out of, sleep through, or - best of all - not to bother with"

Shyamalan's films have gotten progressively worse with each new one, and this is easily one of his worst, but I don't think I can call it worse than his Lady in the Water.

Kung Fu Panda (2008)

On par with Pixar's best

[9/10 · 13 June 2008]

One of the best animated films I've seen in a long while. Dreamworks is finally showing it can overcome the mediocrity of movies like Shrek, Bee Movie, and Madagascar, and put out a film that is not only fun, but shows excellence in animation as well. The CG animation easily stands up next to Pixar's work, and even the 2-D animated opening was beautifully done. I would've loved to see them even do the whole film in that style.

Plenty of laughs to be had for audiences of any age. A truly enjoyable movie and likely the best animated film we'll see this year. (Sorry, but Wall-E isn't doing anything for me so far)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

A fun, yet flawed, movie - but easily the worst of the series

[6/10 · 27 May 2008]

"Indiana Jones… I always knew some day you'd come walking back through my door."

I went into this with mixed feelings. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my #1 favorite film of all time. I enjoy the Indiana Jones trilogy even more than the original Star Wars films. While I was glad to have another Indy movie, I was worried it just wouldn't work anymore. I ended up on opening night finding myself hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

Indy is definitely older. He's still full of wit and action, but he's definitely lost a bit of the spring his step and the spark in his eye. Harrison still feels like Indy, but the film doesn't always feel like an Indiana Jones film. But why? Several factors - The cinematography feels too clean and modern, and doesn't have the same look as the original three films. Plus, contrary to Spielberg's claims that they were using practical effects rather CGI as much as possible, there is still an awful lot of bluescreen work and CG elements - a sharp contrast to the style of the other films. It also doesn't help that Indy almost never uses his whip, draws his gun only once before it's taken away for the rest of the film, and more than half of the characters in this film never even call him Indy or Indiana – "Henry," "Jonesy," "Gramps," "Professor," "Old Man," etc… but rarely "Indy."

But the primary reason it doesn't feel like an Indiana Jones film is the complete shift in genre. Lucas has repeatedly emphasized that while the first three films took place in the 1930's and 40's and were modeled on the serials of that time, this one is set in the 1950's, and so is modeled after the films of that time - UFO's, atomic age, sci-fi B-movies, etc. The problem is, Indiana Jones is NOT a character from those films - he is a Saturday Morning Serial character. That's like taking Flash Gordon and putting him in a western. THAT is why it didn't "feel" like an Indiana Jones movie... it wasn't. The passage of time was necessary, but the change of genre was quite jarring.

Okay, so it feels different. But is it any good? If I were to have answered that question after my first viewing, I probably would have said no. There were fun moments – glimpses of the movie we wanted to see – but they were few and far between. It wasn't a horrible film, just a hugely disappointing one – and not just as a result of high expectations. Too many parts just didn't work: Indy surviving the atomic test by hiding in a lead-lined refrigerator (even if he survived the blast, that crashing and bouncing would have crushed every bone in his body), Mutt's Tarzan-style jaunt through the jungle, Marion's drive off the cliff onto the tree that perfectly lowers them into the river… Then there's the aliens. OH, the aliens.

While the very idea of an alien-based plot in an Indy movie is bizarre, I could go along with it… to a point. The crystal skulls, the temple, the idea that aliens had come to Earth long ago… even the discovery of the skeletons in the temple. I could MAYBE even live with the skeletons coming to life and the temple portal activating. But once we saw the aliens in (obviously CG) restored form and the actual flying saucer, it ceased being an Indiana Jones sequel and became a Close Encounters sequel. I was extremely frustrated by the bait-and-switch of a sci-fi flick masquerading as an Indiana Jones movie.

I was worried this alien theme tarnished my view of the rest of the film. I had spent much of the movie thinking, "oh frak – is this going where I think it's going?" and as a result was unable to just sit back and enjoy the ride. So I went back for a second viewing. This time, I knew what to expect. The minute it began, I just had to accept the fact that, yes, this is gonna end with aliens and a flying saucer. I just prepared myself to ignore the sillier and more out-of-place aspects I knew were coming, and enjoy the film. Once I was able to do that, I found myself appreciating the film much more. The little things, like the fridge and Mutt's vine-swinging, didn't bother me anymore. I had re-watched the other films and realized there are plenty of silly, over-the-top things in all of them, if maybe not to the same degree.

So the final verdict: It's fun, but flawed. I'd easily rank it the lowest of the four films, but I'd say there was more to it that I liked than things that I didn't. It's just a movie with an identity crisis. There are times when it feels more like a National Treasure or The Mummy movie (themselves knock-offs of Indiana Jones), complete with moments and scenes that seem copied straight out of both. In fact, most of the last ¼ of the movie feels more like a National Treasure movie than Indy. These kinds of things, as well as the entire ending, still bother me, but overall it's a satisfying popcorn flick – just not a classic like its predecessors.

I blame George Lucas. Most everything that doesn't work it seems can be traced directly to him.

p.s. - The Shia LaBeouf Question: I actually thought he was one of the better parts of the film, to the point where I actually found myself enjoying him more than Ford at some points. I don't know that I'd want him to carry on this particular series as the lead, but as a supporting character and as an actor he did just fine.

…and oh yeah, Harrison Ford loses even more respect from me for pronouncing it "nu-CU-lar." Ugh.

Iron Man (2008)

A strong contender for best superhero flick of all time

[10/10 · 4 May 2008]

Iron Man. Who'd have thought?

Quite simply one of the best superhero flicks ever made, and a strong contender for the top spot. I honestly don't know if I can pinpoint a single flaw in the film, except that I wish it was even LONGER. Not only does it succeed as a comic book adaptation, it succeeds as just a great MOVIE. Probably the most fun flick I've seen in a good two years or more.

So how did this movie get it right when so many others get it all wrong? It certainly isn't just the character. Iron Man is a second-tier Marvel character that never really caught my eye much or gained the general public's love. I believe it was two factors: casting and respect for the material.

First and foremost, I can't imagine anyone but Robert Downey Jr. playing this role. He owns it so completely and is such a perfect fit that I have to wonder how much of the script was completely re-written for him or was improvised. His brand of humor and wit, along with his great range as an actor allow him to convey the whole arc of Tony Stark's story, and to make it entertaining every step of the way. I am especially impressed at the studio's decision to *gasp* actually cast an appropriate actor over 40 years old, rather than cast young just to bring in the teen box office.

While so many other comic book flicks treat their material (and audiences) condescendingly, or just as a silly story that can be used to show off cool effects or action scenes, Iron Man instead respects that it can be just as good or respectable as any other film. Nothing is over-the-top or forced. The story is much more grounded in reality than most superhero genre films - There are no "superpowers", just technological genius and talent. It's taken to extreme degrees, for sure, but never feels far-fetched or silly. The film also shows you can include comedy without it being blatant comic relief, full of forced silliness and one-liners. No the laughter here is genuine, and lots of it. I laughed more in this film than I have in any actual comedy film in a long time.

Recent superhero flicks like Batman Begins and Superman Returns were well-made, exciting, and dramatic, but lacked the fun factor. The overall tone of those films is so dour that repeated viewings are a bit of a chore. Then others like the Fantastic Four came out and went in the too far in the other direction, being cheesy and dumb. Iron Man got back to the tone of the first two Superman films and found the perfect balance of drama and comedy.

I could go on about every aspect of the film - the supporting players, score, effects... but I'll just say it all clicked. The rest of the summer's flicks are going to have a lot to live up to. I suspect this is the movie people will go back and see again and again, as other summer fare fades away. Just plain fun.

Jumper (2008)

Getting ahead of themselves - assuming audiences will be hungry for more

[6/10 · 1 March 2008]

To sum it up quickly: Too much setup. This entire film should have been the first half-hour of a bigger story. They try to make this just a first chapter, like an "origin" story in a superhero film, but if you're gonna spend the whole film setting up a story, and leave an ending wide open for sequels, you better be damn sure the public will actually care enough to see more. I don't think that will be the case here. Perhaps if it had been filmed and marketed as a teen flick as the book was, the series could have a longer life; but as an adult franchise I'd be surprised if there are further installments.

It wasn't a bad flick. It was a fun distraction for an hour or two, with some good action and visuals, but it was certainly nothing special. I think much of that is due to the cast. Diane Lane is always good, but she was barely in it, and Samuel L. Jackson was just distracting - partly because of the pointless white hair, and partly because pairing him with Hayden Christiansen constantly reminded you of Star Wars and took you out of the movie. The main stars, Christensen himself and Rachel Bilson, were just so...blah. I actually would have preferred if Jamie Bell had been the star instead of just a supporting role.