captelephant

I desperately wanted Sucker Punch to be good. Any large-budget blockbuster that has the balls to include dragons, mechs and nazi zombies in its PREVIEWS gets bonus points with me.

But Sucker Punch isn't very good. It's joyless and heartless and somehow manages to take itself waaaaay too seriously despite the aforementioned dragons, mechs and nazi zombies. For a movie that should be non-stop fun it's surprisingly dreary. That could have worked if that dreariness had generated any power or depth or emotional attachment, but it doesn't, so instead of being dramatic or epic the movie just becomes boring.

The interchangeable, embarrassingly over-fetishized girls are utterly invincible and never in any danger whatsoever... until the plot suddenly needs them to be, which is cheap and, again, boring. The brothel scenes almost immediately became tedious and I found myself impatient for the next action scene to begin.

Of course the action is fantastically well filmed and the special effects are gorgeous. Snyder is probably the best action director working today. But in Sucker Punch it's all so meaningless and lightweight that I felt more numbed than excited. And that's probably the most impressive thing about the movie: how do you make steampunk nazi zombie zeppelins unexciting? See Sucker Punch and find out!

Sucker Punch really isn't terrible. It's just a typical, brainless blockbuster that squanders its unique subject matter. It could have been so much more.

A lot has been written about this film already so I won't repeat the obvious. It is, overall, a very good movie. But it has a big problem.

The emotional core of Inception is DiCaprio's character and his "relationship" with his wife, Mal. Whenever the movie is telling that story it's fantastic. Whenever it's not, it's not.

The end result is a mostly-great movie with about 45 minutes of unnecessary explosions stapled on.

The ultra-generic action sequences (with one notable, Matrix-esquire exception that ends much too quickly) are tiring and unexciting, and show a distinct lack of imagination. The Dark Knight demonstrated that this otherwise-gifted director has trouble building coherent/engaging action scenes, but the gimmicky nature of the Batman franchise made it forgivable. In Inception that failing takes center stage since the last 45 minutes demand almost non-stop action that Nolan is frankly unable to deliver. Placed beside The Matrix, or even this-year's Kick-Ass, the snowy final battle in Inception is downright boring and threatens to bring the film to an anti-climax. Fortunately the resolution of DiCaprio's storyline is fantastically engaging and brings the rest of the movie up with it.

I wonder if Nolan is wasting his considerable story-telling talents working in a genre he doesn't love. This man does not want to film action; it's obvious. Maybe he should just stop trying and focus on telling the tales he wants to tell instead.

Where the Wild Things are is a well written, intelligent, and very cold drama about the often challenging interactions within a closed group of people, the complexities of leadership and the cost of selfishness.

It's not a movie about imagination or childhood at all, and it's only vaguely concerned with themes of growing up, family or maturity.

It's not wacky or funny. Not colorful or exciting. There's only about 10 minutes of what I'd call "fun" in the whole 2-hour package.

That doesn't make Where the Wild Things Are a bad movie. It just makes it completely defiant of the viewer's expectations, and thus a rather confusing film to watch.

The first time I saw this I wasn't sure how I was supposed to be taking things. Was that supposed to be funny? Is she being sarcastic, or serious? Is Max in real danger now, or not? That's not because the movie is actually confusing, but because it all seems vaguely wrong and inappropriate. I left scratching my head saying "I guess that was good?"

In the end I decided I didn't like it. I felt that this was either the wrong script for this movie or the wrong movie for this script. Either way, it didn't click for me and felt awkward to the end.

Nevertheless there is quality here, and I recommend you watch it yourself and reach your own conclusion.

9 is better than average... but only barely.

The movie is carried by a unique visual style and a great sense of "place." The sack-men (and woman) are refreshingly odd and fun to watch. The post-apocalyptic city is consistently beautiful and dangerous. Desolate without feeling dull.

Unfortunately, the story and characters ARE dull. Not crushingly so... but enough to frustrate. Frequent, obvious plot holes and violations of established world-rules pulled me out of the movie over and over again. Tired clichés abound. I wasn't able to shake the feeling that I'd seen and heard this all before.

And that's a shame because there's a lot of potential here. If only the writer had taken more chances. Why not challenge the audience and defy expectations? Why make a movie that's too scary for kids but too simplistic for adults? Who is expected to enjoy it?

I would watch another Shane Acker movie if one is made (hopefully after he's picked a target audience). But 9 is not a classic.

... that said, it's probably worth watching on the big screen just for the sights and sounds.

Plenty has been said of No Country for Old Men's strengths, and it's all true. Dialog, casting, acting and cinematography really could not have been done better.

But ending is so wildly disappointing that it makes the above strengths seem almost inconsequential. After literally two hours of build-up our cast of core characters are finally all going to meet at a single location. This promises to be a magnificently interesting show-down. Instead, the film takes a sharp turn towards the artsy by suddenly killing the main character off-screen and devoting the final 20 minutes to disjointed (though well-written) philosophy discussions.

This might be entertaining for the "cinema" crowd that views the act of subverting expectations and breaking convention as entertainment in its own right. But for the majority of movie-watchers (yes, even the intelligent ones) it's just disappointing.

What was the point of all that tension-building if nothing comes of it but abstracted dialog that would have been just as relevant when the movie began? Why devote ~hours~ building this character if he's going to be ingloriously killed off-screen by unnamed and barely-explained gangsters? Why was Woody Harrelson's character even in the film? In the end No Country will leave you feeling let down, and that's always a bad thing no matter how artfully it's done.

Transformers 2 is basically what I was hoping Transformers 1 would be. Giant robots fighting.

Lots and lots and lots of robots. Giant ones. Fighting. Constantly.

If that's what you want, that's what you get, and you'll leave happy.

Beyond that, the movie walks a weird line between quality and crap.

The fights are frequently stunning and exhilarating, especially at an iMax. On the other hand, the confusing robo-thrashing shots remain, and calling the climactic action scene "overdone" is a cosmic understatement.

The human characters are much more likable than they were in T1, and the time we spend with them is more entertaining. Shia and Megan can both actually act. Well! I'd even go so far as to call Shia excellent. Sadly, the ill-conceived ghettobots deeply damage the film's credibility with their shameful, unfunny Jar-Jaring.

The plot is simple and focused on driving the action from one fight to the next. To me this is enormously preferable to the endless, pointless politicking of the first film. On the other hand, it's still really silly stuff, and the plot holes are so frequent and enormous that you basically just start ignoring them.

So ultimately, Transformers 2 is a success of comparability. It's better than the first. It's better than your average blockbuster. It's smarter than you might expect but dumber than you might want.

But remember: it's a movie about warring robots! And it does that better than any other movie I can think of.

Maybe I watch too many bad movies, but this really didn't live up to its terrible reputation... much to my disappointment.

Dungeon Siege is a long, boring, by-the-numbers fantasy "epic" with a few good moments and a lot of poor choices. This makes it a bad movie, but not a BAD movie on the scale of Boll's previous disasters (Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark) and therefore much less entertaining. Maybe he's learning?

My point is: for people seeking another "so bad it's good" classic, I recommend you look elsewhere.

The problem with Dungeon Siege is that the story and the acting are both fine(ish); it's the directing and editing that kill the movie. This makes it more irritating than funny, and aside from a few spots of ludicrous dialog (I dare you to make sense of Reynold's final speech!) it's more hum-drum than fun.

Others have enumerated the films worst points already (Liotta!), so I won't repeat them. However I have to say: the hate for Matthew Lillard confuses me. He single-handedly made all of his scenes watchable. If every actor had been as entertaining as he was, this would have been a much, much better movie.

Long story short: not bad enough to be funny, not good enough to be good, so don't bother.

What makes the Dark Knight special in the (very large) pantheon of action-blockbusters is the way it all fits together.

Here we have a very large, very dense two-villain comic-book story told in such a smooth, inter-related way that when the second villain finally emerges it feels entirely natural, as if that character could exist in no other way.

We have the anarchist-Joker, who could have been a typically psychotic antagonist, taken to such a surreal extreme that he jumps right over "crazy" and lands on "evil." Yet the character never seems artificial or one-note. This Joker comes from nowhere, seemingly fully formed, an all-powerful super-villain, almost omniscient, practically teleporting, seemingly invincible, and still he somehow feels like a real person.

The film's main theme is terrorism, a rather thin-ice topic, but its approached in an honest and non-judgmental way that I found tremendously refreshing. Nothing is heavy-handed or preachy, nor is there any clear moral or conclusion. The thematic elements are subtle but present, and you the viewer are left to construct your own message, which is exactly how it should be done in a film aimed at adults.

But it's still a blockbuster, and that's right too. Steps are taken to bring realism to Batman's world, but the character's comic-book origins are not forgotten or discarded. Batman and the Joker are, without explanation, super-powered, which is after all what we came to see.

If there's any real flaw it's that the action scenes are rather ho-hum compared to the drama. Only the car chase is memorable (despite being confusing spatially) and even that wouldn't make anyone's top-5. That this weakness isn't more disastrous (or even particularly consequential) in an action film shows just how good the whole really is.

Because in the end, it all just clicks. You get the feeling that what you watched was complete, and that nothing could or should have been different. Of course it's not perfect -- nothing is -- but fewer mistakes were made here than in any other action movie I can think of. This is what all blockbusters should aspire to be.

THE GOOD: Watchmen does 90% of everything it tries right. It's beautiful, intelligent, well-acted and beautiful again. Rorschach is AMAZING and Dr. Manhatten is spot on. Most of the dialog, often word-for-word from the comic (yes, sorry, graphic novel), is razor sharp, and the plot, while imperfect, is still head and shoulders above the norm.

Unfortunately, the 10% it does wrong is probably the stuff that will stick with you.

THE BAD: I respect Snyder for his determination to follow the comic to the letter, I really do, but he has to learn when to step back and let a movie stand on its own feet. For example: the story could and should have been restructured to avoid the cluster-bomb of flashbacks crammed into the first hour. And Bubastis seriously had to go.

Then there's the terrible, embarrassing-to-the-point-of-movie-damaging porno scene dead smack in the middle. Why!? If there was ONE place to stick with the comic (where this scene is short and tasteful) this was it.

Finally, the sound track is distracting. It's not that the songs are bad, but the placement, volume and arrangement of said songs makes it all too clear that many are only here for commercial tie-ins. There are of course exceptions (loved the intro and the comedian's funeral).

Overall Watchmen is an achievement in many ways. It's not perfect (nor was the comic to be honest), but it's damn good. Highly recommended.

THE GOOD: The Host is a fun monster movie that's elevated slightly above the Hollywood hum-drum because it spends time developing likable characters and clear relationships. Great acting, a fast and entertaining first hour, and an interesting protagonist make it clear why audiences enjoyed this as much as they did.

THE WEIRD: The Host is "campy" in a way I've never seen before. A weird sort of subtle comedy runs under a majority of the scenes (including some very serious ones) giving the film an oddly persistent feeling of humor. The end result is similar to camp horror in that it's self-aware and doesn't take itself too seriously, but it's all approached so earnestly it almost becomes dark comedy.

I found the technique fresh and inspired, if sometimes confusing (ie: slapstick at a little kid's funeral?). Whether or not this oddity was caused by the English translation is irrelevant since the translation is, after all, part of the movie.

THE BAD: Nearly thirty minutes of screen time (all in the second half) is wasted by a huge dead-end plot line that hamstrings the initial fast-pace.

**SPOILER** The virus, the tests on our poor hero, agent yellow, all of it... just made no sense. They drill a hole in the main character's frontal lobe (after admitting there's no point to doing so) but then he's up running around hours later. Then the WHO (an unusual choice of villain) finally deploys their controversial, American-made biology-killing gas and a bunch people (and kids!) just stand around in the cloud occasionally giving perfunctory coughs. It's just ridiculous, and could have been cut in favor of a proper show-down with the beast in its sewer lair thirty minutes earlier. **END SPOILER**

Shortcomings aside, the Host is an enjoyable and considerably better than "bargain bin" monster flick. 6/10

Wall-E is an achievement for many reasons. But Wall-E is not perfect. And honestly, I think Wall-E is quite overrated.

I'll start with the good: The CG is revolutionary. Our two mostly-speechless heroes (essentially a rolling square and a floating circle) are the most likable on-screen duo in recent memory. Their romance is believable and endearing, and any time they're interacting with each other the movie is a 10. The film's first 45 minutes are positively enchanting.

Unfortunately, as soon as the pair leaves Earth everything stops clicking.

In the second 2/3rds of the movie, the storyline stops focusing on the romance and starts zig-zagging between what seems like 5 or 6 barely-related sub-plots. During all this unfocused side-story hopping the writers somehow forget to include a MAIN story of any consequence. This is a serious problem.

Secondary characters are introduced, then dropped, then reappear an hour later to overcome some obstacle that clearly only existed to give them something to do. So why introduce them? A villain appears about half-way through the movie, paired with a human hero who will be inevitably tasked to defeat him. But the villain is non-threatening and the hero is under-developed and unbelievable, and when his triumph finally comes it feels anti-climactic and forced.

The various "sub-plots" should really be described as "sub-points," since they're all transparent vehicles for social/political messages. Upwards of 4 different morals are bandied about, but the writers don't seem particularly passionate about any of them and don't devote more than 5 minutes to any single topic. The Incredibles, Ratatouille and even Happy Feet are all examples of how to marry a moral to a plot without diminishing either. Wall-E is an example of how not to.

In the end, I can't shake the feeling that Pixar took a simple, beautiful movie about robot romance and environmental caution, and crammed in two metric-tons of unnecessary, half-baked fluff. As a huge Pixar fan I have to say: they're better than that.

Sorry Pixar. I still love you.

Cloverfield won't change your life. It might make you puke in a movie theater, which I guess could be life-changingly embarrassing, but aside from that you'll leave this film the same person as when you entered.

That said, it does what it sets out to do admirably.

The first few minutes of action are extremely intense, very heavily evoking 9/11 memories for better or for worse. The film keeps a fast pace from that point on, but never again recreates those initial moments of fear.

The characters are likable, realistic young New Yorkers who are established ~quickly~ and effectively. Their behavior throughout the film fall somewhere short of realistic and there is heroism to a degree that seems sometimes unbelievable, and yet... people do heroic things in times of crisis. I'm inclined to believe that some people (not most people, but some) would indeed do what our main characters do.

The "camera work" is a mixed bag. It's sometimes very effective and fun (the beginning and the military scenes are stand outs). It's also frustrating at times, and occasionally feels like it's try to save budget by not showing us what we obviously want to see. Overall I think it works in Cloverfield -- it gives the film a unique sense of immersion -- but I would not want to see this approach overused. It will become one-note very quickly.

Without giving too much away: the ending is a shock. It will leave some viewers frustrated and others impressed. I was impressed. I thought it was ballsy and unique, and I appreciate its purity. I do not blame people for being annoyed by it, however.

Overall I enjoyed Cloverfield. It's a rush. It's funny and honest and likable. It's different. Give it a look, but temper your expectations: it's just an action flick, folks.

Fear and Loathing is one of those rare films that manages to be both a wildly entertaining, highly quotable comedy that plays well at parties, and an intelligent, introspective character study to be watched alone with the lights off and the mind open.

The character being studied is not Raoul, but you, or anyone from any generation that identifies with the post-60s American drug culture.

If you have no understanding of (or harbor disdain towards) said drug culture, you will probably not "get" Fear and Loathing. That's okay. It was not made for you.

Amidst the seemingly non-sequiter madness that makes this movie such a comedy classic the attentive viewer will find a sobering self-appraisal of the social revolution that was the 60s, and the sad state in which its children were left. Raoul (Thompson), here a larger-than-life lunatic Johnny Depp, is also an everyman with whom any past or present drug user can identify.

The outwardly hilarious weekend in Vegas is, in fact, dark and miserable, overwhelmed with debauch, depression, fear and loathing. Raoul's "friend" Oscar sinks to depths that even our anti-hero finds despicable, generates one terrible experience after another, and violates every law of God or Man. Yet no ties are broken. No promise to change is made. It's all accepted as part of the trip and left behind on the highway.

Needless to say: This movie contains a strong anti-drug message.

But this is no phony, government-subsidized "Dope is Whack" campaign told by FBI-shoed business men you'd never listen to anyway. It's the truth as told from the front lines of the movement. A burn-out king who knows it's all evil, and will tell you as much even as he taps another needle. Someone worth believing.

Fear and Loathing is a powerful movie. It's also a funny movie. It gets my highest recommendation.

Why does a film supposedly about giant, warring robots spend literally 2/3rds of its time following around a dozen boring, nameless humans?

Why are there two metric tons of "plot" (read: frustratingly unfocused dialog mostly involving things unrelated to giant, warring robots) standing between the viewer and every decent action scene?

This is bloody >>Transformers<< not Days of our Lives. Make with the intergalactic robot battles already.

Sorry, but after the ridiculously awesome introduction I was all charged up for action-film history. Instead the movie stops... dead... for over an hour, while minute after long minute is spend developing countless characters who all somehow still come off as one-note and hollow.

Toss in a painfully lame slapstick sequence set in the main character's back yard (I don't buy the "it's a kid's movie" defense. Nobody young enough to think that scene is funny would have made it past the brutal introduction without bursting into tears.) and you've got a disappointing mess of a Blockbuster.

I recommend borrowing the DVD from your friend, watching the opening Middle East sequence, then hitting "stop" and going to do something else.

All three of these short films are well directed, with gorgeous cinematography and believable performances. If that's enough for you, watch away.

However if you're a "normal" movie viewer who demands something other than atmosphere and pretty shots... ehhhhhhhh.

The first film "Dumplings" is the best. It's manages to be quirky and memorable but still focused and coherent. No small feat. It's also ridiculously disturbing. Some viewers will probably have trouble watching it, but this is not shock-shlock -- "Dumplings" is sickening in an honest, socially relevant way.

The second film "Cut" is terrible. If the post-Ring American horror industry is guilty of mimicking/poaching J-horror, and mostly getting it wrong, then this film is guilty of mimicking American torture-horror (see: Saw) while ineptly poaching Tarantino, and getting it totally wrong. The result is boring and unpleasant, and the obnoxious ending made me want to fast-forward.

The third film "Box" is right in the middle. It's very pretty and very spooky. So pretty and so spooky that you will almost certainly forgive the nonsense-plot and the ultra-super-nonsense ending. I found it unsettling and creepy and entertaining, despite being totally incomprehensible.

Despite the obvious art-house appeal of "Three Extremes," the whole experience is only OK.

Paprika is gorgeous. No missing that. Unfortunately, that's really the only reason to see it.

The first 15 minutes are so heavy on the "wow!" factor they leave you primed for the movie experience of your life. However, things start to fall apart as soon as the story gets rolling. Don't you hate when that happens?

There's a lot of the unexplained weirdness that seems to permeate all things anime. Things that, were they in a live action, English-speaking movie, would have people in the theater shouting "what!?" at the screen. But somehow we're expected to overlook nonsense in Japanese animation. Sorry, folks, but coherent story writing does not discriminate.

A lot of things that needed 5 minutes of careful explanation are given 2 lines and a wink. Instead, that time is wasted on meaningless psychological hoo-ha. The very important relationship between two very important characters is not explained in the least, and the finale is utterly baffling, though, of course, visually stunning.

I really wanted to like Paprika, but it just doesn't quite cut it. It's entertaining, appealing, and ultimately meaningless. In short: a blockbuster. The movie is absolutely worth seeing, but don't expect a new anime classic. Oh well.

As others have said, you can watch this movie on several levels.

If you take it at face value, it's not so bad. The first forty minutes are engaging, the middle is dragged out, and the end, while predictable, is suitably grotesque and unsettling. You'll be left with the impression that you watched a so-so thriller with vague political undertones and a weirdly racist finale.

If you watch it from the "facing your fears" perspective it holds up decently. A successful, white, middle class liberal does indeed fear these things: That his wife will leave him, that a tiny scratch will blossom into a horrible infection, that society is secretly brutalizing minorities or that a minority will directly brutalize him.

Unfortunately, presenting these fears is not the same thing as discussing them, and the viewer is left with the feeling that they were cheated. In the end, this movie has nothing to say about the topics it brings up.

Finally if you watch it from the "George as America" perspective that the director apparently intended, as per the special features on the disc, it's downright terrible.

From that perspective, the film appears to be saying that America is victimized by black people, America is victimized by Iran, but luckily Iran is incompetent, and hot nurses love America... and trees. These are, in fact, the exact opposites of the messages the director intended (except maybe the nurse thing). As is evident in his on-disc interview, what he meant to say amounts to "America sucks and is mean," not "poor America, brutalized by the world," which is what came across. This total lack of control over his own symbolism makes the message unintelligible without a running commentary, and therefore a complete failure.

So we're left with a pseudo-deep movie (read: BS philosophy meets jumbled politics) that fails on every level of viewing except the least ambitious - a hospital thriller - where it manages to be "okay."

Do I even need to say: Not Recommended?

I liked the Exorcist. I did. But it didn't scare me.

That's somewhat fatal to the "best horror movie of all time" moniker, as I'm a pretty easily scared moviegoer. Ultimately, it left me disappointed.

As others have said, the movie starts out amazingly. The scenes in Iraq: trembling hands, frightening statue, fighting dogs. Excellent. By the time it cuts to Georgetown it has you ready for the worst.

The next forty minutes lose some of that momentum, but still hold promise. Between the increasingly ghoulish series of medical experiments inflicted on Reagan and Father Damian's incredible visits to his mother (the second being the most impressing), you're really ready for the horror to begin full bore.

But it never happens. We're treated to what amounts to an hour long montage of 2 minute "shock clips" that range from silly to disturbing, but never exactly scary. Promising earlier devices such as the Ouija board, the evil statues and the noises from the attic are all frustratingly abandoned.

The claustrophobic atmosphere of the bedroom and upstairs hall are repeatedly interrupted for no good reason. The introduction of a totally unnecessary police detective both wastes time and provides disastrously unneeded comic relief. There's no way to maintain a persistent atmosphere of dread when the Mother of the Possessed is signing autographs over coffee in a sunny morning kitchen with a smiling, mustachioed detective who apparently wandered in from a different movie. Talk about a mood killer.

I'm coming off as overly negative: The Exorcist is not bad. There are a thousand and one worse horror movies. But it's not nearly as great as I had been expecting, either. No doubt in '73 it was unlike anything audiences had ever seen, but in '07, I'm sorry to say, it appears to have lost its power.

Wow, am I ever glad we screened this one!

We started this movie expecting a somewhat modernized (read: hyperactive) take on the classic Winnie the Pooh shorts. What we got was a ludicrously depressing, down-beat tale that shows the once "bouncy-trouncy-fun-fun-fun" Tigger crying and moping for 77 minutes. What the heck happened here?

The plot takes a line from Tigger's original song: "The most wonderful thing about Tiggers is that I'm the only one!" and runs with it. The conclusion: Being "the only one" is not, in fact, wonderful, and Tigger is secretly depressed and lonely. His friends (Pooh and co.) try to cheer him up, but to no avail. Only after an hour of non-stop tear-jerking and an over-the-top action sequence does Tigger reach the obvious conclusion: that he had a family all along.

But by then it's too late for the viewer: Tigger's character has essentially been ruined.

The whole thing is pretty much a corruption the childlike purity that defines A.A. Milnes universe; the man must be turning in his grave! In case you can't tell: we hated it. I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near this movie.