caseynicholson

I caught this on Turner Classic a couple of weeks ago, and went into it not really knowing much at all about the story of Cleopatra. I know I had to read Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in high school, but I never really got into the more romantic side of the story of Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. I've also never seen the Elizabeth Taylor version of the film that comes thirty years or so after this movie, so I went into it quite blind.

I found the 1934 version of "Cleopatra" to be a real treat. The film tells a dramatic tale that is quite encompassing. The acting was good and the story quite developed. One of the best parts of the movie is the detailed and grandiose sets throughout the movie--all of which are quite ornate and extraordinary even by today's standards, let alone by 1934's. At the end of it all I found myself enlightened to a bit of world history that I did not know before the movie, and entertained throughout. The only reason I didn't rate the film higher is that despite it's being so well done, I can't really say that it stands out as a favorite or something I'd want to watch over and over again. Still, it's quite good for what it is, and certainly worthy of seven stars.

Like most on opening weekend, I went into "Rogue One" fairly blind. It was known that the story took place in between Episodes III and IV, but the characters were all unknown. As such, there was a lot that I was unsure of. How would this fit into the chronology? Would it be a completely standalone film, with no connection to the other movies at all? That was pretty much how the previews made it out to be.

That being said, as it turns out, "Rogue One" is the immediate prequel to Episode IV, the original Star Wars movie, "A New Hope". It absolutely is directly connected to that film, but tells its tale through a cast of characters that are mostly new (Vader and one imperial commander and a couple of reprisals of rebel leaders being the exceptions). And, the story and film are exceptional on the whole. The style is a bit more serious and gritty than the other episodes, and the first half of the film goes by a bit slow at times--but by end it gets very good!

About the only drawback to this movie is its use of what I like to call the "Bourne" camera-work. At points the camera wobbles incessantly as figures are in battle. That was annoying, but not so much that it completely took away from the movie. And so, all things said, I have to give "Rogue One" 9/10 stars. It's fantastic, and falls just short of being a perfect ten. You definitely should see it!

So--full disclosure: "Moana" is one of the few Disney "princess" movies that I've actually seen. That being the case, I really don't have a lot to compare this movie to, at least in terms of how she stacks up to other Disney-produced female leads. What I can say, though, is that as someone who is a fan of movies in general, this was a fantastic movie!

One thing you can expect from this movie is that it follows a tried and true formula of the heroine going on an adventure, having to defeat an evil antagonist, and there being lots of kid-friendly singing along the way. The movie nevertheless takes on this task in a way that feels fresh and welcoming, by telling the story of an island girl whose tale incorporates her tribe's ancient mythology into the adventure.

All in all I'm giving this movie 9/10 stars. It's fantastic, but just a tad bit shy of a perfect rating. Perhaps a bit less song and dance would have made it a perfect 10 for me. Still, a fantastic movie through and through.

I wasn't terribly enthused about this movie going into it. I'm in no way a Harry Potter fan (never read the books, couldn't get into the movies), and so I was skeptical about J.K. Rowling's latest wizard tale, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". Still, the hype surrounding the film coupled with its coming out at a time when there wasn't much else of interest on at the local theater prompted me to go see this movie. And I'm really glad that I did.

Eddie Redmayne shines in this film. If you're not familiar with his other work, I highly recommend you check out "The Theory of Everything", which he won Best Actor for a couple of years ago. Here he plays a more light-hearted role of a traveling wizard in circa 1930's America, and we are introduced to a large cast of American wizards, witches and warlocks. The movie is the right balance of black arts in a kid friendly kind of way (I'd say it's certainly suitable for kids ages ten and up, and perhaps younger). It also tells its story well, and as someone who firmly believes that storytelling is the most important part of movie making, that goes a long way for me.

All in all I have to give this movie 9/10 stars, and I've even toyed with going all in and giving it 10/10. The movie is a breath of fresh air, and there's little that can be said negative about it.

However, if I were to offer up one helpful criticism, it might be that there's a fair bit going on in the movie and that it's the kind of film you have to pay attention to of you may get lost along the way. If I'm honest, I actually saw it twice--the first time as an attempt at getting away from a stressful day, and my mind was too distracted with everything that was going on in my world to really keep up with the movie. Still, I liked it so much I decided to go back for a second viewing so as to take it all in, and enjoyed it every bit as much the second go around. It's definitely a strong 9/10.

I had never seen "The Nightmare Before Christmas" until this year (2016). It came out while I was in high school, and I think at the time I was going through a "I'm too old for cartoons and kids movies" phase. I'd been wanting to see it for several years now, but every year Halloween would come and go and I would miss it.

In fact, that's one important thing to know about this movie. Before I saw it, I always wondered if it was better to watch at Halloween or at Christmas. I'd now answer that question with a definite "Halloween". The movie is about a character from a village that is oriented around a Halloween theme who wanders off one day and discovers a series of portals to other holiday-themed towns. This takes him to Christmas-town, where he decides he wants to bring Christmas back to Halloween-town. But, before it's all said and done, he discovers that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and that the holidays don't mix well. That being the case, the movie has a lot more Halloween-oriented characters than Christmas-oriented ones, so definitely watch this during the former season.

Another thing you might want to know going into this movie so that you'll get the most appreciation out of it is that it is in fact NOT an animated film. Or at least it's not a cartoon or a computer animation. Rather, it's stop motion. All of the scenes in the movie were shot on site, with props that were used to make the set. Taking that into consideration certainly adds to the appeal of the movie, and it really is quite a feat for filmmaking.

As for the story and the plot of the film, it's not terrible. Indeed, the plot itself is somewhat becoming and certainly novel. However, the movie relies heavily on music and song, making it basically a musical film. Musicals are my least favorite genre of movie (even though I realize it's a very popular thing to do for a kids movie), and so it was hard for me to get into this film.

Still, all things said and done, I have to give this movie a strong 7/10 stars. It's certainly a fun, well made film. Just not in the upper echelons of my favorites is all.

I was happy to get to go see "Doctor Strange" this week, after hearing good things about it both from comic book enthusiasts and several friends with kids who are not as much of a geek as I am. That said, I went into the movie with high expectations. And while the movie was good overall, I walked away not having my expectations quite met.

Let's start with the good. There is indeed much to like about "Doctor Strange". The film gives a healthy helping of back story, fleshing out a character that I myself didn't know too much about, despite having read some of his earliest appearances from the Stan Lee silver age era in the 1960's. By and large the film is pretty solid in the storytelling department, and the actors all turn out strong performances.

That said, the downside to this movie is that it uses a banal superhero movie formula that at this point has come to feel quite trite. Super-rich, super-smart white guy gets some super-powers, there's a bad guy, the bad guy is hellbent on destroying the universe (the dimension?) and, golly gee, in the end the superhero saves the day.

OK, so it's a little more nuanced than that. Still, it just felt like it was a movie that was made on a cookie cutter formula. It's far from a bad movie, but there are others quite like it--and perhaps others that do what it does, only better.

All that said, I have to go with 7/10 stars for this one.

So, I first saw "Ouija: Origin of Evil" (2016) in the theater when it came out, and I thought it was fantastic--I gave it 9/10 stars. And so, of course, I decided to go and watch the first film in the series, simply titled, "Ouija". I did so despite my having been warned by a couple of friends that it was a pretty bad movie. But, come on, how bad could it really be??? "Origin of Evil" is AWESOME....so the first one must be pretty good, right?

Wrong. This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE.

About the only thing I can say for the movie is that it does more or less follow the storyline of the prequel (although there are some glitches there, too), and as such it was marginally fun to find out how the story ends, so to speak.

But, man, this movie just downright sucks all the way around. The plot is bad, the acting...is...OK, but nothing to write home about. The story is not developed at all, and it's like they just threw together a few general concepts and tossed it into a movie.

All that said, it really is like they made the terrible sequel first, after the hit horror movie. The 2016 prequel is leaps and bounds better than this movie. But this movie itself is weak as can be. 2/10 stars....a rating I have hardly ever given before. This one's bad folks. Real bad.

I'm a casual horror fan at best. I've seen a number of horror films spanning several time periods, from Hitchcock to 80's slasher films to a few from the 21st Century. Still, I'm not a huge horror buff, and I don't take in scary movies time and again the way that some people do.

That being said, I found "Ouija: Origin of Evil" to be the perfect horror movie for someone like myself who likes a good scary movie now and then, but isn't a huge horror buff. The movie is very well made, features good acting and has an intriguing plot. And, again taking into consideration my personal comfort zone with these type of movies, I found it to be the right blend of scary but not over the top intense. The movie is not very gory at all (it's rated PG-13--a rating I find appropriate for this film), and while it certainly does have its creepy side, it's not the kind of thing that's going to keep you up all night. Well, I suppose that's a subjective thing--but for me I found it to be a fun kind of scary, rather than an overly unsettling film.

In light of all that, I'm giving this movie 9/10 stars--a rating that I give to relatively few movies. I feel that this movie is deserving of that because it nails its aim, which is to be a well made horror flick that is "family friendly" so to speak, i.e. suitable for a teenage audience. If I had teenage kids, I'd definitely feel comfortable letting them see this movie--and I wouldn't mind sitting through it with them, as it was fun for me as an adult. Having seen it on October 25th, it's definitely helped get me in the mood for Halloween here in a few days!

I'm giving this serial, "The Green Hornet Strikes Again", the same score that I gave its predecessor, the original "Green Hornet" serial movie--7/10 stars. Opting for the same score is an easy call since this serial follows the exact same formula as the original, albeit with a different actor assuming the lead role.

The gist of the film is that Brit Reid is a newspaper editor who assumes the mantle of a vigilante crime fighter, the Green Hornet. Armed with only his wits, a mask, and a gas gun that puts people to sleep upon firing, the Hornet fights lots of adventures, all related to one devious racketeer scheme. Each episode ends with a cliff hanger scene, and each new episode begins with the previous chapter being resolved, usually because something fortuitous happened that wasn't shown at the close of the previous episode.

I have to say that I did find these stories to grow on me a fair bit as I watched these two serials. One thing that came to mind is that the Green Hornet is essentially a very similar character to DC Comics' Golden Age Sandman--at least in terms of the crime fighter himself, although the alter ego is a bit different. The Hornet was first a radio serial starting in 1936, while the Sandman made his debut in comic book form in the summer of 1939. The first of these two serials was released in 1940, so it's a curious thought as to how much the Sandman character took its cue from the Hornet radio show, as well as how much these Hornet movie serials may have been influenced by the Sandman comics.

Whatever the case, all in all I'd give this serial 7/10 stars. Like the original, it's extremely well made and fun. The only reservation I have is that it does get a bit repetitive, and that despite its fun it's certainly a niche product that won't appeal to just anyone in a modern audience.

Oh, and before you go spending money on this serial, look for it on YouTube. I watched the entire fifteen chapters there for free!

As soon as I saw this movie, I came home and had a phone call with an uncle of mine. He asked me what I'd been up to for the evening, and I told him I'd just got in from the movies. He asked me what I had seen, and that led me to trying to explain to him the plot of "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children". If you've seen it, I would suggest that you try to explain it to someone else. When you do, I think you'll agree that while it may be enjoyable, it is a bit too complicated.

So what is the movie about? A time traveling youth gets sent on a mission to stop a fellow group of evil time travelers from doing harm to a group of characters with fantastic powers who have taken refuge from the world by living in a single day in time that they repeat every single day of their lives by rewinding the day over and over again. So, basically a mix of the "X-Men" movies with "Groundhog Day". Only to make things all the more complex, there's a bit of a family drama involved, a bizarre love triangle between a pre-teen, a young man and his grandfather (seriously), and various monsters and shape shifters.

All that said, this is not a terrible movie. In fact, it's quite good in some regards. But it has a very complicated plot--perhaps as complicated as "Inception", if not more so (but not as enjoyable as "Inception").

All that said, while this is far from a bad movie, I have to go with 6/10 stars here simply because of the fact that I didn't find it to be of the caliber of what I tend to give a seven or above. Perhaps it's close to a seven--but there are lots of sevens out there that I like more than this film. It's worth seeing, and if you're into teen fiction it may float your boat. But I found it to be just a smidge too convoluted to be a huge fan.

I saw this movie in a theater release last night--a release that I'm sure has been arranged due to Gene Wilder's recent death. I'd never seen the movie before, so I went into it not knowing entirely what to expect. I've never seen any of the Boris Karloff "Frankenstein" movies, so allusions to those were a bit lost on me. I have, however, read Mary Shelley's "Fankenstein" novel, so I'm very familiar with the original source material.

Rather than being a twist on the original "Frankenstein" story itself, this movie takes a Frederick Frankenstein as its lead protagonist, explaining that Frederick is the grandson of the late Victor Frankenstein, the late famous inventor who brought the original monster to life. Frederick sets out to replicate his grandfather's work, and the movie revolves around the events that occur thereafter. Like the early 20th Century Karloff films, "Young Frankenstein" is filmed in black and white--a technique that works well considering its source material.

All in all this movie plays out like one might expect a Mel Brooks movie to play out. It's full of zany slapstick moments, some of which are fairly humorous. The genius of the film is perhaps that it does more or less replicate the original "Frankenstein" tale, but does so with overt comedy throughout.

All that said, this was a well made film and one that I'm glad I took the time to see. Still, all things considered I can only give it 7/10 stars simply because I just couldn't totally get into it. Sure, it's easy enough to follow and there's no problem comprehending the storyline--it tells its tale quite well. But I guess it was the whole notion of a spoof on Frankenstein that was a bit lost on me. Maybe it's because I really enjoyed the Shelley novel, which itself has a very serious tone about it-- with an even more serious message. Or maybe I'm just not cut out for slapstick. Whatever the case, I can totally see why many people would rank this movie higher--but for me, personally, I can only go with 7/10 stars.

I recently saw "Dr. Strangelove" for the first time ever, despite its being such a well known film and despite my having seen a few other Kubrick flicks over the years.

If you're not familiar at all with the movie, this is Stanley Kubrick's comedic commentary on nuclear armament. Unlike some of his other films ("2001", "Clockwork Orange"), this film has somewhat of a more realistic feel to it, albeit one that deals in a bizarre "what if" type of fantasy. The basic premise of the film is that an American general with access to nuclear attack plans has gone crazy and initiates a nuclear war sequence. The rest of the movie is the nation's attempt to stop the war from happening before the first bomb drops.

The film is shot in black and white, and features robust cinematography--I was fortunate to have seen it in a theater release, and seeing it on the big screen really highlighted the wonderful camera work.

All in all this is a well made film with a couple of memorable lines--although there are elements of the movie that were just a bit too over the top for me (Dr. Strangelove himself, for instance). I think the most important reason to watch this movie is for the message it conveyed regarding nuclear arms. The film is a social commentary on the absurdity of nuclear weapons, and if you watch it without comprehending that then you've missed the point entirely. That said, this is one that requires a bit of thought rather than simply taking it at face value.

Having said all that, I'm going to go with 8/10 stars for this film. It's very well made, and certainly worth the time to see once in your life. I'm not sure whether I'd consider it in my "favorites" category on the other side of viewing it--but it's a tale that certainly makes you think, and perhaps I might even say that it's a film that's more important to see than it is enjoyable to see. You'll perhaps see the world a bit differently on the other side of this movie--and that's not a bad thing.

I recently took a friend's advice and went to see the 2016 version of "The Magnificent Seven". I have never seen the original film and so I really can't compare this movie to its predecessor. That said, though, I found this movie to be well made and a lot of fun.

The film follows somewhat of a standard western movie formula: There's a bad guy threatening a town with a land contract racketeering scheme, bad guy kills a few people, people want revenge, along comes Denzel Washington who plays a bounty hunter type of character, and he rounds up a posse to defeat the bad guy.

That said, as trite as that formula may sound, the fact is that it's one that works and works well, especially in this well made movie that is quite attentive to detail. The cast, script, and directing all come together into a wonderfully produced film.

My one area of criticism--and this is purely a personal preference--is that overall the film had a bit of a clean type of feeling to it, almost as though it were produced by a Disney studio. The music contributes to that quite a bit, with the score more of a John Wayne vibe than a Clint Eastwood type of feel. I personally prefer westerns made in the latter standard, with a more gritty and dark mood. This film perhaps doesn't deserve to be marked down simply for not having been made in that mold, but again, for me it just made it less enjoyable.

All that said, I'm going with 8/10 stars. It's a great movie, but falls just short of being in the top tier of a 9 or 10 star rating.

I recently watched the 1940 serial edition of "The Green Hornet". As someone who has not watched very many serial movies, I found this film series to be fun and extremely well made for its day. The movie is about four and a half hours long, but is divided into thirteen chapters, each twenty minutes in length. I myself watched a chapter every few days over the course of a month or so.

"The Green Hornet" tells the story of the eponymous radio suspense character from the 1930's who is essentially a mild mannered newspaper editor who takes it upon himself to fight crime in disguise. The character is not exactly a vigilante, at least not in the violent sense, as the Hornet is constantly portrayed as a hero rather than an antihero. Still, his standing outside the law causes him to have run ins with both crooks and the police.

There is definitely a vibe to this film that fits into a "noir" genre, as the plot centers on an elaborate scandal. However, the film maintains a lighthearted vibe overall, as this is ultimately a superhero series, so to speak, rather than the kind of existentialist commentary one might expect from film noir.

The best thing this serial has going for it is its elaborate settings and fight scenes. Railroad scenes, flight scenes, train wrecks, auto wrecks, plane wrecks, flooded mines--this one has it all. And of course, each chapter ends with a cliffhanger made to keep you on the edge of your seat.

All that said, I've given this movie 7/10 stars. It's certainly well made and a delight for its day and age, and for its genre. However, it is quite a long series and by the end you're kind of ready for it to be over with. Still, the final chapter is perhaps the best of the series, and makes it all worth the watch.

I went to see "Kubo and the Two Strings" a couple of weeks ago somewhat on a whim--it was one of those nights when I was wanting to go to the movies as much to get out of the house and eat popcorn as to actually see any specific film. I saw where this animated feature was getting rave reviews, so I decided I'd give it a shot.

I definitely didn't feel like this movie was a waste of either time or money. The movie is extremely well made, from the animation to the script to the voice actors. Kubo is a young man who sets out on a journey to overcome forces of darkness, and along the way he is transported to another realm where he encounters friend and foe in the hunt for three sacred relics which will aid him in his fight.

All that said, from one angle there's really not much to dislike about this movie. It's reasonably fun and accessible. And, again, the animation is extraordinary.

And yet, there was just something about this movie that is hard to articulate, but nevertheless made it less enjoyable than I might have hoped. I think it all boils down to likability. The movie was top notch in how it was made--but there are more likable stories out there. The hunt for the three relics comes across a bit like a video game. I couldn't help but think of "The Legend of Zelda" as I watched the hunt for the sword, armor, and helmet--all of which upgrade Kubo's status, so to speak. And the gist of the film itself falls into the "epic" genre, and yet the script follows the standard formula for an epic story so closely that it feels somewhat trite.

On a different note, this movie committed what I consider a cardinal sin for this genre of film aimed at young viewers: It had a brief comment that was basically an allusion to profanity. Specifically, a character at one time says "Oh, foot!" just as he was about to be stepped on by some giant threat in that particular scene. This was clearly a suggestive phrase meant to conjure up another "F" word. Why put that in a kids movie? What's the point?

For those reasons I'm giving this otherwise perfect film eight out of ten stars. It's delightful--but predictable. Epic, but in a way that feels a bit boring. It's still watchable and you may find it more to your liking than I did to mine. But don't be surprised if your kids start saying "Oh, foot!" whenever something is about to happen. And who wants that?

I'll start this review off by saying that I'm definitely not the target audience for this film, as I more or less hate musicals. Still, as a classic film enthusiast, I try to catch old movies when they come to a big screen nearby, and with this month's Turner Classic local movie being "The King and I", I decided to take in this movie.

What I found in this film was a well made classic musical that features strong performances and an elaborate, no expense spared set. All of the actors, from Kerr and Bryner down to the least member of the supporting cast, appear in elaborately designed costumes and against backdrops that are magnificent. The same detail is extant in the costumes, and the level of care that went into this production is enormous. This is a very well made classic film, and it's hard to find a flaw so far as the production quality is concerned.

The film's stars do steal the show, particularly Bryner who offers a convincing portrayal of an arrogant but charming oriental king. Kerr is similarly dazzling, along with the various children who make up her character's pupils.

I've given this film 7/10 stars based simply around my enjoyment of the film in regard to its place in a wider spectrum of movies. Again, the production quality is outstanding, and as such there's very little that I can say that would take away from the way the movie tells its story--the exception being the rather long performance of a play within a play when the characters act out "Uncle Tom's Cabin" on stage in the film.

Rather, I've given this movie 7/10 stars due to the fact that as well made as it is, it just simply didn't appeal to me enough to rank it higher. I don't regret having seen it whatsoever, but I can't imagine that this will be a movie I'd want to view more than once in my life. I did enjoy learning where the popular "Getting to Know You--Getting to Know All About You" theme song comes from. I believe it was used as an AT&T commercial jingle in the 90's. I never knew it was from this film--but now I know. Still, the score only does so much so far as making this movie re-watchable. Thus my rating of seven stars.

I don't give 10/10 stars to very many movies--but I saw "Pete's Dragon" tonight, and it completely won me over.

I grew up in the 80's, and as such I remember seeing bits and pieces of the original "Pete's Dragon" on TV as a kid--but to my knowledge I never watched it all the way through, and if I did I've completely forgotten the plot of the original movie. All I remember is a green cartoon dragon on screen alongside real actors.

That being the case, I went into this remake a bit blind and not knowing what to expect. I found myself pleasantly surprised by how much the film appealed to me. I do take in family and kid- friendly movies now and again, despite my not having kids of my own, and having seen several films in this genre in recent months ("The Jungle Book"; "The Legend of Tarzan"; etc), I found "Pete's Dragon" to have a charm that few such movies have exhibited this summer. The tale was intriguing, the acting above average, and the overall production quality top notch.

I think the thing that really sold me on this movie, though, was Elliot the Dragon. What a fantastic bit of special effects! He totally won me over and made me care about him as a character, as did Pete and others. Robert Redford, Karl Urban, and Bryce Dallas Howard all offer good performances in their respective roles as well, and in the end it just comes together in a way that makes for a great family friendly movie.

Again, I don't do this often, but I have to go with 10/10 stars for this one. It may not have been the best movie I've ever seen, but there was just so little not to like about this movie--overall I find it to be superb. Bravo!

I just came from the theater having seen "Ben-Hur" tonight, and I found it to be much better than the reviews (the film has a 27% rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of this review). Read on to find out why this film is not that bad.

First things first, if you're not familiar with "Ben-Hur", this is a movie that is based on a historical fiction novel that incorporates the crucifixion of Jesus into its tale. The main story is a completely fictitious tale that focuses on a pair of brothers, one a Jewish prince, the other an adopted brother who joins the Roman Imperial army. The plot circles around the dramatic sibling rivalry that unfolds between these two family members, and the various episodes that the family goes through as a result of events related to that rivalry. None of that story has any biblical basis whatsoever-- but peppered throughout the story the family has run ins with Jesus, and ultimately he is crucified about the same time as the climax of the film, and (tiny spoiler coming up here.......) the crucifixion ultimately inspires reconciliation amongst the two brothers.

Again, this is all based on a novel. The story is what it is, and is drawn from a work of fiction that was quite popular as a book before it ever became a popular film. That book was first made into a silent film in the 1920's, and then was turned into the classic Charlton Heston movie in 1956, for which the latter won the Oscar for Best Picture.

Having said all that, this 2016 film is the latest attempt at bringing the book to the silver screen, and I myself found it to do its job quite well. One can make what they will of whether or not they like the book or the plot of the movie--there's certainly much that could be said about that. The book's subtitled "A Tale of the Christ", and so it obviously is written for and marketed to a Christian audience, and the overall message is overtly Christian oriented. Obviously one's faith perspective will therefore influence what one makes of this film, and even if one is a Christian there's nevertheless room for criticism of whether one may or may not like the plot of the film.

I personally am reviewing the movie less for whether or not I liked its message or its plot, and more so as to whether it was a well made film. Based purely on that criteria, I'm giving this movie 8/10 stars. I've seen the Charlton Heston version some years ago, and I liked it okay--but not being familiar with the story at the time, I found that movie a bit hard to follow. The 1956 version was great for its time, but compared to modern movies it pales in comparison in the storytelling department. This 2016 remake does much better in that regard, and I found the story easy to keep up with--and it also arguably does a better job of expressing its religious message, since the tiny bits of the film that feature Jesus early on in the script are more overt in this movie than the Charlton Heston film.

I also found the film to be well made overall, with good acting and extremely well done special effects and appropriate costume design.

Now, let's talk about the chariot race. The truth of the matter is that the 1956 version of this film was significant just as much because of the chariot race as anything to do with its religious message. Sure, "Ben-Hur" is an overtly Christian movie--but nothing like the chariot race scene had ever been done in film making at that point. That scene set the standard for modern movie making for a generation to come. So how does the suspense and drama of the 2016 film stand up to the 1956 chariot race? Well, obviously we live in a different day and age today, and as such the effects of the race could easily be reduced to just another dramatic CGI effects scene akin to a great many movies even in the ancient genre--"300" and "Noah" come to mind.

Still, I found the chariot race scene to be very well done, and done in a way that was both period appropriate but also made for modern audiences. Indeed, there's a bit of gore involved here-- albeit "gore" may not be the right word. The scene is far from a Tarantino movie, but there's definitely some intense moments in the course of the race, with several wrecks and both humans and animals left for dead along the way. But, in my view, it told the story it had to tell quite well.

All in all, I'm giving this movie 8/10 stars. Just as was the case with the Heston version of this movie, I think that there are better stories out there and better movies to watch, even in the intentionally Christian genre. Still, this is far from a bad movie. It's well made, has good acting, and the religious element certainly is presented in a way that exhibits a redemptive theology as opposed to the more negative portrayal of Christian theology that films sometimes embrace. Indeed, I would have to say that I found this to be the more enjoyable of the two films--Heston's chariot race notwithstanding. I'd say most people can find something to appreciate here unless you're just overtly against all things Christianity. And even then, you still should see this movie, or the 1956 version, simply due to its place in popular culture over the course of the last 100 years or so.

So, yeah. Very good movie. 8/10 stars.

Having watched the four previous movies in preparation for this latest chapter in the Bourne franchise, I can say that this movie is good overall. I'm flirting with giving it 7/10 stars as I write this review. But I think that 6/10 probably describes it best.

Let's start with the good parts of this film. The movie stars Matt Damon, who makes a return to the franchise after 2013's "Bourne Legacy" starring Jeremy Renner. Renner didn't do a bad job at all in that film, but the fact is that this is Matt Damon's series. And, thankfully, the movie doesn't bring in very much of the back story from "Legacy" at all (which was a somewhat geeky movie for Bourne franchise die-hards), but instead is a return to the type of narrative seen in the first three films.

Tommy Lee Jones stars as the main antagonist in the film--the CIA director, who of course winds up being the lead villain. That should be no surprise if you've seen the previous movies in the series. Jones plays the part well and is arguably one of the more redeeming elements of the film.

The script is reasonably strong, and the story telling is good in this movie--and, to my liking, there's less of the shaky camera technique going on here than in 2007's "Bourne Ultimatum". However, the movie's two most prominent action scenes seem to drag on forever. That's another one of those things that seems to be standard for this franchise. It's fine, I guess, but in my opinion it really shouldn't take ten minutes worth of film to convey the conclusion of a chase scene.

The biggest problem I have with the movie, though, is that it just feels like at this point the series has become a repeat of the second movie over and over again ("Legacy" being the exception). Bourne is a problem, the CIA wants to kill him, there's corruption at the top of the CIA, there's a bunch of car chases, and in the end Bourne walks away (spoiler). That's all fine and good if you just want some simple escapism, but how many times can they make this same movie over and over again?

All that said, I give this one 6/10 stars. It's not a bad movie at all. But it's not fresh. I've seen it all before. And that makes it not as enjoyable as it would be otherwise.

I'll start by saying that I almost gave this movie 6/10 when I first watched it, but then I went to see the new film, "Jason Bourne" which is out in theaters just now before penning this review. Having seen the latter, I bumped this movie down to 5/10 stars. Read on for why.

If you're not familiar with the Bourne movies, Matt Damon plays the lead character in the first three movies plus the latest, the aforementioned fifth film in the franchise. This movie, "The Bourne Legacy" is the fourth in the series, and does not star Damon at all. Instead it stars Jeremy Renner ("The Hurt Locker"; Hawkeye in "Marvel's The Avengers") who plays the role of a trainee for the same covert CIA black ops super-soldier type of program that Damon's character had evidently gone through prior to the beginning of the series. The movie is not a prequel, as it tells its tale after the events of the "Bourne Ultimatum" (and in fact the first half of the movie is told in conjunction with that movie). Still, the whole concept of the film is to provide insight into the behind the scenes happenings that led to the Bourne black ops program.

That said, while the movie is okay, what it winds up being is a "deep track" so to speak--it's the equivalent of a B-side song from a popular band's latest album. It's not bad, but it's just not what you want to see from the franchise.

The film does go into a fair bit of detail to explain the background of Treadstone and BlackBriar, the twin CIA programs that the previous movies revolve around. But while the plot is fairly engaging, it gets so deep into that back story that it winds up really only being of interest if you're a huge fan of all things Bourne and want to see the movie not so much as a standalone treat but as a film made especially for you as a Bourne aficionado.

None of this is to say that Jeremy Renner doesn't do a great job in the role he was asked to play for this movie. The problem is not the acting nor the action element of the film. Rather, it's that the film is just too marketed to the geekiest of Bourne fans for it to maintain its own appeal.

Furthermore, there is one scene in the film that caused me to not like the movie. That scene is basically a mass shooting scene--a workplace mass shooting at that--that plays out on screen for much longer than it should, and goes into much more detail than it should. The scene seemed to last a good five minutes, and I felt like I was watching a torture porn movie--and one that was basically made to appeal to people who think mass shootings are cool. That whole entire scene could have been condensed into a brief cut that would have communicated the same message and kept the plot the same without the grotesque use of this very particular type of overt gun violence. Take that scene out and this movie goes up to at least 6/10 stars.

As for what I noted above about the latest movie, "Jason Bourne", I thought that maybe the events of this film might be brought up in it in some way. The franchise is huge on stringing together its various plot strings into a cohesive narrative. But to my surprise, "The Bourne Legacy" doesn't figure prominently in the new movie whatsoever. There's a tiny Easter egg moment where the code names for the programs used in "Legacy" show up on a computer screen in "Jason Bourne", but other than that there's nothing at all. That said, this movie is a completely unnecessary chapter in the franchise history--a deep track that is alright to listen to for die hard fans, but not one of the greatest hits.

For all of the above reasons, I'm going with 5/10 stars for this movie. I can't really say that it's a "bad" movie, but it also falls flat of being a good movie as well.

I'm on the third of the initial Bourne Trilogy movies as I prep for "Jason Bourne", and that has brought me to "The Bourne Ultimatum", a film I had not seen since it was first in theaters in 2007. I remember thinking at the time that the camera work was troubling for me. It was even more so seeing it on Blu Ray. At the time I gave the movie 8/10 stars, but on this second viewing I have to go with only six.

This film is a direct sequel to "The Bourne Supremacy", and picks up exactly where that film picks up. The script is okay, but not great. I won't go into details so as not to write a spoiler, but the film centers around Jason Bourne uncovering more about his past life, and the climax of the movie is sort of the big reveal about that past life--and that big reveal was, to me, pretty hokey. The whole thing felt forced, and a bit like a caricature, or something you expect from a comic book character rather than a spy movie.

But the real thing that kills this movie is its terrible camera work. I get that it was the mid-2000's and the whole jittery camera technique was a thing, but goodness is it ever annoying. And the overwhelming majority of the film uses this technique. It makes you feel like you're on a ride at an amusement park, and it just doesn't work for me at all. I might have given this film seven or eight stars had it not been for the camera work, but that nuisance drops this movie down to a six. It's good, but not great--and a step down from "The Bourne Supremacy".

I'm making my way back through the "Bourne" movies so I can go see "Jason Bourne" which is in theaters now. Last night I watched "The Bourne Supremacy". While it's been a while since I've seen "Ultimatum", I think "Supremacy" may be the best film in the franchise series.

There's quite a bit to like about this movie. In it we find that Jason Bourne is still struggling with amnesia in the wake of the events of "The Bourne Identity". As the film opens we find that he's making a life for himself far away from the eyes of the CIA, only to be framed by a foreign body such that he winds up on the run from the US government once more. The plot revolves around his attempt to clear his name and bring those responsible for the setup to justice.

Unlike the first movie, this film is more re-watchable in that whereas once you've seen the original film you pretty much know where it's going, the "Supremacy" is a new chapter that stays fresh even on multiple views. In other words, it's hard to forget the gist of the first movie's plot and its eventual outcome--but the "Supremacy" takes the basic concept of the franchise and crafts a tale that could have been told as any chapter in the series. If you've not seen it in a few years, you'll likely find yourself just as engrossed in it upon a second viewing as you were the first go around.

I also find that this film just simply has the best plot of the series, and has a story that keeps you on the edge of your seat. New characters are introduced that make the film fun and exciting, and by the end of the show you feel like you've got your money's worth.

That said, I've given this movie 9/10 stars. I stop short of the perfect 10/10 simply because this is a sequel that a person might be a bit lost on without having seen the first movie. That, and while it's fantastic, it's fantastic in a way that just seems to fall a teensy bit short of iconic in the way that a perfect 10 might. Still a superb movie, though. Extremely well done.

Let me begin by saying that I grew up in the 80's, meaning that I am of the generation that was reared in the age of "Friday the 13th", "A Nightmare of Elm Street", and "Halloween". Those "slasher" films as they're often called set the stage for later horror flicks the likes of "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer", along with a slew of other more modern horror films that follow in the legacy of movies with very intense villains.

The first time I saw "Psycho" was around five years ago, and I had heard that it was the prototype of all of the above modern horror movies that I'd grown to love from my adolescence. I was quite let down, as this film is far from a Freddie, Jason, or Michael type of movie. Instead, this film is a "horror" film of a different time and era--the era in which Alfred Hitchcock was synonymous with the genre. And, inasmuch as that's true, "Psycho" has an altogether different feel than any of the post-"Exorcist" or post-"Halloween" horror films which have come to be more popular nowadays. Another way of putting it might be that this movie may rightly be considered a "horror" movie, but it's not really a "scary" movie by today's standards. Creepy at points? Yes. Scary? No.

That said, I gave this movie a second chance today at a screening at a local historic theater. This time I went into it expecting a Hitchcock movie rather than a modern horror film--and I was not let down. Expectation is everything when it comes to what you get out of a movie, and when before I went hoping for an introduction to a gruesome killer the likes of Michael Myers, I left feeling like I'd been ripped off. But when I watched this movie knowing what to expect--a film high on suspense, with a psychopath as the main villain, albeit one that is a bit cheesy by today's standards--I found myself thoroughly enjoying this movie.

I don't think I'm alone in feeling that this film has lost its horrific element in light of modern horror story telling. At one of the most climactic parts of the film (not the well known shower scene, but rather the climax involving Mrs. Bates later on toward the end of the movie), everyone in the theater literally laughed out loud. Perhaps not robustly, but still--the audience's reaction to a scene that was meant to be grotesque was laughter. That's how cheesy parts of this film can be by 2016 standards.

And yet, still, when you watch the film for what it is--a suspense filled Hitchcock movie which deals with concepts of ethics and karma, along with the story of a hermit turned psychopath, this is an extraordinary movie.

Two of the things that I like most about the film are the great camera work and its score. The movie is in black and white, but its picture quality is sharp (I saw it in digital projection), and the cinematography is as good as any ever put on the silver screen. And that theme song! The violins rushing this way and that--definitely one of the movie's best attributes.

All that said, I'm giving "Psycho" a score of 9/10 stars, which is much higher than I would have given it when I expected a more modern touch, and indeed much higher than I imagined myself giving the movie when I walked into the theater. Perhaps the only thing making this movie fall just short of a 10/10 is that there are a few little plot holes that seem somewhat obvious if you think things through for a moment--but I won't go into those as it would require spoiling some things. The point is that this is a great movie, so long as you know what kind of vibe to expect. I highly recommend it--just know that you're watching a suspense filled Hitchcock movie, not a modern day horror film.

I remember seeing this movie when it first came out in theaters in 2002. Back then it was so fresh, and so good--it was a unique story that kept you on the edge of your seat. Indeed, in 2002 I probably would have given this movie 10/10 stars.

That said, watching this movie on Blu Ray recently, I felt like it's still a great film--but one that loses a bit of its charm on a successive viewing. This movie is full of suspense and cliffhanger scenes that make you wonder what's coming next. But it's also a story that once you've seen it once, you more or less know what's going to happen, and so the thrill factor deteriorates significantly, thus making the movie not as fun to watch time and again.

Another thing that the movie has going against it is the picture quality that the movie is filmed in. The movie has a clarity that at many times makes it look more like the set of a sitcom than a spy movie. This is especially true for indoor scenes--it may very well have been exceptionally good lighting rather than the type of film itself that was used. Whatever the case, the movie at times looks too polished, and too crisp.

Still, overall this is a fantastic movie. Matt Damon plays an amnesiac who slowly but surely uncovers bits and pieces about who he actually is. That knowledge is more obvious more quickly to the audience than it is to Damon's character--but throughout the film we learn more and more about the fascinating back story of this man without a memory, and the story is engaging and full of thrills.

All that said, I'm giving this movie 8/10 stars. It's a great movie, but one that there are a few flaws to nitpick.

Despite the initial reviews of this movie being horrible, I decided I'd take it in at a matinée simply because it's a comic book movie and watching it would keep me up to speed with the DC Cinematic Universe. I'm glad I did. This movie isn't at all as bad as the first reviews suggested.

Granted, one disclaimer to that statement would be that this isn't a terrible movie for the genre of movie it finds itself in. This is a comic book fan's comic book movie. It's a movie that introduces over half a dozen characters to the silver screen, and a movie whose plot revolves around a somewhat stereotypical "good" guys vs. really powerful bad guy type of story.

Still, the movie tells its story well for the most part, and the overall production isn't terrible. The characters are likable enough, so much so that it has inspired me to want to look up the ones that I know the least about so as to learn more about their comic book versions. The acting was good on the whole (albeit Will Smith has the uncanny ability to always play Will Smith in any role that he's given), and the effects were tolerable overall, even if a bit underwhelming by today's standards.

The biggest flaw I found in the movie is that some of the characters are given more robust introductions than others. Katana, in particular, shows up out of nowhere with little to no introduction outside of a flashback scene that doesn't really tell you much by way of introduction. The lopsidedness of the introductions felt a bit off to me--but I will say that the group seemed to allow for all of the characters to join in the fight scenes as the film progressed, so I suppose that helped to equal out that issue.

All that said, I'm giving this movie 6/10 stars. That means that I find this to be a good movie overall, but one that just barely crosses the good/bad movie threshold. It's enjoyable enough, but not really a top notch film that you have to see before you up and die.

One last note: It should be obvious enough if you know anything whatsoever about the film or its source material, but this film is violent and uses a lot of foul language--so much so that I'm surprised it got a PG-13 rating. In my opinion it's more rightly an R rated film, and so don't assume that just because this movie is based on a comic book that it's going to be family friendly. It's certainly not that at all.