Review: Shrek Forever After

I'll just come right out and say it...BORING!

The first Shrek movie was wonderful. It was original, laugh-til-your-face-hurt funny, and had a number of fun takes on pop culture. I was excited for the second, but wound up disappointed as it replayed the same jokes, offered nothing new, and resembled little plot-wise to the first. When the third movie came out I went to see it and hated it. At least I got to see it for free!

So, we finally come to the [supposed] end of this franchise. I've read a number of articles which all stated that this Shrek was fresher, more like the original. So, I had high hopes going into the theater. The first few jokes were fun; but they soon wandered into too-familiar comedy territory. The "It's a Wonderful Life" twist was just OK; but the storyline grew so cliched that I was getting bored just fifteen minutes into the film. The rest of the movie never relieved me of my boredom. A few chuckles ensued, but certainly no laughter. However, the audience around me was laughing regularly throughout. (???)

Most of the regular cast was as good as ever--too bad the material they had was so bland. I grew really tired of Eddie Murphy. All of his jokes either sounded vaguely familiar, or were delivered in the same irritating way--line after line. Whatever it was, any time Donkey was onscreen I just wished his lines would end.

I will say that this movie is great for kids! Much like the kids in my showing, they'll love it. They won't realize what a yawn-fest this turned out to be. Oh well, at least this tired run is finished...or is it?

And by the way, in case you think I haven't made myself clear already...There is no way I'd see this one again!

Movie Remakes...Right, or Wrong?

It seems like Hollywood is on a remake bender the last few years.

Nothing seems to be off limits to the screen hacks employed by the studios these days. I recently read that a classic, Oscar winning movie is slated for the rehash bin.

While I will be the first to admit that some films have turned out far better than the originals ( Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, 3:10 To Yuma, The 300, Dune mini-series, Alice in Wonderland, etc), the majority are just a way for lazy screen writers to "update" films with gratuitous violence, filthy language and nudity/sex.

It reminds me of today's hip-hop artists who remake classic songs, and the end product is just garbage. Do you know what I mean? For instance, "Killing Me Softly" is a slow, mournful ballad; not a fast-paced, rap oriented, obnoxious noise-fest as was presented a few years ago! What a travesty of artistic interpretation! I wish that version could be unmade. So it is with some of these "re-do's" that have been popping up. Some of the real dogs that have reared their ugly heads are War of the Worlds, Starsky & Hutch, The Taking of Pelham 123, S.W.A.T., The Fog, Death Race, etc.

Now I'm reading that over the next few years, Hollywood studios will be filming upwards of 125 "re-imaginings" of previously released movies. Among the probable list, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander, Metropolis, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Westworld and The Warriors. Add to the list now, Academy Award winner, True Grit. What? Remake a classic, award winning film?....and John Wayne no less? Seriously?!!!

Yeah...somebody is going there!

That list is also exclusive of this years' remaining "do-overs" that include The Karate Kid, Red Dawn, The A Team, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tales From Earthsea, Tangled, and Gulliver's Travels.

Notice a trend here?

No wonder Hollywood is wondering why, though gate receipts are up (mostly due to price increases), theater attendance is on the decline. Maybe they ought to look at all the remakes that are being pumped out ad nauseum. Instead of these "re-treads", maybe studio execs should be looking at screenplays that actually have originality in them. I for one am getting tired of seeing movies "recycled" every 15 years or so. With all the literature, all the current events, and all of human history as a rich source of material, why are we seeing "rehash" after rehash of tired, overdone films? Or of movies that should never be touched because the original is the best?

Notice all the terms I've been highlighting? Re-do's, Re-Imagining, Do-Over's, Re-Treads, Recycled, Re-Hash. These are all terms I have seen used by marketers to distract the movie-going public from the fact that so many movies are nothing more than updated remakes of previous products. A remake is a remake; no matter the term used to describe it.

So, tell me what you think about this trend. Is it here to stay? Are the screen writers in Hollywood so creatively dead that they can't write new material? What would you like to see coming out of the studios? Tell me what you think; I'll be doing a follow-up with reader comments in the near future.

Review: Robin Hood

Ridley Scott is a thorough, entertaining and detailed director. This is highly evident as you watch his latest film, Robin Hood.

I had high hopes for a great movie-viewing experience...and I wasn't disappointed. Robin Hood is, so far, the best movie of the season. It is the typical spectacle-type production we have come to expect from Scott. He delivers a gritty, realistic world of medieval England that is not found elsewhere.

Russell Crowe is fabulous as Robin. He brings realism and humanity to a figure of folklore that dwells historically in rumors, innuendo, and myth. He is very comfortable in the role, and his dialogue with Cate Blanchett's Lady Marian is relaxed and natural. Crowe obviously enjoys working with Ridley Scott...and why not? The movies they create are usually phenomenal, and Robin Hood is no exception.

Cate Blanchett brings her cool demeanor and utmost effort to an un-regal Marian Loxley. Her screen presence alone is worth the cost of admission. In this role, Blanchett has a character unlike any other I have seen her play; and she handles herself well in portraying Marian as both confident and unsure. She brings a refreshing dichotomy to a typically subservient character role; and it is a joy to watch.

The supporting cast is wonderful from top to bottom. Notably, Mark Strong as Godfrey, Kevin Durand as Little John, William Hurt as Marshall, Oscar Isaac as Prince John, Scott Grimes as Will Scarlet, Alan Doyle as Allan A'Dayle, Matthew Macfadyen as a disgusting Sheriff of Nottingham, and the always phenomenal Max von Sydow as Sir Walter Loxley.

The editing was top notch as scenes flowed effortlessly from one to another. The cinematography was exactly what you expect from Ridley Scott with sweeping panoramas, colorful landscapes and delicate close-ups. Production design, sound design, battle choreography, costuming and set construction were all seamless. The entire production from top to bottom was just fantastic. Add in the stirring soundtrack from Marc Streitenfeld, and you have a beautiful, fun, robust and thoroughly enjoyable movie-going experience.

If you must miss one of this years' big movies, make sure that is ISN'T this one.

I will end up buying this on DVD. In the mean time, I think I'll go see this at least two or three more times!

Pivitol Movies In Film History

Every once in a while a film comes along that shakes up the film industry.

These watershed moments are rare; but when they happen the entire industry perks their collective ears and does their best to catch up to a new standard. Once a bar has been raised studios either follow suit, or they drift off the radar and struggle until they eventually die.

So let's get started.

Birth of A Nation: This was the first [acknowledged] full-length feature film. DW Griffiths' ambitious project was popular in its day; but looking back, it was nothing more than a hate-filled propaganda piece meant to espouse the goodness and benevolence of the Ku Klux Klan. However, it led to the downfall of the nickelodeons and established a standard of actual storytelling in the medium.

The Jazz Singer: This movie was the first 'talkie' to show in movie houses. Up until this time, actual dialogue was limited to filmed placards inserted in scenes and local piano or organ players supplied the dramatic music that accompanied most films.

Citizen Kane: Whether you enjoy this movie or not, Orson Welles' directorial effort brought about a revolution in scene staging, dialogue interaction, set design and photographic techniques.

Bullitt: This 1968 crime drama starring Steve McQueen established a new standard in film making. It basically re-wrote the book on car chase scenes. This movie is the standard by which car chase scenes are filmed to this day.

Star Wars: Prior to this film, SciFi flicks were generally dialogue oriented with relatively few action shots, and had completely unbelievable mock-ups for sets, ship designs and exterior shots. Star Wars revolutionized the genre with camera wizardry, location shoots, and an introduction to early CGI. There was a reason this film had fan lines going literally around the block as they waited sometimes days to see it.

Toy Story: This movie set a very high standard in the emerging CGI arena. It did things that no one had done up to that point. It was dazzling, fresh, believable, and filled with humor for parents and kids. Even watching it 18 years later, you cannot help but be struck by the artistry involved in its production.

Lord of The Rings: The WETA Digital Studios raised the CGI bar even higher through their creation and use of computer programs that looked like, and mimicked, real-life characters; whether individually, or in masses. Particularly, in the character Gollum. Actor Andy Serkis, dressed in a special suit, was filmed alongside other actors in order to create realism. Then in post production, the final look of Gollum was added thereby making him appear as real as you and I.

Avatar: Avatar was a technical, and a technological masterpiece. New cameras were developed for this shoot, and CGI was pushed even further. Plus, the integration of live action with CGI was nothing short of spectacular.


*I realize that some films you might have chosen for this list were not included. My focus is technical developments/innovations. If you have other possible watershed movies, please leave me your comments.

DVD Review: "The Lovely Bones"

I didn't get the chance to see The Lovely Bones when it was in theaters.

A few night ago I finally got the opportunity to see the latest directorial effort of Academy Award winner Peter Jackson; and I am glad I did!

I have never read the book that this movie is based on, so I had no literary comparison to draw on as the story unfolded. Instead I saw the movie for what it was; and I loved what I saw!

The two real stars of this movie, Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci were magnificent in their roles (Ronan as murdered Susie, Tucci as the murderer). For me, they completely held my attention whenever either was onscreen. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weis were superb as Susie's parents. Supporting actors Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli and Rose McIver added even more depth that might not have been there had lesser actors tackled their respective roles.

The cinematography was on par with Jackson's expectations. In other words, flawless and stunning. There's really not much more to say about the camera work; it was that good!

The CGI of the film did not disappoint me at all. It was clearly the work of WETA Digital, regarded by some as the best in the business. But Jackson balanced the CGI extremely well as it never overshadowed the actors, setting or story. It was simply a part of the story telling process; and it was phenomenal.

Peter Jackson's directing was detailed, tight, purposeful and magnificent. The pacing was great; the weaving of various story lines seemed completely natural; and he seemed to get the very best out of each actor.

If you haven't seen The Lovely Bones, I suggest you do so. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as it turned out to be. If a movie surprises me like that, then it will almost certainly be as enjoyable for you.

Movies I Deplore

Everybody has a "favorites" movie list.

We all sit around at one time or another and discuss (or argue...at times) what we think are the best movies ever made. We quickly note our lists, then have the perfect justifications as to why we feel the way we do about each film. It's a fun bit of one-upmanship.

How many of the same people arguing "favorites" lists could actually name the ones they hate the most? I'm talking stinkers, on every level; so bad that you walk out of the theater. Yeah...the films you wish could be unmade so their legacy will have never been.

My list is full of these clunkers. Let's see if you agree with any of my selections:

(These are in no order...not that I need to classify any of these above the others!)

*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I saw this piece of flotsam for free; but I have to wonder if I can get those lost 100 minutes (or so) of my life back. I think I actually felt brain cells being sucked right out of my head!

*The Third Man. This snooze-fest of a cloak and dagger attempt was so lousy that Orson Welles' 10 screen minutes are more memorable than the rest of this flick. Even Welles' best effort couldn't take the pain away of watching this...thing.

*Cape Fear. (The Scorsese remake) Before I saw this movie, I kept reading what an great movie this was. I was told I'd love it. Well, the whole time I was viewing it, I remember asking myself repeatedly, "When is this going to get good?" Unfortunately, it never did. (I have since learned that all Scorsese flicks evoke the same sort of response from me. But I still see them, ever hoping that one of these days, I'll see one that doesn't stink.)

*Gone With The Wind. I can hear a few gasps already! This movie may be a beloved work, but I was utterly, thoroughly, and unequivocally bored and stupefied with this so-called "classic." Awful, awful, awful!!! The Carol Burnett parody was FAR more entertaining that this film.

*10. This supposed romantic comedy was anything but... It was neither romantic, nor was it comedic in any way. The hype for this flick was literally based on Bo Derek's slo-mo run down the beach; a scene that lasted all of about 30 seconds. Whoopeee.......zzzzzz.

*Americas' Sweethearts. Another so called Romantic Comedy, this movie was actually nothing more than a verbal raunch-fest that was in no way funny--just tiring. I walked out of this dog and got my money back.

*Elizabethtown. A critical "winner," this plodding, over-wrought film did nothing but leave me wondering if I was seeing the same film that the critics were praising. Everything about this screen 'gem' screamed in agony. I walked out of this pile of wasted celluloid after just 20 minutes.

*Sin City. Carla Guigino, at her smokey, sultry best, couldn't hope to save this load of poo called a film. What critics praised, I found to be obscure, redundant and just over-indulgent. As with Cape Fear I kept waiting for this dog and pony show to get good. My hopes were wasted as my senses were dulled to mush by the time it ended.

*The Deep. This underwater cloak and dagger story was as riveting and intense as a curling match. There were exactly two good things about this ponderous flick--1) a 30-something Jacqueline Bissett in a wet-suit; 2) the End credits. That's it. No kidding.

*Memoirs of a Geisha. I'll be the first to admit that this Oscar nominated film is beautifully photographed. The images are sumptuous, dazzling and rich. However, the story arc, the characters and directing were all deplorable--to put it nicely. I had high expectations going into this one, but left devastatingly disappointed by the reality the film presented.

There are many more on my "Worst" film list; but these ten really stand out head and shoulders above the rest.
So what are your most hated films? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Review: Iron Man

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 is a fun, exhilarating ride of a movie. Unlike its predecessor however, I would definitely go see this a second time.

It was fun, engaging, has multiple storylines that add depth to the film, and is fast-paced. Not only does the film portray the latest crisis for Tony Stark, it also introduces the SHIELD agency, and tantalizes the audience with the future Avengers movie.

Robert Downey, Jr and Gwenyth Paltrow work great together. Their scenes are almost worth the price of admission all by themselves. Don Cheadle, in replacing Terrence Howard, was, I feel, not nearly as effective in the role as Rhodes. Jon Favreau, pretty much fabulous in anything he does, was at his best. Scarlett Johannsen was magnificent as Natalia Romanoff/Natalie Rushman. Johannsen kicking butt just makes her all the more appealing!

Jon Favreau's directing was smart, tight and intelligent. This movie is what it is because of his vision for how this should unfold in both story and look for the audience. He doesn't assume the fans need to be spoon-fed the story; and I think that his approach makes for a better film.

The camera work was sharp, uncluttered, and easy for the eye to follow.

The only real drawback to this film was Mickey Rourke. He comes across as a guy trying to act like a badguy. He just wasn't convincing enough to help me suspend my belief anytime he was onscreen.

So, not a great movie, but good, and fun. I didn't leave the theater feeling like my eight bucks was wasted.

*Also, when you see it, be sure you stay until the very end of the credits. You'll understand.*

An Intro To My Movie Likes & Dislikes

As my first review draws near, I thought I'd let you know a little about my movie preferences.

As with any movie-going fan, I have developed personal likes and dislikes over various genres of film. There are directors I hate to watch, and other films I will see simply because of who directed it. I will elect to see a movie if a select few stars are in it, yet avoid other films for the exact same reason.

When I see any movie I analyze everything I see and hear from the moment it starts. I guess you could say I observe the film more than watch it; from direction to music, cinematography to screenplay, etc. I can often guess the plot outcome around 1/3 of the way through the film. The experience for me then becomes the journey or path of the film itself...how it goes from point A to point B.

When I've really enjoyed a film, I will often see it a second or even third time because the analyzing is [mostly] over, and I can enjoy the film even more. For me, this enhances the enjoyment I get from a film making it far more memorable.

I will go to see pretty much any movie, aside from a few genres. The no-go list includes Horror (stupid!), Musicals (just because I've never liked them.), T & A flicks (I'd like to keep my intelligence intact, thank you), and most [but not all] Comedy (I just don't find most comedies to be funny--aside from a few chuckles). Everything else is pretty much worth a shot.

Directors I love to watch: Ron Howard; Peter Jackson; Steven Spielberg; Jon Favreau; Peter Berg; Ridley Scott; Quentin Tarentino; Kevin Costner; Antoine Fuqua; Lasse Halstrom; Clint Eastwood and Richard Donner.

Directors I just don't enjoy: Martin Scorsese, and an assortment of others who pop up once in a while. (I know, I know...I can hear all the Scorsese fans already as they yell to defend his films. Honestly though, I have not yet seen a Scorsese film that I enjoyed even a little. I just don't like his style, emphasis, etc.)

I have been watching films for over 40 years. The first movies I can remember watching were at a Drive-In outside of Seattle. The films were Snow White and The Seven Dwarves, and Bambi.
Over the years, I have an always growing list of favorites--some are good, some bad, and some are great.

A few of my favorite movies: Ordinary People; Philadelphia; Rocky; The Wild Bunch; Bullitt; Citizen Kane; Father Goose; Duel; Titanic; Gladiator; Unforgiven; Starship Troopers (my guilty pleasure!); Tears of the Sun; Open Range; New York Doll; Scared Straight; Turner and Hooch; That Thing You Do!; Dick; etc, etc, etc.

Remember, like any regular movie viewer, I will not go see a film simply because it is there. It has to capture my interest. So, you may want a review of a film I have no interest in seeing. If that is the case, I recommend the Internet Movie Data Base (imdb.com). They carry trailers, reviews, upcoming release dates, etc. It's a great site.

Lastly, I'll list a few of the films I'm interested in seeing this summer. As always, the list is a mix of genres, and I look forward to seeing them. These include: Iron Man 2; Robin Hood; Jonah Hex; The Last Air Bender; Shrek Forever After; Knight and Day; Predators; Salt; Get Low; Prince of Persia; The Expendables; and a few others.

Let's have a great summer.

An Introduction

Thank you for visiting my blog of movie reviews.

I started this blog because I am tired of reviewers who are more interested in showing everyone how educated and cutthroat they are by dissing everything ever made, rather than just telling us about their movie viewing experience. I hate those those guys. More often than not, they are just plain wrong.

I decided a long time ago to go see a movie if it interested me, and ignore the so-called critics. They base their reviews on some stolid, upper-crust maxim that few regular viewers even understand. These men and women feel that because they know by rote the whole history of film art, they they know better than anyone what makes a good movie.

I say rubbish!

A film doesn't have to be the greatest piece of art in order to be great or even good. The viewer is who ultimately decides the success, or failure of any film. My job here is to tell you how I enjoyed a movie, what I liked and disliked about it, and whether or not I would see it again. That's it. After that, you folks will decide if you want to see it at all.

Thank you for joining me. Now, let's go to the movies!