Review:

Unfortunately, though I watched this on DVD and this should be a DVD review, I didn’t actually check out the special features (I watched a single disc widescreen copy from Blockbuster.) As a result, this review is going to be about the movie itself and not about the DVD. If I get a chance to actually check out the disc itself sometime, I’ll post an addendum to this review with details on special features and extras.

Plot: You can’t criticize the plot much because this movie is based on a true story. It’s hard to say real life wasn’t good enough. I thought the story flowed well and it definitely portrayed a man, down on his luck, who refused to let go of his dream. Though most of the movie was sad, with one setback after another, the overall story is uplifting. Surprisingly, there is a bit of comedy in the film and I did find myself laughing a few times. I don’t want to ruin the ending, though I think you can guess what it is. You’ll feel good when you’re done watching this movie.

Acting: The acting was great. I’ve always liked Will Smith, but this was definitely one of his best performances to date. He definitely produced Oscar-worthy work in this movie. He really shows the determination, fear, frustration, and hope that (I’d like to believe) the real Chris Gardner felt. I was also impressed by Jaden Smith. His role, though critical, doesn’t require great depth. After all, Christopher Gardner was only 5 years old. How deep can he be? Still, the boy acted well and I think the existing father/son relationship showed on the screen. The rest of the cast is inconsequential, though I really did get to hating Thandie Newton’s Linda.

Overall: I think that altogether this was a good movie. The story was great and the acting definitely left an impression. I would highly recommend you watch this movie if not purchase it. It’s definitely the type of movie that motivates you and keeps you hopeful. The movie has questionable replay value, but I think that being such a good film makes it a necessary part of a true move collection.

The Pursuit of Happyness (Widescreen Edition)

Stanger Than Fiction @ IMDB

Synopsis:
A tax auditor named Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) lives a monotonous life full of calculated and precise actions. Things go horrible awry when he starts hearing his life narrated by a woman’s voice as he lives it. He soon discovers that the voice blongs to Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), a famous author who is suffering from writer’s block and is notorious for killing her protagonists.

Review:

Plot: This one is a comedy and a drama, the all to prevalent dramedy. Unfortunately for Ferrell fans, its heavy on the drama portion. There are some mildly funny moments throughout the movie, but no bust-a-gut/ROTFL moments like in Ricky Bobby. Doesn’t mean it was bad. Its somewhat interesting to see a slightly more serious side to Ferrell.

Acting: I actually enjoyed Emma Thompson a lot. Her character’s fascination with death and approach to writing is terribly awkward and Thompson translates it excelently. Queen Latifah is inconsequential as Eiffel’s assistant. I also liked Maggie Gyllenhaal as liberal activist baker. She’s odd but endearing as Ana Pascal.

Photography/Production: I was really dissappointed with the quality of filming for this movie. I guess my criticism here is not based on personal experience, but how hard can it be to keep a mic boom out of the scene? Maybe its just me, but it seemed a bit sloppy. It ruined it for me a little, because after the first time, my eyes kept getting distracted whenever the mic dipped in to the shot.

Overall: It wasn’t a bad movie, but its not worth a primetime ticket. If you’re a “I must see all Will Ferrell movies on the big screen” kind of fan, then go for a matinee. Personally, I think its amusing enough that its worth a rental when it comes to DVD, but probably not a purchase.

Casino Royale @ IMDB

Summary:
When James Bond (Daniel Craig) is promoted to 007, he must prove himself against a terrorist financier (Mads Mikkelsen) and learn that in the spy business, you really can trust anyone.

Review:

Plot: The plot for this movie was pretty well put together. I liked the flow a lot, though it started to get a little confusing. When you get to the end of the movie, it becomes clear why the plot is not so clear cut. If you feel like there are parts missing, I wouldn’t hold your breath for them to fill in the blanks by the end of the film. Personally, I think it was an interesting approach. The mission and action played out the way I expected a true Bond movie should, with almost no gadgets.

Acting: There was a lot of negative hype around the selection of Craig as Bond. I’ve seen him in other films, like Layer Cake, and he met my expectations. Since he is playing an “immature” Bond, he comes off as an arrogant and slightly niave assassin. Though he is suave, he’s not quite as charming as Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Perhaps, we’ll see a little improvement in future films, masked as character development. The Bond Girls didn’t really stand out, but they were much better than Halle Berry and Denise Richards.

Action: Entertaining and engrossing, especially the first major chase/fight scene. The best part was there was no percievable CGI. I was very pleased to see that considering the apalling job they did in Die Another Day.

Overall: Definitely worth the ticket price. I was impressed with this reboot of the 007 franchise. I recommend seeing it on the big screen, you won’t be dissappointed.

Synopsis:
Rome has fallen and the tribes of England are stuggling to form a stable alliance against the brutal Irish King Donnchadh (David O’Hara). Tristan (Thomas Sangster/James Franco), the son of an English baron, finds himself as an orphan after a brutal attack from the Irish prevents the signing of treaty his father drafted. Taken in by the fair-minded Lord Marke (Rufus Sewell), Tristan grows in to a skillful and brave knight. When Tristan is injured in battle, he is taken for dead and is set adrift for a burial at sea. His boat washes up on the shores of Ireland where he is found by the beautiful Isolde (Sophia Myles), Princess of Ireland. As she conceals him from her father, she also nurses Tristan back to health. What follows is a tormented love affiar, which is only complicated when Isolde is married off to Lord Marke in a devious plot to destroy the fragile alliance newly formed among the English tribes.

Before Romeo & Juliet there was …… Tristan & Isolde.

Review:
Ok, I know what all you guys out there are saying: “This guy’s gone soft and started watching chick flicks!” Its true I have seen a few more chick flicks recently than I care to admit. But they’re not all that bad. This one was particularly good. I will admit that I watched this movie mainly because I really like the Gavin Degraw song on the soundtrack. Not exactly the best reason, but when you have a Blockbuster Movie pass, it really doesn’t matter why you want to watch a dvd.

I have to say that, for a movie I originally labeled “chick flick”, this movie had a decent amount of action and violence. There was even a smidgeon of gore (a severed head to be specific). Though the romance is a central component of the plot, there is much more to this story. I’ve never liked Romeo & Juliet. I just didn’t like the fact that these two kids, meet, fall in love, and die for each other in two days. Tristan & Isolde definitely doesn’t follow Shakespear’s idea of star-crossed lovers and also give the audience more plot, like the struggle to unite England and defeat the Irish. After watching it, I think Tristan & Isolde is more Drama/Action than it is “chick flick.”

The acting is pretty good. I liked Rufus Sewell as Marke (I felt bad for his character. You’ll have to watch the movie to find out why.) James Franco and Sophia Myles weren’t bad at all. My one complaint would be the occasional cheesey lines that pop in the movie’s love scenes. Some may think they’re romantic; I think they’re corny.

How many did you love before me?
None.
And after me?
None.

Anyway, I think this is definitely worth the rental. Purchasing it might be questionable. I thought it was a good movie but I wonder about replay value. Overall, definitely worth watching (if nothing else, you can see the Gavin Degraw music video on the dvd.)

Synopsis:
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a quiet family man that runs a diner in a small town. When two murderous thugs come in to the diner and start to attack a customer, Tom springs in to action killing them both. Tom is quickly elevated from average joe to hometown hero. The media coverage, however, brings Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) to town. Carl is a mobster claiming that Tom is really Joey Cusack, a hit man from Philadelphia. Fogarty’s persistence not only threatens Tom but his wife, Edie (Maria Bello) and their children. Does Tom have a real history of violence, or is he just a small town hero caught in a case of mistaken identity?

Review:
This was a pretty solid movie. I enjoyed it more than I thought it was. I wasn’t really sure what to expect. From what I’ve learned about David Cronenberg (the director) since I watched this movie, it seems that I got slightly lucky. Cronenberg has a tendency towards the graphic and perverse, but this movie was almost untouched by that particular problem of his. This movie is violent, not as much gore as you would expect, but still a lot. The thing is, the story requires it. Violence is at the core of this movie. It would be pointless if it didn’t look real.

The truth is, the plot is simple yet interesting. I think there is something about Tom that makes you want to cheer him on. He seems like a nice guy who’s caught up in something that’s just bigger than him, or is it? A lucky guess would probably land you on the “twist,” but I won’t ruin it here (just in case there is someone out there without any imagination). The acting was solid from a fairly stong cast. I’ve been a fan of Mortensen ever since he played Aragorn and Ed Harris has long list of great performances. Maria Bello on the other hand isn’t the greatest in my opinion. She did a good job in a supporting role here, but it didn’t seem that different from her performance in The Cooler, though better than her role in Assualt on Precinct 13.

Now its time for one of my recently-all-to-frequent rants. I have a little bit of a problem with Cronenberg and this movie. Apparently the original screenplay for A History of Violence had no sex or nude scenes in it. Unfortunately, Cronenberg felt that “you can’t really understand characters until you’ve seen them have sex” and added some in to the movie. Now I have to ask, why? I personally think the point is to get more people to watch the movie to see Maria Bello nude. Not exactly what I consider admirable ambitions in filmmaking. The scene I take particular exception to is the one of Bello. It is a completely pointless scene and does nothing but give the audience a full-frontal view. Come on Cronenberg, show a little class.

Other than the subject of my little rant, I took no other major exceptions to this movie. I think it would be a great movie, if you cut a few choice (or I should say trashy) scenes. I think it should be obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: this movie is not for kids. Keep them far, far away from the tv. Its definitely worth the rental, and possbily the purchase. This is probably a movie I’d buy off the $5 to $7.50 rack when it gets there.

Synopsis:
In the near future, the end of the world has come and gone. A Third World War has ravaged the world and mysterious plague killed thousands in Great Britain. But through it all “England Pervails” as a totalitarion state under the leadership of High Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt). Using a mask of Guy Fawkes of the famed Gunpowder Treason, a vigilanty known only as “V” (Hugo Weaving) uses his amzing agility and strength to open the eyes of the British people. He is unwavering in his use of terrorist tactics until he meets a young girl named Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman). Will V succeed in saving Britain?

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot.
We see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!

Review:
A friend of mine said it best as we were leaving the movie theatre: “It’s rare that you see a perfect movie, and this was a perfect movie.” I can do little but agree with him. This movie was amazing and I could find nothing wrong with it. V for Vendetta is an adaptation of graphic novel/comic book series of the same name by Alan Moore. This movie was action packed, dramatic, touching and enthralling.

I loved the action in this movie. The effects were flawless and brought V’s agility and strength to life on the big screen. But what I loved more is the wit that V uses to abuse his enemies. His dialogues and monologues in the movie are brilliantly written and quite amusing. But despite wit, you never lose site of the seriousness of the situation. Hugo Weaving did an amazing job as V. I didn’t think you could really “act” per say behind a mask, but this movie made me realize that you can. To make V as strong a character as he his, you need a talented actor and they definitely made a good choice.

I do not hold Natalie Portman in high regard. I can’t say that I’ve seen many performances by her that were amazing (Garden State and The Professional are examples of her better work). I can say that I’ve grown in my respect for her after watching this film. She didn’t carry the movie by any stretch of the imagination, but she did a good job in a supporting role. Kudos to Ms. Portman.

The only question I have in my mind is what is the true reason this movie is so good. Is it the source of inspiration or is it really the director/producer/cast/etc.? Is it possible to have such good material to work from that any competent person could making a stunning film? I don’t know. I hope to purchase V for Vendetta, read it, and find out. I reserve that judgement until I’ve read the graphic novel.

My recommendation, go out and see this movie. The theatre I went to charged primetime prices for matinee showings of this movie, price gouging in my opinion, but it was worth the price. This is definitely a big screen experience and I thoroughly enjoyed. I don’t think you’ll be dissappointed. I am already anxiously awaiting its release on DVD (which I will also review of course). Until then, I’ll have to find other dvds/films to review.

Synopsis:
Katherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) , a brilliant young woman, is forced to put her life second to that of her father (Anthony Hopkins), a once brilliant mathematician who has lost his mind. Taking care of him consumes her life and she is never able to truly persue her own ambitions in mathematics. When her father dies unexpectedly, her life changes drasticly. Her sister, Claire (Hope Davis), returns to settle her father’s affairs and one of his former students, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal), starts to dig through his old notebooks. As Katherine struggles to deal with her grief, Claire begins to doubt her sanity. Did Katherine inherit her fathers brilliance and his insanity?

Review:
When I picked this up at Blockbuster, I thought that it would be either and uber-geek movie or a sappy drama/romance masquerading as an intelligent film. I have to say I was wrong. It was neither of those things. It turned out to be quite a moving story about someone who isn’t sure about who she is. Its about someone who’s lived her life for someone else for so long that she’s not quite sure how to live her own life now that he’s gone. This movie is apparently based on a play and I am tempted to seek out this show.

Plot is solid and well written. The 99 minutes seemed to pass easily and I was never bored (a frequent occurance with me and dramas). Though the romance between Katherine and Hal is a subplot, it didn’t overshadow the central story, Katherine’s struggle to find herself. As I’m reading this, it sounds a bit melodramatic compared to my usual reviews, but I really bought in to this movie. I really enjoyed the story and I did find it moving.

The acting is solid. Gwyneth Paltrow did an amazing job. I have not seen Shakespear in Love, and I don’t plan too, but it’s clear why she won an Oscar. She’s definitely a strong point for this movie. Sir Anthony Hopkins (another Oscar winner) was also really good. I’ve never seen Jake Gyllenhaal in a serious movie except Donnie Darko and that was too different to draw any serious comparisons. He did a pretty good job here, but his role was not the most detailed or deep. Hope Davis, however, didn’t do much for me. I guess she played Claire well, but there was something about her performance that was off. Not a very informative comment I know, but I can’t quite put my finger on what I didn’t like about her, only that something wasn’t right.

In the end, I’m happy I watched this movie. I highly recommend you go out and rent it. I don’t think you’ll be dissappointed. For all you math whizes, there is even a great joke about imaginary numbers in there. I’ll leave you to find that gem for yourself though. As for purchasing this movie, I rarely recommend dishing out the bucks for a drama. This is a great movie, but the replay value is questionable. If you’re a true film buff, I’d go out and buy a copy. If you’re just a movie nut like me, I wouldn’t drop the cash, but I’d definitely rent it.

Synopsis:
A single mom, Josey Aimes (Charlize Theron), moves back home to Minsesota to be close to her parents and escape her abusive ex. To support her two children, Josey takes a job at the local iron mine, forced to hire women by affirmative action. But as soon as her job begins, she realizes that she just can’t go to work like the men of mine. Constant abuse and harrasments leads her to file the first class action sexual harrasment lawsuit in history. This is a fictional retelling of the real life crusade of Lois Jenson, who fought and won against Eveleth Mines in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

Review:
When I rented this movie, I thought it was a true story. I was a little surprised to learn that it was actually a fictionalization (if that’s a word) of a true story. To be honest, I rented it because I couldn’t find anything I really wanted to see. I new it had some Oscar nominations so I figured, what the heck. I’m happy that I did pick it. It was definitely a good movie.

The story is kind of difficult to watch, because so many bad things happen to a woman who’s just trying to support her family. I was concerned when I picked this DVD up that it would be a “man-hating” film. Sometimes, its easier to make everyone a bad guy than it is to explain that there were a few good men. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t what I expected. There are several male characters who show a lot of integrity, Kyle (Sean Bean) being a good example. We also see Josey’s father (Richard Jenkins) see the ignorance of his anger and find his love for his daughter.

I can definitely see why Charlize Theron was nominated for an Oscar with this role, and why she won for Monster in 2003 (though I never saw it). I thought Reese Witherspoon gave a career best performance in Walk the Line, but I definitely think Charlize gave a more powerful performance in this film. I am disappointed the she didn’t win. Sean Bean was pretty good too, even if his accent was difficult to hide. Frances McDormand also gave an Oscar worthy performance as Glory. Again, Rachel Wiesz did an excellent job in The Constant Gardner, but McDormand was just more moving.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. Its definitely worth a rental. If you are a true film collector, this is worth a purchase. For the everyday DVD collection though, this just doesn’t have much replay value. Its a film that deals with tough issues: sexual harrassment, rape, domestic violence, and terminal illness. This is not a movie for kids and not one that most people could watch twice. Check it out, you won’t regret it.

Synopsis:
David Spritz (Nicolas Cage) is a Chicago weather man whose life is not all that it should be. His father (Michael Caine), a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer doesn’t take him seriously. His taunted daughter (Gemmenne de la Peña) is obese and doesn’t have any motivation in life. His son (Nicholas Hoult) is hanging out with the wrong people. And is ex-wife (Hope Davis) hates him. David gets the opportunity to fix all that is wrong with his life when he is offered a job in New York for a national news show. Things get complicated when his father is diagnosed with a terminal disease.

Review:
Would you like to feel depressed? Then watch this movie. You will feel so bummed while you’re watching it, that anything that makes your life seem hard will feel rather light. This is a downer, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, for the power that it could have had, The Weather Man seemed to fall short. In my mind, it definitely had the potential to be 4 or even 5 stars. But like most things in life, it didn’t quite attain perfection.

My biggest problem with this movie was character development. This largely falls on the heads of the writers. Though actors play a role in developing the character, writers have to provide meaningful events in a plot to show progression. Through out this movie, we see the miserable existence that is David Spritz. The poor guy’s life is in shambles despite his cushy job, nice car, and relative freedom. The problem is that he doesn’t learn a single thing from all his failures. He doesn’t grow whatsoever. It seems that his life is no different at the end of this film than it is at the beginning. So what is did we just spend 101 minutes watching? Simply a snapshot of his pathetic life. The audience needs something to invest in. I need to be given a reason to cheer David on and I just don’t feel like I got one.

The acting was solid. Michael Caine and Nicolas Cage were brilliant as always. These two carry the movie and in my opinion kept it from being 1 or 2 stars. The writers got one thing right, and that is good dialogue, even if it had a little too much foul language. The exchanges between David and his father help you understand what he is all about. The daughter, Shelly, is probably the next most critical character. Gemmenne plays her well. I have to wonder though if others couldn’t have done the job just as well. Shelly isn’t that complicated. She’s an apathetic girl who’s just come to accept her life as it is. I guess the effort David makes to reach his daughter shows at least a desire to change things in his life.

In the end this movie seemed to be a cheap version of American Beauty. The style and feel of the movie is the same, but The Weather Man failed where American Beauty triumphed. This wasn’t a horrible movie. It just wasn’t great. I don’t know that I would necessarily recommend you go out and rent this one, unless you want to feel better about your life. I guess if you’re a Nicolas Cage fan, its worth the viewing, just don’t have too high expecations.

Synopsis:
Spoiled little rich girl, Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) grows tired of her Beverly Hills lifestyle and becomes a bounty hunter. Under the tutelage of Ed Mosbey (Mickey Rourke) and with the help of Choco (Edgar Ramirez), Domino quickly becomes skilled at hunting down the bad guys. When her crew gets called in to bag a quartet of armored truck robbers, things go horribly wrong. A con gone wrong quickly involves the mob, the FBI, a tv producer, Afghanistan, and a sick little girl.

My name is Domino Harvey, I am a bounty hunter……

Review:
I was expecting a pretty bad movie, and from the overall rating I gave it, you probably think I hated this movie. Interestingly enough, that wasn’t the case. This was a bad movie, and it does deserve only 2 out of 5 stars. However, I never said that it didn’t have some redeeming qualities. There are several good points to this movie that made it a 2 star movie as opposed to a 0 star movie. As someone I know likes to say, zero is greater than negative one. So I guess I’m saying its bad, but not as bad as it could be.

So as I understand it, this movie is a fictional interpretation of the biography of real-life bounty hunter Domino Harvey. The story itself was interesting. I liked the plot as a concept. A con job gone wrong, mad mafia, crazy tv producer (Christopher Walker), and one bad chick. I guess this film follows the trend of female heroes that take no prisoners like Lara Croft, Alice (from the Resident Evil series), and Aeon. The only difference betweeen Domino and the other examples I gave is that she really exists. So far so good. The problem was all of the extra stuff. Stuff that really didn’t added much to the plot and was kinda annoying. For example, the DMV clerk’s (Monique) appearance on The Jerry Springer Show to explain mixed-race minorities (I can’t really explain this). Or how about the unexplained, injured, desert-wandering, Cadillac-driving, possibly-drunk preacher who somehow knows the entire plot (and has a moral opinion on the best course of action). Confused? Yeah, so was I.

Tony Scott, the director, really tried with this one to make it a good movie. The good elements are there. They are just so weak that they’re quickly overshadowed by the bad elements. The acting wasn’t bad. I have a growing appreciation for Keira Knightley, if only because in some ways I bought into her character. For some reason, despite her extreme nature, she seemed plausible to me. Was this her best work? Probably not, but some scenes came out quite well. The rest of the cast was (in my opinion) largely irrelevant. I did enjoy Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green, who played themselves. I was surprised at how much of the movie they were in. They didn’t do much, but they were mildly amusing.

What else did I like? Well, I really liked the cinematography. The style of the movie was perfect. It is a lot like Man on Fire, which was produced by Tony Scott. The technique was great to give the movie a gritty reality. Unfortunately, it wasn’t nearly enough to bring the movie up to snuff. I couldn’t stand the tag line (possible one of the worst trailers I’ve ever seen.) Overall, not worth watching. I wouldn’t waste the money on the rental. If you’re really bent on seeing it, wait a few years and it will show up on FX or Spike TV. If you do opt to watch it, a word of warning: this movie is violent, graphic (a little gore, some nudity) , and a lot of foul language. Definitely not for kids. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.