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:
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.

Movie Review: The Goblet of Fire

This is the 411 on the DVD release of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Being the fanactic that I am, I ran out and purchased the 2-Disc Special Edition dvd. To tell the truth, I don’t think there is much special about the 2-disc edition. Its a decent set, but its not all that a special edition should be.

The big thing that bugged me about this set is the menu system. Now, typical dvds will have sections like special features, behind-the-scenes, deleted scenes, games, etc. This set, and all of the other Harry Potter 2-disc sets for that matter, have sections called Hogwarts, The Maze, or The Black Lake. Though I appreciate the novelty of this layout, it makes it impossible to find what you’re looking for. I couldn’t tell if deleted scenes would be in Hogwarts or the Maze. I guessed and got lucky.

Now, if you get beyond the menus, the bonus disc has some cool features. The deleted scenes were interesting to see, though it was clear why they were cut from the film. I was hoping that the deleted scenes would be more significant, but unfortunately, they weren’t. They were still cool to see. The unfortunate thing is that if you buy the single-disc version of the movie, you get no special features. I think that’s being a bit cheap on Warner Brother’s part, but that’s just me.

Disc-2, the one with all of the special features, is full of games. There is a xbox demo, a pc demo, and several dvd games. There’s plenty to keep you entertained for hours! I personally don’t enjoy games played on a menu system like a dvd-player, but I can imagine that they would be fairly entertaining for a kid.

The burning question: is it worth the money? Now, the average difference between the sales price of the single-disc versus the 2-disc appears to be about five dollars. My dvds get enough use to make that five bucks worth it. If you have kids that get a kick out of dvd-games, then its worth it. If you’re a fanatic like me, its a must have. If you just liked the movie but you’re not crazy, then I would only spend the cash on the single-disc. In the end I think it makes a nice, albeit flawed, addition to my dvd collection.

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.

Synopsis:
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a successful hotel manager who knows her clients well. On a red eye flight home, she meets the mysterious Jackson Rippner (Cillian Murphy) who seems to know her so well. Things take a dark turn when Jackson reveals that he is in fact a crafty assassin and is holding Lisa’s father (Brian Cox) as insurance. Now Lisa must break free, rescue her father, and find a way to save the politician that Jackson is targeting.

Review:
This movie was another one that was a pleasant surprise. This movie is simple and entertaining. I enjoyed the full 85 minutes. The thing with this movie is that its not complicated. The plot is straightforward and the action keeps the story moving. I must say that Wes Craven did a good job with this one. I was concerned when I first rented this DVD that the movie would be built around a twist that would a let-down. Lucky for me, it wasn’t.

The acting was decent. I don’t have high regards for Rachel McAdams. Though she was amusing in Mean Girls and The Wedding Crashers, I haven’t seen her give a stellar performance. She wasn’t bad, but this isn’t an Oscar contender so being that critical wouldn’t be fair. Cillian Murphy was great for the role. He was frightening. He was quite convincing as a cold and calculating assassin. His (in my opinion) small role in Batman Begins really didn’t showcase his talent enough.

Overall, this movie is worth a rental. You should definitely watch it. I don’t know that its worth a purchase, especially considering DVD prices these days, but its definitely worth watching.

Synopsis:
Retelling of the classic action film from the 30’s. This time the big ape gets a face lift with 20th century effects and script that’s a lot longer than the last one. When an ambitious movie director, Carl Denham (Jack Black), gets in trouble with the studios, he’s forced to rush his trip to a lost island filled with mystery. He convinces an aspiring actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the famous writer, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to join him as he heads towards the unknown. What they find on the uncharted island is a lost world and one hairy ape.

Review:
This one is a tough one. I really struggled with how many stars to give this movie. King Kong is a classic. You have to do it right and I’ll be honest. I don’t know if Peter Jackson got it right this time. This movie was long! Three hours and seven minutes long! It was all good stuff. But was it all really necessary?

I’m assuming most folks know the basic plot. It took over an hour to get to Skull Island and find Kong. You then spend about an hour on the island. The final hour is in New York. Of course, the most fun in the movie is during the middle, on Skull Island. That one hour is non-stop action. You don’t rest from the minute they set foot on the island to the moment they capture Kong. There are some slight luls, but they are very very short. The effects are solid, from monster bugs, giant dinos, and spectacular scenery. But as amazing as it was, I think Jackson made a mistake here. He set out to wow the audience and he did that, but its during these sequences you kind of lose the focus of the movie. Everyone in the theatre starts waiting for the next big creature or the next amazing effects shot. Don’t get me wrong, like I said before, I had fun watching the sequences. But the truth is, you don’t need special effects to tell a good story.

The writing and general plot were good. I think that the plot could have been seriously trimmed, both in the beginning and middle of the movie. I think the ending in New York was just about right. There wasn’t too much dialog that was cheesey, so I give them credit for that. One thing that I noticed was they tried to add subplots, for example the young boy on the ship, Jimmy (Jamie Bell) has a mysterious past. He started on the ship as a stow-away. Now, why tell the audience that when we won’t find out his subplot by the end of the movie? There are more, but I won’t list them here.

The acting was pretty good. Black did a great job, considering this is the first serious role I’ve ever seen him play. He was well suited for the part. Adrien Brody was excellent as always. I must admit, I even thought Naomi Watts did a good job, and I don’t consider her that great of an actress. The supporting cast was good also, especially Thomas Kretschmann who plays Captain Englehorn.

Overall, a good movie. I recommend you go see it at the theatre if for nothing else but the cinematic experience. This film is a little too big to get any justice from the small screen. But it is not without its faults. If you do see it, go for a matinee and don’t drink too much, its a long one.

Synopsis:
When four young children are sent away during the bombing of London, an eccentric professor takes them in at his countryside mansion. One rainy day, a simple game of hide and seak helps a young Lucy Pevensie (Georgie Henley) discover a mysterious wardrobe. Soon Lucy leads her siblings Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell), and Peter (William Moseley) through the wardrobe and in to the magical land of Narnia. But all is not as it seems in the enchanting world. A never ending winter has fallen upon the land and the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton) has driven everyone to live in fear. The children must struggle across Narnia to fulfill an ancient prophecy and learn what their destinies hold.

Review:
This movie was amazing! I read (or possibly listened to) this book when I was a kid. I honestly don’t remember any of it. I was thoroughly impressed by this movie. I will start this one off with my final recommendation: GO SEE THIS MOVIE! I highly recommend you go see this movie while its in the theatre. Its definitely a cinematic experience and I would go so far as to say that its worth a primetime ticket. I must impress upon you that, that is high praise (at least in my book).

Ok, now to the nitty-gritty. Unlike some recent movie series, Harry Potter & Lord of the Rings, I don’t remember the book so I had nothing invested when I went to the theater. The story was really interesting. Now, I can’t say this is all because of the writers. The author of the book, C.S. Lewis, is probably to blame for such an engaging plot and fun characters. The movie was about two and a half hours and I wasn’t bored for a single bit of it.

Now the money and effort poured in to this movie is pretty impressive. They pulled out the stops like they did for LOTR. Unfortunately, some scenes looked a just a little sloppy. Now nothing is ever perfect and I don’t think the few scenes that could have been better really hurt this movie. I liked the costumes and different creatures that populated the land of Narnia. But I do agree with a friend of mine who said that the White Witch’s minotaur general seemed a bit corny.

The actors were pretty good. I liked the kids, they were solid. Lucy and Edmund were by far the best. I was pleasantly surprised to hear Liam Neeson’s voice behind Aslan. The White Witch wasn’t bad, but here character didn’t really require that much. Acting cold and uncare is probably not the most difficult character to pull off. The Beavers (Ray Winstone & Dawn French) were great. Mr. Beaver was hilarious truly added the comedic relief for this movie.

All in all, awesome movie. Go out and see it.

Synopsis:
As California moves to join the Union, trouble begins to brew and Zorro (Antonio Banderas) must ride again. As he struggles with his responsibilities to the people he swore to protect, Alejandro must find time to be a husband and a father. His marriage may be the sacrifice he must pay to save Mexico, but there seems to be more to his marital problems than meets the eye. Now Alejandro must fight an ancient brotherhood bent on starting a civil war and try to win back Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones).

Review:
The sequel jinx?! What a surprise! Ok, I’m not saying anything too surprising. The Legend of Zorro wasn’t nearly as good as The Mask of Zorro. There are several elements from the first one that they brought back well for the sequel. Other things didn’t quite work that well. I warn, I’m going to rant a little bit later. Its not something that’s only a problem with this movie, but more on that later.

A great return is the rather funny bickering between Elena and Alejandro. Their constant back and forth arguing is rather amusing. Jones and Banderas have great screen presence and you buy in to the rather volatile relationship between the two of them. Unfortunately, I couldn’t quite buy in to the fact that their marriage was in trouble. It comes off a little shakey on the screen and they really needed that to work to sell the main twist in the plot. It just didn’t work.

The action was pretty entertaining. The sword play and fight sequences were pretty complex and exciting. They kept you engaged and at the edge of your seat. The coreography was pretty well done and it brought back another thing I liked from the first movie. Of course Banderas’ delivery of the very witty (and well written) lines. I definitely give credit to the writters. They didn’t not disappoint with the biting wit.

Finally, my rant. Nothing and I mean nothing ruins a good action movie like CG scenes!!!!!! Why can’t action movies stick to what they do best, and keep everything real? Its not just this movie. Its shown up in James Bond and several other movies, including. I appreciate good coreography. I can handle wires. They do wonders. I can handle stunt doubles. They started the whole industry. I can not stand scenes that don’t play true because of bad blue screen and CG characters. I won’t tell you what scene in this movie. You can see it for yourself. But to all the directors of action movies out there, DON’T DO IT!!! Please!