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)

Review:

Plot: This film follows the basic animals on a mission kind of scenario. Its mildly predictable, but there are a few surprises and all of the things that happen aren’t formulaic. I’ll be honest, I didn’t reallize from the trailers that the plot would be so conservation-themed. It carries a great message, I just didn’t know it was coming. A lot of people I spoke to about this before I saw it said the movie wasn’t funny. I disagree. There were plenty of laugh out load moments and when I wasn’t laughing, I was distracted by the incredibly cute penguins. It definitely appealed to the (very large) kid in me, but it isn’t as funny as classics like Toy Story.

Graphics: I thought the CGI in this film was great. All of the penguins looked real (not cartoonish) and the motion was fluid. This movie definitely has included great techniques from the previous generations of CGI films. Apparently (I heard this from a friend), the movie has been criticised for using actors as opposed to CG people in the film. I think the use of actors makes the message in the film a little more serious and relatable. CG people would just weaken the moral in my opinion.

Overall: This movie is definitely worth the watch. If you have kids, I would recommend a matinee showing. If you’re a big kid like me and just like animated movies, I would consider just waiting for the DVD. Enjoy!

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.

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby @ IMDB

Summary:
Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell) was born with a need for speed and a natural talent behind the wheel. With a lucky break he is flung to NASCAR greatness and quickly moves to the top. But Ricky’s dominance is challenged by a Formula-1 racer named Jean Girard (Sacha Baron Cohen), who is looking to make his mark on the sport. When a devistating crash puts Ricky in the hospital, he loses his nerves and is unable to race. With his world crumbling around him, Ricky goes back to his roots and seeks help from his dead-beat-dad (Gary Cole).

Review:
I thought this movie was hilarious! If you liked Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy, then you will love Talladega Nights. This movie continues the “American Man” series that Will Ferrell and director Adam McKay began with Anchorman. I had really high hopes for this movie and I have to say I was not dissappointed.

Now I’m going to say something that might get me in to a little bit of trouble. I personally think that Talladega Nights may have been better than Anchorman. I have a friend who’s probably cringing in his seat as he read this. But before everyone gets excited, I have to say that loved Anchorman, I own it. But I feel like I just laughed more while I was watching Talladega Nights.

The cast is spectacular. Ferrell is at his finest and John C. Reilly is perfect as Cal Naughton, Jr., Ricky Bobby’s hapless friend. Cole and Cohen rounded out this crazy comedy cast. Cole plays a wise but washed-up dad who never quite learned how to be happy. You may remember him as Bill Lumbergh from Office Space. Cohen, better known as Ali G, is spectacular. I’ve never seen The Ali G Show, but I think I may start watching.

At any rate, go see this movie. You won’t be dissappointed. Its definitely worth the ticket price (even a primetime ticket). Though I have to say that this movie would be as entertaining on the small screen so seeing it at the theater isn’t a must, especially considering how high ticket prices are these days. If you’re feeling frugle, then wait for the dvd. Enjoy.

Final Destination 3 @ IMDB

Synopsis:
When Wendy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has a premonition of a horrible rollercoaster accidents, she saves a handful of her classmates from a horrible fate. But when the survivors start dieing one by one, Wendy realizes its harder than it seems to cheat death. Can she convince everyone that death has a design for all of them? This is the third installment of the Final Destination series.

Review:
Some people are probably wondering why I gave this movie three stars. In fact I would bet that most people would give this movie one star, two if they were feeling generous. I have to be honest, I liked it. Probably because I’m a fan of the series. Plus its always fun to see what cool and sinister methods they develop to kill all the characters off. I never wrote a review for Final Destination 1 & 2. So if you’re not familiar with the series, here is the critical info: folks somehow cheat death, death’s not happy, death finds more complicated means of killing said folks. The only dissappointment I had with the previous films is that they killed Clear Rivers (Ali Larter) in FD2. I thought she was a good lead character (and potential tie between all of the films).

Anyway, enough about the first two films. This third installment has no characters in common with the previous films. We don’t even see the creepy mortician, William Bludworth (Tony Todd). According to IMDB, we hear him this time, but I can’t remember where that happens in the film. This movie does get a bit of a “teen” facelift, so the acting isn’t stellar. The cast isn’t horrible, but the previous casts were slightly more skilled. I did like how they chose to end the film. It was definitely a nice little ending, but I don’t want to ruin it. I have one complaint about the movie and its the same as my rant for A History of Violence so I won’t repeat it here.

The DVD is pretty cool. I rented it so I didn’t check out all of the features, but there is one feature that’s quite cool. When they made the movie, they filmed several sequences (including the deaths) in different ways. They then created a “Choose Their Fate” version of the film. As you watch the movie, a simple choice will appear before critical junctions in the movie. Based on your choice, characters will live or die. Its actually fun to play with and watch different versions of the movie. It reminded me of the Choose Your Own Adventure books I used to read as a kid, but with far grislier endings. I plan to buy this movie, but I think I’ll wait until the price drops a little. I definitely think its worth the rental, and if you’re a fan of the previous films, a solid purchase. I guess it goes without saying, their is violence, gore, and nudity in this movie so its not for kids.

Enjoy…..

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest @ IMDB

Synopsis:
Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is back in this action-packed sequel to the Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. Captain Jack Sparrow’s time is up. The dreaded Davey Jones (Bill Nighy) has called to collect on the deal that made Jack the captain of the Black Pearl. His only hope is to find the Dead Man’s Chest, an artifact of great power, that will bring Jones to his knees. But things get complicated when Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), head of the East India Trading company makes a play for the Chest, dragging Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Kiera Knightley) in to the adventure.

Review:
This was one movie I was really anxious to see. I thought the first film was excellent, and I hoped the sequel would live up to standard it set. I have to say that I was a little dissappointed. I enjoyed the movie but I think it could have been a lot better. There are somethings that were as good as the last time, including Depp’s, Bloom’s, and Knightley’s performances. The effects were also as good as the last time. In fact, I think there was a slight improvement. The CG and creature effects seemed more refined than they did in the first one (fluid movements, etc.).

So the big thing that bothered me was that this movie was not self contained. When the first film was done, things seemed to be wrapped up fairly well. I had hoped that the sequel would be an entertaining adventure that would be done in two and a half hours. This movie ends on a cliffhanger/twist. There are absolutely no conclusions in this film, it is all setup for part three. Now sometimes this can work when the story is an epic or a saga, Lord of the Rings for example. Here, it seemed like they were trying to be like Empire Strikes Back, but they fell short. I know it sounds like I hated this movie and that’s not true. It just wasn’t what I had hoped.

For my criticism, you might wonder why I gave this movie four out of five stars. Well, my four star rating is somewhat conditional. I don’t normally do this, but I think that if part three, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, is good then this movie was good. Since Dead Man’s Chest was preparing us for At World’s End, then we can only know how good of a job it did once we’ve seen the final chapter.

The final criticism I have for this film is that it seemed to unravel some of the tidy knots the first film tied up. I don’t want to get in to them for fear of revealing more of the plot, but I think you’ll agree once you’ve seen it. In the end, I recommend you see this movie, mainly because At World’s End may really be amazing. I don’t think its worth the primetime ticket, but seeing it on the big screen makes a difference.

Superman Returns @ IMDB

Synopsis:
After a mysterious five year absence, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth to find a world that has learned to live without him. His life as Clark Kent seems to pick up where it left off, but the love of his life, Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has moved on and now has a five year old child. Now the Man of Steel must find a way to deal with the cost of his absence and take on the most notorious criminal mastermind of all time, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey). Superman Returns continues the Superman saga but picks up after Superman II.

Review:
Its difficult to think that this new incarnation of the Man of Steel could possibly compare to the one imortallized by the late Christopher Reeve. In truth, no one can play Clark Kent like Reeve could, but Routh was not bad. I’ll be frank, I felt that if this movie was going to crash and burn in a ball of kryptonite laced flames, it would be Routh’s fault. I have nothing against him personally, but he got selected for the part strictly on his appearane. He supposedly looks like Christopher Reeve, but I’ve never seen the resemblance. He didn’t do a bad job and he seemed to get the dorkiness of Clark Kent correct.

The rest of the cast was ok. One stood out above the rest though. Spacey’s rendition of Lex Luthor was great. He has the same ambitions as the Hackman version of Luthor, but he more evil. Spacey seems to harness the ego-maniac withing and does Lex Luthor justice on the big screen. I feel there may have been someone better suited to play Lois Lane than Bosworth, but I’m not exactly sure. She did an ok job, but she doesn’t compare to Margot Kidder.

The action and effects were spectacular. This was another slight point of concern. I would have been terribly dissappointed if every scene where Superman is flying looked like Neo did in the Matrix Reloaded. He shouldn’t look like a video game character and luckily he didn’t. There are some truely awesome sequences in this film and its quite clear why they needed such a massive budget.

Considering other recent summer blockbusters, plot is an important thing to consider. Sometimes hype and effects/action sequences are used to compensate for a weak plot. That’s not the case with Superman Returns. There is a pretty substantial plot with good character development and ties for future films. The writers were true to the main characters. The only thing that might raise an eyebrow is the secret that is revealed at the end of the film. I’ll leave it to you to judge that part of the plot.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. Its got a great plot, good acting, awesome action and its just plain entertaining. This one is a must see in the theatres simply because the big screen and the sound make a big difference. Though I rarely say this, this one is worth the primetime ticket. Go out and see it, you won’t be dissappointed.

The Da Vinci Code @ IMDB

Synopsis:
A mysterious murder in the Louvre drags mild mannered symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in to a dangerous hunt for the Holy Grail. When the French Police Chief, Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), thinks that Langdon commited murder, things get tense. Langdon must flee the French police with the aide of a young cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). Langdon’s only hope of clearing his name is finding the Grail and drawing out the true murderer. But what is the Grail and how far will everyone go to find it?

Review:
Where to being for one of the most anticipated adaptations of the year? How about the simple truth. It was a dissappointment. Not at all what it could or should be. Unfortunately, it was some the minor facts that brought this movie down for me. Of course the unrealistically high expectations I had from the big names like Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Ian McKellen, & Audrey Tautou didn’t help one bit. And of course I compared the cinematic experience with the literary experience and came up short.

In to the nitty gritty: The first big let down was Tom Hanks. I think he’s a great actor and has done great movies, but this performance was mediocre at best. In the novel, Robert Langdon is a pivitol character that is crucial to the evolution of the plot and is the key protaganist. In the film, Hank’s version of Langdon seems to simply be along for the ride, a spectator in events beyond him. Though the character is supposed to feel a little out of his league, he shouldn’t sit on the sideline the whole film. Audrey Tautou’s performance on the other hand was excellent. Her Sophie is the character we see in the novel.

The next thing that killed this film for me was the score. For some reason the soundtrack never seemed to suit the scenes that the audience sees. For example (and I’m going on memory for this so forgive any inaccuracies), the very brief car chase near the beginning of the film is accompanied by a very sweet and lazy piano melody that would suit a lullaby. This plot is one of urgency. The audience should feel the need and haste to solve the next clue in an ever evolving riddle. Instead of fast-paced orchestra pieces, we hear simple melodies. I just don’t think that really gives you the right feel when you’re anxiously waiting the next twist.

I have one more major complaint against this film, but I will add it to the end of this review because it contains a spoiler. If you chose to read it, you will ruin the story (assuming you haven’t read the novel). Overall, this wasn’t a bad movie. It just wasn’t as great as I hoped. If you haven’t seen it already, I wouldn’t spend the primetime money on it. I would go so far as to say its just worth the rental.

The final complaint with the film is that they changed the plot. I would have expected that they would make the film less anti-Catholic than the novel. Interestingly, the change actually makes the film more anti-Catholic. In the novel Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina), has no idea that Silas’ (Paul Bettany) mission requires him to commit murder. In fact, Aringarosa believes that no harm will come to anyone and that he will simply be able to purchase the keystone. In the film however, Aringarosa is a willing participant of a complicated plot to commit murder and even mislead the police. This change actually makes the film more controversial than the novel. Not a good change in my opinion. In fact, it only adds another thing for me to criticize.

Synopsis:
IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has left field duty behind and is beginning to build a life with his fiance, Julia (Michelle Monaghan). Hunt now trains the future agents of the IMF. When his brightest pupil, Lindsey (Keri Russel) is captured by the sadistic and elusive arms dealer, Owen Davian (Philipe Seymour Hoffman), Hunt jumps back in to action to save the day. But things go terribly wrong and Davian takes Julia in retaliation. Now Ethan must deliver a doomsday device known as the Rabbit’s Foot to Davian or Julia will die.

Review:
This movie surpasses John Woo’s M:I-2 by leaps and bounds. I was worried when I went to see this movie. There was potential here to redeem the franchise, but also the chance to run it deeper in to the ground. I can honestly say that J.J. Abrams has given the IMF new life. My only hope is that they end the series with this film. Any future sequels would be beating a dead horse and tarnish what is left of the franchise.

Having watched the original Mission: Impossible series, I can tell you that the plot to any M:I movie needs to be a balance of intrigue and action. Woo failed to keep this balance in the second installment of the series. M:I-2 was full of action sequences, masks, and explosions, but it had no intrigue or mystery. M:I-3 brought a little intrigue back. It wasn’t as strong as it was in the original film, but it was enough to make the movie interesting.

The acting was pretty good. Cruise performed typically as Ethan Hunt. His performance was the same as it was in the last two films. The true gem in this movie is Philipe Seymour Hoffman. His performance as Davian really does make this movie. He plays the perfect villian, a true villian if you will. His character is cold, calculated, unflinching, and sadastic. He is everything you expect a monster to be. My one complaint was that he is not utilized as much as he could have been.

I gave this movie four stars because it was such an improvement over the last sequel. I think that it could have still been better. The plot could have been a little more mysterious and Hunt’s theft of the Rabbit’s Foot was a little too reminiscent of his attempt to destroy the Chimera virus. Overall, this movie is worth watching. I would recommend a matinee showing, considering how over-priced primetime tickets are these days.