Kimputer's Weblog

Sylvester Stallone crawls behind the camera again (earlier in the year for Rocky Balboa), and he delivers another typically good movie. As with previous Rambo movies, he brings the reality of war to light (previously Vietnam and Afganistan, in this case Burma) and goes a few steps further showing the raw brutality of it all through a single man who’s low on speech, but able with weapons.
You’ll get served maybe the most violent movie of all times, with limbs and intestines flying all over in high gory detail. This leaves your adrenaline level in the higher regions throughout the movie while you keep rooting for one of the most ruthless war hero in the history of film. The story itself is less personal though, with torture scenes or personal ties getting Rambo pissed off, this time it’s more general justice he’s serving. Also, there used to be more inventive ways to kill people the previous movies, here’s it’s far more straight-forward.
Then there are a few bits of pretentious dialogue, but buried with all the gore and violence, it’s not that noticable. What’s more noticable is the short running time. Then again, with the not-so-complicated script, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. For Rambo lovers, this is definitely not one to miss.7½.

Director Doug Liman delivers a high paced sci-fi/action flick that doesn’t disappoint. Since his movie Go (1999), he’s made a great track record for himself, making movies with a moderate budget, but while retaining high production value also earning high returns (usually double the budget, see The Bourne Identity and Mr. & Mrs Smith). This movie will continue that trend.
Starring Hayden Christensen as a teleporter, makes for a dynamic atmosphere, where the viewer gets to join the visits to various big cities. The screenplay is half character driven and half story driven (though it’s still a not too complicated cat-mouse chasing game), and combines a good mix of special effects. Save for the sudden easy ending, there’s not a moment of boredom, and it’s one of the best pop-corn flick in recent months.8-.

Nice light drama based on true events. The aspect of one Congressman influencing a full blown war, and even succeeding is interesting on its own, and this movie add some non-typical characters to boot (with Philip Seymour Hoffman being absolutely hilarious). Still somehow, as a drama it’s not dramatic enough, and as a comedy, it’s not funny enough. Besides a whole lot of lobbying, this movie doesn’t provide enough fun, excitement or suspense. Still, combined with the facts you’ve now learned it’s a nice movie to have seen once.7-.

Well written comedy, titled after the main character. But besides the well acting of Ellen Page (already showing her strength in Hard Candy, while most people recognise her as Kitty Pride from the last X-Men movie), other characters are pretty well written as well. While having weird quirks, it’s the overall down-to-earthness that makes this movie sweet and special.
Kudos for director Jason Reitman for an excellent follow-up to his slightly weird (but nonetheless funny) Thank You for Smoking.8.

Hyped through the roof by both critics (Golden Globe win + Oscar nom + metascore 83) and viewers (imdb 8.2), somehow I thought maybe this being a musical wouldn’t be so bad. Maybe there will be a sweeping story, and Oscar wielding acting performances to boot. Just maybe.
Truth is, there’s just too much singing. While the two first songs gets us up to speed with background story, further singing is devoid of character and story development. The singing seems to elevate normal emotions to dramatic heights, but again, only for the first two songs. Later on, it’s just plain ridiculous, and honestly a bit gay (Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman duo up not once, but twice).
Anyone who doesn’t have a single gene for liking musicals in their system should steer clear of this one. In my mind though, replacing the songs with meaningful dialogue, still wouldn’t help this movie. In all it’s basic form, it’s a limited revenge story that’s horrendous in any way. Don’t expect any surprising redeeming quality of previous Johnny Depp/Tim Burton collaborations (like Corpse Bride).3.

Paul Haggis has been hammering on the road the past few year, both as writer, producer and director. For this movie, he’s doing all three again (last time was 2004’s Crash). His main field is drama, and evoking emotion is his specialty. This movie though, is a bit low key, and not really grand in both story and on screen execution. It plays out in a small town with few characters. Investigation doesn’t seem that exciting either. The acting is good though, and that’s where the drama counts (Tommy Lee Jones and Susan Surandon, and a lil’ bit Charlize Theron). Usually when I hear the name Paul Haggis, I expect just a little bit more, but still, it’s a nice entry.7+.

I’ve come to respect Ang Lee quite a bit over the years, delivering spectacular action movies that stand out be their character’s depth and ensuing drama. I kind of expected this one to be the same. Call me befuddled, but I actually thought this movie was a bit boring.
There is a certain simmering love/power story going on, but we never really get to know the characters. The simmering itself takes too long too, with sparse dialogue not clearing up a lot. Hence, there’s no emotional resonance to speak of. On top of that, it was hard to get a feel for the situation, not knowing how this China in WWII period played out.
Leaves the other attraction point (the much lauded hot and explicit sex scenes), but I have to say that even for the most hormone driven male viewers (much like myself), while interesting, it’s definitely not worth seeing this long stretched movie for (I wouldn’t even call it a spy thriller, as many reviewers and critics do).5+.

A much-hyped mysterious disaster movie coming from producer JJ Abrams. Instating less experienced fellow producer from their TV show Felicity, Matt Reeves, as director seems like a risky move, but luckily, it all works out.
From a story point of view, but also from the viewer’s point of view, this disaster movie sets itself apart from any other. From a technical standpoint, this movie seems very simple, but looks can be deceiving. There quite a few superbly executed inventive shots, and how they inserted high grade special effects into this handheld camera moving style of shooting is a head scratcher (and that for a measly $25 million budget).
Acting is also up to par (though not much depth is given to any character, ‘cept for a love story in the background), while suspense is the main driving force. All in all, two thumbs up, though it has to be said, while superb, it’s still a disaster movie in its core (so it can’t escape the predictable main story line).7½.

Dark drama/thriller starring Richard Gere and Claire Danes as public safety agents involving registrants of sex crimes. Obviously this movie has its violent and graphic moments, so it isn’t for everyone. But there’s enough psychological profiling to be done (mostly trying to get into Richard Gere’s head and that of the perpetrator), and in the end, while the subject matter is a bit gross, the story is well-rounded and balanced.7+.

When the name Ben Affleck comes up, people only tend to think of him as an actor, forgetting his whirlwind entry (as a writer) into Hollywood with the moving Good Will Hunting. Now besides writing, he’s adding the director’s seat to his resume (previously only directing one forgotten short movie), and again, he makes another impression.
With an all-star cast (inviting his little brother Casey to headline) he makes not only a surprisingly suspenseful thriller, but also an introspective journey filled with moral dilemmas. While there are some scenes where the overacting is touch-and-go, overall the drama comes across very well, and there are even a few smiles to be had during the first half.8-.

A seemingly overly dramatic movie (based on a book), but somehow, it didn’t turn out to be a tear-jerker. The story, a childhood friendship mixed with some foreign familial customs and some war-torn country themes, still plays out in an earnest heartfelt way though. Acting is quite alright too, along with a good drama-enhancing score and location-rich screenplay. Director Marc Foster seems to build his movies on dialogue-ridden character exploration while having an excellent handle on child actors (see Finding Neverland), and that’s a good sign for his next project (Bond 22).7+.

A low flying under the radar soul searcher with some romantic comedy tendencies. While Scarlett Johanssen tries to discover herself, so goes on nanny duty and stumbles upon some of life’s minor bumps. The writing isn’t really surprising, but in the end, the Hollywood effect is reasonable, resulting in an expected feel-good just-surface-scratching script.7.

Technically, it’s a sequel. Factually, this is still an Indiana Jones rip-off, as stated before in my review of the first chapter. Since this kind of movie is so easily forgotten, it feels like a fresh start. We get to reacquaint ourselves with the characters (since they didn’t leave any impression from last time) while the high-paced chase around the world starts pretty early on. A few puzzles and ancient translations are clues for the next step and drives the thin story forward.
Basically, it’s the same easily forgotten material from the first movie, with only the mother character surprisingly amusing (if only to see her out of her Queen character).
If you’re not into typical Hollywood-fare, this one is easy to skip. Hold a bucket of pop-corn, enjoy the cheap laughs, and it’s pretty do-able.7-.

Every time you think the saw has cut its way through and through (main characters dying and stuff), a year later another chapter turns around. Strangely, every time they’re able to continue the story where they left off, but also providing more backstory on this whole Jigsaw puzzle. Of course, the gruelling torture devices are also upping the ante every time, meaning every further chapter, not only the faint of heart, but also the ones with a stronger stomach, must approach with caution.
While the original was one of a kind in suspenseful storytelling, the following sequels were more Hollywood-like products. This fourth movie is also like that, good fun, quick paced story telling and endless gore, but can’t match the original.7.

With his super star power, Will Smith is able to break a December box office record (one even might say singlehandedly), opening at $77.2 million. It’s no surprise though, next to the fact it’s the only high-budgeted tentpole this month.
And the budget is partially worth it. It paves the way for majestically shot sequences in an abandoned Manhattan. Francis Lawrence’s abundance of ultra-wide shots are aaw- and wow-inducing, contrasting nicely to dramatic ultra-tight shots. There’s certainly an atmosphere not easily recreated without the budget.
On the downside though, there’s a long list of slightly less appealing factors. First the creatures are too obviously full-CGI, both movement and coloring/texture are dead give-aways. Then there’s the story, which provided nothing new at all. One might even say the low budgetted 28 Days Later provides the same or higher amount of pleasure (though the movie picks a few cliches from other movies too). Tied to the simple story is the character’s depth of Will Smith’s character. As good as an actor he is, he pulls off a nice one man show, but with this story, the experience isn’t long-lasting (I’ll leave the believabiltiy of the triple Nobel prize worthy scientist/extremely buffed up lieutenant-colonel combo in the middle).
All in all, a good suspensefull flick, but just misses that extra to be the really really must-see movie you’d expect from Will Smith.7½.