Kimputer's Weblog

The concept is not really new (mixing traditional animation with live action, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Space Jam), but now Disney gives it a try again long after the 3D animation revolution (having used this technique in various ways in the past century). Also not new is using the basic fairy tale template, mixed with the dual reality’s contrasting differences. Herein, the search/belief for/in happiness (in- or excluding the “ever after” part) serves as the subtle message, playing out the story just the way I would predict it. Though one thing I didn’t foresee was Disney’s tradition to include musical like songs thoughout the movie, hiring old-school composers Stephen Schwartz and Alan Menken to fill the soundtrack. I can’t really take a lot of this, but since I’m becoming a sappy old guy, I couldn’t say I hated it that much. The excessive overacting for the animated-to-reality characters isn’t my cup of tea, though it was necessary story telling device, so I couldn’t really hate that either. One misstep I can hate is the not-so-well cast little girl.
All in all, this movie works best for the teen girls or young couples, as I’m sure it won’t really work outside this demographics, though it had its funny moments.6½.

Lotsa talent were attached to this project (Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz, Kathy Bates), but I consider this sled trip on a mayday mayday course. It just doesn’t mesh well, and the jokes aren’t really hard-hitting. Combined with dramatic misfires, it’s a long sit. To get in the Christmas spirit, this isn’t the one to catch.6-.

It’s been a long time since fresh Jerry Seinfeld material went out on the airwaves (I actually didn’t like it that much), and now he lands in an animated movie, so I thought I’d give it a try. And bee-hold an uncomplicated easy laugh-track, it’s quite unbelievable how many bee-jokes they managed to crank into this one. Of course, a lot of subtle movie homages are used too, mixed with some more visual humor.
Pacing is quite alright too, though the last act seemed a bit off. If you want simple comedy, this movie will deliver just that.7½.

David Schwimmer’s (Friends) first theatrical movie as a director, is to no one’s surprise a comedy. A softie romantic comedy though, as it’s quite predictable in most ways, but has to have it from the rooting for the “loser guy winning back his girlfriend”. And it works in some ways, starring Simon Pegg as the main character (also responsible for the screenplay). The characters and the acting are quite alright too, ‘cept for the kid reading off cue cards while having trouble implementing the ordered facial expression.
If you’re into small scale rom-coms, this is for you, though it doesn’t rise above the rest in any particular way.7-.

Marketed by New Line Cinema as the new saga a la Lord of the Rings, it actually comes pretty close. It follow the same structure, with the same elements (not to mention starring Christopher Lee and Ian McKellen). One special kid, one special object, on a journey, continuously meeting up with new races and making new friends along the w you’ll have to take the formed friendship for granted, since not a lot of emotional baggage will be carried over. Also lacking are quality scenes featuring Daniel Craig or Nicole Kidman (again, not a lot of screen time to be divided). Of course it’s also more children friendly, making it more of a mix with Harry Potter or Narnia. Difference though is the spot-on casting of the main character (Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra Belacqua), who makes quite an impression as a new comer.
All in all, the seeds for a moral story is are sparsely planted (as there are supposedly two sequels to follow), which means that on its own, it’s just an average movie.
One thing it teaches us though is Catholics get high on crack regularly, choosing to boycot this movie before it screened. Since not even the slightest touch on religion is made here, logic dictates they must be worried about the few mentions of fairy dust and making a stand for one’s free will, which kinda reveals their own true agenda instead. Silly they never figured boycotting The Lord of the Rings would do less damage to their image (since the analogy of Gandalf the White/The Eye of Sauron as God-Jesus/Devil is much more obvious).
So, if you’re not really into fantasy, this movie can’t be really recommended.7-.

Most game-to-movie conversions don’t fare well, obviously lacking the ability to have deeper story telling or character development. This one borders closely to the brainless fun line, and like all other game movies, it has no real story to build on, nor any favorable characters. It’s just instant gratification for the teens, with a bit of violence, dry humor and a few flashes of skin. Acting is just about bearable, and direction plain ordinary. Overall, it’s just average, so it can’t be recommended on any level.6.

Another movie by David Cronenberg, and usually you have an equal hit-miss chance. But lately his movies seem less controversial and less off-putting (probably because he doesn’t write the screenplay anymore), though he still doesn’t delve too deeply into his characters, letting them brood in silence instead.
Starring Viggo Mortensen (again, see History of Violence) and Naomi Watts means the acting part is well taken care of. The story part though, is somewhat slow and simple. That works well for the budget, but certainly is a few minus points for this movie. Overall though, it’s just average.7+.

Third wide released documentary from controversial film maker Michael Moore (first and second being Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11), and he has to be commended for the fact that he makes docu’s that doesn’t induce a deep REM sleep.
That said, quality of this one is a tad bit lower than previous. It runs a bit long, obviously hanging in the middle too much. There are also not too many chain of facts revealed. Confrontation with the other party is also a lacking factor.
Then again, it does make a few points, and it’s quite scary our own health care system (and other social instances) is already half way heading where the States already is, mainly powered by greed from the higher top.
All in all, it’s still enough to whet the appetite for a more in-depth complitated revelations with more head on collisions in his next docu (Fahrenheid 9/11½).7+.

The second performance capture movie from Robert Zemeckis (first being the Christmas movie Polar Express), and it works out pretty well. First of all, luckily it’s not a children’s movie any more, more of the opposite. Second of all, more reality based atmosphere. This combined makes it all the more palatable, but it doesn’t magically make this movie a valid blockbuster. Sure, there’s enough eye-candy and gore to go around, but the first few minutes has you crining over the choppy moving characters. But like a computer finishing its boot sequence, it’s not that obvious any more a few more minutes in. Then there’s the story, clearly lacking motives and backstory for both the pro- and antagonists. Story stays a bit flat, never leaving the usual love and war babbling.
So all in all, it’s good enough to see it once if you’re into this, but overall, it’s not a must-see.7+.

After three successful collaboration with Tony Scott, Denzel tries a movie with brother Ridley Scott (both being talented and diverse directors), and this time they’re going for a gangster epos based on true events. Maybe that’s where the problem lies, maybe it’s the lack of embellishment, maybe it’s something else. Because, while the movie is good on its own, it’s not near the head-to-head-butting like Man on Fire or the intensity and in-depth characters of Training Day.
So if you want a movie sticking to the truth (two main characters were consultants after all), with only a slight touch of dramatic flair, this is for you. Just don’t expect too much from it, besides excellent acting jobs (Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe).7+.

And the game trilogy comes to an end (or does it ?), and it’s all what you can expect from a game to movie conversion. Quick cuts to action sequences, admirable pacing, and just plain 90 minutes of pop-corn fun. Of course that means the story has to lay back, no character development, and lotsa nitpicking (why this, illogical that) for the sharpminded, but that’s what you signed up for as you knew this would happen before it happened.
For the guys, there are lotsa blond chicks running around, with almost spraypaint accurate make-up jobs. I never found Mila Jovovich attractive, but in this movie, she’s so close. Add Ali Larter and Spencer Locke and another bunch in, and it’s a guaranteed one thumb up for this movie overall.6-.

With such a long title, either the movie is a spoof or it’s so serious that the title couldn’t have been named something else at all. Unluckily, none of the two is the case, and it’s just a plain boring nothing saying piece of western bullocks.
Let’s not talk about pacing. Even removing 23 frames per second and speeding up the remaining by a factor 10, it’s still slow. Let’s not even talk about the script. If it was delivered to me, I’d order a hitman to kill the writer (/director in this case, Andrew Dominik), and I’d burn the script along with the bike messenger who brought it to me, just for good measure.
This movie is based on a script with dull meaningless dialogue, uneventful encounters and tries to gain some kind of respect for an ordinary bandit (and fails). Some might adore the visuals delivered (not me), but besides an admirable twitchy Casey Affleck (playing Robert Ford), this is just an endurance test. It’s more difficult than running the 42.195 kilometres marathon, but I made it, just to write this review and warn you.2.

The first movie coming off the revived United Artists banner (now under Cruise/Wagner productions’ direction, after both got booted by Paramount), focusing on low to mid-budget specialties. This mostly means, story story story. And that’s exactly what I like about movies.
Looking at this movie from a cinematic standpoint, even the $35 million budget seems a bit high, basically filming only in a handful of rooms (only one location shot, which easily could’ve been an on-the-lot trick shot anyway).
So how does the story work out ? Pretty much perfectly. Characters are there, talking their way to a better understanding. Using current topics, it provides thought provoking ideas. With both sides delivering valid arguments, it’s engaging, no matter which side you’re rooting for or regardless what the movie’s politcal message wants to be. The scenes cut through several ongoing story lines and it’s not clear how they’re related (if at all, and in which time line), but slowly it will become clear.
So lotsa kudos to Robert Redford (dir./prod.) and the “new” United Artists production company, focusing on story and characters alone. Some goes for Cruise, stepping down from big-budget box-office-safe blockbusters.8.

Movie coming from the Raimi/Tapert production company Ghost House Pictures, which specializes in these horror flicks, and this one is no different. The bad thing is obvious, there aren’t many in this genre that will really stand out, in its own genre or even harder, in all genres. This movie follows the predictable vampire story line, and fails with the rest. There’s no new angle on the story, there’s no background story to explore nor are characters anything special. While the ending might make up for a few points, overall there’s nothing new to tell except for the expected. And that’s a bit strange having David Slade as a director (the intense Hard Candy) and Stuart Beattie as the writer (the character driven Collateral), but showing none of the strong points of their previous movies.6½.

Another movie from producer Judd Apatow (but not directing), andd featuring Seth Rogen (starring in and producer on 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up), but now tries to pen the script too. Riding on their previous box office success, the script and dialogue style is very much alike Knocked Up, but then on a smaller scale and using no real big stars. The result is still another box office hit, and it means the fun is about the same level. Maybe a bit juvenile fun, with the story not really moving ahead, but dialogue does have enough pace, even though it’s mostly gibberish and quite predictable.7+.