Movies

[Mike]

Red Dawn

Saw it a couple of days ago and... meh. The long shelf life, and major post production re-editing was very obvious. I got up to go to the restroom rather than hold it till the end. It was nice to watch for the nostalgia because of how much I love the original. So it's worth checking out. Or you could just watch the original...


Moon Rise Kingdom

This is late but I just caught it on PPV last week. It's next to impossible to review it and give it justice. i just wanna say, if you don't like most art movies, you'll probably like this one. If you do like art movies you LOVE this one. Check it out.

[West]

Butter

This is a pretty fun movie if you're into satire. It's got that Best In Show vibe (it's about competitive butter carving), and Olivia Wilde gets to showcase her comedic skills. It also reminded me of the super dysfunctional Royal Tenenbaums, in that whole no-hope-for-humanity sort of way.

Worth watching -- NOT kid friendly.

blah blah blah WHAT blah blah blah

Olivia Wilde and Ashley Greene make out.

[West]

Resident Evil: Retribution

Not sure what to say... it's a RE installment. Honestly... I didn't like it as much as the others. The 'plot' seemed as tacked on as can be for this series, and aside from 1 or 2 action sequences, it felt a bit sloppy (as sloppy as stylized posing and wire work can be). There were notable absences (Ali Larter) from where Afterlife ended and this one immediately picks up that were never even attempted to be explained. I felt like I was getting served up another helping of Milla-Jovovich-Wears-Leather-And-Plays-Equilibrium-With-Zombies-You-Know-You-Like-It; so much so, that the viewer is expected to accept anything. I suppose if one *is* watching this, they've put up with the first installments, so, maybe that's justified. I couldn't help but feel like I was watching Underworld Awakening: a series that was a bit long in the tooth and made just to get another round of cash out of fanboys.

[Wod.Infant]

Hobbit 5 out of 5.

Saw it yesterday and I can say it's worth every 172 minute of it and every cent of the ticket.

Good - The book adaptation was sublime, they add a little more story than just the usual Hobbit added to the movie but it articulates nicely. The music, the landscapes and the special effects all very good. If you enjoyed LotR you will enjoy the Hobbit, perhaps even a little more. Gollum is still awesome and Bilbo is even more awesome!

Bad - there probably is something bad but the movie keeps you locked in your sit from minute 1, I found nothing worth complaining.

Take your kids if they are 13+

[West]

The Words

The first thing I thought was... just how many movies has Bradley Cooper played a writer in? I like the guy, it just felt a lot like the same character from Limitless. Come to think of it, the whole movie felt like A Murder of Crows meets Dear John.

Dennis Quaid plays a writer talking about a book he wrote, which is about an aspiring writer (Cooper) who finds a manuscript and publishes it as his own. The book is a hit, but the author appears to confront Cooper. The author is played by Jeremy Irons, who is absolutely fantastic. The movie's saving grace is his performance alone. Through Irons, we learn the history of the manuscript. Olivia Wilde (mmmm MMMMM) plays an aspiring writer who comes on to Quaid and wants to know more about the book. Through their interaction, we discover that Quaid's book might be an autobiography and that Cooper's character might be himself.

Note the word "might". This is part of that growing trend in movies to leave the "maybe... maybe not" endings which I despise. I'm sure some might see it as artistic, or some existential bullshit, but all I really see is a lack of commitment to the story. It's as if they're afraid to make the decision and be criticized for making the wrong choice... so they leave it up to the viewer. It's also kind of trite and done (see Murder of Crows) and it wasn't much of a 'reveal'... still, Irons and Wilde kept me watching. What I was really hoping for was that it *was* an autobiography and Wilde would be revealed to be the daughter of the original author, and her seduction of Quaid would end in a righteous murder. Oh, well.

I suppose it's kid friendly, but it'll bore the crap out of any kid. I give it a C+ to a B-.

[Wolven Pryde]

As much "meh" as there was in your Review, @West , I can still say that it made me want to give the film a chance. I've nothing against Bradley Cooper, but Jeremy Irons, Olivia Wilde, and Dennis Quaid in one movie will make me sign up for it just by themselves

I know what you mean about the Viewer's Decision endings, though. The only thing that is more worn out than that is the "Protagonist and Antagonist are actually teh same guy!!1!" formula that was so popular a few years back. Not that any of those movies were bad... I just got tired of seeing it.

But... more on The Hobbit!

I've watched it twice, now. If someone were to ask if I wanted to go with them to watch it tomorrow, I would. The 3D is done extremely well, by the way. It's noticeable, but it's not gimmicky. It really is done in such a way that helps draw you into the film. Sometimes, it's spectacular. Sometimes, it's really subtle. I liked that. 3D film is maturing in its execution.

I really want to point out how well Gollum and a few of the named Orcs/Goblins are animated. Of course, Gollum was always an amazingly rendered deformed-Andy-Serkis face, but both of the actors that are also rendered as CG baddies are clearly identifiable as the actor that does the voice. It is clearly delivered as a complete performance, and I thought that was really impressive. And very fun to watch.

[West]

As much "meh" as there was in your Review, @West , I can still say that it made me want to give the film a chance. I've nothing against Bradley Cooper, but Jeremy Irons, Olivia Wilde, and Dennis Quaid in one movie will make me sign up for it just by themselves .

Oh, it's definitely watchable, just not a keeper/re-watch worthy.

[Key]

Re: The Hobbit.

If you have read the book, try to not be disapointed, if you have read the Simirillion, try to not be disapointed and angry. As a Tolkien fan, I love the books, and while the movie has merit (as a movie) it needs to be viewed as a slightly different story than the books.

And personally the last five minutes before the credits were unnecessry imho.

For the sake of "as a movie only" It was good but there were parts that just seemed too long and unnecessary. I understand what he's trying to do, but the whole Necromancer pull feels very D&D esque for me. :/

It's good, I'll probably see the second one but I might wait until it's out on DVD first.

[Wod.Infant]

Might contain spoilers don't open unless you have seen The Hobbit

Yes, the Necromancer part belongs to the unfinished tales... and it connectes to the previous movies, and yes, the Oaken Shield is a slightly different character in the movie than he is in the book, nevertheless I believe those were necessary changes.

The main "message" from the book is still there and it's what makes Tolkien's books so special in the first place, perhaps it's even more evident by the changes made.

And it is natural that the entire thing feels DnDesque... Tolkien was the guy who inspired them all in the first place (;