Blog Archives
Dave reviews…Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D
This will probably be my last movie review in a while. I’d like to get back to writing something more substantive, and also most of the good movies this year have already come out.
But to begin with, I’ve put together one of those clever “stereoscopic” pictures—you know, the ones where you have to look “past” the two pictures until they overlap, forming a 3D image. Check it out!
Brendan Fraser awkwardly stars as a nerdy geologist.
I’m sorry, what was that? You’ve tried squinting at the darn thing for five minutes, and it still looks flat?
Well, that’s on purpose. You see, the whole movie is flat. Brendan Fraser is flat. The characters are flat, the acting is flat, the plot is flat. Even though it’s in 3D. (What a genius observation, ha ha!) Really, this is just a gimmick movie where that magical third dimension is the only justification for seeing the film. The problem is, those 3D glasses kinda gave me a headache. Or maybe it was the movie itself.
So here’s my usual rating system:
- I would pay money to see it again ($$$$).
- I would see it again if someone gave me a free ticket ($$$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone gave me a free ticket ($$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone paid me to go ($).
Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D lands $¢ (one dollar and change). So far, that’s my lowest rating ever, but I haven’t rated that many movies. Rest assured, if they release another live-action 101 Dalmations sequel, and I am physically dragged into the theater and duct taped to the seat with my eyes glued open, we would be plumbing the depths of this rating system.
Dave reviews…The Dark Knight
First off, if any of you parents are wondering whether to take your kids to this movie, you should first question your parenting ability for even thinking about it. This is a dark, dark movie. However, if you can find a babysitter, I would definitely go see it, because it’s also one of the best movies of the year.
"Because…I choose to." Lamest line ever.
As time goes on, I find myself less and less impressed with straight-up action movies. Don’t get me wrong—they’re still my favorite. But it’s not enough anymore to have gigantic, ponderous, CGI extravaganzas without compelling characters or themes. Worst of all are the movies which (as in the above four cases) make me loathe the characters that I had once loved. Fortunately, The Dark Knight delivers because the action is merely a means to an end; it is a necessary element of the main theme of the movie—total depravity.
It was a dark and stormy Knight.
Adam’s already written two posts about the subject, and I pretty much agree with him, so read those instead. I won’t go into it other than to say that I appreciate a blockbuster movie that isn’t afraid to delve into these deep, disturbing subjects, even if its conclusions aren’t perfect. It’s a testament to the movie’s thematic depth that I’m still talking about it with friends.
Another thing I appreciate is the CGI, or lack thereof. It looked like almost all of the stunts were real. Imagine that. In fact, the coolest action shot in the movie, the one that made half the people in the theater gasp—you know, the one with the semi—didn’t even feature an explosion. Explosions used to be so cool, but now they’re boring. Especially after Stealth.
He just wanted to be loved.
The Joker was, of course, an unbelievable character; I think only Johnny Depp could do as good a job as Heath Ledger at being a disturbing, neurotic sociopath. Ledger definitely deserves at least an Oscar nomination for playing one of the most fascinating and hideous villains in cinema history. He’s the kind of guy who makes you laugh and then feel horrified that you’re laughing because it proves that you’re a sick, sick person. Did I mention that this isn’t a movie for little kids?
"Mumble mumble mumble herds…"
I really only have two complaints. The first is that I don’t know where the Nolan boys will take Batman from here. How do you top this feat? The second complaint has to do with the dialogue. I’m not complaining about the script—that was A-OK. The problem is that all of the characters (especially Batman) talked in low, growly voices. When you add in the low, growly soundtrack and low, growly background noises, it makes it kinda tough to hear what’s going on. At least the characters don’t spend the whole film mumbling under their breath, like in Jurassic Park. It took me years to understand all the little quips from that movie. Note to directors: mumbly people may be realistic, but they make for terrible dialogue.
Rating time! Here is my system:
- I would pay money to see it again ($$$$).
- I would see it again if someone gave me a free ticket ($$$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone gave me a free ticket ($$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone paid me to go ($).
The Dark Knight lands $$$¢ (three dollars and change).
Now, I probably ticked off a lot of people here. Didn’t I just spend the whole review raving about this movie? Yes, I did. Shouldn’t I give it the coveted four-dollar-sign rating? Perhaps. But the fact of the matter is, it’s a very dark movie, and I’m not always in the mood to watch that sort of thing. For example, I definitely wouldn’t go if my dog had just died. Assuming I owned a dog.
Dave reviews…WALL•E
Black circle dot thing!
Isn’t that neat? I got that little circle dot thing in between the WALL and the E in the title above. If it doesn’t show up okay for you, let me know, because I’m very excited about it.
So, about WALL•E. This movie was terrific. Fantastic, even. It’s about a lonely guy at a boring job looking for love. But unlike me, WALL•E is a robot in a dystopic future in which mankind has abandoned Earth, leaving him to clean it up. Of course, there’s a lot more to it than that; the poor little fella gets swept up into love and a greater cause. Really, it’s the typical bumbling-male-gets-the-hot-girl story that never happens in real life but is great to watch in a movie.
Okay, I need to add a disclaimer that my job isn’t boring. That was just a joke.
Anyway, one of the highest compliments I can pay to a computer-animated movie is that I forget that it’s computer-animated. I spent almost the entire movie forgetting it, here. I’ll tell you what—it’s a great story with lovable characters and a good plot. It’s perfect for the whole family. If you haven’t seen it, drop whatever you’re doing and GO NOW. Unless you’re on the bomb squad, in which case, put your work down gently.
WALL•E stares forlornly off into space, crying sad little robot tears.
Now, there’s one thing that bothers me about sci-fi movies in general, and it crops up here, too. It’s that the demographics are all wrong. In most American sci-fi movies, nearly everyone is white, with a few token black actors sprinkled onto the set to add realism. Do we really think that Caucasians will make up the bulk of humanity a few hundred years from now? The demographics show the opposite. In fact, a well-thought-out sci-fi movie set here in the USA should have a mostly Hispanic cast, since that’s the wave of the future. We white folks are breeding ourselves out of existence. Or, more accurately, unbreeding ourselves out of existence. This is why we are stupid.
Disclaimer: not all white people are stupid.
Fortunately, the failure to properly forecast demographics doesn’t really detract from the movie—at least to us Americans. However, one minor rough spot is a point in the movie in which a human character launches into a one-minute tirade. Now, in 99% of movies, that wouldn’t be a problem (the monologue is a little hokey, but not too bad). However, up to that point in the movie, the longest line of dialogue had been about five seconds. So it seems a little out of place and awkward. Fortunately, it’s soon over, and we get back to the anthropomorphic chirps, clicks, and hums to which we’ve grown accustomed. Actually, this movie has convinced me that robots are in every way superior to humans. I won’t be too upset when they rise up against their soft and fleshy human masters and conquer the world.
Disclaimer: I might be a little upset.
Now, the moment of truth has arrived. How does the movie stack up? Here is my rating system:
- I would pay money to see it again ($$$$).
- I would see it again if someone gave me a free ticket ($$$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone gave me a free ticket ($$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone paid me to go ($).
WALL•E scores…
$$$$ (four dollars)
That’s my first four-dollar-sign rating. It is well deserved!
Dave reviews…Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Round up the Bingo boards and the Depends®! It’s time for one last Indiana Jones movie!
This time, our intrepid (and geriatric) hero takes on Soviets, nukes, aliens, old girlfriends, and loss of tenure. It’s a bit of a change from the archeological exploits of a younger Jones, when he was digging up inaccurately-depicted biblical relics or taking on occultic demon-worshipers. As a result, you may have heard your friends sighing about how “disappointing” this movie was. Don’t believe them; they are wrong. The Indiana Jones formula is intact, even if the villains and set pieces have changed.
Your friends may think this movie isn’t as good as the old trilogy, but they need to go back and watch Temple of Doom. It was good, but not great. Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom, if not quite as good as the other two. So it’s a worthy fourth installment to an aged, wrinkly series.
In my (sage) opinion, it’s the…agedness…of the older movies that has uncorked all the criticism. We are blinded by this thing called nostalgia, which is a word that means, “movies you saw as a kid aren’t as good as you think they are.” Take Top Gun, for instance. It’s a good movie. But to hear some of my friends talk, you would think it had descended from heaven—fresh, juicy, and dripping with savory butter. You see, many people from my generation saw it as kids, and kids don’t understand what a good movie is (which is why they get so excited about Kung Fu Panda). Now, the original Indiana Jones trilogy were great movies—even revolutionary. But because this new one doesn’t produce those same feelings of nostalgia, critics rip it to pieces. I’m not really sure what Spielberg and co. could have done to please Indy fans. Frankly, I think they came as close as they’re gonna get.
Now, my movie reviews are very formulaic; they begin with my opinion of the movie, which degenerates into a rant about movies and movie-watchers. Then comes the part where I pick out random things I liked and didn’t like about the movie, which is where we are at right now. I do have one bone to pick with Crystal Skull. 
Since when is an old geezer able to survive a nuclear blast at ground zero by hiding in a fridge? Especially when this conveniently lead-lined fridge is hurled like a tin can across the desert? I, for one, would have been turned to jelly; Harrison Ford emerges unscathed. Sadly, it is a common (and retarded) trend in movies today for the heroes to walk away, whistling cheerfully, after vicious physical punishment which should have left them maimed, crippled, and drooling—if not dead. No one survives a fall from a skyscraper uninjured, period.
I guess that kind of turned into a rant, too.
What did I like? Well, I liked the monkeys. I don’t know why. They just cracked me up for some reason. Also, the ants were pretty cool. And the heroes were fun to cheer for—even Shia LaBeouf. People seem to get annoyed by him, but he doesn’t usually bother me. I wonder why that is.
So the time has come to conclude this review. Here is my rating system:
- I would pay money to see it again ($$$$).
- I would see it again if someone gave me a free ticket ($$$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone gave me a free ticket ($$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone paid me to go ($).
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull scores…
$$$ (three dollars)
Not too shabby!
Dave reviews…Prince Caspian
Have you ever watched one of those movies where a little into the film, you start thinking, “Hey this movie rocks!” Then a scene comes up which makes you reconsider, and you start thinking the movie might actually be kinda lame. Then another scene reintroduces the rockage. Then another scene plows it under. Finally, you’re left confused about whether or not you actually liked the movie.
That, in a nutshell, is Prince Caspian. But if you want specifics, you’ll have to wait while I gear up for a little rant.
First, I want to start with a few positives. The new Narnia movies beat the pants off of the horrible old BBC movies. However, that’s a lot like saying a clothing store is “classier than K-Mart”—not a very high standard to meet. So I’ll add that the movies were also pretty well cast, have good special effects, and usually avoid being corny (…usually).
Sadly, the movies are also missing their soul. That’s because Aslan—the central figure of the books and the only character found in every book—is boring. In fact, he usually looks a little sleepy. He’s certainly not threatening. I guess this isn’t too surprising; the American church has become content with the friendly, safe God that C. S. Lewis despised. No wonder, then, that Aslan seems wise and kind but not scary. When he chewed up the White Witch in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I was more than a little disappointed that he popped up with a sanitized, toothy grin. Just once, I’d like to see blood dripping from Aslan’s teeth to remind us that he’s dangerous—you know, not a tame lion.
At a later date, I’d like to post more on how a lack of fear of the Lord is likely the defining sin of the American church. In this sense, the Narnia movies are symptomatic of a deep flaw in the way we look at God.
In the meantime, let’s dive into a few specifics before we wrap up the review. What did I like, and what didn’t I like?
If you haven’t seen the movie but you plan on seeing it, now would be a good time to stop reading.
I liked the acting, the darker battle scenes, Reepicheep the mouse (and all the mice, which were done very well), the trees fighting, and the occasional humorous quip.
I didn’t like the scenes blatantly ripped off of the black rider and river chase from the Lord of the Rings movies. I didn’t like the way the movie stretched to engineer awkward character conflicts. And while I’m usually pretty lenient regarding creative license in movie adaptations of books, I thought the whole attack on the Telmarine castle departed too far from the books (though it was still pretty good). Finally, I thought Susan smooching with Prince Caspian was unnecessary. In fact, what was up with that little hint of a love story? It definitely wasn’t there in the book, and it didn’t add anything to the movie. I will admit I’m still embittered by an utterly gratuitous sex scene which ruined a perfectly good novel I just finished reading.
Now, with that said, if you’ve read the books, I’d recommend seeing the movie. It definitely could have been worse. Speaking of which, it’s time to rate the movie, reducing years of creative work to a series of currency symbols:
- I would pay money to see it again ($$$$).
- I would see it again if someone gave me a free ticket ($$$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone gave me a free ticket ($$).
- I wouldn’t see it again even if someone paid me to go ($).
Prince Caspian scores a cheery $$¢ (two dollars and change). I grade hard, so that’s not a bad rating at all.
