Reviews

Big fan of this series, but this entry was beyond weak. No suspense, no mystery -- so to compensate, they add in heaping tablespoons of the worst overacting you could possibly imagine. This is almost unwatchable, and if you've had the pleasure of viewing it, you will see what I mean.

Probably the most unrealistic episode of the series... a train wreck of a performance by the lead actor.

The story picks up vignettes in the life of a emotional 17 year old. You begin to imagine that these vignettes have a point -- that there is some sort of irony or Hitchcockian twist on the way. But no. This was based on a short story that I now must find and read, because I cannot believe that what I just saw on screen is what the author intended. Least I hope not.

This review will probably be more flattering than deserved, due to my fondness for science fiction adventures. After Earth kept my attention, but I had to completely ignore the predictability (from M. Night? Who would have thought?). A reasonably decent Saturday matinée movie that owes more than a little to Jurassic Park. Yet unlike its paleolithic predecessor, After Earth is in the hands of M. Night who has forgotten how to adequately build suspense. A few of the shocks were 80s style horror movie jump cuts -- the cheapest way to get an audience's attention -- and frankly everyone will know how the story will end after watching the first twenty minutes.

So no suspense, decent action. The acting? As a complete Will Smith fan, I have never seen a movie where his performance disappointed -- until this one. I know he had to play the stoic general/father, but there is a big difference between a stoic and a flat performance. Mr. Smith senior was reading dialog in a fashion more wooden than a bad high school play. Since the man knows how to act, the fault must lie with the script/director -- each of which were (surprisingly?) associated with M. Night. Jaden Smith is young and I hate to be unkind in my review of his acting. Let's just say that I hope he was as victimized as his father.

I now believe Shymalan has exhausted his bag of tricks. The writing of this movie lacks, and he even borrows a bit of his foreshadowing techniques from Signs, although less effectively.

Bottom line, if you enjoy a little questing adventure movie that has really nice cinematography, then go and have a good time. But your chances of finding a better movie than this are pretty high.

I've just read review after review about how this movie fails because it spends so little time on the poll tax, or how the Faukland war is glossed over, or how protesters never got that close to Thatcher's car.

I am amazed at how many film goers missed the point.

This movie was not intended to be a Biography Channel documentary on Margaret Thatcher. So why judge the movie as if it were? Those associated with the film responded to one historical inaccuracy (the lack of women in Parliament in 1979) by pointing out that this movie was from the point of view of Thatcher, not the objective observer.

Thatcher, it seems to me, was a woman of strong convictions and a bit of tunnel vision. Though far from a Thatcher expert myself, it seemed like Thatcher would view herself as a "lone beacon." Therefore, the symbolism of Maggie versus the pseudo all male House works.

Another reviewer commented on the blatant symbolism of Thatcher grabbing the wheel of the car her daughter was driving and veering it to the right. Far from being a metaphoric sledgehammer, this scene like so many in the movie, paint a portrait of a personality.

Yes, I said a personality, not necessarily a real person. Because the true point of this movie is the eternal conflict between the inner weaknesses and the inner strengths of mankind. It is why the scenes of Thatcher learning how to speak and realizing when to ditch the hat are important.

It is a study of aging, and the forces at war within a human persona. Thatcher proved to be an excellent model for this inner struggle, and from what I've seen and read, the Iron Lady (to its credit) did not stoop to revisionist history. (This is no Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer!) Despite its low scores, Streep is nearly universally praised and rightly so. The fact that this movie focuses on the aging process and its tipping of the strength versus weakness balance is NOT a bad device. In fact it is probably one of the more unique ways to portray Alzeheimers. Not just as a sad deterioration, but the more complex medical phenomenon that it truly is.

Watch the movie carefully. Look for signs of Thatcher's ease in having her stronger self battle her weaker one in her youth. See and enjoy the character progression from youth to elder.

Denis Thatchter, beyond just being good emotional balance and sparingly used comic relief, is a personification of her strongest weakness -- her disease. The ending, while ridiculed by many, is one of the best in modern memory. This is a balanced, yet caring portrait of Thatcher -- or rather a Thatcher-like personality.

In grade school, we were all taught the four essential types of conflict: Man vs Man, Man vs Society, Man vs Nature, and Man vs Self. Those who come in to this movie expecting one of the first two conceits will be legitimately disappointed. Those who grasp the notion that the movie has more in common with A Beautiful Mind than with The Queen or The King's Speech will be rewarded by seeing one of the finest stories put to film.

Claude Monet is one of my all time favorite artists. And I just happen to have a wonderful book featuring many of his paintings that is one of my most treasured possessions. Yet, if someone approached me and asked me for a good book to read, I would never for a moment contemplate giving this book a high rating. Simply put, while there is text describing the paintings, there is no story, no plot, no character advancement. It is not literature.

And now, in IMDb, we are asked to tell others if the film The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick is a good movie to watch. The answer is "No." One of Malick's editors was quoted as saying, ""Our focus was to make it more of an experience and not about plot." Okay. Enough said for those of you who want to watch a storyline. Skip this film and stop reading now.

This had the potential to be a much better movie. The premise (and the deceiving previews) were solid and that was what pulled me in. The idea of looking at the outwardly idyllic 1950s family and childhood innocence as something of a darker influence that colors a man's viewpoint and actions throughout his life would have been interesting. At issue is that Malick divides his film into three distinct segments: Beautiful (but endless) cinematic sequences of evolution/nature, vignettes of Jack O'Brien's childhood as portrayed by Hunter McCracken, and brief snippets of Sean Penn's interpretation of Jack as a late middle aged man.

But the film fails to progress anything. Even as imagery. The movie is "interrupted" for twenty-two minutes of evolution montage. While stunningly beautiful, it is still a jarring experience that does not successfully build on what preceded and followed it. It is as if you are suddenly transported into the theatre next door – and then magically transported back to the film you started watching. Sean Penn needed not be an actor in the film. We get absolutely no insight into Jack O'Brien past pre-adolescence; Penn is more of a prop than performer. His presence on screen was merely to tell the audience, "See, this man is remembering his childhood." Malick spends most of his time in the 1950s. He does succeed in giving us nice glimpses into character interactions in the O'Brien family – particularly around Jack and his father (Brad Pitt) and his younger brother. Here's my main complaint about these segments – they lead nowhere. A seminal event happens about eleven years later when Jack's brother dies at the age of nineteen. Do we get to experience that? No. In fact, beyond a few gratuitous "Jack as a baby" or "Jack as a toddler" scenes, our entire window into Jack's life is within likely a single year of his life at most. This deprives the audience of seeing growth and psychological cause and effect.

If you want to focus on such a narrow time period, Terrence, then please have something dramatic happen. This is a movie, after all. If you want us to experience the fullness of a life experience, Terry, then give us a view of Jack past the age of twelve. We do see young Jack get angry, get elated, get jealous, get belligerent, and so on. We do not see growth or change in Jack. The afterlife scene on the beach was so hackneyed, that even the TV show Lost managed to do it better.

Without character development, I felt like I was given two telescopes. One that would pick up random family interactions in the 1950s and one anchored in the heavens watching the vibrant creation of the world, or perhaps the Discovery Channel.

Bottom Line. As a movie, one star. As art? If Malick would have maintained his artistic focus, five stars. Since he did not, I will give him two.

It was a rainy Sunday and I went looking for cheese, but found a savory meal. Frankly, I was hoping to kill off a few brain cells in the mindless fun of watching a movie about a killer tire. Expecting something along the lines of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, I wanted to drown myself in delicious B-movie goodness. This coming from the man that cannot change the channel when my remote calls up images of Joan Collins being eaten by giant ants in Empire of the Ants.

Yet soon I realized that this film was so much more than horror spoof or a silly gimmick film. The movie opens with a desert road randomly strewn with simple wooden parsonage chairs facing in all directions. Next a car appears and begins deliberately swerving into the chairs, breaking each one of them, until it comes to a halt. At that point, a sheriff emerges (from out of the trunk?!) and knocks on the driver door where he is handed a full glass of water. The sheriff breaks the fourth wall and begins addressing the audience by speaking of the "no reason" principle of famous movies like E.T., Love Story and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This narration immediately reminded me of the criminologist from Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I suddenly did not know what to expect from this movie.

I honestly think the less said about this film the better. Suffice it to say that Rubber is one part B-movie schlock, one part David Lynch, and one part Hitchcock. (Did I just actually go there?) On my first watching of the movie, I appreciated its style. The camera angles, the homage to Psycho, the riveting and unnerving sound track were somehow quite effective in producing suspense. Quite remarkable when the serial tire is a generic tire! Juxtaposed against this atmospheric cinematography was a very healthy dose of absurdity and dark humor. This makes for an extremely interesting viewing experience, where the audience switches abruptly from anticipation to laughter to abject confusion.

The sheriff tells us that there is "no reason" for this film. What a deceit! Because there is a reason for virtually everything – from the opening scene of the destruction of chairs, to the irony of a Nascar race, to the well placed remake of the song "Just Don't Want to be Lonely" to (yes!) the turkey. Irony abounds even as our in character heroine proclaims that she cannot read the lines of dialog because they are garbage.

The second time I watched this movie, I focused on its true theme. I realized with delight that the movie is about movies and their audiences. Pay very close attention to every scene with the bystanders on the road and you will realize that the killer tire story is not the actual plot at all. Also, on second viewing, you can revel in the brilliant personification of the killer tire (Robert). A tire that learns, sleeps, recreates, dreams, and even has flashbacks to his previous inanimate incarnation on an actual car. Observe the film structure and use of the reflecting glass and incineration scene as key catalysts. You will be amazed at all you missed when first watching this movie.

Astonishingly, this became my favorite movie of 2011 so far. Lovers of film should not miss this.

This film begins like so many others of its genre -- namely, a young couple on their way to a far away destination pull into an eerie, almost deserted motel where things aren't what they seem.

If you think you've seen it before, likely you have. Beneath the Dark has strong echoes of the 2003 John Cusack film Identity, though it pales in comparison. Ahh, what to say about this movie? I enjoyed watching it, but then I am a fan of the suspense genre which has been in a serious state of drought lately. Is it a good movie? Not really. Is it a bad movie? No. The plot line does catch your interest as you watch the two very different back stories of the young traveler and the motel manager unfold. The narrative of the film makes the viewers expect the inevitable connection, which is mildly interesting once revealed. However the entire conceit of the movie is nearly immediately obvious. I suppose in a world where twisty thrillers have been around for so long, it is far more difficult to pull off true surprise. Yet I feel that the director/writer Chad Feehan missed the opportunities to misdirect the audience. One can only hope Chad was not trying for an M. Night Shyamalan production.

The film used so many clichés, that it could have been the product of a university class on the genre: the isolated motel in the Midwest and the slightly off motel manager are photocopied directly from Psycho. The jukebox that plays the same song over and over is also lifted. (Didn't we see that in a number of Rod Serling productions?). Yet all is not as grim as this review seems. Mr. Feehan studied well, and utilized these and other familiar elements effectively.

So a sense of mild suspense persists throughout the movie. The ending is a bit of a let down -- but the journey was fun.

Bottom line: If you like this genre, this movie is serviceable. I certainly wasn't sorry I watched it, although I thought that the motel manager needed to be cast with a stronger performer. If you have nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon, punch this one up. Keep your expectations low and you might enjoy it.

Okay, will someone please tell Terry Gilliam that even in today's world well-written characters, good acting, and crisp plotting are still essential elements of a good movie?

Now the ideas in The Brothers Grimm are outstanding. Jake and Will Grimm are a cross between 18th century ghostbusters and storytellers. It was indeed intriguing to see Gilliam's vision of twisted origins of our favorite fairy tales. Fascinating it was to see how daily events -- some dramatic, some mundane - led to elements of Little Red Riding Hood, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Rapunzel. Not to mention Cinderella, in the only truly amusing scene where Damon and Leadger scrub a hut in frocks and bonnets. And whenever Gilliam avoided CGI, the cinematography was (excuse the pun, but it's truly the correct word) "enchanting."

Let's talk CGI, shall we? Awful. Completely takes over the movie. Sometimes it is OK. Sometimes it is so fake that you wonder if you're watching the Incredible Hulk again. The werewolf (yes, I said werewolf) in particular can't even compete with the its 1980's computer wizardry in such movies as the Howling. Also the use of swarms of CGI bugs was OK once....but repetitive after the third time.

The acting was abysmal. If you have any respect for the actors Matt Damon and Heath Ledger (as I do), you'll be amazed at how flat they are. Ledger practically disappears into the exquisite scenery, while Damon tries in vain to project the wise-ass camaraderie that served him well in Dogma. Try to imagine the worst high school play actor you've ever seen and the worst French accent you've ever heard. Put them together and you pretty much have the prototype for all of the French characters in this film.

Finally, Gilliam adopts a page out of Michael Bay's book. "If you don't like this exciting scene; don't worry, another will be coming right at you." Gilliam throws everything but the kitchen sink into this story which taxes the viewer to endure event after event.

The Brothers Grimm should be studied in film school as an example of how to completely ruin a good concept. So now you're wondering -- why the 3 rating? Simply put, I've just revealed all that is good about this movie. How should we begin to describe its flaws?

Let's start with the needless gore. This movie didn't need to show a torso missing its bottom half. (It's not Scream, for God's sake!) But even worse, there was absolutely NO point to include a scene where the heroine trapper skins a rabbit for about 2 minutes. And this next one should convince you to leave the kiddies at home...how do you like a cat falling into a spinning rotary torture device, getting splayed, being spattered across the room, having bloody parts land on people, and having one of them cheekily pluck it into his mouth. Ahh, what a delightful hor'dourve cat innards must make.

Expendable, pointless, completely unnecessary. Now as a fan of zombie flicks and horror films, I am not a sensitive soul who cannot appreciate a bit of the visceral. But not in the movie. It only serves to bring you out of the story.