Recently in movies Category

Some people may prefer to post every day. But I find that the "start a topic, then abandon it for a month" strategy provides much more suspense. That being said, here's the long-unawaited conclusion to my too-late-to-be-of-any-use review of this summer's comic book movies.

I saw Hellboy II: The Golden Army while I was at Comic-Con in San Diego. You'd think that would be the perfect environment in which to watch such a film. Unfortunately, it was at 10pm on Friday night, when every other person at the Con was out partying with their friends, co-workers, or significant others. I was all alone and was getting bored with walking the streets like a homeless person, people-watching, so I decided to take in a show. The theater was almost entirely empty--not what you'd expect for a comic book movie at Comic-Con, and more than a little depressing for Mr. Lonely Guy. But the empty theater actually worked in my favor--they had movable armrests, which I pulled out of the way so I could lay across three seats like I was on my couch at home. Now you know: I have no shame.

So far, this isn't much of a review, but there's really not much to say about Hellboy II. Visually, it was wonderful. Guillermo del Toro is a visual genius--his character design is amazing, and he really knows how to frame a scene. The action in this film was well-choreographed, and his choice to use puppets over CGI in some of the scenes paid off, in that it gave the characters a weight that a lot of comic book movie characters just don't have. But as good as this film looked, the writing was awful.

For some reason, del Toro decided to position much of the film as a romantic comedy. Every scene with Liz and Hellboy came off too cutesy, and the slapstick around Abe Sapien was a little over the top. Normally, I push for more character development, but in this case, I would've liked more of the action and the primary storyline, and less of the BPRD residents. More of Prince Nuada plotting against humanity and less of Hellboy plotting to help more around the house. Also, the ending was way too abrupt. While it looked like they were trying to leave things open for a sequel, I'm not sure I care about the characters enough to stick around.

If you liked the first Hellboy film, you should give this one a try. It wasn't terrible, and was pretty too look at. But I also found it pretty disappointing, perhaps because I loved the first one so much. I thought this would be like the first film on steroids, but it was more like the first film after a few too many Rum and Cokes. Sadly, it was probably the worst comic book movie I saw this summer. Not surprising if you compare it to Dark Knight and Iron Man, but maybe a little surprising once you know I also saw Speed Racer.

Wanted, on the other hand, was in contention for the title of "Best Summer Action Movie," in my opinion. I'd read the comic book years ago, but found it to be fairly unimpressive. And knowing they'd taken the superhero elements out of the film, I thought that would be even more boring than the comic. I had no plans to see it, but started to reconsider once the reviews started pouring in from my friends and coworkers. None of them had anything bad to say about the film. Every one of them recommended I see it. And since Friday wasn't my only bored and lonely night at Comic-Con, I did go see it--the Saturday 10:30pm show, to be exact.

Put simply, my friends were right. This film was good. It's no Godfather, but it was a solid, well-directed, well-acted action film. From the first scene, they establish that the laws of physics are a bit different in this film's world, and that they're taking a slightly tongue-in-cheek approach to the subject of assassination. But if you can suspend your disbelief enough to accept this universe, you're in for a fun ride.

The cast of this film was solid, from top to bottom, but I think it would've worked even better without the big name talent like Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie. The writing and directing were really the stars of the film. It had the workplace humor of an Office Space perfectly balanced with the action of a Die Hard film, and shot in a style that give it some indy texture. It was pretty impressive how it all came together.

Although some people are calling this movie "gun porn" (much like Shoot Em Up and other recent "more bullets than brains" action fare), I think this movie takes a more intelligent and witty approach to the genre and can be enjoyed by people who don't necessarily attend films for the body count. It's definitely a film you should see in high def or at the theater, and you may even be able to find it at the dollar theaters soon. That way, you won't say I owe you money on the off chance you don't agree with my review.

Finally, I wanted to include a movie that's actually based more on a cartoon than a comic book--though there are now comics out based on the series. I saw Speed Racer at a sneak preview screening sponsored by the Asian-American group at my company, which meant it was free and during the workday. I have to admit that may've biased my opinion favorably toward the film. Either way, despite this being a very unpopular opinion, I have to admit I enjoyed the movie.

I've already reviewed the film here, so I won't go into more detail about it. I just wanted to throw it in this list, as I consider it one of the "comic book movies" of the summer, and can't discuss the other movies I saw this year without including it. I can understand how some people were disappointed in Speed Racer, but I think this film will have a good run on DVD. It may not have made its money back at the box office, but it will do well once in-store purchases and rentals are factored in. And I don't think history will remember it as badly as some other modernizations, like Godzilla or The Flintstones. If you can catch it at the dollar theater, you should do so. And that's the last I'll say about that.

I haven't really planned my winter movie viewing, yet. Once I saw the extra Watchmen footage at Comic-Con, I already started looking forward to 2009. That's my favorite book/series, and the footage makes me think it will soon become my favorite feature film. I'm more amped about this movie than I've ever been--this may be what Star Wars fanboys felt about The Phantom Menace. Anyway, if you have some winter/fall recommendations, let me know. Besides The Spirit and maybe Land of the Lost and The Wolfman, I'm not even that aware of what geek-oriented films will be in the market at that time.

I know this is much delayed, and fairly useless. After all, either you've already seen them, or you never will. But I still thought I'd do a short wrap-up of the big comic book movies of the summer, if only to get back on the blogging horse. And also because I saw most of them BY MYSELF, and thus haven't had much of a chance to talk to anyone about them.


Iron Man was the first to come out, and really kick-started the summer season for me. It was actually my favorite comic movie in years. First off, the casting was ridiculously good. Robert Downey Jr. was a great choice as Tony Stark, as was Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane. Even Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts and director Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan were okay. Terence Howard didn't have much to do, but he was really just in place for the sequel. Speaking of which, I hope we do see more of James Rhodes, as I worry Robert Downey Jr. is a little old to do another six or seven years as Iron Man without starting to look a little silly. Transitioning the armor to another actor should help the staying power of the series.

Beyond the good casting, solid acting and obviously top-notch special effects, my favorite thing about Iron Man was that it was the first comic book movie I've ever seen where I said, "You know, all of this could actually happen." I mean, every other movie seems to either have heroes with superpowers or normal humans doing superhuman things (such as when Batman falls eight stories and walks away, or leaps thirty feet in a single bound). But Iron Man had normal humans living under normal human limitations. Sure, the armor did some crazy things, but it's not all that far-fetched. The Army has been working on body armor and jetpacks for years, but can never get past the problems of weight, cost and fuel consumption. Well, Tony Stark figured out all three in the movie. If someone could do that in real life, we could actually see something like the Iron Man armor. More realistically, we could see something like the Iron Monger.

Hey, it's all still just superhero science and suspension of disbelief. But compared to the other movies on this list, and cast with Oscar-winners, it came off as very believable. It was easy to get totally engrossed in the world of the film.


The Incredible Hulk was next on my summer watch list. I enjoyed this one a lot, too, though not as much as Iron Man. It had equal acting strength with Edward Norton (one of my all-time faves), Tim Roth and William Hurt, while Liv Tyler was adequate as Betty Ross. I was amazed at how stocky she looked, but she sort of looked like a woman who would actually pine for a middle-aged scientist. I also liked how they threw some solid actors into sequel-capable roles, like Tim Blake Nelson as the future Leader and Ty Burrell as the eventual Doc Samson. I'd love to see a sequel just to see if they'll bring those two forward a bit more.

The plot of the movie was very simple, but none of these films tried to be much more than what they were, which was one of the good things about all of them. This one was simply meant to establish the dual identities of this legendary character, and it did an admirable job at that. Like you'll hear me say for at least one of the other movies on this list, I thought the best parts of The Incredible Hulk were the parts that had no superheroics or CGI--Edward Norton on his own is more fun to watch than any green giant. But they did tone back some of the cartoony aspects of the Hulk and made his actions have a bit more weight, which was an improvement on the previous film. Overall, it was a fun ride, and left me wanting more. Which is exactly what Marvel intended when they rebooted the franchise. It didn't make any more money than the last Hulk movie, but it's definitely in better position for big-money sequels.


I should have less to say about The Dark Knight than the other movies I saw this summer, if just because everyone else has already said it all. I definitely enjoyed it, but it wasn't perfect. The writing was all over the place--some of the scenes were brilliant, while others were filled with Bat vs. dog combat or long-winded speeches about justice. The film was intense enough to keep my eyes glued to the screen for the entire three hours, but should have been shorter by almost half. And I really wish we'd seen less of the hero in costume and a little more of everything and everyone else. I love Christian Bale, but the worst parts of the movie were when he was the bat--his movements looked too choreographed, his costume was too elaborate and bulky, and his voice...well, I think everyone's already weighed in on that.

Anyway, the only thing I should be talking about in regards to The Dark Knight is Heath Ledger's performance. I was sympathetic towards his family and friends when he died, but I won't confess to feeling any great sadness for myself. As shallow as it sounds, however, watching his performance in this movie did make me a bit sad that he won't be around for a sequel. He was so good that I wanted to see much more of that character. I don't think there was enough meat in the role to make it Oscar-worthy, but there was definitely enough to get him some minor awards and even more recognition as a versatile actor. Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart were also good in this film, and when you combine them with Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, you have as solid a cast as any other summer blockbuster. But the movie was definitely Heath Ledger's showcase, and all future Bat-villains will pale in comparison.

Finally, though I wasn't a fan of the way The Dark Knight ended, I had no problem with the fate of Maggie Gyllenhaal's character. I've never really been bothered by writers killing off the wife/girlfriend to incite heroic action. Not because I'm a misogynist, but because it's motivation I can immediately understand. There's nothing that would incite me to violence like losing my wife. It's one of my biggest fears in life. As overused as it is, it almost always works to get me to feel for the hero and root for him.

I just wish it'd been done in the previous movie, when Rachel Dawes was played by Tom Cruise's baby maker.


Next Time: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, Wanted, and a bonus film for which I forgot to make an image!

Last Wednesday, the Asian-American resource group within my company sponsored a pre-release screening of the new Speed Racer movie. Those of us who had registered for the event got to leave work to see a free film (popcorn and soda included), and then stick around for a Q & A with the voice actors from the English version of the original Speed Racer cartoon, Peter Fernandez and Corinne Orr. It was a great way to spend an afternoon.

The movie was better than I expected, though I have to admit I might have been in the perfect mood for it--ecstatic over being able to get away from the office during what was an incredibly stressful week. And the right mood always helps when going into a theater.

Speed Racer was a total popcorn film, meaning it was a visual spectacle, full of great effects and amazing action, but it won't get any award nominations for writing or acting. That's not much of a criticism, though. Popcorn films can be a lot of fun, and are perfect for summer viewing.

And I'm not trying to say the acting was bad. Emile Hirsch was perfect as Speed, staying earnest and childlike while injecting the role with a bit of an edge. Matthew Fox was solid as Racer X--staying masked and using a different tenor to his voice that kept this role from evoking memories of his well known character on Lost. I even thought Susan Sarandon and John Goodman were solid as Speed's parents. I worried that those two would be played for comedic effect and with a great deal of corniness, but they actually came off as loving and devoted parents and were the key characters in just about every serious scene in the film. I almost think the Wachowski brothers squeezed blood from a stone getting this random cast to each find the essence of the animated characters without seeming like cartoons, themselves. Like I said, no awards for acting, but this definitely wasn't a kitschy mess like the Flintstones or Scooby Doo live action films.

By the way, I should add here that I have a bit of a crush on Christina Ricci, who played Trixie in the film. I liked her when she was a chubby kid back in Mermaids and Casper, and then grew to lover her as an indie teen star in films like 200 Cigarettes and Pumpkin. Now that she's a nearly thirty, doe-eyed waif, she's still a favorite. To start with, she's got such striking features. And even if it's just the characters she plays and not her real persona, she's always come off as interesting and intelligent. In a way, she reminds me of my wife--a unique beauty with unique interests. The un-sorority girl--someone who will never bore and will always challenge you, physically, emotionally or intellectually.

Anyway, enough of my Ricci love. The summary is that although she has the fewest lines and least amount of camera time in the film (even the monkey gets more closeups), she still stole every scene she was in.

Overall, I would say Speed Racer was a decent film. I just read that it got killed in the box office this weekend, but it probably deserved a bit better. It wasn't that bad--it just fell into the nostalgia trap, where a studio makes a retro property into a film that's too kid-oriented for the thirty-something audience that grew up watching it, and too unfamiliar for the current crop of youngsters.

The film's effects were great (even if my old brain had trouble following the action at times), and the soundtrack was solid. If you're forced to attend a brainless popcorn film this summer, you could do worse than this one.

Last year, I was lucky enough to be one of the judges in the Comedy category for Campus Movie Fest, the national student film festival. The movies we screened really varied in quality, from action comedies that would make Rush Hour look amateur to a film that was basically uncut video footage of the filmmaker and his friends getting drunk at a frat party.

It was hard to pick a winner, mostly because the judges couldn't agree on what we should even be basing our decision on. But it was an enjoyable experience, and even after watching 100+ student films (which should be worth some kind of endurance prize), I'll do it again if they ask this year.

Anyway, after watching so many of these shorts, and even creating and appearing in a couple of my own, I guess I have as much appreciation as anyone for the medium. But that's not why I'm posting the film below. I'm posting it because my friend Greg is in it! He doesn't have any lines, but gets to break necks and steal paintings as the male mercenary. I haven't figured out how to vote for the picture, but if you enjoy it, follow the link back to Ourstage and let me know if you find the rating app. I'd love to give his debut some well-deserved stars.

Yeah, I know I planned to do a post a day and clear out all of my horror movie reviews. But a week's vacation and the planning it took to get out of town without bringing my job with me sort of killed that idea. I created all of the posts and even arranged them by day...but then never typed and submitted the reviews. I'll try to catch up, but it may not happen. :) Anyway, here's the first one I had in the queue.

The Amityville Horror (2005) directed by Andrew Douglas

Story: Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George star as a young couple who buy a great house at a very low price...despite the fact that the house was a murder scene just a year earlier. The two move in, along with George's three kids, and quickly start to run into bizarre occurrences. But really, nobody's as effected as dear old stepdad Reynolds, who quickly goes from "fun dad" to "psycho killer," gunning for his own family. The movie's a remake, but the original is supposedly based on a true story. Who knows how far the remake is from the truth.

The Good: Ryan Reynolds actually pulls off "crazy" pretty well. He transitions from his usual smarmy rogue to a guy who's losing his marbles without too much work, which is kind of impressive. He's even still carrying some of his Blade 3 bulk in this movie, making him slightly imposing when he starts going bonkers. Beyond that, however, there's not much else that's good about the film.

The Bad: It seems like every horror movie made in the last five years uses the same shaky camera, jumpy editing and "hair obscuring the horror" imagery that The Ring first made popular. And in this film, like many of the other copycats, it's a substitute for actual scares and a well-directed story. The scary moments are really forced in this film, and you start to feel cheated after the third or fourth camera trick. Also, one of the big themes in this film is violence on kids--the movie begins with a serial killing of a little girl, and then spends the whole next hour threatening harm to the new kids in the house while showing the mangled victim over and over again. As a parent, I'm not fond of this type of imagery. What I usually do when I see a kid get hurt/killed in a film is immediately pull back from the movie and remind myself that it's just an actor, that the kid is alright and probably had a bit of fun shooting the scene. And pulling yourself out of the reality of the film isn't a good thing. From that moment on, I start to notice any errors or inconsistencies in the story, I start to think about the effects and the camera angles, I basically change from movie watcher to technical critic, which guarantees a lesser experience. That happened early on in this film, meaning I had about an hour to examine each actor's performance, pay attention to the lighting, and just generally not care about the story I was being told. Even worse, once I pulled back from the story, I started to notice how bad some of the effects and acting really were. It almost became difficult to sit through.

Verdict: This version of The Amityville Horror falls right into that middle ground of horror films, where it's not nearly good enough to recommend, but not fully bad enough to watch for the camp or enjoyment involved in lampooning it. It does have some scary moments, but those are mostly just the type that happen when someone jumps out at you, not necessarily suspenseful moments created by a compelling story. This film is just a "blah" horror movie, which is disappointing considering how much I loved (and was scared by) the original. If this updated version of The Amityville Horror is on cable when you get home from the bars, and you need something to watch while you sober up, it may fit the bill. But if you're looking for horror movies to add to your Netflix queue, this is probably one you don't want to waste a mailing on.

October is here. And, as promised, I plan to use this month to clear out some of the old movie reviews I've got stored in my movable type account (or in my head). My plan is to keep the reviews somewhat Halloween themed, but that may not last long. I mean, I've seen a lot of sci-fi/horror movies over the past year, but some were so bad that I've already blocked them out of my mind.

Grindhouse, fortunately, is not one of those films.

Grindhouse (2007) directed by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez

Story: Grindhouse is actually two complete movies for the price of one. The first, Planet Terror, is a tongue-in-cheek zombie epic directed by Robert Rodriguez. The basic idea is that a virus escapes from a military base and starts turning the residents of the nearby town into flesh-eaters. However, a few determined individuals band together to fight back the horde of evil and keep hope alive for humanity. Planet Terror stars Bruce Willis, Rose McGowan, Marley Shelton, Josh Brolin, and a host of others. The second film is called Deathproof, and revolves around a former stuntman who uses his indestructable car to become a roadway serial killer. Kurt Russell plays "Stuntman Mike," with Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Vanessa Ferlito, and Jordan Ladd as his intended victims.

Both films are feature-length, so you really are getting a lot of bang for your buck. And to add to the bounty, in between Planet Terror and Death Proof there were a handful of fictional trailers for movies you'll never actually see in theaters. These trailers--Machete, Werewolf Women of the SS, Don't, and Thanksgiving--were more entertaining than their full length versions ever could be. Each was directed by a successful horror movie maven (including Rob Zombie and Eli Roth), and each starred a random mix of bankable stars and B-movie legends (including Nic Cage, who could be put into either category). Overall, the running time for both movies along with the trailers was almost four hours!

The Good: I absolutely loved Grindhouse. This probably isn't very surprising to anyone who knows my tastes. I thought it was the best film (films?) I saw in 2007, on TV or in theaters. The cast was wonderful--an amazing mix of sexy women, accomplished action stars, cult heroes and secret guests--and all of them played their roles with an appropriate amount of attitude and cheese. Nothing in either film (or especially in the trailers in-between) was meant to be taken too seriously. And while many actors might take that as an excuse to mail in a performance, everyone in Grindhouse used it as freedom to create interesting, engaging characters. And while the plot of each film was intended to be lowbrow, the direction was so top notch that it made each film bigger and better than what it should have been. The jokes were genuinely funny, the shocks put you on the edge of your seat, and the action was perfect weekend popcorn fare.

The Bad: It's hard for me to pick on Grindhouse, as I found it an awesome moviegoing experience. Sitting in the theater, I felt like I'd found money on the ground. I mean, I was getting two full movies for six bucks (I was using discount coupons), and they were well-directed, action-packed movies. I would have to say the only negative things you could say about the experience are the following: 1) There's no good time to go pee, and four hours is way too long to hold it. 2) The experience really should be seen on a big screen and in one sitting. Buying and watching the DVDs separately won't give you the same effect. 3) Grindhouse was awesome, but only for people who like the sci fi/horror or B-movie/exploitation genres. There is ample gore, a bit of sex, and some really corny jokes and offbeat characters. My wife wouldn't have liked the film at all, and she wouldn't be alone. If you can't stand films about zombies or serial-killing stuntmen, the directorial and acting talent probably won't change your mind.

The Verdict: It's obvious that I loved this movie and would recommend it to any fans of the genre. My only concern is that I really don't think it will be the same on TV, even if you watch the two-disc set in one sitting. It was pretty cool getting both features back-to-back with the trailers in-between. And there are a few film effects the directors used that will only work in theaters. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from seeing the movie if you're interested. But you should at least see if it's playing in one of those dinner-and-a-movie places, where they show recent, but not current, Hollywood offerings.

Better yet, take a date to the drive-thru. I think Grindhouse would be the perfect Halloween drive-thru movie experience. I wonder if it's playing at the Starlite in Atlanta anytime soon...

When logging in to my Movable Type account just now to do some site maintenance, I noticed that I have thirty-four "drafts" still in the queue. That means that I've started thirty-four posts but never finished them.

Looking through these drafts, most of them are movie reviews. I know my reviews are fairly worthless, but they're easy to write, so I may try to finish some of these off. In fact, with Halloween just around the corner, I may take all of the horror movie reviews and schedule them all to launch through the month of October. It will be a theme month, made up entirely of outdated reviews of movies that came out years ago! How thrilling will that be?

Rex Kramer: [talking to Steve McCroskey] Our only hope is to build this man up. We gotta give him all the confidence we can.
[to Striker]
Rex Kramer: Striker, have you ever flown a multi-engine plane before?
Ted Striker: No, never.
Rex Kramer: Shit. It's a God damn waste of time. There's no way he can land this plane.

I was reading an article where many of today's top comic actors were being asked what the funniest movie of all time was. Sadly, many of them said Borat. I thought Borat was okay, but it was mostly reheated skits from the Borat segments on Showtime's Da Ali G Show. Very little in the movie was original. And the few original bits were mainly the stuff featuring the actors acting, not real people reacting, and was thus less funny. I'm not saying it was a bad movie. I'm just wondering how multiple comedians could rank that above the movies that probably inspired them to become comedians.

Others did mention classics such as Annie Hall, This is Spinal Tap and Dr. Strangelove, but it shocked me that Borat was the film proclaimed "the winner" in this article.

One thing that made me happy, however, was that at least one person on the list mentioned Airplane as his favorite comedy. I loved, loved, loved this movie as a kid. The comedian who proclaimed his love for the film mentioned that the dialogue was amazingly "portable." I would agree. I use Airplane quotes on a regular basis, whether people pick up on them or not. The above is one of my faves, if just because I can actually picture the scene in my head every time I read the quote.

If you've never seen it, I suggest you check it out. And if you are already a fan, why not brush up on some quotes from the film. You never know when you'll need a good line.

"Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

I know a lot of horror enthusiasts are totally salivating over Grindhouse (the upcoming Tarantino/Rodriguez double feature) solely based on the images in the trailer of Rose McGowan with a shotgun where her leg used to be. For some reason, this gets certain geeks all fired up.

Personally, I don't have much of a gun/girl fetish. I'm salivating over the film for other reasons. As a zombie movie fan, I'm excited to see those two directors combine to handle one of my favorite genres. I know the end product will be over-the-top in terms of visuals, gore and writing, but that will hopefully be on purpose. And I expect both films to have a sense of humor, which I love in a horror movie.

But I'm also excited from an industry standpoint. How will the movie theaters handle a double feature in the modern age? Considering that theaters lose money on every film they show as it is, what will it cost them to show two, back-to-back? How will it be marketed? Where will it play? This will be an interesting experiment, and, assuming it doesn't end up costing an arm and a leg to attend, I'll definitely be buying a ticket and joining in on the fun.

There are a lot of films I'm more excited about this year (Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Transformers), but this one's on my radar and should be a fun ride.

You've got to be kidding me:

ACADEMY-AWARD® WINNER GWYNETH PALTROW SIGNS ON TO MARVEL STUDIOS' IRON MAN

Jon Favreau obviously never saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. One peek at that disastrous Paltrow performance, and she'd never get another comic book role again. She seriously mailed in that performance, somehow managing to bore the audience even in the midst of some amazing visual effects and action sequences, and proved that she needs to stick to arthouse films and indy fare.

Favreau's prior casting choices have been so clever that this one just boggles my mind.

I should add, by the way, that Paltrow's Academy Award for Shakespeare in Love was one of the least-deserved in Oscar history. She beat out Cate Blanchett's performance in Elizabeth, for Pete's sake. Did the voters even watch both films? I won't bash Gwyneth as an actress, because I actually like quite a few of her films (Se7en, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Royal Tenenbaums). Heck, I even liked Shakespeare in Love. I just don't think her role was Oscar-worthy, and it definitely was no Elizabeth.