Change Your Image
Kurt_Pearson
Reviews
Marley & Me (2008)
Not a family movie...not a very good movie
I guess any movie that makes you cry is usually going to get a higher rating than a movie that you walk out of saying, "What did I just spend $10 on?" Understand first that this is not a "family" movie. Advertisers wanted you to think itwas so you would take your younger kids to it because "family movies" make more money than other movies, overall.
There are sexual references and plenty of language that you may not want your younger kids to hear. Obviously, each parent has to make his/her own decision about what you think your kids can handle. But unless you want to explain squeaking beds and what John's (Wilson) real birthday present is when Jennifer (Anniston) is taking off her clothes, then don't take your younger kids. At the end of the movie, when Marley is mercifully and heart-wrenchingly put "to sleep", you need to evaluate whether or not your kids can handle watching the doctor inject the IV with the lethal dose and the dog's ultimate death.
This movie is not that good of a movie because there is little or no plot. I felt like the scenes without the dog where only there to move the movie to the scenes with the dog. Wilson's and Anniston's characters show little, if any, change over the course of the movie. Weighty issues about marriage and child-rearing are introduced, but they are either not addressed or brushed aside with a contrived solution. The issue of post-partum depression is introduced, but resolved by Jennifer (Anniston) saying she was over-reacting and was just tired. Jennifer points out to John (Wilson) that he always wants what he can't have and nothing ever comes of it. The only development of characters is when they move, change jobs and have kids. There's nothing except the dog to make this movie heart-warming.
All in all, I left with a huge lump in my throat, wet cheeks and the knoweledge that it wasn't a very good movie.
The Omen (2006)
A not-so-interesting clone
As a movie buff, I can say that my greatest pet peeve is people who talk through movies. But, holy cow, I was so bored during this movie that I started cracking jokes and cheering when someone died. Save yourself some money, go to Blockbuster, rent the original, and congratulate yourself on your fiscal responsibility.
I had anticipated that this movie was not being remade simply because the date they could release it on was 6/6/06, however, that was apparently an erroneous assumption.
The story of "The Omen" is an interesting one, but this version retells the story the same as the '76 version. From what I can remember of the original (it's been 20 years), there's nothing new. There's not even any sexual tension between Julia Stiles and Leiv Schreiber. No pseudo-sex scenes like rolling around half-nude in the bed or watching them bathe each other through the opaque shower doors. That would have been worth something. No one but my 11th grade English teacher would have wanted to see sexual tension between Peck and Remick (she thought Peck was hot).
Even when people died in the movie, it wasn't because Damien stared at them until their heads exploded or anything, it was very similar to watching one of the "Final Destination" movies. A seemingly series of innocuous events lead to the shocking death of someone. Of course, the trailers have pretty much removed the shock of one of deaths.
Ultimately, this movie is a clone of the original without any real effort put forth to bring a new scare to audiences. Rent the original and then you can be a snob about seeing the original, therefore you snobbishly say, "I don't need to see an unworthy remake."
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Nietzsche's Jesus
First, I'd like to indicate what I found likable in this movie. Willem Dafoe's Jesus is a likable guy, but a bit "out there." Basically, in this story, Jesus is a "hippie" from the 60s. Jesus is a troubled and imperfect man, which flies in the face of orthodox Christianity. In fact, throughout the story I'm trying to decide if he's crazy or just running from God.
The costuming is really, really good. From everything I've studied about the era (which is extensive), the clothing worn is authentic.
The cinematography and look of this movie would rival anything that Ang Lee could put together. It found it excellent, not stunning, but excellent.
The music by Peter Gabriel, former lead singer for Genesis, is good. It's a bit dated at times, reflecting the influence of 80s techno, but there are times it flows very well with the movie.
Now for the main problem I have with it. It's boring. Granted, Scorsese is not Ridley Scott or John Woo, but dang! I found myself fast-forwarding through the speaking scenes at 2x so I could read them, but get through the movie quicker.
This movie has just enough of the traditional Jesus story in it to be related to the Biblical story, but other than that, everything is different. There's no real interest to it. Jesus is presented as such a weak character, that you really don't care what he goes through, you just want it to end. There's not conviction, but a lot of whining and wondering about whether or not he's doing the right thing. Who wants to believe in a hero like that? This movie was adapted from a novel written by a man who was brought up under the influence of the Greek Orthodox Chruch and who was also a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. This story is about Kazantzakis' attempt to mix these two foundational components in his life, which is about as successful as mixing oil and water. The statement in the movie that sums it all up is when the disciples are arguing over the last words of John the Baptizer. When one disciple asks, "How do we know the Baptist really said that?" The answer given is, "Everybody says he did." Another asks, "But how do we know?" The answer given is the theme of the story. The disciple says, "Well, even if he didn't, the words are still important." This would lead one to believe that even though the Gospels are wrong, the concepts and words recorded are important because people believe them. The problem I have with this is if someone is going to base his/her life on something and devote him/herself to it completely, it better be more authoritative than this lame reason for belief. The story is flawed so don't come here looking for answers about true religion. Kazantzakis spent his life looking for answers and if this story is any indication, he didn't find them.
Amazing Grace and Chuck (1987)
A good Cold War movie
I put this movie in the same genre as "Dr. Strangelove" and "War Games". It is a movie containing a message that was highly relevant to those of us who were 20 something when it came out. It was relevant to those who worried about M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction) as the only way a "Super Power" was guaranteed to win a global nuclear conflict. It is stated at the beginning of this movie that it is an "adult fairy tale." Of course, this message cannot be seen by those whose greatest calling in life is to download the latest ringtone, or keep up with the emails on "My Space". There was a time when our planet was threatened, and people of conscience made movies voicing their concerns. The idea of professional athletes forsaking their livelihood and dreams for a greater cause is an incredible fiction. One that is even more fictitious with today's athletes. This is not a great movie, but it is one worth watching that carries with it the message that we can achieve great things if we're willing to give up our selfishness and seek something greater than ourselves.
King Kong (2005)
Great Remake, but a little long
Having never seen the original on the big screen, and only being exposed to the 70s version, I was thrilled that this movie was being remade. And to have it remade by someone who is as good as Peter Jackson...all I could say was "Wow!"
This is a visually stunning movie. The CGFX are wonderful and nearly seamless. The set designs are great as well, especially the burgeoning skyline and street shots of a prohibition-era New York City. There is one part where Kong is sitting still looking at a sunset and you would almost be fooled in that instant that he is real, and the ability to capture the many emotions of a gorilla is remarkable. And that is one thing that separates this movie from its predecessor--the characterization of Kong.
The work of the actors relating to the FX is top-notch. I was especially impressed with Watts' "green screen" acting; her ability to interact with something that wasn't there. Brody and Black also did good jobs with this as well. Of course, Jack Black is no different in this movie than any other. It just so happens that this role fits him and his personality so well. But as one of my students said, "I kept waiting for him to break out into a 'Tenacious D' song."
The best thing about this movie is Jackson's attention to detail. The worst thing about this movie is Jackson's attention to detail. There were scenes and shots that I was left wondering if he wasn't feeling a little full of himself, possibly suffering from a Lucas-complex (fortunately without Jar-Jar Binks). When Jack Black's character is anxious for the ship to get under way, I felt the same because Jackson keeps giving us shots of gears and the inner workings of the steam ship. When the crew first lands on the island, there are several slo-mo blurry shots with zooming close-ups. These got old really fast. The "insect scene" was cool looking, but didn't really serve a purpose to the story.
Again, could Jackson have Lucas syndrome and be unwilling to listen to those around him who could help him make an awesome remake? I know he is very "hands-on" when it comes to the editing process, but I wish Jamie Selkirk (the editor) would have had more backbone and told Jackson that some of this stuff wasn't needed. But how could he when the bulk of his career has been spent with Jackson. Even if Jackson is getting full of himself, this is still an good movie. It is true to the original story, and it is a good remake.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Funny, Dark, and Good
Wow, Harry and the gang are growing up. Adults and kids, Potter-philes or not, will love this movie because this is actually a good movie. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are developing into good actors, possibly because of the addition of great talents to the Potter troupe, like Gary Oldman, Ralph Finnes, and Brendan Gleeson. Newell's directing is top rate and the special effects are seamless. I actually noticed the sound in this film being something that obviously enhanced the movie.
There is a ineffable quality here that makes this the best Potter movie thus far, and a movie that sets the bar high for the holiday releases. Maybe it is the story (as the 4th book is considered the best) or maybe this one has benefited from the obvious purism of Columbus and the edginess of Cuaron, "Goblet" is a blend of both.
There will be those who want more and complain about what was left out. (Like the 12 year old who exited "Return of the King" complaining about what was left out of the 3.5 hour movie.) However, the story is represented very well. I had a hard time remembering what parts weren't told. Sure, I wanted to see a "Blast-ended skrewt" and a fuller version of the events occurring at the Quiddich World cup, but this movie is 2 hours and 20 minutes and does the job it is asked to do. Besides, maybe in 20 or so years someone will make a TV mini-series out of it and cover everything in the book.
I don't necessarily agree with the PG-13 rating (when the rating was first introduced it was called a "soft-R"). Admittedly, the humor is a bit more grown-up, worrying about getting a date, and how one is dressed, but not too saucy, and Grint's mantra of "Bloody Hell" could be seen as offensive, but nothing that should be considered salacious. The "darker images" mentioned have a nightmarish quality to them, but then that pretty much stays with the story. I would not recommend this for kids under 7. My 8 year old enjoyed it and was on the edge of her seat, but she was never hiding her face or clinging to me for protection.
Overall, this is a superior movie. It goes beyond my classification of a "fun movie", which is one that you over-look the obvious flaws because it is fun to watch. You care about these characters and identify with them, and find yourself wishing you could stay in their world for a while longer.
Suspect Zero (2004)
A mediocre offering
The one question I need answered about this movie is: How on Earth did someone convince Ben Kingsley to do this movie? Aaron Eckhart is not an interesting leading man, and outside of that, there is little character development leaving the viewer with a general feeling of indifference towards them. Even Ben Kingsley cannot illicit concern about his tortured soul who has been exploited by the FBI in order to help track down serial killers. Carrie Ann Moss portrays Eckhart's ex-wife and fellow FBI agent. The movie calls upon the viewer to assume there is tension between the former spouses because it is certainly never generated by the story or the characters. The screenplay by Zak Penn seems to be a carbon copy of the characters that are spoofed in his work "The Last Action Hero." The exception is that Eckhart isn't called upon to play the Dirty Harry-esquire cop. But he is a disgraced agent who would have been fired and brought up on charges in the real-world for what he did. Other suspensions of reality are asked to be accepted. The FBI having "top-secret" projects, Albuqurque not having a Starbucks, and Oklahoma City being about an hour from New Mexico's capital. The inverted camera shots may have been dreamed up by director Elias Merhige or cinematographer Michael Chapman, but whomever is guilty, they don't do anything for the story. This movie fits in the genre of thriller, but it definitely belongs in the genre "I'll watch it on TV if nothing else is on."