CONSTANTINE

Rating: *** out of 5

Review: Based on the pretty good cult DC Vertigo comic book HELLBLAZER(which itself was a good read), the film follows demon exorcist John Constantine(Keanu Reeves) fighting the armies of Hell, while being ignored and bitchslapped around by the cronies of Heaven.

Much was altered for the film adaptation, for better or for worse. For one thing, the Alan Moore(WATCHMEN)-penned creation was British(which legend holds that Moore based the comic book-based look of the character on THE POLICE's Sting), while the character is now American in the film. However, some aspects did survive from comic to movie, like that the character is an asshole, though he was much more in the source material. Not to mention the chain-smoking man also has lung cancer, giving him only a few months to live.

Anyway, I still enjoyed this solid movie. Though I'm surprised that the religious right of this country didn't go nuts over the film, since it involves some Angels and workers of Heaven that aren't exactly doing the purest of deeds. While it wasn't even the best comic book-adapted motion picture of the year(more on that later), the film did decent box-office business in the U.S. yet exorcized a few demons world-wide to the tune of over $210 million, which of course means a reported sequel is A-Go, which I'm actually up for.

SIN CITY

Rating: **** out of 5

Review: Wow. While I won't rehash my thoughts on the film(which is over in Irishman's thread), this stylish-entertaining pulp fluff was quite a fun ride for a movie fan like me. Not to mention to being easily Robert Rodriguez's career highlight as a director. Remarkable work by Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Nick Stahl, Clive Owen, and special short appearances by Powers Boothe and Rutger Hauer. With the movie doing decent U.S. box-office business(and not opening in other foreign territories yet, which assures a much bigger haul), reports have come in of Rodriguez filming two back-to-back SIN CITY sequels. Now thats sequels I'm up for as well.

SAHARA

Rating: **1/2 out of 5

Review: What does NATIONAL TREASURE and this film have in common? Both are generic, but in varying degress.

TREASURE was one which included much of the usual silly Bruckheimer-shenanigans(19th century wooden ship exploding in a fireball???), and was forgettable. Yet SAHARA itself was decent to watch, but it doesn't hold anything unique to make it from entertaining popcorn fluff to a pretty good movie. But really, its not the IQ-insulting madness that NATIONAL TREASURE left me in much of the time. My only other problem with SAHARA is simply that for a $130 million budget movie....where did that money go? I can see the movie cost $70-80 million, but almost double that?!?! Silly!

Movies on the Forecast for my 2005 Film Scorecard: EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH, THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS, George A. Romero's LAND OF THE DEAD, etc.

Post your thoughts on the films of 2005 you have seen so far!

I'm gonna try to see Kingdom of Heaven when it comes out. So far the only problem I see in it is Orlando Bloom, who has the same expression in every shot of him in the trailer, except when he screams.

Surprising...nobody else seen any movies this year?

Sin City is the only film I've seen, and like Ronald, I posted my thoughts in Irish's thread.

I'm going to see two new films this weekend: "The Interpreter" and "Winter Solstice".

Me too. I'm waiting for my parents to come down for my graduation so we can watch The Interpreter and Kingdom of Heaven together. I haven't been to a lot of movies this year but Sin City is by far my favorite!

I'm sure no one here thinks the xXx movies are close to good at all. Well, I just read something that made me laugh in Roger Ebert's review.
-----
XXX: State of the Union" is theater of the absurd, masquerading as an action thriller. Consider. The president of the United States is giving his State of the Union message, unaware that outside the U.S. Capitol building, storm troopers in black body armor, with little red pin-points for eyes, are attempting to break in and assassinate him, as well as the vice president and everyone else in the chain of command, until they get to the secretary of defense, who has hired them for his attempted coup................

............... am not sure because "XXX: State of the Union" has such a breakneck pace that it doesn't pause for the customary news updates in which the State of the Union address is interrupted with the information that a war is raging on Capitol Hill. No, there's not even a crawl across the bottom of the screen: Snows blanket New England... Armored vehicles attacking U.S. Capitol... Illinois 98, Michigan 91... Just wondering: Are there any kind of security arrangements around the Capitol building? You know, TV cameras or security guards who might notice when heavily-armed bands of warriors dressed like Darth Vader are using rocket launchers?

THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY

Rating: ** out of 5

Review: Great cast, faithful to the legendary humorous nvoel, great FX and superb puppet work by the Jim Henson Shop...however, the movie just isn't funny. What do you call a comedy that isn't funny? A waste of time.

STAR WARS: EPISODE II: REVENGE OF THE SITH

Rating: **1/2 out of 5

Review: Best film of the prequel STAR WARS trilogy, but its still a very very very MEH movie. Superb CGI work by ILM, along with great composing work once again from John Williams. This explains how Darth Vader came to be, but why is it I still don't feel satisfied?

BATMAN BEGINS

Rating: **** out of 5

Review: Best film of the summer that recreates in true comic book-esque tradition the legend of the "Bat Man". Superb acting from Bale, Caine, Neeson, and the rest involved without any sense of camp or chewing the scenary. Superb style from director Christopher Nolan.

LAND OF THE DEAD

Rating: *** out of 5

Review: Romero's fourth DEAD movie in the long-lasting horror franchise, where zombies continue to evolve from DAY OF THE DEAD and humans continue to become more evil than the infesting evil plague itself. Big Daddy for President!

CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5

Review: Very enjoyable Tim Burton film that fits into his increasing autuer-istic career.More visually and storytelling-wise interesting than the original film. No wonder its a box-office hit.

Excluding two films for TV (Bacon's Arena, a documentary on my beloved Francis Bacon; Monsters, a five minute short horror film), my best of 2005, with star ratings, are as follows:

1. War of the Worlds ***
2. Batman Begins ***
3. 9 Songs **
4. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith **
5. Sin City **
6. The Bridesmaid *
7. The Descent
8. Millions

From the great to the ugly.

Mick

Ebert just released his *1/2 review of Stealth.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050727/REVIEWS/50713001

'Stealth" is a offense against taste, intelligence and the noise pollution code -- a dumbed-down "Top Gun" crossed with the HAL 9000 plot from "2001." It might be of interest to you if you want to see lots of jet airplanes going real fast and making a lot of noise, and if you don't care that the story doesn't merely defy logic, but strips logic bare, cremates it and scatters its ashes. Here is a movie with the nerve to discuss a computer brain "like a quantum sponge" while violating Newton's Laws of Motion..............

.............Now about Newton's Laws of Motion. Let me try this out on you. A plane is about to explode. The pilot ejects. The plane explodes, and flaming debris falls out of the sky and threatens to hit the pilot and the parachute. If the plane is going at Mach 1, 2 or 3, wouldn't the debris be falling miles away from the descent path of the pilot? I'm glad you asked. The parachute sucks up that flaming debris like a quantum sponge.

All good picks in here. I would add Th eWedding Crashers because it is so damn funny.

Can we agree that Monster In Law is the worst so far?

1. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ****
2. Batman Begins ****
3. War of the Worlds ***1/2
4. Crash ***1/2
5. Star Wars III **1/2
6. Cinderella Man **
7. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy *1/2
8. Sin City 1/2 *

I'm surprised you put Charlie and the Chocolate Factory above Batman Begins, and more shockingly, Crash. :p

I hated Crash for the first half of the movie; it was trite, unbelivable (I've never met anybody as racist as the people in this movie, so a whole group of them together really was something I never connected with), and poorly shot with an ugly use of DV. The second half began to get to me, and was extremely emotionally effective. I initally gave it ****, but since have come to realize that there were way too many flaws to completely excuse.

Batman Begins was extremely entertaining, and certainly the best in the series (though, technically it is the beginning of a new series) after Batman Returns. The first half was, despite being criticized by many for being too slow (when, in reality, it was, to them, boring), way too fast and such the film skimmed over some material that could have been fascinating. The Scarecrow, too, was a sub-par villian, played with a sub-par performance; that's somewhat excusable since for perhaps the first time, Batman is the main focus of the film, but Burton's great villians played by great actors, and with backstories are missed. And once again Nolan proves he is a much better screenwriter than director, as he merely adapts the screenplay and doesn't turn it into anymore. Burton's Gotham city was ugly, but memorable; Nolan's Gotham city is ugly, but forgettable. Even--no, especially--the new Batmobile is horrendous. And it has been documented how many of the fight scenes are confusing because Nolan shoots them in close-up. Bale is great here as Batman, though makes a tragic flaw with his voice (you know, when he shouts at the top of his lungs). Ultimately, what's wrong with Begins is the technical imperfections, especially when compared to the technically magnificent Burton films. The screenplay could have been better (as I said the film does seem to skim over a few parts), but with a technically competent director, this could have been even better (though, no doubt, this is an extremely great movie; it is just that its flaws could have been so easily fixed). I really can't wait for the sequel, but fear that Nicholson's Joker in Burton's first Batman film will once again over-shadow Nolan's work.

For what Charlie and the Chocolate Factory does, it is flawless. Okay, yes, it could have been better, as could Citizen Kane, The Godfather, or 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, but there aren't any flaws here that hurt the experience, as there were in Batman Begins and Crash. And what an experience this is. The performances are all perfect (and except for the skin Depp really has nothing in common with Jacko), the film is stunningly beautiful, and is quite hilarious. I'm not a huge Burton fan, and have only seen about five of his films, but felt Big Fish was a step in the wrong direction (and, from what I hear, so was Planet of the Apes). Burton is not very good with Drama; one of the problems of Ed Wood, one of his finest films, is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. At times it wants to be a Drama, but I think Burton realizes he doesn't know how to make one. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a large leap in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. It's charming, hilarious, fun...at a very basic level, this is what we seek from the movies, and this movie delivers in the same manner as some of the greats. It's unfortunate, however, that it will be virtually unwatchable on a Television set, though.

I found that odd in your post, but as for me, I've seen much, much worse racism then the movie showed. Bullock's character in particular was very realistic, as was Ludacris'. I don't know any racist cops, but I have met people worse then him, but that's just me.

As for Chocolate Factory, it was great, although not as good as reviews led me to believe. I felt it was a little over the top at times, and sometimes the play on words got annoying, but those are just my thoughts.

I found that odd in your post, but as for me, I've seen much, much worse racism then the movie showed. Bullock's character in particular was very realistic, as was Ludacris'. I don't know any racist cops, but I have met people worse then him, but that's just me.

As for Chocolate Factory, it was great, although not as good as reviews led me to believe. I felt it was a little over the top at times, and sometimes the play on words got annoying, but those are just my thoughts. [/quote]I've met racist people, but not people who think that because a Mexican made a copy of their key that he will automatically come and break into their house. Or people who blame a car accident on Asians (or something like this; in the beginning scene, but my mind is a little blurry on it). Some of these people's existence seems solely based upon race and racism. It really isn't believable at all.

The point of CATCF is that it is to be over-the-top and grandiose; it's not exactly realistic, but Burton creates his own world where it is much more believable than the events of Crash, which take place in our own.

Although I disagree on the key thing, I do agree on the opening car crash, in which the Asian women blames the Mexican because of their eyes.

Ah, thanks. I messed up the details, but did remember the main idea.

SKY HIGH

Rating: **1/2

I was stuck taking my 10 year old cousin to see this movie, which despite gracing the appearances of the Geek B-Movie God Bruce Campbell, Kevin Hefferman(aka FARVA from SUPER TROOPERS) and hey, Kurt Russell(really, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, DARK BLUE....hes cool), I expected one very embarrising lame kids movie.

Instead, the movie begins and the 1st half is actually kinda fun but in a kids movie way, but far from being awful. Considering the joke at the Sidekick instructor(who's named Mr. Grayson. To those that get the joke... ) and others, I almost gave this movie a score of 3 stars out of 5.

So why didn't I? The 2nd half of the film loses itself on the usual "doomsday" villain-ous plan that the principal actors have to overcome and then learn that labels don't matter and BLAH BLAH BLAH. Really, I am tired of kid movies that teach you obvious morals that even I knew back when I was causing hell for some poor kids before this "high school" tale. Still, I enjoyed Bruce Campbell as the gym teacher "Sonic Boom"( ). Really, The Chin is always cool in any movie, no matter how bad it is(and as a frequent viewer of the Sci-Fi Channel, I should know!)

Is this a bad movie? No. Its just more watchable than that blue spandex blockbuster hit movie that really disrespected a cool comic book with lame puns and of course Irishman liked it for some reason....sorry, can't remember the title of that one.

I'll just give my star ratings... (Out of 5)

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith ***
The Longest Yard **
Rebound *
Batman Begins ****
Kingdom Of Heaven ***


Still need to see: Crash, Cinderella Man, Charlie and The Chocolate Factory.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: ***/*****

I loved this movie. I know it cannot be compared to some other *good* movies by defintion of such word, but I will make some comments as to why I thought this movie was the best of the Prequel Trilogy and could even match the Originals.

What I liked about it, first of all, was the fact that Lucas, either intentionally or unintentionally, combined the main elements of the first three movies to make this culmination of his saga.

For example, by the end, when Obi Wan gives Luke to Owen Lars, you understand that he is really THE new hope. That is what Episode IV is about. A new hope to fight the Empire, and you see that here. Obi Wan is, wordlessly, in that scene, putting all of his hopes in Luke, and knowing that, when the time was right, he would reveal himself to him and instruct him in the ways of the Jedi. I think that this was planned by him before he even gave Luke to the Lars family.
By that ending, he clearly sets the way for Episode IV, and explains, with ease, how Luke came to live with his uncle and aunt. The shots of Tatooine in the end are very similar to those of Episode IV as well, and I got the message that Luke's life was going to be similar to that of Owen Lars', and that things had not changed at all in those 20 years.

The element caught from Episode V, I think, was that in the end, either directly or indirectly, the bad guys won. I mean, in Episode III, Anakin turned to the Dark Side, the Jedi Order was exterminated and the Empire began. In Episode V, Luke's hand was cut off, you learn the painful truth that Vader is in fact Luke's father, Han Solo is frozen in carbon, and the Rebels are again scattered. I think that both movies are phyrric victories to the Empire, because, for example, in Episode III, the Emperor failed in taking Luke, killing those last two Jedi, and in leaving a remote chance of him being defeated. These facts were more than extremely important in the long term, because they eventually led to the downfall of the Empire. In Episode V, there is also that little touch of hope, and the Rebels, although having lost a battle, and our heroes appear to be defeated, you finally realize that not all is lost yet. Luke is still alive, Leia is not in the hands of the Empire, the Rebel fleet is still standing, and these factors, combined, assure that hope remains.
In the end, the "bad guys" may have won the battle, but they eventually lose the war.

In Episode VI, I could not draw many similarities, because this Episode is completely about the battle for making the Empire fall, and in Episode III, everything happens except that. Episode III was, for me, about losing the battle but just having a slight bit of hope, while Episode VI was, with much toil and sweat, winning the war and finally having a favourable outcome. That is why, I think, the old Lucas returned, and instead of criticising Padme's lines, people should instead see the positive aspects, and how Lucas managed to bring those little touches of magic to his last movie.

------------

Batman Begins: ***/*****

This movie was also good, and I went to see it reluctantly because I thought it would be "just another superhero movie". I was wrong. This movie really does have some depth in it, and focuses much more in storytelling than in the action, unlike other superhero movies which do the exact same thing.
This movie is almost entirely devoted to showing Bruce Wayne's transformation into the fearsome Batman and...

I'm tired now, and I'm sure you already knew what I was going to say.