Star Trek
Review:This was a pretty good movie. A bit run-of-the-mill action thillerish, but at the high end of that spectrum. The effects and action in this movie were first rate, the acting was Oscar-worthy (jk lolz), and there were even some shout outs to the true Trekkies out there. Wait, on second thought, I didn't like that at all. This was the Star Trek movie that was supposed to be a mainstream hit and it was, and still the producers/director felt they had to make some sort of homage to old Star Trek shit with a Leonard Nimoy cameo (and frankly the only Nimoy cameo that was worth a damn was on The Springfield Files). They didn't have to do that. The reason this movie was a hit was because it wasn't a boring pile of space nerdery like everything else Star Trek and those who took extreme interest in Star Trek (those eponymous Trekkies of douchefag fame) prior to this film deserve to be ostracized and shunned from society--not pandered to. Also, I think the plot was a bit jumbled up and relied on time travel and had some holes, but I can't really remember that at this point.
Bonus Points: for a Simon Pegg appearance. That guy is a legend based on Hot Fuzz alone.
Final Score: A solid 3.7 out of 4.7 on the dtro goodness scale. It was about all you could ask for in a summer blockbuster type movie.
Angels & Demons
Review: This movie was meh. I don't think it's quite as terrible as people make it out to be and I think the same is true of The DaVinci Code. The problem with these movies is that Dan Brown is such a good story plotter and such a mediocre prose writer that these books were read by everybody. Now when stupid people read their first book since 7th grade they have a tendency to believe "THis is the bestest book evar!!1!" And so, because the general populace is generally worse at judging the quality of books than the quality of movies (because people see way more movies than read books), they get all upset when a mediocre movie is made from a book they considered to be awesome. Those Dan Brown books (and I've only actually read A&D) were ok, but they took on some sort of cultural significance far beyond their actual literary merit. Also, they very much relied on omniscient narration of a character's thoughts, which you can only do in a movie if Morgan Freeman has time to lend his voice.
Anyway, the movie had a solid hour long stretch in the middle that was paced quickly with enough suspense and action to keep me well entertained. Unfortunately, the movie was well over 2 hours and droned on and on about "science vs. faith" which is a pretty uninteresting argument. Science one that argument a long time ago in my book by using "facts" and "reality." Maybe that debate plays better in the heartland, I don't know.
Bonus Points: for Tom Hanks cutting his hair a bit and being a little less creepy, but it was really only a very little less creepy so not a ton of bonus points.
Final Score: A meh 2.7 out of 4.7 on the dtro goodness scale. Some good parts in the middle, but it really is a tough type of book to make a movie out of and the science/faith stuff was heavy-handed and unnecessary. Also, I think I dislike Ewan McGregor, but I'm not sure. Have to get back to you on that one.
The Hangover
Review: Pretty standard party/drinking/road trip type movie made a little more interesting by being told backwards linearly, i.e. 3 guys have to figure out what happened to their soon to be married friend who is lost in Vegas by piecing together clues from a night they can' really remember. That sounds pretty cheesy right? Well it is, but there are still enough funny parts to keep you interested through pretty much the whole thing. I'm not sure why this turned out to be such a massively popular comedy; maybe it was for lack of competition, because it really wasn't that funny. But like I said, there were some funny parts and enough Zach Galifianakis to make it worth checking out. I gotta say though, Andy Bernard was not funny, but actually annoying as hell throughout this entire movie. Also, the setup is unbelievably unimaginative: it's like Bachelor Party meets Road Trip!--this is actually my guess for how it was pitched to the studio.
Bonus Points: for Zach Galifianakis, who really carries the movie and is just generally hilarious anyway. Also, for the pictures at the end and particularly the one of Zach G. getting a beej from a really old looking whore.
Final Score: A middling 3.1 out of 4.7 on the dtro goodness scale. Ok, not great.
Up
Review: This was the widely praised pixar release of the year, because apparently those guys can do no wrong. Well, this fucker sure as shit wasn't WALL-E but it was still pretty decent. It's about a grumpy old man who always wanted to travel with his wife and finally gets a chance to do so after she dies by tying a bunch of balloons to his house and floating to South America. Along the way he is accompanied by a grating little boy scout, who perfectly captures the spirit of America with his obesity and desire for rewards without accomplishment. Anyway, it's a pretty good concept for a movie and I can't knock the pixar guys for lack of imagination, but there are some problems. For one, that "girl" at the beginning is clearly a little boy meaning either that the Ed Asner character is gay or his dead "wife" was somewhere in the T part of the LGBTQ scale. Either way, seems a bit risque for a kids movie. Also, the movie was really just audaciously ridiculous at times, none of which I can recall now but which made me shake my head in the theater. And then I realized that me and mamatro were the only people there who weren't either little kids or their parents and I had to shake my head at myself.
Bonus Points: for the talking dog collar thingies, which were actually very funny and a good way of dealing with the concept of talking animals while still letting the movie exist in a certain realm of believability (although, c'mon, he floated to South America in a house so talking animals wouldn't be a huge stretch).
Final Score: A solid if unspectacular 3.6 out of 4.7 on the dtro goodness scale. It was very creative and had some funny moments, but was hampered by ridiculousness (gotta keep the kids guessing) and one-note characters (b/c kids do not get the idea of complex personalities). Not bad at all for a childrens movie, but well short of Pixar's best in my opinion.
Ok, well I was gonna do one big post but I'm tired and this is taking too long. Tomorrow, in part 2, I review the Harry Potter movie, District 9, Inglourious Basterds, Michael Moore's Capitalism, and The Hurt Locker. That post will feature my 2 favorite movies of the year (among those I saw in the theater at least). As a hint, they weren't Harry Potter, Michael Moore or District 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment