Cuz We Said So

Summer '09 - Blockbuster #4 - "Night at the Museum: BOTS"

I was a fan of the first film in this series.  It was an enjoyable combination of nifty special effects, a sweet story, and Ben Stiller shifting into family-friendly territory with his comedy.  I mean, I loved "Dodgeball", and I loved "Tropic Thunder".  But he's good when he's not edgy, too.

This looked like it was going to be enormously enjoyable from the trailers.  The magical tablet that brought the New York museum to life gets transported to the Smithsonian in Washington; hijinks ensue.

The problem is that there are so many characters to return to, and they have so many new ones to introduce that everyone gets short shrift.  Robin Williams's Teddy Roosevelt is reduced to little more than a cameo.  Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan (as the tiny little cowboy and centurion figurines) have a couple of good scenes.  Sacajawea has almost nothing to do.  Bill Hader and Christopher Guest are funny, but their characters (George Custer and Ivan the Terrible) are barely sketched out.  The second best new character is Hank Azaria's evil Egyptian Pharoah wannabe.  His effete lisp is hilarious.

The best new character is Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart.  She's feisty, just like you imagine Earhart would probably be, which is an excellent excuse for her to tag along with Ben Stiller as he tries to sort everything out and save the day.

I had fun, particularly when the artwork came to life.  (Loved the dancing Koons dog.)  But the film didn't really have the magic of the first. 

But, in its favor, it did have Clint Howard in a fantastic cameo.

Summer '09 - Blockbuster #3 - "Angels & Demons"

First off, I was a big fan of the film "The DaVinci Code".  Yes, "DaVinci" isn't really the guy's name.  Yes, it presupposes a relatively wild conspiracy theory about Christ.  Yes, Tom Hank's hair was kind of crazy.  But I really liked the movie and I really liked Hanks's performance.  Of course, I really hated the book on which it was based.  Yee-ikes, was it bad.

Now, the previous book in the Robert Langdon series, "Angels & Demons" was of a similar stripe: Langdon uses his encyclopedic knowledge of history and symbology to thwart a mysterious bad guy intent on bad-guy things.  But that novel felt more real, somewhat more believable, and had a truly awesome ending.  So, I had very high hopes for this film.  If this movie could be as much of an improvement over the last film as the the book version of A&D was over DVC, it would be amazing.

Sadly, it's not that amazing.  It's a fun romp through Rome, with some nifty characters and nifty performances.  Ewan McGregor does a nice turn as a Vatican City official.  Stellan Skarsgård is his usual prickly self as the head of Vatican security.  (And he dies.  Skarsgård always dies.)  The story is interesting: a canister of antimatter is stolen from CERN and has been set to blow up the Vatican precisely when the cardinals are selecting a new pope.  They even tied in the previous film nicely; the Vatican officials realize they need Langdon's help to avert disaster, but they're wary of him for revealing their big secret about Christ.

Sadly, the film never really takes off.  It's one dependably directed (by Ron Howard) scene after another.  It's Hanks doing his grim thinker routine.  But it's never really that exciting.  I'll admit, the ending was everything I'd hoped for, but the rest of the film was merely good, not the great I'd hoped for.

Summer '09 - Blockbuster #2 - "Star Trek"

This review will contain some minor spoilers, but since the film made $75 million in one weekend, I think it's pretty likely that you, Constant Reader, have already seen the film.

Long story short, I loved it. 

Summer '09 - Blockbuster #1 - "Wolverine"

To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t too impressed with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”.  Hugh Jackman is fine (as always) as the titular mutant.  Danny Huston does a good job as Stryker, the baddie responsible for Wolverine’s adamantium skeleton.  And Liev Schrieber is having a enjoyable time chewing scenery as Wolverine’s buddy/nemesis Sabretooth.  Sadly, none of the other mutants really shine as characters: a hobbit who can control electricity, a rapper who can teleport, a guy with swords, a guy with guns, a really fat guy whose power is… I’m not quite sure what that guy is for.  It seemed less like a carefully structured, character driven story (as I thought of all the previous X-Men films), and more like a marketing tie-in to remind us of the breadth of the X-Men universe as told through eleven billion comic books.

 

For a tent pole, summer, sci-fi, effects-heavy, action spectacle, it was a little boring in spots.  I appreciate that they managed to maintain the mythology laid down by the previous films… sort of.  (It’s never satisfactorily explained why Sabretooth is such a dim-witted, one-note character by the time “X-Men” rolls around, when he’s a sly one with a complicated back-story here.)  And one enjoyable cameo made me smile.

 

There are a number of very cool action sequences, and I never felt bounced out of the story.  But still, all in all, it was merely good, not great.

“The Curious Case of Forrest Gump”

Russell isn’t the only person to comment on the similarities between exactly the sameness of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump.  Talkshow with Spike Feresten makes the case thusly:

(Via Boing Boing)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

This was a pretty good movie. Epic scope, seamless special effects, solid performances. I particularly liked Pitt's performance as Benjamin. He usually plays fast-talking, charming, go-getters. This time, he plays the sweetest, quiestest character ever. And David Fincher toned down the Fincher-ness, keeping things pretty straightforward, but still visually interesting.

I'd call it great, except that I liked it better when I saw it in 1994, when they called it "Forrest Gump." If you're interested in me breaking down the similarities (which will involve spoilers) keep reading...

2008 Movies -- In Review

Well, another year has passed, and now the world yearns to know, "What did Russell think of all those movies he saw?"  I can only respond to such desperate curiosity with the following:

R. I. P., Majel Roddenberry

Majel Roddenberry, widow of 'Trek' creator, dies

Whedon Reviews Whedon’s "Dr. Horrible”

…for Amazon:

When Amazon asked me to review this movie, I was hesitant, as I'm not too familiar with the genre, and also I made it.  But I found Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog quite rewarding, which is to say, if you buy it, I will be rewarded with a small sum of money.  But what's in it for you?  A few surprises, I won't lie.  THE SECRET OF ETERNAL YOUTH.  The Dark Knight doesn't have that, does it?  A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN EUROPE.  Not available with Mama Mia!  BEES.  Deadly, hideous bees are contained in certain shipments, sorry.  We're trying to control that.  But already, a pretty extraordinary disc.

The film itself I didn't really get.  Apparently young people today think it's okay to make fun of supervillains.  In my day we treated them with respect and fear, especially when they were singing.  I did like the jokes, except when one man mentioned his secret love appendage to another, which I find crass.

Regrettably, Joss’s efforts at salesmanship are largely wasted on me, as I bought several copies even before I read this.

Crows, Eats, and Beams: links for 2008-12-15

• 'The Crow' to Resurrect and Fly Again
  First impression: mistake. Personally, I didn't care about the franchise the first time, and don't expect I will this time. Is the world really clamoring for this?
• World Hum Selects the Eight Best Cities for Street Food
  Yum! For all the traveling I've done, I haven't been to any of them. Perhaps a new travel goal in my future...
• Pentagon Eyes Orbiting Power Station
  Hmm, cool, but beaming power to the battlefield... are we asking ourselves what's the worst thing that could happen?