Attack of the summer movies, part 5

This weekend, it's WALL-E. Before I get into what I thought of this movie, I will share my thoughts on Pixar. They have consistently been putting out good movies year after year. I have not disliked a single one of their films. "The Incredibles" is on my top 10 of all time list, and "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" are right on the bubble. I appreciate their creative vision, their willingness to come up with new and creative ideas, and their desire to make MOVIES, rather than vehicles to merchandise toys and fast food. Disney made the right decision when they allowed John Lasseter and the higher-ups at Pixar to take creative control of Disney's entire animation department.

So, like I mentioned, I have enjoyed every single one of Pixar's films. The only reason I was a little worried about this movie, is that I was disappointed in "Ratatouille" last year. It was by no means a bad movie, but I couldn't really get into it, and I found it to be kind of boring. I am glad I saw it, but I really have no reason to watch it again. I probably wouldn't have been disappointed had the movie been made by another studio, but Pixar has set the bar so high that I expect to be blown away by every single movie they make, and this just didn't do it.

It turns out I had nothing to be worried about. WALL-E, although not one of Pixar's best, is creative, entertaining, and unbelievable to look at. Once again, they have outdone themselves in terms of animation. Since the movie has very little dialogue, the movie had to depend on visuals to drive it, and the visuals were unbelievable. Earth in 2800 or so is viewed as a dust-covered wasteland, and I found myself just looking at the screen with my mouth open in awe at some of the visuals, kind of like I did with "Cars." Also, like most of Pixar's stuff, this is not a kid's movie per se, but a movie for everyone that kids will enjoy.

This was a tough story to pull off, because the two main characters, both robots, barely speak. It worked overall, and even inserted some relevant social commentary without becoming preachy, but still doesn't top the "Toy Story" movies, "The Incredibles," or even "Finding Nemo" in terms of pure entertainment value. My wife was even more critical, and although she liked the movie overall, she thought it dragged during some parts.

I thought the movie was very good, and will probably end up owning it on DVD, but I still give the edge to "Ironman" as the best movie of the summer (and the year) so far.

As far as box office goes, it is no surprise that Pixar is 9-for-9 going #1 on opening weekend, with WALL-E making a healthy $60 million. What did surprise me is that "Wanted" exceeded predictions with a big $51 million opening despite mixed reviews. A few people I have talked to said it was a lot of fun (see my brother's blog), so I actually want to go see it now.

On a final note, a trailer for "Beverly Hills Chiuhuaua" was shown before WALL-E. Laws should be passed preventing movies like this from being made. Yeah, kids may think talking dogs are funny, but studios have to remember that parents pay for the tickets, and won't pay to see junk like this, no matter what their kids say. More creative, engaging films like WALL-E need to be made, rather than crap like "Beverly Hills Chiuhuaua."

More DVD reviews...

OK, let's get this out of the way. I watched "P.S., I Love You" with my wife because she went to the theater to see "Ironman" with me. It was so bad, I don't want to talk about it. By the way, Jaci (my wife) loved Ironman, and wants to know when it's out on DVD so we can own it.

On the subject of bad movies, skip "Be Kind Rewind." It comes from the brain of Michael Gondry, who wrote "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Stranger Than Fiction," both bizarre, but original and entertaining movies. The movie has a premise that could really have worked well, but was executed poorly, and the screenplay is an absolute mess. Gondry aims for more of an outright comedy, but most of the jokes aren't funny, Jack Black's character is so dumb and makes no sense, and every character and situation is so out of whack, it had me scratching my head rather than laughing. Again, Gondry tries to do the whole bizarre thing in an attempt to be original, but it comes off as being annoying. The movie's only funny moments are when they re-create the films that are erased, and use amusing "special effects" to re-create movies like "Ghostbusters" and "2001: A Space Odyssey." It reminded me a bit of the Turkish versions of movies like "The Wizard of Oz" and "Star Wars" where cheap effects like wooden lightsabers are used. Later in the movie, there was something about the people of Passaic, N.J. working together as a community to make a movie about how Fats Waller was born and raised there, even though he probably never set foot in the town his entire life. I finally hit the stop button about 1 hour and 10 minutes into the movie.

What's next? A movie about how Frank Sinatra was supposedly born and raised in Hoboken, N.J.?, Yeah, right! 

On a happier note, I spent $7.50 of my hard-earned money on a DVD containing both "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" and "Dude, Where's my Car." If you can think of a better example of top-quality entertainment for so little money, let me know.

R.I.P., George Carlin

George Carlin died at the age of 71, and the world has lost one of the greatest standup comedians ever to get on stage.

I can't say I was a fan of his later stuff, because he tended to get way too cynical, and came off like a crotchety old fart, but most of his bits like the seven words you can't say on television, a place for your stuff, what is a sport and what isn't a sport, and his dissecting of euphemisms and idioms like "The best thing since sliced bread" and "have a nice day" are absolutely priceless. He brought a new level of intelligence to comedy that had never been seen before, but was still profane and shocking.

His routines have had a profound effect on pop culture. Also, just about everyone has received a forwarded e-mail with some witty commentary that is falsely attributed to George Carlin.

Does anyone remember this one?

Or how about this one?

And this is my personal favorite.

Also, take a look at Kevin Smith's article paying tribute to him.

Finally, In the words of Carlin, "Why should I be afraid of dying if I'm just going to pass away?"

Attack of the summer movies, part 4

This time, it's "Get Smart." Got mixed reviews from critics, ranging from mediocre to decent. I put it somewhere closer to mediocre. It was perfectly watchable, and a decent way to pass the time for 90 minutes, but had no originality or anything to set it apart from the heaps of special-effects laden summer blockbusters.

This movie tries to be both a comedy and a high-octane action movie, and does neither particularly well. The film has a few chuckles, and even a couple of laugh-out-loud moments (The crowd in the theater was laughing a lot more than my wife and I), but most of the jokes were predictable, and many were juvenile. I have never seen the television show personally, but I am told the humor in the show is very dry and witty, and is quite the opposite of the hit-you-in-the-face gags seen throughout the movie. 

The action was by-the-numbers stuff, and there wasn't really any originality or sense of urgency to the action sequences. Steve Carell did what he could with this mediocre script, but I think Alan Arkin, as the head honcho, delivered the most laughs.

If you want to see a much more seamless and entertaining combination of comedy and big-time action sequences, check out "Men in Black" (the first one, not the second one), and James Cameron's "True Lies."

I have seen many worse films, and this might be worth it if you really want to go to the movies and there is nothing else worth seeing. Just don't expect anything special.

As far as the box office returns, "Get Smart" was just shy of $40 million, and performed pretty much according to expectations. "The Love Guru" is the second flop of the summer after "Speed Racer," netting only $14 million. The reviews were dismal, and the previews as well as Mike Myers' shameless and unbearably lengthy plug on the "American Idol" finale made this movie look even less appealing than the ridiculous premise suggests.

Unfortunately, "The Incredible Hulk" was off 60 percent from its opening weekend, possibly jeopardizing the chances for a sequel, so go check it out, people, and tell your friends to see it, and that it's actually a good movie!

AFI's 10 top 10

Yet another AFI show that ranks movies has aired. Since it's summertime, there's nothing on TV, and I had nothing else to do, I checked it out.

This time around, they took 10 genres such as sci-fi, westerns, fantasy, animation, mysteries, and epics, and ranked the top ten movies in each genre.

I haven't seen a lot of the older movies on the list, but I agreed with most of the rankings. I was pleasantly surprised to see many of my personal favorites on the list such as "Back to the Future," "A Few Good Men," "Toy Story," "North by Northwest," and even "Caddyshack." Still, I have a few problems.

First, "Animation" is one of the genres in which movies are ranked. To quote "The Incredibles" director Brad Bird, animation is not a genre, it is a medium. Within the medium of animation, there are musicals, fantasies, action films, and comedies. So I oppose to animation even being classified as a genre. 

While we're at it, where are "The Incredibles" and "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut?" (okay, maybe I am stretching it with that second one).

My biggest bones to pick were in the Sci-Fi category. First of all, "Star Wars Episode IV" was ranked at #2. I have no problem with the fact that it's recognized because it's one of the greatest movies ever made. However, I am not sure about the category. I had a great discussion with my friend Kevin, and we both agreed that "Star Wars" is not sci-fi, but it is fantasy. Technology is rarely ever mentioned in any of the six Star Wars movies- they are all about plot, characters and the conflict between good and evil. Although the setting of "Star Wars" is that of a space adventure, the overriding themes are purely fantasy.

Finally, I don't agree with "2001" as the #1 sci-fi film. "2001" was a very influential movie, and the visuals were ahead of their time, but the movie was about 45 minutes too long, and doesn't even become interesting until about the halfway point. I know I sound like a broken record, but I would have put Blade Runner (ranked #6) as the top sci-fi movie.

I would love to hear other opinions on the lists. Sorry, I can't provide a link, but AFI wants your e-mail address before you get to view their lists.

Attack of the summer movies goes green!

And by green, I mean "The Incredible Hulk."

One of my favorite sayings is the only thing worse than a bad movie is a sequel to a bad movie. If you don't believe me, watch "The Matrix Reloaded" or "Tomb Raider 2."

However, "The Incredible Hulk" is the exception to the rule. This was a huge improvement over the big green turd that Ang Lee laid some five years ago. Also, it was more a reboot than a sequel, kind of like the folks at Marvel asked for a mulligan.

Among the improvements:

1. They cast a better actor as Bruce Banner (Edward Norton)

2. Vastly improved special effects... The Hulk no longer looks like a pissed off Gumby. He is a lot more realistic and detailed. He is smaller, and more muscular, and more true to the comic book than the Hulk from the first movie. Also, he convincingly blends in and interacts with the scenery and cast. Check out the scene where it is raining and water is falling off him.

3. More than 10 minutes of action.

4. No long, lingering shots of plants or wildlife in the woods.

5. Has the semi-playful tone of a comic book and doesn't take itself too seriously.

6. No CGI mutant dogs.

7. No Nick Nolte.

8. Various homages to the comic book and the television shows. Unlike other movie critics and even the previews, I won't spoil the surprises here.

Overall, a good solid popcorn movie. Not quite a home run, or even a solid triple like "Ironman." The film could have developed the characters a bit more, and there could have been a little more humor. This is more of an action-centered movie than a character-centered movie, and I think we should have been given a chance to get to know the characters and their motivations a little bit better. Supposedly, Ed Norton was fighting for a longer movie with more quiet moments, but the powers that be put the kibosh on that because they wanted to distance this movie as much as possible from the first "Hulk," which is understandable. If I was a movie producer, I might have said the same thing.

Still, the positives clearly outweighed the negatives. The action scenes were well-staged and directed. Kudos to director Louis Letterier. Slow-motion shots were effectively used, and they were not overused, so they didn't become gimmicky.

Audiences seem to agree. The movie made a respectable $54 million last weekend, and it scored well in audience polls. Hopefully, the word of mouth will be good, and the movie will have some staying power, because Marvel wants to do another sequel if this film is successful. I would love to see a sequel, because that would be the perfect opportunity to address the character development issues I brought up.

Congrats to Marvel Studios, who is 2-for-2 this summer. I agree with my brother's blog that this allows more freedom than ever to create the Marvel Universe on screen, and allow for the opportunity to use characters in multiple movies, or use several characters in the same movie, such as in the upcoming Avengers movie, due in 2011. They just have to make sure no more stinkers, like "Ghost Rider," slip through the cracks.

"Jumper:" brief DVD review

Mediocre but watchable. No discernible story or character development, just lots of action. Only 90 minutes long, and leaves lots of room for a sequel that probably won't happen. Decent special effects. Hayden Christensen wasn't as bad as many of the critics suggest, he was just saddled with another lousy script, and his character in the movie was kind of an arrogant prick. As evidenced in "Shattered Glass," the dude can act. Worth a watch if you have nothing better to do.

EW's sci-fi misfires... WTF?

Entertainment Weekly just put up a list of the 17 biggest sci-fi misfires, and I was shocked to see a few of the choices.

There were a few obvious duds on there (Virtuosity, The Island of Dr. Moreau), but there were a few surprises on there. I liked Demolition Man, but it was effective as an action movie, but not a sci-fi movie, so I don't object to that. Even Jurassic Park, which was very entertaining, impeccably directed and was a special effects breakthrough may belong on here, because if you take away the special effects, what else is actually left? Were there any memorable HUMAN characters in the movie? Even Samuel L. Jackson faded into the background, because it's hard to be a Bad Mother F****** if you spend the whole movie sitting in front of a computer only to get up and get your arm bitten off.

Anyway, the movies that really did surprise me were Signs and Blade Runner. Don't read on if you haven't seen either of these movies, because there are major spoilers ahead.

First of all, Signs was a great story about how a family bonds together during a crisis, which 

just so happens to be an alien attack on Earth. I believe it is M. Night Shyalaman's best movie to date, and has great acting and great directing. Mel Gibson nailed the part and gave an effectively subdued performance as a fallen pastor, and Joaquin Phoenix adds some dry humor to the film as the pastor's younger brother.

Even though I loved this film, I can understand why EW put this on their list as a poor sci-fi effort. They wondered why aliens who are severely harmed by water would try to invade a planet which 2/3 of is covered by water. Oddly enough, a friend of mine also mentioned the same theory when he ripped the movie apart several years ago when it was released. He even asked why the aliens weren't hurt by the dew on the corn and grass.

However, the biggest travesty is the inclusion of "Blade Runner" on this list. "Blade Runner" very well could be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. EW calls the story "rote at best." Were they watching the same movie? This story is original, thought-provoking, and well-executed on screen. The special effects and visual look were way ahead of their time in 1982. They also call the performances "cold and flat," but failed to mention that these performances perfectly fit the tone of the movie! After all, the movie is about replicants. Director Ridley Scott even mentioned that Deckard, Harrison Ford's character, is a replicant, which becomes all the more believable after repeat viewings. What were they thinking?

More quickie DVD reviews

"Cloverfield": "Godzilla" meets "The Blair Witch Project." Engaging and fun. Special effects were great considering the $25 million budget. Looking forward to the sequel.

"There Will Be Blood": Exceptional. One of last year's best movies. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance was unbelievably good. No one else had a chance at this year's Oscars. Beautiful cinematography, memorable score. This movie is very relevant today, because it's a biting commentary on greed, and what it can do to people. Adam (my brother) had a very good point that the story is similar to that of "Citizen Kane."

Attack of the summer movies -Indiana Jones edition

My second trip to the movies during summer 2008 was to see "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," probably the most anticipated movie of the year, and predicted by many to be the biggest moneymaker of the year. Before I talk about this latest entry, I will share my thoughts about the other Indiana Jones movies.

Spoilers ahead... don't read these if you haven't seen the movies.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark"

What's good: Just about everything, this is one of the greatest movies ever made. Nearly nonstop action, good characters, good acting, good directing, good everything. The pacing of this film set the standard for every film thereafter, and is one of the reasons most of today's summer blockbusters have nothing but action from beginning to end. Finally, I have to mention John Williams' score. The "Raiders March," which would go on to become the theme of the series is one of the great movie themes of all time.

What's not good: Not much really, the only thing I would comment about is the level of violence in the movie. Violence usually doesn't bother me, but Indiana Jones is a role model for lots of children. This movie would easily be rated R if it was released today, with many bloody gunshot wounds, melting faces and an exploding head. It is not as dark in tone as "Temple of Doom," but if you look closely, it's actually more violent.

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"

What's good: This is the black sheep of the series, which many people would like to forget about. It's probably the weakest of all of the movies (besides "Crystal Skull") but it's not as bad as many people say it is. The first 15 minutes are a blast to watch, and the mine cart scene is one of the great action sequences of all time. The story and the screenplay are actually pretty good, and the movie holds up well over time. Finally, Short Round is the man!

What's not good: I didn't mind the dark tone as much as lot of other people, I thought it was a nice change for the series. Still this film has a lot of flaws. The dinner scene with eyeball soup, monkey brains, etc. was supposed to be funny, but I found it to be childish and in bad taste. And then there's Kate Capshaw, playing a shallow, vapid starlet who does nothing but complain and scream throughout the movie. Supposedly, even Capshaw was repulsed by her own performance when she watched the movie. Also, this was supposed to be her breakthrough movie, and her acting was so bad that she had a hard time getting other parts because of this movie.

"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"

What's good: The beginning sequence with the late River Phoenix as young Indy is great. Sean Connery (Suck it, Trebek!) is a welcome addition here. He and Harrison Ford are both equally great actors, so they don't overshadow each other. Also, this movie deliberately tries to lighten the tone after "Temple of Doom," and it works. The movie is lighthearted and funny, and it's nice to see Sallah and Brody back in the fray. The shot of the four men riding off into the sunset would have been a perfect way to end the series, but no... (see below) 

What's not good: Again, there are few nits to pick here. If I could think of anything, it's the lack of a strong villain. In "Raiders," you had Rene Belloq, one of Indy's longtime rivals who isn't purely evil. Even Mola Ram in "Temple of Doom" was creepy in a fun way. Here, Elsa and Donovan aren't as formidable and charismatic.

So, this brings us to "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Reviews from professionals and moviegoers are all over the map. The audience at Cannes gave the film polite applause, probably because of the people involved. Some people loved it. My younger brother Adam, who is every bit an avid moviegoer as I am, thought it was garbage. My co-worker, who rarely goes to the movies, said it was a waste of two hours he can't get back. I am somewhere in the middle. I thought the movie was worth seeing, if only for the action sequences and the stuntwork, so I will give it a marginal recommendation just based on that. There is no denying that Spielberg knows how to direct. The story was kind of a mess, seemed inconsequential and was little more than a vehicle for the expensive set pieces. The pacing was inconsistent. After a fast-paced beginning (typical of the series), there was a bunch of exposition, a chase scene, more exposition, then action for the rest of the movie. Also, the supporting characters had little or no development. The only characters who seemed to have any personality were Shia "The Beef" LaBoeuf as Mutt, who tags along with Indy, and who he actually is could be the worst-kept secret in Hollywood. Cate Blanchett also has fun as the Communist villain, whose name escapes me. Otherwise, the rest of the cast falls into the background and are just there to take up space. It is clearly evident that everything in this movie takes a back seat to the set pieces and special effects like really big ants, waterfalls and, of course, monkeys. One wonders what was in Frank Darabont's missing script. I am sure it was better than this. Overall, this film was watchable, and even mildly entertaining, but I think they should have let the Indiana Jones movies stand as a trilogy and should have left well enough alone. Like I said, it should have ended with Indy, Henry, Brody and Sallah riding into the sunset. Supposedly, there will be additional movies based on The Beef's character, and judging by the truckload of money this film made, that might happen... not a good thing.

Attack of the summer movies, part 1

So, it's summer movie season again. So far, we've had a surprise blockbuster (Ironman), a bona fide flop (Speed Racer), and a major hit that has met expectations in terms of grosses, if not critics' reviews (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). I have fallen a bit behind, so I will start with some of my thoughts about Ironman, which came out about a month ago.

Minor spoilers ahead.

In short, I was very impressed. The movie had its share of special effects, being a summer blockbuster and all, but this was a character story at heart, and it wasn't overshadowed by the effects.

Robert Downey Jr. could not have been more perfectly cast as Tony Stark/Ironman. It was a nice change of pace to see an older superhero who has had some life experience, and hasn't exactly led the most perfect life, being a bit of a drinker and womanizer. Downey brings a perfect amount of humor and charm to the character, and is very entertaining to watch. His character change through the course of the movie is drastic, but believable thanks to good writing and good acting. I know the Oscars tend to ignore summer popcorn movies, but as of now, I consider Downey to be a viable nominee for Best Actor. Besides, the way the ratings have gone for the Oscars, maybe it will help to lure more viewers if they nominated movies that more than 12 people have seen, rather than the usual downbeat artsy-fartsy fare. And I know it was two years ago, but how the hell does a film like "Crash" win Best Picture?

Anyway, Ironman offers a great balance of action and character development. The special effects were good, but not quite mind-blowing, but, like I said, this movie isn't about special effects, it's about characters. So, the summer movie season has officially kicked off with a winner.

Also, this is the first film produced by Marvel Studios. It was risky considering the casting, but it paid off. Their other movie this summer, "The Incredible Hulk," is an even bigger risk. The first "Hulk," directed by the usually great Ang Lee, was a critical failure, a box-office disappointment, and personally, it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. 

This new "Hulk" is a reboot of the series, and it stars Edward Norton, it's directed by the French dude who directed "The Transporter," and is supposed to have a lot more action than the first movie. Also, there is an actual villain this time, and not just cartoon mutated dogs and Nick Nolte. This time, we have Abomination, who is capable of smashing just as much stuff as the Hulk.

Supposedly Norton and the director had a spat, because Norton wanted the movie to be longer and more character-oriented. What a shock, because Edward Norton is usually very mild-mannered and easy to work with.

Anyway, I have a feeling this might work because Norton is one of the best actors out there, and frankly, they have nowhere to go but up, because it simply can't get any worse than the first "Hulk." A lot depends on what the critics think and word of mouth. I will report back in a few weeks.

Now, for the super quick DVD reviews:

"National Treasure: Book of Secrets:" A fun ride, underrated by critics. If you liked the first one, this is just as good.

"The Golden Compass:" Mediocre. A waste of a $180 million budget.

A day in the Washington D.C. area (part 2)

So, we got on to the Beltway, and after facing the typical rush-hour traffic, we get to Tysons Corner at about 5:30. We enter the mall at Bloomingdale's. I get some stuff at the L.L. Bean store (one of only a handful of retail stores... as far as I know, there are none in Pennsylvania), and my wife shops at Macy's. I noticed the kind of mall I was in when I took into account that Macy's was the least expensive of all of the department stores. If you want a Sears or JCPenney, look elsewhere. Apparently, Tysons Galleria up the street (which the locals refer to as Tysons 2) has even snootier stores. 

After a quick stop at the Apple Store to buy headphones, we decided to eat at the newly opened Mexican Restaurant, La Sandia. Apparently, the only other La Sandia in the country is in Denver, and this place is supposed to be pretty good. They told us we would wait about 45 minutes to get seated and we were seated in 20 minutes. So far, so good. 

Our seats were out in the mall in a fenced-in area, and there was a live mariachi band playing behind us for almost our entire meal. There was nothing wrong with the band, but I wish they would have moved around the restaurant, rather than staying behind our table the whole time, because they gave me a bit of a headache.

They served nachos with fresh pico de gallo, but the tortilla chips tasted an awful lot like the "Gold" Tostitos.

I ordered a margarita, which was decent, but not outstanding. For an appetizer, we ordered queso fundido (basically a pan full of melted Chihuahua cheese that you put on tortillas) with chorizo sausage. The queso comes out, but without the chorizo. Back it goes. 10 minutes later, the correct appetizer comes out. Again it's decent but not outstanding. It doesn't hold a candle to the queso fundido at my favorite Mexican restaurant, El Sarape in Blue Bell, PA. We then ordered the entrees. I ordered chicken mole, and my wife, who was too tired at this point to be hungry, ordered an appetizer of chicken tamales for dinner.

We had to wait quite a while for dinner, at least 30 minutes after we ordered. I can forgive a long wait for the food, because the restaurant is brand new and I am sure they are still trying to get into a rhythm in the kitchen. What I can't forgive is the quality of the food. My entree was two sauteed chicken breasts with no seasoning, covered by a mediocre mole sauce. I can make a better mole sauce in my own kitchen, and the chicken itself could not have been more bland. My wife's chicken tamales were just plain lousy. The flavor and seasoning (or lack thereof) was completely wrong. Luckily, a week later, I took my mother to El Sarape for Mother's Day, and was reminded what real Mexican food is supposed to taste like. With all of the other restaurant options in the Tysons Corner area, I strongly suggest you avoid this place. 

Because it took so long for our food to get served, it was almost 9:30 when we left dinner, and had to rush out of the mall. I wish we had more time to spend there. The mall is very large, and there were many unique stores I had never seen before. Luckily, my wife didn't have time to go nuts in the Nine West store, and I was really bummed when we passed a Lego store on the way out of the mall. Still, I am about an hour away from King of Prussia, which is the largest mall in the U.S. in terms of retail space, and is even larger than the Mall of America.

So that was the end of a great and tiring trip. If you are in Washington, the Newseum and Tysons Corner are both worth the trip. However, the food at La Sandia needs to get a lot better before I can recommend it.