Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull review

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Starring Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, and Shia LaBeouf
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Rated PG-13 for action violence and scary images
Score: ****1/2

This is the moment I have been waiting for my entire life. Raiders of the Lost Ark is my all-time favorite film. Ever since I was a child playing with a homemade whip and cheap plastic fedora, making up my own Indiana Jones adventures with friends, I have longed for a new film. Sadly, I almost feel that this film came 5 years too late. My childhood is gone, after all, but perhaps the cynic and critic in me can take a backseat and let the inner child shine through.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sees famed archaeologist (played by none other than Harrison Ford) being captured by the Russians in 1957. The Commies and their feisty Captain Spalko (Cate Blanchett) force him to help them track down an ancient crystal skull, which may contain an unforeseen amount of power. Along the way Indy meets up with Mutt (Shia LeBouf), who becomes Indy’s new partner in adventure.

The movie is beautiful, a fantastic display of Spielberg’s mastery of special effects. It is especially apparent in the major action piece of the film, where Indy and his posse fight the Commies in a car chase through the jungle. The scene is very reminiscent of both the car chase in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the tank fight in The Last Crusade. But it isn’t derivative. It has plenty of original material.

That leads me to the story. The screenplay had been re-written so many times, with writers from all over the place, including Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont, giving it a go at one point. The guy that finally got the job, David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Carlito’s Way, Stir of Echoes, Spider-Man) did a smash-up job with the material, making any Indy fan proud. I really wish I could give away some finer plot details, but I just can’t for sheer respect for all the Indiana Jones fans out there.

The cast works very well together. There is no doubt that these are good characters. The villains may be a little stereotypical, but since when have they NOT been in an Indiana Jones film? Cate Blanchett and Shia LeBouf are very welcome in this picture, and I’m shocked about the performance of the latter. LeBouf just isn’t my kind of actor. After his performances in Holes, I Robot, and Transformers, I wasn’t sold on his potential as an actual actor. But he did very well in this movie. He and Ford had great on-screen chemistry.

Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. He is back with the same wit, the same, style, the same outfit, but in a different setting this time. He’s in his late 50s, and like he says in the opening lines of the film his line of work is “not as easy as it used to be.” The film makes a few lighthearted jabs at Indy’s age, but most of the time it just lets Indy do his thing. Believe it or not, Ford doesn’t look that old in the movie, at least not when he’s wearing his hat. It doesn’t detract from the movie at all.

What does, unfortunately, somewhat detract from the film, is the new setting. Most Indy fans are used to the 1930s or 1940s, with Nazis the focus. Obviously they couldn’t do that considering the age factor, but it’s somewhat unfamiliar territory. It isn’t pulled off bad, per se. In fact, Spielberg did a great job with the ‘50s theme. I’m just not used to it. It’s different. It kinda took me out of it a little bit.

As well as taking place in a new era, the film was made in a new eras- the era of $300 million CGI blockbusters. This film uses CGI to its fullest potential, and the outcome is mesmerizing. But once again, I’m used to practical effects and real location sets. This film almost loses that realism the first three films had. Maybe it’s just me being nostalgic again.

It’s no spoiler that Karen Allen is in this movie as Marion Ravenwood, the love interest from Raiders of the Lost Ark. I, for one, loved the character in that film, but here she just seems like fanservice. One could make an argument that the entire film is fanservice, but I just felt she needed to be more prominent at times.

I saw this at the midnight showing premier in my hometown. The place was literally packed with fans, many of them sporting fedoras and at least three wearing the full Indiana Jones wardrobe. And that is what makes Indiana Jones what it is- nostalgia. Fanboyism, if you will indulge me for a moment. The feeling I got when watching the movie with so many likeminded individuals who have been waiting for this movie for years- magical. You just can’t match it. To me, this isn’t just a big summer blockbuster. This is a life-fulfilling moment, and I’m not embellishing anything. Sure, it has a couple small flaws. But they are just that- small. This film was a joy to watch. Part of me has been fulfilled inside. I would say it’s better than Temple of Doom, and very, very close to being as good as The Last Crusade, but it doesn’t reach the stature of Raiders

Teeth review

Teeth
Starring Jess Weixler, John Hensley, Josh Pais
Directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein
Rated R (contains strong gory violence and disturbing sexual material, some language and drug use)
Score: ***1/2

Teeth is a new dark comedy/horror film that was in independent release a few months ago, and has now reached DVD.

This film contains mostly unknown actors and an unknown director. That doesn't get in the way of the film's odd charm.

We see Dawn, a young high schooler intent on saving her virginity until after marriage. She is pai9nfulyl oblivious, not only to her body, but alos to the people around her. But, when she meets a boy she likes, she finds it hard to resist her urges. Unfortunately, she also has a strange mutation know as Vagina Dentata- the toothed vagina.

Does that sound wierd to you? Well, it IS. But that is a major plus for this type of indie horror film. In fact, it's probably what saves this film from being completely average.

The film is entertaining, but not in the traditional sense. It's very interesting. The vagina dnetata myth has been around for a long time, but this is the first film I've seen or heard about that took the legend and put it into modern context. The movie has a lot of classic imagery and almost a mythical quality about it.

The character interactions and most of the dialog is good, but the acting could have been better, especially from lead actress Jess Weixler. She's a blossoming talent, that's for sure, but she stil needs some work.

The film's message is at best ambiguous. Is it a critique on religion? Is it about the opression of women in today's society? The mannerisms and the way the beliefs she holds to are presented paint a possibly offensive picture of the Christian religion, as such stalwarts as evolution vs. creation, women's place in the home, etc are brought up. But thankfully, the film doesn't really focus on it. In fact, God is barely, if not at all, mentioned in the film. It's more a critique on how society uses religion and other aspects to put boundaries on women.

I don't think it would be out of place to call this a feminist piece of art.

It's very gross at times. Horror officianados will be pleased, I guarantee it.

The negatives of this film...well, it's lacking in any real sense of enjoyment. Sure, it's got a few chuckles, and it's very interesting to watch, but it's very back and forth. It almost relies on the "indie" charm and the sheer uniqueness of the story to compensate for lack of structure and poor character development. Well, at leats poor development of the side characters.

The film is very short, too. It does come full circle, but the film just feels to short at 88 minutes.

Overall it's a solid rental and definitely a strong debut, but it isn't an amazing piece of work.

Iron Man review

Iron Man
Starring Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrance Howard, and Jeff Bridges
Directed by Jon Favreau
Rated PG-13 (contains lots of sci-fi action/violence, a brief suggestive scene, alcohol use, and some disturbing images)
Score: *****

The summer movie season is officially here, and it starts off with a huge, successful bang. Successful to the tune of a $104 million opening weekend box office gross. And Iron Man is one movie that fully deserves it.

Tony Stark is a billionaire weapons designer/manufacturer and CEO of Stark Industries. His brilliant mind is behind some of the most successful technological breakthroughs in recent history, and he is changing the face of modern warfare. Unfortunately, during a demonstration is Afghanistan, he is kidnapped by terrorists and forced to build a missle for them. He realises that his weapons manufacturing is doing more harm than good and vows to protect the people he once put in danger.

This makes for a wonderfully different superhero film. No teenage angst. No murdered family to avenge. No freak acdident. Little opression from outside forces. Just a man who sees the consequences of his actions and feels in his heart what the correct course of action is. It's a breath of fresh air in the nearly stale crop of comic book movies.

The film has some violent moments, but it is never "dark" in the Sin City, Hellboy, Punisher, or Batman Begins type of feel. It's much more lighthearted, but it isn't cheesy or cutesy like Fantastic Four or Spider Man. The closest superhero movie I can compare this to is The Incredibles, and the two films may be the best superhero movies ever made. This movie is THAT good.

The dialogue and characters drive this movie, believe it or not. And the movie is over two hours long. But it is never boring. It movies lightening quick, but it doesn't rush it. The pace is perfect. The interactions between the main characters are splendid. The dialogue is almost always hilarious.

A point has to be made about the amazing casting choice of Robert Downey, Jr. He IS Tony Stark/ Iron Man. This performance will go on to be one of his defining performances. His personality matches so well with the personality of Stark.

The film knows how to please the fans, too. This is a rare breed of superhero movie. It has excellent action scenes surprisingly lacking in shaky cam. It has great performances, a fabulous story. I mean, there is nothing wrong with this film unless you want to get nitpicky. It has set the bar extremely high for the rest of the summer movie seano. Speed Racer, Narnia, Indiana Jones, Hulk, Hellboy, Batman- you all have a lot to live up to. Iron Man may end up being the best summer movie, and one of the best movies period, of 2008.

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guanatanamo Bay review

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

Starring: Jon Cho, Kal Penn, Niel Patrick Harris, and Rob Corddry
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
Rated R (contains strong crude and sexual humor, copious nudity, pervasive language, obviously a lot of drug and alcohol use, and one shockingly violent scene)
Score: ****

So, we have our first big movie of the summer (unoficially). It's a sequel (of course). It's a sequel to a good movie (shockingly).

This movie, beleive it or not, is also quite good.

Harold and Kumar, as many of you probably remember, are potheads who ramble aimlessly while trying to accomplish some outlandish task. In the first film ,it was getting to White Castle to eat 30 burgers and four large orders of fries each. In this movie, the two lovable losers try to travle to Amsterdam, but are mustaken for terrorists. They end up in Gitmo.

Thus is the hilarious premise the movie sets up so well. These characters make the movie what it is. They drive the story, their reactions make us laigh, and their dialogue actually gives us insight into who they are. This is the key to the success of this movie.

The jokes are mostly right on the money. They focus on outlandish situations and politically incorrect idealogies. The movie takes stabs and jokes that many other movies would be afraid to, outside of say, Team America or South park.

The film's only one and obvious problem is that many of the jokes are retreads from the original film, which was a refreshingly original movie. I was hoping for the same here, and I did get some hilarious and oddly erotic sequences, but it seemed too focused on connecting everything back to the first film. On at least one occasion, it worked perfectly. On others, it just interrupts the flow of the film.

Of course, I have to say something about Neil Patrick Harris. He does such a fantastic job of parodying himself. if this movie was lacking NPH, I would have hated it. Well, not really, but he moves the film up a notch.

Overall, a worthy entry into a growing franchise. I hope to see more of Roldy and Kumar soon.

Switching to the 5 star system

I've decided that the system for rating movies that I use is just too damn complicated, so I'm switching to the 5 star system. I'll probably periodically go back and re-edit all my old posts, but for now I'm just gonna leave it at this:

*****- Amazing
****1/2- Great
****- Very Good
***1/2- Good
***- Serviceable
**1/2- Average
**- Mediocre/Below Average
*1/2- Bad
*- Very Bad
1/2- Terrible
No stars- Ghastly

Superhero Movie review

Superhero Movie
Rated PG-13(contains crude humor, language, and comic violence)
Directed by Craig Mazin
Starring Drake Bell, Sarah Paxton, Christopher McDonald, and Leslie Nielson
Score: ***1/2

Spoof movies almost always suck nowadays. We really haven't had a good Airplane style spoof since the last Naked Gun and Hot Shots sequels.

Instead, we get fucking Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg, the assholes who brought you the worst movie of 2007 in Epic Movie, and probably the worst movie of 2008 in Meet the Spartans.

Well, then Superhero Movie came out. It had the same "Scary Movie" style poster, the Scary Movie alum(Regina Hall, Leslie Nielson, Simon Rex, etc...) , and one of the Scary Movie writers. Fortunately, this writer comes from the School of Zucker Comedy.

The movie is a straight parody of Spider-Man 1 and 2 for the most part. It follows the action and plot of those films, but takes every opportunity to make actual jokes rather than just put "hey, remember this part in that one movie?" lines. It actually made me laugh. It made me laugh out loud about four or five times. It made me chuckle or smile through 95% of the rest of the movie. It actually doesn't suck.

There is a difference between the Friedberg/Seltzer bullshit and Scary Movie 3, 4, and Superhero Movie. They are two totally different styles of comedy. One uses the exact plot, the exact same character names, and a whole bunch of lookalike actors while stringing together 90,000 pop culture references and 20 minute dance sequences.

Superhero Movie has one or two references to Youtube, and a brief reference to Perez Hilton. That is all the pop culture spoof you get. There is a dance sequence, but it is only about 15 seconds rather than 15 minutes. The jokes are the same kind of nonsensical but completely hilarious jokes you get in Airplane and Top Secret.

There is one bad scene, however, that almost reaches the Friedberg/Seltzer levels- the scene in the X-Men Academy. In fact, the references to X-Men and Fantastic Four should have been left out completely to make the film a straight Spider Man parody. They should have kept the film's original name, "Superhero!". It is obvious that this is a totally different kind of movie than Meet the Spartans.

It is a shame that the film has a 3.7/10 on IMDb. People are just voting badly because it looks like it would suck and they went into the movie hoping it would suck. Well, it doesn't suck.

Diary of the Dead review

Diary of the Dead
Directed by: George A. Romero
Rated: R (contains strong violence/gore and pervasive language)
Starring: Lots of no-names
Score: ***


George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead is the newest installment in Romero's highly influential Dead series. This film is the first film that is actually a sequel- picking up where the original Night of the Living Dead

This installment takes two very different approaches to filmmaking that Romero's hasn't done before- the handheld/first-person camera perspective, and completely beating you over the head with his message. Usually Romero opts for a more subtle approach to his social commentary, but here it's just so obvious and blatant.

The film follows a bunch of Pittsburgh college students as they are making a horror film in the woods with their professor. Suddenly, a news broadcast appears telling them that the dead have begun to rise. At first our heroes don't believe it, but soon they realize, through unfortunate encounters of their own, that the dead are trying to kill and eat them.

And one of the students, the director of the film, decides to stay in "Jackass Overly-Controlling Film Director" mode for the entirety of the film in order to make what they call "a diary of the events", which he promptly uploads part of to Youtube. It gets 74,000 hits in 8 minutes, since the news media is framing it all wrong and the only real footage is done by amateurs. He has to get the truth out there, in order to maybe "save somebodies' lives." See, the amazingly NOT subtle thing is, in at least 3 scenes, we find out he doesn't give jack sh!t about anybody.

The entire film is so pushy with it's message of the evils of the electronic age and the over-reliance on the media as a source of fact. It's off-putting. And it's inexcusable.

Romero always has social commentary in his films, whether it be racism, consumerism, the class struggle, whatever. But he's able to frame it so well without shoving down are throats like we're 5 dollar whores. Not here.

Having said that, I will certainly say that the film's message is a good one. The characters(with the exception of Mr. Gun-Ho Documentary Maker) are all very well fleshed out. the pain and guilt of losing family members, dealing with an impossible situation, and having to kill somebody(even if they're already dead) are all realized to their full potential.

The film has some real poignant moments between characters and the dialog, for the most part, is very good(albeit pretty theatrical at times).

The "action" of the film is few and far between. Compared to the rest of his films, Day of the Dead especially, this movie is severely lacking in the gore department. We have a few good scares and a couple awesome kill scenes, but the film makes you feel bad for wanting to see the violence. Any time there is any amount of blood or gore, the characters are there to give you a speech about how, when you're sitting behind a camera or watching through a screen, you become immune to death and destruction. It all becomes a spectator sport.

It made me feel bad about myself, because if I was in their situation, I'm afraid that I would become a senseless killing machine willing to do anything to stay alive, with no regard or thought put to how or why my friends and family became the way they are. I count this as a very strong point of the film. It was able to achieve it's desired effect, but not without pissing me off numerous times.

At times the film is powerful and relevant, but a lot of the time the characters just stand and yell personal attacks at the director of the "documentary". Romero could have made this film amazing. It could have been a socially relevant film with very important undertones. Instead it sometimes comes off like a charismatic Pentecostal preacher yelling at the top of his lungs on Sunday morning.

Cloverfield pulled it off much better.