The Wolverine

Wow.  I've found that I tend to rate movies more highly when I walk out of the theater, then with time the rating might drop when I start comparing it to other films I've seen.  What brought this up?  Well I've noticed that recently I've been giving movies perfect scores, and others in the past I don't understand how I could have rated them as high as I did.

Regardless, I think The Wolverine will withstand the test of time.  I think it's definitely in the same discussion as Man of Steel and Iron Man 3. 

The Wolverine is based on one of the best storylines from the comics, and overall I enjoyed this interpretation of it.  I liked some of the changes they made to the original story, but wish they could have left or fit other parts in.

Anywhoo, I just have a few comments, though this time they have major ***SPOILERS*** so be forewarned.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

• I've never been a fan of actress Famke Janssen, particularly as the character Jean Grey.  Perhaps she just didn't fit the preconception of the character I gleaned from the comics.  However, I thought she was okay, in this movie.
• SPOILER WARNING, REDUX.  At one point Logan reaches in to his chest to remove a mechanical bug attached to his heart.  But since his entire skeleton is laced with admantium, how did he reach through his ribs?  Kind of awkward having to reach between with just his fingers (or claws) to rip out something apparently firmly clinging to his right ventricle.  Especially without anesthetic or assistance.
• I'm okay with Logan losing his metal claws, though it is still puzzling.  I thought his bone claws were merely laced with admantium, not separate.  Though I guess the bone could have regrown/healed during the battle?  Pretty quick, even for Logan.
• The whole 'two hands' to hold a sword felt a little gimmicky;  they put more screen time into the foreshadowing than the actual event required/deserved. 
• I thought Mariko's ninja friend's change of heart happened a little too quickly/abruptly.
• As soon as the metal samurai started moving, I kind of guessed where it was going in regards to the 'great reveal' at the end; so, in a sense it was predictable.

I actually think this movie was just as good if not better than Man of Steel, but I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm; this is a movie I'm definitely buying the BD (unlike ::cough:: that other solo Wolverine movie-  ugh.)

I rate The Wolverine 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Man of Steel

Fortunately, I watched Man of Steel, today.  I say 'fortunately', because the cinema I normally go to for new movies isn't showing Man of Steel in 2D.  3D, yes.  IMAX, yes, and even a second type of 3D, but not 2D.  Anywhoo, I managed to find a cinema showing it in 2D, and there I went.

Man of Steel was definitely worth the time and price of the ticket.  Though once again, the movie started late.  At the 'official' movie start time, the cinema showed ten straight minutes of commercials -- not movie previews, and not the 'while you're waiting for the movie to start' fluff.  The movie previews came after the commercials.  I fear this is the new normal.

So, anyway... as I said above, Man of Steel is a good movie, perhaps even a great one.  Henry Cavill was great in his role, Amy Adams was good, as were all the other actors.  There were a couple things here and there that bothered me, but it's more nitpicking things, and occurred mostly in minor character scenes, though there was one bit I felt they could have explained more explicitly the antagonists' rationale for a human co-captive.

It's hard to compare Man of Steel with Iron Man 3 because while they're both superhero movies, they each have their own tone.  Iron Man 3 went for more laughs and silly stuff amidst the drama and action, while Man of Steel took on a more serious tone overall, the humour more subdued, or not so obviously deliberate and frequent.

Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that I liked how in Man of Steel I could recognize and sympathize with all the major characters' motivations, even that of the main antagonist, making him a slightly more tragic figure rather than a run of the mill power/money hungry cardboard villain.

Man of Steel, 5 out of 5 stars.

Iron Man 3

I watched Iron Man 3, today.  Well worth the money, at least on 2D.  I've never been a fan of 3D movies so I saved a few dollars watching it the old fashioned way.  Iron Man 3 is much much better than Iron Man 2, and just as good as or even better than Iron Man.

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just make some general points:

• I would have thought that most people would know to stay until the end of the credits for Marvel movies, but I'd estimate a little more than half of the audience left early and missed the last scene.  Having said that, significantly more people did stay for Iron Man 3 than I remember did for Iron Man.
• One thing I did fine puzzling was how the main villain died, at the end.   Why did he die this time when he'd survived much worse?
• Given Robert Downey Jr.'s contract with Marvel has now expired, this may have been his last turn as Tony Stark.  If this turns out to be true, I'll be disappointed, but also happy that Robert Downey Jr.'s run as Iron Man ended on such a high note.
• Assuming Robert Downey Jr. is done playing Tony Stark, I wonder which is more likely, that Marvel 'reboots' the character of Iron Man (like Batman and Spiderman), or that Marvel maintains continuity and simply replaces the actor.  I'd lean towards the latter because of the way all the Marvel movies are linked together via The Avengers. Though right now I can't imagine anyone else in the role.  For now, at least, Robert Downey Jr. = Tony Stark.

Anywhoo, Iron Man 3 gets 5 out 5 stars.

The Avengers

I went to see The Avengers today.  I stuck with regular old 2D instead of watching it in 3D.  I'm not a big fan of movies in 3D -- truthfully, if local cinemas only offered The Avengers in 3D I would have waited to watch it on BD.

When I first heard they were producing The Avengers I wasn't too keen on the idea.  Why?  Because it's been my experience that as the number of heroes/protagonists and villains increase the quality of the film decreases.  See Spiderman 3, Iron Man 2, Batman Returns....  I have no idea why sequels feel compelled to increase the number of villains.

Anywhoo, I was relieved to find The Avengers maintained a pretty good balance between all the characters.  There was no point in the film where I was thinking, "why are they wasting so much screen time on this character?"

I've only watched Iron Man and Iron Man 2, none of the Hulk movies, Captain America, or Thor, but several times I found myself thinking, instead, "huh, I wouldn't mind learning more about this character."  I'm not saying I'm going to rush out to rent them (problematic ever since Blockbuster went kaput), but I'm definitely more open to the idea of doing so.

I give The Avengers 4 out of 5 stars.  This is a film I'm definitely purchasing on BD.

Aside.  The trailer for the new Spiderman film actually looked interesting.  At least, it made me question my decision to not see it in the cinema.

Appaloosa

I watched Appaloosa, the other day, staring Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Despite renting Appaloosa with reasonable expectations this film was even better.

Appaloosa is a classic Western about two long-time friends and law-men for hire, hired to clean up a town after its marshal was killed while trying to arrest a couple murderers.  Mortensen and Harris play the two main characters and they both performed very well.


I liked this film enough that I'm even considering actually buying Appaloosa for my collection.  My only question right now is whether the character played by Renee Zellweger will survive multiple viewings, given how unappealing I found the character to be.

I give Appaloosa 4 out 5 stars.

Iron Man 2

I watched Iron Man 2, starring Robert Downey Jr., today, and it was better than I had hoped.

One of my fears with superhero sequels is the seemingly irresistible need film makers have to stuff ever more bad guys in the same 2-hour slot -- though perhaps the earlier Batman and latest Spiderman movie series are unduly influencing my memories. I just think stuffing a film with more antagonists just risks short-changing the characters I went to the cinema to see. There's limited screen time, and obviously the more villain origin stories you need to show, the less time you have for everyone else, especially the protagonists. I watched Batman Returns to see Bruce Wayne, not Catwoman or Penguin. Likewise, I watched Spider-man 3 to see Peter Parker, not Goblin, Venom or Sandman. One major villain that's competent and interesting is much better than having to divide screen time among two or three.

Whew. Finally got that off my chest. Anywhoo, prior to watching Iron Man 2 I had feared director Jon Favreau may have succumbed to excess-villain-itis, or its variant too-many-new-characters-with-origin-stories-itis, but my fears turned out to be needless. You could say Iron Man 2 had two villains, but appropriately Favreau only spent origin-story time on the competent one.

I don't want to spoil anything too much, so here's just some random thoughts and comments. Spoilers may follow, though I'll try to keep them few and minor.

• 20 minutes of previews!? Ugh.
• There were roughly 25-30 people in the first Saturday matinee on the second weekend of Iron Man 2.
• I thought it apt that Formula One's Monaco race is the same weekend I watched Iron Man 2.
• I can understand why Stark wanted Rhodes to take a suit, but isn't he afraid the U.S. military will be able to reverse engineer the technology?
• The climactic battle was a little anti-climactic. There was good build up, but in the end there was too much flying around and not enough brawling.
• Isn't Nick Fury supposed to have a cigar? What about stubble?
• If you don't want Stark reading about the "Avengers Initiative", then don't leave a folder labeled, "Avengers Initiative", sitting out in the open while you make Stark wait. What kind of security is that?
• These days, I wonder why anyone bothers leaving before the credits finish rolling. Especially given the track record with Iron Man. I was the only one who stayed and hence was able to see the final scene.
• For my thoughts about watching a movie at SilverCity Ancaster.
  

I think the first Iron Man is the superior movie, but Iron Man 2 still gets 4 out of 5 stars.

Gunless

I watched Gunless, starring Paul Gross, and it was worth the trip to the cinema.

The set-up: Gross stars as an American gunman in the Wild West who finds himself in a small Canadian town. He calls out the town's blacksmith for a showdown only to discover that the only gun in town (besides his) is a decrepit thing in major need of repair. Refusing to shoot an unarmed man, Gross decides to repair it himself, but first needs to convince the gun's owner to give it to him -- which Gross does by agreeing to build her a windmill.

Paul Gross is pretty much the only reason I watched Gunless and he doesn't disappoint. Gross handles the comedic aspects quite well. Don't expect thigh-slapping, rib-cracking humour, but on the other hand I don't remember any jokes falling flat -- smiles and chuckles were the norm.

I'd describe this film as typically Canadian comedy and the better for it.



Random thoughts:

• My favourite character in Gunless, besides Gross, would have to be RCMP Corporal Kent, played by Dustin Milligan. The character was endearing and I wished there had been more scenes with him.
• As a bonus, Gunless was filmed in Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia.
• Graham Greene shows up in a couple scenes.
• I prefer nearly empty theaters, but it doesn't bode well that there were only 10 people in a matinee showing on opening weekend for Gunless. A shame.
  
• For stomach-aching laughter stay for some of the bloopers during the credits.
  

Gunless gets 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Sherlock Holmes

I missed out seeing Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr., in the cinema, but recently it came out on BD so I rented it.

I liked it. I thought all the actors were good, funny scenes were funny, story was good, and action scenes were enjoyable.

I've read all the Sherlock Holmes novels, but that was more than a decade ago so many details are hazy. This current theatrical version of Holmes wasn't what I imagined while reading the books but that didn't detract from the movie. It was an interpretation of Holmes that I enjoyed watching. The story was new and didn't simply follow one of the novels.

Random thoughts:

• Part of me was glad I had rented Sherlock Holmes rather than seeing it in the cinema because it afforded me the ability to rewind. There were several bits of dialogue that I wasn't able to catch the first time. The British accents were by no means thick but at times the dialogue went by too quickly for my ears.
• Background special effects were acceptable but not great. A lot of the time in the big panoramic shots the background didn't quite gel with the action/foreground so that it was obvious the background was fake or had been green-screened.
• I liked Jude Law as Dr. Watson. I thought he and Downey worked well together.
• The funniest scene of the movie was in the denouement.
  

While there was no real cliff-hanger, Sherlock Holmes did set itself up for possible sequels. I liked this movie well enough that I hope they do make a sequel and if so I'd definitely make a greater effort to see it in the cinema.


I give Sherlock Holmes 3.5 out of 5 stars.

The International

I recently rented The International, starring Clive Owen. Owen portrays an Interpol agent trying to take down an international banking institution suspected of dealing in weapons.

The International is an action movie and over all I enjoyed it. I've only seen Clive Owen in a few things, but what I have seen of his work I've admired. Actually, the first time I saw Owen was in a video game for the PC -- a spin-off of the Wing Commander series called Privateer or the like.

The action scenes were enjoyable -- important for an action movie -- and as I indicated above Owen did well in his role.

One puzzling thing in the movie, though, had to do with a dead bird. I don't think it will really spoil anything, so I'll just say I got the implication that the bad guys killed the bird but I don't understand why they did so. It sort of revealed their presence to an already paranoid Owen. If it was accidental, then what caused the avian's demise? Odd.

In the blue-ray version they included a deleted scene with Owen's daughter -- the daughter character was completely absent in the final version of the movie. It makes me wonder whether the actress still gets paid (probably), whether it's appropriate for her to include The International on her curriculum vitae (probably), or whether she was listed in the credits? I forgot to check the latter by the time the credits rolled around. Oh, well.

Anywhoo, The International deserves 3.5 out of 5 stars (I originally was going to give The International 3 stars, but as I enjoyed it more than The Hurt Locker I bumped it up to 3.5).

The Hurt Locker

I rented The Hurt Locker recently, and I thought it was a good, but not great, movie.

The Hurt Locker was a character study more than anything else. The movie felt very static with no real plot and no character development.

Many scenes were interesting, but others I found pointedly unbelievable; the latter surely a detriment for a supposedly realistic portrayal of soldiers in Iraq. I thought it absurd that a 3-man bomb squad would be left with no support in the midst of hostile territory on a regular basis.

Who knows, maybe it really does happen that way and I'm ignorant of some tactical or strategic benefit to doing so. Regardless, until I learn otherwise I'm attributing it to artistic license.

I give The Hurt Locker 3 out of 5 stars.

Video Review of Phantom Menace

/Film posted someone's 70-minute video review of the disappointing disaster that was the Phantom Menace. Whenever someone asks whether I like Star Wars (the topic doesn't really arise that often these days, but when it does...) I always have to qualify my positive response by saying I only like the original trilogy, and not the prequels. Well, the creator of this video review of feels the same way and offers some salient reasons as to why Episode I is so terrible.

Quite well done, actually. The review is divided into seven parts. Warning for mild profanity.

Part 1/7


Part 2/7


Part 3/7


Part 4/7


Part 5/7


Part 6/7


Part 7/7

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

A little later than most, I'd guess, but this past weekend I finally went up and watched X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I liked it, with a few caveats, and I don't regret spending my money to watch it in the theaters.



SPOILERS follow....




Wolverine aka Logan is one of my two favourite comic book heros, on par with Peter Parker. As the movie's title suggests, X-Men Origins: Wolverine delves into the history of Logan prior to the X-Men trilogy. None of Logan's history is surprising if you've followed the comics. My familiarity with Logan's past may have contributed to the slow pacing of the earlier portions of the movie. Fortunately, once Logan is bent on revenge the pace picks up.


Random thoughts:

As I said above, I think they spent too much time on Logan's happy days. It made the film feel slow at the start.

Are the admantium bullets still rattling around inside Logan's skull?

Wait, so Logan's mutant ability can not only heal biological injuries, but can also repaire adamantium?

The bit about Logan's memory loss could have been better done. Sure, two bullets in the brain will cause appreciable damage, but how could Stryker have known it would cause memory loss? In the movie, Stryker explicitly went out to cause Logan's memory loss by shooting Logan in the head. I can't fathom how Stryker could have been so certain. How could Stryker have known that the memories he wanted lost would be lost? Puzzling. The movie would have been better served if the memory loss was consequential but not deliberate.

Many different mutants appear in the movie. Some I recognized from the comics.

Xavier makes a not so surprising appearance near the end. I wonder how much make-up they had to put on Patrick Stewart to make him look younger.

This is another movie where you should stay until the end of the credit roll. Apparently there are actually two different endings after the credits. I saw the one with Deadpool. I would much rather have seen the ending I've read about – Logan in a bar in Japan.

Speaking of... if Logan in Japan is a preview of a Wolverine 2 movie then I'm happy. The Logan-in-Japan stories in the comics have always been interesting, what with the dichotomy of Japanese honour and behaviour along with Logan trying to tame his berserker nature.

I give X-Men Origins: Wolverine 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Quantum of Solace

Well... it looks like I've finally gotten over the loss of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. After watching both the updated Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace on blue-ray, I have to admit that Daniel Craig portrays quite a respectable and interesting 007. Perhaps not as good as a young Sean Connery, but still much better than Moore, Latzenby, or Dalton. Though Clive Owen was my preferred choice and I still think Owen would have made a great Bond.

Aside: I first saw Clive Owen in the PC game, Wing Commander: Privateer. I knew him when....

I might be one of the last to see this movie, but what the heck... SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW.

• Anywhoo, back to Quantum of Solace... am I wrong but did they not play the James Bond Theme until the ending credits?! I really hope I'm wrong, because if so then that is just plain... wrong.
• It was kind of refreshing that there wasn't a powerful henchmen for Bond to fight before taking on the villain-in-charge. They're mixing up the James Bond movie formula a bit but I like it (except for not including the James Bond Theme -- they need to put that back in to the movie).
• I like how the producers have restarted the inclusion of an over-arcing plot -- SPECTRE in the first movies, and now Quantum.
• The hotel in the climax -- what the heck?! Did the colonel's jeep crash into a fuel cell, is that what caused the initial explosion? Because what kind of idiot would leave something that potentially explosive sitting exposed in a garage.
• This initial explosion then causes a chain reaction in the entire building complex. What, the architects placed fuel cells in every room? They lined the walls and rooms with them?! Are water sprinklers not mandatory in Bolivia? This wasn't some ancient tenement, this was an ultra-modern state of the art hotel. You'd think they'd at least have the most basic safety precautions.
• I wonder how many hotel employees died off-screen in the climax. The hotel looked huge -- it must have required a significant number of staff.
• Woohoo, a shout-out to CSIS!

Passchendaele

I rented Passchendaele on BD the other day. It reminded me of why I originally purchased a PS3 in the first place -- to watch BDs. I guess it's been a while since I viewed a BD; once again I was impressed by the graphics.

Anywhoo, it's always a treat to watch Paul Gross, an actor/director I've always liked and try to make a point of watching. It's set in WWI, with events leading up to and including part of a battle at Passchendaele. Frankly, I'd never heard of Passchendaele and the role of the Canadian Corps there before this movie. I wish they taught this portion of Canadian history in class.

Passchendaele's first half is mostly romance with the latter half moving to the battlefield.

Personally, I think this movie is better than Saving Private Ryan, for reasons I won't say to avoid any spoilage. I will say that it's in part because after watching Passchendaele I didn't feel like walking in front of a bus like I did after watching Saving Private Ryan. Don't mistake me, I wasn't jumping for joy at the end, but nevertheless Passchendaele manages to be solemn and sad without force feeding extreme depression.

I'll leave it at that, and give Passchendaele 3.5 out of 5 stars.

The Dark Knight

Finally, four weeks after it premiered, I watched The Dark Knight directed by Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight is a worthy successor to Batman Begins and dare I say, even better.

I'm now able to admit that I like Nolan's Batman films over Tim Burton's iteration of the caped crusader. I much prefer Michael Keaton as Batman over Christian Bale in the current film., but over all, I think The Dark Knight is the better film.

Burton's vision was dark, levied with humourous spots, with larger than life villains almost comical in their comic-ness. Something about Jack Nicholson's Joker seemed off to me -- too loud, a mite too silly, a little too over the top. The film might as well as been called The Joker rather than Batman, and Burton's second outing felt even moreso.

Nolan's vision, in contrast, is even more dark, at least in part because it mirrors reality, the "real world. This embues the film with a grey grimness that pulls you in to an insane world where masked vigilantes and a crazed killer rule the streets of Gotham City (also known as Chicago). I can't remember a single instance of levity.

SPOILERS will FOLLOW:

The late Heath Ledger, in his final role, does a great job as the Joker. There were a few similarities between the Joker in The Dark Knight and in Batman. In both films Joker interrupts a mob bosses's meeting; the Joker falls from a skyscraper -- but while the scenes are similar they are also different. Instead of dieing from the fall the Joker is saved.

Actually, I thought all the main actors (Bale, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal...), did a fine job in this movie. My only quibble would be the mafia and gang characters; they seemed a little like caricatures.

Random thoughts:

• During the Harvey Dent (Eckhart) paddy wagon chase scene, the police seemed incredibly inept -- more so than usual. No sirens. They appeared to be driving extremely slow for a chase (50-60 mph). Too much traffic? See sirens, above.
• I was very surprised, as intended, when Batman chooses to rescue Harvey Dent over Rachel Dawes (Gyllenhall). Nevertheless, I'm actually glad her character died. It gives Bruce Wayne closure. There's no way Wayne will stop being Batman (hey, you know there's going to be another film!) and as long as that's the case, Wayne and Dawes will never get together. See, this way there's closure. I don't have to worry about suffering romantic Wayne-Dawes angst in a sequel.
• The ferry bomb bit: I'm glad neither boat decided to sink the other, and I hope in the same situation I'd make the same decision, but nevertheless it seemed slightly off to me. I'm a little more cynical in regards to human nature.
• Batman crashing his bike to avoid running over the Joker: Eh? What the heck? Don't kill the Joker (it's just not Batman's thing) but what, you can't clothesline him or something? Tackle him, maybe? Knock the Joker's legs out from under him? This was Batman at his most moronic in this film.
• The last scene was one of the best and had some pretty good lines. The "you were the best of us..." bit was very nice. Tragic. It presented Batman, Gordon, and Dent as three sides of the same triangle, each representing a different aspect -- vigilante, policeman, and golden crusader. Brothers-in-arms using different methods to achieve a common goal, only to have one of them fall in to the dark side of the Force.
  

Anywhoo, this is a great film. Definitely a keeper. I'll be buying this one on DVD/Blue-ray.

I rate The Dark Knight 5 out of 5 stars.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Sweet nostalgia. The X-Files is one of my top three all-time favourite television shows (up until Mulder left, at least), right up there with Stargate SG-1 (up until O'Neill left, at least) and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Anywhoo, when The X-Files series ended after nine seasons there was talk about making a 2nd movie. As time went on I thought it would never happen. Years later, though, and hurrah! The X-Files: I Want to Believe is here! Starring David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, with Chris Carter directing.

I Want to Believe is exactly what you'd expect from X-Files: intelligent dialogue, adult humour, with a healthy dose of suspense, horror and spookiness. There was one scene where I gave a short burst of laughter, but that was atypical. It's hard for me to describe. It wasn't Get Smart humour. It was what you'd expect from X-Files, wry and often subtle.

The atmosphere and suspense was suitably spooky at times, and the gross out factor was there -- but most of the jump-out-of-your-seat bits were off-screen.

Special effects: I can't think of a single part where they used computer graphics.

The movie doesn't involve the show's engrossing and convoluted mythology; it's a hunt for a suspect with the aid of an is-he-or-isn't-he psyhic. Supposedly this makes the movie more accessible to people not familiar with the t.v. show, but I'm not sure how effective that will be. I hope it does well at the box office, but Sunday night on opening weekend I Want to Believe was relegated to a smaller theater, and only 15 or so people showed up.

Personally, I wouldn't want kids to see this. I'd give this a PG-16. The subject matter and some of the visuals might not be appropriate for younger folks.

SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW:

• The movie takes place a few years after the show ended -- they don't specify exactly (I wish they did). Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) are living together when they are asked to help find a missing FBI agent.
• It's been what, six years since the series ended? They've aged. At least they didn't try to hide it with gobs of cosmetics.
• In the hospital meeting where Scully was late -- I really wish she said that performing the risky treatment was up to the parents and the primary physician. But no mention of parents at all. Just her. Scully. Doctor supremo. The parents didn't show up until later, and it seemed a very long time until they did.
• There are several in-jokes. In one, Mulder is trying to use his mobile one-handed, and in his contact list there's "Gillian". :o)
• One of the funniest jokes of this movie wasn't even spoken. Mulder and Scully are at FBI HQ. At a door, pan left, portrait of President George W. Bush... cue first few notes of X-Files Theme. Pan right, portrait of J. Edgar Hoover. Mulder and Scully look at one another and share a silent commentary. :o)
• Walter Skinner shows up near the end of the movie. Brief, but I'm glad he was there. Too bad they couldn't fit in The Lone Gunmen.
• Oh, yeah. Skinner? If someone is freezing in the snow, perhaps you should bring them indoors.
• There are a few times where they allude to stuff from the series. Not required info for the movie, but just added background.
• Lest I forget: Duchovny, get some sun. You're way too pasty.
• Stay until the end of the credits if you want to see the wave -- in more ways than one. :o)

I think you'd still enjoy the movie if you're unfamiliar with The X-Files series, but perhaps wouldn't rate it as well as I do.

Anywhoo, I give The X-Files: I Want to Believe, 4 out of 5 stars.

More Summer Movies

Well, I guess September is more autumn than summer, but what the heck. One of the previews prior to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was for a thriller, Eagle Eye, starring Shia LeBeouff, that looks very good. LeBeouff looks on track to be one of the few child stars to enjoy professional success as an adult. Eagle Eye is another movie I'll probably see in the cinema; it opens 26 September 2008.

It's a little unexpected. I go through years of only seeing 1 or 2 movies at the cinemas, but this year there looks to be seven, including Eagle Eye, though presently I've lost my motivation to see Prince Caspian.

I might be more motivated to see Prince Caspian it there weren't already many other movies I want to see. I enjoyed the first, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but as I said, my current motivation is lacking.

After seeing it for the second time, I've sort of changed my mind about the The Dark Knight preview -- it might not be quite so love-triangley as I thought. That's a good thing.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Earlier today I broke my personal rule of not seeing movies on their opening weekend. I went to an early matinée so the theater wasn't too crowded and I was able to find a respectable seat. It was roughly 1/3 to 1/2 full, I'd say.

So which movie did I see? What, you can't tell by looking at the poster? :o)

Ha ha. Got that out of my system. Okay, end of stupid jokes, now.

The reason why I decided to break my rule was... c'mon... it's Indiana Jones. That's Indiana Jones, one of the all time best movie franchises, with the original trifecta of Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, and George Lucas. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, both wonderful movies, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is more than fit to join their prestigious company.

Warning, SPOILERS follow:

Crystal Skull gave me exactly what I wanted -- a traditional Indiana Jones adventure. Plot, music, dialogue, action, humour, were all what I'd come to expect and want from Indiana Jones. Wonderful nostalgia. I'm already hoping they'll add ever more sequels to the series.

I've always marveled at Cate Blanchett's acting ability, and she did well enough with her two dimensional villain in this movie. I also enjoyed watching Shia LeBeouff -- for the first time after his Even Stevens days -- in his role as Mutt Williams. I have reservations of LeBeouff continuing the Indiana Jones franchise on his own (a completely, wishfully hypothetical situation) but I'd definitely give him a chance.

If I had to choose my favourite scene, I'd have to choose two. The first involves Indy's fear of snakes, and the second is a fight/chase sequence racing through the Amazon jungle.

There were several nods to past Indiana Jones movies: Marcus Brody from Raiders and Last Crusade (Dernholm Elliot passed away in 1992), Henry Jones (Sean Connery)-- Indy's father in Last Crusade, and the Ark of the Covenant itself, from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

If Crystal Skull does turn out to be the last Indiana Jones, then I won't be too disappointed -- the series will have ended on a high note. Even the last scene ended well. I liked the last scene because it fooled me a little bit. Mutt with Indy's fedora, I was fully expecting him to put it on, as a passing of the torch, so to speak, but it didn't quite happen that way.

I normally stay seated until the end of final credits. The best thing about that with this movie? Getting to hear and focus on the Indiana Jones theme in its entirety-- not in partial bits within the film, taking a back seat to the dialogue or action on the screen. No distractions. Wonderful.

I rate this movie 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Iron Man update

Oops. Amidst my rant regarding people playing themselves in movies, I noted that Hugh Hefner's cameo in Iron Man was okay since it was mercifully short and silent. Except... it wasn't Hugh Hefner. Embarrassing.

It was, in fact, Stan Lee --big honcho at Marvel-- being mistaken by Tony Stark to be Hefner. I can't believe I didn't recognize him. It's not like I haven't seen Stan Lee before; he's had cameos in previous Marvel superhero movies.

Oh well. They both have grey hair, okay? :o)

Movie Previews

There were some interesting movie previews when I went to see Iron Man. In no particular order:

1) Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. The preview only increased my desire to see this one. I'm looking forward to it. I can't help but smile when I hear the theme song. :o)

2) The Love Guru. This one is either going to be either extremely stupid or very funny, or perhaps a mixture of both. This movie's type of humor looks set to be typical Mike Meyer's fare -- a la Austin Powers.

3) The Happening. Does anyone else thinks this title is stupid? Couldn't they think of anything better? The explanation of the movie's title makes it even more inane. In the preview, a character says,"I can't believe this is happening! (cue music) Dah DUM. The Happening, by M. Night Shyamalan." Eh? Sorry, you mean that wasn't supposed to be funny?

4) The Hulk. The preview actually looked interesting (unlike the previous Hulk incarnation), focusing more on character rather than on a gamma-irradiated giant breaking things. Of course, it was only a preview, so who knows. Anywhoo, as I said it looked interesting; too bad I'm not a Hulk fan - this one is relegated to television broadcast.

There may have been other previews, but I'm drawing a blank.

UPDATE:

Ah hah! I remember now, there was another preview.

5) Batman: The Dark Knight. Ugh. Looks like this movie is featuring a love triangle. Double ugh. I had been looking forward to seeing this in the theaters, but now... not so much. I don't go to see a Batman movie to see kissy kissy love angst. Wangos. Wangos. Wangos. Wangos. I really hope the preview is not indicative of this film's focus. It's probably not. I'm probably worried over nothing. It's only a bad preview. But... wangos, wangos, wangos, wangos.