Marvel Studios- they’ve been upgraded from a comic book maker- just keeps pumping them out. What “them” am I talking about? The films that are fun to watch. Iron Man is one of them.

The movie is a sly mix of humour, technoie-gadgets (non existent of course), surprisingly good acting, and a predictable but enjoyable story. These elements combine and simply make the film fun to watch. No scene is so long that it gets boring, as the truth is that no scene is interesting enough on merits alone so it has to be short to mitigate boredom.

The acting was surprisingly good. Robert Downey Jr. played very well. I can’t compare him to his pas roles because I can’t remember him playing any other roles. However, he played very convincingly and well in Iron Man, with a good deal of charm. His on-screen partners, Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow were also excellent.

And finally, the good guy wins despite the fact that the bad guy was bigger and meaner. That’s always a plus. This is one of those films that has you rooting for the good guy. Iron Man makes you forget how bad the good guy was at the beginning (he used to be a weapons manufacturer) and gets you cheering for him by the end.

I recommend it if you’re looking for a brainless and fun film. Don’t expect anything clever because what you see is really what you get.

Audi fans will like the R8 (I did).

Do you ever get happy over the smallest things?

I think that’s what happened with me when I watched Rambo. I began watching with zero expectations, I don’t mean none I mean so low as to be zero. I mean look at part of the plot outline, kindly provided by IMDB:

In Thailand, John Rambo joins a group of mercenaries to venture into war-torn Burma, and rescue a group of Christian aid workers…

Well anyway, the film was great. I thought Sly would be washed out and over done, like Arnie was in his last few films but I was wrong. Sly really does give the impression of an aged Rambo, as he’s supposed to. I got the uncanny feeling that it wasn’t Rambo on screen but Sylvester Stallone, as if he’d personally suffered everything Rambo had. Not only that but the film was unpretentious. It knew it was a Rambo film and never tried for more, it was liberated in some sense so every frame was right on the money.

It was enjoyable too because it didn’t have too much dialogue. Who watches action films for that anyway? The cheesy plot line that isn’t so unbelievable (see the quote) makes it laughable while at the same time pointing to contemporary, real life issues.

The first violent scene is well done and had impact. The film remains honest without being heavy handed.

I also think that maybe it was Sly’s destiny to be a director not an actor because the direction in this film was quite good, though certainly more on the reflective side than the pop culture side.

I enjoyed the film and I recommend it to anyone who likes good action films. Please note of course that the term “good action” is already a loaded term and almost an oxymoron.

I saw this movie a few nights ago, along with Amazing Grace, John Rambo, and Alien vs. Predator 2.

Cloverfield sucked. I’m demanding of the films I watch. I don’t know if I’m overly accountant-like or something but the way I see it is that I only have so much time and that time I want to spend on things that are worthy of it. So when I watch a film it has to be worthwhile for me. The film has to outrank the other things I could do with that amount of time, usually that’s reading or being outside or talking to friends.

Well Cloverfield certainly did not meet the requirements. It was nauseating, what you read in the paper was true. When I first learned of this film I was under the impression that the camera action would be done tastefully to give the impression of handycam-ness. That is, that it would be shaky and bouncy but still show the important scenes and give the viewer a breather every now and again. Well, let me tell you, half the movie is carried by dialogue because the camera is pointed at the ground or sky. This kind of effect is nice once and awhile to give that burst of adrenaline as if the you’re the one running it gets old after you watch pavement flying across the screen for eight to ten minutes. I think they really did just use a handy cam without any direction from anyone.

The acting was good, no problems there but the story was… well lame. I understand that the film was attempting to put the viewer into the shoes of those on screen as much as possible. They do this by giving no information about the monster, you get very little information about anything, as one would expect in real life. The problem is that it gets very boring quickly. It’s akin to putting a camera in a jail cell for 6 hours and telling the audience: this is how it would be in a jail cell. It may be true, it may even get the emotions across very well but human nature seeks change, especially in a film. When Cloverfield shows me nothing but scary monster and people running it’s tense for a bit but runs its course quickly. This of course also means that there is no “story” for obvious reasons.

So on the whole, I was very disappointed in the film just because it was boring. The paring down of characters, as they all died one by one, also got formulaic and tiresome. Everything about the film was just boring. I would have to say that film should have been a video game, then it may have been fun as the viewer would actually have some interaction with the whole enterprise.

I let you guys know what I thought about the other films later.

Multilayered? You bet.

The film is about one man’s life experiences in Vietnam (yeah that Vietnam, the bad one) and the events immediately before and after it. Ostensibly the film is about the secret use and testing of chemicals on US soldiers during the war. I think they even had the cajones to show a blurb after the film telling how the Pentagon (yeah that Pentagon, the bad one) denied ever having tested anything on it’s own soldiers.

Well anyway, the film progresses and it becomes evident that it’s in fact about more than just chemicals and soldiers. Actually that chemicals and soldiers have nothing to do with it. If analyzed in any shape for any amount of time it becomes obvious that the tale is about a man’s perception and relation to the outside world. Where the individual stops and the world begins. The movie uses demons to signify the ‘other’ (obviously cloaked quite often in shadow and darkness) while using sunlight, white and loved ones show the familiar or the us of the them-and-us dichotomy.

Once I thought about it I realized I greatly enjoyed the film. A superficial observation of the film I think would lead to dissatisfaction with it as being simple and gratuitous (as it was in parts). But it does come together in a cohesive whole to deliver a strong and relevant message.

This film was great. Not in the traditional sense though. You’re probably wondering what I mean. To be honest I’m not entirely sure what I mean.

The storyline is seemingly common. Fracture is a murder mystery. The film stars the great Anthony Hopkins as a jailed man who choses to represent himself in court. He is accused of murdering his wife. To the ire of everyone involved it seems as though he’s secured himself somehow against any possible chance of conviction.

The movie keeps you guessing. Through much of it you can’t be sure if Hopkins’s character is guilty or not, is he demented or not etc. Its really a pleasure to watch in that respect. The movie holds its secrets well.

While some viewers may find the ending disappointing I’ve no comment, I found the film’s strength lay elsewhere. The film undertakes that rarely attempted task of value judgment and moral and ethical assessment. It does so in two ways. The first and obvious one is the in action of the film. The result is passable. The second way is more subtle and what sets this film apart. The director/creator of the film explored a moral imperative through the characters themselves but not in what happens to them or what doesn’t happen to them but in the actual characters. Each character has a “type” and those types play almost independently of the other characters. So each character grows and develops individually. It is as if the movie creator turned to the viewer and said “Here is a type of person, here is what I believe happens to them psychologically as they move along in time.” A judgment of value and I respect that.

Perhaps I read too deeply into this movie but I read deeply into every movie. The problem is that most films don’t contain much to hold my attention.

Well let me start with: wow!

I’m a skeptic and not a fan of action films in general. So I probably wasn’t the most keen person in the world to see this. But being a fan of the old tv show and in fact wanting desperately to see the effects I decided to go. (I’m also a rare theater goer).

This film was in fact more than meets the eye for me. Perhaps it was my doubtful mood upon entry that made this film so good. That’s usually the case in my experience.

What can I say, without giving too much away. The film had great CG effects which are important if your main character is going to be all CG. Did it look real? Not always, the glowing eyes were a little fake etc. but it was more than enough to convince the casual moviegoer. I have one friend who will no doubt contest this…

The size of the robots was done well with respect to scale. They weren’t just robots running around buildings. You got a similar feel to that of War of the World (the newest version). Where the robots were large and towering. They dwarfed the common man (you included) and it was brought across well. This made me feel all that much more in the action. I think that’s important to an action film as they generally don’t have much to go on to begin with.

The acting was perfect for the film. It was a film that didn’t take itself too seriously and was humours. The movie didn’t bother trying to explain everything. What’s the all spark (or allspark?) who knows, who cares? No one bothers really explaining it overly and that’s just fine and it fits well, after all you have talking robots from another planet that turn into cars!

It’s a Michael Bay film so its going to be big, everyone knows that, or should before going to see one of his flicks. If you’re not a fan of those kinds of films don’t see this one as its got a lot of explosions and light shows. Big robots fighting on earth in places like military bases and big cities, you’d better be ready for lots of “stuff” all over the place.

Well worth the money and well worth the time if you have any connection to the old tv show. If not, I can imagine that maybe you might feel a little lost. On top of that the old moral of the story is beautiful. I’m one who’s not ashamed to say that if I don’t agree with what a film tries to put across I will bash it. I’m not an individual who sees beauty in everything and who accept everything because its there, I call it like I see it. Transformers ended on a lovely note and leaving the theater with that was pleasant.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. I hope you do as well.

Well what to say. I think everyone and their cousin has seen this film by now.

I saw it opening weekend and to be honest, I was expecting a dud. After the disappointment of the second one (which I hardly remember) I didn’t hold much hope for the third installment of this enterprise.

As it happens I was pleasantly surprised. The acting on Depp’s part was superb as it always is. That is to say, he acts such that I can never assert who Johnny Depp really is. Though I haven’t seen all of his films I know that I cannot find any commonalities or “slips” out of character in his acting.

The plot was solid given the direction the first movie had set for series. It was internally consistent and very well thought out. A little confusing I believe to someone who doesn’t pay close attention, there are many fine nuances. In this respect, depth of story, this film is a departure from the previous two which I would claim are simple and straightforward.

There unfortunately seems to be less individual character development that has been replaced by a more overarching point of view. There seems to be some vague moral attempted at the cost of getting to know the characters. I suppose this is a result of having so many characters in the film (each with their own stories and motives).

A good film overall, by no means anywhere near the first, but enjoyable and much better than the second.

What a boring film. It attempted the awkward dialog and situational humour that succeeded so well in Napoleon Dynamite with miserable failure as the result.

The movie’s sentiment was appealing, reexamination of one’s life being the impetus for positive change. A formula like that would naturally seem to be a winner except when done poorly as was the case here.

The job of the director/actors/production team etc. is to make some connection between the audience and the characters on screen. If they fail at this task the watcher is tempted to liken the film to nothing more than moving colours on a screen. The audience does not need to love the characters, the connection can be anything from love to hate or somewhere in between but it must exist. The film failed to create any sense that I was watching something other than 2D cardboard cutouts. The scene of the film that was supposed to clinch everything and shock the viewer left me so bored and uninterested I nearly missed its importance.

The editing on this film was poor as well, scenes jumped around or were much too long or too short to make a cohesive whole. I don’t pretend to know what the proper proportions are to make a good film but I do know that there is one. Take for instance the example of a car, it is possible to drive with four different sized wheels but most people (myself included) would prefer to have them all the same size. Function exists even in art and artists need to take that into account if they wish to please an audience.

I love this film. Why? The answer is simple, it presents beautifully. The subtle humour that comes about mostly in the dialogue (though there is a fair bit in the visuals as well) is so crucial that one could watch the entire film and get nothing out of it if the volume is just a little too low.

Part of the presentation of this film is that it doesn’t aim for the stars, if it can get up past the second floor that seems to be good enough. The story is stupid and predictable in many ways and wholly unrealistic, the character reactions are also not of this world, the list goes on. Therein though lies the beauty of this movie though, the what you see is what you get reality of the flick is refreshing in a day and age where always bigger seems to be the daily dish.

The movie is about one man’s actions during a zombie take over. It is simple and the details matter little. Some films you watch to have your life changed, some you watch to learn from and others you just watch to have fun. Shaun of the Dead fits into the latter category and none other.

Well, I’d give this one a 68% on my magical scale. The film, as I’ve found all of Philip Dick’s movies, is heavy handed and confused in such a way that it seems to fall over itself to tell a tale both lucid and impenetrable as mud, in doing so fails to deliver anything good at all. (I would give Total Recall the highest grade of the Dick movies as an FYI.)

The problem I have ultimately is that the film doesn’t make any statements, it didn’t move me in any way and it over philosophizes without purpose. There is a beauty to clarity and such a thing was missing from this movie. No matter how complicated and drawn out a film is it has the capability to be concise and clear, Scanner Darkly just didn’t have that.