Z/Web

I assumed this was some silly dino-hunter film and it turned out to be a serious thriller about a loner sent into Tasmania by a shady corporation to find the last Tasmanian Tiger. They want its priceless DNA.

It’s very similar in tone to The American. He moves in under cover and pretends to be a scientist, but gradually befriends some locals and his heart is changed. There’s a bit of an ecology angle, but it’s not too heavy-handed. It’s mostly a slow-paced, thoughtful film, full of atmospheric silences and drama. Willem Defoe is just awesome as the hunter, and the supporting case is terrific, too. Worth your time.

The concept of a child who inherits special abilities is a classic and though familiar, I was still curious about this film. I skipped it in the theaters and I’m glad I did. I don’t know anything about the books, but everything about the film is ham-handed and dull.

The central concept is the teen girl is a “shadowhunter,” half-human, half-angel, who has special abilities she can use to kill demons. There’s a bunch of other muddling mythology, but the real problem is much worse: it’s boring. All the technical details about this fictional world are read off of cue cards with all the enthusiasm of a half-asleep telemarketer. Important info and cool concepts are tossed off with barely a blink and no one seems to take even the most outrageous events with any surprise. I literally fell asleep during the film and was so bored I didn’t even care to go back and watched what I missed.

The whole thing devolves into utter silliness and cheesy digital special effects. Don’t waste your time.

Intriguing little documentary about a four-year-old girl whose abstract oil paintings sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It becomes a controversial topic both because there’s disagreement over why abstract art is worth that much (Is her artwork only worth that because it’s known she’s so young?), and because 60 Minutes does an exposé questioning that the girl actually paints them.

When the family responds by creating a video recording of their daughter creating a painting from start to finish, it seems to diminish most of the doubts of her authenticity. Still, a few questions linger. While I was disappointed that the film doesn’t completely resolve everything, it was a surprisingly compelling story and very watchable. It’s not long and utterly fascinating.

I remember when this hit the theaters — it baffled me. The title has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. It’s not memorable or relevant. Just bizarre.

I actually rather liked the film. It’s about tiny fairy people who live in the forest (they’re smaller than mice and hang out with talking slugs and snails). I wasn’t that impressed with them — they aren’t very original or even interesting — but I liked the story of the human girl is forced to live with her “weird” scientist father after her mother dies. He’s obsessed with finding the little people and ostracized by society who think he’s crazy and she’s embarrassed for him — until she’s shrunk down to little person size and realizes he was right.

The plot’s mostly about her having to help save the little people. It’s a little forced — the old queen is dead and a new queen will hatch from a pod but only if it’s the right place at the right time — but it does work. It’s all a bit frantic and wild, but the animation is good and the story has enough meat on it to be worth your time. A lot of the action is silly but fun, and as are many of the side characters.

But I still can’t get over the title. The story certainly isn’t “epic” in any way I can tell, and if you asked me tomorrow if I wanted to watch “Epic” I’d probably ask you what movie that was because I’d have already forgotten. At least similar movies about tiny people are well-named, like The Borrowers, where the title reminds you what the movie’s about. This one ends up being an okay film, but the title just about ruins it.

This is a very strange and fascinating movie. It’s eerily reminiscent of Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt, but without that film’s good taste. Here, everyone is crazy.

It’s very tough to tell anything about this film without spoiling the plot, but it’s also important. The description I read about it was something along the lines of “After her father dies, a teenage girl becomes infatuated with her uncle though she suspects he’s up to something.” That provoked zero interest in me and explains why this film was a flop (despite big stars like Nicole Kidman in it, I’d never heard of it, which is a dangerous sign).

The film is actually about murder. The main girl’s uncle turns out to be a psycho murdering people… and then the girl joins him and starts murdering, too. That aspect is fascinating and full of dark humor and could have been brilliant — except the filmmakers hide that from the viewer as though it’s some major revelation, with the result that the bare story (a troubled girl dealing with her father’s death and a strange visiting uncle) seems utterly boring and all the characters too weird to be watchable. If this had been done as a black comedy, celebrating the girl’s weirdness and murderous instincts, it would have reached the intended audience.

The worst decision of all is the title. When I saw the title, I assumed this was some sort of horror film — after all, Bram Stoker is the creator of Dracula and his name is synonymous with horror. Perhaps that was the intent, but that’s not what this movie is at all, and naming it that is just deceiving and confusing. It’d be like naming a film “Hitchcock” and having zero to do with the famous director, horror/suspense, film-making, or anything else Hitchcock-related. I didn’t even realize until halfway through the film that the girl’s last name is Stoker and that’s where the title comes from. Nothing is even done with that, either (other than a bully’s transformation of the name into an insult), making the name pointless.

Beyond those two mistakes — poor description and a terrible title — this film is utterly brilliant. From the opening sequence where the girl shows off her hyper-sensitivity and the camera-work focuses in on incredibly microscopic details (tiny insects, hairs, etc.) we realize this is an unusual film. The opening credits are amazing — the action freezes briefly as names are displayed and I love the way the letters are both part of the scene and not part of the scene, such as when some of the text disappears behind a character when she moves.

Throughout the film the way the director blends scenes together is fantastic. A few don’t work, but many are jaw-droppingly good. My favorite is the hairbrush scene, where we zoom in on long golden hair being brushed until it fills the entire frame and we see it rustling and moving and then we realize it’s not hair, but long grasses and we’re out in the forest!

The wrap-around ending is also excellent, as it completely changes the context of the scene we saw at the very beginning.

Unfortunately, all this brilliance is wasted, because no one is going to want to watch a film with this title and a boring description about a girl grieving for her dead father. Anyone just diving in is likely to be intrigued by the visuals, but put off by the bizarre and distasteful characters. Instead of intrigue and suspense, which we just have weirdness, and the whole film feels uncomfortable and odd and nothing seems to be happening. Most people will just turn the channel.

That’s sad, because there is a lot of genius at work here. If you’re the right market for this type of film — dark comedy without the element of humor — it’s a great movie. I suspect this is one of those divisive films: people will either rate it 10 stars or 1 star, with no in-between. You’ll love it or absolutely hate it.

Odd film. I’m not sure of the point, though that could be the point.

It’s about the criminal underworld where a couple of idiots rob a gambling joint and then are hunted down by hit men sent by the mobster owners. The cast is steller (almost everyone is someone you’ve seen before and there are big names like Brad Pitt) and the feel of the film is one of gritty reality, albeit with some overly-stylish flourishes (such as slow-motion bullets) in a few dramatic scenes. The dialog is complex and obtuse, and the plot almost non-existent. This creates a sort of conflict: while realistic, it’s sluggish and tedious, with a lot of strange talky scenes that while revealing of character, are meaningless in terms of story.

The whole film acts like a film of substance, but there’s little there, and the abrupt ending reenforces the pointlessness of everything. Which could be the point, as I mentioned before, but it still left a poor taste in my mouth.

I definitely liked the performances and some scenes, but as a film it left me scratching my head. Why was this made?

Director: Martin Scorsese

I was leery about this because of its three hour running time and supposed graphic excesses, but it turned out to be a fantastic film. Yes, there are quite a few explicit scenes, and the language is horrible, but the scenes are very brief and important to set a tone and make a point. There’s little here that’s gratuitous.

The story, which I hadn’t realized is true (I thought the main character was a fictional compilation of real people), is about a sales guy in the 80s who hits it big on Wall Street. He plays fast and loose with the letter of the law and has no qualms about selling suckers crappy stocks in order to put more cash in his pocket. He spends lavishly (his bachelor party in Las Vegas cost $2 million) and is a serious drug addict.

On the one hand, the story’s a simple tale of the rise and fall of a bad guy, but the reality is more subtle and elaborate than that. It’s really a moral lesson about what one wants out of life. Is money really the ultimate goal? Should it be? Is money itself evil? How much are we morally responsibly for how we earn money? The film seems to be a scathing commentary on Wall Street, which makes money without making anything, but even there the film doesn’t shy away from making that seem appealing. In fact, that’s the film’s real power: despite all the awful behavior we see on the screen, we the viewer still want that lifestyle and power, and the film makes us feel ashamed for that desire.

I did think there were flaws. The ending is too long, though somewhat satisfying, and there’s way too much emphasis on drug use. Several elaborate scenes show drunken, stoned people stumbling around and acting like idiots and it got old after the first time. We really didn’t need to dwell on that (though that could be just me: I’ve never understood the appeal of getting “wasted” — it sounds like a nightmare to me). It’s possible Scorsese was just wanting to emphasize the disastrous consequences of drug use, but in a way it was also glorifying it.

I also found the movie a little confusing because it was never very clear exactly what laws the main character broke. He himself speaks of some of the things he was doing as being shady or technically illegal, and it’s clear he did a lot of tax evasion to keep more of his wealth away from the government, but he operated a huge stockbrokerage firm with the SEC checking in on him so surely the stuff he was doing wasn’t that blatant. Not knowing exactly what he did that was so wrong severely weakens the movie’s moral compass as we aren’t sure just how evil the main character is or isn’t. It’s not like he was murdering children or even stealing from people (it wasn’t a Ponzi scheme). He was simply using aggressive sales techniques to sell people crappy stocks that he got a hefty commission on. I guess he lied to people — but shouldn’t those people bear some of responsibility for buying stocks based on what some stranger on the phone told them?

In the end the story’s a fascinating character study of wealth and excess. The casting is perfect, the film’s direction is excellent (you don’t really notice all the subtle things Scorsese does with the camera which is the way it should be), and it’s definitely a film worth seeing. It’s not for the faint of heart as there are lots of disturbing scenes, and I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from the ending, where the main character isn’t punished very severely for his crimes, but the bottom line is that it’s entertaining and it will make you think.

Though I’d seen the promos for this, it was nothing like what I expected. I thought it was about a land where a wicked witch had frozen everything, but it turns out it’s about a two princesses, the eldest who has a “gift” of being able to freeze things. She must hide the ability lest she hurt people, so she retreats even from her beloved sister, terrified of hurting her. Eventually the dam breaks and she accidentally freezes the whole world when she runs off to the top of a mountain to be by herself. Her sister must journey to her and convince her to unfreeze the world.

Another shock is that this is really a musical (similar to the excellent Tangled). That’s not really a good thing, though, for the songs here are much weaker and less fun (I only liked one song in the whole movie and even that one only the chorus was good). Most of the songs are tuneless half-hearted “sing-talking,” where the character is singing his or her thoughts. My biggest pet peeve about musicals is when the singing is fake with a reason for it and that’s done quite often here.

But the story itself is excellent: it is different and full of surprises, and there are many fun and unusual characters. It’s also heart-warming and charming, with great lessons about forgiveness and love. In the end, that overwhelmed the weak music for me, and I really enjoyed the movie. Definitely one you should see.

Wow. I thought this looked good but it turned out to be amazing. So good.

It’s the story of how Walt Disney convinced Mrs. P. L. Travers, the author of the classic Mary Poppins books, to sell him the movie rights. She was extremely possessive of the characters and felt that Disney would turn them into an animated monstrosity. A great deal of the film is her being picky with the Disney writing staff.

But the most interesting part of the film are the flashbacks to her childhood in Australia. There she grew up with a creative and wonderfully imaginative father who clearly inspired her to become a writer. (He’s played by Colin Ferrell who is shockingly good in the role.)

Sadly, we later get to see this wonderful man had a terrible dark side, and that’s really the core of the film: how children cope with the complex world of adults where a person can be both good and bad at the same time.

The film leaps between the two stories, and it’s mesmerizing. Some of Mrs. Travers’ demands and fussiness seem over-the-top, but I love that if you stay through the credits there’s actual audio recording from one of her sessions with the writers and it sounds just like the character in the film. (It’s a testament to the power of this film that despite its two-hour length, not a single person in the theatre I was in left until the credits finished.)

The ending is heart-breaking and heart-warming. I adored the father-daughter relationship portrayed in the flashbacks — it’s just incredible stuff, sweet and tragic and priceless. You’ll definitely want a tissue. But it’s not a sad movie — it’s a movie about hope and victory and overcoming our past.

Everyone in the film is excellent, and there are quite a few famous actors in small roles. Tom Hands as Walt is perfection, and Emma Thompson just nails Mrs. Travers. (I find it ironic that she starred in the Nanny McPhee movies playing a Mary Poppins-like character.)

Everything about the film is well-done — it hits every note just right. One thing that was annoying to me during the film was that it’s been so long since I’ve seen Mary Poppins that I wished I’d re-watched it before seeing this movie, but then at the end of this film when Mrs. Travers go to the premiere they show so many clips from the original movie that it explains everything and reminds me of how good a film Mary Poppins is (probably in large part due to Mrs. Travers’ crazy demands that the film be done just right). I’d really bene hoping they’d show her reaction to the film and they do and it’s not a token shot or two but an extensive scene — it’s a very satisfying ending.

As a writer myself, I was initially intrigued by this story about a writer and her creation — but this film gets so much deeper into why we write and how what haunts us as children infects everything we do as adults. It’s just an amazing film and one of my top picks for 2013. Go see it!

Strange movie. I wanted to love it. I love the quirky sense of humor and I don’t mind weird — but I never could quite get a handle on what the heck this film was. It reminded me of odd British comedy-dramas like Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, but it wasn’t quite as over-the-top and that made its identity more confusing.

This film mixes reality with a screenwriter’s new script, which is called Seven Psychopaths, and features characters in the film. The blend of reality and fiction is fun, but confusing, and by then end of the film I was expecting some big reveal that most of what we’d seen was just in the script and not real.

There are a lot of cool characters, and some fun psychopaths, and it’s got an amazing cast, but everything feels a little forced, like the writers are trying too hard to make stuff outrageous or funny.

The basic plot is… well, I guess it’s mainly about how the screenwriter’s friend, who’s a professional dog-napper, kidnaps a Bad Guy’s dog and he turns out to be a psychopath and wants revenge. The dog-napper gets his screenwriter buddy involved in the mess and they’re on the run while at the same time trying to finish the screenplay.

It’s not a terrible film at all — it’s got a ton going for it. It just didn’t completely work for me. I’d give it a solid B, though there are a few scenes that are A+. The cast, especially Christopher Walken, are worth the price alone.

The basic story is about an average guy stuck in a 9-to-5 and struggling to make ends meet for his family, when everything goes upside down after he’s the victim of identity theft. When he finds out the theft is in a distant state and the local cops can’t do anything and it will take a year to straighten out the bureaucrat mess (with his life in ruins in the meantime), he decides to track down the thief himself and convince her to come back to Colorado with him and tell his boss the truth so he won’t lose his job.

Yeah, pretty thin, but it gives us a bizarre road trip movie with two people who don’t like each other and slowly learn that each has something to offer the other.

It’s not as raunchy as I’d feared, but still has a few crude moments that feel out of place and odd. Several times it’s like the writers were painting by numbers and said, “Ah, it’s been five minutes since we’ve had a vulgar joke so we need one here.” Then they go ahead and insert it even if it doesn’t fit the characters or the scene.

Still, there’s a lot of fun here and some surprising heart. Definitely not for kids, but amusing. My favorite part by far was when the thief connects with the man’s children at the dinner table by smearing food on her face — just amazingly tender and hilarious. From a child’s perspective, you just know they’re going to adore her forever.

This is a fascinating film. Not because of anything in it, but because it was a giant flop (ha ha) at the box office. I was going to see it but the early feedback was so negative I didn’t bother.

What’s wrong with it? That’s the interesting thing: not that much. It’s actually got a decent story that’s a retelling of the Jack and the Beanstalk tale, but with enough new twists and turns to make for something entirely new. The special effects are ridiculous — over-the-top and just so outrageous it’s unbelievable that any movie producer would even consider making a film this effects-driven. We’re talking hundreds of digital giants, castle destruction, skyscraper beanstalks, and much more. It’s almost too much.

The real problem is that this film doesn’t quite know what it is. Is it a comedy? Not really, though it feels absurd enough that it could be. But it doesn’t go far enough or have consistent jokes to be a comedy. Is it a drama? It takes itself surprisingly seriously considering the material, and there are moments that feel like they’re supposed to be dramatic… only considering the type of film is this they fall flat.

This problem what type of movie it is also spread into the marketing, which didn’t know how to promote it. My impressions of what the trailers claimed this was and to what it turned out to be are almost opposites. Sure, I got the basic Beanstalk story I expected, but I didn’t get any of the serious peril and death that are actually in the movie. Instead, the trailer made the action look cartoonish and silly, and there didn’t seem to be a plot.

That’s a shame, because the plot is what makes this work. It’s impressively clever, explaining away various differences and similarities of the original tale, and I liked that they made changes such as making Jack smart. (For example, he doesn’t just trade a horse for magic beans — the beans are collateral he’s supposed to take to the abbey the next day to exchange for cash.)

There are several clever twists in the plot I really liked: it starts going one direction that seems predictable and then veers off in another way. I also really liked the way the naive Jack is actually able to battle the giants: it was believable.

But all that said, there are notable flaws. The script’s schizophrenic and inconsistent. There’s some excellent dialog — and some of the worst I’ve ever heard (my nominee is the “barking up the wrong beanstalk” line). The tone of the film is all over the place, ultra-realistic at times and cartoonish at others; it’s confusing. There’s a dull lifelessness to things at the beginning and it takes too long for the story to get going: for me that didn’t happen until we get a glimpse of the villain and his plans for domination.

These mistakes are awkward but not deal-breakers: many films are similarly weak but still work. I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed this. The special-effects are great and the story is clever. It’s just our expectations weren’t set correctly by the marketing and this thing was doomed from the start. It’s sad to see such wasted potential. I think you’d like this if you go in with lower expectations and prepare yourself for a slightly more serious movie than you’d think.

I was curious about this when it came out: it sounded fun, and some of the singing scenes looked impressive. But it seemed too predictable: an a capella group made up of misfit girls competing for a trophy… I wonder what’s going to happen?

It’s actually surprisingly decent. It could use more depth and there’s a little bit of gross-out humor that I found distracting (a singer barfing on stage, way overdone). But the music and singing numbers are the best parts — lots of great songs, cool performances, and who doesn’t like to see the underdogs rise up and triumph over the smug know-it-alls? Predictable, yes, but with moments of magic. I enjoyed it.

It took me a little while to figure out the key problem with this film: it’s the casting of Dwayne Johnson (a.k.a. The Rock) as the lead. It’s not that he’s bad — he’s actually very good — the problem is that when The Rock stars in a film we expect it to be a big action movie. This is not.

This is actually a thoughtful, serious film about what happens when an untrained regular guy goes undercover to catch drug dealers so that he can help his son get a reduced sentence. Instead of The Rock beating up guys, he gets beat up — he’s not the tough guy we’re used to seeing. I believe that turned a lot of people off of this film as it just isn’t why people go see his movies. If the lead had been played by a character actor such as Edward Norton, this would have engendered a very different (and much more positive) reaction.

As it is, I liked it. It’s got flaws — we don’t really care about the incarcerated son that’s the core motivation of the dad, the pacing is uneven, there are some awkward plot points and there’s not really enough action, and the ending’s mediocre — but it’s realistic and surprisingly thoughtfully done. That in itself is probably a flaw: the film takes itself and its topic too serious (the opening “Based on a true story” text and closing summary text are examples of that). Still, it’s interesting and not horrible at all. Just don’t expect an action movie.

I enjoyed the first film and while I was looking forward to this one, I wasn’t sure what to expect, especially since they’re apparently splitting the book into three behemoth movies.

To my delight, this is an even better film. The story is somewhat slim as the bulk of the film’s running time is made up of action. Scenes that just take a page or two in the novel, are major action set pieces in the movie. Usually in those situations there’s a part of me just wants to get on with the plot, but to my surprise, the action is so well-done and compelling that I wasn’t the least bit bored. It’s really some of the best action I’ve ever seen.

As one example, we must see hundreds of grotesque Orcs killed throughout the film — but every death shown is different and interesting, and often with black humor.

As for the story, it’s mostly the second half of the book: going through Mirewood, meeting the wood Elves, escaping in the barrels, and eventually confronting Smaug the dragon. However, that basic story has been expanded with an Elf-Dwarf semi-romance, Gandalf confronting the Necromancer, and several other subplots. Much of this extraneous stuff isn’t strictly necessary, but it’s not boring, and it builds up suspense in the main storylines. It also sets up what happens in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I’m guessing that it’s setting up the third film in this series. (More on that in a minute.)

The utter delight of the film — just like Gollem was in the previous series — is Smaug the dragon. Not only is he a visual treat, but he’s a real character, superbly voiced, and there’s extensive interaction between him and Bilbo and the dwarves. The action scenes with the dragon are so amazingly well done that I watched ten minutes of the action before it occurred me to that the actors were all performing with no dragon in sight — since he was added digitally later. Usually I’m keenly aware of such a technicality as the interaction does not feel true. Here you just get lost in the mesmerizing story and characters and completely forget — like with Gollem — that the dragon isn’t real.

Smaug is worth the price of admission alone, though I cannot neglect to mention the impressive performance of Evangeline Lily (from the Lost TV series) who is just awesome in every way as the elf Tauriel. I didn’t recognize her in the film and kept wondering who the fantastically beautiful and yet clearly talented actress was: not only was her Elvish convincing, but she was incredible in the action sequences as well.

Not to be outdone, all the dwarves are also splendid, particularly Richard Armitage as Thorin. The entire cast is flawless, really, a real rarity in movies (I usually always find at least one or two people that feel miscast to me).

In short, this is a must-see film. It’s breath-takingly beautiful, dramatic, thrilling, and emotional. About the only negative I have is that it literally ends in the middle of a sentence — we have to wait for part three to find out what happens.

That brings up the most interesting aspect of this trilogy: I am both excited and wary of the next film. On the one hand, I can’t wait, but on the other, this film exhausts almost all of the novel, so what will part three be about? Granted, Tolkien did write extensive histories and notes that the producers can rely upon for additional material, but I worry that the final movie, which is usually the strongest, could end up the weakest. But the other side of the coin is that part three could end up being the least predictable and the most surprising and interesting simply because I have no idea what it will be about!

This is a marvelous film. Being a bookworm, I was intrigued by title; finding out it is set in the horror WWII and deals with a young girl escaping her life through literature, I was sold and went without even watching a trailer.

It was different than I expected. My first surprise is that the girl in question is German, which gives us a different perspective of the war. She’s an orphan sent to live with foster parents, which is an adventure, and she’s just lost her beloved little brother. Most surprising of all, she’s illiterate — and it’s her quest to learn to read, combined with the Nazi regime’s policy of book burning, that prompts her to become a book thief.

My biggest worry was that this would be a depressing film. My second worry was that it might be schmaltzy. Neither was a problem at all. The film is wonderfully engaging, and though it deals with serious topics, it’s not a downer at all. It’s not overly sentimental, either. There’s humor, wonder, and adventure, in addition to tragedy.

The best thing about the film undoubtedly is the casting of the Book Thief herself, as she’s in almost every scene and carries the film. Young Sophie Nélisse is just marvelous, with a subtlety to her acting I found astonishing. When she first meets her foster parents, for instance (my favorite scene in the whole film), she’s sour and reluctant to emerge from the vehicle. Her strict foster mother yells at her to no avail, but it’s her tender-hearted foster father — awesomely portrayed by the inimitable Geoffrey Rush — who greets her with a bow and a “Your Majesty.” Her reaction is perfect. At first she stubbornly refuses to be won over by his charm, but a moment later, as she gets out of the car, there’s the faintest flash of a smile, a tiny upcurling of the edges of her mouth. It disappears almost instantly, but it’s enough for us to glimpse the human side of the traumatized girl. Just precious and perfect. She’s my vote for an Oscar, no question.

Almost everyone else is good, though I found a few of the German accents off-putting and fake. (I don’t know who made the decision to have everyone speak English with German accents — they should either speak normally or in German. Nothing else makes sense.) There are a few other minor complaints — the blond boy was a weak actor, though he looked the part; the closeup of a book’s text at one point clearly showed it was modern typesetting (with horrible straight quotes no less); the term “soccer” is used instead of “football,” which would never happen in Germany; and I didn’t understand why the girl, who beat up a boy earlier, stood and watched later when a boy was hurting her friend — but these are relatively minor things.

Overall, it’s a terrific, mesmerizing film that will haunt you for days. The story is simple and elegant, and not overly done. I can’t compare it to the novel as I haven’t read that (yet), but the film is definitely one I wouldn’t mind seeing multiple times.

I was curious about this interesting take on a zombie movie (in this case a zombie falls in love with a human), but I missed it in theaters. It’s actually really good.

I’m not crazy about the way the zombies talk in the film — it sounds way too sophisticated and they use contractions and full sentences — but other than that they do a good job of making the love story plausible.

The direction is clever and interesting, and the plot is simple but effective, as a cure is sought for the zombies’ situation. The ending is Hollywood but I liked it.

Usually this type of crime drama isn’t my cup of tea. This one is predictable (a corrupt Mayor and the ex-cop-now-PI trying to bring him down) and dreary, and the main guy (played by Mark Wahlberg) has zero personality (perfect casting).

Yet despite all that, I actually watched this. Maybe the predictability helps, as you want to see if what you thought really comes to pass. It’s got a hint of something that makes it slightly above average and it’s not terrible. It’s not great as there’s little remarkable here, but it’s mildly entertaining if you’re in the right mood.

Usually for movies based on books I prefer to read the book first. With the first movie I did that and I was glad I did as the book was far superior. With this movie, I ran out of time to read the book and I decided to do it in the reverse order. That can be dangerous, because first impressions count and if the film changed something I might feel that’s canonical and dislike the book’s version of events.

In the case of Catching Fire, it’s too early to tell if that will be a problem (I still haven’t read the book yet), but I’m hopeful that it won’t be an issue. That’s because I really liked the movie and it felt quite complete to me. I’m sure the book gets into more detail, but the basics that were there in the film felt very good (unlike the first film, where events felt rushed and abbreviated).

This film has some pacing issues — it’s very hard to know the actual timeline of the events. The film begins with our heroes going on a victory tour right after winning the Hunger Games, but suddenly it’s time for the next games — which I thought were held just once a year.

In the first film, a lot had to be done to establish the setting; here we know the main characters and the back story and can just right down to business. I suppose someone who hasn’t seen the first film will be puzzled — there’s not much of explanation of what previously happened (though the reminders are sufficient for those who saw it) — but I doubt too many will be seeing this that haven’t seen the first film.

The acting, sets, and drama in this one is excellent. My favorite way is how the author is pacing the plot and making it extremely believable: we know Catniss is a hero for a revolution, but she can’t just jump there overnight. In the first book it’s just about her survival. In this one she learns that others are in the fight as well. I assume that in the final book we’ll actually have war, with her being a leader. That’s exactly right. We’re seeing Catniss grow up and that’s awesome. (The Harry Potter books also do that very well.)

I really liked this film. It’s much better than the first one, it part because it has a simpler mission, but it’s also a more powerful emotional story. Here we see more of what life is like in this terrible regime, and the emotional stories of the victims aren’t rushed through like in the first film. It’s possible I’ll revise my opinion a little after I read the novel, but seeing the film without reading the book I’m surprised at how much I liked it. It’s also motivating me to read the book, which I shall do soon.

I liked the premise of this movie — a teenage girl is abducted and calls 911 from the trunk of a moving car and the operator has to try and locate her so she can be rescued — but I wasn’t sure where it was going.

Sure enough, the first half of the movie, the part about the girl in the trunk, is really excellent. It’s dramatic, different, and interesting. After that, however, it descends into a typical crazy serial killer film, and it gets really absurd when the 911 operator actually goes detective and sets off on her own to search for clues. That second half doesn’t ruin the film, but it does weaken it, and the ending is a bit strange and left a weird taste in my mouth.

Still, overall I liked the movie. It moves at a fast pace and has some good performances and scenes. It’s unfortunately not as great as it could be, mostly because the end becomes stereotypical and predictable, but it’s still better than most films of this type. A good cast, decent direction, and some cool scenes make this recommended.

This is a fascinating little Australian film along the lines of Red Dawn. Some teens are out camping in the wilderness and when they return home, they discover that an invasion has taken place. All their homes are empty, their families either killed or taken to a prison camp inside the town. The teens finally take action to repel the invaders, and fight back even though it might mean their lives.

What I liked about this is the pacing: the teens don’t even start fighting back until past the halfway point in the film. The fighting’s realistic, too, unlike similar movies where untrained kids are somehow able to beat adult commandos with real weapons. This feels far more realistic and therefore scary and thought-provoking.

I also liked that the main character is a girl; that brings a different feel to the experience.

The film emphasizes the relationships between the teenage characters more than the plot; unfortunately, the characters aren’t all that interesting, so the film drags at times and meanders at others. (There isn’t much action until the final third, so this is definitely not an action movie or even a war movie. There’s a lot more of people running and hiding and talking about what should be done than shooting. I actually think that’s a good thing.)

But it’s still an interesting film and I liked it overall. The cast is remarkable, the visuals and direction are excellent, and the ending is definitely non-Hollywood. It’s worth seeing if the subject matter interests you.

I wanted to wait to see this until I’d finished re-reading the book, but didn’t quite make it. As usual, the book is definitely different — and better — but the movie is good. If you haven’t read the book, you’ll probably think the movie’s excellent.

If you aren’t familiar with the story, it’s brilliantly simple: it’s set in the future about 100 years after mankind was devastated by an alien invasion and we only just survived. Since then, earth has been preparing for a return of the invaders, seeking a new brilliant battle commander who would be capable of defeating the aliens once and for all. Ender is a little boy genius who’s shipped off to military school to play wargames and learn strategy while high-minded adults basically manipulate everything around him to toughen him and turn his brilliance into a ruthless military leader. It’s an amazing story of psychology.

Some of that ends up in the film, but sadly not all. The acting is decent, though not as dramatic as it should be, and the visuals and special effects are excellent. The ending is particularly moving and makes the whole movie.

But frustrating for those who love the novel, the film essentially misses out on two of biggest features of the book. Both of these are puzzling omissions.

The first is that the book really gets inside Ender’s head: we see what he sees and feel what he feels. That’s completely gone in the movie and is a horrible miss. Ender isn’t the same character; we don’t really know or understand him. He’s not really drawn any more deeply than any other character, and the rest are just sketches. Ender’s the most fascinating thing about the book: a character of contradictions and confusion, a boy pretending to be a man, a boy asked to make adult decisions, a ruthless killer who doesn’t want to hurt anyone. We lose all that in the film, reducing Ender to a mere child prodigy.

The second thing is a change that I can understand why Hollywood did it, but I disagree vehemently with the decision. If I’d been involved, I wouldn’t have made the movie with this change since it is such a fundamental part of the story. In the novel, Ender is just six years old at the beginning. That’s a huge detail. Not only does it make all of his accomplishments and genius all the more impressive, but it makes the dangerous things he’s encouraged to do more dangerous. It’s one thing seeing a petite teen beating a bully to a pulp, but it’s quite another seeing a six-year-old do it.

Sadly, Hollywood chose to use the same actor as Ender for the entire movie, meaning that we almost completely lose out on the shock of his youth. This also has a side effect of compressing the timeframe of the entire story: instead of it taking place over half a decade of training, everything seems to happen within a few months. This is a small detail, but it has ramifications throughout and it diminishes one of the novel’s most powerful aspects. Seeing six-year-old Ender utterly humiliate 12-year-olds in simulated battle is just amazing, and it helps explain his isolation and loneliness. We don’t get that at all in the film.

There are other flaws in the film, but they are more scene-specific. Some are understandable — combining multiple characters into a single one in order to save time — but others are strange. For instance, while the bullying character of Bonzo looks great and fits the role perfectly, he’s a full head shorter than Ender, which is just absurd. Sure, the lead actor is slight of build, but when he’s looking down at a sneering Bonzo it feels like their roles are reversed and Ender’s the bully.

Another scene that annoyed me is the first fight scene. The way it’s done in the film is so rushed we never get any sense that Ender was actually threatened, we never feel Ender’s pain at having to hurt someone else just to protect himself, and we totally miss out on the ruthlessness and devastation he causes when he finally defends himself. It’s a baffling scene that I bet most people would barely understand (and if they did understand, they’d probably have gotten the point of it wrong since it was so mismanaged).

Yet somehow despite all these flaws, the film is still fairly decent. It’s different from the novel, but hints at the basic story’s greatness. The ending is powerful and moving, asking a lot of profound questions about the nature of war, and that helps make up for a lot of the shallowness of the earlier parts of film. Overall it’s definitely worth seeing, though I’d recommend that everyone read the novel, which is a classic and must-read.

I skipped this in the theaters as it didn’t seem my cup of tea, but it turned out to be pretty good. In the glimpses I’d gotten I’d thought it was a Western, but it’s about hillbilly bootleggers during Prohibition. There’s a lot of horrific violence, but everything’s stylized and dramatic, and the action is pretty entertaining.

There’s a lot I didn’t like: the overdone accents are almost intelligible (I had to frequently rewind and read the closed captions to figure out what characters were saying), and the music is absolutely atrocious. (I guess it’s supposed to be topical somehow, but I just found it annoying and off-putting, though I did like the one song during the closing credits that seemed to be a real hillbilly singing.) Some of the performances are just too over-the-top and weird (Guy Pearce as the bad lawman is just bizarre).

The story itself was more interesting than I expected, about a shy younger brother who is too frightened to kill and his deadly older brother whom everyone fears, and how the younger boy ends up taking the reins of the family business and prospers.

In short, I didn’t expect to like this much but I did. I found myself caring for the brothers despite their criminal enterprise, and I liked the ending. Worth seeing, though be warned it is pretty brutal.

I finally got around to seeing this. I’m glad I did; it’s interesting, and well-made, but there are few surprises. Even though I knew little of the real story, the story is basic: a female CIA operative spends her whole career trying to track down Osama Bin Laden, overcoming countless obstacles, and finally succeeds. There’s much in the specifics of how they track the terrorist, but it still feels too-by-the-numbers for me. Still, it’s worth seeing just for the historical aspects.

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

This is a fantastic film with a minimal story about a female scientist on the space shuttle who’s the only survivor of a terrible accident. She’s trapped, alone in space, with no way to get back to earth, and she’s not a professional astronaut.

That may sound depressing, but it’s utterly inspiring. What makes it work is the fantastic direction and acting. Sandra Bullock is outstanding in a pivotal role in which she’s in every single scene, most of the time alone, in cramped quarters or inside a space suit. She’s alternatively frail and incredibly strong, and makes both believable. Many actresses would have overdone the dramatic moments but hers are spot on. Definitely my vote for deserving an Oscar.

Equally key is Alfonso’s direction, which gives us astonishing realism. His choice to make much of the film without sound — just like space in real life — is amazing, as watching spaceship crashes in utter silence is creepy and disconcerting. It also magnifies every other sound in the film, making the tiniest things more important. Visually the film is stunning, with glorious views of earth from space.

I watched the 3D version because I heard that the director insisting on filming this in real 3D (not awful post-conversion) and it’s worth the extra fee. Floating objects drift toward you, and you get the feeling you’re in space yourself. My favorite effect was a scene where Sandra cries and a few tears trickle off her face and float toward the camera. Really, really cool, and yet subtly done so it doesn’t distract from a key emotional moment.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable and tension-filled film. It’s non-stop stress from the almost the first scene, and it makes the perfect 90-minute runtime just fly by. What impresses me the most is that so many things could have gone wrong: with such a simple story, the slightest flaws have nowhere to hide. Instead we’re treated with a survival story that’s surprisingly easy to understand (all the tech jargon is extremely well-explained), perfect moments of tension-relieving humor, and incredible realism. Two thumbs up and top recommendations.