ghost rider (2007)

there was a time nicolas cage was in good movies right? (his acting was always suspect, like an older keanu reeves) at least he tanked this superhero movie instead of starring as superman like he wanted. this is about the worst, most illogical, comic book movie i've ever seen. no thrills, spills, chills, or sense. eva mendes matched old nic for acting ineptitude but looked much better doing it.

this is what wes bentley has done to his promising career post-american beauty? he's the least menacing comic book villain ever. sheesh.

because i said so (2007)

diane keaton must of had a field day "acting" in this movie. she's trying to be one of those over-bearing slightly loopy moms that have become almost commonplace. trouble is, we like diane better in more serious roles (see, family stone or something's gotta give). here she's thrust in situational/physical gags that don't quite work. oh right, and the movie sucks too. if not for the late hour and the lack of other options, i would have walked out around the 45 minute mark.

i swear i read a good review of this from my favorite movie critic, don't believe it.

children of men

i'd seen this movie touted as one of the best films of the year so i was psyched. originally, the preview didn't capture me but i was willing to take a chance on some gritty sci-fi. instead, what i got was an intriguing set-up of a premise that moved along at a good clip, but then about halfway through, i realized that this wasn't going anywhere. the ending scenes are completely laughable and there's no real lesson (or warning) to be learned here. waste of time.

dungeons & dragons

i watched volume 1 of this series to see if it jogged my memory. it did. i've seen some of the episodes before. despite efforts to make the d&d world come to life, the entire thing suffers from the same thing every 80s cartoon suffers from: it's out-dated. long on nostalgia but coming up short on current enjoyment. it's cheesy, it's hokey, it's simple. it's like watching thundercats for a few episodes and realizing "hey, this sucks!"

night at the museum

another half hopper of a movie. we probably left at just the right time, after all the animated museum bits had come to life. it was probably all downhill from there. not that it was exactly uphill before we left, but anything involving a natural history museum is slightly entertaining for me.

seeing robin williams as teddy roosevelt gave me a kick though, for some illogical reason.

casino royale

if this is the best of the "new" bond movies then just kill me now. the opening credits were the best part about this film and it was steadily downhill from there. okay, we get it, the daniel craig bond is muscular and manly. the poker scenes are horrific. everyone knows what texas hold'em is all about by now, do we really need some terrible dialogue about it? speaking of terrible dialogue, the whole movie is packed with it.

i was under the impression that this was a prequel of sorts. but apparently it's more of a "reset" and the previous 20 bond movies are not part of its continuity. oh, okay, now it makes sense. not.

man of the year

(we walked in half an hour after the movie had started)
no "wag the dog" or even a "dave," this movie wasn't terrible but there's hardly anything meaningful to say about it. it was semi-funny, semi-skewering, but mostly just floated along with no real impact. it does makes you think about our current political state ("red state, blue state, why can't we just be the united states?") but the provocative moments quickly cut to another one-liner or another scene.

robin williams is likeable though, and i usually find him super annoying.

elizabeth

i've been trying to watch elizabeth for years. the oscar hype and awards this film received, plus the many nice things people have said about cate blanchett, seemed to make this movie a winner. once again, the oscars have led me astray. the movie is almost over-dramatic, with too few explanations for what is happening on-screen. without some historical knowledge on the viewer's end, it's very easy to lose the point of the movie. who are all these characters and exactly why is elizabeth surrounded by deception and turmoil? the movie won't tell you, wikipedia will.

the black dahlia

the black dahlia has been getting reamed in reviews, and rightly so. it's nowhere near as good as la confidential and the quick resolution scenes are incredibly confusing. i had to see this movie because i've always been intrigued by the actual black dahlia case (and like james ellroy) but it's really not very well done at all. hollywoodland might have been a better choice. as for me, i'll just read the book of this movie and satisfy my curiousity that way.

scarlett johannson's career is not ever going to achieve the heights of "lost in translation" again is it? her work in most of her recent movies is just terrible. i can't figure out if she's a bad actress, or if she's just taking bad roles that don't suit her. at least she still looks good right?

miracle

somehow i was duped into thinking that miracle was a great movie. it's decent and interesting because the events depicted are routinely described as "the best moment in american sports," but the movie isn't cheery enough to be inspiring or gritty enough to be deep. oh well, just another sports movie -- albeit slightly better than most.

the making of documentary was interesting because it shows how the producers went to such great lengths to capture the accuracy of the hockey scenes.

step up

want every (dance) cliche in the book? here we go. combine some plot points from all the dancing/cheering/gymnastics movies of the past few years and toss in some almost acceptable leads and you get "step up." the dancing isn't bad but it's not "you got served." the plot is so generic (and devoid of wit) that its only function is to get you to the climatic dance scene ending.

the only reason to watch here is to get an eyeful of jenna dewan's (who? exactly.) toned bod and quite interesting dance outfits. but really, she's a poor man's denise richards / yasmine bleeth, so is it worth it?

cars

it's hard to make movies as inventive and entertaining as monsters inc, a bug's life, toy story, and finding nemo isn't it? the hits can't keep on coming forever right? with cars, pixar shows off their technical skills but the story (and humor) were just run of the mill. this might have been great four years ago but when the best parts of this film refer to past pixar hits, that's not exactly a good thing. mildly entertaining overall.

superman returns

more like "he's back but what for?" brandon routh does a better clark kent than he makes a superman. when he talks it's like a little boy impersonating a super hero. kevin spacey as a villain is nice, but really, the two foes hardly interacted. why did you make a chick flick disguised in spandex and a cape bryan singer? too many superman inconsistencies (he's lifting a mountain of what is essentially kryptonite?!) and no climatic payoff dulled the experience for me. ok, we get it, superman is strong, he can lift things, let's keep moving along.

the da vinci code

i realized while watching da vinci code how hard of a job it would have been to make this movie. forget the expectations, those were huge indeed. but all the exposition of the book and the way it flows is not really conducive to a fine film. so, given that degree of difficulty, i thought the movie was not too bad. we got what we expected, but nothing more.

it's hard to say how it would have been watching it without having read the book. i would presume that the movie would have been better then since some of the suspense could have remained intact.

amores perros

"love's a bitch," advance billed as a great spanish movie, is a bit unsettling. the first act was wonderful (if somewhat disturbing due to some graphic dog fighting) but at the halfway point of the movie, my mind started to wander and the impact of the movie slipped by me. still, it is an interesting portrait of life in mexico city, even if it's heavily stylized. but really, what's the difference between showing the grit and grime of mexico versus say, indianapolis?

game over

"game over: kasparov and the machine" was critically lauded as "one of the best chess movies ever," it's hard to take that positive review without a grain of salt. the greatest chess movie ever is "searching for bobby fischer." this is the best chess documentary only because so few exist. even for a die-hard chess fan like me, it was hard to sit through the amateurish "style" that the director chose to use. still, it's a chance to watch kasparov (a man i've read about for years) and bask in the glory of when chess mattered -- sort of. recommended only for chess fanatics.

memoirs of a geisha

most everyone i know has panned the movie. is it deserving of such a bad word of mouth? yes and no. i went into it with the lowest of low expectations and emerged entertained, if slightly confused. there were really no truly exciting or enthralling aspects of the movie, but it did make me want to re-read the book again, or read the true account by the geisha who inspired/informed the novel. if the object of movies is to get the mind churning, than this film succeeded.

the whole chinese as japanese thing is a non-issue. hardly anyone speaks well enough english to understand some lines anyway. it's like watching my mom talk through an english movie.

munich

you know what's wrong with almost all of the so-called "oscar contenders" this year? there's no emotional impact from any of these movies. we're watching movies that are supposed to be impactful but the directors never let us in. two hours of watching eric bana and his band of misfits take vengeance would have been plenty -- stretch it to three and you're left wondering "when's this gonna end?" this movie wasn't exactly what i thought it would be, lacking both action and emotional impact. it seemed like it was a can't-miss but instead turned out into a "way too long."

king kong

peter jackon, overrated? i believe so. i didn’t like rings and i don’t like kong. jackson may be a wizard at organizing huge extravaganza movies, but his films contain so many over the top cheesy moments that i couldn’t help but almost gag. maybe he was trying to mimic the style of the older films, but this new version is only acceptable as a brainless adventure that forces you to disconnect from reality to enjoy it. not my piece of pie. it’s probably not a good thing when the giant insects are more exciting and scary than the eponymous featured animal.

chronicles of narnia: l, w, w

sorry kids, this one's not worth it. the book is too slim to support a two hour film. compared to potter and rings (i'm no great fan of either), this one's a distant third. the pacing is just too poor and nothing happens that is jaw dropping, remotely exciting, or even "wow, that was cool." the only reason to watch this movie is if you've read, and loved, the book enough times that you have to see it. a huge disappointment. don't be fooled by the critics, this film sucks.