The End

I make a terrible movie critic.
There are too many movies I hate
And too few I like
There are barely any that are any good
And too few that can surprise me.

99% are crap.
But people keep paying to see them.
So they keep getting made.
And I am too tired to bother pointing out the few worth our time.

Fuck'em.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

I could make a general statement about remakes, lumping movies in one category or another, or create some rule that governs the caliber of modern remakes, but ultimately any statement I make would just have a million exceptions. Not to mention it's all subjective to begin with.

So I'm not going to talk about all remakes. Just this one. And since I haven't seen the original recently enough to make any comparisons, I won't be reviewing it as a remake either.

First off, since it was all that was left playing at the theater, I saw the movie in 3d. I don't understand the appeal of 3d. It in no way enhances the movie for me. Usually, it just give me a headache. With this particular movie, the 3d didn't even seem that strong as I'm still not sure what parts were 3d.

Second off, the trailers are a bit misleading. This movie seems like a large sweeping epic about the dissidence among men and gods. It's not. It's actually much more comedic and "fun." Not saying it's more fun, just saying it's that type of movie, far closer to King Arthur (2005) or The 13th Warrior than Lord of the Rings.

For the technical aspects: The actors all did well, the movie looked good, and the story wasn't overcomplicated but interesting enough to keep you moving along with it.

Also, remember that this film has created its own version of mythology. It uses names and characters in ways separate from Greek mythology. Try to remember that when you get tempted to yell at the screen.

While the film is higher than a three, it isn't a four, so 3/5

Iron Man 2

The first question always asked of sequels: Is it as good as the original?

Well, while the movie didn't hold the same "oh-my-god-this-is-spectacular"-ness of the first film, I think I would have to say, yes, it's as good as the original.

In some ways, for example the main character's behavior, it was exactly like the first movie. And don't get me wrong, Robert Downey, Jr. is the perfect Tony Stark. But since we already knew the character, it didn't require the same character development as the first movie. So they filled that space with additional characters.

Which would have been fine but the extra characters felt very much like comic relief. There was little or no sense of menace about them. Whiplash was a great character so I'll leave him out of the pack. Especially since if he had been the only comic character, it would all have been fine.

But I think Justin Hammer was slightly unforgivable. I understand changing a character to suit the actor you've selected, but what was wrong with finding an actor to suit the character. As an elderly man, the Hammer character would have complimented Whiplash. With the younger, exceedingly obnoxious character presented, I felt like someone had revived the villain from the first Charlie's Angels movie. He was just annoying on the screen.

For the other actors, Don Cheadle did an excellent job picking up the character of WarMachine. Paltrow was excellent, again, as Pepper Potts. Fury was made for Samuel Jackson (literately) and it was nice to see the character do something (And I loved that one of his lines caused a theater-wide groan). And Johannson was tolerable as the Black Widow. As much as it pains me to say it, any flaws in the character may not have been her fault. She carried the action scenes well, the character just lacked any sort of menace or weight.

As always the special effects were fantastic. The action scenes were great. The plot was well-written. Boiled down, the flaw in this movie is: Iron Man 2 is trying too hard to capitalize on all the things that sold the first movie, rather than working at being just a great movie. It's still a good movie, but it could have been better.

Still, 4/5

The Losers

A very nice action film. There's a decent amount of laughs mixed with rock-star type action. But I think what impressed me most about this film is that all of the characters seemed like they were actually special-force soldiers. Even the computer geek. Because in most films the computer geek is the guy who runs around screaming and doesn't know how to use a gun and is basically just an obnoxious wimp. In this movie, he's actually capable of firing a weapon and handling himself in a combat situation.

True, he's still kind of a whinny wimp, but he's not obnoxious about it.

There's definitely a comic-book quality to the movie though. The violence is very much comic-book violence. It's tongue in cheek. Not overly gruesome but not exactly people merely getting shot and dying. There's a certain visceral quality to it.

I have to say though that Zoe Saldana's character didn't make a ton of sense. I like the character, don't get me wrong, but her background, while nice for its dramatic effect, didn't seem entirely plausible.

Still, 4/5

Ichi the Killer

from filmmaker Takashi Miike.


You know that guy (you usually meet them in college) who is constantly singing the praises of something you've never heard of? The guy who thinks if it breaks the mold, it must be brilliant, or even worse, if it's a copy of something, that already exists, but no one has heard of it, it must be brilliant. They're the ones who use obscure quotes from obscure movies as part of their everyday language, and say things like "well sure, it's good, but it's no insert abstract reference here." And of course, they expect that you'll understand it, knowing you won't, and will fully mock you for it.

Well, those are the people who told me that Ichi the Killer was awesome.


They were wrong.

Sure it's a violent and bloody movie, and in Asian fashion, manages to mix extremes and add some very funny moments. But the gore is portrayed in a most non-nauseating way, bordering on laughable and awkward.

The plot doesn't really have a point. Clearly, it's not supposed to have any real story-telling, but it's all pretty much just a set-up for another mutilation scene. Sort of like an Aesop's fable but without the moral at the end.

I'm sure some will say that I just didn't get. No, I got it. There wasn't anything to miss and there wasn't anything to get. A director's exploration of his creativity. Whatever.

Look, it's not a terrible movie. But it's not that great, and you certainly aren't missing anything. Just a lot of fluff, bloody fluff.

So 3/5

Because it's not terrible, it's just kinda "ehh."

Stander

With Thomas Jane.


Since the movie is based on the real story of Andre Stander, it can be a little hard to criticize the script and plot lines.

Fortunately, there's not that much to criticize.

While not an amazing film, it's still very good. It's occasionally witty and always enjoyable. The initial plot line of Stander's motivation is quickly lost, though it's unclear if it was ever the intention to portray him as an avatar of justice. Quick research of the story didn't offer any insight as to whether the real Stander had any of the intentions of the movie character anyway. So think of him as a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and keeps it for himself. There's a certain noble motivation, but that's about it.

There are also clear liberties taken with the story's conclusion, as the director obviously wanted to offer a certain sort of symmetry.

Overall, it's a good movie. Nice action and acting. The audience is presented with a noble hero and follows him on his quest, but clearly, must later question his motivation. If you think deep, you find a nice commentary on the idealization of villains (think Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde).

Definitely a movie that deserves a bigger audience.


4/5

Tristan + Isolde

Starring James Franco, Sophia Myles, and Rufus Sewell.


What? I can like love stories too.


Look it's not that bad. The love story is better than the one they tried to interject into King Arthur, but the action and general watch-ability aren't as good.

It's a little hard to watch the later love and romance scenes, because you know they shouldn't and you know they're going to get caught. Kind of like someone who's about to make a real fool of themselves. Plus, how do you not hear two dozen men on horseback without enough time for at least one of you to hide.

Also, wouldn't it be nice if someone killed the traitor simply for being a coward or a jerk, then you'd never have to worry about them actually betraying anyone.

Like all of these movies, I was constantly wondering what would have happened if they had just bothered to tell someone, instead of waiting to get caught.

But it's a good story. The acting is well done. The two story lines are carried and mixed well. And the action was also nice. Not really that much of it, and a little dark (apparently they're the "dark ages" because everything happened at night), but a good movie over all.

A four would be too high, and a three might be too low, but I don't want to get into halves.

So 3/5

Redbelt

Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor.

Although the movie markets like an action or thriller, it's actually more of a character study. There's not a ton of fighting. The action is good, but it's not stylized and all tricked out, as that's not what the film's really about.

The movie starts out a little hectically. There's a lot being introduced in a manner you may not entirely understand. But it pulls together well, and fairly quickly. The characters are easily understood and the main character is a good man. I mean, truly, a good man. Most main characters are decent guys who do good things, but Redbelt gives you a character that is fully realized and rounded and present.

There's a few missteps. Beyond the main character, most of the other people in the film aren't really that fully developed, just sort of, surface personalities. The movie also asks you to accept a lot of conspiracy without ever really giving you a reason why. If they just wanted to take his idea, why didn't they just take it? Especially, before he met a lawyer. The ending is a little strange. Fitting, perhaps, but doesn't really clear anything up. And I still don't know why she slaps him.

But overall, a very nice film. Sweeping but understated, and a little heartbreaking (for an action film). Ultimately, like a half-frosted cake, it could have used a little more of what it already had.


Still, 4/5.

Next

Starring Nicholas Cage, Julianne Moore, and Jessica Biel.

My first question, when watching this movie, is how does Nicholas Cage always manage to have such young co-stars? I mean, as a man of years, he can, upon occasion, manage to seem a decade or so younger. But Jessica Biel cannot be conceived as being two decades older. It's kind of odd and a little off-putting.

My second question: What kind of diner serves Martinis at 8 in the morning?

Apparently, the Vegas kind.

Then there's questions like, why pick up the gun that isn't yours? Why steal a car when you're only being chased by hotel security? Or why do middle-of-nowhere hotels only ever have one room left?

But as far as the movie goes, it's actually pretty good. I was pleasantly surprised. I was worried that it would be on a level with Ghost Rider, but it's closer to The Rock or Gone in 60 Seconds. The acting was a little...not half-hearted, more like 3/4. They were there, but not all the way.

The timeline of the film gets a little jumpy, but it would, in a movie about time travel. And I don't exactly understand how the "two minute" rule works, but whatever. The special effects are good, the fight sequences are fun (who doesn't like to see Nicholas Cage take a punch to the jaw?).

It does, however, have two main problems. One, the film always feels like it's building up to the main conflict. And given problem two, this never gets resolved. Problem two: the ending sucks. It's terrible, cheap, a major cheat, and rather aggravating.

Other than that, it's a good film. Really.


3/5

War

War is an action movie starring Jason Statham and Jet Li.

I love Jason Statham as much as the next person, probably more. But it's fair to say, he doesn't always make great movies. I barely made it through "In the Name of the King" and I barely made it through "War."

The premise of the movie is this: Statham is an FBI agent who's partner is killed by a mysterious assassin ("Rogue," face unknown). Years later, the assassin returns (played by Jet Li) and begins playing both sides to start a war between Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triad. Naturally, Statham and his obsession with revenge (which has cost him his marriage) drive him to do everything he must to hunt down Rogue.


I give Statham a lot of credit. It seems to me that he's well aware of his acting limitations. So rather than struggle for work trying to be "legitimate," he makes the movies he'd like to make, possibly movies he'd like to watch. He likes kicking ass, so that's what he does. And I love him for it.

But this was not a good movie.

The plot, while not necessarily complicated, was made complicated. So you're reaction is "What?" and then ten minutes later "Oh, I got it, rival gangs. Why didn't they just say that?" Which, more or less, ten minutes later, they do.

To be honest, the plot was also kind of dumb. Neither clever or original, it just didn't make you care about anything. And while Statham is certainly believable as an action star, he just wasn't believable as an FBI agent. There was no sense of a system of regulations, or even laws (not his fault, just poorly written). "The One" did a much better job of giving Statham, essentially, the same job. Also, after Statham lost his partner, he was suddenly heading a task force of about four people. Just extra characters thrown in for no reason. Some are there sometimes, some aren't, some get shot (but I'm still not clear if they died), some do the shooting (rather un-climatically too).

There's also unnecessary dramatics from one characters insistence on a salad (we get it, she's tough, but repeating it three times and explaining the reason and what kind you want and dressing on the side...it's a bit much) to Statham and Li having a five-minute confrontation in a warehouse (that's empty) and only Statham talking, and the owner of the warehouse (a bad guy who realized the FBI hit a dead-end) just what? Standing around watching this guy yell dramatically at the other? It was a bad scene choice.

There's also an over abundance of flashbacks (we were watching, we know what happened), a lot of suspiciously-fast travelling, an odd moment with some background characters, and another odd moment where Statham is sitting alone in the middle of a kid's playground (weird, right?)

The dialogue is terribly written (one character is reminded of a saying, and proceeds to tell an entire story), and in some cases, poorly delivered.

The movie has potential, though (or did before it was made), telling the story from the other side (which you'll only understand when you reach the end).

Also, for a movie called "War," the title doesn't really make sense. Yes, there's a gang war, but it barely feels like one. And the war between Statham and Li isn't much either. Since they barely interact. Frankly, for an action movie, there's a surprisingly small amount of action. The good fight/chase scenes are too short, the bad ones too long.

And finally, the ending is a big letdown. There's a poorly-revealed "twist", an odd shift in focus, another poorly revealed "twist," and then the movie just...ends. Kind of strangely, too.

Look, over all, skip it. Not a good Statham movie, not a good Jet Li movie.

2/5

(high simply because it has Statham in it and I'm totally bias)