D-War

This newest sci-fi monster movies- also called Dragon Wars- follows on the heels of another recent Korean hit, "The Host". The difference is that The Host was good, and D-War was anything but. It took the revitalization of the monster movie, and turned it into a terrible CG fest. The visual effects don't make cover the fact that this is nothing more than a Sci-Fi Channel movie with an inflated budget. (I've heard figures anywhere from $30-$70 million, and I'd place it towards the upper number).

D-War is based on old Korean folklore. Every 500 years a girl is born with something inside her called Yuh Yi Joo. The Yuh Yo Joo has the power to turn an Imoogi (gigantic serpents) into a dragon. The dragon then ascends to heaven. A good Imoogi will use that power to keep the universe in balance, but a bad Imoogi will use it to destroy the world. 500 years ago, a student name Haram was enlisted to defend the Yuh Yi Joo, but a bad Imoogi named Buraki gathered a dark army and attacked their town. Haram managed to get the Yuh Yi Joo to the good Imoogi, but had fallen in love with her. Instead of sacrificing her, the two killed themselves to be together. Great story, huh?

Flash forward to present day Los Angeles where we meet Ethan (Jason Behr), a reporter who is the reincarnation of Haram. The first 20-30 minutes are spent during Ethan's childhood as he learns about the legend. Despite the visuals of uncountable explosions in ancient Korea, the story is just about as thrilling as the paragraph I dedicated to writing about it. It sounded like biblical texts of: so-and-so beget this person, and this person beget so-and-so, etc. Needless to say, it just wasn't very interesting.

We also meet Sarah (Amanda Brooks), the reincarnation of the Yuh Yi Joo. She's nineteen, completely unaware that on her 20th birthday, the Yuh Yi Joo will be fully formed, and she will have to sacrifice herself to an Imoogi. Unfortunately, Buraki is also back, and this time he is not going to let her get away. Somehow her an Ethan both begin to realize what is going on, and somehow find each other, just in time for the legion of darkness to begin destroying the city.

This is clearly a movie structured around the monster visual effects. What do you expect from a director who's previous movie was called Reptilian. With all the emphasis on the effects, the acting, and general plot development took a back seat. Both of which were just terrible. Who needs developed characters, or logical plot lines when you can have pint sized dragons flying through Los Angeles dogfighting helicopters. The only exception was the always enjoyable Craig Robinson who played Bruce, Ethan's cameraman.

Most of the effects looked a bit more like video game cinematics than an actual movie. This resulted in mediocre compositing with the live action footage. I'm never truly convinced that the people are really interacting with the monsters. It may be in part due to things like dinosaur-esque creatures with rocket launchers on their backs. For some reason that just doesn't mesh well with the concept of a Korean legend. Like I said earlier, just turn on Sci-Fi Channel and anything you'll see will be as good as this.

1/5

Hatchet

As with any horror movie of this particular genre, this movie is bad. It's interesting watching this, and the Halloween remake so close together. Though they're both horror/slasher flicks, they're incredibly different. Halloween seemed to involve characters as opposed to just victims (at least until the series went entirely south) whereas Hatchet follows in the tradition of the Friday the 13th franchise of letting an apparently immortal half-man on a slew of prey. This may be obvious simply from the appearances of Kane Hodder (who played Jason in the Friday the 13ths), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), and Tony Todd (The Candyman). Hatchet seems to be nothing more than a loving throwback to these eighties horror icons.

Ben (Joel Moore) and Marcus (Deon Richmond) decide to take a break from Mardi Gras partying, and venture out on a haunted bayou tour, with a group of others functioning solely as bodies for Victor Crowly (Hodder) to tear limb from limb. That is except for Marybeth (Tamra Feldman) who is our heroine. Anyway, their tour boat breaks down and they all have to trek back through the swamp bypassing this killer- unsuccessfully of course.

There's a trend that started in the nineties, and has progressed ever since. Horror movies tend to favor slashers, with the killers targeting young coeds with various devastating weapons. Hatchet, instead, takes its cue from the aforementioned eighties slashers with these beastly people killing anything that moves with nothing more than their brute strength. These horror characters literally tear people apart, resulting in almost cartoony deaths that are more reminiscent of Evil Dead era Peter Jackson than of any other horror movie today.

Unlike most modern horror movies, Hatchet doesn't try to be actually scary. It pulls no punches, and leaves no details absent from the screen. Instead of trying to frighten the audience, director Adam Green wants us to respond with the same maniacal laughter he probably had while shooting it. I know these differences may not sound like they matter, or make sense. If they don't to you, you're probably not a fan of horror movies anyway, and you'll hate this one. If you do like the genre, this may actually sell you on it.

A movie that's bad, is still a bad movie. Just because it's fun, and it's campy, doesn't mean it's good. Like many movies I review, if you like horror, you'll enjoy this; if you don't...well...you probably haven't gotten this far into the review. This movie was clearly made by people who love horror movies for people who love horror movies. Regardless, I think that Victor Crowly may very well be joining the ranks of Jason Vorhees and Michael Meyers in the realm of horror legend.

2.5/5

The Nanny Diaries

This is a delightful movie based on Emma Mclaughlin's and Nicola Kraus's study of child care professionals. It's a bit comedy a bit tragedy, all under the cover of an anthropological study. It adheres strictly to this guise, coming off as if it was written as a thesis. This led to some very entertaining references to the movie being a field study, of all things, about the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Scarlet Johansson is one of my favorite current actresses, and this movie re-enforces that idea. She plays Annie Braddock, a recent college graduate with a degree in business and anthropology (hence the scientific approach to the narration). After a botched job interview, she realizes that she has no idea who she is. After a series of events she end up wrangling a job as a live in nanny for a wealthy couple (Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti) They're son, Grayer, is played adorably by Nicholas Art.

Annie takes this job simply as a way to make some money and find herself before moving onto what she really wants to do. As would be expected, it starts out with her and Grayer constantly at odds with each other, and Mrs. X (her name isn't revealed until the end) treats more as a servant than an employee. As time goes on, however, Annie and Grayer become close, and she must face the painful decision of whether to get on with her life, or stay with him.

Tacked on this plot is, of course, a love story. Annie starts to fall for a man in the X's building (Chris Evans)- despite the rule of no dating. This story seemed kind of tacked on superfluously, and his character was downright annoying at times. This may be because I didn't buy the chemistry between the two at all. I think was supposed to bridge a the gap between their two different worlds, or something like that. I just didn't think it was necessary.

At its heart, this actually has the makings of a tragedy. Grayer is being raised by a string of hired help as opposed to his parents. Mrs. X is stuck in a loveless marriage to a job obsessed, cheating husband, and drowns her sorrows in charity events and shopping, all while neglecting her son. Unfortunately, this probably is not an unrealistic stretch. Annie is thrown into this mess and has to be supportive of them all, while taking care of Grayer.

The cast is magnificent. Johansson sparkles as usual, Linney actually looks like she's about to crumble in desperation, and I'm not sure which movie portrayed Giamatti as a worse person, this one, or Shoot 'Em Up. I'm inclined to have more sympathy for the murderous hit man of the other movie. Donna Murphey plays Annie's mother, a nurse who thinks that her daughter got the job she interviewed for, and has no idea of her actual occupation. She contributed a nice balance to Mrs. X's negligence.

Aside from a few problems such as the luke-warm love story, and the Chris Evans character in general, this movie was a complete joy.

4/5

3:10 To Yuma

There are two kinds of westerns: High Noon style shootouts, and train robberies. 3:10 to Yuma is a third kind- one the combines the first two into an actual compelling story. I am not traditionally a big fan of westerns, but this movie shows how good this genre actually can be. Westerns don't necessarily need just gunfight (though this does have plenty of them), but can have well developed characters.

Russell Crowe plays Ben Wade, the leader of a notorious gang of bandits infamous for robbing stage coaches. Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a good natured farmer trying to raise his family on a desolate farm, about to be pushed out by the railroads. How do these two paths cross? Wade gets captured celebrating his latest heist, and Evans volunteers (for a fee higher than a year's salary) to join a group escorting Wade to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. This band of Wade, Evans, a railroad executive, a mercenary, a deputy, and a vet (he was the closest thing to a doctor they could find) set off on a race to get Wade to the train before his posse finds them.

Each character is unique and interesting, and it's a fabulous cast: Dallas Roberts, Peter Fonda, and Alan Tudyk. They all bring an original personality to the group. Nearly everyone at some point stands up and becomes a hero- including Evan's son (Logan Lerman). Even the bad guys in Wade's gang are all interesting- especially Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), who may have been my favorite character.

Bale's dead seriousness is juxtaposed perfectly against Crowe's smarmy, self assured egotism. With every sarcastic comment Evans gets more and more angry, and more more convicted to getting Wade on that train. Regardless of what happens, he will not fail at this- possibly because of his virtue, but more likely because of his son.

There are some problems that detracted from this movie for me. They didn't kill Wade right off the bat, because his gang would take revenge on the town. I couldn't figure out how sending him off to jail would be any different. Without giving away too much, the ending scene, as cool as it was, seemed to be a tad bit over the top. These weren't too distracting from the plot, however.

James Mangold managed to craft an expert Western that what both thrilling and powerful. In the end, however, it was the cast that brought it together. There was a perfect chemistry between Bale and Crowe, both of which somehow managed to inspire. Movies like this make me want to go back in time. The roles of a Spartan or a pirate that I would have loved to inherit have now been replaced by old west bandit.

4/5

Shoot 'Em Up

Action movies have a new bad ass in town, and his name is Clive Owen. Try wrapping up Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Jason Statham, and add a British tinge, and you get Owen. I'm not sure exactly what to make of this movie. It wasn't good, but it was kind of fun. I think it tried to emulate the violent wit of Guy Ritchie action movies such as Snatch, and Layer Cake. Instead it fell short and ended up on par with last year's Smokin' Aces.

Owen is simply "Mr. Smith" who unwittingly gets involved in a massive conspiracy when he tries to rescue a pregnant woman who is being chased by an absurdly large group of heavily armed men. He manages to fight them off, while delivering her baby. Smith soon becomes the sole protector of this baby, and he doesn't even know why everyone is after it. Eventually Smith recruits the help of soon-to-be love interest Donna Quintano (Monica Belucci), a prostitute with a maternal instinct. Together the two of them protect the baby while taking out dozens of bad guys.

Paul Giamatti takes an interesting turn as the lead bad guy. He does well with the spitting, sweaty faced anger that you expect from a chubby balding bad guy, but his random quips and cliched plans just play off as weird and random. Listen to his "tit for tat" limerick towards the beginning and you 'll know what I mean. Owen takes his action role very seriously, using a wide array of guns, and even carrots as weapons. Both of which are clearly violent phallic symbols.

You never really know who any of the characters are. I mean you certainly get an idea who they are, but you don't understand why they're involved. Sure there's conspiracies, and government agencies, and gun companies, but very little holds together between the frequent gunfight (which are pretty spectacular). Owen repels down a stairwell filled with guys, is involved in a shootout while engaging in intercourse, and in one laughable scene, shoots it out with several others while skydiving. These pretty much sum up the fun, but head-scratchingly over the top sequences in the movie.

I realize that this movie is just supposed to be a schlocky gun-fest, but it's just not all that good, and left me rolling my eyes through much of it. I wish the movie were as fun watch as I'm sure it was to make.

1.5/5

Stardust

"A star can't shine with a broken heart." Thanks Claire Danes. That line right there sums up the movie. Or perhaps it's the tears in the corner of her eye every shot, or her full bodied over-acting that sum up the movie. From start to the "Train" inspired closing credits music, the movie disappointed. It was stuck somewhere in the realm between epic fantasy, and love story. The result is kind of a long rambling adventure tale.

The plot, in trying to simplify it as much as possible, follows Tristan (Charlie Cox) as he tries to find a fallen star to bring back to the woman he's in love with (Sienna Miller). This quest takes over a wall into a kingdom of mythology. Meanwhile, in this magical kingdom, a king (Peter O'Toole) is dying, and in order to determine which of his sons is going to take over the throne, he throws his necklace out the window, and the first son to return it is the new king. Turns out the necklace is what knocked the star out of the sky, so the brothers (Mark Strong, Mark Heap) are also after the star. Finally, a group of witches (Michelle Pfeiffer, Sarah Alexander, and Joanna Scanlan) in a quest for eternal beauty are also after the star. Oh, did I mention it's not just a star, but it's Claire Danes?

The movie filled with a colorful cast of characters, whom all three groups at different times come into contact with. Ricky Gervais plays a swindling trader in my favorite role. Robert De Niro is Captain Shakespeare, a hilariously flamboyant pirate captain, except it was almost embarrassing watching one of the greatest actors of all time prance around in a dress (though I'm sure it was fun). Is this what happens when Travis Bickle ages? Kate Magowan plays Una, a slave girl who also happens to be Tristan's mother. That's a whole additional side-plot there.

I'm not saying this was an awful movie, it just didn't meet my expectations. I like my vast, visually stunning movies to be just that- vast and visually stunning (maybe a little inspirational as well). Whereas I like my love stories to simple, almost a microcosm all until itself (see my reviews of "Once" and "Paris Je'taime"). Stardust though is was indeed visually stunning and massive in scope, the love story just didn't work for me. Maybe I just didn't feel the chemistry between them. If you just look at it as an adventure/traveling film, you may enjoy it.

2/5

10 MPH

This is an odd little 2007 documentary where director Hunter Weeks, and friend Josh Caldwell quit their stuffy cubicle jobs and decided to travel across the country. The only catch was that they they were doing it on a segway- with a maximum speed of 10 miles per hour. Accompanying them were student Alon Waisman (who got his University to sponsor some of the venture), and Week's sister, Gannon. Working behind the scenes was "J Fred" a friend who put forth money and logistics. This is quite the tale of a group of people trying to recapture the American adventurous spirit. It wasn't the most interesting movie ever, but it was certainly a original one.

These people really are not film makers. It's like giving a video camera to a high schooler and telling him to make a feature length documentary. It's a messy movie, but in a way that adds to the story. It serves to enhance their gung-ho "Let's just do this" attitude. It seems as if they filmed absolutely everything, and roughly cut together a chronological account of what they found entertaining (whether the audience did or not).

Along the way they met an interesting cast of characters from ever state they drove through. Bikers who tried to understand the thrill of going so slow, River rafters who try to live as simply as possible, more than their fair share of highway patrol, and big city dwellers who all swear they and only they know where the best food is. As cliched as the term sounds, this really was a nice little slice of Americana. It captures real Americans in their real surroundings, acting like they really do. It gives insight into people's lives and opinions that politicians spend millions of dollars trying to get at- and these guys just had to pull a crazy stunt like this and bring a video camera.

There were parts that just seemed to not matter. Jokes they included only seemed to make sense to them. It was not without conflict, however. Spending a hundred days on the road is hard enough, but when it's on the back of a segway (Josh rode the segway the entire 4,000 miles, while Hunter sometimes rode a second one, and sometimes rode in the chase car). They ran into financial trouble when one of their supporters backed out, and Hunter had to cash in some of his retirement money, and they were often almost arrested.

In the end, however, every trial is worth something. Was it worth it travel across the country, essentially hemorrhaging money they didn't have? They experienced something that none of us will, they accomplished something that the normal person would only suggest in their wildest anecdotes, and they captured what America really is. Forget patriotic flagophiles, the people in this movie- from the miner/potter, to the biker crashing the segway, to the Amish carriage drivers- are America. This wasn't the most well constructed piece ever, but they did it. They had an idea, went through, and no matter what the cost- they did it. That's more than most people would do, and you have to respect that.

4/5