2005 / 187 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed Ben Heckendorn

The 2005 remake of “King Kong” is a really good hour and a half long ape-meets-girl movie. Unfortunately since it’s 3 hours long the other 90 minutes is a very mundane (and in my opinion boring) wanna-be “Jurassic Park” flick. Giant CGI creature movies have become so commonplace it’s hard to find them special anymore. “Jurassic Park”, while not that great, was at least original in its day. But that was a zillion “attack of the rendered creature” movies ago. Simply put, there are only so many ways you can run away from a dinosaur.

Luckily the good parts of “King Kong” are indeed quite good. I didn’t mind the slow beginning of the film, the “Depression Montage” in the opening set up the time period quite well. Then Jack Black (playing a film director who seems to be a hybrid of Orson Welles and Ed Wood) having to basically “escape” New York before his latest film project can be shut down is interesting. But then it takes nearly an hour (I’m guessing) for them to even reach S! K! U! L! L! island (why I typed it like that will make sense once you’ve seen the film). Which is OK I guess, but reeks of padding. James Cameron can have a boat sail around for an hour with nothing happening and make it interesting. Here that’s not the case, because the film isn’t about the boat.

Reaching Skull Island and the subsequent scenes make up the bulk of the movie (I’m sure of this as the last segment in New York couldn’t have been much longer than 30 minutes) Of course the natives capture the girl and offer her to Kong, and the ship’s crew then sets out to rescue her. This is where the film really drags. The obligatory scenes with Kong and Naomi Watts “bonding” are really good, but then it always cuts away to “Jack Black’s Bumbling Dinosaur Island Adventures” It’s quite monotonous, an unrelenting barrage of “monster attacks”, the worst of which being a totally unbelievable Brontosaurus stampede through a canyon. Unbelievable because you’ve got 10 or so giant dinosaurs stomping down a canyon that can’t be but 30 feet wide, with all the crew members running below them as well, plus some Raptors thrown in (why not?), then at the end of the chase all the big dinosaurs crash and pile up like cars in a highway wreck and yet most of the crew survives. A really ridiculous bit is when the screenwriter character (Adrien Brody) leaps up and kicks a Raptor in the head as he’s running. Scenes like this do nothing for the film but make it longer.

I will give this movie points for one thing though – during this chase (or maybe it was the chase afterwards, or the chase after that, I don’t know) someone does plug several Raptors with their Tommy gun. FINALLY somebody shoots a dinosaur! Regardless of any refreshing dino-blasting these scenes go on forever. We cut back to Naomi Watts and Kong every so often and they’ve got lots of good stuff (like the sunset scene where she falls asleep in his hand) but then it’s back to the “Jungle Adventures” and yet more monsters, close calls and “saved at the last minute by other crew members” resolutions to impossible odds. It’s almost like Peter Jackson said to his art department “Draw every killer jungle creature you can think of and we’ll put them ALL in this movie!”

Finally Adrien Brody saves Naomi Watts, and of course Kong chases them back to shore. Here the movie becomes good again, with Kong’s sad capture, his pain and the human’s treatment of him. The movie continues to be good as we return to New York to show off Kong as “the 8th wonder of the world”, even if we all know how it ends. One of the scenes in particular is really touching as Kong, having recaptured the now-willing Naomi Watts, goes through Central Park with her and slides around on a frozen lake. Kong is having fun and loving life, after spending so much of his time fighting for survival. THIS is the story we need to see, not endless dinosaur attacks on nameless crew members.

Probably the reason the ending scenes are so good is because they’re very similar to the end scenes of “The Iron Giant”, a far superior (and shorter) film that’s obscure enough that not many people will notice. Granted there’s only so many ways a film like this can end, but regardless it all seems fairly predictable. But in a good way.

“King Kong” is worth seeing for the story of “an ape and his girl” but to me it dragged in a lot of places. Ironically this film was originally going to be shorter, but the studio (or Jackson, or somebody) wanted “an epic” so they increased the special FX budget in post production to allow about 30-40 more minutes of movie to be completed and added. That’s too bad because I think it was at least 40 minutes too long, and I bet most audiences (not critics) will feel the same way. “Lord of the Rings” didn’t seem long at 3 hours because for each movie they had WAY more story than they could possibly fit in 3 hours, so the story they did fit in moved quickly and efficiently. Here it’s the opposite, a 90 minute story stretched to 3 hours. It shows.

POSTSCRIPT:

It seems every movie these days has to have a twist, and I don’t see why “King Kong” had to be different. Yes, I am suggesting it – why can’t Kong win? He’s set up to be a sympathetic character so it’s sad when he dies, but it would have been even cooler to see him kick some ass. Why couldn’t he escape New York and run up to Canada, or the bayou, or Mexico? Really nobody could even stop Kong until he climbed up the Empire State Building (no spoiler there) and made himself a target.

We’ve already seen Kong die twice, once in 1933 and then again (cheesily) in 1976. How awesome would it be, instead of wasting all that time with the dinosaurs in this film, to instead make the second half about Kong escaping attack across America with Naomi Watts in tow? Then they could finally make it to the safety of some dense forest, or South American jungle. Free again, and King again. The final scene, they arrive, Naomi Watts looks up at Kong, music swells, cut to CLOSE UP of Kong, he looks at her, then CUT TO WIDE, music stops - and KONG does his triumphant yell, beats his chest, CUT TO BLACK, TITLE: “KING KONG” (and a final music beat).

THAT’S the kind of ending that gets applause and cheers.

Share on Facebook

2005 / 123 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

Short review: Watch Tim Burton’s “Big Fish” instead.

Slightly longer review:

I liked “Jerry Maguire” (only watched it once though), thought “Almost Famous” was pretty good. “Vanilla Sky” was cool and weird and somehow made over $100 million despite the fact it musta confused the hell outta most audiences. So yeah then I’d have to say “Elizabethtown” is the least of the Cameron Crowe films I’ve seen.

Here’s the plot: Legolas (I mean Orlando Bloom) loses his company a billion dollars and is about to kill himself when he gets a phone call from his sister saying his dad is dead. So he goes to – get this – ELIZABETHTOWN (we have a title!) to get his body and bring it back home to Oregon.

(Note: This movie does get points for having a “young hip designer” character but NOT having them live in New York like every other film)

So of course the big thing is a romance between him and flight attendant Kirsten Dunst, star of “Spider-man” and “JUMANJI”! (Must always be written in all caps) They get to “meet cute” on the emptiest airplane I have ever seen. Let me clarify. Just a couple days ago I was on a flight from Dallas to Madison that was maybe 1/3 full and I thought “This is the emptiest airplane I have ever seen” But that record was SHATTERED by this movie as Orlando Bloom is the only person in the entire coach section. So they give him a seat in First Class, which itself maybe contains 3 people.

See, this is the kind of hokey romance bullshit I don’t like. The only way to get a flight attendant to talk to a character long enough for them to connect is to have the plane completely empty. On top of that, even though she’s not the best looking actress out there Kirsten Dunst is still leagues prettier than 95% of flight attendants I’ve ever seen. Why not just have her character be sitting next to Bloom on a normally full flight? Wait, that happened in “Jerry Maguire”, didn’t it? Sigh..

Shit, I wasted 2 paragraphs complaining about an airplane – I’d better move on. OK so Bloom goes to “Elizabethtown” and hangs out with his extended family which consists entirely of old people. Then… eh. You know, he doesn’t really LEARN anything about his father; he just broods and argues about cremation versus burial. There is really no *point* to this movie. The superior “dealing with a dead dad” movie “Big Fish” was very focused – it was simply about man learning about his dad’s life.

“Elizabethtown”, I had no clue. Is it about connecting with his family? Falling in love in the girl from “JUMANJI”? Not committing suicide when he goes back home? This lack of focus is why I consider it a mess. A lot of characters are given a lot of screen time which certainly doesn’t help. Sure life is messy but a movie is about giving purpose to what we don’t usually understand and focusing it to a central theme we can relate to. Dale liked this film a lot more than I did but mentioned it should have been edited differently, perhaps in a non-linear fashion using flashbacks. I agree, I mean, it worked for “Big Fish” Having a “present day” story gives the movie a spine to branch off from. It could have helped a lot. Oh well..

Kirsten Dunst pops in and out of this movie every couple of scenes to hang out with Bloom and make him feel better. Then she leaves for a couple scenes, wash rinse repeat. I guess she’s leading him on, teasing him, by leaving all the time, but it just seemed like pointless “extending” especially since they hit it off so well at first (during an all-night phone call, which is probably the best scene in the film) Then of course there’s the usual “end of Act 2 fight” where Bloom all of sudden gets mad at her, saying “All I want to do is go back home [and kill myself].”

This is why I rarely watch movies these days – they’re all structured the same. ESPECIALLY romantic comedies. No matter how well a couple is getting along it always happens - at the end of Act 2 (usually around the 1 hour 10 minute mark) one of them, usually the guy, has to get mad and tell his dark “secret” which either makes the woman run away or he distances himself from her. Then he realizes he’s wrong and there’s the inevitable mad dash to the airport to get her back. EVERY FUCKING TIME!

Elizabethtown doesn’t have the mad dash to the airport though. Instead they have the fight, and then Bloom goes to his father’s dedication ceremony. His mom tap-dances, his cousin’s band plays, all is well. A fire starts, no big deal. Dunst shows up of course and they smile at each other through the sprinklers. This could be the end of the movie BUT..

Bloom has to drive back home to Oregon! (No empty planes this time!) See Dunst has assembled this “Super-Map” for him which requires an entire briefcase. It also includes CD’s to listen to along the way so Cameron Crowe can fulfill his mission of actually using every song every recorded in his library of films. The map is full of hand-written notes, photos of her and magazine clippings. Upon seeing it you realize why her character always was running off – it seriously must have taken WEEKS to assemble the god damn thing.

I guess this trip through “Americana” is supposed to mean something, with Bloom visiting famous places and scattering his father’s ashes at them. But it’s just boring and tacked-on, making the movie a good 20 minutes longer than it should be in a way Spielberg would be envious of.

Ok here’s the zinger. If you think about it it’s REALLY stupid. Halfway through his journey I’m thinking “Jesus Christ he’s only in KANSAS and it’s already been 20 minutes of this crap? Is this movie gonna be another 30 minutes long??” but then I’m saved! Kirsten’s “Super-Map” - which by this point has basically become the Marlon Brando “Memory Crystals” in “Superman” – directs him to a farmer’s market in, hell, Oklahoma I guess. And it says “You can do 2 things: Keep going home using the rest of this map or look for a girl in a red hat.”

Of course he looks around and wow, Kirsten has followed him there! Happy happy smile, hug hug, blah blah, the end. Now think about this. Why did she even make the rest of the map? Considering the detail in the thing it must have been a shitload of work for nothing. So what does she think, “Well if he doesn’t meet me here he can use the map to get home anyway and I’ll be alone” How could she make the second half of the map without crying all over the thing? It doesn’t make sense to me. The whole end sequence doesn’t make sense – it’s just an excuse for a music and scenery montage. Ug.

This movie, despite being a mess, is well-intentioned with good performances so I’ll it give 2 fists for effort. I didn’t stick through the credits but I’d imagine half their length was song credits. Crowe, please make movies or music videos, not both.

Share on Facebook

2005 / 116 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

I would say the basic purpose of a movie review is to tell people whether or not a film is worth their time to go see. I mean, you’ve got to drive in the car, find a parking spot, wait in line, buy really expensive snacks, sit through 20 minutes of trailers and ads and then of course the movie itself. It’s a full evening, so hopefully the film is worth your trouble. Sadly, I’d have to say “War of the Worlds” isn’t. Why not? Well, because you’ve already seen it.

Oh no, I’m not talking about the 1953 version. No, the problem with 2005’s “War of the Worlds” is that it’s basically a montage of everything Spielberg’s ever done. In fact it’s almost like a $135 million dollar parody of a Spielberg flick. Even this film’s much-lauded “action set pieces” are pretty much all lifted from his earlier efforts, especially the “Jurassic Park” films. Ok let’s do a quick checklist:

1) Dysfunctional family with divorcees, check
2) Huge build-up sequence to the dinosaur, I mean alien tripod, check.
3) Overly long “hide and seek” scene where the hero(s) avoid being detected by (pick one) a) alien probe tentacle b) velociraptor in kitchen c) robot spider in apartment building, check
4) Endless shots of people looking at things in awe
5) Cars tossed into the air / water and people jumping out of the way of them

If I had to describe this movie in one word it’d be “lazy”. Sure some scenes are really well done, such as a very long take involving multiple angles of a car as Tom & Co escape a city, or a mob scene where said car is taken from them. But then everything else is something you’ve seen before, and usually it was a Spielberg movie to boot. It’s like they copy/pasted this movie together because it was easier on their super-tight schedule that way. Hell, there’s even a part where people are picked up off the ground by a machine and put into a floating “cage basket”, just like in “A.I.” (a vastly superior Spielberg sci-fi film, IMHO) Hell, they probably used the same prop! At least Teddy was in “A.I.” to kick some ass.

As with “Minority Report” critics are falling over themselves to praise this movie and herald it as “Spielberg’s best since Raiders!” (Raiders being apparently the gold standard of review comparison for every movie ever made, as well it should be) But hell I liked “Minority” a lot more than this, at least it seemed fresh and filled with IDEAS. Alright so I’ve established “War” seems like Spielberg ripping himself off. Now let’s get to all the other annoying stuff: (May contain spoilers, but again I’m not really recommending this film so who cares?)

1) Alien “EMF” (electro magnetic force) beams zap out all electronics in the opening attack, including whatever electronics were apparently in Tom Cruise’s 1960’s-era Mustang, causing it to stall out. All cars are dead. All electricity is off. A guy is taking photos but the foley department had the foresight to include the “grind grind” sound of a manual film advancement knob. However, a cheap-ass VIDEO CAMERA apparently still works because it would be cool for the guy using it to die, have the camera land on the ground and show the first round of deaths from its view screen. Sure.

2) I swear half this movie takes place in basements.

3) Ug this one pissed me off! Tim Robbins plays a psycho who lets Tom & Dakota hide out in his (you guessed it) basement while the aliens pass by overhead. He carries a shotgun in every scene. Anyway, after a couple “hide and seek” scenes with an alien sensor probe some real live aliens / velociraptors come down to check out the basement. Robbins then loads 1 FRICKING SHELL into his shotgun. So he carried it around unloaded while aliens were killing everything that moved above them? And then to kill 3 aliens he loads 1 shell? ??? The final insult is when he cocks the pump action to load the shell, he slides it down about 1 inch and then back up. Gee every other movie I’ve ever seen they have to pump it the full amount to get shells to load. I guess Tim Robbins is above that. I know it’s a nitpick but dammit it’s annoying. Like the glass with the .22 caliber bullet holes in Jurassic Park that were supposedly made by a shotgun and the fact it took about 1.5 seconds for a pump shotgun to make 3 of them.

4) Everything in this movie is about big things moving around and almost hitting the heroes. Tripod feet, cars, debris, propellers, whatever. It feels like it’s 1993 and you’re watching “Jurassic Park”. Or 1996 and you’re watching “Twister”. It just feels so dated now.

5) Come to think of it, this movie is basically “Jurassic Park” meets “Twister”. Really, that’s how I saw it. Honestly it could have used the Paxton touch.

6) In one scene Tom’s son wants to look over a hill and see the “War of the Worlds” Waves of tanks and other army vehicles are streaming in and fire and brimstone light up the sky. Tom stops him but the son stays anyways (See next item) Does the camera pan over the hill and indeed show us The War of the Worlds? No! Maybe some see this as a tasteful way of doing it, to just sort of HEAR the battle, but dammit! Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure my ticket said “War of the Worlds” not “I Wonder What’s Beyond That Hill?” As Tom would say “Show me the money!”

7) Tom’s son character allegedly dies at one point. (See above) I mean, it’s either go down a hill with Tom or hang out at the top with the mile-wide wall of fire and the alien death tripods. The son, as far as we know, stays and is “dead”. So when he magically shows up at the end of the movie it’s pretty damn annoying. I’ll buy that crap in “The Mummy” but not something trying to be as important as this. One minute you’re thinking “Wow, Spielberg had the guts to kill off a son!” and the next you think “Oh wait he didn’t” It’s so improbable (at the end) I thought maybe Tom Cruise was like, “dreaming” his son was alive.

The aliens die at the end for the same reason as in the 1953 version (and I’m assuming the book) I almost wish they would have done something different with this - especially since it makes for such an anti-climatic ending. Sure it’s a cool “twist” the first time a movie ends that way but not the second. No, the second time it’s just lame.

I guess I could go on but why bother. I didn’t see “The Terminal” but this is definitely in my opinion Spielberg’s weakest film in a long, long time and what I would consider the first real disappointment of the summer (hell I even liked “Batman Begins” better) Hell I’ll even go so far as to say “Independence Day” was better. At least it was FUN! I really don’t think “War” will do all that much beyond opening weekend, but maybe at least Hollywood will learn something from that. The rash of remakes is bad enough, but filmmakers remaking their own stuff is downright creepy. You want people back in theaters, give us something original to watch! It’s pretty bad when there’s only a couple movies in a summer that AREN’T remakes. (”The Island” and “Stealth” come to mind, but that’s about it)

Share on Facebook

2005 / 141 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

The “Batman” series of movies were stopped cold by the horrible “Batman & Robin” neon-colored camp-fest shitburg of 1997. As bad as that movie was, people seem to forget that 1995’s “Batman Forever” was pretty much just as bad – only it had the uber-big-at-the-time Jim Carrey so the audience gave it a pass. Warners figured they could get away with murder a second time with “Robin” and were wrong.

Comic book movies were pretty much killed by the “Batman & Robin” plague. It wasn’t until 2000’s X-Men, and especially 2002’s Spider-man that audiences came back to the genre. Now we’re up to our eyeballs in superhero flicks and the genre will probably cave in on itself once again before too long.

Oh yeah I was going to write a review here. Ok so now the “Batman” franchise decides to “reboot” itself with “Batman Begins” from director Christopher Nolan. I haven’t seen his other films so I guess I’ll just call “Begins” as I see it. It’s really 2 movies in one: A very well done “origin” film and a not-very-well-done action movie.

Let’s start with the origin stuff first. Obviously we see young Bruce Wayne’s parents murdered, blah blah blah. Then he runs off to the Far East to learn the criminal mind and become an ass-kicking ninja (or something) Liam Neeson - perpetual mentor character - teaches him the fighting skills he needs and how to “overcome his fears” Overcoming your fear is to this movie as “with great power comes great responsibility” was to Spider-man – as in you’ll hear it over and over and over again. Eventually young Bruce decides to quit the ninja dojo thing and head back to Gotham.

By this time probably a full hour has passed. Now it’s a fairly interesting hour, using back-and-forth cutting between the present and the past to explain Bruce’s training and motivation, but that leaves only what, 1.5 hours to set up the entire “bad guy” plot for the end of the film. Anyway, back in Gotham Bruce enlists the help of Morgan Freeman who is one of those “outcast engineers” working for Wayne Industries, as in he’s paid to build stuff that has no intention of going to market. Naturally these gizmos are perfect for Batman and so we see Bruce obtaining and adapting all of them, while also easing back into the billionaire playboy life and becoming reacquainted with his old sweetheart Katie Holmes. (Who really has no point in this film except to be “the girl”)

Alright so Batman has all his gizmos, and a car, and is now ready to “begin” (We have a title!) His methods of sneak-attacking are kind of neat, he takes out criminals in a “from the shadows” method similar to 1979’s “Alien” But it’s the fighting action scenes that aren’t up to snuff and I would qualify as downright crappy. Since we’re living in a post-Matrix Hollywood the fights have to be super fast and “kinetic” Some movies pull this off, others go for “fantasy” and use wire-work for interesting fights. Batman is grounded in reality (ie: there’s only so much he can really do) so all his fights must be “exciting” because of speed and editing.

But they’re edited like crap. Fists whirls, limbs flail, bodies hit the floor – and I can’t figure what the hell is going on. The overt darkness doesn’t help. The camera is 5-7 feet closer than it should be for every fight, and there’s enough edit cuts to make Michael Bay blush. I was sitting in the back row of the theatre so I can’t really find an excuse. These guts probably edit on 19” Avid screens and don’t realize when a picture is the size of a house it takes MUCH longer for the human eye to catch it all. Even an early fight in the film - Bruce against Chinese prisoners in a muddy field – it’s impossible to know the score because on top of the choppy editing everyone’s dressed the same and covered in mud. Basically whoever’s left standing is the winner, because the scene itself doesn’t cover who is.

I know it seems a bit trivial to complain about the fight scenes but dammit – Batman fights people! That’s what he does, let’s see it clearly! The fights in Burton’s first Batman might be slow and a little lethargic compared to modern cinema but at least you could tell what was going on. It really pains me that bad fights really bring this down, an otherwise really good (well, except for the ending, I’ll get to that) movie.

To illustrate the close up choppy nature of the fights in “Batman Begins” I have prepared these special photos. Each is a fight scene from a famous movie, but with the camera “zoomed in” way to much to simulate the way Chris Nolan shot “Begins” Try and guess what each movie is! (Answers at end of review)

My other big problem with this movie is the ending. So much time is spent setting up Bruce Wayne, why he becomes Batman, then HOW he becomes Batman that the “villainous plot” seems like an afterthought and becomes rushed at the end. Granted the other Batman films focused too much on the villains but let’s face it, you have to have the villains in it a certain amount to create the conflict and drama required. The bad guys in this film are kind of weak and since there’s really 3 of them (Crime Boss, Scarecrow and Ras Al Guhl sp?) quite diluted as well. And for all the high-brow talk and crap in the beginning the ending of this film becomes just another big chase and explosion-filled spectacle like every other movie you’ve seen. It’s also very improbable (why a train must be stopped and all, for instance) and the massive damage done in Act 3 is not even addressed afterwards. Perhaps solely to set up all sorts shit to go down in “Batman Begins Again”.

This started out as the greatest Batman film but in the end, in my opinion, stands behind Tim Burton’s first film because of badly done action scenes and of course, no awesome Danny Elfman score. Goofy as Burton’s Batman was at least it was “alive”. Silly as the Joker’s plot was at least the Joker was entertaining. Here we still get a silly bad guy plot but with uninteresting bad guys to deliver it. A second “Begins” film will probably be much better, but hell, Spider-Man managed to do it all on the first shot. Why couldn’t this one?

ANSWERS TO “GUESS THE MOVIE”:

A) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
B) The Matrix
C) The Matrix (same fight, 30 seconds later)

Share on Facebook

2005 / 140 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

Since it’s going to be a bit hard getting into this movie over opening weekend (I had to get my tickets for the midnight showing back in April) it’s possible that you might actually read this review before you see the movie! (ARGH!) But don’t worry, I won’t spoil anything you probably don’t already know.

Alright, down to brass tacks: This flick is much better than “Attack of the Clones” (which I thought was fairly enjoyable upon first viewing, but with a pretty hokey romance) and light-years ahead of “The Phantom Menace” (which bored me to tears upon first viewing and is still basically just a big tech demo with a good lightsaber fight at the end) Instead of going into the plot of “Sith” too much and ruining the surprises let’s just suffice to say:

You will see just about every character (except Jar-Jar) kick some major ass. R2D2 in the opening sequence alone is such a badass you’d practically swear he could take out Darth Vader if he wanted. Yoda fights again, also in uber badass mode as are Obi-Wan and Anakin.

Hayden Christenson and Natalie Portman both act fairly human in this one and not like cardboard cut-outs as they did in the prior and first installments. You actually get a sense that they’re in love and a couple, though the occasional cheesy bit gets through such as “You’re so beautiful” “It’s because I’m so in love” “No, it’s because I’m so in love with you.” “Then love has made you blind!” or some such nonsense. That scene starts well enough, with Anakin just watching Padme comb her hair, but then they have to TALK. Oh well, still beats the hell outta “I hate sand!” and “Yippee!”

OK enough about acting, how about ACTION! This is easily the most violent of the Star Wars movies (hence a PG-13) Instead of just CGI droids actual real people fight each other this time, with more severed limbs than you can shake a severed limb out. And then of course there’s the ultimate fate of Anakin, which while not quite as, hmm, eviscerating as I’d hoped is still dark enough to stick with you after you leave the theatre.

On that note this is easily the darkest of either trilogy… Case in point: It’s no secret that all the Jedi get killed, but it even includes the Jedi-in-training kids! (seen in “Clones”) It’s basically a holocaust of Jedi, told in montage form in the film once the Emperor turns on them. (Come on – that is NOT a spoiler)

The editing is good, the trademark Lucas thing of having multiple fights happening at once all intercut together is here in force and there’s even some nice quiet moments of reflection, such as Padme pausing as she’s about to confront a twisted Anakin near the end or the moment of breathing after Darth first puts on his mask. Pretty much all the plot twists and turns are all wrapped up, leading nicely to Episode 4 without TOO much head-scratching or unresolved issues (Unlike the shit-tacular Matrix sequels) Finally, the ending shot is about as perfect a bookend to this trilogy / intro to the next as a person could hope for.

Alright, onto the crappy parts - luckily there’s not too many. As stated Padme and Anakin spit out a few groaners (and kids) but for the most part their stuff is good, specifically their confrontation at the end. It kinda makes you wonder what George was thinking when he wrote part 2, but whatever. Maybe he snuck Lawrence Kasden over to his ranch one weekend to write some stuff, who knows? The Emperor / Chancellor guy is a little over-the-top in some scenes, one in particular approaches Ed Wood-dom (you’ll know when you see it) Finally Darth Vader’s final line of dialog (of I think 4) is a little hammy but I guess understandable considering the hell he went through.

So I’d recommend it – if you at least tolerated the first 2 this is certainly a step up so you shouldn’t be disappointed. Quality-wise in my opinion it’s probably behind “Empire”, with the original “New Hope” still being my favorite. One last thing - the digital photography in this one looks great, whereas I found a few spots in “Clones” to be a little grainy (ie, the fireplace scene) Go future of cinema!

Share on Facebook

2005 / 110 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything else, so says a giant supercomputer after thinking about it for 6 million years in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. (Versions of it previous to the movie, and also in the movie) Thus, for quite a while now I have personally tried to work “42” into everything I do… I figure if it’s the “ultimate answer” it must be worth using, kinda like the Egyptians and how hard they were over Pi. I have circuit boards in my Phoenix game system that are 4.2 inches wide, I make special FX 42% transparency whenever possible, change bass levels in audio to 42% (instead of say 50%) and even if you go to Culver’s and look at their menu boards, which I did the layouts for years ago, all the yellow headers are set at 42% opacity. Yes, it’s quite the number, and has worked for me thus far…

So I guess that’s my level of involvement with HG2G, as I have never read the book but saw the ancient BBC mini-series as well as played the classic Infocom text game on my Atari 800 computer. However this allows me to rate it as a movie, rather than slavishly languish over every changed word and scene like some 20-sided dice throwing uber-geek.

For starters in a 2 PM matinee on a Saturday the theatre was quite packed, it was hard finding a seat (Though I got a better one than the front row “so close you get blood on you” seat I saw “Passion of the Christ” in) This was odd to me because the last 3 or 15 Ain’t-It-Cool-News uber-hyped movies I saw in the theatre (ie: “Hellboy”, “Sky Captain”) were fairly deserted opening weekend. During the course of this film the audience laughed a good amount, moreso than say Men in Black but less than the average “fart & poop” Carrey/Sandler shit-fest. Regardless, as a comedy judged by laughing HG2G seemed pretty successful, and a good number of people even clapped at the end. (So Douglas Adam’s ghost could hear it, apparently)

The basic plot of this movie is a guy (Martin Freeman) gets taken off Earth by his best friend (Mos Def) moments before it is destroyed by an interstellar construction fleet. This is one the film’s best visual moments, as we see a top-down shot of the two guys “thumbing a ride” on the surface of Earth, then the camera jumps back, higher and higher, past the ships in the atmosphere until we’re in space. This reveals ships surrounding Earth in a grid-like pattern, they all fire and Earth implodes with a wimper, gone forever!

The duo then hops from ship to ship “hitchhiking” and meeting strange creatures along the way. The Voguns (destroyers of Earth) are an overtly bureaucratic race that fill out forms before doing anything, even pursuing enemies. Their animatronics were very well done, though I wish their voices could have been made a bit clearer. Next up we meet The President of the Galaxy played by Sam Rockwell. His character alternated between cool and annoying, the annoying parts being when his “other head’ took over. Of course, had this movie gotten on track during the 90’s Jim Carrey was slated for this role, so I guess it could have been worse! When Rockwell is cool he’s like a doped-up rock star / smarmy Bill Paxton-esque scumbag womanizer, which is just as entertaining as it sounds! When he’s annoying he yells his dialog, stumbles around and punches people. (Thankfully his second head gets removed for a portion of the film)

Tooling around with this Paxton impersonator is a chick named Trillian played by Zooey D (I’m not gonna try spelling her last name) Long ago Dale said this girl should be “the new Lois Lane” and upon seeing this film I agree – she looks like a 25-year-old clone of Margot Kidder! (Only somewhat hotter) I guess that has nothing to do with HG2G, but I thought I’d throw that out for Dale. (I still think Kate “Not Bosworth” Beckinsale should been Lois but OH WELL)

Unfortunatly Trillian provides the movie’s weakest points (well, if you’re not counting the overall scattershot nature and plot developments, but I kind of attribute those to an overly British origin) in the form of a very forced love triangle between Sam Rockwell and Martin Freeman. See, about a week before Earth bought the farm Freeman was making the moves on Trillian at a party. It was all going well until Rockwell showed up and said “This guy boring you? I’m from outer space – wanna see my spaceship?” and naturally what girl could refuse! So based off a few hours of time together Freeman is trying to tell Trillian she’s the love of his life for a good part of the film, and she wants him as well despite Rockwell’s advances. Ok, granted they ARE the last 2 surviving Earthlings but the way the romance is played through the movie it acts like the one night at a bar is a “ton” of history for them, while in reality it’s basically all they had time to shoe into the movie (as a flashback) That said Zooey does a good job despite her underdeveloped character (Luckily there’s no “I love sand” “I hate sand” “Let’s get naked!” style scenes or dialog anywhere to be found)

There’s also a depressed android named Marvin who is automated by Warwick “Willow” Davis himself and voiced by the ever droll Alan Rickman. As an example of the weakness of the love story the moment when the audience showed the most emotional reaction was near the end when Marvin got damaged! Live and learn, Hollywood! Speaking of Marvin most everything in this movie is done practical (live) without all the CGI BS we see these days. In fact the only CGI creatures I can recall are some crabs that are seen once or twice.

Lastly let’s not forget the Hitchhiker’s Guide itself, which is a book that opens to become a large screen (probably comparable to the PSP) and can tell you anything you need to know about everything. It has a voice narration by Stephen Fry and the information is humorously animated looking like a cross between a Orbitz commercial, Flash web animation, Star Trek: TNG control panel and iPod ad. The narrated guide allows the most “book-like” moments (since it’s dialog) and probably could have used a bit more screen time – it didn’t seem like people found those sections dull, but the studio was probably worried they would. Also at times Fry narrates something onscreen without the Guide being shown or used, which also helps get the Guide into the movie more.

So overall this was a fun romp with great set design, special effects and gadgets. It’s not nearly as British as I thought it would be (probably has something to do with it being made by an American studio) but still has enough “across the pond” humor to please (A bit with a whale pondering his existence while falling from the sky towards certain doom is especially good) Don’t go expecting “Men in Black” or even “Fifth Element” - there aren’t really any action scenes to speak of – but if you’re looking for a enjoyable wacky film with lots of interesting imagery and quirky ideas you’ll probably enjoy yourself.

If you’re a fan of the book, sorry I have no clue what you’ll think. Go anyway!

Share on Facebook

2004 / 97 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

(Wow, this is the first review I’ve written for Jones and Dale’s site since my “X-Men” review in 2000! Guess I’m behind the times)

I am going to cast the minority report on “The Incredibles” - in my opinion it’s one of the 2 least-good Pixar movies so far. The other, also in my opinion, being “Monsters, Inc”. They both failed my biggest litmus test for a movie - do I want to see it again? In both cases the answer is and was a NO.

Maybe it was too hyped on websites as being “the most awesome Pixar movie yet” or maybe I had too much faith in Brad Bird who directed and wrote the screenplay of “The Iron Giant” (1999) which I feel to be one of the best animated movies ever. In any case I felt this new movie failed on several levels and I’ll try to explain my reasoning as best I can.

First and most importantly the emotional core of the movie felt misplaced or perhaps too diluted. I used to wonder why every animated film had ONE parent and ONE child, now after seeing The Incredibles I know why. Your typical animated movie’s “dad and child” configuration provides the basic CORE of a family without all the excess fat. Example: In “Finding Nemo” all the eggs get eaten so all of Marlin’s (Dad Fish) emotions and cares get centered on one child. It’s still the same as caring for 3 kids, but a stripped-down version of it - you could call it a “microcosm” of a family. While in “The Incredibles” there’s 3 kids and 2 parents. Granted this movie is about “family” but with nearly 3 times the amount of family members of the usual animated movie it requires you to spread your emotional attachment to them 3 times thinner. I think this works with things like “The Simpsons” (another Brad Bird joint) but you also get 12 years to “bond” to those characters, rather than 2 hours. Go through your memory and see how many animated movies with both parents and more than 1 child you can name (besides this one) Maybe “An American Tail”?

My second rant is about the plot. The beginning of the movie is cool and so is the end fight (despite the lack of emotional payoff) but the middle is boring and has very little narrative flow. I think it’s because the plot just becomes too damn convoluted, especially for a kid’s movie (and despite what anyone says, an animated movie is a “kids” movie in the eyes of most of America and I predict major “squirm factor” for the young ones with this flick) Here it is: Mr Incredible pisses off some kid, who then grows up and becomes rich by building inventions with the intent of becoming a superhero himself and killing all the real superheroes. This is my first beef. In the beginning this kid is like 10, then “15 years later…” he is a multi-millionaire with his own island, an army of killer robots and guards. At age 25??? Bill Gates probably still ate Ramen noodles at age 25! Even in a “fantasy” movie this is horseshit. Anyway, yeah, this kid hires superheroes to fight a “robot” where he’s really A) trying to kill off the heroes and B) testing the robots so he can build one no superhero can defeat. Once the robot “allegedly” beats Mr. Incredible (with most of the other superheroes already dead) he feels confident to launch it at a city where it will run amok until he shows up as “Syndrome” and pretends to beat the robot by using a remote control. Then he’ll sell all his inventions to the world so everyone can be a superhero.

That was a long-ass paragraph. Now, here’s the plot of the biggest hit Pixar movie thus far: Find Nemo. See the difference? I sure do, and I bet when “The Incredibles” comes in at well under “Finding Nemo’s” take the difference will be pretty obvious to Pixar as well. They’re trying to make a more adult film but let’s face it - there movies did well enough (and probably better) when they were aimed at both kids and adults.

The villain (whom I didn’t really like a all, since he was basically there as “Geek Bait” to thrill the Kevin Smith crowd) has this annoying power. He can point his finger at a superhero and “trap” them in a force field at will. This was lame because no matter how much butt the hero family was kicking the guy could come in and stop them instantly. This is basically a plot device to allow said villain to explain the plot without getting punched in the face before he finishes.

One final thing: the music. While it had a neat “60’s vibe” at times I didn’t feel that lent anything to the movie itself. It mostly felt under whelming. I was expecting something more “heroic” from the composer who did the music to the videogames Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. It is my belief that if one specific piece of music (or theme) doesn’t stick out in a movie (especially a hero movie) than the film has failed in that department.

Pixar is about to go on the “Disney slide” Remember in the early 90’s, when every Disney film made more $ than the last and it seemed nothing could stop them? It apexed with “The Lion King” but then went downhill. There’s similarities here with Pixar… Disney started making their films centered around people rather than critters and used more mature themes. Filmed like “Pocahontas”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” (which I think it awesome, but I digress) each making less and less than the one before. CG movies, with their kid and marketing-friendly “objects” (such as toys, bugs and monsters) took over and now Disney 2D is, sadly, all but dead.

But I could be wrong. The preview for Pixar’s next film “Cars” looks aimed directly at the 3 year old Thomas the Tank Engine crowd and nobody else. Maybe they haven’t forgotten kids quite yet.

I know I’m not keeping on track very well but here’s another “key” (I believe) to animation: An animated movie should NEED to be animated. Living toys - yes, animated. Bugs - animated. Monsters - animated. Fish - yes, animated. People? We have a technology to do that, it’s called a MOVIE CAMERA. Even CGI movies with some people in the past have been about a 50/50 split with critters (”Ice Age”, “Shrek”) but when it’s all people it just loses some of the need.

In conclusion, Pixar has made their first movie aimed at geeks and movie critics moreso than their usual mainstream audience. Will it work out for them? Or should they stick to bugs? Only time will tell. As for me, I’m going to go watch the “The Iron Giant” again.

Share on Facebook

2000 / 104 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Ben Heckendorn

This is my first review that I have written for this site, and I have picked “X-Men, The Movie”. Mostly because I don’t think Dale has seen it yet. Well, I was there opening night, to see it on the Marcus ULTRA-SCREEN screen screen echo echo…. 75 pulse-pounding feet of silver-screen excitement! (Did you know that they actually USE silver on the screens to make them reflect better? Really!)

Anyway, I remember long ago that Mike said to me “Ben, you’re going to come to see “X-Men” with me next summer!” and I was like “No! I flatly re-FUSE!” See, at that point in time, everyone was predicting that it would be a suck-fest, and the only reason Mike wanted to see it was for Baldy (Patrick Stewart) and Rebeccaa Romijn-Stamos (or Rebecca Romijn-ROMIJN as Mike so wishfully calls her, sorry Mike!)

But, you know, as the movie got closer to coming out, the buzz slowly got better. Remember, everyone thought “The Matrix” was going to suck before it came out! (People are so hard on Mr. Whoah!) Anyway, by the time “X-Men” was about to come out, I had a pretty good idea that it might be good. Mike said, on the way to the theatre “I fully expect it to suck, but I don’t care.”

AIN’T IT COOL NEWS-ESQUE NONSENSE THAT BEARS NO SEMBLANCE TO ANYTHING: The day I saw this movie, I ate some french fries, 2 beers, and some gum. Yes, I did swallow the gum, so that counts as ‘eaten’. It was Wrigley’s Spearmint. The beer was drank hours before I saw the movie, so it does not affect my review. The beer was Bud Light, in a bottle. I also bought a camcorder battery on the way there. It was a Sony brand Info Lithium. And we took Mike’s car. Oh, and I looked at the “Star Trek II” DVD at Suncoast, but they wanted 26 bucks for it, so I thought “later”. That’s about it.

The theater filled to the rim with people, sold out. Not many kids, lots of high schoolers, and lots of older people (ie: 30’s). Lots of women, too. Women actually were going to a movie called “X-Men”. Huh… Then, the movie started…

My philosophy is that at a certain point in any movie, you know whether it will suck or be good. I remember thinking while watching “The Matrix”, as soon as Agent “I Kick A Lot Of Ass” Smith said “No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead.” that it was gonna be good. Then, of course, in a bad movie, like, oh, most movies that come out nowadays, what happens is that at a certain point in the movie (usually the 45-minute mark) you realize that the movie isn’t going to get any better. That it’s gone past the Point Of No Return. That’s when you start thinking about what you’ll eat for supper, if the laundry needs done, or Atari, in my case.

In “X-Men”, during the opening scene you KNOW that it’s different. It starts in a concentration camp in Poland, where young Magneto first uses his powers after being separated from his parents. This sets the tone for the movie: That mutants exist in our world, and it’s outrageous, but it’s still grounded in reality. And things don’t get much more real than the Holocaust.

ANYWAY! The movie jumps to The Not So Distant Future (in which every television is widescreen, there ya go, Ben K) and the story begins. The running sub-plot is Senator Kelly’s idea that mutants should be registered because they are dangerous. That’s a great idea, because Lord knows the government wants to regulate EVERYTHING. Again, it grounds the movie in reality. It also gives Magneto a GASP! “motivation” (Hollywood screenwriters - take note: you need those!). He sees things in the world reverting back to (or rather, not progressing much since) the Holocaust, and he’s trying to do something about… Which is basically his plot. To make mutants accepted. By HIS means.

Charles Xavier, played by Baldy, is after the same thing. But he does it by training the mutants to use their powers for good, beligerently. He and Magneto’s characters play very well off each other because they are the ‘good and bad guys’, so to speak, but they are after the same thing. They just have different ways of doing it.

The movie then starts introducing characters. It centers mostly on Wolverine and Rogue, but Cyclops and Jean “I’m In The Goldeneye Videogame You Know” Grey also have lots of screentime. The Jean Grey-Cyclops-Wolverine thing is done very well. Wolverine of course wants to bone Jean Grey because he’s heard of her powerful legs, but she’s going out with Cyclops. Lots of uneasy tension. Sample dialog:

Wolverine: “I suppose you’re going to tell me to stay away from your girl, right?”

Cyclops: “No, because if I did, she wouldn’t really be my girl, would she?”

Wolverine: “You’re right.”

(dialog, dialog, Cyclops walks out the door;)

Cyclops, sticking his head around corner “By the way, stay away from my girl.”

Which is great, and there’s lots more stuff like that. Culminating in the dialog after the Wolverine-Mystique fight. I loved that line! It’s a big laugh, but it also serves the plot, and develops both characters, and their attitudes towards each other, at the same time. Very efficient!

Hugh Jackman is very, VERY good as Wolverine. He doesn’t carry in the usual star baggage, and he wasn’t busy trying to ‘protect’ himself by re-writing his lines or any of that crap. He just took the role and went with it. Maybe just because he looks a little like him, but it was almost like watching one of the first Clint Eastwood movies and thinking “This guy might be REALLY big someday…” Wolverine brought to the screen something sorely lacking from modern cinema. The tough-as-nails working man everyday chick-magnet hero. And I don’t mean the people like Will Smith in “ID4″, or Bruce Willis in “Armageddon A Headache”. You won’t really realize what you’ve been missing until you see Hugh Jackman in action.

Magneto is an AWESOME bad guy. His magnetic skills kick utter amounts of ass. Remember in “This Movie is Not Enough”, how the bad guy didn’t feel pain, but they didn’t use that in the plot? Well, they use EVERYTHING here. Magneto walks around opening doors by thought, controlling Wolverine (since his skeleton is metal), and making paths appear in front of him by causing bits of metal to join together. There is so much creativity in this movie, I loved it!

Speaking of that, this movie treated the characters SERIOUSLY. There’s nothing cheesy like, oh, Magneto zipping up his pants by thought, or Wolverine opening a can of SpagettiO’s with his claws. They respected the characters. Which is good. Because movies lack sincerity nowadays. Ug! It’s all that damn “Batman Forever”’s fault. That steaming pile of worm-infested donkey-dung!

I’ve read a lot about Storm sucking. She’s the least developed character to be sure, but she doesn’t suck. They did give her the cheesiest line, but, oh well. The part where she floats out of the elevator all pissed is awesome, so who cares? It, along with other parts of this movie, actually sent shivers through me! Toad knocks her down an elevator shaft and is like “Ha, ha! Die! I was in Star Wars! Gr!” Then, a bit later, the elevator goes DING and he looks over. The door opens, and Storm is there, eyes a-glow. She floats out and proceeds to BLOW HIM AWAY! (literally) It was great.

Sabertooth and Mystique were good, as well. Sabertooth doesn’t do much besides be big and tough, but, so? He was kinda like a Klingon, actually. Mystique can change shape, of course. I bet Mike wishes she would morph from John Stamos’s wife into his, but I guess he’ll have to wait until the sequel to see if that ever happens. The things she does do, the people she becomes, serve the plot well and are actually surprising in some cases! For instance, to get into a secret X-Men room, she morphs into Baldy so the retinal scanner will allow her to enter. And so forth. Toad is really neat. He jumps around and has a long tongue, and he really uses it! To close doors, grab people, things, climb, etc. Again, the mutant’s powers are actually USED instead of just there for show.

The overall plot of the movie works well, and the action is pretty good to boot. Magneto’s plot of having a device turn people into mutants may seem lame, but it’s relevant. The ‘forced conformism’ thing. If you think about it, there’s all sorts of devices used to control people in the world today! (one’s called television) But “X-Men” is really about the characters, that’s what really works, and that’s good. Wolverine has a great scene with Rogue on a train, the kind of thing you usually don’t see in movies about mutated people duking it out to save the earth. And the subtle touches are great as well. Like when Rogue (who can’t touch people without killing them) looks over at a mother caressing her daughter’s cheek. Or the kid whose looks at Cyclops and his mom hurries them away from him. I liked the scene where they launch their jet, and the hanger door is also the basketball court (of the Mutant College), and you see the ball start to shake, then bounce, then roll… Then the hanger doors open and it falls in… then the jet flies out. This movie actually has SUBTLETY and SUBTEXT! The movie didn’t seem short to me, because they pack lots of stuff in! Besides, I’m sick of long movies. Seems every damn thing has to be 2 hours 20 minutes anymore. They of course leave it VERY open for a sequel, and I’ll say it now, I’ll be there opening day!

I suppose now I should mention any problems I had with the movie… SLIGHT SPOILER:…

Maybe the fact that it ends/they win because of one optic blast from Cyclops, but if anything that’s merely anti-climatic. It’s low budget (for a summer movie) and it does show in some places. The budget was similar to “The Matrix” but “X-Men” looked cheaper. Maybe because they didn’t blow up as much stuff. But that’s really all I can think to bitch about. I find it interesting that the 2 recent well-done yet low-budget action movies (”The Matrix” and “X-Men”) were produced one by Joel Silver and the other by Richard Donner, in that order.

Coincidence? Perhaps the age of Good Action Movies is returning. Who better to bring it? We all love “Die Hard” and the “Lethal Weapons”. (We’ll forget “Fair Game”, Silver made up for it, in spades.)

OVERALL: This is only the 3rd movie I’ve seen this year (besides “MI:2″ and “Chicken Run”) and I have enjoyed it most. “MI:2″ was the most un-comprehensive laughable mess I’ve seen in a while. If I want to watch crap I have a toilet, I shouldn’t have to pay 7 bucks to see it. “Chicken Run” was very good but it dragged in Act 2 and was basically the same movie as “A Bug’s Life” (probably not intentionally). Dale will probably kill me for saying this, but it WAS saddled with the typical Disney-esque “character that lies to everyone then runs away in shame but comes back at the end” motif, which I felt wasted a good 30 minutes of the movie. Well, moreso, not wasted but not as good as the rest of the movie. Other than that, nothing else looked interesting to me! I mean, GREAT ANOTHER WAR MOVIE. Or GREAT ANOTHER DISASTER FILM. “X-Men” looked different. And it was. The audience loved it. They laughed, they cheered, they clapped at the end. And I decided to put a big X on my computer screen at work. High praise for me!

Since I am new, here is a pretentious list of what I thought of other movies, so you can decide if I’m full of it or not.

Casablanca: A+

Robot Monster: D- (for effort)

Any Cameron Film Except “The Abyss”: A or A+

Batman: B+

Batmans 3 & 4: F-

Attack of the 50-Foot Woman: D

The Ten Commandments: A+

Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace: D (not F, because it’s fun to say “Ah, Nubian, we got lots a that!”)

Share on Facebook