300

"Tonight, we dine in hell!" Wow. WOW. Spartan warriors with amazing fighting skills defending their kingdom wearing nothing but capes and codpieces...Zack Snyder's film 300, based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, is not only an achievement in comic-book adaptation, but also an achievement in new forms of special effects and the way in which a film is presented. Depicted is the building of Xerxe's empire, which leads to the Battle of Thermopolae where just 300 soldiers defend Sparta against millions of opposing forces. Basically what was so appealing when watching this film was how energetic and thrilled it left me feeling. Also, as it was such a MAN's movie, it just left me feeling really pumped and manly. I know this may sound odd as I am female, and I actually don't really believe that there are clear man movies and woman movies, as I LOVE war films, fantasy films (Star Wars anyone?) and most action films, which are all generally considered man movies. However, seeing 300 just felt like the perfect event when you want to feel like a man (little explanation: when I just really need to feel like a girl, I will take a bubble bath, do other forms of grooming like nail painting, hang out with other girly girls, eat chocolate, etc. and watching this movie feels like the ideal thing I would watch if I wanted to feel more like a man!). Much past the basic plot of defending Sparta, the visual presentation of the movie is what should be focused on (and pretty much is most of the film-this thing wasn't nominated for a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar if you catch my drift, though there are some great one-liners). The whole look of the film has an unrealistic, high contrast painted feel; interesting as it was live action (very locally; all the backgrounds were painted in). Another visual aspect of the film that was almost unrealistic was the bodies of the actors--meaning the perfectly sculpted and tone pecs, six packs, biceps, etc. Fun little tidbit: though I'm sure there was a bit of shading and enhancement done graphically with these perfect-looking muscles, the actors playing the Spartan warriors went through an incredibly intense training session with a professional trainer who made them all crazily strenuous and odd workouts, such as flipping tires repeatedly (and I don't mean car tires, I mean truck and tractor trailers), pulling huge weights with a rope over their shoulders, and other such activities. Whatever the orthodox method, it certainly showed on screen. Recommended film if you want to get in touch with the testosterone bits in your body!

An Inconvient Truth

In his global warming documentary, Al Gore asks the just question "Should we prepare for other threats besides terrorists?" After seeing this film (and I would hope actually before), no one can deny that the answer to this question is a definite YES. The facts, studies, and images that Gore has gathered are really startling. This film, shot in the form of Gore giving a talk to a lecture hall, outlines the immense need of the United States and the world to make some serious changes in regard to environmental policy. Global warming is leading to distastrous results for the world in the form of the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers around the world which in turn raises the temperature and level of the oceans, which in turn throws off the eco-system of the oceans and gets rid of more inhabitable places on Earth. The information in the film is extremely well-organized and well-presented and I would definitely say that everyone needs to watch this film and understand the implications of global warming. Gore for Environmentalist, 2007!

John Tucker Must Die

Although this is another teen rom-com, elements are added and taken away from the usually very formulaic movie-type to make this film slightly more unique. John Tucker Must Die is narrated by the star, supposed "nobody" Kate Spencer, who of course is actually quite cute and cool (in real life this person would not be friendless and shunned as she is in the movie). But her narration provides a funny addition to the already funny and fresh dialogue. Another element of the plot that you don't often find in teen flicks is the fact that she does not end up with a guy by the conclusion of the film. The story is that the cute captain of the basketball team (Jesse Metcalfe's John Tucker) is dating three (and more, actually) girls from different cliques(none of whom know that they are not the only one). They all find out about his player status and along with the new girl's (Kate) help, decide to destroy Tucker's repuatation. When this backfires, they move onto a new plan, trying to make him fall in love with Kate so that she can dump him and break his heart. Kate's conscience gets the better of her towards the end, and she and Tucker part as friends. One element of ridiculousness is that Tucker's brother, more of a genuine, sweet hunk than John himself, is supposed to be invisible in the school arena next to his popular brother. Early on, he takes an interest in Kate and she doesn't seem to realize, for some reason. The new and refreshing thing regarding "the other Tucker" as he is called is that at the end, he and Kate don't immediately start making out and living happily ever after. It is clear that they are back on the road to friendship and possibly more. A fun stay-in-on-a-Saturday-night flick!

Superman Returns

"Look-up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the virtual clone of Christopher Reeve, Brandon Routh!" Creepy....It's true, Brandon Routh does bear an uncanny resemblance to Christopher Reeve (the more original Superman than Dean Cain but not as original as George Reeves) in looks, mannerisms, and even ways of speaking. Frankly though, Routh seems to lack the sheer charm Reeve had as Clark Kent. In Bryan Singer's latest installment/remake (or whatever you want to call it), Superman is back, after a nearly five year absence, to find that the world has moved on without him, especially the woman he loves (Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane), who now has a child--who looks and acts eerily like Kent--and fiancee.
Many criticisms of this latest Superman flick have to do with the fact that there wasn't enough action. However, you'll often find that with action/fantasy/comic-book films that are at the beginning of their franchise. The fact is that the filmmakers have to introduce a lot of information about the characters: how they came to be who are they are, what the world is like. The same thing occurred in Batman Begins (and the original Batman), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, X-Men, and other franchise beginnings. I think it's extremely necessary and helpful to have this added information. With most of these "superheroes" and such, the audience wants to know why they choose to help people, what events in their lives shaped them, why they are often orphans, and how they came to have special powers or abilities (that's the coolest part-seeing the origins of their mutations or magic!).
Another response to the criticism of slowness or inaction is this: did you even SEE this movie? The plane sequence (Superman single-handedly stops a plane from crashing, holding it on his back), and especially the entire ending, with the beginning of the growth of a new island/continent made entirely of the only substance that can destroy Superman, kryptonite, are extremely exciting, action-filled parts. A second criticism that is often brought up with specifically comic-book movies is their cheesyness or sappyness. Comic books themselves are quite cheesy, and it definitely works for them, as they have very little space and very few words in which to convey what is going on, while being entertaining and funny. It is harder to translate that to film and still have audiences accept the cheese factor, however I think it is better when the spirit of the comic book is kept as intact as possible, cheese and all. I look forward to the next man of steel film immensely!

The Good Shepherd

Spanning over twenty years, The Good Shepherd focuses on the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency, more specifically one of its main architects, Edward Wilson, played by Matt Damon. As I mentioned in my review of The Departed, Matt Damon is really turning into one of my favorite actors. He produces another really engaging performance as a loner-type, who is somewhat emotionally detached from the world. These qualities finally make him the perfect candidate for his job.
Many felt that this film went on too long, however I didn't have a sense of it dragging in any way. So much had to be set up in the film: Edward's earlier life, his marriage to Clover (Angelina Jolie), the begining of his career, and the start of the C.I.A. That was all followed with the execution of several affairs and Edward's establishment in the organization. All this was important and interesting information regarding the subject matter of the film. Another thing I think DeNiro does well with the film (or that the editor does well, rather) is he cuts back between different flashbacks. As I have said before, it is a tricky thing to make a movie with this sort of non-linear timeline and keep an audience interested and not confused. In Spy Game, something similar occurs where Robert Redford is remembering points earlier in his life, some more recent and some in the more distant past. The Good Shepherd successfully helps the audience keep things straight. Little things help with keeping track of what time period the flashback is in, specifically the props and clothing style of the characters. Edward's glasses are probably the most obvious indicator of time period. Interesting little treats like that pop up throughout this film make a really quiet, intense, information-packed film.

The Last Kiss

This image is rather ironic, given the general tone and storyline of this movie. The Last Kiss follows nearly-thirty-year-old Michael as he has his immaturity meltdown; the one that supposedly most people have when they're leaving a certain era of their lives behind. Well blech. I'm guessing that my disdain for this film can already be guessed....this is one of those movies that I really dislike because I do not like any of the characters. However, even that criteria does not mean that I dislike the film...there are several films in which the characters certainly not likeable, yet I still love the film, such as Notes on a Scandal. In The Last Kiss, Braff's Michael engages in an affair with a brainless college bimbo (Rachel Bilson), even though, as he himself repeatedly says throughout the movie, he is already in love and in a relationship (and actually having a baby) with a wonderful, beautiful, intelligent, "perfect" woman (played by Jacinda Barrett). Barrett's parents themselves (Tom Wilkinson and Blythe Danner) have troubles as Danner has had an affair due to the neglect felt from Wilkinson in years past. So basically throughout this whole film I wanted to yell "WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE? HAVE YOU NO SELF CONTROL?" Seriously, there is a point where you can stop yourself from having sex with another person; in fact there are several moments when you can stop yourself from doing that. When you're with someone, especially for as long as the couple in the film is, you should only want to be with that person...if you don't feel that way anymore, there's something wrong with the relationship. I don't buy the bullshit excuses of Braff throughout the film that he got depressed because his life was planned out and nothing was new. What the hell is depressing about that? I guess I'm biased because I'm a planner. I love planning, it excites me greatly. For me, knowing what is coming, and planning for it is the exciting part-the anticipation! I love surprises as well for sure, but there is certainly nothing depressing about the future.
The only redeemable character who I liked in the film was Casey Affleck's character. It's probably because Casey and I have a special connection: I actually saw him playing basketball and then sitting in the driver's seat of a car mere inches away from me....wow, amazing. Anywho, a big two thumbs down for The Last Kiss. Other than Casey Affleck, the only cool thing about the movie was its soundtrack (of course if Zack Braff is involved, there will be a good soundtrack)-the movie is introduced by the song "Chocolate" by one of my favorite bands, the Irish group Snow Patrol!

Bobby

The Ambassador Hotel serves as the grand setting for this film, which focuses on the legacy of Robert F. Kennedy or "Bobby," specifically looking at the day before and the day of his assassination. With a star-studded cast and years of research done, this should be an excellent, riveting film....right?
This film was a personal project of Emilio Estevez, who wrote, directed, and co-starred in Bobby. He chose to focus on a very specific time period, in regard to Kennedy's life and beliefs. Bookending the film--and appearing a few times within the story itself--are a series of very well-gathered, well-chosen, and well-edited clips of real footage of Kennedy during his life, his campaign trail, and the events of the time period on which is focused (specifically the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War). Also the recreation of the early 1960s was very precise and fun to see. However, where the film starts to falter is Estevez's choice to focus on the lives of 22 fictional characters who were all staying in the Ambassador Hotel, all who were supposedly connected to Kennedy in some way. His other mistake was to actually act in the film himself, playing one of the weakest characters, and not that well anyway. I can see what he was trying to do: Estevez was trying to communicate the issues that were central to Kennedy's campaign/life and that were central to the early 1960s. He was trying to do this in a more personable way by using specific people to live these troubles; this method is where he fails. Several of these characters literally contributed NOTHING to the plot or to my understanding of Kennedy. Early in the film, in one moment of horror, I realized that I was looking at a bespectacled, hippie-dressed, long-haired Ashton Kutcher. My abhorrence aside for that young hooligan, his character served no purpose. He sold LSD to two young men who were supposed to be out encouraging votes for Kennedy and there continued to be several very long scenes showing the effects of LSD. Was I supposed to understand that drugs, specifically marijuana and LSD were considerable problems or were very popular at that time? Fine, point well-taken. Was it a big issue for Kennedy? I don't really know, and still don't know after this film.
Another pointless character was that of Heather Graham (another actor for whom I harbor intense dislike), who plays a switchboard operator in the hotel, who is also having an affair with one of the higher-ups of the hotel, William H. Macy. And that's it. That's all she does. Next: Helen Hunt plays a fairly snippy, insecure, airhead wife who yaps on about her damn shoes being uncomfortable until her husband (Martin Sheen-nepotism, anyone?) finally asks her to be real, a result which I'm still looking for. I could literally go on with more pointless characters and aspects, but let me just mention a few characters that I actually was able to tolerate. Played by Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan (whom I usually find rather irksome, but was just fine in this film) played a young couple who were getting married so that once Wood was drafted, he would be sent to Germany as opposed to Vietnam. They however, had little screen time. Freddy Rodriguez and Laurence Fishburne play fine characters (both workers in the kitchen) who engage in a number of interesting conversations of race issues in the 1960s. I finally realized what was SORT OF the point of all these people at the very end when a number of them are injured by Kennedy's assassin. Oops, guess I should have warned "Spoiler alert!" there....whatevs. I really think that Estevez could have done some sort of a biography or some such project using completely archive footage and first-hand interviews (such interviews were in the DVD's Special Features section) to achieve his goal much better. Oh and by the way, an example of the randomness in this film, Harry Belafonte has a larger-than-necessary cameo as an old man realizing he is old. Tally me banana.

The History Boys

"How do you define history, Mr. Rudge?" "It's just one fucking thing after another." In the film version of Alan Bennett's very popular play, The History Boys, eight young men of York try for highly coveted spots at Cambridge and Oxford.
Something that I actually found interesting about the trailer was that it presented the film as a hilarious, British romp about young students trying to get into college who are incredibly inspired by their (seemingly) history and literature professor. There is no mention of homosexuality, no mention of inappropriate relations between teachers and students, nor of the students' actual young, serious history professor. These are important (damn near the main) elements of the plot.
While I enjoyed this story to some extent, specifically the abundance of extremely British humour (heh heh-notice the appropriate spelling), I think that the people who made the play into a film had no business doing so. There was not enough of a difference, not enough of a translation to the format of a movie. I felt like I was watching a play that someone had done a good job of video-taping. I question whether any part of the actual script was changed in any way from the play. It is hard to articulate this criticism, but it literally did not feel like enough of a film; there were certain things that, had they appeared in a play would have been acceptable, but appearing in a film, were just not believable and did not fit. One such aspect was the random singing that occurred. I also think that there was not enough of an introduction to the main characters (those boys of history)--something one can get away with more in a play, yet in a film audiences need a bit more background to understand fully what the situation is. I did, however, greatly enjoy the soundtrack-who doesn't love 1980s good rock?! Certainly worth seeing, but rather on a stage than on the big screen.