TMNT 3/5 reviewed by Mike

Let me just go ahead and tell you what you really need to know here: If you already love the Ninja Turtles, then you'll like this. If you don't already think that Ninja Turtles are awesome, then this won't change your mind. This movie is tailor made for us nostalgics who grew up loving the turtles when we were kids, and for new kids who have seen the cartoon or are just looking for a good time.

Now that I've pretty much answered all the questions you have about this film, on with the review.

The first interesting thing about this film's story is that it works as a sequel. This isn't an origin story, or a retelling of something you've seen. None of the elements are explained not due to bad writing, but because the assumption is that if you're watching this movie, you either already know who the turtles are and why they are, or you're too young to care. Thus, the story isn't bogged down by trying to tell you all this history and baggage like other superhero flicks. The story itself is about a 3000 year old warrior (voiced by Patrick Stewart, no less!) who opens a portal to another dimension and lets loose some monsters, and then hires the foot clan (some sweet ninjas) to help him... okay, it's wierd ok, but remember, this story is about giant turtles who fight like ninjas. The rest of the plot is actually cool--it's about the turtles having to reunite, learn to get along and trust each other. Thus it actually becomes a story about brotherhood, friendship, honor, trust, and unity. Not in a really serious way, of course. Remember the title.

All the elements you love are there: The turtles personalities (Raph the hot-head, Leo the leader, Donny the smart one, Mike the goof), Casey Jones wielding sports items as weapons, Master Splinter, Ninjas, monsters, a sweet sewer base, and of course, April is a hot as ever. All this is rendered in pretty cool CGI. Some reviewers have said the graphics suck, but I totally disagree. They're very stylized, but the style is suited perfectly to this kind of movie. The texturing is amazing, especially on backgrounds and rain effects. The one-on-one fight scenes are pretty awesome, too. There's tons of action in the film, enough to where kids don't get bored, and neither will you.

The only thing that really holds the movie down is the God-awful opening narration... seriously, just bear through it for 3 or 4 minutes, and then the movie will start. It's one of the worst opening narrations ever (except of course for Eragon) but I think it's there mostly so the kids won't be too confused.

Like I said, this isn't Batman Begins--if you don't already love the turtles, this won't convince you, and even if you do, you probably don't want to own this. But if you're like me and you reminisce fondly of the days of action figures and saturday morning cartoon marathons, then by all means, spend a saturday afternoon with this flick and have a good time.

See this movie if:
-You like (or ever liked) the TMNT
-You're looking for a popcorn flick on a nice afternoon
-You're a young boy who wants to see some ninja action!


Don't see this movie if:
-you didn't grow up loving the ninja turtles
-you're expecting a deeper, character driven drama
-If you read all this and still need to read these little recaps at the end

300 4/5 reviewed by Mike

Just so we're clear off the bat: if you have a 'y' chromosome, you'll love this movie. This is the ultimate man movie. Let me explain why.

300 is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller (Sin City, Dark Knight Returns, Robocop, you know) which is based on the historical battle where 300 Spartans heroically held back an uncountable army of Persians by forcing them into a narrow corridor.

Don't be fooled though--this movie isn't history, nor is it trying to be. This movie is a legend. It is the telling of grand mythology. Everything is exaggerated to mythic proportions. It's inspiring and breath-taking. Every guy in the movie is the most ripped dude you've ever seen. All the good guys are superheroes with the physique to match. The enemies are disfigured and monstrous. Xerxes, the Persian "God"-King is literally 9 feet tall. This completely non-realistic approach is really pretty awesome, and quite refreshing to me after seeing other movies that try to go ultra-realistic. I like seeing this overly-stylized version of epic battles and legendary heroes.

Every aspect of the film takes on a mythic quality, down to the cinematography. The amount of slow motion used in this movie rivals that of John Woo, but instead of sucking, it's actually pretty awesome. Seeing some ripped dude tear through hundreds of enemies while screaming in slow motion is actually pretty cool. Although I usually bore of overdone slo-mo techniques, this is just so badass that it works. The backgrounds are amazing as well. The movie was shot almost entirely on a greenscreen, so the landscapes and backgrounds take on a mythic, painted quality thats beautiful to behold. The canvas that this film takes place on is grand and gorgeous.

I gotta warn you--There's quite a bit of nudity in this film, and obviously a ton of violence. There's not a single cuss word to be found though. The other wierd thing about this is how much it speaks to the idea of freedom not being free. In a sea of media telling us there's nothing worth fighting for in this world, it's interesting to hear the Spartans passion for freedom, and their understanding that fighting to protect everything they hold dear is the most worthy aspiration that exists. The movie doesn't feel real preachy, since it's easy to interpret it different ways, but it does stir those basic man concepts of Justice, Honor, Duty, Loyalty, and kicking butt/taking names. Don't get me wrong, the chicks in this film hold thier own. The Spartan Queen is quite the warrior herself. Seeing her strength and the strength she inspires in those around her is awesome.

You guys know what a comic nerd I am, and how much I've held up Frank's work in the past. So let this sink in when I tell you: this movie is WAY better than the book. The characterization is deeper, richer, the storytelling elements are better, the pacing is great, and seeing these images move with a great score behind them is simply exhilerating. If you even kindof liked movies like Braveheart and Gladiator and that genre, then do yourself a favor and see 300.

By the way, who's that Ben Riley guy?

See this movie if:
-You like big historical epics told as if they were legend
-you like UFC
-you're male

Don't See this movie if:
-You're looking for accurate history
-You don't like action/war/battle films
-You're bringing a kid with you to the theatre. What are you morons thinking?

300 4/5 reviewed by Corey

Throughout the movie, I kept telling myself, "You shouldn't like this. Don't let all this superficial CGI stuff get in the way of your reviewing the movie as an intelligent, seriously underpaid movie critic. Just because the graphics are neat doesn't make it a good film."

I came out of the theatre with a massive grin on my face. I haven't been so satisfied with an action movie since...uhm...yeah...on to the review?

If Frank Miller's 300 were an epic (and it isn't), I would have seriously knocked it for the flaws it has. Do not go into 300 expecting a historically accurate representation of the Spartan's fight with the Persians at Thermopylae. I'll get the stuff I didn't enjoy out of the way first, though, because there are a couple elements of the film that make up for it, so much so that I thought it still deserved a four.

If you saw any of the trailers and thought, like me, "I hope they don't use slow-motion as much in the movie as they do in this", be prepared. The movie, from beginning to end, capitalizes on the ability to slow the action down. At points, it seems narcissistic and pointless, as if Snyder fell back on it because he didn't have the ability to literally pop his head out of the screen and say "Watch this, look how pretty it all is!" It gets kinda old in some of the action sequences. The movie watches more like a videogame plays. I half expected a combo indicator to show up at one point, or a Spartan to start glowing some strange color.

The story is almost non-existent. I would normally suggest anyone who doesn't know about the Battle of Thermopylae to read up beforehand, but it doesn't really matter. Another reviewer put it perfectly: you don't go to Hooters for the wings - no matter what you tell wifey - and you didn't come to 300 for the plot nuances. The enemies are sometimes laughably silly-looking and the dialogue sometimes comes off as more epic than the movie can back up. My only major gripe with the action scenes was the disappearance of blood after it flies through the air in slow-motion. It was noticeably strange to me. There is so much flying around when people get killed, but...where does it all go?!?

I'm nit-picking. If you want to see some awesome, violent fight scenes, 300 is the way to go. It is far and away the most visually arresting film I've seen since...well...Frank Miller's Sin City. I never saw Renaissance or A Scanner Darkly. The costumes are cool, the gore is cool (the first time I saw Leonidas cut a guy's leg off, my eyes went big and my mouth was hanging open), the Spartans are cool. Everything about this movie is cool. If you have the chance to see it on DLP (in Arkansas, it costs a first-born child for a ticket to the Rave) make sure to take it. I saw it on a standard screen and it was stunning.

If you're a guy, go see it. You'll most likely really enjoy it for the same reasons I did. It's beautifully portrayed over-the-top action (the battle scenes evoked the same "holy crap" that I got watching the lobby scene from the first Matrix) and it's wonderfully produced. Again, don't expect an epic, but don't be surprised to come out very, very satisfied nonetheless.

Zodiac 3.5/5 review by Chris (Joe)

Oh, how interesting, a half score…is that a first? Read on!

I was lucky enough to see this as a prescreening last night thanks to the greatness of 570 KLIF. Good times.



Zodiac

-In theaters starting tomorrow-

IMDB Synopsis:
Based on the Robert Graysmith books about the real life notorious Zodiac, a serial killer who terrorized San Francisco with a string of seemingly random murders during the 1960s and 1970s.


Chris’s review:
This movie is about more than the unsolved Zodiac murders in the 70s. This is a movie about obsession, pride, friendship, justice, and a plethora of other topics. The story develops in layers, introducing more main characters as it rolls along its massive 2 hour 40 minute run time. Prime among the handful of characters is Jake Gyllenhaal’s Robert Graysmith. Graysmith wrote the best-selling Zodiac book over a period of years as he became further and further obsessed with the case. We mainly follow 3 stories throughout the movie: Graysmith’s, the detective assigned to the case (Toschi (Ruffalo)), as well as a roughly chronological story of the Zodiac’s killings. These stories flow together seamlessly and alternate the lead at varying times throughout the film which keeps the pace tolerable and interesting.

This brings me to my first and most overriding point. This script is EXCELLENT! Not only does James Vanderbilt (screenplay Basic, Darkness Falls) tell the story in an engaging way by interweaving 3 different angles but the most noticeable thing is that the script was really quite funny. I know that doesn’t make much sense in a movie about a serial killer that ran amok and was never caught, but hear me out. The characters feel incredibly real because the script allows them to interact like real people with humor, and a certain amount of lightness despite the heavy subject matter. We sat in a relatively full theater, as it was a free prescreening for a radio station, and I was continually surprised by the giggles that would ripple through the crowd at a well written moment of subtle humor. Don’t get me wrong, this is not roll on the floor laughs like a Wes Anderson movie, just the incredibly deft use a one liner or funny reaction placed correctly to break the tension.

Next, I’ll touch on the performances briefly. Jake is solid, though he is playing a character that he is comfortable in, so solid should be the expected. Ruffalo is notable, especially considering he hasn’t done anything I have been remotely interested in seeing since The Last Castle. Robert Downey is excellent, as he usually is. Everyone else basically plays a supporting role to these 3, but none stood out as a detriment to the cast.

Now, on to David Fincher, a director that appears on my top 20 favorite films list with the wonderful film Se7en. I have to say he was mostly underwhelming. Not that I took distinct note of anything that I felt he did poorly, but I also didn’t see anything as visually stimulating as his work in Se7en. Possibly he relies heavily on his directors of photography? It WAS 2 different guys, so it could be.

Anywho, that is unimportant really. Let me explain my ranking of this film, as this was my first half score. This is a REALLY strong 3 or a low end 4. Basically, it would be worth owning, but I couldn’t see myself watching it over and over again. I would certainly recommend it highly and would love to see it again someday, so it may very well find its way in to my DVD collection. Thus, the 3.5/5 rating.


Chris’s recommendations:
See this movie if…
-You liked Se7en or any other dark serial killer mystery thrillers.
-You like Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, or Robert Downey as they are all very good in this film.
-You are the real Zodiac killer and want to see if they captured your story to your liking.

Don’t see this movie if…
-You can’t handle violent images, there are a few moments that are somewhat graphic and shocking.
-You hated the 70s because of the clothes. The wardrobe is very time sensitive and quite entertaining.
-You get bored easily. This is a LONG movie, though it doesn’t feel as long as it is because it is very engaging.