Cloverfield 3.5/5 reviewed by Mike

I have a theory about J.J. Abrams. That theory is that the man in brilliant at coming up with cool concepts, but drops the ball when it comes to developing them. It could be an interesting new premise, or a quirky twist on an old mainstay, but he's got a lot of ideas. Good ideas. The problem is that ideas are a dime a dozen. The idea is the easy part--it's the development of that kernel of an idea into something meaningful that makes an artist (writer, director, musician, etc.) into something great. Unfortunately, this is where Abram's often fails--as shows like 'Lost' and 'Alias' attest--the great ideas coming out of Abram's mind never seem to go anywhere, never get resolved, and end up spinning into labyrinthine trails of plot instead of something powerful. And Cloverfield is the same way, but even so, it sure is an entertaining ride.

The kernel of an idea for this flick is simple: take an old school monster movie, ala 'Godzilla' and the like, and tell it from an "on the street" perspective. What's it like to be on the ground during the monster's attack through the city? To further this effect, the film is simulated to look as if it were shot by a tiny handheld camera (which, in addition to having the longest battery life EVER also has 5.1 digital surround sound...). We meet a shallow group of young yuppie New Yorkers, who, at the verge of evacuating, find that they must go back into the heart of the city to rescue their trapped friend, who our protagonist is in love with.

You're forced to swallow a few ridiculous pills--the battery life, a large handful of seemingly impossible coincidences, army officers acting in a way no army officer ever would... But for me, those impossibilities were ok--after all, we're talking about a monster movie here, so it's all part of the suspension of disbelief. And aside from this, the movie is executed wonderfully. The camera style--although nausea inducing for many people--does a great job of really capturing the terror that an event like this would create. The effects look pretty good, and everything feels like it's really happening. There's a sense of scope, and a powerful, tangible sense of actually being in the city that a lot of action movies fail to grasp. The acting is what it should be, and, although there's no music in the film, the end credits have a great piece of music thats a fantastic tribute to the scores of old monster movies, if you're into that (I'm a closet Godzilla fanatic, so the piece really stood out to me).

Ultimately, though, as great as the execution is, the idea is flawed from the start. There's no resolution, you never find out what the monster was, where it came from, or if it gets stopped, or really anything else--because there can't be. If that happened, the film would betray it's own idea and be the weaker for it. But the severe lack of resolution or closure makes it weak as well. Although I felt incredibly disappointed by the film's ending, I can't imagine any other, better way for it to end (well, there's a few deatils I might change, but I'm nit-picky) without betraying itself.

All said and done, the movie was very entertaining and I felt like I got my money's worth. It's a monster movie that's scary and exciting the way most monster movies aren't. And although ultimately, it's not really a story as much as an exercise in film making, it's still a good time at the movies.

See this movie if:
-You're a monster movie fan--monster movies are scary again!
-You want some good escapism to get your mind off something
-You want a short, yet satisfying experience--this clocks in at just above 80 minutes.

Don't see this movie if:
-Lots of shaky cam makes you nauseous. Seriously, about 1/3 of the viewers with me had to leave. It's EXTREME.
-You're expecting deep characterization, relationships, or thematic material
-You want something deep to challenge your thinking. This is a fun saturday afternoon flick.

2007 Year In Review - by Chris (Joe)

My apologies dear reader, I have slacked off tremendously of late. I have been SEEING movies, just not sitting down and writing reviews for them. Partly I blame malaise, and partly the uninspiring movies I have been seeing of late. But, alas, it is a new year and I will vow to whip the crew back in to shape and we will remount our horses and ride on more vigorously than ever! Hazaa!

Now, with that out the way, I would like to do a special feature posting for you as a peace offering.

2007 was a pretty solid year for movies. I say this without even seeing everything I wanted to see, so that is certainly a good year. I missed quite a few movies that I know I would probably like fairly well. Nothing that I am absolutely heartbroken for missing, but still, you get the point. Yet, without seeing everything I intended to, I still took in some very quality films this last year, as well as some terrible films. In light of that fact, I want to do a brief year in review with some select categories and brief recaps. I’m also doing a special “Year In Review” rating on the same scale as our normal “out of 5” rating. This is simply my hindsight score for the movie, which may differ from my original review’s score based on a movie growing on me since the first time I saw it. Enjoy!


Movie I Liked That Got the Most Disagreements:
Fantastic Four 2 (Y.I.R. Rating 3/5) – FF2 got ripped by critics and comic bookers and my other movie friends, but I have to say, as a superhero type comic movie, I really liked it. It was straight forward, had pretty cool effects, decent story, and no weak performances. I’m sorry, but you were all wrong about this one…it was pretty good.

Most Anticipated Movie That Didn’t Let Me Down:
The Simpsons Movie (Y.I.R. Rating 3/5) – This category just refers to the often occurring problem I have where I will really be looking forward to a movie coming out and then it finally does and I end up not liking it. The Simpsons, thankfully, did not do that to me. I was really looking forward to it, it came out, and I was very pleased with the result. A good solid showing in the theater for one of my long time favorite shows.

Worst Use of Good Talent:
1408 (Y.I.R. Rating 2/5) – You have Sam Jackson and John Cusack AND your movie is based on a great Stephen King short story. The end result of that mix should be a home run. Instead 1408 was more or less a mess that left me feeling disappointed and a little sad.

Biggest Disappointments:
Transformers (Y.I.R. Rating 1/5) – I know a lot of you liked the movie. I’m sorry, I thought it was terrible. Not enough Transformers IN the Transformers movie, too many meaningless plot lines and human characters, bad CG designs, terrible dialogue, rushed ending…etc, etc, etc. I hated it. Sorry
I Am Legend (Y.I.R. Rating 2/5) – My good friend Matt described this movie perfectly: “28 Days Later mashed up with Cast Away, but not doing either of them as well as the original.” I think that is pretty spot on, PLUS they absolutely desecrated one of my favorite novels. Shame on you!

Worst of 2007:
Spiderman 3 (Y.I.R. Rating 0/5) – Terrible, terrible, terrible. What else can I say? I left the theater SO very mad after this one. Just an all around BAD movie that didn’t do anything well, in fact, it pretty much did everything poorly. If you want to learn how NOT to make movies, watch Spiderman 3. Too bad too, the first 2 were pretty enjoyable. Then again, the first 2 didn’t have gay, dancing, emo Peter Parker.

Top 3 of 2007:
#3 – Sunshine (Y.I.R. Rating 5/5) – Sci-Fi Thriller perfection. I love this movie. The best word to describe the experience of seeing it in the theater: Awe-inspiring. In my review when this movie came out I described sitting in my seat with my mouth gaping open for most of the movie. It is that awesome an experience. Go buy a big HD TV and watch this movie on it. The team of Alex Garland, Danny Boyle, and Cillian Murphy repeat their brilliance of 28 Days Later with Sunshine.

#2 – The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Y.I.R. Rating 5/5) – Not quite a western, not quite a biopic, not quite a historical period piece, Assassination ended up being some sort of hybrid of all of those genres, and VERY effectively. This is the sort of movie that you don’t want to end. The performances are SO good you wish you could watch the characters for days. If Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck don’t win Oscars for this movie it will be treasonous. An absolute beauty of a film.

#1 – Eagle Vs Shark (Y.I.R. Rating 5/5) – OK, let me say this first. Declaring a favorite of the year was very tough. If you talk to me in a couple of weeks I might put these 3 films in a completely different order. They are all that good. However, if hard pressed to declare a favorite, as I am doing now, I think Eagle Vs Shark would win first more often than not. The reason is simple: Sunshine and Assassination are amazing films, but they don’t hit as hard emotionally as EvS. I’m a sucker for a movie that gets you a little in the heartstrings…especially when it is a quirky comedy that does it, hence my love of Wes Anderson. But don’t misunderstand me, this is no Wes rehash! This is a completely unique and wonderful movie that will make you laugh out loud and then make you cry a little secretly to yourself so your girlfriend doesn’t see you. And if that isn’t enough, it is a product of New Zealand…so how can it not be great?!?


There you have it. My little Year in Review for you. I hope you liked it, and if you didn’t…well, you’ve broken my heart. See you in 2008 real hard!

American Gangster 3/5 reviewed by Corey

First off, I want to say that there was a twenty-five-looking man behind me while I was watching this. When Washington's character announces that he's going to Vietnam, and the scene following shows a man rowing a boat down a river, my movie-going partner exclaims, and I quote, "Holy shit, it's like the Amazon, dude!"

Now, on to the review.

I wanted to love American Gangster so badly that it hurt. It had everything going for it. Ridley Scott, exemplary director of Alien, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, working with Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington, two actors so successful I need not list their previous wins. From the trailers that have been floating around for quite a while now, American Gangster looked to triumph as a modern crime classic while tackling race issues and offering powerful story-telling. Don’t get me wrong. American Gangster isn’t a bad movie. But it isn’t a good movie either.

The plot should have been picked up by Scorsese years ago: Richie Roberts (Crowe) is a New York cop on the hunt for drug lord Frank Lucas (Washington) in Vietnam-era Harlem. It’s a brilliant landscape for a timepiece crime flick and a lot of the fun in the film is derived from the sets. Washington’s first trek to Vietnam is one of the coolest scenes in the movie. The “just out of the box” microwave that makes an appearance later warrants a good laugh, and if you pay enough attention you’ll notice the television sets change from black and white to color. These subtle details constitute the Ridley Scott stamp of approval. This is quality filmmaking.

The performances are quality as well. Crowe and Washington deliver as promised, but I was particularly impressed with Frank’s mother (played by Ruby Dee) and Richie’s partner (John Ortiz), even though their roles are appropriately small. The music is fitting to the era, the settings are gritty and realistic, and the direction is spot-on.

The problems arise mainly from the script. From some of the early moments in the film, the audience is promised a crime drama that is not only about a cat-and-mouse game, but also about racial issues. Some of Lucas’s early lines of dialogue promise that the issue will be handled, but it never happens. I was continually wondering how Frank (and his father) got into a crime business entirely dominated by the Italian mob. But hey, at least it wasn't directed by Spike Lee, right? Thank the Lord Jesus.

My biggest qualm with the movie was the inevitable meeting between Lucas and Roberts, but not because it was disappointing. It is easily the most riveting scene in the film. However, it comes in the last ten minutes of an almost unbearably long drama. This wouldn’t have been a problem had Lucas and Roberts not crossed paths two and a half hours into the film. Now, these final cross encounters can work in a film to its advantage (see Scorsese’s inarguably superior The Departed for proof), but American Gangster isn’t quite compelling enough for that. And, although Washington does pull off the whole family man “bad guy” thing pretty well, it becomes increasingly apparent that the script relies on surprise brutal violence to keep the audience awake. Take the opening execution scene (Washington douses a man in gasoline, lights him on fire, and then pumps about seven rounds into him, followed by... the opening title...?) as a prime example. The scene is completely and totally unnecessary and does nothing that later scenes won't in order to establish that Washington is, indeed, a "badass."

Ultimately, American Gangster is less than the sum of its parts. It's boring. It's long. It lacks a sense of morality. It's like Scorsese, except dumbed down for urban late-teenagers. Don’t spend eight bucks to see it in the theatre. It’s perfectly suited for a weekend rental if you’re a fan of this type of movie. If you’re not, skip it and pop The Departed in again.

This is a movie (particularly a script) even Ridley Scott can't save.

--

SEE this movie if...

- You absolutely need to watch a crime drama.
- You love either Crowe or Washington. I don't love either, but if I did, there's nothing here to make my opinion change.
- You think every movie about drugs and crime is, by definition, brilliant.

DON'T see this movie if...

- You're expecting to see Washington and Crowe in a lot of scenes together.
- You are looking for a movie of substantial intellect or a sense of morality.
- You're on a date or a tight schedule.

30 Days of Night 3.5/5 reviewed by Mike

I know I'm the Crew's resident comic book nerd, but, alas, I have failed you all. I have not actually read the graphic novel "30 Days of Night," which this movie is based on. It makes it even more sad knowing that I'm such a fan of artist Ben Templesmith's other work. But enough of my failings--this movie is not a failure at all, not by a longshot.

Steve Niles, writer of the "30 Days" comic and it's spinoffs, co-wrote the script for this movie himself, which should say something about clarity of vision, but since I haven't read the comic, who am I to judge? In any case, the story is about the small town of Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost town in the United States. Due to that pesky tilt in the Earth's axis, once a year, this town is plunged into perpetual nighttime for 30 days. Of course, no sun means Vampires can endure 24-7, which they do. How will Josh Hartnett and his ragtag band of survivors face the horrors of a Vampire gang when no sunlight is in store for a month?

As cheesy as you make the premise sound, this movie is as far from cheesy as it gets. In fact, this is one of the most chilling films I've seen in recent memory. The Vampires are quick, brutal, and utterly terrifying. This ain't your parent's Bela Lugosi, these are pale faced, blood stained, serrated teeth sporting monsters from the pit of hell who communicate in the most gutteral and bone-chilling screams you've ever heard in your life. While the first few deaths are the normal "horror movie" kind (whos there--whats that behind the camera--don't turn around--oh! ah...), the movie quickly turns into something more akin to a war film as the monsters take the town with ruthless force. There's a long tracking overhead shot at one point, just going through the town as dozens of civillians run terrified form dozens of vampires, sometimes crossing paths. The music fades to silence, and you feel your heart drop into your gut, partly from sheer terror, but mostly from the profound sense of loss. The only other horror movie to make me feel this way was 28 Days Later.

The rest of the film focuses on a small group of survivors that grows smaller by the day, and their efforts to last the month until the sun comes out. Along the way are more than a few encounters that may or may not give you nightmares. I'll never forget the swing-set scene. Never ever. What I like is how there's never a need to explain anything--there's only one line of dialog that hints at the history of the Vampires, and thats how it should be. These monsters come out of the cold Alaskan fog and no one where where or why, and that only strengthens the terror.

Lets talk craft: the landscapes are amazing. I was sold from the first frame. Everything fades into white snow-laced fog, and the town seems to exist independent of reality, totally isolated from the rest of existence by the harsh Alaskan landscape. I don't think you ever see the edge of any building, everything's always being swallowed up by fog, which creates the perfect mood for this story. Sound effects were a little over the top at times (large bass hits when something creeps in front of the camera get annoying after a while, but do make you jump) but the screams of the Vampires, the make up effects... all are top notch and creepy as hell. The music is great also, and is always exactly what it should be.

There's a few things that bugged me, though. A lack of characterization is one. Although you care about the characters a lot more than, say, a "Saw" movie, some extra time spent characterizing these people would have really helped. What also doesn't help was the few moments of ridiculousness. The "oh, let's talk about our relationship in the midst of death... seeing my friends get mauled makes me feel romantic" moments. Those moments are few and far between, but you'll roll your eyes once or twice. Also, I felt like Hartnett really phoned this in. His performance is pretty... stock. He looks and sounds like an actor workshopping his lines, he never seems to embody a character. Although I've certainly seen worse acting out there, it did cut into the believability the rest of the film worked so hard to create.

The real reason this movie isn't a 4: It's lacking in thematic material. It's a great horror story, but it's not really ABOUT anything. In a very loose way it's about family (kindof) but mostly, it's just a good Vampire story, devoid of any sort of artistic statement.

If you're a horror fan, this is a must-see. If you're in that Halloween mood, this is a great film to go get good and scared by. It's great to finally see Vampires treated well. Most Vampire movies are strongly forgettable, but this one delivers the scares in spades. Just don't set your expectations too high.

See This Movie If:
-You like films like: 28 Days Later, The Descent, etc.
-You don't like slahser flicks--although this is very VERY gory, it's not torture-porn
-You like scary movies, vampire movies, etc. in general. This might become a favorite of the genre, just as the comic has.
-Your name is Corey

Don't See This Movie If:
-You're under 17. Most violence and gore EVER. I'm not kidding.
-You scare real easily
-You really don't like the genre. Although I think might change your mind about it.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 5/5 review by Chris (Joe)

I don’t really keep up with “Hollywood chatter” as well as a self-proclaimed film critic should, so I don’t know if this movie is generating Oscar buzz, but I DO know that it should be…BOOYA! (Damn I’m cool).


The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford



-In theaters now-


IMDB synopsis:
Robert Ford, who's idolized Jesse James since childhood, tries hard to join the reforming gang of the Missouri outlaw, but gradually becomes resentful of the bandit leader.


Chris’s review:
I’m sure at some point in the history of this website I have proclaimed my love of Brad Pitt. If not, let me do it here: BRAD PITT IS EXCELLENT! And now, hopefully, he will get the credit he rightly deserves. I have been screaming from the mountain tops since Se7en and 12 Monkeys that Brad is far more than a pretty face and a sculpted body. The man has serious ability and it is on display in this film.

However, as good as Brad is, an up and comer may outshine him. Casey Affleck, yes the younger, more talented brother of Ben, and the very funny, oft-overlooked part of the Oceans team in the Oceans films, is the REAL star of this beautiful film. Casey plays Robert Ford, the young, ambitious, unstable, malicious, plotting, menacing killer of Jesse James. The character has a depth to him that is rarely seen in film and Casey brings it out in an amazing performance.

On top of the great performances this movie also displays amazing craft, which is surprising considering this is writer/director Andrew Dominik’s first major release. From the start you will be taken in by the wonderful visuals. There is a lens that is used throughout the film for establishing, moody kind of shots and its effect is wonderful. The script itself is also very well written, being an adaptation from the successful Ron Hansen novel. If you like Historical Fiction, this is your kind of script.

Now this IS a very long film, clocking in at about 2 hours and 40 minutes, AND it DOES feel long, BUT the length never upset me. Every aspect of the movie is so good that you really don’t it to end. You would allow it to keep going just so you don’t have to leave that world.

In the hope of shortening my reviews I’ll cut this off here, but know that this is a GREAT movie that is the very reason film is still a GREAT medium. Go see it, if for no other reason, than 2 brilliant performers at the height of their games.


Chris’s recommendations:
See this movie if…
-You were a fan of Unforgiven or The Proposition. This is a “western” more in that vein than the vein of shoot ‘em up westerns.
-You enjoy going to a movie and allowing yourself to be swept up in to the world it creates. Classic escapism through entertainment and there isn’t a damned thing wrong with that.
-A good script free of cookie cutter “good” and “bad” characters is something that interests you. You will find yourself feeling for everyone in this movie at one point or another as well as hating them at one point or another. That is a very good thing, trust me.

Don’t see this movie if…
-Going to a 2 hour 40 minute movie greatly cuts in to your time to race your jeep against your frat brother Chaz before you head over to the local bar to do keg stands.
-You expect a western to give you 8 six shooter fights, 3 horse chases, 1 indian scalping, 76 shots of whiskey, 4 guys getting shot for having aces up their sleeves, and the General Lee. If those are your stipulations for a western, you WILL be sorely disappointed. This is more a period piece than your standard western, but even then it doesn’t fit perfectly in to the genre.
-I can’t think of any other clever ones. Just go see it. I think it is good.

3:10 to Yuma 4/5 reviewed by Mike

I know we're a little behind the ball on reviewing this one, but it's still in a lot of theaters, if you hurry, you can still catch this really cool remake of a really cool classic western. This one had me fully sold right from the first scene.

If you're unfamiliar with the original "3:10," the story is about a down-on-his-luck rancher named Dan Evans (Christian Bale) who gets intertwined with one of the baddest dudes around, Ben Wade (Russel Crowe). Dan isn't just down on his luck, he's about to loose everything, his ranch, his family, what shred of identity he still has, when he finds himself unwittingly involved in Ben Wade's capture. Dan subsequently volunteers to help escort Wade to the train that'll take him to prison. What follows is a great character drama, where we really get into these characters heads, and watch them try and get into each other's heads to gain the upper hand. There's some great themes, too, about redemption and sacrifice, having goals and dreams in a broken world, deciding what kind of person you're going to become... none of these are heavy handed or preachy at ALL, rather, subtle and tasteful.

Even if the characters start out as typical western stereotypes, they're deeply explored and fully realized. The dialog is great, too, and never forced or contrived. There were plenty of times where you thought you were going to be able to predict the next line (people around me in the theater tried) but it almost never went there. That said, the story structure was a bit weak. The second act isn't very cohesive, it basically throws a bunch of random encounters at our protagonists (including great cameos from Luke Wilson, and my favorite Alan Tudyk) that they quickly get out of and move on to the next. It's exciting, yes, but clearly devices to extend the movie, as they don't always tie into the main story or the themes as well as they could. I'll say this, though, a journey like this in the real American West would probably be a lot of random encounters like that, so while I'll give it points for realism (minus the Apache encounter--no way could it be THAT easy), it wasn't the best structured movie.

If I had to grade this movie just on story, it'd probably be a 3 or 3.5, but the craft elements really pushed this movie up to a 4. The acting, in every single role, is fantastic. Bale is again brilliant, Crowe, despite how I think of him as a person, is a great actor and proves it yet again. Tudyk does a great job in his role, as do all the side characters, even the kids. Only when Luke Wilson showed up did I realize I was watching actors, and thats not because his acting was bad (quite the opposite) it's because his baby-face is just so cutesy...

Other craft elements were great--music was just right, and the costumes and make-up were incredible. I usually don't notice such things, but they were just SO well done here--meaning that no one ever looked pretty (minus Wilson). When someone got hit, you saw their face bruise up and stay that way for the rest of the film. Nice work. The directing is also great--camera work was beautiful, interesting, and exciting. The locations were so beautiful--looking at the environment really pulled me into this film and made it very real, yet very romanticized at the same time.

While there's nothing here you haven't seen in other westerns, particularly older 50s and 60s ones, it's done SO well that it's worth checking out. If you're a western fan, you'll probably want this on your shelf. If you're not a western fan, there's still probably enough here to keep you interested, even if it doesn't blow your mind. Go catch this one before it's gone from theaters!

See this movie if:
-You're a fan of the Western Genre, in particular the older, "classic" westerns (think: Big Country, the original 3:10, the Shootist, Liberty Valance, NOT the Eastwood stuff)
-If you like the ideas in some of those older westerns, but don't like the cheese factor. This movie has very high production value and no cheese, but retains the spirit and feel of a 50s-60s western.
-You like character dramas where character is more important than action (not to say there's not action--there's plenty, but it means more because the characters are so realized)

Don't see this movie if:
-Lots of cussing and violence offends you. This earns it's R. No sex or nudity to worry about, though.
-You just hate the Western genre completely
-Your favorite movie is "13 Going on 30." Come On!