KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (DIRECTOR'S CUT) - 6/10. I saw the 3+ hour version of the film, not the original theatrical release sans kid. I was blown away by the spectacle and scope of the film; it reminded me in some ways of epics like EL CID, BEN-HUR, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, etc. where the screen is filled with hundreds of extras and the scenery is exotic and historical.

Ridley Scott is a unique director in this way nowadays; his films are like living pantings. The images are full of colors and life that have so much detail which makes sitting through his films a memorable and enjoyable experience. There are so many memorable images and visual moments from the film - just gorgeous to watch. And I do like that Scott's films aren't "linear" in the conventional sense; rather than use dialogue to tell the whole story at every turn he is a master at using images to convey plot points, emotions, and show symmetry at different points throughout by linking images seen earlier in the film to later images as a means of making connections. His films have great richness and depth in their presentation.

Having said that, I just felt very indifferent to the story, the subtext, and the characters. The score by HGW didn't resonate with me either, and the fim and score seemed to be stylistically just a visual and aural rehash of GLADIATOR with a different (and less charismatic) lead character. And like GLADIATOR, at times it seemed to be overly melodramatic, especially in slow motion passages with the wordless voice in the score. Orlando Bloom did his best Mortensen/Crowe impersonation, but he just isn't that large of a screen presence as the lead. I also didn't care for the hushed dialogue throughout the film. Ultimately, my rating is mostly for the technical aspects of the film and its epic scope.

Having said that, I just felt very indifferent to the story, the subtext, and the characters. The score by HGW didn't resonate with me either, and the fim and score seemed to be stylistically just a visual and aural rehash of GLADIATOR with a different (and less charismatic) lead character. And like GLADIATOR, at times it seemed to be overly melodramatic, especially in slow motion passages with the wordless voice in the score. Orlando Bloom did his best Mortensen/Crowe impersonation, but he just isn't that large of a screen presence as the lead. I also didn't care for the hushed dialogue throughout the film. Ultimately, my rating is mostly for the technical aspects of the film and its epic scope.

Agreed Michael. It's a better movie than the theatrical version -- but it's still not a good movie outside of its technical aspects. And it's really, really dull in places, some of that due to Bloom being so uninteresting. I mean, look at where his career went.

I second that GLADIATOR is overpraised as well (though it is superior to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN)

I am a Scott fan -- but his body of work is hit-or-miss and from BLACK HAWK DOWN up to PROMETHEUS, there's not much there of interest for me, with plenty of flaccid misfires/disappointments (Body of Lies, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, Matchstick Men, A Good Year, Robin Hood, the godawful Hannibal) I don't want to sit through again really. Spielberg has had a downward trend too no doubt, but 7 consecutive letdowns? That's a pretty long run IMO.

mkaroly wrote:Having said that, I just felt very indifferent to the story, the subtext, and the characters.

I have to agree, Michael. "Indifference" was also my reaction to Kingdom of Heaven. It had many of the ingredients of the great old school epics (and looked superb), but left me unmoved. And of course I really missed having the kind of bold, stalwart score you need in a picture of this type...which brings me to the film I just watched...


BEN-HUR (Blu-ray)

This wasn't the first time I've seen Ben-Hur. I first saw it on TV as a teenager (a lousy print aired by a rural TV station with random, ill-placed commercial interruptions). Then rented it on pan & scan VHS a few years later, then watched the laserdisc a few years after that.

But this Blu-ray knocked me over, like seeing the film for the first time. The restoration is phenomenal -- so-much-so it doesn't feel at all like an "old movie". I always considered Ben-Hur to be a "great" film, but the BD left me even more impressed with every aspect of the production.

Ben-Hur stands head and shoulders above all other epics (save Lawrence of Arabia of course!) and is easily in the top five films ever made.



My only misgiving over the Blu-ray is the use of audio noise reduction. It isn't too heavy-handed, but does muffle the sound in a few places. When are people going to realize than a little tape his is preferable to artificially smothering the audio?

ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN - 6/10. I contend that this film and its predecessor, ANY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE, were Cohen Brothers movies before they started making movies. They are films about "regular" people with ticks and faults whose lives are documented on film, moving this way and that, to some goal or outcome. Along the way their idiosyncrasies are shown and their flaws magnified; they engage in conflict with the people around them who are weirder and worse off than they are. But somehow we are drawn in and we care about them, even though the plot doesn't really go very far and deep. I feel that LOOSE and CAN both were kind of a template upon which the Cohen Brothers expanded and stylized into their own brand of filmmaking, even though I have no idea if they were actually influenced by these films (probably not). Just a thought.

Anyway, of the two films I think I liked CAN better even though it is basically a "redux" of the first one (and less of a sequel). The Black Widow motocycle gang is back, Clyde is back, Ma is back, and nothing has really changed from the first film. However, the humor is a bit more accessible and less dry than the first film; there are some very funny moments throughout and Eastwood, of course, is great as the film's main character. Although the film is far from perfect and gets kind of stupid at times, I think the cast seemed to be more relaxed and comfortable in what they were doing this time around. Entertaining but not great.

BURN AFTER READING - 5/10. I have not kept up with the Cohen Brothers films very well. My two top favorites are FARGO and THE BIG LEBOWSKI; my guilty pleasure is RAISING ARIZONA. And NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was pretty good too. But other films in their catalog haven't really grabbed me, and BURN AFTER READING falls ino this category for me. It was watchable and entertaining, but it lacked something...not sure what though.

The story was typical and the humor very dry at times (though I laughed really hard at Clooney's chair contraption...who the heck thinks up these things???). The acting wasn't bad; Pitt seemed unsure as to how weird his character should be early in the film, but as the movie went along he seemed to be more settled as to who his character was. Clooney was actually kind of funny, and McDormand did a fine job. I think Malkovich, though, was out of place in this film. His acting style just didn't resonate with me in that character, and maybe that's what I found lacking in the film. There was something unnatural about Malkovich in that role; as big as they are, Clooney and Pitt were able to be loose and free in their performances. Malkovich just seemed to act his part too "big" and so his character/presence just didn't seem to fit the film for me. It's not an awful film but not one of their best.

Great review Michael, I had the same reaction. Structurally it shares much in common with FARGO (one of my favorite Coen films), but minus Frances McDormand's likeable heroine. I actually hated every character in BURN AFTER READING, and found the tone to be strident and bitter...not one of their more satisfying outings.

SUPER 8 - 7/10. I was surprised that I enjoyed the movie as much as I did. For one thing, it certainly had some flaws; the alien definitely looked like a Cloverfield reject, and the dogs leaving the city in droves was not really resolved. Basically I saw this film as an "alternate universe" remake of ET; the kids are the main characters, the adults are a bunch of one-dimensional idiots, and the underlying themes of friendship and childhood innocence are the energy that makes the film run. As a throwback to 80s films, I think it succeeds better than I thought I would: THE GOONIES, EXPLORERS, etc, are all represented here. I liked the camera work in the film which definitely (though not surprisingly) called to mind Spielberg film techniques. I have a soft spot in my heart for those childhood innocence films; I was sucked into the story of SUPER 8 and was genuninely moved at times - the kids did a great job acting (especially the young girl) and I think for what it was the film was pretty good as I felt there was a sincerity about it. I definitely prefered this JJ Abrams film to CLOVERFIELD.

EXPENDABLES 2 - This is one of those "awesome" movies that isn't particularly well made, but it's certainly fun. A lot lighter than the first movie more or less, though very obviously made quickly and cheaply (lots of fluctuating and soft looking cinematography, digital backdrops, etc.). Loads and loads of bodies and action -- and some very funny lines for fans -- though as with before, not much character development (there's no time) or dramatic involvement. And Jet Li gets billed third and departs the film before the titles run! On the whole, if you are a fan of any of these guys, it's worth an 8. Probably a 6 for everyone else. The film itself is probably about a 7. But I liked it

THE BOURNE LEGACY - 5/10. I think the series should end with this film (though the ending leaves the door wide open for future installments)...they are sapping every last drop they can out of this series. I didn't find the dialogue heavy aspects of the film to be distracting; too often I think action movies just want to cut to the chase (so to speak) and saturate the screen time with things blowing up and lots of guns firing. Granted, some of the dialogue was unnecessary at times but overall that didn't bother me.

The action was reminiscent of other Bourne movies, and although I like Jeremy Renner I thought that he lacked the charisma of Damon's Bourne. Weisz is okay...still not my favorite actress but I liked her much better in this film than others I have seen her in. JNH's score is a bit disappointing in that it sounded very bland like most of what we hear nowadays. The action was decent but a) I am getting a little tired of the "super-human spy" thing and b) the final chase sequence went on a bit too long and became too Terminator-ish. All in all, I prefer the first three films to this one. While I think they should stop making the films at this point, it wouldn't surprise me if a new one came out in a couple of years.

THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES - 9/10. My favorite Clint-helmed Western is easily UNFORGIVEN; however, I had never seen TOJW and I have to say that I was impressed. I loved the cinematography and appreciated Jerry Fielding's sparse score (at least it seemed sparse; I can't remember much music in the picture). Eastwood's hero is not perfect, and I loved how everything is taken away from him in the beginning...slowly he gains back the family he lost (and then some) but the film never gets too outwardly emotional and heavy. It is full of humor with a wonderful performance by Chief Dan George as well as Clint himself.

Perhaps the most moving thing about the picture was the ending confrontation between Wales and Captain Fletcher. Not much dialogue is spoken but with glances, facial expressions, and body language Eastwood and those he directs are able to say more than any dialogue could. Eastwood's characters are generally quietly heroic, and he understands how to get the most audience support for his characters whether they are clearly good or somehwat ambiguous on the ethical/moral scale. At any rate, it's a great film.

THE MAKIOKA SISTERS - 6/10. Just a quick blurb about this: I recently saw this Japanese film based on a novel (which I am reading right now), and I liked it more than I thought I would. It plays like a soap opera of sorts and follows the lives of four sisters right before World War II. They come from old money and traditions and find that they have to succumb to modernity and leave their traditional past behind them. There are some wonderfully powerful scenes in the movie but it is a typically dramatic Japanese film that gets a bit sappy from time to time. Despite the ups and downs of the film, the ending was moving but was somewhat tainted by a bookend reminiscence shot which had some pretty bad music underneath it.

Total Recall (1990): 9/10

Sorry, Andy, but I still dig the hell out of this film, and the new Blu-Ray looks and sounds superb (Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his best adrenaline-pumping action efforts).

"The Liquidator"-6 of 10. A so-so entry overall in the category of Bond knock-offs of the 60s that proliferated so much. The biggest problem with the script was how the element of Rod Taylor being too squeamish to kill people that he hires a professional to do the work for him, becomes a forgotten item after the halfway point.

Oh, and jeers to the advertising department for giving us Jill St. John in a bikini on the poster but she never wears one in the film!

STAR TREK V:THE FINAL FRONTIER - 4/10. (shakes head)...what a shame. I think the idea was decent, and I loved the focus on the aging friendship of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Goldsmith's score was inspiring at times, and I enjoyed Shatner's confident performance. I also liked the humor in the film.

However, the film has too much working against it to really give it high marks. For one, it was (for me) the first Star Trek film to play more like a long-form TV episode than a film. The sets are strikingly bland and dated; the film LOOKS like it was made in the 80s, and it's hard to hide the moments they were on a soundstage. The special effects were awful, especially when they needed to be epic. The confrontation with "God" was so anti-climactic and poorly executed, mostly due to bad special effects. Aside from James Doohan, the rest of the cast seemed DOA, and Laurence Luckinbill (while charismatic) was a bit over the top for me.

There are some great scenes in the movie; perhaps my favorite is when Sybok tries to break the bond between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy as we see McCoy's and Spock's deep pain. But Sybok's abilities are never really addressed in any depth and that was a bummer. It also bothered me that so many members of the Enterprise crew could so quickly fall under his spell. Where was the danger/threat? It was kind of from the Klingons, but not really. Was it fear of the unknown? Growing older? The threat of broken fellowship? Mind-control?

Overall the movie felt lifeless in a way...we all know about the strikes and such, and I know Shatner did the best with what he had. He also had the tough task following up a trilogy with a stand-alone story which wasn't all that bad of an idea. It is just such a let-down after II, III, and IV, and that's too bad. STAR TREK V also has the disadvantage of preceeding STAR TREK VI which is so spirited and exciting. Bummer!

SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS - 7/10. I don't remember what I gave the original, and I'm too lazy to try to find it...lol...so I'll just say that I enjoyed this second entry into the series. Both films have a certain charm about them thanks in large part to Robert Downey Jr. (what a career turnaround!) and his on-screen charisma. I had to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed when Holmes and Moriarty confronted each other over a game of chess towards the end - loved that whole sequence. Noomi surprised me as well - I think this is the only other film I've seen her in besides PROMETHEUS. It's not a perfect movie but it was entertaining for what it was.

FIREFOX - 3/10. I remember seeing Siskel and Ebert review this film on an episode of their TV show back int eh early 80s; I wanted to see it back then. Now that I have, I have to say that I was disappointed in this film. From the very start I found it difficult to really get into the characters; Eastwood's directing style was a mismatch for this story which required something more energetic. The dialogue and situations were corny (especially on the Russian side after Gant steals the Firefox)...even Gant's dialogue in the Firefox left a lot to be desired. The acting was flat...too much sighing before delivering a line of dialogue. The final dogfight was boring; I suppose the special effects were really awesome in 1982, but even George Lucas did a better job with the aerial sequences in the Star Wars films than Eastwood managed to in this one. I also thought Jarre's score was too sparse...some of those sequences could have perhaps been uplifted and made better with more of a musical score. I did like how Eastwood made Russia look ominous and oppressive though. After all was said and done, the movie was a misfire and definitely not his best effort as actor or director.

PREMIUM RUSH 8/10

Mid to late August has perennially been a weak time for new theatrical releases. When I was growing up, it was always the dumping grounds for expected hits that studios shuffled away in full acknowledgment that they weren’t the films they were supposed to be (hello, “Superman IV: The Quest For Peace”). These days, some minor hits have popped up in the waning days of August, and this year has produced another sleeper: screenwriter David Koepp’s exciting PREMIUM RUSH.

A tidy, edge-of-your-seat thriller that recalls Kevin Bacon’s ‘80s misfire “Quicksilver” in premise only, “Premium Rush” likewise follows a NYC bike messenger – here superbly portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt – who’s been charged with delivering a parcel to Chinatown...one that NYPD cop Michael Shannon is highly interested in. Trying to stay one step ahead of his pursuer, Gordon-Levitt darts in and out of midtown traffic, trying to figure out what he’s carrying and help out a college acquaintance – a young Chinese woman – whose life seems to be riding on the outcome of his delivery.

I’ve long criticized some of Koepp’s scripts for high profile summer movies (particularly his efforts for Steven Spielberg, including the underwhelming “War of the Worlds” and“The Lost World: Jurassic Park”), but “Premium Rush” – written with John Kamps – ranks as one of his tightest, and most satisfying, screenplays, managing to mix a fast-moving action film with a twisty, compelling story that packs more of an emotional punch than anticipated. The authentic locations add immeasurably to the film’s many scenes of Gordon-Levitt and his fellow bikers being an inch or two away from certain disaster, maneuvering through a maze-like succession of traffic, pedestrians and lousy Big Apple drivers; Koepp the director, meanwhile, deftly mixes in flashbacks to tell a story that works just perfectly in the short, 90-minute time frame employed here.

“Premium Rush” didn’t make much noise in theaters this past weekend, and seemed to fly under the radar completely in terms of most viewers’ pre-release awareness (I hadn’t even heard of the film until it opened Friday). That’s unfortunate, because it’s the complete opposite of the bloated, overlong $200 million typical blockbuster most studios are interested in these days. If you’re looking for a short but sweet, fresh Hollywood movie, “Premium Rush” puts a splendid cap on the (surprisingly good) summer movie season of 2012.

LAWLESS 8/10

Didn't know much about this one -- saw it got some good reviews, and figured the prohibition/moonshine subject matter was different enough. Turns out it was a good bet: very unusual, atmospheric film about three brothers getting wrapped up in a rural war with a law enforcement wacko out to stop their moonshinin' business. Tom Hardy and Shia LaBeouf are two of the siblings; Guy Pearce is totally over the top as the vile federal agent; Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska chip in needed female support; and Gary Oldman has a fairly worthless cameo as a Chicago mobster who heads to the hills to get his booze.

John Hillecoat does a fine job capturing time and place, and the soundtrack -- mostly comprised of songs (some anachronistic but effective) -- adds additional support. In the end, Joanne loved Tom Hardy, and I was likewise satisfied with Chastain (who fully disrobes in a moment that reminds you of the way movies USED to be made), adding to the film's deserved R rating (lots of violence too).

And the ending? You'd think it was the most improbable finish of the year...until you realize it's what actually happened in real life!