rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

KON TIKI
6/10

Oscar-nominated film follows Norway’s Thor Heyerdahl and his 1947 expedition, crossing the Pacific on a raft, from Peru to the Polynesian Islands, in order to prove that South Americans first settled there.

The much-documented voyage of the “Kon-Tiki” ought to have been the stuff ripe for a great big-screen movie, but this good-looking Norwegian film from directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg opts to go the “Hollywood” route by over-dramatizing Heyderdahl’s journey, the bickering between members of his crew, and becoming something of a “Perfect Storm Lite” in the process. Difficult ocean storms, hungry sharks and Heyerdahl’s obsession plague the Kon-Tiki, claiming the life of a pet parrot and transforming the seemingly mild-mannered Heyderdahl into something of a mad man. Peter Skavlan’s pedestrian script is the main culprit here in this regard, and in overdosing on the bombastic elements, greatly diminishes the story’s credibility. (It also makes bringing up Heyerdahl’s dissolving marriage into something of a wet blanket, especially at the picture’s end, since so much of the film is a one-dimensional formula piece).

“Kon-Tiki” was actually shot in two different versions – first in a mix of native languages (primarily Norwegian but with a healthy dose of English), and then an all-English version that Heyerdahl himself, reportedly, insisted on years ago if “Kon-Tiki” ever made it to the screen. The big difference between the two, however, is their respective running times: the original cut runs nearly two hours, while the English version runs a scant 96 minutes. I’m not sure if this editing was executed on the part of the directors or (more likely) the result of the Weinsteins trimming some of the fat from the film – either way, although the English version manages to clean up some of the movie’s bloated elements (specifically the material involving Heyerdahl’s wife), it also excises significant material involving Heyderdahl forming the expedition in the film’s first third.

Both versions are contained in Anchor Bay’s attractive Blu-Ray release, which sports a beautifully detailed 1080p AVC encoded transfer (just on the basis of the visuals alone, it’s no wonder that Jerry Bruckheimer tapped Ronning and Sanberg to direct the fifth “Pirates of the Caribbean” film). The DTS MA 5.1 soundtrack offers a Zimmer-esque score by Johan Soderqvist while a pair of featurettes rounds out the release.

DVD owners should note that only the 96-min. English version is contained on the standard-def side.

[jkholm]

Today was one of those days where it was necessary to get the kids out of the house. Since it is still ridiculously hot in Texas, I took the kids to the movies. Being late August, our options were limited so we saw PLANES. The fact that the Alamo Drafthouse recently opened its first Dallas area theater less than two miles from my house was a plus. I’ve been there twice now, having seen THE WORLD”S END on Friday. The presentations and food have been excellent so far.

PLANES actually wasn’t nearly as bad as I feared. Not great, mind you, but a decent time-killer. The animation was quite good so adults have at least some high-quality visuals to keep them occupied. The story was formulaic but well told and without a lot of the crass humor and sarcasm that is so prevalent in many kid’s movies.

Rating for kids: 7/10
Rating for adults who have to watch it with kids: 5/10
Anyone else: 4/10

[Monterey Jack]

You're Next (2013): 8/10



If any lesson is to be jotted down from this summer, it's that the smartest, tightest, most satisfying movies I've seen since May have been the micro-budgeted entries like The Conjuring and this gory, gripping throwback to 80's slasher flicks, presented with a blissful lack of postmodern "ironic" self-awareness and a brisk, unpretentious pace. It's not a "great" film, per se -- the "home invasion" horror subgenre has been done so often, I don't know how any film of this ilk could be seen with totally fresh eyes -- and yet it's consistently exciting, bracingly violent without wallowing in unpleasantness, and boasts fine performances given the limitations of the screenplay. And it might have the shortest end-credits crawl I've seen since the seventies...barely 90 seconds by my watch. Pounce, horror fans.

[AndyDursin]

I hated the trailer for YOU'RE NEXT. The last thing I want to see is another gory home invasion movie. If it isn't just a violent hackathon, then Lionsgate should take the blame for fashioning a horrible campaign that basically played up the violence and nothing else. Judging from the anemic box-office grosses it generated over the weekend, I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

[Monterey Jack]

That's a good reason why I haven't watched a movie trailer since last December...they LIE. It's not every day a gory horror film gets a 77% approval on Rotten Tomatoes. The film is extremely violent, but doesn't wallow is sadism for its own sake, and there are a number of smart twists throughout (there's actually a reason for the invasion this time). Obviously squeamish viewers should steer clear, but I had a blast with it.

[AndyDursin]

Well, honestly, it showed before THE CONJURING so I had no choice but to watch it.

[Monterey Jack]

Well, honestly, it showed before THE CONJURING so I had no choice but to watch it.

I literally will stand in the hallway, waiting for the trailers to be over, before I enter. I've been very studious avoiding trailers since last year, when I was subjected to the Zero Dark Thirty trailer in front of probably a DOZEN movies during the fall and winter months (even Rise Of The Guardians!), to the point where it was actually making me want to see the movie less rather than more. And it's easy to avoid TV spots in the DVR age. It was my New Year's resolution, and to date the only film I've broken that vow with was Django Unchained, and I only did that because A.) it was the second time I saw it, meaning all of the trailers were essentially the same, and B.) I was seeing it with my Dad, and it would have been rude to stand in the hall and leave him there.

[Eric Paddon]

"The Swimmer" (1968) 7 of 10

-My first viewing to kill the first of several dull nights in a motel room in Cedar Rapids, IA! (business trip). To me, this film plays like a big-screen episode of "Twilight Zone". Just think how perfect a Serling intro would-be just as Ned Merrill is about to begin his journey through the pools of his neighbors and think of a perfect Serling voice-over at the end as he stands in the ruins of his house. Because honestly, you have to take the movie on a TZ style level in order to understand it. Ned's friends when he starts at the beginning are more friendly and seemingly unaware of his downturns beacuse if you'll notice, they're all fighting hangovers and thus not clear-headed at this moment compared to the more sober cold voices as he gets closer to home.

[Monterey Jack]

Cloud Atlas (2012): 2.5/10

[Monterey Jack]

[AndyDursin]

LOL that movie sucked

The kind of thing I wish I just write instead of having to go on about it for a few paragraphs!

[Monterey Jack]

Why did Tom Hanks in the post-apocalyptic scenes speak like the desert kids from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome?

[mkaroly]

GOOD MORNING (1959) – (3.5/10) Two boys want a television set, but their parents refuse to buy them one. The kids decide to go “on strike” culminating with not talking to their parents or relatives as a means of protesting their parents’ decision. This film is a loose remake of I WAS BORN, BUT… from 1932, yet it lacks the wit and charm of the earlier effort. The film’s central focus is on the hypocrisy and banality of the adult world, especially where communication is concerned. The parents oppose their children’s request for a television: it is too expensive, it will make their children idiots, etc. Yet throughout the film the adults are shown to be more infantile and immature than anything the kids do in their protests. For example, the parents say one thing but really mean another; two people who are obviously in love cannot express it to each other; the women of the village talk behind each other’s backs but are pleasant and affirming when talking in the presence of the person they speak poorly about. They parents even misunderstand what the children are trying to communicate with their silence strike. There is some good material in the film where its themes are concerned; however, I did not find myself very engaged with it. At 93 minutes, it seemed longer than any of Ozu’s other films I had watched (which is ironic because it is one of his shorter late period films), and overall it seems like the film is flat – it is there and gets the job done but does not really stick with the memory. It is one of Ozu’s least satisfying efforts.

[Monterey Jack]

Riddick (2013): 6.5

Belated third go-around for Vin Diesel's monosyllabic space convict is not as good as Pitch Black (which boasted a sleeker, more controlled narrative) and not nearly as awful as the bloated, incomprehensible Chronicles Of Riddick (which made the colossal mistake of taking this lunkheaded action character and sticking him into a Dune-style fantasy framework)...it's essentially a remake of the first film, with improved CGI and less tension. Certainly fun if you like the character (as I do), but honestly, the best Diesel and writer/director David Twohy could come up with after nearly a decade was a retread of the first film? The film looks good, has some exciting moments and funny lines, but it's all rather slight and doesn't stick in the memory especially well. I don't regret seeing it, but unless you as enamored of the character as Diesel apparently is, it's fairly routine stuff.

[Paul MacLean]

Lost in Translation

For some reason I was expecting a slow-moving, humorless, "arty" film in which Bill Murray sulks for two hours. Instead I was delighted to discover a touching, bittersweet "fish out of water" love story. This is unquestionably Bill Murray's best performance, and the film allows the humor to organically emerge from the story rather than relying on Murray to simply do schtick. Culture shock is one of the primary sources of the movie's jokes, and while Sofia Coppola acknowledges many eccentricities of Japanese culture, she wisely refrains from allowing the film to be disrespectful.


Plunket and Macleane

Despite the misspelling of "MacLean" ( ) this is a bawdy, fun (and sadly overlooked) period romp, with a compelling screenplay (albeit one heavily influenced by Where's Jack). Director Jake Scott clearly inherited his dad's gift for arresting visuals and provides a film which is visually rich and atmospheric. The film boasts a superb cast as well, including Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller as the title characters, Liv Tyler (ten times better here than in LOTR), Michael Gambon and Alan Cumming (who is especially memorable as a promiscuous fop). The only real problem with this film is Craig Armstrong's score, which although "well-written" from a technical standpoint, incorporates a lot of disconcerting rock 'n roll elements. I guess they figured this would make the movie "hip" and "relevant" but instead it cheapens the experience and at times takes the viewer of out the film. (Incidentally, that rock 'n roll choral music heard in the trailer for The Patriot and a lot of other movies around 2000-2001 is from this score.)