Prince Caspian was awesome. It was no Fellowship of the Ring or Star Wars (original trilogy), but the film does improve on the previous Narnia outing in every conceivable way; and in doing so, serves as a fine peice of fantasy entertainment. The story was fine, nothing stellar but easy to follow and enjoyable. The acting was surprisingly solid, with even Caspian himself giving a fine performance despite very stilted line delivery in film’s first act. The four returning child actors fromthe first film each deliver as well, as do the many mythical creatures in the mix. The effects were stronger; the pacing more even; and the comedic moments more effective. So, all that taken into account, I am giving The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian a solid 5 up front and I will go on record right now to say that it is my favorite fantasy film since The Fellowship of the Ring (yes, I did enjoy it more than The Two Towers and Return of the King–at least since the last time I viewed them).

Of course, as much as I enjoyed it, the movie has its faults. As I said before, the story was fine–meaning “serviceable” or “adequate”–but it was really not overly engaging. Really, its the characters that make this movie pass so quickly and remain so consistently entertaining. The highly unlikable middle kids from the last film are both much more likable; and Caspian, though he begins really weak, becomes interesting and cool by the end.

The real thing that makes this movie so good, though, is the mythical characters and the action. I LOVED the big action scenes in this film, even more than the action sequences in Iron Man. While they lack the scopeof the Lord of the Rings battle sequences, they are both absolutely jaw-dropping. They were just awesome and incredibly dense–like, with final-battle-of-Attack of the Clones-levels of effects and characters. I don’t want to ruin anything for those who haven’t seen it, but both major battles in the film feature great action with loads of mythological creatures battling knights, and I just ate it up. Some said mythological characters also have great personalities, including a lovable “bulgy bear”, and they really make this film lovable.

Writing about this again, I just become more and more happy with it. It’s a really enjoyable fantasy flic, and I look forward to watching it again.

I have never read the Narnia books, but I didn’t come to The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe without context. Years ago, the BBC had released a PBS miniseries of the story, which featured a terrifying witch, ugly kids, and people in costumes as the animal characters. I loved that old film and had fond memories of eating a Popsicle and watching it in the summer after spending a day at the pool; and as such, I was unsure how this new vision of the film would stack up.

Frankly, it’s ten times better, and I really don’t want to rewatch that old BBC version; for I can foresee its weaknesses becoming much more glaring. This new Narnia film is a crisp fantasy adventure that presents wonderful escapist entertainment, even if the characters with whom we escape are somewhat unlikable. And I think that is one of two major shortcomings in the film. If a fantasy film requires the audience to follow characters from our world into the new one, the characters with whom we are supposed to relate should be likable–of the four main characters in the film, two (the oldest and the youngest) are great and two are annoying. The second major shortcoming of the picture is that the story is really imperfect. It just lulled from time-to-time despite the writer’s and director’s obvious attempt to give it a sense of urgency.

Accounting for those shortcomings, however, I still felt that The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe was a good fantasy flic. There is a minotaur who pretty much just yells every time he is onscreen (thanks to reader, Bobby, for bringing my attention just how cool this is), and an amazing end battle sequence. The villain is pretty good, played by the ever creepy Tilda Swinton; and the overall fantasy world and creatures are neat and fun to watch. So The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe is certainly imperfect but still entertaining, so I am going to give it a 4.

My reaction to Chariots of Fire is odd. As I began writing this meview for it, I thought of the movie’s pacing and length, and thought it too long and slow; but as I continued revisiting it in my mind, I came to find the film well-paced and, well, fantastic. The main players are very well written and the supporting folks have personality; so despite its pace, the movie creates a constantly engaging story worthy of being told on celluloid. Plus, the soundtrack rules.

The film follows two runners, a Scotsman named Eric Liddell and an English Jew named Harold Abrahams, both of whom go to the 1924 Olympic games to represent the UK, each for their own reasons. Liddell runs for the Lord’s pleasure, for the enjoyment he feels from his talent and ability to move like the wind. Abrahams, on the other hand, runs without joy, striving to be “the best” simply because he is trying to prove himself to the world. Essentially, the film shows how both of these men operate and deal with the pressure of their quest, and it does so in a wonderfully moving way. I really came to respect both of these men for their principles and talents, even if at times, they seem unreasonable or unlikable.

So I give Chariots of Fire a 6. It’s a clean, strong film with great, engaging characters; and it is one of the best explorations of athletes on film I have seen to date.

I love Casino. In fact, I actually like it better than Goodfellas–I know, I know, I’m looney. There’s just something about this movie that I really connect to. I think it’s the fact that I would love to be an awesome gambling wizard who knows the Vegas nightlife and how to play the system, whereas I have always found the mob lifestyle to be heinous and completely villainous. Casino really plays to this inner desire of mine by showing not only the inner workings of the system but also exploring the lives of those running the strip–the people I would want to be beating at the slots and tables.

Frankly, what really sells me on Casino is Scorsese’s storytelling, particularly regarding the way in which a casino and Vegas itself operates. It’s absolutely mesmerizing the way he tells it, “the dealers watch the players, the crew bosses watches the dealers, the pit bosses watch the crew bosses..” and so on. I just became enamored with Vegas, the strip, and casinos every time I watch the flic, and it’s not only entertaining but cathartic as well. The character played by Sharon Stone really reminds me of a girl I used to be infatuated with in high school, and seeing how blessed I am NOT to be with a loon like that REALLY makes me feel happy about my life choices! Plus, Joe Pesci is at his best in the flic, too.

So, I give Casino an overwhelming 7. It’s definitely one of my favorite movies, and after describing it here, I want to watch it again! I do not recommend it to those who have issues with profanity, sex, violence, gambling, adultery, greed, or mayhem–but if you’re down with those aspects of entertainment, it’s a great motion picture!

Clue is the only comedy I have ever seen that is based on a board game., and I have to say that it’s good. It’s surprising, but it’s true. The movie, like the game, is a who-done-it exercise involving characters the likes of Colonel Mustard, Mr. Green, Professor Plum, and more as they are locked in a home trying to solve murders happening around them.

The movie succeeds for two reasons. First, Tim Curry, who plays the host of the “murder-manor”. Curry’s contagious and vivacious performance carries the movie through every plot-point, and his chaotic analyses at the film’s conclusion are amazing; second, the writing, which really carries the confounded murder plot. While the movie has several, event-oriented scenes, it’s really a film of talking, of setting up accusations and shooting them down, of running around and figuring things out. It’s a talking movie, and to be honest, the talking tends to be fun, with each character having his or her own voice and reaction to the events occurring before them.

Of course, this leads to my big “criticism” of sorts. Clue feels like a play, not a movie. Sure, it jumps from this room to that, but the action could all be centered in a theater and have the same impact. I really hate when movies feel this way. It’s a personal thing, and maybe it’s stupid, but when I am watching a movie and it feels like a play, I get really bothered by it. This is the fault of no one but the director. The film is shot adequately but offers nothing that makes it worth putting on the silver screen, particularly since it’s tone feels so much like a play.

Now, this will probably piss people off, but the above criticism, is enough to real make me dislike this movie—or at least feel “meh” about it. As much as I am offput by the visuals and overall feel however, the performances—particularly from Curry and Christopher Lloyd—as well as the dialogue made the movie somewhat enjoyable. I’m gonna let these pro’s and con’s kinda balance one another out and give Clue a tentative 4. Again I know this is a meview, and personally I really hated the visual style and tone of the picture, so maybe I should be giving it a 3, maybe even a 2, particularly since it had such a strong script as its foundation, but I am feeling good, and if someone wanted me to, I’d watch it again, just to hear the dialogue and study the structure. So, yeah, I’ll stick with a 4.

Eddie Murphy is a funny dude. So is Arsenio Hall. So is James Earl Jones. So when you put them all together, you get gold, right? Yeah, pretty much.Throw in a cameo by Sam Jackson, and you get pristine, refined gold worthy of kings. Yeah. Give them a by-the-numbers comedy script that works more than half the time and is serviceable enough to set jokes on for 90 minutes, and you’ve got royal gold served on a pearl neckace. Of course, you do. Or so you’d think.

As much as I want to say that Coming to America is an amazing, nonstop laugh fest that showcases the true power of Eddie Murphy, I just can’t go that far. Is it good? Oh yeah, it’s good. Is it amazing? For some, maybe, and that’s great, but for me, no. It’s just too by-the-numbers for me. And maybe that’s my fault–in fact, I’m sure it is. I wish I had liked the movie more than I did. I laughed, and I enjoyed it; but I sure wasn’t blown away like when I saw Beverly Hills Cop for the first time.

Coming to America is the classic “fish-out-of-water” story, centering around an African prince who comes to New York City to meet a bride and escape the one chosen for him. Of course, hijinks ensue while he completes his mission. It’s pretty by the numbers, from the local folks that help him learn the ropes to the case of mistaken identity and so on and so forth. Is it funny? Sure. Is it hilarious? Maybe, but I’m leaning toward “no”. The flic has alot of talent behind it, and its stars really elevate the material but overall this is a fairly mediocre outing at the movies.

I am gonna be nice and give Coming to America a 4. I laughed enough to say it’s good but not enough to say its great–which is fine, movies are allowed to just be good. “Good” is better than most movies could hope to be.

When Michael Mann does it right, I’m one happy camper. He did it right in Heat and, in my opinion, both The Insider and Miami Vice. He also does it right in Collateral.
Collateral his latest L.A.-based film, stars Tom Cruise and Jamie Fox, with support from Mark Ruffalo and Jada Pinkett Smith. The film plays somewhat like a Hitcockian thriller as Cab driver Max picks up an unneeded fare named Vincent, a hitman with 5 jobs to complete before dawn. The film has its fair share of chases, twists and turns; but it also has a great deal to do with characters and their reaction to a new environment different than the usual one over which they feel control. Collateral is a case study of this type of two-men-in-the-ring-of-life in a way that one wouldn’t expect. The movie is a solid piece of storytelling, with several particular scenes shot and edited to near perfection.

That the movie was shot with a high-end video-camera is impressive at some points and a problem at others. I don’t like the look of the video at times, but it does have a gritty, neo-8-MM film, so I guess it works. I don’t know.

I am giving Collateral a very solid 5. It’s a character driven thriller with excellent performances. I wasn’t an enormous fan of Michael Mann’s use of video as opposed to film, but I still really enjoy the movie overall.

While The Chronicles of Riddick is a better overall viewing experience than Pitch Black, it’s still nothing great. In fact, it’s kinda bogus–not the story mind you or the concepts behind it, but the execution. Granted, I’m not a good director; and frankly, maybe I’m not one to judge a movie in this way; BUT as a movie viewer, when I watch movie and say “he should have shot that like this” or “that sequence needed this” or “that’s pretty much the worst dialogue I’ve ever heard”, it’s a problem. I hate to be watching a movie and have these thoughts, for they are not only mentally distracting, but they destroy all possible emotional connection one can establish with the characters in the piece–not that The Chronicles of RiddicK has great characters toward whom the viewer can form deep attachment.

No, the characters, be they zealots, victims, children, or bounty hunters lack all manner of charisma. I really tried to think back on the characters for any I liked, and I couldn’t. Even Diesel’s Riddick seems to lack all the attitude and no-nonsense baddassery (is that a word?) of Pitch Black. He’s just kind of this legendary figure that most people fear for some reason or other, but he does little to show us why less a few moments of calm and collected barbarity…yep, not much there. Frankly, I will give credit to director to David Twohy for his attempts to give Riddick a more full and dyanmic backstory, but it’s flat, less one comment by the character which summed it up better than the 15+ minutes dedicated to it.

All that being said, I’m giving The Chronicles of Riddich a generous 3, because there are two pretty good fights and Diesel is still cool, even if he’s a little less of a BAMF then in other roles.

Fun. Fun. Fun. That’s what action movies are all about. Well, usually. Sometimes. Maybe. I mean, sure, you have your operatic action fare, your Hong Kong John Woo flics, like The Killer, and A Better Tomorrow series or your Rambo: First Blood. But then you have your action movies with no hidden meaning and no message, just guys with guns, giving the audience a good old-fashioned rush of adrenaline and catchy one liners. Which type of film is “better” is an argument as old who’s responsible for evil, but I personally find both rewarding genres depending on the watcher’s mood.

Con Air is arguably one of the greatest of the “fun” action flics. The film follows a plane of convicted fellons who take over their transport in order to fly to a non-extradition country. On the ground, meanwhile, the U.S. Marshalls office pursues them, trying to bring in the cons without sacrificing the guards on board the aircraft. The good guys have an ace up their sleeve, however, in that a good-guy-wrongfully-imprisoned happens to be on board and takes it into his own hands to protect the guards and retake the plane.

Sound familiar? Well it should. Con Air is an action fan’s action movie. Blending elements of Under Siege, Executive Decision, the Die Hard films, and True Lies, the film is a mish-mash of nearly every fun actioner before it, playing to the genres rules and types like kids with their action figures. Between Nicholas Cage, John Cusak, Steve Buscemi, John Malcovich, Ving Rhames,Colm Meaney, Danny Trejo, Nick Chinlund, Dave Chappelle, Mykelti Willaimson and Monica Potter (a.k.a blonde Julia Roberts), the movie may have one of the most star-filled casts of the genre. And to no surprise, each and every actor delivers on every level required of him or her. These characters are usually one dimensional but are nonetheless given personality by the actors portraying them. The militant African American, the psychodic rapist, the valiant hero, the ecologically safe yuppie agent, the trigger happy angry agent, and more types of the genre are here and are given a fun treatement.

Therein may lie the best part of Con Air. The film does one thing better than ANY of the superhero movies that came before or after it (with the exception perhaps of 1966’s Batman). This movie gives the audience not one fun, charismatic, and devishly likable villain but an array of them, each of whom could have been the orchestrator of their massive escape. And that’s high praise. All too often, when films have multiple villains, they have one to two heavy hitters and a litter of henchmen who just kind of meld together into interchangeable fodder for gunfights. Con Air, however, gives the audience a myriad of unique easily identifiable villains, each of whom with as much pizazz as their leader. That’s a high praise for an action film, and I have yet to see another do it as well or better.

Con Air is a fun ride from start to finish that successfully visits nearly all character types in the action genre with a whimsical attitude meant to give the audience a action-packed good time and nothing more. It’s a treasure of its type, and I give it a very solid 5

I think most, if not all, of us have at one point considered what we would do if we were stranded on a tropical island alone. Personally, I think it could be an excellent adventure. It could be a wondrous time of self-reflection, renewed health and fitness, and it’d be beautiful. Of course, that’s only if you don’t die from snake bites. Castaway invites its audience to watch a man experience this, maybe not in the same manner each of us would choose to, but in a way that’s worth watching. At least I think so. The movie moves slowly, like time would if one was stranded on an island, and it works for me as both food for thought and entertainment.

Of course, Castaway wouldn’t be all that impressive if it weren’t for Tom Hanks. Talk about carrying a film on your back. Despite how many amazing films he’s been in, I know of none that Hanks had to completely and fully carry like this one. Thanks to him, the movie is not only bearable but good.

I make the point above because the film spends its entire second act with Tom Hanks’ character alone on an island. The first act is his life before, and the third act is his life after. Both acts contain many other characters and their various roles in his life but are surprinsgly short. The second act, however, is nothing but Hanks alone, learning to live on the island. It’s fascintaing to see the inventions, tools, and shelters he makes for himself; and the overall experience made me wonder if I would fare as well as he. Would I commit suicide? Would I succeed in returning to soceity? Would I want to? These are interesting and complex questions, and I like films that give me that type of food for thought.

I am giving Castaway a very solid 5. Thanks to Hanks, the movie has very endearing moments; and while it moves slowly, it is entertaining, overall. On top of this, the film provides good food for thought and fodder for discussion. Nice!