Reviews

This movie approaches perfection in disaster films. The acting was superb, the special effects amazing and the story unbelievable - but true. My heart was in my throat - and I already knew the whole story from earlier research of the true-life incident - who lives and who dies. They actually skipped some elements of the day's work for the Coast Guard, probably because no one would believe it.

The only weakness I saw with the movie was that it was a bit slow in the start, too much romance in the beginning and not enough exploration of our four Coast Guard heroes. We only really meet and get to know Webber (Chris Pine), and it spends too much time exploring his romance. The movie makers attempted to shove some strong female characters into the story - beyond a brief introduction to establish Webber's motivations and history, they really didn't belong in the story.

But in the end it was worth it because the scenes of the crippled, broken SS Pendleton are edge-of-your seat stuff, and once Webber and his crew get in their little 36-foot motor lifeboat and head out into 60-foot seas, you're in for the ride of your life.

I had no idea what to expect of a Lucas movie based in reality. Lucas is known for science fantasy, a bit of camp, and a lot of showy special effects, but little content.

Red Tails isn't like anything Lucas has done before. He steps into a very different realm - reality. He does it very well, but there is something missing.

Lucas' tale of the Tuskegee Airmen, which in most films ends when they graduate from flight school, takes the tale of the African-American pioneers to the war, to the actions that made them one of the most decorated American units in WWII. It tells a tale not often heard in the history classroom, and I predict that it will become required viewing in many history classes, like Schindler's List, Codetalker, and Saving Private Ryan.

The only thing that holds this film back from reaching the epic proportions of those other films is the inexperience of the director, Anthony Hemingway, leaving the film just a little hollow. There was something missing that I could not quite put my finger on, but it was not such a large hole that it gets in the way of the experience.

The locations are beautiful and authentic, acting was solid, though not spectacular, and the special effects were excellent. I couldn't tell when they were using real aircraft, and when it was CG. At times the writing was decidedly Lucas in style, but it fit well with the storyline, and with the characters, who were completely believable. I was especially impressed with actors Nate Parker, who played the tortured, alcoholic flight leader, and David Oyelowo, his impulsive, angry wingman.

The script and direction felt right for the period. I was convinced we were in WWII, from the demeanor of the characters to the language they used. There was some strong language, but not the filth we often hear in modern war films. No F-bombs, no strings of cuss words, just an occasional "damn" and similar, something you might have expected to hear from angry, frustrated soldiers during the 1940s.

I admit I'm easily lost during major dogfight scenes, I can't follow the action, and simply wait for the payoff. The complicated dogfight scenes were deceptively simplified. I was able to follow the entire fight in this film, which is a major accomplishment for the filmmakers.

This is a movie I would recommend.

As a young teen in 1984 I was a major fan of Transformers. So, when I learned it was coming out as a movie I was psyched, but worried that movie makers would screw it up and leave it unrecognizable.

I was there opening night, with my kids, ready for anything. What I saw on the screen was quintessential Transformers and I was Pleased. Even though it was updated to reflect the 12st Century, this was the Transformers I knew.

I would have liked to see more character development for the Transformers, and less for the humans. Much of the Transformers characterizations relied on knowledge of and referred to the original cartoon, such as Megatron's seemingly non-sequitor comment to Starscream regarding Starscream's repeated failures.

The good side to this is that for fans of the original Transformers, there were many references to the cartoon. The nature of the Transformers arrival was changed, as was their reason for being on Earth.

Transformers is NOT a movie for kids. I saw at least one mom taking her child (age 5?) out of the theater after repeated "colorful" language and violence, including many graphic scenes of human death, and overt sexual innuendo. Even the cartoon of the 80s was rather dark, one of the few cartoons where characters, human and Transformer, actually died in battle.

What a cast! Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, Dick VanDyke, Mickey Roney, Bill Cobbs...

I'm not a Stiller fan, but in this one he was really great, he steps out of his usual shtick to really anchor this movie. For once he doesn't seem to be trying too hard and avoids overdoing it.

This is one of Robin Williams' better modern roles, he's toned down but still quintessentially Williams. It was nice to see him in a role that he can both take seriously *and* have some fun with it.

Owen Wilson is still awesome, basically reprising his Shanghai Noon character, but with a cute, rather unexpected twist.

Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Bill Cobbs are classic, they haven't lost a step. Rooney is still the little bantam rooster with the attitude! Van Dyke clearly anchors the trio. Cobbs wasn't given much to work with for his character, but his quality shines through. These veteran comedic actors bring a bit of class and legitimacy to the film.

The movie is well paced, jumping almost directly into the action, with plenty of laughs. From Rexie's puppy-dog antics to the war between Old West Cowboys and Roman Centurians, there is something around every corner.

The only stinker in this film is the kid. He's totally under-utilized for the storyline, they could have improved the storyline by either leaving the kid out of the movie entirely, or by giving him something to do. The pseudo-love-interest, too, should have either been played up or left out.

This is an entirely enjoyable family film. My 87 year old grandmother-in-law loved it, as did my 9 year old daughter and my teenage sons! Truly something for everyone.

My kids and I went to a sneak preview of Eight Below this evening. The show was sold out, we got lucky seats when the ushers made everyone scoot together to make more room.

Premise: the members of an Antarctic scientific team at a small base camp are evacuated due to a combination of injury and major storms approaching. The team's sled dogs are left behind, chained in place (and I assume well-fed), with the assumption that the pilot would be back in a few days to retrieve them. However, the team is not able to return and the dogs must fend for themselves in an Antarctic winter.

Eight Below is the story of the dogs and of their handler, who would doanything to go back for his dogs, even if only to give them the respect they deserved in death.

The dogs are the main characters but there are no corny CG animated doggie faces. Although it is somewhat difficult to tell them apart at first, they give us enough clues to figure it out later on. The dog that plays "Max" is quite the doggie actor, as well as the lead dog (I forget her name).

It's not too gory, although a beached orca carcass is pretty nasty. This is a family film. Semi- sensitive kids may want a nearby parent for comfort for a few scenes. If you have a sensitive child you may want to wait for the DVD release, it's less "there" on a TV, and you can turn it off if you need to. My daughter started crying as soon as she realized what was going to happen to the doggies as the team leaves the base. For a Disney movie this one's pretty intense.

This is a two-boxer. Do NOT attend this movie without a supply of tear-absorbent material. It starts you crying about 1/3 of the way through the movie and never really lets you recover.

Yesterday NPR (National Public Radio) interviewed two climatologists from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) regarding the science in The Day After Tomorrow. The main question was "Is the science in the movie at all realistic?".

The short answer was yes, but sped up. The movie takes place over a few months. The NOAA scientists took the long route to state that while everything in the movie was basically correct, it would take months, not weeks, for things to develop. They said that, unlike "Armageddon" and the recent TV movie "10.5", this movie was Science Fiction, with the emphasis on science more than fiction. They were actually quite impressed with the scientific accuracy the movie makers presented. It will never be used to teach climatology, but the science wasn't rendered unrecognizable by the moviemakers.

So I looked in the paper for reviews, the movie received three of four stars. Usually blockbusters like this only get two stars. So last night I grabbed the boys and my hubby and we went out to see the movie.

Well, the theater was packed for the 7pm showing, people were laughing and talking about suspending their disbelief for an evening. They were clearly expecting something along the lines of Armageddon and the recent "Core", a fun adventure with laughable science.

By the end of the movie I was a little disgusted by the overt political/environmental message, they could have gotten the point across without the heavy handed preaching at the end. I was unimpressed with the CG (a pack of wolves is done very badly, the tornado's in LA overdone, the rest is standard for modern special effects but nothing special), with occasional editing problems. There were clearly several scenes cut, probably at the last minute because you could tell that something was missing.

The acting was so-so. I wish they hadn't used Dennis Quaid, he was OK, but I got the feeling that this movie would have been better with all unknowns. Quaid was only one of two actors I recognized, but I bet some of the teenage leads were probably known to some folks. I didn't much appreciate the lead teen male, but probably because I simply thought he was ugly.

The time-line of the movie is a little confused. It feels like only a few days from start to end, the whole thing feels like it happens in less than a week. But if you pay attention to clues, it actually takes place over a few months. Dennis Quaid doesn't walk 40 miles in snowshoes in a day or two, as it appears, it's closer to a week.

I was satisfied with the basic science of the movie, and impressed with the storytelling. They didn't make the teenagers "scream machines", only there to be rescued, for once, the lead teen was actually very level headed and simply did what needed to be done. And rather realistically, he was motivated by hormones.

There were only two scenes that I felt were unnecessary, both were in the previews, the scene where the climatologists' camp was right on top of the crack when the ice shelf breaks off (I felt it would have worked just as well if they had been back further and just felt the rumbles and cracking and watched the ice shelf break off from a distance, and the wolf chase scene. They didn't really need the wolves, the scene could have been played a little more realistically, but at lest the people were smart and used their brains to solve the wolf problem,not relying on someone's last second heroics. The bad wolf CG really didn't help the scene along.

I was rather impressed that they didn't feel the need to turn it into a "violent orgy of death and destruction" every minute of the movie. They actually spend some "quality time", which less mature viewers would view as boring parts, dealing with the science of the disaster, people and something resembling reality. They actually acknowledged that if you drop an unconscious person off a roof, he's going to get injured.

There were a few good digs on President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the characterizations of them (they weren't specifically Bush and Cheney but it was clear they were meant to be) , and there were some really ironic-funny scenes of the US/Mexico border being closed, by the Mexicans, and illegal crossing of the border... of Americans headed south!

On a scale of 10, I would give this movie a 7.5, and I do recommend it.

The only thing that keeps this movie from being a 10 is the fact that they try to claim that it's a true story.

Why? This movie doesn't *need* support from such spurious claims. The cinematography is spectacular, the horses are awesome eye candy (and Viggo isn't too hard on the eyes either), and the locations are wonderfully exotic. Who cares if the story is true or not? As it is, many people are refusing to see what is otherwise a highly enjoyable film due to the rediculous claims.

I do question the casting choice for Moretensen, I don't think he was convincing as a Souix half-breed (come on, he's blond! Can't they at least have dyed his hair?) but otherwise, while the acting wasn't spectacular, it wasn't bad either.

The comparisons between the Bedouin and the Native Americans was interesting, and between Mustangs and Arabians. In the end there was a definate "moral to the story" (ie, saving the Mustangs, saving the Souix, etc), but it wasn't as blatant as they could have done. Otherwise this great horse movie could have turned out to be a gagger.

Disney movies are always watchable, but sometimes just mediocre. I don't think I've ever seen a Disney major release that really stunk, and a few of them (such as Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast) are simply stellar.

Brother Bear is pretty much an average Disney animated flick. The animation is the usual visual treat and the cultural background of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest pretty decent, but Brother Bear's potential is lost with the storyline. The best I can say is that it's bland. It totally lacks the sparkle that Disney's better animated movies display.

Joaquin Phoenix does well as Kenai, but Jeremy Suarez the voice of the young bear (Koda) is terribly irritating, the viewer gets the impression that the actor portraying the voice is far too well known, even if you can't figure out who the voice belongs to. Getting past the voice to see Koda's character is difficult. I believe this to be a casting error rather than poor acting.

The humor and Phil Collins' music are the high points of Brother Bear.

Overall, take the kids. You won't suffer, but neither will you be thrilled.

While this story has been repeated many times already, this one does offer something new. Meridith Baxter plays Margaret Reed, wife of James Reed, a primary financier of the Donner Expedition.

A wealthy family, the Reeds set out with a huge number of wagons, most carrying their worldly goods, driven by hired help, while the extended family rides in relative comfort in a huge, oversized custom built Connestoga passenger wagon.

Soon their stuck-up, overbearing ways get them in trouble with their fellow passengers and gradually they find themselves in the same "shoes" as their fellow travellers. When James kills another member of the party (self defense?) he is banished from the party, and goes ahead to California, able to travel much faster than the wagons.

And of course, they are trapped on Donner Summit.

One More Mountain is probably more historically accurate than many other variations on the story of the "Donner Party" that have been made in past years. It was a made for TV movie, and suffers the usual TV pacing and production qualities.