George_Jetson_802701's Reviews

Alexander (2004)

16 December 2004

Let me start by saying that I usually like historical/swordplay/swashbuckling movies. However, "Alexander" is mainly just tedious. There is a lot of extended dialogue that seem to have no purpose. Usually this is for the purpose of character development, but not in this film. I thought the battle scenes would be exciting enough to make up for this, but somehow they were mostly just horses galloping. You got the impression that nothing was really happening in the battles (this contrasts starkly with Braveheart and Gladiator). It got a little interesting when Alexander fought the elephants, but this wasn't much.

I might have walked out on the movie altogether, but I thought there might be more scenes of Rosario Dawson nude. Her body is even better than I imagined, and her scene was the only one in the whole movie that was interesting. However, during the love scene between Alexander and her, all I could think was "Would Alexander even know what to do with a woman?" All his previous experiences seemed to be with men. I guess that's why it took over two years to get her pregnant :^)

I must credit Anthony Hopkins. He is a good actor, and the scenes of him narrating were not bad. But again, this was a minuscule part of the movie. I suppose Colin Ferrell is not a bad actor, but what were his character's motives? Sometimes they seemed to be saying that Alexander's travels were motivated by a desire to free all the people in the lands he found. Other times, Alexander is just depicted as a guy traveling as far as he could to get away from his mother. Speaking of his mother, Angelina Jolie does play a good psycho; although I agree that she sounded too much like Dracula.

I suppose it is unnecessary for me to state that I do not recommend this movie. I am surprised; Oliver Stone is an experienced writer and director. Well, everyone has their clunkers.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

King Arthur (2004)

Honorable Mention

31 October 2004

I would like to at least commend this movie on the whole approach of trying to show what the "real" story of King Arthur might have been, without the augmentation of magic as per legend. In this area, the movie realistically portrayed Arthur as a half-Roman horseman, the Britons as painted tribal Picts (they called themselves Woads; I always thought that was the name of the paint they used), and the main adversary, the Saxons, as Germanic raiders. I was not extremely impressed by the acting, and the battle scenes were just OK. Actually, my main compliment goes to the actor Stellan Skarsgård, who played the Saxon leader Cerdic. He made a very effective bad guy; he radiated menace in every scene, and his brooding presence upstaged the other actors. I believe that an effectively evil bad guy is a very important part of a movie, and he got the best lines too ("Finally, somebody worth killing"), great stuff! So, I did enjoy the movie. I would advise however, that if you have no interest in the events of the late Roman Empire/early Middle Ages that you probably won't be that interested in this movie. I wouldn't watch it for the "human drama".

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Thunderbirds (2004)

Why make it such a kiddy film!

18 September 2004

I remember the original T-Birds (in fact I got some old episodes on tape a couple years ago), and it seem that in both the original and especially the new movie the makers are stuck on the idea that it has to be a kiddy show. The whole concept of International Rescue, with the specialized crafts for various purposes, could easily be made into a movie for adults. The concept of the 5 thunderbirds; rocket plane, airplane, submarine, and space station are no more childish than James Bond or the X-Men movies (which are really made for both adults and children). The original 1960's show used marionettes, so I guess it was definitely a kiddy show, but the new one used live actors. Yet they still had to make it childish, with goofy characters and goofy fight scenes. Note that anyone who remembers the original with fondness as a child is an adult now (actually we're getting pretty old :^)

So why did the makers of "Thunderbirds" think it had to have silly parts? I can only guess:

1) "The movie's definitely for kids because the major characters of the film are children". I don't think that necessitates a silly movie. In fact, I think children are more sophisticated now that they used to be, and they can get into a serious film.

2) "Since International Rescue is operated by the Tracy family, a father working with his sons, it is a 'family film'". So, in order to encourage parents and children to bond while watching this film it has to be silly? I have no idea who made this rule.

Well, enough griping. Maybe there can be another remake someday which is better. I reiterate; the basic concept of T-Birds is pretty cool and shouldn't be just for kids!

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

She Hate Me (2004)

Premise

8 September 2004

This movie made me think of how its premise was created. Suppose a man wanted to push the fantasy about being sexually desired by women to the extreme. How would he proceed? 1) Must be pursued sexually by many women. Certainly more than 2. Better make it 18. 2) If the women are not normally attracted to men, their attraction to him is theoretically more impressive (by some rationalizations). So make them lesbians. Better make them cute too, there is no prestige in ugly women. 3) To emphasize the premise, have the women actually pay him to have sex with him. Make it be it a lot of money. $10,000. The problem is that this premise seems obvious and silly by itself. To make it less obvious, state that the women are motivated by the desire to get pregnant. You can still slip in the implication that they want sex with him because they didn't choose artificial insemination. I got the impression that this is how the premise for "She Hate Me" was developed. It has many other subplots of interest, but I think it is based on a somewhat obvious and adolescent fantasy.

73 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Time Machine (2002)

Comparing to 1960 version

8 September 2004

Warning: Spoilers

The 1960 version of The Time Machine was one of my favorite movies as a child. However, I like the 2002 version much better. I do not want to insult the 1960 version; for its time, it was very good. However, comparing the two, I can summarize my thoughts (sorry, I don't think I can do this without some spoilers):

1) In the 1960 version, the "reason" for the time traveler ending up 800,000 years in the future is that he was buried by lava from a volcano set off by a nuclear bomb in London (yeah right!). In the 2002 version, he hits his head and is knocked out as the machine travels very far into the future.

2) In the 1960 version, the Eloi are basically annoying beatniks and the Morlocks are 1950s-style monsters. In the 2002 version, the Eloi are struggling to maintain a society under the constant attrition of the Morlocks, and the Morlocks have a hive-type society with a telepathic leader (who keeps the Eloi in terror in their dreams). It may be that the 1960 version is closer to the book (where both Eloi and Morlock are weaker than the time traveler) but the 2002 version is more interesting.

3) There is no explanation for the Eloi speaking English in the 1960 version. The 2002 version at least made an attempt at giving the Eloi their own language. It still may be questionable that they could retain English, but this is the best I could expect.

4) The leading lady in the 1960 version (Yvette Mimieux) played a part typically contrived and uninteresting. I would not expect more from a movie made in 1960; its a sign of the naive and narrow times. Samantha Mumba is far better as Mara. Besides just being plain hot (which I must admit affects my judgment considerably), Ms. Mumba clearly depicted someone fearful but resigned to the situation.

Having praised the 2002 version of The Time Machine, I will be fair and mention a few minor grips about the 2002 version:

1) The counter of years on the time machine was all screwed up. The years, tens of years, hundreds of years, would all flip together. And what year did he end up in after he went further in the future?! 700,000,000? That's stupid; he should have only gone another several hundred thousand years.

2) I would have preferred that they have the Morlocks still be so light-sensitive that they couldn't go out in the daytime. This is how it was in the book and the 1960 version. I realize that they wanted the Morlocks to catch the Eloi by surprise, not in their homes at night. Since the moon was supposed to have broken up, maybe sudden eclipses could occur and the Morlock attack then?

All in all I really enjoyed the 2002 Time Machine.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

George_Jetson_802701

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed