The Bourne Supremacy

In a Nutshell: The next film in the Jason Bourne saga, this one has an interesting story, if less effective execution, though I'm not sure why it was slightly less entertaining than the original. Worth renting for fans of the first one.

Quick Plot: Treadstone is gone, but Jason Bourne still lives, and someone wants him eliminated. Bourne is willing to keep running, until they cross the line. In order to survive and hopefully clear his name, Bourne must take on the government and his former Treadstone foes, returning to his operative ways.

In Detail: The story here is rather interesting. I thought
Treadstone has been reinstated from the previews, but this is not the case. Instead, Joan Allen is put in charge of the investigation, in which two of her own operatives were killed. She is an effective investigator; she wants the truth, not just revenge. And the truth she finds is rather interesting. I love the interactions between her character and Bourne, and the story does go in some interesting directions. But it just didn't seem as good to me, and I can't really say why. The chase scene was lesser, that's for sure (LOVED the first one). The acting was fine for this type of film, the story was better, but it was still.... lacking some how. Worth renting if you liked the first one.

Will I Buy It? No, it doesn't quite make the cut. Glad I saw it, don't care to see it again.

The Aviator

In a Nutshell: Well filmed, well acted, beautiful costuming, very enjoyable, definitely worth seeing.

Quick Plot: Bio-pic of Howard Hughes spanning his early successes and his mid-life breakdown. Certainly a brilliant and innovative man, despite his eventual madness.

In Detail: I really enjoyed this film. I wasn't sure what I would get. I'm not a huge fan of Martin Scorsese films anyway (the subject matter rarely appeals to me), so I was concerned, particularly with it being 2 hours and 45 minutes long. It certainly didn't feel that way though. I have no idea how accurate any of the facts are (we all know how reliable Hollywood version facts are), but if even half of what is portrayed is the truth, then he was a truly visionary man decades ahead of his time. As for the film itself, I think the casting was inspired, most especially Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. However, in a way, by casting so many well known people, it is hard sometimes to get past who the actor is and down to the performance. Some of this is a function of what could have been better acting, but some is purely the visual of such recognizable people in relatively one-dimensional roles. Take Cate Blanchett, for instance. Many have put down her performance as lacking depth, but I disagree. To have attempted to portray someone as famous as "Kate" accurately would have been difficult, and she would have been dogged for her inaccuracies. To instead do her up as a bit of a caricature, she captured the essence without detracting from DiCaprio's performance. DiCaprio, for the most part, does transcend his recognizability, but it pops up every now and then, particularly during the "isolationist" period of the film. Overall, though, his performance is excellent. Having seen virtually no Scorsese films, I don't know if this is a trademark of his or not, but I did also want to comment on the use of silence in this film. In an era where louder is better, the periods of quiet in this movie are amazing. "Listen" for them, if you see it; it is incredibly effective at saying all there is to say.

Sorry, I'm not usually so "formal" and heavy-handed with my reviews, but this film certainly deserved it. I wasn't thinking that it necessarily deserved a potential Oscar nomination (or Golden Globe win) for Best Picture, but rereading my observations above, perhaps it really does.

Will I Buy It? It is *worth* buying, but I know I wouldn't watch it a whole lot, so no. Absolutely worth seeing, though would lose very little on DVD (except a couple of remarkable surround sound sequences for those of us not home-equipped).

King Kong (2005)

In a Nutshell: Too long. The good parts were very good, and the rest of it wasn't bad in any way, there was just too much of it all the way around.

Quick Plot: A 1930s film crew searches for the mysterious Skull Island and its strange inhabitants, and find the giant gorilla called Kong. After kidnapping the beautiful star of the film, the ape is captured and transported to New York City, with disastrous results.

In Detail: First, please let me say that this is not a bad movie. It was just badly edited, or should I say, not edited at all. It is 3 hours long, no joke, and that does NOT include any commercials or previews. If there is a "director's cut" of this film, I might have to faint. An hour could *easily* have been cut out (dinosaurs *and* giant bugs, was that really necessary?), perhaps even an additional 15-30 minutes if you wanted to be a little more ruthless. Parts of it were so well done, so glorious, it is a shame it had to be dragged down by the excess footage. I think the biggest problem it has is that Peter Jackson wasn't sure what kind of movie he wanted, fun action or dramatic and heartfelt, so he tried to make both, and ended up making neither very well. What a shame. Either would have been excellent, but both together just didn't work. The film never settled on a rhythm or pace. You never knew if the next scene would be heart-wrenching or silly, so you were never fully comfortable in the world he presented. The effects were phenomenal in almost every aspect, and my hat is completely off to Naomi Watts, who did a mighty chunk of her work acting with *nothing* but a green screen and a ball on a stick for eye line purposes. Simply amazing acting from that perspective. But that alone could not make this film all that it was intended to be. Worth seeing, on the big screen if you are really interested (the effects may suffer on smaller televisions), just not the spectacular tribute we were all hoping for.

Will I Buy It? Unlikely.

The Terminal

In a Nutshell: Sweet movie, worth renting, but not as great as I was expecting.

Quick Plot: A man whose country implodes while he is in flight is stranded at the airport for almost a year. He may not enter New York City to continue his trip, nor may he return home. Instead, he must make the best life he can inside the terminal.

In Detail: Definitely had the feel of an older type movie, but it was strangely less satisfying. It was also much more dramatic and less funny than I thought it would be, which may have thrown me some, since it is not what I was expecting. Most of the humorous moments were shown in the previews. And Stanley Tucci, who I usually find hilarious in his gruff over-the-top style, I instead found mean and unsympathetic. Such a shame. A sweet story, some great moments, worth seeing, but I'm glad we rented it instead of seeing it in the theater.

Will I Buy It? I don't think so.

National Treasure

In a Nutshell: Quite good Jerry Bruckheimer fare. All of his usual style and flair, with the added incentive of a mystery to solve. Check your brain at the door and just enjoy this fun popcorn flick.

Quick Plot: The Gates family has been following the trail of the mythical Free Mason treasure the US founding fathers hid more than two centuries ago, much to the amusement of the scholarly community. But when someone else plans to find it and keep it for himself, Ben Gates and team decide to beat them to the punch.

In Detail: I really liked this movie. About par for the course as far as Jerry Bruckheimer films go (not as good as Pirates, way better than King Arthur), which is just fine. I am quite a fan of his films, generally speaking. I liked that this one had the mystery aspect to it. Definitely reminiscent of The Goonies(for all you children of the 80s), but with less language! LOL A perfectly fun brainless film, with some great one liners. Would do fine on the small screen if you want to wait, but definitely worth seeing, even in the theater if you're an action junkie. Great fun!

Will I Buy It? I'm leaning towards yes. I won't run right out to buy it when it comes out, but if I happen to find it for under $15, I'd probably pick it up.

The Incredibles

In a Nutshell: WOW!! Just WOW!! It was, well.... (sheepish grin) it was incredible!! I don't know what else to say. Oh yes I do: GO SEE IT!!

Quick Plot: Mr. Incredible and his wife Elastigirl are no longer a part of the "super" life, instead having spent the last 15 years raising three kids and trying to teach them to be "normal." But now, 15 years later, it is time to save the world again.

In Detail: Okay, I realize that plot summary stank, but I don't want to give *anything* away. I'm really not going to tell you much about the film, other than it is excellent and you truly must see it. As DH said, often animated films are okay to good movies, but the animation and the humor elevate them to excellent. But in this case, the movie itself is truly exceptional to start with; then you add in awesome visuals (stay for at least some of the credits, too), several great homages (I'll have to see it a few more times to catch them all; come on DVD!), and some first rate ROTLF humor (honey, where is my super-suit?), and you get a move that is, well, incredible! Just go see it. You won't be sorry!

Will I Buy It? Heck yeah! I'm ready to pre-order it right now!!!

Spider-Man 2

In a Nutshell: Definitely worth seeing. Most of the individual elements were better, but the editing/pacing was *way* off, which detracted greatly.

Quick Plot: When Peter's idol becomes fused to four robotic arms, mayhem abounds. The situation is complicated by Peter's struggle with the choice of pursuing MJ or continuing as Spidey.

In Detail: Okay, so that was a sorry plot summary. Please forgive me. It's just rather hard to sum up well. First, let me say that the opening credits are awesome! I really really liked them. As I mentioned, most of the individual film elements were better than the original. The whole film was visually more stunning, with better (and less obvious, which is always better!) special effects. I liked the layout of the love story better (not great, but better), I liked the villain better (I could relate to him and feel sympathy for him). But the pacing of the film and the weaving together of the story elements (love story, humor elements, to Spidey or not to Spidey, Harry, Doc Ock) were TERRIBLE!!! How can a film where all the piece parts were better still feel unsatisfying? And how can a movie with such great action sequences feel slow? So I'm feeling rather conflicted about the film. I'd definitely rank it above the first Spidey (which I don't love), but probably below X-Men (both of them). Definitely worth seeing, but a little unsatisfying in the end (unless you go prepared, which I'm hoping this review will accomplish).

Will I Buy It? Probably. It's mainly up to DH. I do think I'd be more likely to watch this one more than the previous one (I just love Alfred Molina!).

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

In a Nutshell: Somewhat disappointing to this lover of the book, particularly as this is my favorite book in the series. Worth seeing, I guess, but not as good of a movie (story-wise) as the second one.

Quick Plot: Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban prison with one thought on his mind: kill Harry Potter.

In Detail: I know, I am dreadfully late with this review, but I figure anyone who really wanted to see it would have seen it anyway, and anyone who wasn't sure probably wouldn't have been persuaded to see it based on my rather poor review of the film, so in the long run, it probably didn't make any difference, unless you were dying of curiosity regarding my opinion of the film. :p You got all that? LOL Anyway, as I mentioned above, I found the film, overall, to be disappointing. Visually, I liked the film better, and the acting itself was better (hey, the kids are getting older and they have more experience now; I *hope* they're getting better). But with all of the edits they had to/chose to make to the story itself, it seemed to fall a bit flat. This perception is not helped by the fact that this is far and away my favorite *book* in the series, so it had a lot to live up to for me to be happy. However, given that DH (a non-reader) was even a little confused after seeing the film and I had to explain several things (including the tell-tale question "so *what* was up with those Dementor things?"), this tells me that the filmmakers did not succeed in their objectives of relaying the story well, at all. (For heaven's sake! You should know all about the Dementors by the end of that book, I mean movie.) They also took out a few points that I feel were totally key and that made the story "magical." The book has a lot of thinking/internal type elements, so I realize it was difficult to translate to the screen. Not a bad movie, but not as great as it could have/should have been.

Will I Buy It? Seeing as we already have the first two, I'm leaning towards yes, but if the films don't start improving from this point (and I find it hard to believe they can, since they intend to chop down the massive book 4 into a single 2 hour film), I will find it difficult to continue to purchase them. That is, of course, until I decide that my child needs a new film to watch, because I'm tired of seeing the same ones over and over and over and.... :)

I, Robot

In a Nutshell: Surprisingly good! After my other summer disappointments, I wasn't expecting much from it, and I came away really enjoying it. Not the greatest film ever, but really quite good. Definitely worth seeing, and definitely on the big screen!

Quick Plot: On the eve of the largest robot roll out in history, the "father of robotics" commits suicide, leaving his friend, the robot-phobic police officer, to investigate if it really was suicide, or if he was murdered by one of his own creations.

In Detail: (Note: I have never read, nor am I familiar with, the Asimov stories that "suggested" this film, and I am an admitted sci-fi junkie. Take this review with those particular grains of salt in mind.) Unlike Spider-Man 2, this film was *beautifully* paced. It flowed smoothly between story elements, and you really ride the adrenaline waves. Unlike King Arthur, the humor here was not only surprising (all the previews I had seen made it seem really serious), but it was perfectly timed and executed, bringing huge laughs. That's not to say that the movie isn't serious and/or doesn't have serious points to make. It is and it does, and it does indeed make them, but it doesn't do it in a preachy or heavy-handed manner. It just makes you go hmmm. The humor is well-placed for effect, usually tension release, which you need after some of the intense action sequences. Much of the film is CG, but I did not find it distracting. Every once in a while, the thought of "wow, that was amazing; too bad none of it was real" crossed my mind, but that's it, and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's not an overly deep movie, though it does have its moments. But I greatly enjoyed it nonetheless.

Will I Buy It? Not sure. That may seem strange after the above review, but I think I need to see it again (rented, most likely) to decide if there is enough to keep me interested on repeat viewings. Definitely worth seeing, though!

Addendum: After seeing this one a couple more times on television and finding it on sale for a great price, we did decide to buy it.

King Arthur

In a Nutshell: Not great, not bad; just another somewhat disappointing film. (This seems to be a trend of my summer film viewing of late.) Could definitely wait to be rented, IMO. This is especially surprising when you consider that I usually at least *like* Jerry Bruckheimer films.

Quick Plot: A more historical view (note I did *not* say "accurate") of the Arthurian legend, set just as Rome prepares to pull out of the British Isles, leaving the locals to fend for themselves against the ruthless invading Saxons.

In Detail: This film just falls very flat, at almost every turn. It is very heavy, quite different in that aspect from most Bruckheimer films. It does make some attempts at humor, but each and every attempt fails miserably. Most don't even bring a smile. There was no spark whatsoever between Arthur and Guinevere. Sure, he was interested in her, but it was more from a curiosity and intellectual perspective. I did feel some of the bond between Arthur and his knights, but I really didn't care too much about most of them or their fates. How very sad. They did work in some of the elements of the "classic" story in a convincing way (where you could see perhaps how the legendary elements came about, similar to the way Troy handled such things), but there were very few. Quite a letdown, given all the hype. Honestly, I think it hyped itself up to the point that there was no saving it from a fall, but it's still not a great movie. Rent it if you feel like seeing it, or catch it at the dollar theater. Certainly don't pay more than matinee price.

Will I Buy It? No.