Where's My Popcorn?

OVERALL

The best thing I can say about Michael Bay's "Transformers" is that it had a scene that I would have loved to have seen in a Transformers movie when I was 11.

This movie brought out the fan in me, making me geek out many times, and wondering how much of this movie Steven Speilberg actually directed... or at least helped Bay with.

The scene in question happened when our human protagonists were being chased by an evil cop car (a Transformer Decepticon named Barricade), and were saved by Bumblebee, the Autobot who was the protagonist boy's protector. It was something pulled directly out of a cartoon, and got rousing cheers from the audience having the same geek-out moment I had.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: The human story was great. It kind of started out like E.T., then morphed into Terminator 2 before ending with Megatron and Optimus Prime duking it out. Without going into who played who, the character Sam.. or Spike... was great. And although the girl was eye-candy, she had a nice little back story that was a flashback to the cartoons.

NO: There needed to be more of the Transformers, whether it be the good guys or bad guys. I would have liked to seen more character build-up to make you care more about them. There was a scene where one was being tortured, and although you cared a bit about the character, there could have been more. The movie could easily have been a half hour longer, and I wouldn't have minded.

SIX WORD FINISH
"One shall stand. One shall fall."
-- Optimus Prime to Megatron. I geeked out again.

FINAL BELL
-- 4.5 out of 5 -- I wanted to see this movie immediately after it was over. Just so I didn't have to pay closer attention to the plot (my main reason for going to any movie) and enjoy the rest of the action and the characters. A friend of mine said afterwards that he really enjoyed the fight between Optimus Prime and a Decepticon character whose name I don't remember. I remember the fights, but with so much going on I didn't get a chance to thoroughly enjoy them. So the next time I see it, I'm going to be 11 years old again.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?: Yes. This is one of those movies you'll be thankful you saw in the theatre.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/

OVERALL

This was going to be a tough movie to make no matter what. Especially since the book is the longest of the series, and while reading it makes the reader wonder how the hell they're going to make a movie out of it.

That's what I was thinking. There was no way they were going to be able to fit in all the plot points from the book into this movie and make it work. No way they could even make the movie less than 3, even 4 hours.

And then the director went ahead and decided to make it the SHORTEST Harry Potter movie, making me scratch my head.

So what was left out? Did it matter? Was it integral to the plot? I read that J.K. Rowling, author of the Potter books told the directors what needed to be introduced into certain movies. If there's a bit character that plays a major part in a later book, that character also needs to be in the movie.

Even though a lot of smaller plots from the book were left out... okay, Ron and Hermoine became prefects while Harry was passed over. Ron became the keeper for the Gryffindor Quidditch team, which saddened me that it wasn't in the movie.

But everything else that MATTERED was in the movie. This wasn't a great/not great movie like Prisoner of Azkaban -- in which it was a great movie but a lot of plot was left out -- this was a movie that segued the series in a good way. You would have needed to see the previous FOUR movies in order to enjoy this one, and it made you want to see the next one.

Mainly because in this movie Harry became a young man. No longer were his eyes widened by little things around him, he became his own person. He talked back to others, he pressed issues, he wouldn't let certain things sit.

But did it work?

PRO vs. NO

PRO: They were calling this the darkest Harry Potter movie yet, and the first ten minutes showed you why. These were ten minutes you wouldn't expect in a Potter movie. It didn't even LOOK like a Potter movie. The director's style was very good, and the editing was done well. No more long gazing shots at the outskirts of Hogwart's School, this time the segue ways were done by spinning newspapers, continuing the storyline. And the final fifteen to twenty minutes of the movie were just as good as the final 15-20 of the last movie, which was probably the best in the entire series.

NO: One of the characters, Luna Lovegood, showed how certain things were cut from the movie. The character was good, and one of my favourites in the movie, but there was a major storyline in the book (in which her father's newspaper told Harry's story where the regular newspaper would not) that was cut. But otherwise, that's a minor "NO". One of the major ones dealt with the length of the movie. I would have liked to have seen it be at least a half hour longer to hash out certain scenes. Some scenes were short because they had to be, but the discussion between Dumbledore and Harry at the end was too short for my liking. Also, the ending sequence came out of nowhere, and I was left thinking "Whoa, we're at this part already?"

SIX WORD FINISH
"...and I feel sorry for you."
-- Harry, to Voldemort

FINAL BELL
-- 4.5 out of 5 -- I thought the makers of this movie did a much better job than those who made the Goblet of Fire, which (for some odd reason) didn't really work for me until the final half hour. It seemed in "Goblet" you were going to be promised so much, and then were told to use your imagination. However in "Phoenix", the director went back to using some of the old tricks Christopher Columbus used in the first two movies, and it seemed you were being reunited with some old friends.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?: Yes, even if you have read the book.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/

OVERALL

Holy cow. I believe I may have seen one of the fakest-looking movies of all time. I didn't get a chance to see "300" in theatres, but all of my friends were saying "Dude, this is one of the greatest movies of all time! You NEED to see this!" So I Netflix'd the movie, totally looking forward to seeing it, and then my wife and I watched it.

Halfway through my wife said "Gee, I wonder if he's going to do another speech?" And boom, right on cue, we got another Braveheart-esque speech by our ab-friendly good guy.

This movie was made almost completely with CGI, and you can tell. Just from the sky. That's what made the movie seem so fake. The slow-down-speed-up scenes during fights were tacky. Some parts of the story, including the Oracle, were completely unnecessary and seemingly tacked on. It looked to be made just for guys, so let's throw in another naked chick!

So yeah, I really didn't like this movie. I saw it already when it was called Braveheart, and that movie was much better. Of course Braveheart also had homophobic scenes (funny enough, the coolest looking character with the best voice was portrayed as a flaming "family" member... if you know what I mean).

You know what's going to happen in this movie, but I found myself just not caring. I didn't really like the main character, King Leonidas, but the actor who portrayed him Gerard Butler had great delivery. Sure he yelled a lot but he yelled with a lot of PASSION. I do hope this gets him some more roles.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A lot of no-name actors portraying characters who stood out. If you forgot the storyline of the movie, you won't forget the imagery of how the characters looked.

NO: Just take a look at the overview. This was a story that's been done many times before (few vs. many), and it's been done better.

SIX WORD FINISH
"We're in for one wild night."

FINAL BELL
-- 2 out of 5 -- I love macho movies. And this one was dripping with machismo... so why did it not resonate well with me? How could I not love this movie? Was it TOO macho even for me? Or did it dip into the fantasy land of self mockery? There was a strong woman character, the King's wife, and you find out the narrator plays a good part in the story. Would I have liked it more if I hadn't seen Braveheart? Maybe. What if I play the role of a good reviewer and not account Braveheart? Then what? Maybe the movie would get a 3 out of 5, but for the main reasons in which I DON'T mention Braveheart.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
For me, no. For some people, including those guys looking for a movie that will make them feel better as a man, yes.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/

OVERALL
You get what you paid for. You want mother-effin' Samuel L. Jackson on a plane with a lot of mother-effin' snakes... you GET mother-effin' Samuel L. with a lot of m... you get my point.

If Jackson's roll was played by any other actor, this movie would be shown on the Sci-Fi channel, edited for TV with a lot of commercials. If it were actually released to theatres, or even straight to DVD... not too many people would be interested. Well... except for the title.

The main marketing focuses of this movie was THE LINE by Jackson, and the name of the movie itself. Snakes On A Plane. You know what you're going to get. But releasing this movie in all of it's R-rated greatness, you get people acting badly with a bad script.. .but Jackson MAKES this movie.

Overall, this is a pretty dismal movie when it comes to acting and dialogue. But directors David R. Ellis and Lex Halaby made this movie an experience. You don't go to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the entire aspect of the movie.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: This movie may not be on the level as "Army Of Darkness", but it has just enough dark humour that it's worth it for a drinking game, or just to revel in the greatness that is Samuel L. Jackson.

NO: This movie was not meant to be a good movie, but the directors tried. It was a little long at 104 minutes, and the supporting characters were just an afterthought.

SIX WORD FINISH
"F***ing snake! Get off my d***!"

FINAL BELL
-- 3 out of 5 -- Watch this movie with a group of people who are open minded, love bad horror movies, or just Samuel L. Jackson. You'll thank me.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Not by yourself. See this movie with many people.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/

OVERALL
I walked into this movie with low expectations, and got exactly what I was looking for. A few twists here and there, but overall this movie really REALLY reminded me of George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead", which came out a few years earlier. Zombies - check. Highly protected vehicle - check. Characters you know are going to die - check.

Not looking to spoil anything, but amidst some very cool scenes the ending of this movie left me scratching my head, thinking what the heck they were going to do next... if anything. The set-up on top of set-up pointed to a great ending, but... go watch the movie and find out for yourself.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: Once again, Milla Jovovich was the highlight of the movie. If anything, watch this movie to see how the character progresses from the first two, movies I also recommend, but ONLY if you know what to expect -- zombie shoot-em-ups. Also, the scene with the crows was pretty damn cool.

NO: The movie seemed kind of short. I would have liked to learn more about certain characters before they died. Also, as cool as the ending was, it made you wonder how they can follow it up.

SIX WORD FINISH
"Good thing we like a challenge."

FINAL BELL
-- 3.5 out of 5, leaning towards 4 out of 5 -- A pretty cool movie that could have been just a bit better, with a head-scratching, but awesome, ending.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
A good stand-alone movie, but having watch the first two movies you get a bit more out of it. You don't have to be a fan of the video game in order to enjoy the movie. Go see it, and bring plenty of popcorn.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432021/