Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

**dell71** · 07-15-2012, 04:12 PM

Melancholia
Directed by Lars von Trier.
2011. Rated R, 135 minutes.
Cast:
Kirsten Dunst
Charlotte Gainsbourg
Keifer Sutherland
Stellan Skarsgard
Alexander Skarsgard
Brady Corbet
John Hurt
Charlotte Rampling

Justine (Dunst) and Claire (Gainsbourg) are a pair of emotionally unstable sisters with a half of the movie Melancholia devoted to each of them. I mean this literally. It’s divided pretty much down the middle. Part 1 is called “Justine”, part 2 “Clara”. For what it’s worth, Justine is the more damaged of the two. Her problems play out across both chapters. She suffers from severe depression. At times it cripples her to the point she can’t even will herself out of bed for days on end. Though married with her own family, Claire spends lots of time tending to Justine. Perhaps she also suffers from depression. She’s prone to break down and cry when things get to be overwhelming. This seems to be at least once a day. She’s also freaked out by our pending doom. More on that, later.

As part 1 opens, Justine has just gotten married. We go on to witness one of the most bizarre wedding receptions in the history of mankind. It’s held at the luxurious estate, golf course included, by Claire and her husband John (Sutherland). The location is the only thing luxurious about this reception, though. Justine’s mom announces to everyone that she doesn’t believe in marriage and, I’m paraphrasing here, “all you people suck.” Her boss sends his newly hired nephew to follow her around to bug her about the ad campaign they’re working on. Justine herself disappears for long stretches to have weepy conversations with Claire, who’s often sent to fetch her, or one of their parents whom she seeks out. All the while she alternately teases and gives the cold shoulder to her new hubby. None of it makes a whole lot of sense except to show that Justine is indeed depressed. And trust me, I’m leaving out some of the more colorful moments.

For part 2, we switch from disheartening drama to bleak science-fiction. Sorta. This is where that pending doom thing comes in. We see the extent to which Claire goes for her sister. It’s a tiresome job that strains her marriage. Justine eventually snaps out of her funk, somewhat. Once she’s up and about she exudes the kind of attitude that makes us want to smack her. Regardless, we shift our focus to Claire who is understandably freaked out by the heavy-handedly named Melancholia, a planet suddenly very visible in our sky. It’s visible because it is racing towards us. The question is will it actually hit us and end it all. John thinks it will not. Everything on Google says it will. So essentially, this becomes a movie about whether or not you can trust what you read online. OK, maybe not, but the subtext is there. Unlike more standard sci-fi, we don’t see armies of scientists trying desperately to come up with a solution. Bruce Willis and a rag-tag bunch of drillers turned astronauts aren’t sent up to deploy a nuke. Instead, we get Claire hoping against hope that things will turn out for the best.

On its own, each part is an interesting character study. More accurately, one and a half of the two parts is an interesting character study of Justine. Up to that point, everything we see of Claire is merely a reaction to her sister. The portion dedicated to Claire is not as complex and therefore less compelling. Of course, it’s saddled with the urgency of another planet possibly slamming into Earth. The problem is, especially with the dearth of characters in part 2, it’s less an apocalyptic event than an overwrought metaphor that overwhelms the story of the two sisters rather than aid in its telling. The fate of the world is clearly less important than the sanity of these two women. The planet merely succeeds in making a film that’s already a downer even more of one. That said, Melancholia is a mixed bag for me. It’s artistic and well-made but pessimistic without even a hint of humor. It’s interesting and different, yet relentlessly dreary. In other words, just forget about feeling good for a while after watching it.

MY SCORE: 7/10

**Buzzman** · 07-15-2012, 04:47 PM

With the streak your on dell, you should just review War Horse. Another 3 hour movie thats absolutely pointless.

**dell71** · 07-17-2012, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Buzzman

With the streak your on dell, you should just review War Horse. Another 3 hour movie thats absolutely pointless.

Yeah, I'm getting there. The wife & kids have actually been asking when am I going to get it. Soon, but not just yet...

**dell71** · 07-17-2012, 09:09 PM

Batman: The Movie
Directed by Leslie H. Martinson.
1966. Rated PG, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Adam West
Burt Ward
Lee Merriweather
Cesar Romero
Burgess Meredith
Frank Gorshin
Alan Napier
Neil Hamilton
Stafford Repp
Madge Blake
Reginald Denny

As a youngster, I used to watch reruns of the late 60s TV series “Batman” every weekday at 4:30 on channel 11, WPIX in New York. I’d even seen this movie several times. With both, I was enthralled by all the superhero action. I was amazed by Batman’s detective abilities. I eagerly waited to hear what exclamatory word or phrase Robin would use after “Holy” after we were both stunned by one of Batman’s revelations. The various ladies who played Catwoman all made me feel a little tingly. Best of all, I loved the fights. The way “BAM!” or “POW!” would pop up on the screen whenever one of our heroes connected with a punch was exhilarating stuff. Going back to this film so many years later makes me realize how dumb I was. I had no idea what I was watching. I hadn’t the foggiest notion of the comedic brilliance on display before my very eyes. Just so there is no doubt that what we’re about to see is not to be taken seriously, a blurb at the beginning tells us this movie is dedicated to “lovers of the ridiculous and the bizarre.” Of course, this meant nothing to me as a child. As an adult, it set the proper mood.

We jump into the plot with both feet. Four of Gotham’s super villains – The Joker (Romero), The Riddler (Gorshin), Catwoman (Merriweather) and The Penguin (Meredith) have joined forces. Together, they kidnap a famous inventor who’s created a thingamajig they’ll use to yada yada blah blah blah. Of course, it’s up to The Dynamic Duo, Batman (West) and Robin (Ward) to stop them. From there we get a relentless spoof of the Batman serials of the 1930s and 40s, even of comic books themselves. The unbelievable gadgets Batman whips out of his utility belt are hilarious. The sexual innuendos are nothing short of genius, including all sorts of jokes about Robin’s “inexperience.” Most of The Riddler’s riddles are wonderfully nonsensical. Finally, Batman is so smart even the most benign clues lead him to the correct answer. His pontification on each of these will make your head spin. We can’t forget those unbelievable escapes, either. This is where the skewering of the old serials is most evident. In those old shorts the heroes escaped impossible situations with flimsy explanations. Here, those explanations are remarkably thin. To make sure all these pieces congeal into a satisfying dish, a perfect tone is struck throughout. This includes almost always having the camera tilted just a bit whenever our focus is on the bad guys.

In the years since the TV series was cancelled, the Batman character has not only returned to his roots, he’s gone beyond them, becoming increasingly darker. On screen, this began in earnest with Tim Burton’s 1989 movie with Michael Keaton beneath the cowl and continues today. I, for one, am glad for it. Christopher Nolan is my hero for what he’s done with the franchise. The exceptions are the two Joel Schumacher entries into the Bat-canon, Batman Forever with Val Kilmer in the lead and Batman and Robin with George Clooney. It is these two movies that show us how great Batman: The Movie is. Schumacher’s flicks go for the same gusto that director Leslie H. Martinson goes for, but fails spectacularly. The purposely silly and slightly naughty dialogue is far more entertaining than having Arnold Schwarzenegger recite a million puns using the word ice.

With all that said, this isn’t for everyone. If you just have to have your Batman as a dark, brooding vigilante this is not for you. If you think movies such as the Austin Powers and The Naked Gun trilogies are stupid without being funny, this is not for you. If you’re not made to smile by reading the phrase “If I…could only reach…my utility belt!” This is definitely not for you. Fine, that just means more for me.

MY SCORE: 9/10

**dell71** · 07-21-2012, 07:28 AM

Posted on my blog this morning:

The massacre that took place at a movie theater in Colorado yesterday is beyond senseless. It is particularly hurtful because this terrorist is not someone whose national or political allegiances lie elsewhere. This troubled person seems merely interested in involving the rest of us in his misery. Movies are meant to entertain and/or inform us. They are not intended to be guidelines for the demented. The flipside of this is we shouldn't have to fear for our lives when we attend movies, or ball games, or anywhere else we gather to have fun. Unfortunately, we constantly have to be on our guard. My thoughts and prayers go out to those in the Denver area and especially to those directly affected by this tragedy.

**dell71** · 07-23-2012, 10:00 PM

The Dark Knight Rises
Directed by Christopher Nolan.
2012. Rated PG-13, 165 minutes.
Cast:
Christian Bale
Tom Hardy
Anne Hathaway
Michael Caine
Morgan Freeman
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Marion Cotillard
Matthew Modine
Liam Neeson
Cillian Murphy

Billionaire Bruce Wayne (Bale) has retired from life just as his alter-ego, Batman, has bowed out of the crime-fighting arena. For the last eight years he�s been a recluse, relegating himself to the east wing of Wayne Manor with no human contact other than his trusty butler Alfred (Caine). It�s just as well since Batman is wanted for the murder of Harvey Dent. If this is a surprise to you, please watch both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight before reading any further. Anyhoo, the Caped Crusader is forced back into action when the mercenary known as Bane (Hardy) threatens to destroy Gotham City.

One of the things that happens to movie franchises is that by the third movie, the spectacle overwhelms the story. The scope expands beyond its breaking point. Throngs of new characters are introduced, convoluting an already weak tale. Special fx substitutes for substance. Often, all of this coincides with a shift in tone to make things overly cartoonish. In short, the focus becomes being bigger than the previous movies, not continuing its saga. The Dark Knight Rises falls victim to some of these things and manages to avoid others.

To help TDKR stay above the fray littered with failed third installments is another splendid villain. A seemingly indomitable foe for our hero creates tension, keeps us on the edge of our seats. Bane gives us this, perhaps even more than The Joker did in the last movie because, unlike the Clown Prince, we fear he is physically superior to Batman. This is in addition to possessing the same maniacal passion to blow Gotham to smithereens. Tom Hardy gives us a menacing performance in the role, both aided and hindered by the mask that covers most of his face. With that and his bulky physique he�s simply intimidating to gaze upon. In action, he just as much, seeming to dwarf our hero in both height and width and the ability to put both to good use. The problem is the mask is equipped with a Vader-esque voice-box that lacks the clarity of having James Earl Jones voice the dialogue, occasionally making it difficult to understand what he�s saying.

As for Batman himself, he�s ever the tortured soul. Life without his beloved Rachel (again, watch the first two movies) and also without the cape and cowl has proven to be a struggle. It�s the most interesting the character has been and Bale gives his best performance in the series. However, donning the costume again may not be the best thing for Bruce. It also strains his relationship with his oldest and best friend Alfred. Alfred wants nothing more for Bruce than a happy ending. He realizes this might be an unattainable goal. Michael Caine plays the role superbly. The most touching scenes in the film are of him pleading with Bruce to find a better way than constantly putting himself in harm�s way.

Alas, there is plenty of spectacle and a number of newcomers. Aside from Bane, the main newbies Selina Kyle AKA, but never actually called Catwoman (Hathaway), Miranda Tate (Cotillard) who may be able to save Wayne Enterprises from financial ruin and young police officer John Blake (Gordon-Levitt). The handling of Selina Kyle is perhaps most interesting. She�s much less a villain than she is simply selfish and connected to all the wrong people. Unfortunately, the sparks needed to make some things towards the end work just aren�t there. Their relationship is much more reminiscent of a father and his adult daughter than two people sexually attracted to one another. Regardless of what she does dad, or Batman in this case, is there to show how much he believes in her. By itself that would be fine, but it renders the shift that takes place between them unbelievable and forced, even if predictable. When you add in all that�s going on with Wayne Enterprises� board of directors, a romance with Miranda Tate, following around John Blake for long stretches and the movie can begin to feel a bit cluttered.

The spectacle is handled in magical fashion. The easiest thing to point out is Batman�s newest toy, an aircraft creator Lucius Fox (Freeman) simply dubs The Bat. It�s an oddly shaped flying machine, but still more plausible than the giant flying aircraft carrier in The Avengers. Whenever it appears it takes center stage. However, the eye-popper is Gotham herself. One of the greatest strengths of Nolan�s trilogy is making the city a living, breathing character. She is Bruce Wayne�s true love. She is our damsel in distress. The cinematography exploring, exploiting and damaging her is amazing.

Though very exciting and containing most of the action, the last third of TDKR is a point of contention with me. Timelines become incoherent, plotholes pop up in droves and the last minute or two feels like a bit of a copout. This is completely understandable since TDKR is intended to be the last Batman movie Nolan will helm. I don�t think he wanted to upset too many folks on his way out the door. However, the previous movie in the franchise, along with his other movies like Memento and Inception, proves that he�s willing to end on a surprising and disconcerting note. For the first time in the trilogy, the director flinches. He shies away from challenging us and is content with merely entertaining us. This is all fine and dandy, but the finale doesn�t leave the lasting impression of its predecessor.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

**Houston** · 07-24-2012, 05:42 PM

I think they managed the time horribly in this one.

**Maestro** · 07-27-2012, 04:06 AM

Loved Hardy's performance throughout the movie. He really portrayed Bane well and might have surpassed the Joker in terms of "badass-ness".

**Houston** · 07-30-2012, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Maestro

**Maestro** · 08-01-2012, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Houston

**St. Francisco** · 08-01-2012, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Maestro

**dell71** · 08-04-2012, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Houston

**dell71** · 08-04-2012, 09:15 PM

Hugo
Directed by Martin Scorcese.
2011. Rated PG, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Asa Butterfield
Ben Kingsley
Chlo� Grace Moretz
Sacha Baron Cohen
Jude Law
Ray Winstone
Helen McCrory
Richard Griffiths
Frances de la Tour
Christopher Lee

Hugo (Butterfield) is a tween-aged boy who lives alone inside the giant clock at the train station. Sort of. He�s supposed to be living there with his uncle Claude (Winstone) who is responsible for keeping the clock wound. However, Claude is a drunk and hasn�t been seen in quite some time. Hugo�s dad was already a widower when he died leaving his son in the care of his not-so-responsible brother. So Hugo keeps the clock running all by himself. He also works feverishly to fix the automaton his father left him, a robot that supposedly writes. Hugo has never seen it work.

Much of our hero�s day is spent scavenging food and parts from the shops in the station while avoiding station cop Inspector Gustave (Cohen). His favorite target is the toy store owned by crotchety old Papa Georges (Kingsley). When Georges catches Hugo, he makes the lad work for him to pay for all the stuff he�s stolen. He also confiscates the kid�s notebook which looks like a manual for the automaton. In an effort to get his notebook back, Hugo recruits Isabelle (Moretz) who lives with Papa Georges and his wife because her own parents have passed away. The two embark on a book retrieving adventure.

Eventually, we find out Hugo isn�t at all about the notebook , the writing robot or even the title character. Like Super 8, which I�ve recently watched, Hugo is actually a movie about movies. In this case, it focuses on the earliest days of filmmaking and how magical moving pictures must have been to people who had never heard of such a thing. By extension, it�s also about when we in the contemporary audience first fell in love with movies ourselves. After all, even the most cynical of us has been awed by a film and transported wholly into its world at some point in our lives. Finally, it makes an eloquent point about the need to step up the effort to preserve old films. If the viewer misses all that stuff about movies and merely focuses on the surface of Hugo, they�ll still get an enjoyable film.

Hugo is also about the visuals. That�s not quite right, the visuals are there to enhance the feeling that watching a movie is akin to witnessing magic. They are an important part of the film. Each shot is beautifully framed and the fluid movement of the camera has the effect of sweeping us away into this world. Unfortunately, I�m ill-qualified to comment any further. My lack of technical expertise aside, it�s a movie designed to be a 3D experience that I watched in 2D on a not-so-wide screen. Though I�m not a huge fan of the medium I would like to see this as it is meant to be seen.

Even without the funny glasses, I still had a good time watching Hugo. The story is thoroughly sweet and touching. Admittedly, that�s not what I�m normally looking for out of my Scorcese, but he makes it engaging. Interestingly enough, my children didn�t enjoy it as much despite the two youthful protagonists. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you do need to understand a bit about the history of movies. After all, it is an adventure that leads not to a treasure of gold or something they deem tangible, but to an archive of silent films (I�m not spoiling anything). Maybe when I�m old and they�re making one of their obligatory visits I�ll force them to watch it with me just to see if they get it.

MY SCORE: 8/10

**Sven Draconian** · 08-05-2012, 08:02 AM

Don't want to hijack Dell's thread too much....

[spoiler]
I think you were a little hard on on the movie overall. I thought the romantic tension between them was alright. Maybe not to the extent of the cannon, which often portray her as the ultimate cock tease, but I did not have any issues with it. I did not mind the little twist with Tate at the end, and I do not feel as though it undermined Bane to the extent others did. Overall I thought Bane was superb and the "mastermind" while he and Tate had more of an older brother/younger sister relationship.

My issues with the movie were some of the silly plot holes. The police get trapped underground going into battle, but when they emerge for the big fight scene they are unarmed. What? They did not feel like grabbing their guns? The fact that Batman actually kills atleast 2 people (Tate and the driver). The utterly silly treatment of the US military and the effects of nuclear radiation (Gordan can be sitting on a bomb that is minutes away from decaying to the point of exploding, but there are no effects. The US military doesn't have the capability of simultaneously snatching 3 trucks off the grounds and flying them over the bay. Silly.

I'm also not a big fan of the amount of wasted time. While the atmosphere and spectacle are a big part of the franchise, they could have pretty easily trimmed out 15-20 minutes from the begging.

It was still a good movie. I still rank Begins #1 (10/10) with TDK at a solid 9.5. This is a definite step back, but I would give it atleast an 8, probably an 8.5. Might even be a 9 if the others had not set the bar so high.

**dell71** · 08-05-2012, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Sven Draconian

Don't want to hijack Dell's thread too much....

[spoiler]
I think you were a little hard on on the movie overall. I thought the romantic tension between them was alright. Maybe not to the extent of the cannon, which often portray her as the ultimate cock tease, but I did not have any issues with it. I did not mind the little twist with Tate at the end, and I do not feel as though it undermined Bane to the extent others did. Overall I thought Bane was superb and the "mastermind" while he and Tate had more of an older brother/younger sister relationship.

My issues with the movie were some of the silly plot holes. The police get trapped underground going into battle, but when they emerge for the big fight scene they are unarmed. What? They did not feel like grabbing their guns? The fact that Batman actually kills atleast 2 people (Tate and the driver). The utterly silly treatment of the US military and the effects of nuclear radiation (Gordan can be sitting on a bomb that is minutes away from decaying to the point of exploding, but there are no effects. The US military doesn't have the capability of simultaneously snatching 3 trucks off the grounds and flying them over the bay. Silly.

I'm also not a big fan of the amount of wasted time. While the atmosphere and spectacle are a big part of the franchise, they could have pretty easily trimmed out 15-20 minutes from the begging.

It was still a good movie. I still rank Begins #1 (10/10) with TDK at a solid 9.5. This is a definite step back, but I would give it atleast an 8, probably an 8.5. Might even be a 9 if the others had not set the bar so high.

For me, a 7.5 is a very good score. I did not go any higher than that mainly because the amount of plotholes piled on top of one another in that third act is rather ridiculous. I never did feel the romantic tension between the bat and the cat. It was their relationship that seemed like brother/sister to me. The runtime was fine with me because Nolan knows how to keep us interested between action scenes. I did enjoy the movie, but it is a step back from the other two movies in the trilogy.

Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment