Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[NAHSTE]

Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is incredible. Loved the way the clues were presented to the viewer. And I agree that her character is written incredibly.

On the other hand, I saw the second one in a theater the other week and was a bit disappointed. From what I read, the last two installments were originally shot as two separate 6-episode television mini-series. Once the book series and the first film began to take off in the States, they decided to re-cut the sequels into features. It explains why some of the narrative is rushed or disjointed.

I'm hoping to catch the third one soon, but from what I hear it's on par with #2. The Girl Who Played With Fire wasn't bad or anything, but it failed to slap me in the face and make me say "wow that was an incredible movie" like Dragon Tattoo did.

[dell71]

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman
Directed by Curt Geda and Tim Maltby.
2003. Rated PG, 75 minutes.
Cast:
Kevin Conroy
Kimberly Brooks
Kelly Ripa
Eli Marienthal
Elisa Gabrielli
David Ogden Stiers
Kyra Sedgwick
Kevin Michael Richardson

Carlton Duquesne (Richardson) is having gangster issues. The Penguin (Stiers) is employing him to supply the muscle that will ensure that a dirty deal gets done. At every turn, Duquesne’s henchmen take a beating at the hands of new Gotham hero, the mysterious Batwoman. Not even the Dark Knight himself knows who she is, where she came from or what she’s up to. With room enough for only one vigilante in town, one and a half if your count Robin (Marienthal), Batman sets out to discover her identity.

Duquesne is also having daughter issues. He and his all grown up little girl just can’t see eye to eye on anything. She also resents the fact that because of his problems in the underworld he insists on sending a couple of goons with her everywhere she goes. Nevertheless, she manages to break loose long enough to start up a romance with Bruce Wayne.

Visually, we get the classic blocky style we’ve come to expect from Batman: The Animated Series. This is no more or less in terms of quality.

The story seems to be moseying along in an easily predictable manner. Thankfully, we get a great twist near the end that really spices things up. It really elevates what was a decent but ho-hum affair to a very nice experience.

MY SCORE: 7/10




Batman: Under the Red Hood
Directed by Brandon Vietti.
2010. Rated PG-13, 75 minutes.
Cast:
Bruce Greenwood
Jensen Ackles
John Di Maggio
Neil Patrick Harris
Kelly Hu
Jason Isaacs
Gary Cole
Vincent Martella
Jim Piddock

Using one of the Joker’s old aliases, the Red Hood (Ackles), an apparently new masked baddie is extorting all of Gotham’s crime bosses. After dispatching a number of their henchmen, he claims to offer protection not only from the police, but from Batman (Greenwood), as well.

This time around we find a guilt ridden Batman, beating himself up over the death of Robin (Alexander and Vincent Martella) at the hands of the Joker (Di Maggio). It doesn’t help that the original Robin, now known as Nightwing (Harris) keeps popping up to help out, a morbid reminder of what could’ve been. Like the best of Batman, the psychological aspects of the story are as much a part of the story as the action. At the heart of the matter, we come to learn, is Batman’s self-imposed code of ethics. Many Batman fans have often said to themselves if they were the hero, (place name of villain, here) would be dead. Someone here thinks the same. Out loud. To Batman’s face.

The action is well-done. Continuing a recent trend in the franchise, it’s also fairly brutal. Unlike the old Adam West TV series or any of the Batman animated shows from my childhood (the 70s and 80s), people die. At the risk of advocating murder I’ll say it fits the mythology of Gotham City, given the people depicted. Our hero is up against bad people who do bad things, not the vaudevillian mischievous characters they were once made out to be.

For me, the one real drawback was the voice-work of a couple of main players. It wasn’t necessarily bad, just not the voices I wanted to hear. Greenwood as Batman is adequate, but he’s no Kevin Conroy. Conroy perfected the Batman voice. His is always the one I hear when I think of the character. The same goes for Di Maggio as the Joker. He’s actually a little less than adequate making Mark Hamill’s work in the role stand out that much more.

Those minor drawbacks aside, this is a true delight for Batman fans. The story is intriguing and flows nicely into the action. It is one of the better entries into the canon.

The Opposite View: N/A

What the Internet Says: 7.9/10 on imdb.com (8/28/10), 100% on rottentomatoes.com, N/A on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

[Fox1994]

I need to download/buy those.

[Lumpkin]

Under the red hood was great. I agree with what you said about the voice acting. Greenwood was good enough. Di Maggio grew on me as the movie went along (the last couple scenes really turned my opinon for the better). I guess since were so used to hearing Conroy and Hamil the new voices take some getting used too

[Palooza]

Clash of Titans was pure shite. Sam Worthington is so boring.

[NAHSTE]

Clash of Titans was pure shite. Sam Worthington is so boring.

Should've cast Adrian Grenier.

[Palooza]

Should've cast Adrian Grenier.

he's too busy making documentaries that will change the world.

[dell71]

Brothers
Directed by Jim Sheridan.
2009. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Tobey Maguire
Natalie Portman
Jake Gyllenhall
Sam Shepherd
Bailee Madison
Taylor Geare
Mare Winningham
Patrick John Fleuger
Clifton Collins Jr.
Carey Mulligan

Sam (Maguire) is a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corp and everything his father hoped he’d be. His brother Tommy (Gyllenhall) is quite the opposite. In fact, Tommy is fresh out of jail and hoping to piece his life together. To make matters worse, Dad (Shepherd) isn’t the least bit shy about sharing his disdain for Tommy, all the while comparing him to Sam.

A couple other wrinkles pop up in our tale. First, Sam is sent off to Afghanistan, leaving behind his wife Grace (Portman) and their two daughters. Shortly thereafter comes the second. Sam is presumed dead after a helicopter accident. After this, Tommy decides to clean up and help out his sister-in-law best he can. Of cours, the two take a shine to one another. I’ll stop there so I won’t spoil the rest.

It’s not as tawdry as it sounds and not anywhere near what the trailers make it out to be. In fact, it’s a thoughtful look at a set of serious and delicated issues. It feels like something that may have played out a time or two across this country over the last few years. The writing is pretty spot on, as are the performances by Portman, Gyllenhall and especially Shepherd.

However, I did have a problem with Tobey Maguire. He isn’t egregiously bad. Some might even say he’s quite good, here. I just never felt the right vibe from him. He seems not to have an adequate enough dark side to pull from. Then again, it could be me. He’s become so synonymous with Spider-Man, I spent half the movie kind of expecting him to don the mask and tights and bust out of the P.O.W. camp he spends a large chunk of time in. And it might not be me. I spent the other half of the movie wondering why Edward Norton isn’t playing this role. The last time I saw him, he looked young enough in appearance for the part and it’s the type of character he excels at playing. While not possessing quite the boy scout charm of Maguire, which is appropriate early on, when the character changes Norton’s persona is more suited to the role. He is simply the scarier man.

Still, it’s an excellent watch that offers food for thought. It also offers relevance, something many movies cannot.

The Opposite View: Melissa Anderson, Village Voice

What the Internet Says: 7.3/10 on imdb.com, 59% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

[SOS4Prez]

Agreed on almost all points. I thought it was far an away Maguire's best performance, but then again I've only seen Spiderman once and that was a long time ago. I definitely got vibes from him, but most of them weren't vocal. The look on his face was telling for me, especially in the awkward dinner scene and overall I thought his physical acting was very impressive.

You definitely hit the nail on the head about it not being what the trailer presented. It really wasn't about two brothers and their relationship at all. I was ready to proclaim it one of the best of 09 until they forced the issue near the very end with a couple of "you're my brother!" lines.

[nflman2033]

if you haven't seen this:


then check it out

[Fox1994]

Why thank you for the recommendations, gentlemen. I'll be sure to check these out as soon as possible.

[dell71]

Agreed on almost all points. I thought it was far an away Maguire's best performance, but then again I've only seen Spiderman once and that was a long time ago. I definitely got vibes from him, but most of them weren't vocal. The look on his face was telling for me, especially in the awkward dinner scene and overall I thought his physical acting was very impressive.

You definitely hit the nail on the head about it not being what the trailer presented. It really wasn't about two brothers and their relationship at all. I was ready to proclaim it one of the best of 09 until they forced the issue near the very end with a couple of "you're my brother!" lines.

Spiderman might be my hump to get over. Most of those looks I equated with the "emo-Spidey" section of Spiderman 3 and that wasn't good. However, I will give him props on the dinner scene - that was an awesome scene.

[dell71]

Dell’s Classics Presents:


Videodrome
Directed by David Cronenberg.
1983. Rated R, 89 minutes.
Cast:
James Woods
Deborah Harry
Sonja Smits
Peter Dvorsky
Leslie Carlson
Jack Creley
Lally Cadeau
Lynne Gorman

About 25 years ago, one of my best friends and I were up late. Finally tired of countless hours playing Atari 2600, when most video game characters looked like a collection of rectangles with eyes, we flipped on HBO. We happened upon a movie called Videodrome. The early scenes included nudity, always helpful in capturing a boy’s attention. However, what kept us there were the strange and exciting visuals. This included things coming out of TV sets and VHS tapes that seemed to be alive. We had a vague understanding of the story: watching this particular videotape would seriously screw up your whole world.

Over the next year or so, I watched Videodrome several more times and gave it a warm spot in my heart. I kept it there and remembered it fondly, thereafter. Time causes memories to fade and warp to your liking. When I saw it on the shelf at my local library, I naturally became curious to see if it is the masterpiece I’d come to think of it as, or if it is something I loved as a boy but had no use for in adulthood. I had to investigate.

The plot follows Max (Woods). He runs Channel 83. The station’s niche is perverse programming. In the words of a woman interviewing him, they show “everything from soft-core porn to hardcore violence.” This has made Max something of a pariah in the industry, a focal point in the debate over what should and shouldn’t be on television.

Max comes into possession of a series called “Videodrome.” All of the “episodes” are on grainy pirated tapes and depict hooded figures mercilessly beating some poor soul. Of course, Max is not only intrigued but sets out to find out where this show is coming from and if it is indeed real. The short answer is yes, it is real. Don’t worry, that’s hardly a spoiler. In fact, that’s merely the very tip of a deeply submerged iceberg. What follows is a twisting and twisted tale of betrayal, paranoia and conspiracy all revolving around a fear that’s been around since televisions invaded our homes so many moons ago.

I remember being blown away by the visuals when I first saw them as a youngster. I was most curious to see how these stood up to the test of time. Surprisingly, they are still remarkable. There are a few instances when you can see the seams in the production. However, this is no different than many of the big blockbuster movies of today in which you can easily spot what is cgi and what is not. It’s actually a little better because these effects are all organically created. Even though many of them look a bit more crude than today’s stuff, they feel more real, more unsettling. In this case, prosthetics and tubing work better than a collection of pixels.

Given the current state of television and all forms of media, for that matter, Videodrome is a piece of dark, satirical social commentary that doesn’t feel as dated as its age indicates it should. Sure, it uses the VHS and VCR as impetuses for its action instead of Blu-Rays or downloads but the principle is the same. What appears on the screen is still wildly imaginative and the story still taps into our own fear of what we find entertaining.

MY SCORE: 10/10

[Houston]

Have you ever seen Seven Samurai.

[nflman2033]

10/10 for Videodrome, wow not one of my favorite DC movies, but still getting a 10/10 for DC movie is awesome in my book.

have you seen The Brood, my favorite DC movie