Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

I thought the drug use, the promiscuity, and the political backstabbing where a good set of "faults" to focus on in the film...especially the drug use and promiscuity, considering they are two of the demonizing stereotypes of homosexuals.

If they did a biopic of MLK, I'm sure they'd touch on the womanizing, but it'd be a very small part of the picture and wouldn't be a focus and it might get pushed aside but brushed upon similar to how they portrayed Harvey Milk's fault.

Also, must remember the film was written by a homosexual that was inspired to come out by learning about Harvey Milk, so, of course, with that said, I think they did a decent job covering faults, when even the writer was excessively pro Milk.

Great post. Didn't know that last part about the writer.

 

[T.Dot]

Great stuff dude.

You going to review the new James Bond movie?

 

[dell71]

Great stuff dude.

You going to review the new James Bond movie?

As soon as I watch it.

 

[NAHSTE]

Honestly, you hit the nail on the head but I think that's also the reason we haven't seen a real MLK biopic yet. There's just too many people interested in protecting his legacy to let that show up on the screen.

There were a couple of TV flicks made about MLK but neither was at all interested in anything besides marches & speeches. Though, the one starring Paul Warfield in the title role wasn't terrible.

Yeah, being from Atlanta, I've had to watch that "Little Boy King" TV movie at least a dozen times. It came on FOX 5 every year on or around his birthday, and we watched in class in every grade in elementary it seems.

I thought the drug use, the promiscuity, and the political backstabbing where a good set of "faults" to focus on in the film...especially the drug use and promiscuity, considering they are two of the demonizing stereotypes of homosexuals.

If they did a biopic of MLK, I'm sure they'd touch on the womanizing, but it'd be a very small part of the picture and wouldn't be a focus and it might get pushed aside but brushed upon similar to how they portrayed Harvey Milk's fault.

Also, must remember the film was written by a homosexual that was inspired to come out by learning about Harvey Milk, so, of course, with that said, I think they did a decent job covering faults, when even the writer was excessively pro Milk.

Good point about the author, and it wouldn't be the first time a biopic was a bit too gracious towards its subject. Not that I was expecting the movie to demonize him, but it did stray rather close to portraying him as a saint/martyr.

Either way it's still a great movie. My only other criticism of it is the rather fast development of Dan Brown's character. I thought Brolin could've used a bit more screen time to set up Brown's descent a bit more. You could see he was tormented from the scenes they did have, but there just felt like more could have been done to dig deeper into the rage that consumed him.

 

[dell71]

Changeling
2008. Rated R, 141 minutes.
Director: Clint Eastwood. Starring Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan, Michael Kelly.

Plot: In March of 1928, Christine Collins' (Jolie) son Walter (Gattlin Griffith) goes missing from her Los Angeles home. Six months later, the LAPD bring her a boy they believe to be him but whom she knows is not. "Inspired" by true events.

The Good: Rather than trying to excite us right off the bat, director Eastwood stays true to form and draws us in. He also keeps us locked in through the story's many twists and turns. Believe it or not, he accomplishes this by occasionally taking the camera off his main star. This allows the plot to develop organically and adds levity to a desperate mom's quest, putting us even more in her corner than we already are. As for that star/desperate mom, Jolie takes a break from sexily slinking around action flicks to give us a very good performance that's both frantic and muted at appropriate points.

The Bad: The ending drags on a bit long and renders itself anti-climactic. I understand why it's there, I just don't think it needs to be. There are a couple strands that come to unsatisfactory conclusions. Each could've been fixed with a simple blurb at the end of the movie. We were given several, one or two more wouldn't have hurt.

The Ugly: The doctor trying to explain to Christine how her son could've shrank 3 inches in 6 months.

Recommendation: While I don't think it's quite at the level of the prior year's best lost-child movie, 2007's Gone Baby Gone, it's still an excellent entry into the genre. It is an excellent example of patient storytelling that never rushes but manages not to drag.

The Opposite View: Chris Farnsworth, E! Online

What the Internet Says: 8.1/10 on imdb.com (#223 all-time as of 3/31/09), 61% on rottentomatoes.com, 63/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

I Married a Monster from Outer Space
1958. Not Rated, 77 minutes.
Director: Gene Fowler. Starring Gloria Talbott, Tom Tryon, Robert Ivers, Chuck Wassil.
Marge (Talbott) marries her sweetheart Bill (Tryon) and notices he's acting really strange. She soon discovers that the man she married is...wait for it...wait for it...a monster from outer space. Well, actually his body has been taken over by a monster...from outer space. One by one, this starts happening to all the men in town as Marge frantically tries to find help in stopping them. Yup, this is 50s B-movieism at its finest...or worst depending on your point of view. The aliens use screwy logic but hilariously enough, they're better husbands than the humans they've taken over. The human men, married or not, are all heavy drinkers who spend every night at the local pub. When we get to the "exciting conclusion" it's because a) people suddenly know things they shouldn't, but don't know things they should and b) ...well, there's a lot of stupid stuff. Think Invasion of the Body Snatchers mixed with Plan 9 from Outer Space and a dash of Signs thrown in. The unintentional humor is high, the special fx are shoddy, even for the 50s, and one particular fact about our alien friends renders the whole thing impossible. That's why it's so bad, it's awesome! MY SCORE: -10/10

 

[dell71]

Notorious
2009. Rated R, 114 minutes.
Director: George Tillman, Jr. Starring Jamal Woolard, Derek Luke, Angela Bassett, Antonique Smith.

Plot: The life and times of Christopher Wallace, AKA The Notorious B.I.G.

The Good: Even better than simply not making our hero a saint, the movie doesn't try to justify his indiscretions. It's content to show him as a guy who often has to learn the hard way. It also manages to show him as thoughtful, if a bit selfish. Woolard in the title role is simply note-perfect. Unfortunately, he's so good and has a look enough like Biggie I can see him struggling to land other roles. Actually, the title role is shared by Woolard with Biggie's real-life son, Christopher Jordan Wallace, who ably plays his dad as a kid. The movie also makes effective use of Biggie's music as both a score and a soundtrack.

The Bad: I've often complained about movies, especially comedies, that simply run too long. However, I'm a firm believer that biopics should be at least two hours long. This one is a bit shy of that mark and suffers because of it. In particular, his various attempts at reconciliation with the women in his life are either glossed over or just plain left out as things between he and them go from bad to good instantaneously. It also limits character development in others who should/could have had major roles. Lil' Kim (Naturi Naughton) suffers the most as the script makes her completely selfish, lacking any compassion and most other human emotions besides anger. The circle around Biggie known as Junior MAFIA also suffers, only depicted as flunkies and hangers on when by most accounts he did have real friendships within the group. Even his friendship with Puffy is never dealt with.

The Ugly: How he gets "inspired" to make his hit song Juicy.

Recommendation: This is a pretty good biopic that sticks to the headlines from its subject's life. For hip hop fans, it's a worthy first entry into the genre. It could've used some more fleshing out to be great. Even though it's no disappointment, one can't help but wonder how much better a movie about Biggie's friend turned nemesis, the more interesting and dynamic personality Tupac Shakur, could be.

The Opposite View: Rob Daniel, Sky Movies

What the Internet Says: 5.8/10 on imdb.com (3/2/09), 53% on rottentomatoes.com, 60/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10

 

[dell71]

Bolt
2008. Rated PG, 96 minutes.
Directors: Byron Howard, Chris Williams. Starring John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman, Mark Walton.

Plot: Bolt (Travolta) is a dog who stars in his own TV show. He believes that he has superpowers and that the amazing feats he performs are real. Bolt unwittingly gets out into the real world in an attempt to rescue "his person" Penny (Cyrus), whom he believes has been kidnapped by their arch-enemy, The Green-Eyed Man.

The Good: It's a fish-out-of-water tale mixed with a road movie and both aspects work well. The dialogue is sharp and funny. Unlike a lot of Disney movies, it's not afraid to give us a bittersweet ending. Perhaps most importantly for a film like Bolt, we get fun action scenes and intoxicating visuals. Oh, and the pigeons are hilarious.

The Bad: Even though it's barely over an hour-and-a-half, it drags a bit in places. That's partly due to our hero having to literally travel across the country. The movie could've gotten more mileage out of Penny by checking on her more often to see how she's handling the situation, but that's nitpicking.

The Ugly: The way the cats on the studio lot pick with Bolt.

Recommendation: 2008 is the strongest year for animated movies I can remember. That said, Bolt is one of the better entries.

The Opposite View: Lou Lemenick, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (4/3/09), 88% on rottentomatoes.com, 67/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

 

[Senser81]

Dell, have you done a review of "Quantum of Solace" yet?

 

[dell71]

Nope...but I am watching it this weekend.

 

[Buzzman]

Nope...but I am watching it this weekend.

It wasnt bad it was pretty good but it wasnt even close to the 1st one. I dont think any bond movie could top Casino Royale

 

[dell71]

As promised...

Quantum of Solace
2008. Rated PG-13.
Director: Marc Forster. Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric.

Plot: An attempt on M's (Dench) life by the mysterious Quantum organization leads Bond (Craig) to Haiti where he meets the beautiful Camille (Kurylenko). She in turn, leads him to Quantum's leader Dominic Greene who is of course, trying to take over the world in some form or fashion. Action ensues. Or re-ensues, since it starts with a car chase, but nevermind.

The Good: The action, duh! These sequences will flat knock you on your butt. It amplifies the Bourne-style in splendidly brutal fight and chase scenes with amazing stunts. However, it's careful to never get into the gizmo heavy cheesefests that marred the Pierce Brosnan 007 flicks. This Bond also has another thing in common with Bourne, he's ruthless, in fact moreso. He's piling up quite a body count. To pull this off, Daniel Craig is perfect. Whether or not he's the best Bond is a matter of opinion. What isn't open to debate is the fact that he's given us by far the most athletic version of the character. Aside from the physical stuff, we also notice that for the first time, a Bond movie isn't a stand-alone adventure. It's actually a real sequel that often refers to it's predecessor. This further humanizes our hero, even as he's performing unbelievable feats. He often has thoughts of revenge and can't sleep due to the events of the prior movie. The relationship between Bond and M continues as it did in Casino Royale as well. That is, it provides a solid foundation and seems to grow during the movie. It helps that Judi Dench has been wonderful in the role.

The Bad: The story is a bit convoluted and rushed. This seems to be a constant Bond problem as the bad guy has to go through a whole lot to take over the world and Bond has to go all over the world, quite literally, to figure things out. As a result, he seems to discover a lot of things either by accident or unintentionally implied psychic ability and we are left scrambling to catch up. The movie is also formulaic. In CR, there were long sections of the movie devoted to us getting to know the new Bond. Here, those sections are stripped away and we just follow the same leftover steps. As far as Bond villains go, Dominic Greene and the evil general we meet later are a bit bland. If the Bond reboot needs anything, it's "a better brand of criminal" to quote The Joker. Oh, and what happened to the creative names for the bad guys and the Bond girls. Hearing the outlandish and sometimes racy names of these characters was part of the fun. I realize they wanted to get away from some of the more silly aspects of the franchise but they could lighten just a tad. Dominic Greene and Camille? Where's the fun in that?

The Ugly: He keeps tearing up my damn Aston Martins!

Recommendation: As with any of the Bond movies over the course of 40 years, it's a must-see for fans. It's also a must-see for action fans since it may be the genre's best film of 2008 that doesn't include a costumed hero (unless you consider a well-tailored suit a costume). It's also not as good as CR. While, it's certainly a fun ride, the movie between the action scenes seems lacking. Fortunately, those action scenes come early and often and are all dynamite.

The Opposite View: Mike McGranaghan, Aisle Seat

What the Internet Says: 7.0/10 on imdb.com (4/6/09), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10


EDIT: I originally scored this a 7 but the more I think about it, the less I like it so I dropped it half a point.

 

[FirstTimer]

The Good: The action, duh! These sequences will flat knock you on your butt. It amplifies the Bourne-style in splendidly brutal fight and chase scenes with amazing stunts. However, it's careful to never get into the gizmo heavy cheesefests that marred the Pierce Brosnan 007 flicks.

I resent this only because IMO GoldenEye is the best Bond flick ever...but I could have done without the Brosnan ones after that.

 

[Senser81]

Thanks for the review.

I thought the movie was completely pointless. Not much dialogue. The re-introduction of Mathis felt forced. No interaction between Bond and the girl. Too many chase scenes. The first chase scene was ridiculous...the bad guys shooting uzi clip after uzi clip at Bond's car to no avail, then Bond merely needs to pick up his gun and fire one shot our of his window and its 'chase over'. The plot itself was pointless...the bad guys want to take over the water supply in Bolivia...who cares?! There wasn't really any connection between the different events in the movie. Bond finds out that all the bad guys are at the same opera...does it really matter? A British agent has been working for the bad guys, but now he's dead...does it really matter? The British agent girl has been drowned in oil...does it really matter?

 

[dell71]

Thanks for the review.

I thought the movie was completely pointless. Not much dialogue. The re-introduction of Mathis felt forced. No interaction between Bond and the girl. Too many chase scenes. The first chase scene was ridiculous...the bad guys shooting uzi clip after uzi clip at Bond's car to no avail, then Bond merely needs to pick up his gun and fire one shot our of his window and its 'chase over'. The plot itself was pointless...the bad guys want to take over the water supply in Bolivia...who cares?! There wasn't really any connection between the different events in the movie. Bond finds out that all the bad guys are at the same opera...does it really matter? A British agent has been working for the bad guys, but now he's dead...does it really matter? The British agent girl has been drowned in oil...does it really matter?

That was another problem that this series has...everytime Bond goes to see someone with potentially valuable info they somehow always know he's coming, get into a fight with him & wind up dead before they can be of any use to him or us, the viewers. A fun watch for the action scenes sums it up best.

 

[Senser81]

That was another problem that this series has...everytime Bond goes to see someone with potentially valuable info they somehow always know he's coming, get into a fight with him & wind up dead before they can be of any use to him or us, the viewers. A fun watch for the action scenes sums it up best.

Can you explain to me what the deal was with Mathis? They made reference to him being found innocent of the 'treason' charges he faced from "Casino Royale" and thus getting an Italian Villa as settlement...but if thats true, then how can you explain Le Chiffe's intimate Bond knowledge in Casino Royale?

 

[dell71]

Can you explain to me what the deal was with Mathis? They made reference to him being found innocent of the 'treason' charges he faced from "Casino Royale" and thus getting an Italian Villa as settlement...but if thats true, then how can you explain Le Chiffe's intimate Bond knowledge in Casino Royale?

Honestly, I don't think there is any explaining it. It's a cheap plot device so that he'd appear to be a good guy again, even though it defies logic. Kinda like how the police suddenly realized they made a mistake & it was really the Sandman that killed Uncle Ben in Spiderman 3.

 

[Lupe]

Do you have a review on the last house on the left yet? (the new one)

 

[dell71]

Do you have a review on the last house on the left yet? (the new one)

No...I probably won't see it until it hits DVD (or find a good quality online version but shhh...don't tell anyone)...

Check with Rawlin.

 

[Buzzman]

Honestly, I don't think there is any explaining it. It's a cheap plot device so that he'd appear to be a good guy again, even though it defies logic. Kinda like how the police suddenly realized they made a mistake & it was really the Sandman that killed Uncle Ben in Spiderman 3.

Im not an expert but I believe Mathis was proved innocent because the girl in Casino Royale was proved to be the trader because she told them about Bond so they wouldnt kill her husand or boyfriend, who as a matter of fact was actually only with her to set her up. Thats what the guy was doing with the Canadian secret sevice lady at the end of QoS

 

[dell71]

Im not an expert but I believe Mathis was proved innocent because the girl in Casino Royale was proved to be the trader because she told them about Bond so they wouldnt kill her husand or boyfriend, who as a matter of fact was actually only with her to set her up. Thats what the guy was doing with the Canadian secret sevice lady at the end of QoS

I'll buy that...makes as much sense as anything else.