Star Wreck

** - I have to give this low-budget Finnish sci-fi spoof at least some credit for its creativity, ambition and clearly hard-working crew and cast. However, I get the feeling that there is a great deal lost in translation from Finnish to English. I’m not implying that there is an unexpectedly large cultural gap between the two, but that the actual translation just seemed really, really bad. Granted, there were some funny lines and scenes in this, but most of it ended up being really broad, crude, and lame jokes that were jumbled around in a confusing mess of a plot. Lots of sci-fi is spoofed in the film, but Star Trek (particularly The Next Generation) was the biggest target, seeing as there was a Klingon-like character named Dwarf and an android named Idea. Those two names – along with the opening scene in which the captain steps out from his ready room onto the bridge with toilet paper stuck to his shoe – are prime examples of the rather childish humor often present. I did get to listen to people speaking Finnish for about an hour and forty-five minutes, though, which is something that doesn’t happen too often.

Eagle Eye

*** - The kid who slobbers all over the slutty chick in the “Transformers” movies and some broad I’ve never seen before co-star in this mostly entertaining action film that takes conspiracy theories about as far as they can probably be taken. The two leads are strangers who are thrown together into what seems to be an extraordinarily well-hatched and elaborate terrorist plot after receiving a series of anonymous phone calls that order them to carry out certain tasks. Shots are fired, things explode, cars are commandeered, one guy gets electrocuted by a high-tension power line, and loads of electronic stuff is controlled by an unknown entity that appears to have some sort of beef with the government. I’m sure all of that sounds odd, but in the end it sort of makes sense, even though the majority of the plot and action is completely implausible. One thing that detracts from this movie is that there are about four lengthy chase sequences that are extremely dull. There are two almost interminable car chases, a chase on foot, and a chase through an airline’s luggage conveyor system. Now, I know a lot of people out there enjoy a well-made chase sequence and think it is the height of entertainment, but you are all very wrong. They are bad and should be abolished. Sorry you had to hear it from me first.

The Road

** - Viggo Mortensen plays a douchebag wandering around the countryside with his wimpy son after the Earth is scorched in some sort of vague apocalypse in this adaptation of an apparently popular Cormac MacCarthy book. And that is pretty much all that happens in this film: wandering. They wander in a forest, they wander on the beach, they wander through open fields, and they wander through the shells of burned out houses. There is so much aimless meandering going on here that it may have put me off hiking for good due to my new fear of accidently coming across Viggo Mortensen and having him threaten me to stop following him and then forcing me to remove my clothes and stand around naked and cold. There is next to no story, a very limited amount of dialogue (which consists mostly of Aragorn yelling at his timid kid) and no explanation of what happened or why the main characters are doing what they are doing. If you, like me, watch this in the hopes of seeing a recent, neat, post-apocalyptic survival story with some action and an intriguing plot, forego this one and go rent “The Book of Eli”.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

**** - This first of three Swedish films based on late author Stieg Larsson’s “Millennium Trilogy” of books tells the story of a disgraced and prison-bound investigative journalist’s team-up with a crazy, bisexual, cyberpunk, computer hacking slut in order to solve a 40 year old missing persons case. Being a Swedish film this is subtitled in English, of course, so if that puts you off, this might not be the movie for you. However, since I watch pretty much all movies regardless of language with subtitles on, I did not have a problem. There’s not a lot of action – in fact there is almost none – but there is a pretty neat mystery plot that keeps the viewer second-guessing their own opinion of what happened. The ending is a bit odd (not unusual for a movie with sequels, I suppose) and there are some gratuitous sex scenes and some dull spots – which should be expected in any movie that is over 2 and a half hours long – but those are really only minor quibbles for a film that is actually quite entertaining.

For Your Consideration

*** - After watching Christopher Guest’s previous three films, it got to a point in which his mockumentary style and almost identical formulas were starting to run out of steam. With this movie, his fourth overall, he drops the mockumentary shtick and while it is still firmly ensconced in the satire genre and uses the same stable of actors as the prior films, it feels fresher and may be his most enjoyable since “Waiting for Guffman”. The plot revolves around the Oscar buzz generated by a bunch of has-been and never-will-be actors on a film called “Home for Purim” (later renamed “Home for Thanksgiving” at the insistence of studio suits), and consists largely of a series of scenes that feature two or three actors having conversations with each other, sometimes humorous and sometimes not. While I was a little disappointed that the somewhat heavily advertised role for Ricky Gervais turned out to be all of about 3 minutes of screen time, he was certainly the highlight of the movie for me. Also, Fred Willard turned in another stellar performance as an obnoxious co-host of an “Entertainment tonight”-style show. Like all of Guest’s films it is a little hit-and-miss but probably worth seeing for Ricky’s performance if nothing else.

Red Sands

*1/2 – A movie with a title like “Red Sands” should have at least some rouge-colored sand-like material in it. While it had loads of sand and the occasional red thing, it did not have any actual red sand. Strike one. Also, a movie that is supposedly about ‘genies’ (apparently from the Arabic word ‘djinn’) in the deserts of Afghanistan infiltrating an American military operation and slaughtering it’s troops one-by-one should at least have things occurring at certain times. This movie, as far as I can recall, had pretty much nothing happen at all points in it. Strike two. In addition, a movie that contains actors should also contain acting. This movie had a bunch of what I assume are actors, but none of them seemed to even be attempting to act. Strike three. In summation, I did not like this movie. It was boring and stupid and very hard to watch with crummy special effects and some of the worst dialogue this side of a Coleman Francis film. One thing I did learn from it, though, is that unlike what Disney’s “Aladdin” would have us believe, genies are actual evil spirits bent on the destruction of humanity. Huh.

Shutter Island

*** - Leo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo (what the hell kind of name is Ruffalo, anyway?) play a pair of US Marshals who are sent to an island where crazy people are stored to investigate the disappearance of one of them in this Martin Scorsese helmed mystery/thriller. Or are they!?!? The first hour or so of this film is great, with nice chemistry between the lead actors, an intriguing mystery plot and good peripheral characters like Ben Kingsley’s and Max Von Sydow’s (who must be at least 200 years old now). However, the writer of this felt the need to follow the recent trend of making everything some sort of super-shocking twist, and that is when this film falls flat. There is a point while watching this that the viewer realizes that the whole first half was a ruse, and when that point comes, it completely ruins the rest of the film experience. Another minor quibble would be that there are a whole poop-load of scenes of DiCaprio just kind of running around the island somewhere. I could have done without a lot of them. I’m not sure, but I think Leonardo DiCaprio is Keyzer Soze.

The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice

**1/2 - Seeing as I have been both a musician and film star (well, I used to own some musical instruments and was once an extra in someone’s student film), I feel that I am eminently qualified to judge the artistic content of any movie that I watch. Keeping that in mind, I find that this third of three movies in the “Librarian” series of made-for-TNT flicks has very little artistic content, pretty much just like its two predecessors. It would be a grand feat indeed if a self-identified “Film by Jonathan Frakes” was ever of above-average artistic merit and, as one would expect, “TL:CotJC” (as I hope it will be referred to as from here on out) is the epitome of average. But - again like the first two films in the series – the purpose here is not to be a piece of art, but instead to provide a fairly entertaining 90-minute diversion. And despite its foray even deeper into the world of the supernatural than film number two – with vampires, magic spells, teleportation, and more – this succeeds in its aim to be a mildly enjoyable adventure film with some laughs.

The Librarian: Return to King Solomon’s Mines

**1/2 - This second of three movies in “The Librarian” series of ‘Indiana Jones’-lite films brings back the wormy guy from “ER” (whose name I have just learned is Noah Wyle) as the title character for another adventure in search of some sort of mythical object. This movie doesn’t add a great deal to the genre that hasn’t been covered in the time since Harrison Ford’s request of Alfred Molina to “throw him the whip”, but much like the first movie in this trilogy it is competently constructed and a decent way to pass the time. With the exception of an ending that delved deeply into the supernatural with flying ghosts, time portals and a big Kenyan guy named Jomo, this is largely a rehash of the first film with some minor plot alterations. Add to that strange and somewhat confusing direction from TV’s Jonathan Frakes (TV’s Commander William Riker from TV’s Star Trek: The Next Generation) and this one is a notch or so down in entertainment value as compared to the last one. Being about 15 minutes shorter helps to make up for that, though.

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear

*** - After a fairly lengthy string of political drama, psychological thriller, sci-fi and horror flicks I decided I was in the mood for something a bit lighter, so I popped the made-for-TV, family friendly, action/adventure trilogy of films known as “The Librarian Series” to the top of my Netflix queue. This first in the series stars one the guys from “ER” as a nerdy perpetual student with 22 college degrees who turns into a sort of Indiana Jones type figure after being told to go out and find a job-type job. This isn’t a film that makes any grand statements or has any broad artistic ambitions, but it is decent enough as a sort of light entertainment. There is a fairly large comedic element that works probably a little more than it doesn’t work thanks to the presence of the always reliable Bob Newhart and Jane Curtin. Everything else about the film is pretty mediocre, from the special effects to the by-the-numbers adventure formula to the script. I’ve certainly spent an hour and forty six minutes doing worse things than watching this movie.

The Prestige

**** - For whatever reason, I didn’t read a single thing about this movie before viewing it. I didn’t read a review, not a summary, not a synopsis, not even a blurb, nothing. The only two things I based the selection of this for my Netflix queue were its critical acclaim and the fact that Netflix said I would like it based on my interest in “Memento” and “Donnie Darko”. So you can imagine how surprised I was when what I thought was going to be a taut political drama (a thought, by the way, based solely on how the DVD cover made it look – to me, anyway) turned out to be a strange tale of rival magicians in turn-of-the-century London. Despite the mild shock I received when this film wasn’t what I was expecting, I actually quite enjoyed the film, due at least in part to excellent acting, nice production design and intriguing story structure. I must admit that I felt as though I knew what was going to happen from fairly early on (and I turned out to be right) but director Christopher Nolan and the writers threw just enough curveballs to keep me second guessing myself and, therefore, retaining my interest.

Daybreakers

*** - While it doesn’t always work, I have to have at least some respect for filmmakers when they show enough creativity to decide to completely revise the origins and logistics of an established genre. That is the case in this film, in which what has been shown about vampires in film hundreds of times is turned slightly on its side and made fresh enough that one can tell that a fair amount of thought was put into it. That’s not to say that it was a great film, though, as it certainly had its flaws. The most prominent of these flaws was the devolution of what was a fairly reserved and interesting movie into a by-the-numbers blood spatter fest in last 15 or so minutes. Another rather glaring flaw was the predictability of what was probably supposed to be a shocking reveal toward the end. It’s not all bad, though. The acting is decent enough and the photography and effects had enough going for them that they helped maintain an air of believability and solid entertainment value.

Humanity's End

* - This review will take the form of a series of lessons that a student or potential film maker can learn from watching “Humanity’s End”:

1. Do not begin your movie with a 10-minute narration that consists of a bunch of random scenes spliced together and narrated by someone who seems to have had their voice run through a pre-amp then a grunge box then a distortion pedal, resulting in a complete in ability to understand anything said.

2. Do not have the first line of spoken dialogue in your movie be a guy yelling “fuck!” after witnessing someone vaporized with a ray gun.

3. Do not use almost entirely green screen images and cheap cardboard cutouts for backgrounds.

4. Do not hire an incompetent animation company to provide CG sequences that that look like a bunch of cheesy cut scenes from 1990s video games strung together.

5. Do not hire actors from your local community theater group.

6. Do not make the role of the hero a flabby, unshaven, smarmy, wife beater-wearing, sex-crazed lummox who the audience cheers for to die.

7. Do not riddle your script with lame attempts at humor and sexual innuendo, especially if all of the actors you hire are basically planks of wood with no comedic timing.

8. Last but not least, do not make a film that is so bad that it becomes good and then keeps on going right back to bad again.

Green Zone

**** – This movie was billed and promoted as an action/thriller in the vein of the “Bourne” flicks, seeing as it has the same lead actor as all three of those and the same director as the last two. Calling it that is rather inaccurate, though, as only a few sporadic scenes and the last 15 minutes or so are actually in any way action-y. I have a feeling that the misleading description was purposefully played up in order to sell tickets to what is really a political drama with heavy anti-war and debatably anti-American sentiments. I have no particular love for Iraqis - or Middle Easterners or Muslims in general – as I can’t fathom why any group of people would willingly subject themselves to a set of political rules based upon a religious belief system. Also, it’s really hot over there, and if there are two things I can’t stand they are religion and heat. That being said, this movie had the ability to get me to root for the Iraqis to put down and kick out the American invaders. That result didn’t stem from any sort of bias on the part of the filmmakers, but rather from the fact that this movie presented the ludicrous 2003 invasion of Iraq in the most truthful light of any film that I have seen so far based on those events. It’s certainly not a thriller, but it is definitely worth watching.

Creation

**1/2 - I am trying to remember now why I am giving this film only a two and a half star rating. It was well written, had some fine performances, and was nicely photographed and directed. The scenery and production design beautifully captured 1850s rural England, and everything about this film had a very authentic and realistic feel to it. Oh, wait; I remember why I gave it two and a half stars now: literally nothing happens in this movie. It just kind of sits there and dares you to watch it. I am not the sort of person who is easily distracted or has a short attention span, so I can watch a dull movie with the best of them. But during this one, I found myself constantly tempted to reach for my Blackberry to check the baseball scores. The gist of this film is that Charles Darwin is writing “Origin of Species” while simultaneously battling health problems, dealing with the death of his daughter (one of his ten kids!) and feuding with his wife and a local pastor about the existence of God and such. I know that description doesn’t exactly sell the film that well, but this actually is not a bad movie. It’s just really, really passive and British. I recommend large quantities of caffeine injected directly into one’s heart sack while watching in order to stay focused.

A Mighty Wind

**1/2 - With the exception of cases in which something truly unique and beautiful is presented, the old axiom of “too much of a good thing” can ring true. That particular saying is, unfortunately, the case with Christopher Guest’s 2003 film “A Mighty Wind”. While there is nothing ‘bad’ about this film per se, it pretty much just repeats the formula of his two earlier films with the same cast and a lot of repeated jokes. It is definitely entertaining for the most part, but there is nothing here that seems to advance the ideas already presented in the prior movies “Waiting for Guffman” and “Best in Show”. The performances are solid but not particularly intriguing, and the format feels somewhat tired here. There is some reverence displayed for what is skewered this time around (60’s folk music), which works against the comedic element. An added downside is the rather broad characteristics that are displayed by many characters and players, particularly Fred Willard, who – for my money – was easily the highlight of the first two films in the semi-series. This is kind of funny, but hardly worth watching if you’ve seen the two previous movies.