Wow. I'm all caught up now. I guess I need to go out and see some new stuff. Or stay in and watch old stuff I haven't reviewed yet. Either way. I have to find more work to do. Here's my review for Big Fish. It sort of left me at a surprising lack of words. I love this movie, but it's not as pin-pointable as some. See what I was able to write without giving too much down below. Come back to see what I'll write on next!




Big Fish
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Edward Bloom has led an extraordinary life full of whimsical and death-defying adventures. He’s seen witches and giants and werewolves and Siamese twins and myriad other incredible sights. But how much of it is true? That’s the question his son is trying to figure out. With his father’s health in question, William (the son) needs to get answers to wrap up the tall tale that is Edward’s life.

Tim Burton directs and for the first time in a long time for him, there is no real definitive look to the film. Normally there’s a standard tone or color and lighting scheme that’s applied. Here, the movie jumps around so much to different areas of the world and to different time periods that a template would be rather unnecessary. I find it a little refreshing. This man is known for making dark movies and here’s this vibrant picture with themes that don’t exactly go against the grain of what he’s done in the past, but goes about them in a less sardonic manner.

In fact, the film is very light and fun the whole way through. It still maintains the unusual elements and the surreal feel, but it does it without the attitude. The movie goes back and forth between present day and young Edward’s life story. All of the flashbacks and storytelling don’t serve an overwhelming purpose. They’re pretty much just there to entertain and keep your attention. It’s all a very roundabout way towards reaching the main point of the movie. Despite that, I don’t feel it’s a waste of time. Listening to any interesting story is never a waste of time. Who cares how much of it is real or possible or what. Just sit back and marvel at the brain that thought it all up.

By the way, the script was written by John August based on Daniel Wallace’s book. The dialogue and characters are well-written and fascinating to watch. It is just magnified by the great acting. Billy Crudup and Albert Finney give incredible performances with real human emotions and flaws. Ewan McGregor, Steve Buscemi, Danny Devito and the rest of the flashback supporting crew tend to overact and exaggerate their facial expressions, but it goes along with the fable-like mood.

The movie may not start a storytelling fad or anything, but I think people will enjoy watching the fascinating array of characters and locations that Mr. Bloom encountered. And if that isn’t enough, then you also get one of the most emotional movies I’ve seen a long time. You will find a stronger sense of love in this film than you will find in any romantic comedy in recent memory. “Big Fish” is just as, if not more, fantastical as “Edward Scissorhands,” and his best film since.

Here's a short review for Elf, because it doesn't really warrant much discussion. It's just...blah. Well, read for yourself. Big Fish up soon. Come back to us.




Elf
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2 stars

A baby that found his way into Santa’s bag ends up in the North Pole. There the elves raise him as one of their own. After thirty-something years pass, Buddy the elf must leave. Too big for the small world he knows, he finds himself feeling small in a big world (in New York City). The only thing he has left to hold onto is his biological family.

I can understand where the film wanted to go with all of this stuff, but it just turned out to be a little too much with not enough effort. We have a fish out of water scenario, a love story, family trying to reconnect and get in touch with each other, the belief in Santa issue, making the dad’s career continue, and throwing in as many jokes as possible. It’s too many dramatic or sappy elements to combine with a comedy. Pick two. Adding subplot after subplot just to add substance doesn’t really work. When people think of Will Ferrell (Buddy), they expect a dumb comedy. Dumb comedies are usually pretty slim in the storyline area. I understand the concept of making something a family film and trying to put heart into a holiday movie, but that wasn’t even done right.

The movie just isn’t that funny. It made me laugh, sure, but not that much. The funniest parts were the ones in which nothing was really happening. Buddy would be walking down the street and all of a sudden get hit by a taxi. It’s unexpected and physical and funny. The written jokes that deal with the situation could have been and should have been better. There are plenty of talented comedians acting in this movie. You have Ferrell, Bob Newhart, Amy Sedaris (“Strangers With Candy”), Kyle Gass (“Tenacious D”) and Andy Richter. I don’t know how much they were allowed to improvise, but I bet a lot of great material could have come from letting them flow on the set.

Perhaps I’m ignoring the family side of the movie, but when I think comedy, I think laughing. I didn’t get enough laughs out of this. Without that factor keeping the non-parents going, the film falls mostly flat. I know some will like it and find the obvious jokes funny and find the non-comedic stuff cute or charming, but if you haven’t seen it by now, wait for it to hit television. It’s not worth the rush.

Two in one day. I haven't done that since the last day I posted, nearly 1 month ago. Wow. I'm almost caught up. All that's left is Elf. Enjoy my review of LOTR...or send me hate mail, either one. Also, scroll down for The Matrix. That's two trilogies' reviews completed in the same day. Time to watch some more movies. Later, all.




The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Review by Jon Waterman

***

“Ring” fans: brace yourselves. You don’t see this much and I wasn’t expecting this to happen either, but here we are...a not so shining review for the final film in the trilogy. Before I get into it, let’s review the plot.

Sam and Frodo are being led by Smeagol up to Mount Doom to destroy the ring. Smeagol of course, wants it for himself. Meanwhile, battles ensue and rage and the humans do all they can to try to defeat the orcs. It looks bleak for both sides. Will good prevail? If so, then at what cost?

Of course, the story is much more complex than I make is seem. The film is filled with subplots and new pieces of history to prevent anyone from thinking that this third film is just a bigger and longer version of the second. Keep in mind, though, that you should see the first two before going out to see the last part, because there is no recap. A summary would have added too much time to an already too long film.

The length of the movie is not my only problem. Let me clear that up right now. As long as what is on the screen has purpose, it’s not too long. Time management became an issue, though. The previous films jumped back and forth between characters to show what each was up to fairly regularly. Now long blocks of time were spent in one place nearly making the audience forget that anything else was even happening. Each film has had new editors; these two just never defined a decent pacing system. The length of the whole thing never bothered me that much until the end. After the climax of the picture, there’s a good forty-five minutes or so of cool down. I could have accepted this had there been epilogues for a couple different storylines, but it was just the one. There are more characters than that. Use them. We want to know what happened to the rest of them. What made it groaningly bad was the fade out/fade ins that were used to switch from one scene in a location to another scene in the same basic location. Now, I understand that the books have the long endings as well. To that I say, just because something is true to the original source does not make it good. Some things work on paper much better than they do on film. Also, in book form, you know what to expect, because you can see all the pages still left to go. In the theater, you see the fade out on what seems to be a fine ending and just when you reach for your coat, the fade in begins and you sit and watch another 15 minutes of the same story that could have been settled earlier or put on the extended edition DVD. So, that’s what I mean by time management. Either go to another character or cut some of the one-story ending.

The effects were worse in this installment as well. Smeagol still looks great and exudes wonderful emotions. His movement seems to be a little choppier, though. The real horrible stuff is the most basic. I shouldn’t be able to tell when characters are up against a green screen. Not in this special effects heavy movie. They looked so out of place with the background that it took me out of the movie somewhat. It wasn’t just with landscapes, either. When the hobbits were standing side by side with “regular” sized people, something about the way it looked was almost always off. Also, seeing the children or little people play the hobbits as they walked away also didn’t quite look right. I don’t remember that technique being used nearly as much in the first two movies.

The fight scenes, however, were stunning and exhilarating and exciting and incredible. There were plenty of incoherent shots, but overall they were still a lot of fun and worthwhile.

Consistency within trilogies is key to success. Although the editing and the special effects weren’t, many things were. The acting, the fighting, the great story, the cinematography, the production design, the costumes, the makeup (although that lead orc looked uncannily like Sloth from “The Goonies.”) and the directing all were top notch all the way through. I don’t think this one will make the top ten of the year, but it’s still a good film and worth seeing. Even if you’re a casual fan, like I am, there’s still a lot to enjoy.

Look who's back. Who would have thought it would take this long to get back to reviews. I've decided to abandon the Old School and Dream with the Fishes reviews until I see either movie again. I didn't take notes and it's been too long since I saw them and would prefer to write fresh if possible. So maybe in the future, they'll be up here. You'll just have to keep coming back to find out. I did write notes for The Matrix and I still have mental notes floating for the newest LOTR and Elf. In fact, here's that Matrix review right now.




The Matrix
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Thomas Anderson is an office slave by day and a master computer hacker by night. After doing some research on the legends of “Morpheus” and “The Matrix,” he finds himself being contacted by them. Morpheus tells Thomas (aka Neo) that he is more than just a slave to his office; He is a slave to the world in which he lives. Computer programs have created everything he sees around him in order to keep human minds ignorant of their true place. Neo is also told that he may be the one person that can defeat the machines and bring peace to the human population once again. How much of this is true? How can Neo beat them? Will the human race become extinct?

The film is like a basic philosophy class approached badly. It really only introduces one main concept: What if the world you know doesn’t exist or isn’t really there? Granted, this idea could bring about a lot of debate and discussion that could easily encompass the two and a half hour running time, but the way the subject is handled makes me want to skip the class and just show up for tests. They constantly reinforce the thoughts. In other words, they spoon-feed you. “I thought it wasn't real.” “Your mind makes it real.” “What is ‘real’? How do you define ‘real’?” “You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious.” Anyways, I could go on and on. The point is the movie does go on and on. Let me blow the movie out of the water by taking it one further. What if the matrix was also just an illusion? “Whoa.”

The odd thing is, they never explain how the first person broke free, do they? Were some humans just free from the start? Even if that’s the case, how did they discover they could pull people out and “save” them? So much time is spent telling us that the world we live in is a fake that they forget to let us in on how that was discovered and how Zion (the “real” city) came to be.

Along with the unfulfilling story comes extremely unfulfilling acting. Everyone. Likes. To. Pause. A lot. Evidently, forming sentences in the “real” world is much harder. The drawl of the agents (programs designed to kill humans that have freed their minds) and the dead space of the humans got to be too much. Speed it up. It’s an action/sci-fi flick for cryin’ out loud. Maybe if the written dialogue was better…. You already know what I think about that.

What review would be complete without mentioning the camera work? The film introduces new inventive techniques. The “bullet time” setup has been mimicked and parodied hundreds of times over, which is a testament to its contribution to film, but also brings about instant disdain when seen in anything else. I’m in favor of creating new rigs and blowing people away with fancy camera tricks, but I don’t think some of the special effects were there to back it up. Too much of the Computer Generated stuff looks CG. I guess that Matrix program still needs some work, too.

On the positive side, though, “The Matrix” features good costumes and set design and good cinematography. There were no indistinguishable shots placed in the film. The action was clear at all times, even with the rubble heavy shootouts. Even most of the slow motion stuff served useful and not overdone.

In the end, the movie left much to be desired. “The Truman Show” does a better job of getting the audience to wonder about if their world is real than “The Matrix” does. The fight sequences were too long. People talked way too much. I wanted to see more of the non-matrix and learn about that culture, because it seemed like an untapped resource to me. Much could have been done to improve the film or tighten it up and make it an extremely solid science fiction piece. Instead, it became a below average, big budget action movie that tried too hard.