Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
It's hard to say what exactly was missing from this film that would have made me like it better. I did like it, but I definitely felt it was the weakest of the series so far. For the first twenty minutes or so I felt that it was moving very slowly and I wasn't very interested, while the rest of the film felt decidedly rushed--there was hardly enough time to introduce the other three Tri-Wizard champions, much less develop them into real characters. On top of that, I thought that a fair amount of the direction--especially the cinematography--just wasn't up to snuff. I continued to like the actors as much as I had in the previous films, but something about the camera work felt . . . I don't know, a little forced, maybe. I think my biggest problem, though, is with the new Dumbledore, Michael Gambon. I remember when I saw the first film, I wasn't completely in love with Richard Harris' Dumbledore. He didn't really seem to capture the image I had of this bumbling, slightly confused old man who provided a fair amount of comic relief in the books. What he did get right, though, was the sense of gentle wisdom and kindness that my Dumbledore had. Gambon, on the other hand, has neither of those. He's too loud and angry-seeming to be Dumbledore to me. I imagine that I'll just have to put up with him, though. Other little touches I didn't care for were things like the boys' haircuts and the fact that Professor Flitwick seemed to be quite a bit younger than in the previous films. Despite all of my complaints, though, I did like the movie overall. I just hope that the next one is better.
Viewed: 2005-11-17 | Released: 2005-11-11 | Score: B
Jarhead
Between Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, and Jamie Foxx, it was pretty much a lock that I was going to see this one. It didn't disappoint. Having never been in the military, I can't say how accurate the film's portrayal of the marine mindset was, but I found the whole thing both enthralling and disturbing. All at once, the film was able to put a human face on the modern day warrior while also presenting characters that I was absolutely incapable of relating to. Watching the way the characters interacted with each other, the vulgarity and violence that pervaded every aspect of their lives, was so utterly foreign to me that at times it was like watching aliens, which is, I think, exactly what I found so fascinating. Additionally, the way the film dealt how being a marine changes a person really struck me. Man, what an intense film.
Viewed: 2005-11-11 | Released: 2005-11-03 | Score: B
The Weather Man
I came away from this one with kind of an odd feeling. You see, the film centers around the life and thoughts of Dave Spritz, a Chicago weather man who happens to be one of the whiniest, most awkward, bumbling, self-absorbed, self-pitying characters I have seen in recent years. For long stretches of the movie I just couldn't stand him. Add to that that the film was completely bleak and gray, both in outlook and in color, and that it was extremely slow-moving. I shouldn't have liked it, but, somehow, I did. There were just enough moments of profound emotional depth that I came out thinking that it was actually a pretty good movie. In fact, one particular scene--the last scene between Michael Caine and Nicolas Cage--really sticks with me as just beautifully done. Still, the beginning of the movie is so slow and so hard to watch that I just can't rate it higher than a 2.
Viewed: 2005-10-29 | Released: 2005-10-27 | Score: C
Shopgirl
I was pretty nervous about this movie when I first heard that it was getting made. You see, I liked Steve Martin's novel quite a bit, but about 85% of what made the book what it was was Martin's writing style--specifically, the omniscient narration, the whimsical prose, and the scarcity of dialogue. I thought, "How can you make a movie out of this?" Movies are all about scenes and dialogue, so taking a book that was almost entirely narrative prose and trying to turn it into a movie would be difficult at best. Fortunately, Steve Martin is a good enough writer to pretty much pull it off. He created a screenplay that captured all of the humor of the book and most of the fairy-tale quality. He even managed to mostly restrain the impulse to insert voiceovers. All in all, it was an effective little fable of LA, a town that at once repels and fascinates me. It only misses out on the fourth star because of the few instances of annoying voiceover and the fact that I think that Steve Martin may not have been the best choice to play Ray Porter. He did a fine job, I just think that someone else might have fit a little better.
Viewed: 2005-10-27 | Released: 2005-10-20 | Score: B
Elizabethtown
Nearly every aspect of this movie was terrible. To begin with--and this is by far the most minor offense--neither Orlando Bloom nor Kirsten Dunst could do the accents they were trying to do. Yeah, it's just one thing, but even if the rest of the performance is great, a bad accent pulls you out of the moment and reminds you that you're seeing actors. And in this case the two leads were far from great actors. Far from good. Bad, in fact. But even if they had been great, the script was this rambling, nearly incoherent monstrosity that never focused itself enough to say anything, despite the fact that it was obvious that writer/director Cameron Crowe was trying so hard to convey meaning. The dialogue was trite, when it even made sense. I mean, seriously, this movie was so bad that I have no idea how it even got picked up. The worst part is that it's quite obvious that the film was written straight from the heart, that it meant a lot to Crowe. The one redeeming thing was the road trip that takes up the last 15 or 20 minutes, but by that point I had already been bored for two hours. If only Crowe had just taken that part and made that the movie, maybe this review would have read differently. Unfortunately, he didn't.
Viewed: 2005-10-15 | Released: 2005-10-13 | Score: F
Serenity
For those of you browncoats out there who think it's ridiculous that I didn't award this one a fourth star, let me just say that I liked it. I really did. Firefly is, in my opinion, one of the best science fiction shows ever made, and Serenity had pretty much everything that made the show so great. But the switch from a series of one-hour episodes to a single two-hour film inevitably brought about some changes. The biggest change, one that I'm not sure is good or bad, is that where the show was truly an ensemble piece, the film really revolves around Mal, River, and the nameless bad guy. I don't really think this could be helped--there just wasn't time to really showcase all of the characters--and the performances were still great, but it was definitely different. There were also a few small instances of retcon, but it wasn't too bad. My main problem was that while I think that the writing was good at both the high and low levels--the overall story arc, structure and pacing were well done and the dialogue was, as always, excellent--there were some writing choices at the middle levels that bothered me. I can't really get into it without some significant spoilers, but suffice it to say that I think Whedon got it wrong in at least one place. Despite that, I still think it was a great movie and I highly recommend it to anyone who's seen the show. And if you haven't seen the show, why are you still reading this? Didn't you read where I said it's one of the best shows ever? Go see it!
Viewed: 2005-09-29 | Released: 2005-09-29 | Score: B
Just Like Heaven
I hadn't heard much good about this one beforehand, so my expectations going in were pretty low. While I can't really say that it was a good movie, it was actually pretty cute. The writing was mediocre at best--in a few places the dialogue made me roll my eyes--but the two leads, Mark Ruffalo and Reese Witherspoon, managed to bring the film up several notches. I've been a fan of Ruffalo since You Can Count On Me; he brought emotional depth to his character where a lesser actor would have choked on the sappy script. And while I can't say that Witherspoon was particularly inspiring in this one, she played off of Ruffalo very well; they had very good chemistry. What else? John Heder was funny enough, although he more or less re-hashed his shtick from Napoleon Dynamite. He and Donal Logue were pretty much the only ones that managed to get a chuckle out of me. The movie's not long on comedy and isn't what you'd call brilliant, but for a dinner-and-a-movie kind of date it fits the bill pretty nicely.
Viewed: 2005-09-16 | Released: 2005-09-15 | Score: C
Red Eye
I was actually quite amazed by this movie. Despite the fact that it got an excellent review from Entertainment Weekly--who are usually quite snobby--I found it to be pretty boring. Rachel McAdams continues to underwhelm me--she plays everything so straight. Not that she does anything particularly bad, she's just uninteresting. The same goes for the rest of this movie. The plot was so straightforward, so linear. I kept expecting that there would be more, that just around the corner we'd have some mind-boggling plot twist, but it never came. It never even felt particularly suspenseful to me. (Juliette got a little nervous during the climactic scene, but even she found the rest of the movie pretty flat.) I don't know, I just expected more from the director that brought us the Scream trilogy.
Viewed: 2005-09-08 | Released: 2005-08-03 | Score: D
The Dukes of Hazzard
The fact that I'm over a week late with this review is probably an indicator of the impression it left on me. Not to say that it was particularly terrible, it just wasn't particularly good. There were plenty of funny moments, although in my opinion the funniest parts were in the outtakes at the end. The performances were, for the most part, mediocre. I admit I have something of a soft spot for Seann William Scott, but Johnny Knoxville mostly just gets on my nerves, and Jessica Simpson was just embarrassing. Still, not everyone was bad--Kevin Hefferman as Sheev (who I don't remember being in the show) made me laugh, and I always like David Koechner, who played Cooter. Willie Nelson was also pretty good as Uncle Jesse. Anyway, I didn't particularly care for it, but all three of the other people I went with did, as did the rest of the audience, so I guess this is just further evidence of my increasing snobbishness. I can live with that.
Viewed: 2005-08-11 | Released: 2005-07-26 | Score: D
The 40 Year-Old Virgin
Steve Carell is what Will Ferrell ought to be but isn't. First, he's funny, and I mean full-on, belly laughs kind of funny. Even when he goes completely and ridiculously over the top, he's still funny. But he's also capable of portraying actual emotion. The 40 Year-Old Virgin was surprisingly cute. Don't get me wrong, it's also the vulgar sex comedy that you expect--in fact, the three little old ladies that sat next to us left about 30 minutes into the film--but watching Carell's Andy develop a relationship with Catherine Keener's Trish was unexpectedly heartwarming. I don't usually care much for Keener, but she did just fine in this movie. The rest of the cast was also pretty good. Juliette particularly liked Paul Rudd. An interesting final tidbit: in the scene from the preview where Andy is getting his chest waxed, Carell is actually getting waxed. Knowing that makes the scene that much funnier.
Viewed: 2005-08-19 | Released: 2005-08-10 | Score: B