Swordfish - 3 stars out of 10

Swordfish - 3 stars out of 10

“Swordfish” is a very average heist film.  I am hyper-critical of this genre because it is my favorite, and this film made the mistake of being released in the same era as the superior “Ocean’s Eleven” and “The Italian Job.”  Unlike these mindbenders, “Swordfish” is unoriginal and its shock-value sexual content and profanity fails to mask the stereotypical plot and characters.  The highlight of the film is John Travolta’s opening monologue.  It gives us some perspective into the peculiar brain of his character while providing a glimpse of the bank robbery, only to halt the story’s climax with a flashback.  If you watched the first ten minutes of the film then shut it off, you would assume that it is a classic.  You would also be very lucky.  Unfortunately, the other ninety minutes of the film (and more of Halle Berry than we need to see) undo the magnificent setup.  The discussion of “Dog Day Afternoon” is great for film fans and prepares us for the theme of misdirection, but the execution of this theme is farfetched and unimpressive.  Most of the issues with this film come from the script.  The story lends itself to a PG-13 rating but they tried to make it edgy with excessive f-words, Berry deciding that she wanted to use this role to feel comfortable being topless onscreen (and it awkwardly doesn’t fit into the story at all), and throwing in other unnecessary moments just to make sure that it felt like a “real” R-rated movie.  Don Cheadle and Hugh Jackman are always entertaining and this is one of Travolta’s best performances in years, but giving great actors a smutty script will only result in a smutty movie.  “Swordfish” is an interesting throwback to the dawn of the internet age and an idealized view of computers, but as far as heist films are concerned, you can do better than this.

[Pictured: With this cast, "Swordfish" should have been amazing]

Amistad - 5 stars out of 10

Amistad - 5 stars out of 10

“Amistad” is the American slavery story that made its way to the Supreme Court and yet, you have probably never heard about it.  Steven Spielberg brings this story to life in a slow-moving but compelling courtroom setting.  I expected much more from this film but that’s probably why it is relatively unknown.  It competed for four Oscars in the year that “Titanic” swept the event but I don’t find any of the noteworthy pieces of this puzzle to be that impressive.  The obvious one is Sir Anthony Hopkins and his nomination for Best Supporting Actor as John Quincy Adams.  It is very apparent that the nomination is based solely on his impressive patriotic court monologue because the remainder of his role in the film is just average.  I also found the performances by big names like Matthew McConahy, Morgan Freeman, and one of my favorite character actors (Pete Postlethwaite) to be underwhelming.  The saving grace for the overall acting of this film comes from a young Chiwetel Ejiofor and the non-English-speaking role by Dijmon Hounsou.  These two actors draw attention from the rest in every scene.  It may be worth watching this one just for those two.  The greatest fault of this film is its long-windedness.  I understand that this is mainly the story of a court case but the court case relies on our compassion for the slaves.  The strong imagery drives the story, rendering the 2 1/2-hour runtime unnecessary.  Each excess minute in the courtroom takes away from the poignancy established through the film's introduction and the graphic, heartbreaking flashback.  I credit the screenwriters for humanizing the slaves instead of making them into faceless victims; still, the language barrier and extensive dialogue causes the story to plod along until you stop caring about the slaves.  Another Oscar nomination was earned by John Williams for his scoring of the film but I find it to be average in comparison with many of his other film scores.  It never reaches the heartbreak of “Schindler’s List,” the driving suspense of “Jurassic Park,” or the period-enhancement of “The Patriot.”  There are a few moments but not enough to make this a masterpiece like many of his other films.  Even in a year that was not swept by “Titanic,” I can’t see this film winning any of its Oscar nominations.  “Amistad” is worth seeing for a few memorable performances and the story that it tells, but it is offensive to see Morgan Freeman underused.  Not to mention that in the world of courtroom dramas, you are better off spending your time with a second viewing of “A Few Good Men” or “Runaway Jury.”

[Pictured: This screenshot makes it appear that the courtroom scenes are much more compelling than they actually are.]

Pride & Prejudice (2005) - 7 stars out of 10

Pride & Prejudice (2005) - 7 stars out of 10

“Pride & Prejudice” is a visually stunning period piece that captures the essence of Jane Austen’s writing.  Unfortunately, if you find Austen’s writing to be dry, you will also find it difficult to devote two hours of attention to this dialogue-driven story.  Still, there is so much Oscar-nominated visual beauty in this film’s production design that everybody will walk away with a positive impression.  I was particularly taken with the scene where Elizabeth and standing on the edge of the cliff and during the sunset kiss.  The film has a very talented and deep cast with brings a lot of detail to major and minor characters alike.  Judi Dench was destined to play the role of Lady Catherine, Brenda Blethyn and Donald Sutherland are a great match as the elder Bennets, Rosamund Pike captures the complexity of Jane, and there is even a young Carey Mulligan as one of the sisters.  I’ve never heard of Tamzin Merchant before (she plays Georgiana Darcy) but she needs to be in more films - her acting was enchanting.  Add in actors like Rupert Friend, Kelly Reilly, and Tom Hollander in minor roles and you can see the depth of this cast.  Keira Knightley’s acting has never been my favorite but it works well for this character.  Her very visible emotions provide a good contrast with the purposely emotionless acting of Matthew MacFadyen.  My biggest complaint about the film is that I wanted so much more from Mr. Darcy’s “affections and wishes” speech.  I find this to be one of the most powerfully written moments in literary history but MacFadyen‘s delivery feels rushed and unemotional.  I understand that he is portraying the essence of Darcy’s character, even in that heartfelt moment, but this moment should have had me in tears and it totally missed the mark.  One thing that absolutely did not miss the mark is the incredible theme developed by Dario Marianelli.  He perfectly captures the classical style and incorporates the theme into every important moment of the film.  It was certainly more Oscar-worthy than the score to “Brokeback Mountain.”  Joe Wright seemed like the least likely director to be handed this project but this final outcome is worthy of Austen’s acclaimed novel.  You can also see the influence of this film’s time period and content on his later film, “Atonement.”  “Pride & Prejudice” is a realistic slice of life from the Classical period and should be viewed for both its interesting visual style and beautiful love story.

[Pictured: One of the most breathtaking shots in all of cinema]

Hannah Montana: The Movie - 3 stars out of 10

Hannah Montana: The Movie - 3 stars out of 10
10-year anniversary

In honor of the 10th anniversary of Disney’s Hannah Montana, I unwillingly bring a review of “Hannah Montana: The Movie” and a remembrance of the preteen pop culture phenomenon.  I use the term “unwillingly” because that is how I was subjected to the film but it honestly was not as bad as I expected.  It has everything that you would expect from a Disney follow-up to one of its original tv series’.  There are cheesy family moments, original songs by the cast members, cameos (Rascall Flatts, Tyra Banks, and an almost-famous-but-not-yet-mega-star Taylor Swift), a predictable love story, painfully convenient coincidences to further the plot, rodents down pants, a quirky villain who gets beat up in slapstick ways, and a cheesy ending that can only be acceptable in a Disney film.  I’ve never seen an episode of the show but the film works as a stand-alone story, as long as you understand the basic premise of the series.  The writing and acting is more on par with a tv-movie than with a theatrical feature.  The highlight of the film is Margo Martindale as Miley’s grandmother.  She makes the most out of this average script and it’s easy to see that her acting ability is beyond her costars.  One of the things that really struck me while watching this film in a modern context is how far Miley Cyrus has fallen.  It is truly sad.  She used to be a positive role model for young girls but the only example that she is setting these days is to honor the show’s anniversary by watching the series and playing a drinking game in which you take a shot every time that someone says her name.  She also commented that Hannah Montana is chopped up in little pieces and buried in her backyard.  I pray that the generation that grew up with this show will leave it in the past.  Their children do not need to watch reruns and look up to Miley, only to later discover her repulsive transformation into the anti-moral example that is the opposite of what we should teach our children and teenagers.  “Hannah Montana: The Movie” isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen but it falls short of other Disney theatrical releases like “High School Musical 3” and “The Lizzie McGuire Movie.”  There was a time for this show and feature film, but it has all been spoiled by the negative transformation of Miley Cyrus.  As she said, Hannah was chopped up into little pieces and buried.  For the sake of future generations, that’s where she should remain.

[Pictured: The film would be much better if we didn't have to know what Miley later became.  And if it had a different script and featured Margo Martindale the entire time.]

Linsanity - 7 stars out of 10

Linsanity - 7 stars out of 10

“Linsanity” chronicles the unlikely rise of Asian-American basketball star Jeremy Lin.  In addition to tracing his love of basketball, the documentary examines the inspiration that Lin finds through his Christian faith.  The film begins with a few moments from the Knicks vs. Nets game that determined whether Jeremy would make it in the NBA.  This game is later highlighted in its entirety and becomes the climax of the film once we understand how he got to that point.  Lin’s story begins with his immigrant parents who raised him with the priorities of God, then academics, then sports.  He was obviously an intellectual teenager because he was recruited by (and survived) Harvard University.  This documentary also touches on possible racism in basketball with an argument that Lin would have been picked up by an elite college basketball program and drafted into the NBA if he was not Asian.  Even after earning a spot on the Houston Rockets’ practice squad and being signed by the Golden State Warriors, his path to basketball fame was a rough one full of ups and downs.  And a pretty awesome indirect exchange with Kobe Bryant.  “Linsanity” will inevitably make you into a fan of Jeremy Lin.  He has lost some of his popularity since this documentary was made but his strong morals and impressive basketball skills make him a great role model.

[Pictured: It's awesome to see a person's dreams come true]

Must Love Dogs - 6 stars out of 10

Must Love Dogs - 6 stars out of 10

"Must Love Dogs" is a romantic comedy whose target audience is clearly older adults.  I enjoyed this film much more in my 30's than I did in my 20's.  The comedy is a little racey in its content though it executes its jokes with very little profanity.  The movie makes a good date movie because its situational comedy is relatable to most married couples.  A lot of the characters are stereotypes that we have all encountered and the film is a pretty accurate reflection of the dating world.  I particularly enjoyed the "chase scene" as they raced to various stores for an important purchase, but it isn't the sort of scene that parents should be watching with their teenage children.  The story is predictable (to the point that my wife questioned why the one male character was even in the story because it was so obvious that he wouldn't be “the one”) and the predictability is why most of the critics hated it.  At least John Cusack's character is totally unique, spontaneous, and unlike stereotypical romantic leads.  I found one of the most disappointing things to be the lack of dogs in the story.  I was ready for a classic “101 Dalmatians” guy-meets-girl-and-their-dogs-fall-in-love story but they dogs were only relevant in one scene.  Even “You’ve Got Mail” (which clearly does not have the word “dog” in its title) better utilizes a canine in its climactic scene.  The story could've been deeper but I think that predictability in chick flicks helps to create anticipation for the romantic ending that we crave.  Despite the faults in the story, this film has a great cast of characters that includes Christopher Plummer, Stockard Channing, and wonderful chemistry between Cusack and Diane Lane.  Cusack has long been a favorite of mine but Lane finally found her way into my heart with her high-impact emotional breakdown and the constant likability that she exudes.  "Must Love Dogs" is an entertaining date night comedy that won’t make your list of favorite chick flicks but will deliver a few laughs and a few tears.

[Pictured: This film has little to do with dogs and everything to do with great chemistry]

Fantasia (1940) - 7 stars out of 10

Fantasia (1940) - 7 stars out of 10

"Fantasia" is a classic but it is not without its faults.  This huge undertaking tackles eight pieces of classical music in their entirety, but there comes a point where this feels like the longest Disney movie ever.  Its highs are really high and its lows are pretty low, from The Sorcerer's Apprentice (my personal favorite Mickey Mouse cartoon of all time) down to the slow-moving Toccata and Fugue that shows little more than superimposed images of the orchestra in Technicolor.  The entire film is incredibly creative with a vast number of characters, memorable moments that will forever come to mind when their respective song plays, and the transformation of some pieces of absolute music into program music.  The lowest point of the film is the evolutionary interpretation of The Rite of Spring.  Dinosaurs are cool but this sequence is terribly boring.  There is also way too much time spent giving this an authentic concert feel with lengthy introductions for each piece, an in depth explanation of the soundtrack, and even an intermission.  This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent releases of the film edited out the majority of the introductions in favor of a more compact musical presentation.  I prefer the more family-friendly "Fantasia 2000" that focuses on the music, cuts each piece to an appropriate length, and animates its sequences with memorable stories.  The film does successfully bring its musical selections to life as the colors in each scene reflect the mood of the music and the pieces are given some sort of story.  The various nationalities represented in The Nutcracker Suite are cleverly given their ethnic characteristics, though the racial representations went a bit too far in Beethoven’s 6th Symphony (and have since been edited out).  The Beethoven is great when the cartoony unicorns are flying around but the centaur love sequences and drunk god of wine detract from the whimsy.  Seriously, so much nudity with those centaurs.  The Dance of the Hours provides the iconic ballet-dancing hippos and elephants that bring some much needed comedy to the latter half of the film and the Night on Bald Mountain sequence continues to be one of the darkest moments in all of Disney animation.  As I mentioned, the highlight is The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.  This marks the first appearance of the redesigned Mickey who now had pupils to allow for a greater range of expression.  The colors are vivid, the story is fascinating, and it is perfectly in sync with every musical cue.  It is no surprise that this sequence has influenced rides and shows at Disney parks as well as being reused in “Fantasia 2000.”  You will be hard-pressed to find a better Mickey cartoon than this one.  I know that I should claim this as my favorite Disney film because of the attention that it brings to classical music but I do find it to be long-winded and that it might actually cause younger kids to dislike classical music.  Parts of the film are entertaining but the feature as a whole is cumbersome, even for some with two degrees in music.  “Fantasia” is a film best suited for classical music experts and die-hard fans of Disney cinema.  Everybody else should defer to the pared-down-but-equally-significant sequel that captures the essence of Walt’s concept without the length, borderline inappropriate imagery, and questionable message of evolution.

[Pictured: One of the most significant accomplishments of Fantasia is the redesign of Mickey that allowed for a greater range of expression]