The Fall

This is an intriguing film. It is somewhat difficult in spots, and maybe slightly flawed in others, but overall I really liked it. Tarsem Singh actually manages to get into Terry Gilliam territory, with switching between realities and visual metaphors, yet he does it in his own way. I love the visuals! And yet much of the heart of this movie rests with the two primary actors, especially Catinca Untaru as Alexandria, a young girl recuperating in a 1920s hospital who meets a Hollywood stunt man (Lee Pace) who unfolds an "epic story" for her. Their dialog and relationship feels more fresh than scripted, and they pull you in.

Fear X

I love -- okay, maybe "love" is the wrong word; I am intrigued by Nicholas Winding Refn's films -- powerful, bizarre, raw, sublime, challenging, etc... So I had high hopes for this one...

Unfortunately Fear X is somewhat disappointing. It starts well, with an excellent performance by Turturro and a bit of a Kubrick vibe going on, and it builds to an intriguing climax, but that is where it comes up short, and then it peters out without much resolution or feeling. I certainly don't mind ambiguity, and I think I "get" what some of the possible interpretations are, but they just aren't very satisfying. I felt kinda left by the side of the road. Given how well it all started and built, that's quite a letdown...

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Forget the cheesy black-and-white classic Frankensteins with the flat head and bolts in the neck; this is a powerful, dramatic, raw, bizarre, and human story closer to the novel Mary Shelley wrote in 1818.

Kenneth Branagh is a bit (okay, maybe a lot) over-the-top as both director and actor, but, well, that's Branagh, and it is somewhat forgivable for this story. Too many good performances to acknowledge here, but I have two favorites. John Cleese shows us he can set the humor aside, and puts in a wonderfully understated Prof Waldman. Robert De Niro is fantastic as the "monster" -- by the end of the film, his creature has shown more depth and soul than his obsessed creator, but also a brutal, powerful dark side. I love complex, even contradictory characters like this; they are too rare in movies.

(I accidently posted this on the wrong blog some weeks ago)

following in Brian's footsteps

Predators -- Can't really add anything to Brian's review; a good/proper sequel.
Valhalla Rising -- I'm generally with Brian on this, too. It helps to not focus so much on plot and understanding and literal meaning, and just watch and feel and let the movie carry you along. It also helps to watch more than once. Between this and Bronson, Nicholas Winding Refn is becoming one of my favorite directors.

A Fish Called Wanda

Man, I forgot how funny this movie is!  A friend and I were talking about The King's Speech (which I enjoyed very much) and stuttering in general and I randomly had the urge to watch A Fish Called Wanda.  I hadn't seen it in years and figured I would appreciate it more as an adult.

God, was I right!  I watched it last night and enjoyed it so much more than I ever have before.  Everything about it works almost flawlessly.  The story isn't complex, but it's very layered, so it never runs out of steam.  The acting, though, is where the movie really shines.  Everyone on the screen gives great performances, which really breathes life into the script, and the comedy is brilliant because it stems chiefly from the performances and feels natural.  Michael Palin and Kevin Kline are especially hilarious, and Jamie Lee Curtis--who generally isn't (or wasn't, I suppose would be more accurate) heralded as a sex symbol--is beyond sexy.

The only complaint I have with Wanda is the score.  It's too generically 80's for my taste, which I loathe.  I realize it's a matter of taste, though, so I don't really hold it against the filmmakers.  It's a product of it's time.

Overall, I'm more than satisfied with A Fish Called Wanda.

TRON: Legacy

This was better than I expected. The graphics had about the right mix of showing-off ("See how much BETTER computer graphics are now!"), homage to the original, and just plain cool. The digitally un-aged Jeff Bridges was pretty good, although you could sort of tell it wasn't natural. The 3D was pretty good, too, although I had to hold the glasses off the bridge of my nose to keep from getting a headache.

But the best surprise was that there was a halfway decent story. I had expected a minimally-plausible plot, just enough to serve as an excuse to make a graphics showcase. Well, it wasn't Shakespeare, but it was better than average. And at least few of the characters managed to make me care. Jeff Bridges' aged guru-ish Flynn was an interesting mix of hippy, conservative, funny, and regretful. In the end, the movie didn't make the common mistake of a lot of CG flicks -- neglecting the story.

The Wolfman

I saw this in the theaters and hated it.  I had great expectations for it, very few of which were met.  The writing was pretty bland, the dialogue was cheap, and the character development was uneven.  Watching it months later, though, I have a new appreciation for it.  It's certainly not a new classic, but it's fun nonetheless.  The dark, gothic imagery is effective without being overbearing.  The melodrama is poured on a little thick at times, but the actors make it good enough to enjoy as a guilty pleasure.  This movie, like The Core, is further evidence to my belief that a good cast can make a bad movie enjoyable.