IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT KIM GENTES MOVIE REVIEWS
The appearance of a movie in this review journal does not mean that the movie is endorsed by Kim. He writes reviews of movies that he saw that he recommends people avoid as well as movies that he considers worth seeing. Aside from just critical approval regarding the film, some movies may not be suitable for you or your family. You must make that kind of determination on your own, and stay true to your own convictions on what is appropriate to see. Some movies are well made, but have offensive or difficult subject matter that is questionable to many viewers. Again, the reviews listed here should not be your only filter for whether or not a film is appropriate for you and and your family.
Additionally, Kim has his own view on what movies are and why he thinks they are a worthwhile aspect of current culture to be investigated. You certainly don't have to agree with Kim on his viewpoints of movies, and he would be surprised if you did.
Kim's thoughts on movies -
Movies are the modern art "experience" of our culture. They are transmitted in many forms, on screens in theatres, DVDs, television and even computers. They are the merge of classical theatrical acting and modern day technical set and experience creation (effects). The reason I enjoy and watch lots of movies is that they not only entertain, they communicate the nuances of our society. Of course, some have nothing to do with culture, its just greedy corporations trying to produce profits. I am a guy, and as such am not the ideal audience for romantic comedies or 'chick fliks'. However I am also a husband, and domestic bliss (as well as common sense) compels me to at least review them...occasionally. For the most part, you will find I like (and therefor review a lot of ) action, drama, science fiction, suspense and similarly themed movies.
Friday, February 1, 2008 at 12:38PM 
Far and away, the best movie of 2007.
| Overall Grade: | A+ |
| Story: | A |
| Acting: | A+ |
| Direction: | A+ |
| Visuals: | A+ |
Cloverfield is the story of an attack on New York City. I won't spoil the movie for you, and if you haven't seen or read other reviews, then GET THE MOVIE. Don't try to find out what happens in this movie before you see it. You will enjoy the movie way more if you discover the story the way it was intended. The gimmick here is the "Blair Witch" style handicam filming that is the movie goers eyes through which the events unfold. Directed by Matt Reeves, (and produced by JJ Abrams) the story flows through the camera, instead of forcing the camera to see what will neatly present his storyboard. It's brilliant. You come in, remain and leave the story like the characters- uninformed, fearful, occasionally heroic and ultimately human. The same super-realism photo-imagery that was used in Collateral (Tom Cruise/Jamie Foxx) impacts you here, but with a sledgehammer to the head.
The characters are unquestionably just like us- self-centered and unprepared for much more than living their American lives. Part of the grip of this film is its tanacity to reality, while being a wildly science-fiction yarn. There is one small hickup in the storyline, in which a military trooper sends civilians back into harms way. Without that I would have given this film perfect marks on all fronts. But this plot twist does propel the story to its effective conclusion and forces the camera back to document this happening.
If you haven't seen this in the theatres, get going before its done its run. Again, this is easily the best film of 2007. If you don't get the word on Cloverfield quick enough to see it on the big screen, you will want to rent this in HD and see it on the biggest screen you have access to. Swimming in the visual experience is part of the plummet/rise rollercoaster you take with the characters, and you really don't want to miss that effect.
No child under 15 should see this movie, in my opinion. Far too much realism and imagery, along with language to keep the kids sleeping soundly after watching this one.
Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/RZfiSH
Review by Kim Gentes
1st person, Apocalyptic, JJ Abrams, alien, cloverfield, first person, invasion, new york, sci-fi in A-Movie, Movie Review Friday, February 1, 2008 at 12:19PM 
Best gunslinger movie, maybe ever.
| Overall Grade: | A- |
| Story: | A- |
| Acting: | A+ |
| Direction: | A- |
| Visuals: | A- |
No Country For Old Men is a modern gunslinger movie (set in the 1970's) that is more fantastic than Tombstone, more gripping than 3:10 to Yuma (which I liked) and has the nastiest villian in any genre of the silver screen since Darth Vader. What I like about this movie is, well, everything! To begin with the movie is directed with uncanny precision and brutal honesty by the now legenday Coen brothers (Joel and Ethan). Inside the move, the story's hero is a west Texas local name Llewelyn Moss. Played by James Brolin, he is a perfect combination of a likeable, but earthy local man, with plenty of street smarts and a gritty scathe to his voice and actions that make him seem just tough enough to "kick butt" when the situation requires. The local sheriff (played perfectly by Tommy Lee Jones) is a weathered old guy who plods along methodically trying to find answers. Both the hero and the sheriff play exceptional roles. This movie belongs to the characters, so much so that you hardly care where the stories goes. You remain entralled with the great performances of the actors. But the show hangs squarely on the shoulders of the assassin with a self-inforced code of honor. His name is Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem). You really haven't seen a villian like this for a very long time. He transcends the typical nasty villian or brutal tough guy. Yet it is his honor that keeps him even more feared. Whatever he promises will happen- and most of those promises are not nice.
The storyline is simple enough- a case full of money ends up in Llewelyn's hands. Coming upon the aftermath of a drug deal gone bad, our hero takes a turn to selishly grab the spoils after the conflict leaves everyone else dead. In turn, assassin Anton Chigurh is hired to hunt down Llewelyn and get back the cash. Once the storyline spins up there are no less than 5 parties in a hunt for each other. It is a very well written story and the script is simple, pared back for the action to have impact and characters to grip you. It works and works well.
No child under 15 should see this movie, in my opinion. There is some language not appropriate, but its the violence and suspense that will prove too much for younger viewers.
Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/T6GtM0
Review by Kim Gentes
Monday, September 17, 2007 at 8:40PM 
Good concept, good suspense, good action. Not a perfect mix.
| Overall Grade: | B- |
| Story: | C |
| Acting: | B+ |
| Direction: | C |
| Visuals: | A- |
Tired of the same old daily life you've been living in suburban, middle-class America? Maybe you should be happy with what you have. This is the warning detailed in graphic violence of the action/thriller/gangster adapation called Death Sentence. Nick Hume (played by Kevin Bacon) is an upper level manager with a relatively boring career. He has a great family and a fine life. Into this world of safety bursts gang violence that abruptly ends the life of Hume's teenage son. Watching his dieing son, Hume's grief and anger become overwhelming to the point of retribution. In this state, he begins to wage a war on the gang that caused the death of his son.
The story is intriuging enough with the setup, but the action begins to take over the film. Soon the notions of a plot and plausability are left with a spiraling ascension into bullet ridden violence. There are some very good moments here by Kevin Bacon, and his co-star Kelly Preston, who plays his wife. But the escapes and heroics that take over the film become more like James Bond and Jason Stratham, than the "everyman" that Bacon is supposed to be. After the initial setup of about 30 minutes, the film retreats for about an hour into complete violence and action, only returning to a morality lesson for the ending sequence.
The film is definitely worthwhile seeing, and it has good components of human drama, action and suspense. But one is left feeling like these good components just weren't mixed that well. After seeing unbelievable gunfight scenes, and having almost everyone die, it seemed a little trite to conclude with trying to teach us all a good lesson. There are some strong performances by Bacon, Preston and John Goodman (who plays the most sickly vision of a criminal father you can imagine) and these bouy the story and keep you concerned for the characters.
As for the MPAA rating of R, I would say it is too low. The violence and graphic nature of the film is horrific for any child and is likely too much for many adults. The language is pervasive and affronting. I would have set this film at NC-17. Too much for most adults, let alone kids under 17.
Amazon Link: http://amzn.to/RHOrc9
Review by Kim Gentes
Kevin bacon, death sentence, movie, murder, revenge, review in Movie Review Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 7:40AM 
| Overall Grade: | C+ |
| Story: | B+ |
| Acting: | C |
| Direction: | B- |
| Visuals: | F |
As a movie, I liked the premise, most of the acting and the dialog in this film. I will say upfront that I am a Christian. What I appreciated about this film is that it brings to the front some major aspects of anti-Christian thought. That might sound dichotomous, but the truth is most Christians find it hard to think about how to respond to simple points like the ones brought up in this film.
The film is all dialog. No visuals, no scene change, one set, and about a half a dozen actors. The visuals were actually not only simplified and stark, but poor and grainy. One recognizes the need to keep a low budget in such a film, but actual bad visual footage is not acceptable even in independent films.
I did like the mental gymnastics that Bixby makes in the dialog, as it gives good journey of thought to how some people can believe certain things. Sadly, there are several historical errors in the context of the film that make the journey simply factually misinformed. The historical aspects of much of the Ancient Christian era disputed by this film are simply wrong and in fact many prominent non-Christian and anti-Christian sources (contemporaries of the times of the original writings) clearly refute the errors presented by this film. Most prolific example was Josephus' 1st century extensive writings confirming much of the gospel accounts- though he remained a thoroughly non-Christian Jew. Even more pointedly Celsus' 175AD paper "The True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians" in which a devout anti-Christian clearly articulated that the then current Christian core belief that Jesus Christ (a man) was God. There are extensive examples of Christian writings supporting both historical details and time era references, but since this movie was clearly written to discredit Christian historical veracity, I have only listed non-Christian examples here.
That said, the film is a fun one to watch. Yes, as many have pointed out, it will offend some Christians, since it clearly is an anti-Christian basis in its message. I think the dialog is worthwhile, because it is well-thought, though ultimately misinformed historically. Laid on top of the bad history (related to Christianity) is a definite anti-Christian polemic at every major juncture.
As science fiction it is a fun yarn. Considering the idea that a man can have the biological possibility to live 14,000 years. Very interesting.
All in all, worth watching, though I think it would be more convincing if it didn't mangle history against Christians, and add statements like "it was all about Church power" in such a misapplied way. This statement, for example, certainly finds a strong resonance in the Medieval and later centuries, but the first 300-400 years the Christian church was persecuted and martyred under several Roman emperors and other local authorities. The dialog Bixby puts forth is that the words of Jesus were twisted in the early days to gain power in the church structure, but this could not be more erroneous since being a Christian in the first 400 years, being a Christian and believing those core tenants of faith meant certain persecution, imprisonment, torture, dismemberment and likely martyrdom. No group of people willingly makes up a set of beliefs (beliefs, which I have said are clearly agreed upon even by non and anti-Christian observers from the earliest days) about their faith, their God (in this case Jesus) and his teachings that would guarantee their persecution for 400 years.
If one is writing a polemic against Christians, one could write about the atrocities later introduced by truly corrupt Popes, emperors and rulers who usurped and married church structure to political establishment to gain control of over people and nations, to go to war and to kill dissenters to their cause of particular brand of theology. There are plenty of examples of bad things Christian religious structures have done (clearly against the historical and biblical tenants on which they claimed to be based). If one is to write against those, that would not only be historically accurate but also a proper lesson for future generations to avoid such abhorrent versions of faith activity.
Bixby ultimately weakens his film by negotiating against history to make his anti-Christian points. He could have done much better.
Again, because many Christians read my reviews, I will warn you- this film will offend you as it is written to discredit the core beliefs of Christian faith. If you cannot handle watching something critical in that light, you will want to skip this film.
Amazon Link: Man From Earth [Blu-ray]
Review by Kim Gentes
Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 11:04PM 
Bourne Again!!
| Overall Grade: | A- |
| Story: | B+ |
| Acting: | A |
| Direction: | A- |
| Visuals: | A- |
Sometimes movies should stop at one sequel. They have a surprising debut with a relatively modest first episode. It grows a nice following in the rental market. Then usually episode 2 of a series is the normal payoff. Steam has built and you have a big box office run for the second installment. By the third revision, the series loses interest and people aren't willing to dump more cash into a one-trick pony (for the third time). As proof of this model, look at Matrix, Shrek (albeit a strong 3rd showing), X-men, etc etc.
Then along came Jason Bourne, Matt Damon's super-ops spy character that gets more and more believably unbelievable with each sequence. Damon is the most convincing actor to do his own stunts in the last 20 years. His choreographed fight sequences are the most interesting and surprising of all the modern age action heroes. He and Damon Caro (Fight Choreographer) have a master synthesis that makes what could be a normal fistfight become a jaw dropping, no-popcorn-eating event for all movie watchers. Taking out an assassin with a regular hard back book doesn't sound too interesting, unless you see it done by Jason Bourne! That scene alone was 100% better than every other action movie I have seen this year, except for maybe 300 (the movie), which was an amazing action feast for a whole other reason.
Anyways, Bourne Ultimatum is all about answers. You find out who Jason Bourne really is, why he was a part of all this stuff, why they are trying to kill, all the secret stuff. And, actually, it all makes sense. I mean none of it is really all that believable, but come on, this is a super spy movie-- 5% believability is all that is needed!
The movie pays off for action freaks and is engaging for people who just like a bit of a tale to unfold. There is a hint of relational drama with the beautiful Julia Styles playing a helpful agent in Morocco, but thankfully the movies stays the course and Bourne has learned that everyone he gets close to gets killed. So he stays clear.
If you can, rent the first two movies (even if you have seen them) to prime you up before going to Ultimatum on the big screen. Then the storyline will fit and you feel like you got a bit more from the movie. Without it, the action moves along so fast, you may not care that the storyline is also advancing.
For those considering ages and appropriateness, I would not recommend this to anyone under 15 years old, but the film is fairly focused just on action, so some might think I am being prudish with that. It has no sexuality and limited language offenses, so its a cleaner film than most of this intensity of violence.
Simply put- go see this film while it is still on the big screen. It isn't the most amazing thing ever, but it is easily the top 2 or 3 action films this year. Well worth the fare for entry, in my opinion.
