Kim Gentes Movie Reviews

The Tree Of Life (2011)

2011-09-10T03:01:00Z

Life. Death. Joy. Pain.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	B
Acting:	A+
Direction:	A+
Visuals:	A+

Summary: Most films have a specific plot. They develop tension through the story, hoping to surprise you a bit with the conclusion and warm or thrill you along the way. Very few films try to approach a topic as broad as "the meaning of life" or as grand as "what happens when we die". The film "The Tree of Life" climbs into the ring with the epic Stanley Kubrick film "2001: A Space Odyssey" and tries to give us answers to what our universe is about. It is to be heralded for its attempt, though it will feel like its wash of ubiquitous meanderings may well leave viewers so unsure of what they just saw, they won't feel inspired to believe its premise. Some will get it, others simply won't stay interested long enough to wait out the proposals that the film makes.

Full Review: First, let me say that if my summary seems languishing and uncertain, you have just felt what most people will feel seeing the film. This creation of art is a truly breath-taking journey from no less than the beginnings of the universe until the virtual end of time (at least for our central family on which the story will finally rest). If you are considering watching "The Tree of Life", you need to know that this film is not meant to give you a sharp, well defined 90 minutes of story. Rather, the movie is meant to draw a visual understanding of the entire history of the universe, how we fit into that, where it might all be going and how an individual families story might make sense in that continuum.

If you think that goal is lofty, you apparently haven't met Terrence Malick, the writer and director of this movie. His vision of reality is certainly enthralling, though ultimately unsurprising. From a philosophical standpoint there is nothing new with his presentation. He is not breaking any new genres in origins theory or developing new ideas about life after death. What Malick does, though, is merge a good many of those ideas into a visual timeline that threads the viewer into a world that transgresses barriers of reality- from the ephemeral , physical here and now, to the eternal, other-worldly cosmic hereafter.

The problem with the film is that you can lose site of what he is doing, primarily because he does nothing to prime the audience where he is starting, where he is going and where you might be stopping along the way. One has to construct that by watching. For example, there is one segment in which he travels to the origins of time and takes literally 15 or more minutes without a word being spoken. You travel in and out of earth "space" and only hear fleeting words from the narrator, who ends up being a boy who is found on both sides of the alive and eternal spectrum.

What you eventually find out is that this boy has a story, and this film lands, finally, on his life and that of his family. The story arc progresses nicely then, with brief detours into cosmically other realities. The goal is for you to begin to see how everything is knit together, and yet how grand and important each person's life can be, if but for one proposition.

I won't give the point of the movie away, but it is certainly an insightful one. Not original, but certainly in agreement with many who have spoken on this topic of our grand purpose.

While the movie does have this vast self interest, it nonetheless does bring you poignantly into the world of a 50's reality in which a man and his family struggle with real life issues. Eventually, you come to the point of a death of one of the children. All this is beginning to make sense and gives context as you are occasionally flashed forward into a future time as well. Actors Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain become the fully embodied examples of humanity, life, joy, struggle and pain that we can see both on the screen and in ourselves. Pitt and Chastain are the best, and more prominent. Penn is cast as a brooding, lost man, still broken from some past event. He does well but remains too undeveloped to engage the audience other than perhaps feel as unsettled as his character does.

People who want a quick movie for a romantic date should avoid this film. People who want a heartwarming story with endearing clichés will also want to pass here. Creationists and evolutionists will each be enthralled and ultimately disappointed at a film that leaves room for literally a thousand interpretations. And that, I think, is the point. Malick attempts to draw such a grand vision that he leaves us asking far more questions just about his film than we had before we went into the theatre. I felt like this was good, and an inspiring journey along the way. There is a strong moral lesson at the end and I also think it is good (that helps when one agrees with it).

But there is something about the film that I also felt was contrived, especially where he looks to include symbols and metaphors from literally dozens of schools of thought from religion to science to philosophy to psychology. At times, it seems too much for a single film and loses potency with the over-reaching.

That said, it was one of the best films I have seen this year. I would recommend it to anyone wishing to see an engaging spectacle of thoughtful film with grand aspirations. You may not agree with Malick's perspective, but that may actually be the point of the film.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pBFvPm

Review by Kim Gentes.

The King's Speech (2010)

2011-01-03T16:32:03Z

Dry. Focused. Artful. Perfect.

Overall Grade:	A
Story:	B
Acting:	A+
Direction:	A+
Visuals:	A

Summary: Real life seems to be the rage in recent movies. The challenge becomes more arduous for major productions when the plot doesn't include any of the silver screen big five: superstars, sex/romance, CGI, suspense (or horror) and action.

The new film "The King's Speech" is a screen rendition of the book "The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy" co-written by the grandson of Lionel Logue, the speech therapist who helps Albert (titled as King George VI) to achieve his ability to speak publicly without stammering.

The film has low star power- Colin Firth plays as "Bertie", the common name give King George VI by his family. While Firth is recognizable to many, he is certainly not a popular draw. Geoffrey Rush likewise plays the uncompromising speech therapist, Logue. Great character acting is done by both. The cinematography has the predictably drab realism of grey, dreary England. The contrast of royal furnishings and clothing are all that holds hope for any visuals that might wake up the audience.

Content caution: for moms, dads, and such- this film has no objectionable content, violence or images. Except, that is, for two specific and demonstrative examples of extensive cursing from which its R-rating is completely based. I say this to clarify the rating. To the film's credit, it is completely in context for the script, where it is meant as a therapeutic exercise. Both times the tirade of language is contained, strong and over quickly. I wouldn't bring a child under 13 to this film, but anyone over that age would not be unfamiliar with any words spoken in this film.

Beyond that, the plot is swift and simple and unfolds in just that manner. Bertie is crowned King George VI after the death of this father, King George V, and subsequent abdication of the throne by his older brother, Edward, just a year later. In just weeks, the new king must deliver a crucial speech to address the nation and empire as the United Kingdom declares war on Hitler's Germany.

Firth becomes what he must for this film- the consummate professional. Acting along a thin line between historical fact and brilliant character development, Firth bristles with life. There is no perfection, because the character himself was rife with imperfection. But there is life, because the character becomes a very realistic, endearing and human example of determination and perseverance. Firth is balanced in two spheres by Helena Bonham Carter (as his characters' wife, Elizabeth) on the royal homefront and by the aforementioned Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist, Lionel Logue.

With such a thin plot, there is little to rely on for sensation. The movie is based purely on character development with a touch of humor. I won't pour out more details, when they are best picked up in the viewing of it. This was the first film I have seen in quite a while that audience members clapped spontaneously at the end. It is, in a word, brilliant.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pUv5va

Review by Kim Gentes.

127 Hours (2010)

2010-12-28T06:56:05Z

A story about waiting to die. Audience participation required.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	A
Acting:	A+
Direction:	A
Visuals:	B-

Summary: Imagine if you had the opportunity to know you were about to die. That in a few days your body would shut down and you writhe painfully from dehydration, exhaustion into complete physical collapse. This is the real life story of Aron Ralston. An Intel engineer who was a serious hiking enthusiast, took on one too many challenges.

I won't recite the entire storyline for you. If you haven't heard it, it is well worth either reading his real life story or watching this movie. Suffice it to say that Ralston has his life dangling in the balance while stuck in the crevas of a slot canyon in Utah, his arm wedged between the canyon and a rock.

The very best about this movie is the acting by James Franco. Edging out a character study for this protagonist gets center stage. The movie, quite frankly, is little else. And Franco is more than up to the task. He elevates the film to believability, pain and course reality. You feel the wind, the grit of sand, the losing of sanity, the struggle of dehydration pressing in on you as you watch the film.

Danny Boyle (director) achieves precisely his goal with the stark renderings and narrow effect given to the cinematography- to make you feel like each moment is grainy, slow and arduous. This is the point of the film making, that you will feel what the character feels. But this becomes the ironic anti-point to most viewers, since the very thing Boyle intends to make us feel, when it succeeds, is the exact opposite thing you need to keep people in the seats at a local theatre. Twenty-first century Americans can't be bothered with painful, frightening, gnawing, ugly reality. They can't handle story telling that is not 120 minutes of 7 second sound bites and 50 car explosions. So I don't expect 127 Hours will do well as a money making venture.

But if you would like to hear an amazing story, of a truly heroic individual, who grinds out life and death with the elements of a desert canyon, and you are willing to endure for 133 minutes what he endured for 127 hours, then you can learn the lessons he learned. And you won't be disappointed.

I also usually give warnings related to content for age. For parents out there, you should know that this film has a few instances of cursing, though, it is occasional. There are also sexual innuendoes, but again they are passing. However, in one scene, James Franco's character does pleasure himself, apparently as an attempt to alleviate pain. This may be offensive to some viewers. I would not bring my 13 year old to this movie, but I would bring my 16 and 19 year old boys. I have boys and do not have girls so I have no good grid for evaluating well age appropriateness for daughters. As you might imagine, there are some visceral, disgusting things that he does to his body to survive (including drinking urine, considering severing body parts, etc). Much the same way as "Saving Private Ryan" was a particularly shocking viewpoint of war, this movie is a microcosm of personal human struggle. It is realistic and yet painful and visceral.

The film has a man who goes from happy, to angry, to hopeful, to hopeless, to base human animal, back through to thankful, changed, human. When he reaches the base human animal, on a human level this reflects a journey where a person goes from seeming happiness into transformation, through a deeply terrible self-revelation, which forces him to leave behind part of his old life to move on to the new.

I am slightly less compelled to feel like Boyle worked as hard as Franco on the film. The one thing that seemed a bit too obvious was the moral lesson that he pounds out in the script. The epiphany moment (at the end of the movie) when the Ralston character yells the word "Help" is about the fourth or fifth time the moral lesson is hammered home for the viewers. That felt a little over done for the normally more clever style that Boyle employs in his films. But I certainly can grant this concession for an otherwise poignant and painful triumph to a powerful story.

Amazon DVD Link : http://amzn.to/pMEcog

Review by Kim Gentes.

True Grit (2010)

2010-12-27T17:29:00Z

Not so true. Not much grit.

Overall Grade:	C
Story:	B-
Acting:	C
Direction:	C-
Visuals:	B-

Summary: I have to admit, I went to this film because it was directed by the Coen brothers. Their ability to take a story and turn its perspective upside down without ruining it is near legendary. And while they certainly did take a seeming classic story and spin its viewpoint, the result is a placid, ineffectual, yarn with little drama and misuse of a star-studded cast.

The Coens had help in killing the life of this film, but not from Hailee Steinfeld. Hailee plays Mattie Ross, a 14 year old girl who is left to deal with her murdered father's affairs. She takes it upon herself to hire two men to track down her father's killer and joins them in the pursuit. Her acting is crisp and well set for the role and story. It could be argued that she overplays the capabilities of a 14 year old, but that seems to be written into the story and not a misrepresentation in her acting.

Jeffe Bridges also does a reasonable job as the drunken, hard-nosed US Marshal, Rooster Cogburn. Flashes of intensity in his character save the film from absolute boredom. Matt Damon is ill-cast as the lucid, weakling Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf. He provides a sympathetic, but nearly ineffectual character that neither fits Damon's intense style or helps the film. Likewise, James Brolen's character is less than what you hope for as well. Neutered by a subjugated role to the "Lucky Ned Pepper" character, Brolen ends up in 2 strange and almost discardable scenes. All this leaves you thinking- "that's the villain?" The real antagonist ends up being the "Lucky Ned Pepper" character, whose namesake is ironically similar to the actor, Barry Pepper, who plays him. Pepper (actor and character) is the only one who seems to take the film as a serious western. If you're looking for "grit", Pepper is all you'll find.

The film fails, in my estimation because it lacks any chemistry between the characters. There is no intensity, no dialog and no attraction to speak of. Nothing relationally seems real in this film. That would be fine if it contained actual and suspense to keep you going, but it fails there too. In fact, the Coen's try to rely on humor to keep you interested. Humor which, though occasionally seems helpful, is ultimately all that is left.

I wish I had more encouraging news on this film. It is definitely not the best movie to see in this season. Both "127 Hours" and "Fighter" are much more worthy of your money, in my opinion.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/nx8fdR

Review by Kim Gentes.

The Social Network (2010)

2010-10-10T04:42:46Z

A super geek. An average story. Brilliant direction.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	B
Acting:	A
Direction:	A+
Visuals:	A

Summary: What would it be like if you had a movie made of your life? Some things would be exciting enough to be "media" worthy, other things might seem rather "run of the mill". But what makes your story particularly interesting to your friends and family is that it actually happened, and it actually happened to someone they know.

Mark Zuckerberg is a geek. A Harvard geek. The story of his rise to fame and the explosion of his website, Facebook, is not as tumultuous and extraordinary as you might think. But it is believable and it is engaging. "The Social Network" takes you on that story, and it does so with an exceptional script, excellent acting and perfect direction.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg as the irrepressible, though socially awkward computer geek that bumbles his way into the brilliant idea of Facebook. Eisenberg's execution of the script, pacing of his lines (rapid fire geek-talk included) and coyish (though duplicitous) characteristics leave you with the character as he is: uncertain, yet brash; loyal, yet easily seduced; naive, yet considerably cunning and possibly disingenuous. There is no lack of top notch acting in this film. Andrew Garfield plays the slighted best friend, Eduardo Saverin, who carefully executes the hint of similar genius on a script that sounds genuine and compelling.

But the best acting in this film is done by Justin Timeberlake. I know, it sounds like a claim to garner celeb thanks, but frankly, Timberlake simply is deviously brilliant as Sean Parker, former co-founder of Napster. The Parker character is the icon for the slimy underworld of hubris filled "entrepreneurism". With pithy lines and insidious conniving, Parker weaves his way into Facebook ownership and management by befriending Zuckerberg and essentially destroying the relationship between the startup's founder duo. It would be hard to dislike this character more, and that is the point. What Javier Bardem does as an unrelenting assassin in "No Country For Old Men", Timberlake does as a creepy, self-infatuated, megalomaniac in "The Social Network".

I am not sure how close to reality that the film plays with the dialog, but the top notch writing in this film keep you laughing and very interested in the next moment. And the next. And the next. Each of the 121 minutes flew by and director David Fincher made sure you couldn't find one of those minutes you regretted.

Negatives? If you don't like witty cynicism this film may prove to be less than entertaining. And it appears that the film certainly steps out of reality a few times with its overwrought scenes of partying and plot twists that keep you watching.

I would not bring my kids to see this film, though there is no explicit nudity in the film or excessive language (relative to other films). But the film is clearly portraying a college atmosphere at its hedonistic height (and exaggerating it at that, says the real Mark Zuckerberg in a separate interview about the film). There are numerous drug and alcohol use scenes, parlayed against additional scenes of sexual innuendoes. All told, it's simply too much for anyone under 17, in my opinion.

Those items aside, "The Social Network" is worth watching. With the rash of bland to bad films that have come out this year, it's not hard to call the film one of the best 3 of the year. As a geek myself, I found "Social Network" amusing and self-complimentary to all who might classify themselves as such. But mostly, its just good fun and surprisingly moralistic (the yarn points at a simple moral lesson throughout).

Go see it. You won't be disappointed.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/pLJ5dz

Review by Kim Gentes.

Leap Year (2010)

2010-02-23T05:09:08Z

Romance that happens just once every four years.

Overall Grade:	B+
Story:	B-
Acting:	A
Direction:	B
Visuals:	A

Summary: In a genre that brings us the very definition of sappiness, "Leap Year" breaks ranks with a surprising, witty and artfully wholesome film that will absolutely win for a date night. And the biggest surprise will be that the guy will actually enjoy watching this film.

Review: Once upon a time romance movies were a script so predictable, that the price tag at the box office was the only thing to remind us that there was supposed to be value attached to this art form. In recent years, graphic language and scenes replaced good romantic tension as a crude substitute for the film ethos.

Leap Year crests the new year with a brilliant romantic comedy that will still warm your heart with a slightly predictable story, while riveting your attention with an eclectic and engaging cast.

A number of the "professional" critics dance with their angry hammers on this film- it is just too clean for the Hollywood banter to believe it could relate to "real people"- since the film shows no sex, and has virtually no offensive language. The story is obvious and clear. You and your date will know what is going to happen, perhaps except for the last 5 minutes. But that is the point- this story was meant to warm and encourage, not be a gritty or esoteric "reality check". But the couple that discovers one another in this story is the focus of it, not the story. Two very adept actors here, Amy Adams and Matthew Goode, have genuine spark and nuance to their dialog. There are some stock laughs, but also enough odd twist humor to keep it fresh.

Guys, you don't have to like romantic comedies to see this film- you will enjoy it anyways. If tonight is a night to escape and enjoy, and cuddle up with your date, then see "Leap Year". You'll enjoy it! The best light hearted, romantic comedy I have seen in a long while.

Amazon DVD Link: http://amzn.to/quGqMU

Review by Kim Gentes.

Star Trek (2009)

2009-06-15T05:53:39Z

Boldly go where no prequel has gone before.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	A+
Acting:	A-
Direction:	A
Visuals:	B+

Summary: Instead of patronizing us with a film to placate the trekky hordes, this film completely revamps the Star Trek legacy, giving us grit, humanity, plot believability and fantasy in what used to be a one dimensional world of trek-dom; a triumph of what can be possible with a great filmmaker at the helm.

Review: Writing a new movie for a decades old iconic franchise is the pivotal "chance-of-a-lifetime" for any director. And few succeed. But JJ Abrams is no ordinary director. His prestine vision of the ultimate rebirth of the Star Trek universe infuses, above all, a powerful humanity into the long-loved science fiction yarn.

For over 40 years the legacy of Gene Roddenberry's story has conveyed many things- fantasy, fiction, technology, adventure, characature and time travel. But rarely did you see much more than characature and stereotype in the development of the cast. This may seem strange given the cast, but we found each member of the Enterprise to ultimately become one dimensional place holders that allowed for a plot driven TV show that lived on twists and technology to keep us interested. Character development was never a strong suit of the franchise. It was attempted moreso in the follow-on movies of the last 3 decades, but never ascended to become more than enhancements of the originals: an arrogant Kirk, calculating Spock, acerbic Bones and mindless Checkov (etc).

Then comes this new Star Trek, told to us this time from the man who brought us the best movie of 2007 (Cloverfield)- a movie he shot (seemingly) entirely through a single camera- and pulls it off with flying colors. Abrams is always reaching to pull in the viewer, making everything human, flesh-touchable, gritty. He succeeds in Star Trek (2009).

Kirk becomes pretentious and arrogant, but fraught with that same guise as a mask to his own failure and pain. Bones is acerbic, for sure, but we gain a look at his real life that exposes those origins. Most of all, we see Spock. A Spock that is far more human than he ever has been. Strangely, this makes his Vulcan story seem far more believable. You grasp his story, you believe it, and you love the ride it takes you on. But let's be clear- this story is about the rise of James T. Kirk. It's his human path to a starry, almost super-human stature as the pre-eminant character of science fiction lore.

It's perfectly done, very well acted, and a great adventure tale to boot. There have been rumblings of "true trekkies" that have dissed the film. I expected as much. The vitality of the tales have never been more brilliant in this new film for Star Trek, but we have left behind the plastic, inhuman characters that the original series had given us. A welcome change. If you even remotely like sci-fi, this film will delight you. See it in the theatres, as the shots and action are very engaging.

(I have to say it... even if Nemoy won't!)

Live long and prosper!

Review by Kim Gentes.

Special (rx) (2008)

2009-01-07T07:46:58Z

A truly special movie.

Overall Grade:	A-
Story:	A+
Acting:	A
Direction:	B
Visuals:	B

Summary: Ingenuis story, focused acting, indie grit visuals and daring direction that doesn't falter; content warnings- some offensive language, some violence and drug use. In my opinion, this movie is not for anyone under 15. Serious emotional and adult concepts that will be too much for any child. Again, this movie is rated R, and is not for children.

We all strive to be something important in life. To make a mark, to be involved in something significant. We want to love and ultimately be loved for who we truly are. We want to be special. To someone. Les Franken (played by Michael Rapaport) is just just like you and I. He is looking for that time, place and relationship in which life fits, your contribution counts and things matter.

But like so many of us, the outward signs for Les are not harrowing his uniqueness in the universe. Quite the opposite. From his job, to his friends, to desolate outlook on his daily existence, Les's life is a deluge of despair all quietly festering in polite secrecy to the rest of world.

Until today. Les gets a chance to join a study for a final trial on an anti-depressant drug. In fact, the drug becomes all Les dreams- or more aptly- Les becomes all he dreams.

The story and preview market the movie as though it were some smart-kneck comedy, but it is far from that. With blisteringly wry pathos "Special" delivers an unnerving look at the human soul. Simplistic at times and broken, as we all are, it reverts to the disparity between emotional hopes and the blunt force trauma of reality. There are plenty of coy hyperboles here, but all hit you like a sledgehammer instead of a joke. In the end, the movie watcher feels like the only joke has been in the shallow portrayal that Hollywood film so often (otherwise) makes of real people's problems.

This movie was brilliant, but it is not for everyone. If want a chuckle, don't go here. If you want an answer, you're not looking in the right spot either. But sometimes to find a crumb of truth, you need to search for something found only in pain and failure. And into this world you go, with Les as your guide. And if you can handle the journey, you will indeed find something Special.

Review by Kim Gentes.

The Punisher: War Zone (2008)

2008-12-22T04:03:10Z

The real punishment happened to those who bought tickets.

Overall Grade:	D-
Story:	D+
Acting:	D-
Direction:	F
Visuals:	D

Summary: Average story, bad casting, poor acting, disgustingly poor visuals and a director that fell asleep; content warnings- prolonged scenes of intense violence and B-movie gore.

For this movie, its hard to pick where to start with the review. Out of the gate, I think the casting was the core problem. Maybe the most effective and believable death blow in the film was dealt by Jennifer Smith and Tricia Wood whose work on casting strung together a group of misfit action and side-line characters that can't play their roles. It starts with Ray Stevenson who is abysmally cast as Frank Castle, the Punisher. I rarely compare movies in a series when leads change, but Thomas Jane did a crisp rendition of the Marvel Comic vigilante in the 2004 release of the Punisher. He was emotive when engaged in human contact and dark and brooding when overtaken by greif and vengence as the story calls for. Stevenson looks thoughtless and dismissive of the role he is given. When he has a scene to strike the tension of human and vengeful warrior, he plummets into cutesy comments and unconvincing stoic acknowledgement of emotions. It was lame.

Dominic West who plays the villian, Jigsaw, is given a corny set of lines that don't come close to anything other than a comedic failure of the essense intended for his character. The normally intensely brilliant Doug Hutchison tries to save the film with his always intense acting, but is given unbelievably over the top dialog and scenes which comprise of him biting a man to death and joking about "axing" someone a question which he chases him down with a tree chopper. If it was just a action filled movie with reasonable violence that made sense, I'd have chalked it up to a standard Hollywood grab at the "guy movie" for the holidays. But this was so poorly executed, they saw the writing on the wall. To rescue it, they threw in way over-the-top gore scenes of just plane stupid violence. Nothing about the movie made sense. Stevenson didn't even look fit for the the agile, near super-quick and smart actions scenes of the Punisher. He was slow, unconvincing and kept looking like he was ready for a latte break.

Honestly, I'd rather have watched the 2004 version of the Punisher again (for the 10th time) than watch this movie. I wouldn't even recommend you renting it for any reason. There is nothing there to watch, unless maybe you like campy 50's, B-movie gore attempting to be a big time action film. One has to wonder whether rumors of a dispute with the director, Lexi Alexander, and the movie company Lionsgate didn't have some effect here. This film looks like Alexander worked for the first 45 minutes, when let chaos reign on the set, not just the story line.

Thoroughly disappointing and disgusting.

Review by Kim Gentes.

The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)

2008-12-13T08:56:37Z

The day the earth waited in line for stale popcorn.

Overall Grade:	C-
Story:	C+
Acting:	D+
Direction:	D
Visuals:	B

In the manner of "The Happening", the latest world catastrophe movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still" becomes an afterthought to geopolitical campaigning, and removes from the equation of science fiction both science and fiction. With a mildly likable character from Jennifer Connelly, this film tried to find a center but feels like no one really steps to the plate. "The Day The Earth Stood Still" is a post-modern remake of the 1951 film with the same name.

The film has relatively unimpressive acting from everyone including Keanu Reeves who adds another deific character to his resume in the human embodied alien of "Klaatu". Cast in the emotionless alien role, Reeves forms a hesitant proxy to which Connelly's character pleads for mercy for the fate of humankind. The story is worthwhile, but after 110 minutes of cliche and vacant stares of emotionless setup for the plot, there is no tension left, nothing to resolve. Just a bit of a pseudo-science conclusion that seems uncontrived, while still being unconvincing.

For those 50's buffs, you will like the retro renderings of special effects, but after that, its just a long series of gun magazines being loaded and stereo-typical stupid leadership decisions being made. It's always nice to watch a movie that shows political figures as even more inanely foolish than their real life counterparts. Thank God we can all recognize Hollywood's relentlessly stupid political bashing, so while its annoying, at least it doesn't completely destroy the movie. But for its part, not much is there to destroy.

As far as content, there is no violence, language, or sexual content that would offend anyone over 11 or 12. The PG-13 rating is a bit cautious in my view, but there may be 8-10 year olds that will find momentary scenes to startle them and stick in their memory. Beyond that, not much is shocking, surprising or even interesting. Likely the biggest draw of this film is its nostalgic connection to sci-fi films golden era. If you can make it that long, at least make sure to get a hot bag of newly popped popcorn before entering the theater. That way at least something will be fresh about your experience.

Review by Kim Gentes

Lovely, Still (2008)

2008-10-22T07:24:00Z

Indie triumph.

Overall Grade:	A
Story:	A+
Acting:	A+
Direction:	A
Visuals:	B

I watch a lot of a movies. From action to drama, to scifi to romance, thrillers and indie films. Today, I watched one of the best indie movies I have ever seen. Normally, I don’t venture out for an indie unless it has some compelling oddity, such as Momento or Primer (both vastly far afield from the tenor of “Lovely, Still”. Perusing the vaults of online Netflix, I came to Lovely, Still and thought it might be an interesting view.

Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn play a couple in love, him for the first time, and for most of the film the charm of their growing relationship is warm and endearing, even if some scenes lean to the stereotypical. Yet, while the humor and circumstance may be easy to spot coming, it never feels cliche. This isn’t because of the gently rolling and simple script, it is because of the elegant acumen of these two leads. Both are perfect, and leave nothing to chance. Voice and nuanced motion become the impeccable reality that everyone believes.

My family and I sat and watched this gem of a movie unfold, and were charmed into a wonderful evening. At times, the supporting work of Adam Scott (supporting roles in Step Brothers and Knocked Up) and his portrayal of a store manager makes the film feel oddly offbeat, but in a whimsical way (think Napoleon Dynamite meets Grumpy Old Men). The story is never riveting, but always enjoyable.

But eventually, tiny holes in the story begin to open into portals of pain. By the end of the film, the tragedy of illness affronts characters, story and viewer. And this becomes the point- to bring a solid wall of ice across the warm glow of the romantic sunset of a couple’s life. Without placing a spoiler in this review, understand that this painful twist will abruptly end the romantic story of this film.

The movie may seem contrived, especially in the last 20 minutes, but I can’t judge it that way. The experience it portrays cannot truly be understood without living it, I suspect. Perhaps this is a good portrayal, perhaps not. But the writer and director make an attempt to put their plot on the screen. It is well worth our time, well worth our consideration. Perhaps life won’t look exactly like this script, but this film is worth our effort to listen and watch.

Warm, endearing, thoughtful, shocking, tragic, human.

Watch it.

Amazon DVD Link Lovely, Still

review by
Kim Gentes

10,000 B.C. (2008)

2008-03-08T09:27:44Z

Another good idea beaten with a club.

Overall Grade:	C
Story:	C+
Acting:	C
Direction:	C
Visuals:	B+

The idea of prehistoric man has always been intruiging to viewers of movies. It links our imagination with our humanity by placing what looks like regular people (with bad hair and low tech) back in a land of monsterous animals and mystical understanding. 10,000BC is another very good film concept. But like my last review (Jumper) it turns out to be a good idea that seems to get the Jr. High School treatment from the filmmakers. The setting is the African continent, likely across the mid to northern parts of Africa leading from the Great Rift Valley through the Sahara to the Egyptian outlet of the Nile. It is not completely clear where the journey begins, but it is possibly somewhere around Mount Kilimanjaro or Mount Kenya, and ends up in the early stages of the Valley of the Kings, where the pyramids are still under construction.

The story starts out being about a small tribe of hunting nomads who survive on herds of migrating mastadons. As the creatures migrations slow down the tiny tribe is slowly dieing off. A personal struggle is introduced and our protagonist is a young tribal leader named D'Leh, whose love interest is kidnapped by marauding horse riders. In his quest to free and regain his love, D'Leh and several of his tribesmen wander through Africa, gaining tribes of men to help them against the mighty armies of the evil Egyptian empire. What begins as a simple love story tries to end up being the ultimate movie about class struggle. The movie has just two problems- no acting and no directing. The story was strong enough it could have held a good script under its premise, but the writing and details here totally make the film fall flat. This film in the hands of a master (Speilberg, Coen brothers, or even Gibson) would have been fun if nothing else. But not only was the directing about as inspiring as 3 day old soda left in the sun, but the acting consisted of glistening-eyed-looks with pretty people headshots and not much else.

Every attempt at emotion and engagement with actual human characteristics falls dismally short of plausible. The one thing that does work is the well done visuals and excellent set work.

If you have big screen HD TV, wait till this film comes out on BluRay DVD. You may otherwise feel like you have lived through 10,000 years of tired, cold popcorn crumbs before this film is over on the silver screen. The film is PG13, but that may be simply because it was just too bad for kids under 13 to experience. The rating here could have PG and it would have been fine. There are a couple scenes of battle and people getting killed in epic battle scenes, but nothing grisly, or frightful for children 10 or over.

Jumper (2008)

2008-02-17T07:24:00Z

It was good, until the movie started.

Overall Grade:	C
Story:	C
Acting:	C+
Direction:	C
Visuals:	B

You ever get the feeling that someone handed a great idea over to a bunch of 7th graders? If so, you have probably seen Jumper. This is the action/sci-fi/adaptation gone awry from author Steven Gould. The screenplay underwent a couple of revisions and direction landed with Doug Linman. Perhaps another couple script revisions were in order here. Jumper has a fun premise- teleportation. Certainly people are gifted genetically to teleport, or so the story goes. David Rice (played by Hayden Christensen) is one of those people. The story follows David as he grows from adolesence to adulthood, though he remains selfishly focused throughout. The story has a few plot twists, but nothing teleports the audience to a believable or even enjoyable place. Ultimately, the film ends with less pizzazz than it starts and the audience is left wondering how such a cool idea was maimed into the resulting film. There are touches of interesting action, but the plot and the characters remain undeveloped. Christensen has even less acting presence in this film than he did in the Star Wars episodes where we played Anakin Skywalker. In fact, he still continues to brood of seemingly nothing in this film, leaving me to believe that he has about 3 poses and about zero acting ability.

The film would have been a good rental or netflix download, but paying full price was probably leaving us all feeling like someone just teleported off with our hard-earned money.

Juno (2007)

2008-02-01T20:35:26Z

Funny, Heartwarming and slightly absurd.

Overall Grade:	A
Story:	A
Acting:	A+
Direction:	B+
Visuals:	A

Juno is the story of a teenage pregnancy, where Ellen Page and Michael Cera play the 16-ish unconventional highschool sweethearts who become pregnant. Page plays the unbelieveably witty Juno, who is way too smart. But her lines are so funny and so deftly acted, you buy everything and roll on laughing. Cera plays Bleeker, an emotionally in-touch version of Napolean Dynomite, complete with that same nerdish sex-appeal but lacking the absurd SNL-skit oddball family life. JK Simmons, most famous for his roles on prime time dramas like Law & Order, plays the wise and also perfectly cast father.

I admit, I was dragged to this movie, but I ended up laughing my head off. It was probably too funny, actually, especially for people who might have to deal seriously with this topic. But the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and the director here is smart enough to stay away from getting preachy about the issues. This will be a perennial standout movie on the rental market, and it has already raked in $100million in the US theatres. It has all quirkiness that links a film to our real world, oddball lives, while maintaining enough Hollywood to make it coexist in a realm of ideology that informs us of "how things ought to be". I know its considered trite to speak of morality and conscience these days, but this is a refreshing, if slightly unrealistic, story that helps us remember what our best intentions should be. And there is just enough "Cinderella" mixed in that you get that warm fuzzy feeling without having to throw up at the end.

Juno is a perfect "date" movie for any couple, with a likely cautionary repreave to any children under 13 due to language and sexual themes. It's PG-13 rating is well-placed, in my opinion.

Cloverfield (2007)

2008-02-01T19:38:04Z

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 TO 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. But this is done with the masterful nuances of JJ Abrams, who lets the story flow 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.