Movie Review: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Well, folks, after a long hiatus, I'm back. I figure it's time to review some more movies. I have been viewing many TV shows and fewer movies as the years progress. My budget requires mostly Redbox movies or streaming on Netflix. I have a few reviews in mind and will be reviewing TV shows but reviewing them in a somewhat different fashion. Let's get to the Christmas released movie Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Voyage is the third book in the series by CS Lewis. It is one of the most beloved and also one of the most difficult books to translate into movie form. More details to come later. The first movie, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, was excellent - an almost perfect adaptation of the book with a little extra flair added in. Most changes worked, though some made no sense given the Narnia fantasy world. I reviewed the second movie on this blog, so please read it at this link: Prince Caspian. In an unusual twist, I found Caspian's changes from the book were more thematically and internally consistent than the book. I'm not sure how that happened, but the movie was the more compelling piece of fiction.

Gains: +5
Eustus amazed me, from the actor selection (Will Poulter) to the acting itself. Of all the characters, Eustus brought more to the movie than the rest. As usual, Georgie Henley (Lucy) and Skandar Keynes (Edmund) gave good performances.

The movie tried to teach some values - fighting temptation, being who you are, heroism, selflessness, faith. Good for them. These are rare qualities found in movies these days.

The scenery of water-based movies carries significant difficulties. Voyage handled the sailing ship activities seamlessly. Also the sets, animation, and costuming were pretty cool.

Losses: -4
Plot, plot, plot, plot, plot. Oh, and internal consistency and mixing realism into your fantasy. But I get ahead of myself.

First of all, let's deal with the easy part that requires many words to explain. Shots frame the movie and form a line or a series of lines connecting characters to scenes and the plot and the environment. Framing shots correctly and putting them into movies in the correct order gives the audience an idea of how and why one character was in one place and got to another place. For instance, you don't need to show the audience my entire trip home. You can take things out, but if you take out too much, you lose your linear consistency. Showing the entire car ride is not necessary. Conversely, if you show me sitting at my work desk, then the next shot shows me sitting at my home computer desk, you have lost the audience. How did I get there? Why did the camera shot change? There is no transition. Sometimes you can convey this change with words or with short shots of me grabbing my coat on my way out, then showing me entering my house and sitting down. Etc. Etc. You have a myriad of options, but the point is that you have to show the audience what and why and how in some form.

In Voyage, for instance, how did Eustus get into the water after meeting Aslan and putting the sword on the other swords? All of a sudden, "Hey, guys, there's Eustus, in the water next to the ship." I counted 3 such instance in a single viewing. I'm not a professional, so when I think I could do a better job, the videography has gone terribly wrong.

Plot, plot, plot. I knew heading into Voyage that the plot of the book was fascinating but would have trouble being translated to modern audiences on modern film. When faced with this problem, producers and writers can either change the script or stay true. I believe staying true to the book is most often correct. Prince Caspian proved to me that changes can benefit a movie, so I had hope for this movie. I got suckered.

When a book has a loose plot like find 7 lords (and visit weird islands) and no over-arching plot with a big battle at the end for conclusion, then you must change the paradigm. Only one story element connected each of the islands - sailing on the Dawn Treader. So the story absolutely needed to have a little bit of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) in it. We needed to live and breathe the ocean life, with mini-adventures on the islands.

I knew something was going wrong right away. The first island is cool in the book. It is not wildly fantastical like the other islands, but the slave trade has taken over and corruption rules the populace. The option in the book was to return with soldiers to siege the city or to bluff that the Dawn Treader was just the negotiating wing of a larger army. That's the book. They bluff and win. That's so cool. In the movie, they fight, but it's like an 11 v. 11 football match. It should be 1 whole city versus 1 tiny ship. The fantasy movie instantly became disjointed from its own internal reality. In fantasy/sci-fi movies, connection to reality is paramount. Only specific laws of nature can be broken, and only if they are explained. If too many situations become ridiculous - if the simple math of us vs. them doesn't add up - people's brains register the unreality and the movie fails to create suspension. It loses the audience.

So what can bring the audience back into the movie? Character! This movie needed to be a character piece as well. It tried, but it missed on so many levels. Caspian, Edmund, and Lucy were all flat, 2D characters. Eustus was the only character that could grow in the story. The other characters seemed to be rehashing book 1 and 2 problems. Wait, was that the White Witch again? Edmund had already shown in Prince Caspian that he could resist her, so why is she back?

So the sea serpent, instead of just being a monster, is temptation incarnate and has grown it's own dark island and requires a tithe of sacrifices from nearby islands for some never-explained purpose. Somehow it controls green smoke that does something - not explained. Those sacrificed people all survived in the end, but were adrift at sea in their small row boats with only the Dawn Treader to ferry them home. But there were almost twice as many people as there were crew on the ship. The ship seemed small and cramped already. Food and water are huge sailing issues, but the movie never addresses these basic sailing aspects and the need for harsh discipline in the harsh conditions of olden-day sailing. Anyway, rambling.

Then they had something about swords that were connected to Peter's old sword that glowed blue so Edmund could stab the sea serpent, though we never saw him attempt to kill it before the sword turned blue. For some reason the swords were a critical element to killing the sea serpent. But if so, then why did the original 7 lords separate and take their swords with them. Was there a prophecy about the sea serpent and the swords? How did they know about getting the swords to the table if they didn't know about the green smoke in advance of setting sail? If the green smoke can make rowboats ships disappear, why didn't it make the Dawn Treader disappear? Were those rowboats in stasis? The people all survived. If not in stasis, how did they eat? What water did they drink? I could go on and on.

Basically, the story unraveled. Once the writers decide they don't have to explain things, then they can do anything they want - at the cost of the plot and the audience's patience.

As bad as these issues were, I'm only taking 1 point away for inconsistent plot, 1 more for lax videography storytelling, and a 3rd point for not explaining anything. I'm taking a 4th point, plus their union membership cards, for changing the book. If you cannot make interesting movie adaptations when changing the book plot, then don't change the book plot. I'd rather have the boring old book in movie form, than a boring new story that mangles the book.

Final Judgment: +1

It's not as bad as some morally and ethically defunct films. In the end this matters more than filmography, plot, or even monetary success. Still, the movie made so little sense that I couldn't bear to sit through it again.

Movie Review: Up

Pixar just might be the most entertaining movie producing company out there. Let's see how their 10th attempt worked out for them.

Gains: +6
Up is either a funny movie with serious undertones or a serious movie with a comedy streak. The depth of emotion conveyed, especially in the opening 10 minutes showing Carl and Ellie meeting as kids and growing up to be old married people, is fantastic. Knowing the history in such an intimate fashion is a boon to the audience and increases the power of the themes shown.

This movie did not have me rolling with laughter the entire time. But at certain moments, I thought I couldn't breathe because I was laughing so hard. I had to wipe laughter tears from my eyes at least three times.

The plot was interesting, both in it's inplausibility and in it's realism. One kept you grounded in reality; the other shot you deep into the fantasy world of a child. The main characters were intricately layered, though the bad guy was stylized, as most bad guys are to children.

The animation was great. Nothing new for Pixar here. Their attention to detail astounds me.

Losses: -1
For a kids' movie, the themes were a bit deep. I'm not sure this is a bad thing, necessarily, but I know I did not expect it. Not having kids myself, I cannot be sure what their reaction would be. Perhaps they just ignore what they don't understand like I did for Disney cartoons.

The bad guy dies, and though they didn't show it, you know. He falls from a great distance and disappears, heading downward through the clouds. I'm not sure I want endings like this in my kid movies.

Final Judgement: +5

Go see this movie if you like Pixar. It's worth your time. If you bring small kids, they may ask you annoyingly deep questions while you are trying to rush to the restroom.

Movie Review: Terminator: Salvation

Finally, the movie I have been waiting for since I was a kid. The movie that shows the older John Conner fighting lots of machines. I had to think for a couple weeks about this review. Let the mayhem begin.

Gains: +5

Let's see. Giant, unkillable robots. Add a point. Killing those robots in lots of action scenes. Add a point. Hehe.

Sam Worthington was fantastic as Marcus Wright. His acting was so good that he made everyone else's efforts pale in comparison.

The musical score really worked for me. It ramped up the intensity quite well. The throwback songs to previous movies was also great. The throwback lines were well delivered, too--basically avoiding cheesiness while delivering expected lines is super difficult.

Losses: -3

For the first time since he became a Hollywood superstar, I really got annoyed with Christian Bale. He delivered a solid role, but the focus on him was a bit overmuch. Instead of showing us awesome scenery, much time was spent close up to his face. It was enough to iritate me within the first 10 minutes of the movie. Methinks he's riding on an ego trip a bit too much. That's just my impression.

In all three of the other movies, the good guys were just trying to survive against an overpowered opponent. Then even worse things happen. This movie had none of the character and desperation of the others. It didn't feel like a Terminator movie.

Very few things annoy me more than powerful bad guys who are toned down in order to force the plot to go the way the writers want it to go. In this case, every time a terminator gets it's claws on a person, it throws them against the wall. These machines could just punch their fingers straight through a human, but they never do, except when it's more dramatic. For instance, in this movie, a terminator is dying, but gets close enough to scrape a large gash into John Conner's forehead, parting his skin like butter before dying. Why didn't it do that to him before? Because it would just ruin the writers' day, that's why. Weakening the bad guys just makes it look like the writers had to save the good guys. It doesn't make the good guys look more awesome or dramatic.

Final Judgement: +2

This movie suffered greatly not from hype but from horrible previews. Every single truly dramatic moment was shown in the previews. Every moment where I should have been blinded by the sheer scope of the story or the situation or the cool terminator machines had already been shown to me several times on previews. Instead of cheering these cool moments, I found myself predicting what happened in each scene based on what I knew was coming. If you've seen the preview, you've seen the movie. Everything else felt like filler. Watch this movie because you are a fan of the trilogy, not for it's own sake.

Movie Review: Star Trek

This movie is a modern rethinking of the classic cancelled television series which spawned half a dozen movies and several spin-off shows and movies. Here we go. I cannot claim to be a serious Star Trek fan. I've seen some of the shows, but only just finished watching the last couple movies (Next Generation) a couple months ago.

Gains: +10
Let's start with the strongest gain and work our way down. In a universe where nearly anything is possible providing the writers are creative enough, I could not be sure what to expect. What I found was a plot worthy of being called genious. With the sheer amount of lore Star Trek has accumulated, keeping some sense of linear plot while rewriting the history was a monumental task. Without spoiling anything, let me just say that the plot gives ample reason for changing old characters into more modern ones. Instead of rewriting history, they took the opportunity to write the rewriting into the plot. Genius. The plot device is brilliantly conceived, has Star Trek lore precedent, and is well developed, and full of suspensful action.

The writing should win awards. Characters had lines that were exactly the same as the original cast of the TV show and movies, but these were woven into a more complex element of character development. Only once did a line feel cheesy. Just once. That's amazing to me for this series.

The acting is perfect. Characters showed elements of their old-time counterparts, though ones who've made different choices. Delivery of well known lines was spot on. This is the first time I've enjoyed watching Eric Bana in any role. Good for him. I didn't recognize him until his name flashed in the credits at the end.

The sound effects were great. I heard many of the old sounds (ex. the bridge sound of the original TV series). This is worth mention.

The camera work gets a point for awesomeness. Taking a page from Serenity, this movie's special effects are built around giving the illusion of reality. The camera will be viewing the action and zoom in or pan out and be out of focus, then bring the action into focus--thus giving the illusion of actually being a film camera. Brilliant. One particular scene literally made my draw drop. Let me tell you, space action never looked so beautiful.

Losses: -2
Uhura has one cheesy line that completely threw me out of the movie for a second. One character, Scottie's companion, seemed more artifical contrivance than anything else. It had no basis in the plot for any reason other than to confuse me.

Final Judgement: +8

This movie destroyed my expectations and set the bar really high for the rest of the summer. I'm even going to go see it again, hopefully this weekend. I hear from friends that it's even better the second time around, but they missed the brilliance of the plot the first time. I may have an update after the second viewing to see if I enjoyed it as much as Batman, my only other +8 score.

Movie Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I have seen several movies which I have not reviewed, mostly because most of my writing is for my classwork. However, now and throughout the summer, I will try to blog all the movies I will watch in the theater, which is a lot.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the prequel to the X-Men movies, covering some of the flashbacks Wolverine has in that trilogy.

Gains: +5
You basically get what you expect from this movie - lots of action, fighting, metal claws, war, intrigue, super powers. The movie delivers lots of great action sequences. The main characters are layered, sometimes even breaking stereotype roles. The acting is solid, even brilliant at times. The interplay and relationship between Wolverine and Sabertooth is worth watching.

The storyline is intriguing. The plot, when measured as a tragedy, is fantastic.

I need to add a point for the opening sequence alone, after the "kid" scene. It shows Wolverine and Sabertooth's participation in several different wars in a montage sequence - a powerful piece of cinematography.

Losses: -1
Not to be too picky, but the claws often looked fake. Between that and the lack of friction when they cut things (never requiring him to use muscles or meet any friction resistance) definitly took something out of the movie. It interrupted suspension of disbelief a couple times.

I'm not going to take any points away for violence. You should know that it's violent, though fantasy, bloodless violence. Even with giant claws of all types piercing bodies, slashing, and just killing in general, no characters bled much. There was no gore. This ends as a wash in my book. It breaks even, and I don't really mind this kind of violence, but it's there.

Final Judgement: +4

I feel this score is a point too high. The answer for why lies in the case of expectations. If you expect a solid comic book action flick, it will meet your expectations. If you expect much else, you'll be disappointed. I was the former.

If I have high expectations, a movie has greater scoring opportunity. However, it will suffer a more severe penalty if it fails to meet the hype. This movie was exactly what I expected.

Movie Review: Ballet Shoes

I must make an effort to write these movie reviews sooner than I have been lately, so my memory will be more fresh. Ballet Shoes is a movie based on a novel I never read. My wife says the movie covered pretty much everything she remembered in the book.

Gains: +4
Wholesome. The movie was just plain wholesome. A kind man takes in a few orphans. They run into financial difficulties when he disappears. Most of the story is about the bond between the orphans and how they need to work and break into showbiz to get by. One of the created themes is the contrast between the need for hard work and the entitlement mentality of stardom. The movie pulled it off well.

Emma Watson stars as one of the orphans. Her normal onscreen cuteness monopoly is rivaled by that of Lucy Boynton, another of the orphans - the redhead. The other actors all appeared to bring general family nature to the film cast and to the screen. This feeling ebbs into viewers and sort of makes them feel a part of this family.

Losses: -0
At times some of the orphans get a little snitty or snotty, but the issue is properly addressed in the movie by other characters who used either slightly passive-aggressive chiding (by peers) or kind scolding by a motherly figure. The behavior was not tolerated by the other characters, thus making the bad attitudes a gain instead of a loss in this review.

Final Judgement: +4

While not action packed, Ballet Shoes had enough drama and endearing qualities to make it interesting. It's definitley worthy of a second look, though not too soon. The movie deals with serious issues relating to growing up, doing so by focusing on more positive aspects like helping the family out, hard work, facing the lure of stardom, not giving up in the face of difficulty or adversity, treating others as actual people despite their success or failure. I'm tired of a recent trend I've noticed in Hollywood to portray abuse and neglect as the norm, while deceit and self-focus are portrayed as natural responses to hardship.

I'm sure I have a good point in there somewhere, but you may need to interpret my intent.

Movie Review: Vantage Point

Finally got to see this movie. The premise intrigued me. Here we go!

Gains: +3
The action was intense from the opening scene. The acting was decent, but not as good as I expected from the high caliber cast. The movie surprised me a couple times. Just when you think you got a handle on what's going on, they change the equation in a way that avoids feeling contrived. The script kept my interest throughout. The violence was prevalent but not overdone, except for showing the main shooting which the story is built around several times. Even that fits into the way they were trying to portray the movie.

Losses: -1
This movie has a surprising amount of action and almost zero amount of motive. Lots of people are making decisions in a world-changing scenario, and the audience is not allowed to know why. As the previews show, the entire movie is based around the assassination of the sitting President of the United States. You are never told why the people want him killed or what their ultimate goals are. Their plan is detailed and intricate, but why take the risk? Why are certain people conspiring together? Why do certain characters behave in certain ways? Cause A leads to Effect A, but what internal motives are ascribed to the cause? In other words, what caused Cause A? The viewer is never shown.

Judgement: +2

All in all, Vantage Point is entertaining, but it ultimately lacked the one element which would have elevated it to the rank of other great action movies. Worth watching, though, in my opinion, but just once.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

Friday I saw this movie for the second time. The Dark Knight, the sequel to Batman Begins, is much darker than its predecessor. In fact, this movie was more visceral than many movies I have seen recently. Given this movie's blockbuster records and the fact that it has potential to be the highest grossing movie ever, I figured I should review it.

Gains: +10
The plot and graphic nature of the script danced with an R rating but never stepped over the line. This tightrope walk gave you all the benefits of experiencing the danger and horror while sparing you the gory details. The layered plot was even more savory on the second viewing and whetted my appetite for future viewings. The idea of a terrorist bringing a city to its knees in fear is compelling, but just when hope hangs by its thinnest thread, great decisions are made and great deeds are performed, and not just by Batman. I hate when movie scripts give me reasons to pity villians. These reasons usually whitewash the villian's own choices. The tangled web of conflicting stories the Joker tells gives you more a view into his mindset and goals than into his past. He seemingly comes from out of nowhere and began his campaign against the natural order of his society. This appeared to be more a case of plot function than of oversight.

The Joker is amazing. Rarely does anyone overcome the hype. Heath Ledger crushed the hype beyond anything I have ever witnessed. Too bad he died. I loved the cast: every single character had meaningful lines and roles. The movie was 2.5 hours long and none of the space felt wasted. For the first time in a long time, I felt in real time how long the movie actually was, but I was not interested in having it end.

Without giving anything away, I have to say that the ending of the movie gave me chills. In self-sacrifice Batman gives up the portion of his character he holds most dear, for the good of his city. His reasoning: because his Batman persona can shoulder the responsibility.

The movie is violent, but even after two viewings I cannot remember any blood. This is a small point, but it's a critical hinge, I think. A character is horribly mutilated, but the terrible scarring is more fascinating than disturbing. Though the injury changes him, the guy is still the same man with the same issues he had before his disfigurement.

Losses: -2
The movie is dark and sinister. While this adds a couple points, it also gets logged as a loss. I'm totally okay with darker plots, but for those who are more sensitive, this will take away from the movie. Truth be told, the movie is more sinister than actually scary. Of course, for kids this movie could be nightmare inducing. You are warned. The darkness is not for effect, it serves a purpose in the plot. When things get muddled, when you stare darkness and chaos in the face, only then do you see the true hero reveal himself.

The movie is violent. Even the good guy does massive amounts of violence to bad guys, even as he tries to hold onto his rule of never killing people. The Joker lets nothing stand in his way to total chaos. He will kill anyone or entice people to kill each other in order to achieve his ends.

Edit: After Amber's comment about Katie Holmes and Maggie G., I felt I needed to address it in the blog. Maggie G. is one of my favorite actors. Katie Holmes is not. But after watching the Katie/Christian Bale chemistry and then seeing the Maggie/Bale version, I have to say that Katie was much better for the role. The character Rachel has a critical role in the film, and it would have worked far better if Katie had the role. The chemistry between Batman/Bruce Wayne and Rachel needed Katie Holmes.

Final Judgement: +8
Moral themes ooze abundantly from the pores of this movie but never get preachy or removed from the story. This gives the movie depth way beyond even good Hollywood movies. More viewings of The Dark Knight will help me determine if I think it deserves to replace Serenity as my most favorite movie. It's definitely in my Top 10, which means I will have to look at the list to decide what gets bumped off. Even if you have reservations about seeing it, I would highly recommend that you give it a viewing.

Movie Review: Prince Caspian

This remake to one of my favorite children's book series books was not a children's movie. You can write about battles all you want, but actual killing is never as noble or cool as when you write about it. Even movie killing, though still fake, is more horrific and "adult" than children should see.

Gains: +7
This movie, though violent, showed little blood and toned down the horror of battle about as much as is possible without showing an empty screen. The acting was great, from the children to the dwarves to the adults and even the CGI characters. CGI characters usually seem to act according to what the animators think is cool. This gives them an element of unusualness that really shatters my normal, easily-held suspension of disbelief. I think the reason for this movie's success was the contributions of WETA in making actual costumes for the fantastical creatures. The CGI animators then focused on making the animated versions similar to the costuming. It worked flawlessly. The mouse was the only one who was fully animated, and they didn't focus too much on his acting ability.

The story was rewritten and deviated quite a bit from the book. Normally, I hate when Hollywood does this, but that is because they change themes, plot, and characters in such a way that the story is diminished. Prince Caspian, in my opinion, expounded on these story qualities and succeeded in their rewrite. The dialogue was hilarious. The movie took it's time setting up and built to a great battle scene at the end.

Losses: -2
The wrap up at the end was a little melodramatic and felt stitched on. Also, I really hate Aslan's voice. Liam Neeson just doesn't have a deep enough tone to his voice, and Aslan's voice has no growl to it. It just sounds like Liam Neeson talking, which makes me cringe - the king of lions with light, smoothe, Irish-accented English words.

Final Judgement: +5

Loved this movie. It had all the elements I could really enjoy and kept up the suspension of disbelief. You could definitely tell that Lewis and Tolkien were influenced by each other and other similar elements. I hope I never hear ignorant people saying how this movie was just copying LOTR. Anyway, great movie. I will maybe even see it again before it hits the video stands.

Movie Review: Atonement

Gains: +3
I have to talk about the musical score of this movie. Un-freaking-believable. The composer wove sounds from the story, like a typewriter or someone beating on the hood of a car, into his music. For example, check it out here [Update: Embed failed, so here's a link.]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXoFtTZTJAw

The young actress Saoirse Ronan, who played the equally young Briony Tallis, was great. She really outshined James McAvoy and Keira Knightly in her portion of the movie. I really got into the first half of this movie, though Hanna didn't. It was fast paced and different from most movies in its conceptual filming style.

Losses: -4
Then the young Briony Tallis character grows up and the movie grows stale. World War 2 never looked so boring. The characters were disjointed and never really connected to each other again. By the end of the movie, when I anticipate at least the feelings of "Great! At least it's over!" there was a surprise twist ending. A movie that was sinking fast found one last way to inspire contempt.

Aside from that, there was one extended annoying sex scene in the first half of the movie. Now, I'm more okay with these kind of scenes if they are plot-based ("more okay" like "hey, at least this disgusting black licorice at least has a satisfying chewable quality"), this scene would have been much more palpable if, as I expected, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Nope. It was lame. The scene turned out to be nothing more than irresponsible junk.

Final Judgement: -1

This movie would have flopped horribly if not for the awesome soundtrack. The first half was great, so if you want to watch just that part, I will clue you in to how it ends - badly. This movie further solidified my view that from here on out, I will mostly only watch movies that have been recommended to me in some form or fashion. On a different topic, it makes me sad to see how skinny and curveless Keira Knightly has gotten.

Movie Review: Expelled

This movie was more of a documentary of Ben Stein's journey into the world of socialist academia than a real movie. Since it's a different sort of movie, I will just say this: I would recommend it to everyone.

We've had lots of "documentaries" recently that seem politically based, but more in the sense of shutting the opposition up, or closing the door on communication, or making fun of a situation. This did not feel like any of those. The idea of opening the doors of discussion and debate for all sides to be heard is repeated often throughout the movie.

I found it entertaining and informative and well done.

Movie Review: Michael Clayton

Gains: +2
This movie was great in the middle. Suspense and politics carried the day during the middle. Two conversations, in particular, in the middle (and one at the end) were worthy of note. They carried the movie incredibly. I always enjoy watching George Clooney. He even makes bad movies into tolerable ones.

Losses: -4
I cannot understand what is to like about a bunch of morally bankrupt people. Let me list them (spoilers alert): a lawyer realizes all the horrible things he had done, tries to do something good-ish, and gets killed for it; a lady lawyer works for a reprehensible company and sells her (apparently worthless) soul to save her company what is due it; a main character has a gambling addiction and sells out a man he respects to get money to cover his debt, then after an attempt on his life because he knows too much, he gets even by turning his evidence over to the police in a sting operation. Please note that his character never changes, just his tactics, thus rendering the movie morally vacant. The beginning was slow and the end was - meh - two thumbs horizontal. There were a couple of other moments of things I did not want to witness or hear or even repeat here.

Final Judgement: -2

A good movie to watch if you are captured by terrorists and have nothing better to do. They may even decide to work it into your torture regimen. This movie made me start thinking that I may begin only watching movies that come with some kind of recommendation. I am curbing my list to, with a few exceptions, this new guideline.

Review: Goya's Ghosts

Gains: +4
I love period pieces. This film is set during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. I am inclined to add a point to the movie as a result. Javier Bardem portrays his excellent character-acting ability. Natalie Portman does emotional acting very well, even though she does not seem to have the ability to speak with an accent. The plot bobbed and weaved tantalizingly throughout the movie and did well maintaining viewer interest. Though the subject matter was dark, the movie actually had an element of restraint when dealing with the darker images.

Losses: -6
Having said that, there still were a lot of bad elements in the movie. Nudity and violence seemed to be part of the time period. Though neither was glorified and restraint seemed to be the rule, this film still had strong elements of both. While the acting was generally strong, the mix of accents was a terrible distraction. Javier has a perfect Spanish accent to go with the Spain setting (probably because he is a Spanish actor). The Queen of Spain also uses a Spanish accent. However, the King of Spain, played by Randy Quaid, has an American accent. Natalie Portman has several variations of an American accent. Stellan Skarsgard, who played Goya, had his typical not quite Scandinavian accent. Overall, the mix was quite humorous and ridiculous.

So the movie takes you further and further into a dark plot, one filled with twists and horrible situations. A character goes insane, another is executed, another is a prostitute, many are killed in war, and just when you need a ray of sunshine, the movie ends. It seemed that they ran out of film in the camera or a major actor died or something tragic happened on the set, but alas no, they just forgot to write an ending. As soon as the credits rolled, I listed 4 things they could have done to give it a decent ending. They did none of them. So, with no point to the whole plot, the most easy straw to grasp at is that the movie was just a slam against the Catholic church, which of course is obviously full of evil people with evil purposes. Everyone "knows" the Catholics never did anything to help the world. In a movie where most of the characters had both good and bad points, couldn't the writer and director have included something to that affect for the Catholic church as a whole? At best, the writers were negligent. At worst, they were subtley malicious.

Final Judgement: -2

Treat this movie like it has leprosy (not the good kind). Even though the acting is really good, no actor can overcome a bad script ending. Even as I write this, I'm thinking that it was almost worth watching because Javier Bardem's acting was so good. If he hadn't been in the movie, it would have been totally worthless. I wholeheartedly recommend that you watch something else, like ants running about on a windowsill. That would be more worth your time.

Movie Review: Down With Love

Gains: +6
I have a fondness for good inuendo, and this movie was dripping with it. Every scene either built tension between the main characters or focused on inuendo or both. The acting was robust. Both Ewan McGregor and Renee Zellweger can pull off complicated roles. They even sing several duets for the soundtrack. The side characters had depth and personality. David Hyde Pierce was fantastic. The writing was tight and the dialogue was crisp. Not a word seemed wasted. The plot woos viewers with a mix of tension and humor. Since there are no real antagonists, the plot walks a tightrope between making Ewan's character likeable and detestable. I found myself rooting for him at times and against him at others.

Losses: -2
There is a major shift in the plot at one point. It was awkward. To cover it, Renee gives a extended uncut monologue (camera is on her for 1 or 2 minutes) without a break, which is funny in the way downshifting a car too early is funny. The engine grind sets your teeth on edge and you feel a nervous tingle in your spine. Also, the ending was not as amazing as the rest of the movie. I think the writing was so good that they wrote themselves into too tough a corner to wrap up neatly.

Final Judgement: +4

My thanks to Amber and Donald for stopping my trend of bad movies. I loved this movie. I'm not sure if it has rewatchability, but I'd be willing to try it again in half a year. If you're sensitive to sexual inuendo and find it more uncomfortable than funny, don't watch this movie and don't trust my judgement on it.

Movie Review: Becoming Jane

Gains: 0 points
Nothing stands out.

Losses: 1 point
I really wanted to enjoy two of my favorite actors - Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy - but I found them to be quite boring. I blame that on the script. It was dull and beyond predictable.

Final Judgement: -1

I have a hard time describing how I feel about this movie. By the end, I was ready to go anywhere and do anything else. My expectations were pretty high from the previews I saw. I think the movie wanted to have the depth of a Jane Austin novel, but in the attempt to mimic, it actually lost its charm.

On a weird note, Hanna actually enjoyed the movie. I can think of only one other movie that I didn't like but she loved: Mona Lisa Smile. So if you liked that movie, you might like this one.

Movie Review: The Butterfly Effect

I will begin to review movies which I have recently seen, and perhaps you will get to know me a bit better. My rating system is entirely my own. All movie scores begin at 0 points (being neutral) before gains and losses are factored in. I'm going for as close to 0 as I feel I can, to keep the scoring more syncronized

Gains: 2 points
The Butterfly Effect has a fascinating plot, with pretty good acting. I can say that I enjoy watching Ashton Kutcher in anything. Amy Smart is also very good. The pacing and script were also worthy of mention.

Losses: 5 points
The writing, while it reaches my overall expectations, has way too much negative content. Cursing was overabundant (I get the point, now can you spare my ears?). Random nudity occurs in a couple places. Several times there was ample opportunity but it was avoided; however other times, the viewer receives a quick flash. Too much violence was shown. In a dark movie, you can gain points for tastefulness. I like dark movies that have good sense in what they show and what they merely imply. They did not do enough to censor themselves. Also, the movie felt downright malicious in its graphic nature -- even spiritually evil by the end. It was kind of disturbing.

Final Judgement: -3

Did the producers get what they wanted out of the movie? I think so. Did the dark elements contribute to the storyline? Yes, they did. The problem was that there was so much evilness and no redeeming qualities. Even the hero has to be evil to get a good resolution. They could have toned the "rawness" of the movie down a bit to make their movie more palpable to a larger audience. The movie was a blockbuster idea wrapped in filth. If they had cleaned it up a bit, I think it could have been awesome.