Monday, October 31, 2005

"You're as maniacal as a box of kittens." (mini-review)












Two other films that got some of my time this weekend were The Longest Yard (2005) and I, Robot. I, Robot has been in my collection for a while, so it’s probably pretty obvious what I think about that film. I’ll get to that in a minute though. I rented The Longest Yard last night because it looked funny. Turns out it is funny. A little.

The Longest Yard is actually a remake of the original Burt Reynold’s film, released in 1974. I have no idea why this kind of film is worthy of a remake; maybe the original was hilarious. Adam Sandler’s 2005 version of the film isn’t anything spectacular, but then I didn’t really expect anything spectacular.

Sandler plays Paul Crewe, an ex-pro quarterback from the NFL who gets sent to prison after a self-destructive cruise in his girlfriend’s Bentley. A sadistic warden (James Cromwell) has him specifically transferred to his facility to help train his guards who play in a prison league football game. Sandler is eventually recruited to put together a team of prisoners to play the guards in a televised pre-season match-up. The combination of Adam Sandler, Chris Rock (as Crewe’s assistant and friend) and a number of NFL and WWF personalities is designed to ensure that hilarity ensues. And it does. Sort of.

If you’ve seen the trailer for The Longest Yard you already know what this movie is about, and you probably have a pretty good idea of how funny it is. If you thought the trailer was hilarious you’ll find the movie hilarious. If not, then you can safely avoid this one. My motivation for watching it was simply that I wanted something to laugh at. The Longest Yard provides the laughs, but it’s pretty simple fare. Nothing too deep going on here. Though there is a moment or two where the film tries to be deeper than your typical slapstick comedy. I’m not sure it succeeds.

If you’re looking for something simple and fun, and you love football, and you love Adam Sandler, then this is the flick for you. Otherwise go rent Groundhog Day instead. You can never go wrong with Groundhog Day.

When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul?
I, Robot is based on Isaac Asimov’s short stories concerning the 3 Robot Laws. For those unfamiliar with either:

I. A robot may not harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

II. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

III. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

Will Smith stars as a homicide detective in Chicago, year 2035. He investigates a murder which appears to have been carried out by one of the robots that are supposed to be incapable of such an act. His investigation leads him to a much larger conspiracy and the logical reason for the robots’ ability to both adhere to the three laws and seemingly disobey them.

I really liked the philosophy behind this movie. I think I’ll have to read some of Asimov’s books on the subject. For the most part, this film is just an action adventure ride, but the logic behind the 3 laws is what intrigued me. Particular the mystery that explains how these robots can be logically obeying the laws while attacking humans. The eventual reason given is one that not only makes sense logically, but makes a fairly resounding comment on the human condition. You’ll have to watch to find out for yourself.
I have always enjoyed Will Smith’s movies. You can count on his witty delivery of most lines and his ability as an action star. If you like Will Smith you won’t be disappointed. The other performance I thoroughly enjoyed was that of Sonny, the accused robot. Sonny is voiced by Alan Tudyk (Dodgeball, A Knight’s Tale) and created through special effects in much the same way that Gollum was created for Lord of the Rings. Tudyk stood in for each scene and was later replaced with a digital computer image. The effects are as good as Gollum and Sonny himself becomes an intriguing character.

I, Robots looks great, sounds great and is a very entertaining film to watch. There’s amazing special effects, great action and even some logical philosophy. What more could you ask for?

Convicted trivia for ‘The Longest Yard’.
Logical trivia for ‘I, Robot’.

"Rise a knight!" (Review)

I finally managed to find a copy of Kingdom of Heaven to watch. While Blockbuster's new 'no-late-fees' campaign is great for people like me who rarely manage to get their movies back on time, it also means that new titles are often hard to find. People are keeping them longer, which keeps them off the shelves longer. Luckily the nice sales assistant managed to find a copy in the return bin.

Ridley Scott has directed one of my favourite films, Gladiator. With Kingdom of Heaven he again tries to recreate the past with medieval knights, magnificent cities and epic battles. Does he succeed? Well it's a bit of a mixed bag actually. I had already heard a number of different opinions on Kingdom of Heaven, some good, some bad. And now you get my opinion.

And what is my opinion? Well, I'm still not sure myself. While I really enjoy set-pieces and was interested to see Scott's take on the Crusades, I found Heaven to be a little hard to follow at first. I would guess that if you're a real history buff and already know the details surrounding Saladin's eventual capture of Jerusalem then you wouldn't have any problems. For me, I was still trying to figure out who was who after about an hour into the film. So for the first half of the picture I didn't have high hopes. But, like the young peasant who got turned into a newt in Monty Python's Holy Grail, it got better.

After finally having a good idea of who the people were and what they were doing I was genuinely interested to see how things would turn out. Balian (Orlando Bloom) is a young blacksmith who has recently lost his wife and daughter and is met by Godfrey (Liam Neeson). Godfrey confesses that he is Balian's father and asks him to join him in Jerusalem as protector of the people and servant of King Baldwin (cunningly portrayed by the sneaky Edward Norton). Balian initially refuses but then changes his mind after murdering a local priest. Perhaps Jerusalem holds the forgiveness and redemption Balian feels he needs. On the road events transpire which leave Balian as sole heir of Godfrey's estate, men and quest to protect the people. Now a knight, Balian is left to defend Jerusalem against Saladin and his army.

There's really a lot more going on here than a simple battle to defend a city. The movie is more a comment on religion than anything else, I felt. I'm not sure how accurate it is but the motivations of the leaders are believable given the atrocities that have been conducted in the name of God. One character sums it up well; "I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god." The movie asks the question, 'What is the will of God?' And for making me think that deeply during a seemingly 'swash-swash, buckle-buckle' story (my wife gets credit for that term) I think Kingdom of Heaven deserves praise.

Ethics, religion, morality and history aside, this is still one great film to watch. The main battle at the end of the film has some pretty amazing moments. However, it also seems very familiar. As Saladin's enormous army marches on the city, complete with trebuchets, siege towers and rams, both Shauna and I were reminded of Minas Tirith and the Battle for Pelennor Fields in Return of the King. I don't know if this was deliberate mimicry to cash in on some of Peter Jackson's success or if it's simply an accurate depiction of siege warfare at the time. My guess is the latter and the only reason we haven't seen this kind of epic siege battle before Return of the King is that the special effects required to pull it off convincingly haven't been available until recently. Regardless of the reasons, the battle is fantastic and engaging.

Most of the performances are also quite well done. Liam Neeson and Edward Norton both deliver wonderfully, if briefly. Orlando Bloom does his best, but it's really not much different from anything we've seen him do before. I'm still not sure what all the hype is about this guy. The writing is also very well done and it is during much of the dialogue that the thought provoking questions arise. If it weren't for the fact that I was struggling a bit with what exactly was going on I would probably have a lot more to say about the exceptional script.

Kingdom of Heaven is released on a 2-disc set. The main feature is presented in 2.35:1 Anamorphic video which does well in reproducing the faded look of an ancient city in the middle of a desert. Images are sharp with little or no noticeable blurring or artifacts. A DTS soundtrack is also available but I found that it was underused. Most of the effects come straight from the front channels with the rear channels only used for ambient noise and music. I don't recall any 'surround' moments during the battles, which is disappointing. I have not had a chance to look at any of the special features either, but I would be interested to see if some additional history on the story is provided.

I commented to my wife that my typical method for evaluating a DVD is whether I would buy it or not. I'm still not sure about Kingdom of Heaven. I definitely want to see it again, simply to understand more of what's going on, but I can't quite make up my mind on the replayability of it. However, I would certainly recommend seeing it at least once. It is certainly entertaining and gets you thinking, which is more than you can say about most movies.

Kingdom of Heaven gets 7 swords (out of 10).

Fanatical trivia for 'Kingdom of Heaven'.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

"Where does he get those wonderful toys?" (Review)

To accompany the DVD release of Batman Begins (see my review here), Warner Bros. released special edition versions of all the other Batman movies. I was very excited about this, as Batman was one of my favorite movies when I was younger. I couldn't wait for the chance to see it again in glorious Anamorphic widescreen and hear it in wondrous Digital Theater Sound (DTS).

For those of you who haven't already seen Tim Burton's vision of this dark comic book hero you might be a little disappointed if you watch it today. Turns out that while Batman was a thrill when it came out in 1989, it hasn't stood the test of time too well. Don't get me wrong. I loved watching it again, but mainly for the nostalgia. I could probably recite the movie line for line (but then, I can do that with most movies I guess) and it was much fun to relive those fantastic moments. However, those fantastic moments are pretty campy compared to today's movies. Have a look:

Vicky Vale: I just gotta know, are we going to try to love each other?
Batman: I'd like to, but he's out there right now, and I have to go to work.

Did they really say that?! I practically winced at the dialogue this time around. I guess a few things have changed in 16 years. Or how about this one:

Jack Napier: Why, Eckhardt, you oughta think about the future.
Lt. Eckhardt: Oh, you mean when you run the show? You ain't got no future, Jack. You're an A-1 nut boy and Grissom knows it!

An A-1 nut boy? Oh dear...

Campy dialogue aside, the movie is still very entertaining. Some of the special effects are glaringly obvious but that's to be expected due to the film's age. The action, the sets, and of course, the wonderful toys all make this film a fun ride. And let's not forget the main reason this film is so entertaining; Jack Nicholson's Joker.
I think a lot of people would agree that the Joker stole the show. Nicholson certainly delivered most, if not all, of the funniest lines from the film. His over-the-top portrayal of Batman's nemesis made many people think that his character was more important than Michael Keaton's Batman. Certainly the studio thought so, giving Nicholson top billing for the picture. Michael Keaton's primary role seems to be to simply fill a rubber suit, while the Joker has something witty and absurd to say in virtually every scene he's in. My mom still quotes the Joker from time to time. Truly a memorable performance.

Being a Tim Burton film, Batman is quite dark. Gotham City comes across more as an industrial park nightmare than a bustling metropolis. It works though, as Batman is meant to exist in an environment that fits his own dark, brooding nature. I'm not sure what drugs Burton was taking when he filmed Batman Returns, but fortunately the first film doesn't seem to suffer too much.

As I mentioned, this special edition release has been remastered in 1.85:1 Anamorphic video and 5.1 DTS. While a few scenes are a touch grainy, most of the picture is clear and sharp. And while I appreciate a DTS score anyday, Batman relies mainly on the front channels, using the surrounds only for some ambient noise and soundtrack. Overall, for a 16 year old film, this DVD transfer is probably as good as it can get.

Batman was a great trip down memory lane for me. I was smiling throughout at the dialogue, fight scenes, music and costumes. It's hard to compare it to the recent Batman Begins as the two are completely different films that just happen to be about the same character. I would guess, however, that if you've seen Batman Begins, but you have not seen Batman, you might be fairly disappointed in the original. Fair warning.

Batman: Special Edition gets 8 wonderful toys (out of 10)

Caped trivia for 'Batman'.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

A voice of my own.

I just finished reading a review from another blog, as I try to "find my own voice" when it comes to review-writing.

It seems to me that I'm maybe lacking a bit of passion when it comes to my writing. Maybe I'm trying too hard. Maybe I'm just not used to writing this much. Maybe I'm paranoid and developing an obsessive complex involving blogs.

Does that mean I should only write reviews for movies that I'm either negatively or positively passionate about?

Or does it mean I should just stop asking questions and go watch another movie?

"It's time my enemies share my dread." (Review)

In 1989 I was in grade 9 and I went to the theater to see Batman with a friend of mine. I can't remember the exact details of where we saw it or how I felt watching it, but I do remember what I did for the rest of the summer that year. I went back to the theater and saw it again. And again. And again. There are only 3 movies I've ever seen more than twice in the theater; Jurassic Park, Star Wars and Batman. Tim Burton's vision of the dark knight was simply awesome.

Sequels were inevitable. Batman Returns came next and I remember thinking "What happened?!" Although the second installment was as dark as the first, it was much more twisted and bizarre. It just didn't feel right. Then we were served Batman Forever, this time with a new Bruce Wayne, Val Kilmer. A lot of people didn't like this one either, but I actually liked it. I think Jim Carrey's performance is what saved it for me. After that we had to endure the train wreck known as Batman & Robin. I won't even start.

Now, 16 years after the first Batman it seems like things are looking up for the franchise. Batman Begins, starring Christian Bale as the caped crusader, hit DVD a few weeks ago. I didn't see this one in the theaters (because I don't do theaters), so I was excited to finally be able to see the origin of Batman brought to the screen. And I have to say that Christopher Nolan (Director) has created the Batman I have always imagined.

Batman Begins is dark. Batman movies should always be dark. We're talking about a guy whose parents were gunned down in front of him and who eventually decides to dress up as the thing that scares him the most in order to terrify and bring justice to the criminals of Gotham City. Everything about Batman is dark. Batman Begins manages to convey almost every aspect of the dark nature of Bruce Wayne's journey to superhero-dom. Being a prequel we get to watch as Bruce enters a self-destructive lifestyle. We see how he eventually learned his near-supernatural powers and why he chose the bat as his symbol. My favorite parts of superhero movies are when the hero starts learning to use his powers. Watching Bruce put together his arsenal of weapons and gadgets and learn to use them on the streets and rooftops of Gotham City reminded me of Peter Parker learning to swing from his web in Spider-Man. It's very fulfilling and entertaining to see where these heroes came from.

The moment I knew this was going to be a great ride was a scene where Batman ambushes a number of 'cronies' at a warehouse loading dock. One thug slowly approaches the blackened interior of a cargo crate only to suddenly and violently be pulled inside, disappearing with a brief scream. Now that's how Batman operates. With fear. He goes beyond simply attacking and capturing the bad guys. He does it in a way that makes them afraid. Which, in the case of this film, is ironic, considering one of the bad guys is the Scarecrow; a character who uses poisonous toxin to incite fear and panic in his victims. Cillian Murphy does a fantastic job as the Scarecrow. He seems like a familiar actor, but I don't think I've ever seen him before. Hopefully we'll see more of him in the future.

Aside from having a great script, engaging story and wonderful direction, Batman Begins also has a number of big names. Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Ken Watanabe, Tom Wilkinson and Rutger Hauer all play significant roles. I was extremely pleased to see Gary Oldman as Detective Gordon (in his pre-commissioner days) and Michael Caine is the perfect Alfred.

The Two-Disc Deluxe Edition is presented in 2.35:1 Anamorphic video, which looks fantastic. This is a very dark film, as I've said, but the images come through clear and sharp. And the Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack is also clear and filled with great surround effects and LFE (low frequency effects, read: sub-woofer). The movie looks and sounds incredible.

The second disc contains bonus footage and featurettes, which I haven't had a chance to watch yet. Sadly, there is no commentary for this film. I would have liked to have heard the director's thoughts on a number of the scenes, but perhaps he gives us some insight in the special features. A single-disc version of the film was also released (in both widescreen and full frame formats), but most of the local stores are selling each version for the same price. There's really no reason not to get the deluxe edition.

Batman Begins is the Batman movie we've been waiting for since 1989. I'm still partial to the 1989 version, probably more out of nostalgia than anything. And I still think Jack Nicholson's Joker was the most entertaining bad guy ever. But this new Batman is a fantastic and fun film. I am most pleased.

Batman Begins gets 9 cowls (out of 10).

Heroic trivia for 'Batman Begins'.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

"You're gonna need a bigger boat."

I was watching the special features for Jaws (30th Anniversary Edition) last night. I really enjoy learning about all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I guess it's like watching that television show 'How It's Made'; it fascinates me.

I learned a couple of interesting facts about the making of Jaws, and one in particular got me thinking about the film industry of today. Toward the end of the feature Steven Spielberg was discussing some of the 'tricks' he used to get a scream out of the audience. There is a scene where Chief Brody is 'chumming' blood and fish guts into the water in an attempt to lure the shark to the boat. He turns toward the camera, throwing chum over his shoulder into the water, and says "Why don't you come down here and chum some of this s***." At that moment the shark bursts out of the water. The audience screams. Spielberg smiles.

Spielberg explained that he wanted to first make the audience laugh, and then turn that laugh into a scream. He said he achieved the laugh simply by using the word s***. In 1975, when the movie first premiered, media language rarely used such 'vulgar' words. Spieberg says that s*** was an easy laugh back then because the older generation would laugh nervously and the younger generation would laugh rebelliously. At any rate, the audience laughed and then immediately screamed. Spielberg got what he wanted. Clever.

Anyway, I realized that the trick he used involved doing something in film that hadn't really been done before. Fair enough. But what about today? What hasn't already been done in film? Looking at the list of titles that have been released in the last ten years it's easy to believe that everything and anything that can be done has been done. Especially when you look at films like South Park and Team America: World Police.

Spielberg was focused on getting a specific reaction out of the audience, at a specific moment. Some of today's movies seem interested only in doing everything possible to shock the audience at every moment.

I guess the challenge is for the film makers to find new ways to get their desired reactions. Film makers like M. Night Shyamalan who found creative methods of shocking audiences in ways they hadn't been shocked before. And each time a new method is used the bar gets raised for the next filmmaker.

In the end, I see three possible futures for the film industry:

1) All the ideas get used up and Hollywood just churns out average, boring films with nothing new.
2) All the ideas get used up and Hollywood stops making movies altogether.
3) Filmmakers step up and start creating even better movies than we've ever seen.

I'm hoping for option three.

Just some food for thought.

Oh, by the way, when Jaws was released 30 years ago it became the first movie of all time (at that time) to gross more than $100 million.

Steven Spielberg was 26 years old when he directed Jaws. Wow.

Monday, October 24, 2005

"Good morning, Mr. Phelps." (mini-review)

There are some movies that contain a particular scene that is, alone, good enough reason to watch the entire movie over again, and again. I've always felt that the Langley-computer-room segment from Mission: Impossible was one of those scenes. Who can forget the image of Tom Cruise dangling from the ceiling in a stark white room where any sound or temperature variance would set off the alarm? Especially the moment when his rig falls several feet leaving him dangling mere inches from the bottom, desperately struggling to ensure no part of his body, even a stray bead of sweat, makes contact with the pressure-sensitive floor.
And it was for that reason alone that I decided to watch the Mission: Impossible DVD on Saturday. I was especially keen to watch that particular scene on my widescreen television. Sadly, I was disappointed to discover that this particular DVD suffers from a non-anamorphic transfer. I really am going to blog about anamorphic DVDs one day, but this isn't it. Let's just say that while the movie itself was still in Widescreen format, it was not enhanced for widescreen TVs, meaning that instead of small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, there were really BIG black bars at the top and bottom, and the picture itself was slightly squished. Imagine a picture image that measures about 42 inches wide by 14 inches tall. That's a rectangle roughly 3 1/2 feet wide but only 1 foot tall. Very distorted.

Anyway, to make long, boring, technical story short, I still enjoyed watching the movie but was disappointed in the transfer. And considering the movie is largely a visual affair, the poor transfer was significant.

And so, off I go to the internet to see if a new version of Mission: Impossible is scheduled for release any time soon.

(Frantic Internet search)

Sigh. Nothing yet. My guess is they'll plan some kind of special edition release when Mission: Impossible 3 hits DVD. So I guess I just have to wait.

In the meantime, there are other movies I can watch. Like X-men!

During my trip to EB Games my roommate picked up an X-Men game for the Playstation 2. We sat down to play it a little bit. A little bit turned into a little bit more. Then a lot. Then he got a phone call from his parents wondering if he was still coming over for dinner. Oops, missed that appointment. He quickly did the right thing; cancelled his dinner plans and kept playing video games with me.

Eventually we did have to eat something. And during our dinner we decided (well, I decided) to watch X-Men. I don't think I need to review the movie itself since most readers will have already seen it. Basically it's a really good superhero flick. Oh yeah, and it stars Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Shauna would have words with me if I forgot to mention that important piece of information. According to Shauna, Hugh Jackman = great movie. Fortunately, this is mostly true. Mostly...

I was just about to pop in my copy when the roommate advised that his version of the DVD (X-Men 1.5) contained a DTS audio track. Gasp! How did I end up with a non-DTS version of such a great movie?! Time to add another DVD to my wishlist.

Good times ensued. Loud explosions, great fight scenes, witty banter, and of course, super mutant powers. What more could you ask for? The video transfer was anamorphic too! Oh happy day.

Here's a fun assignment for a couple of really bored readers of this blog (Vince, this one has your name all over it). Who would win this showdown: The X-Men vs. Ethan Hunt and his IMF Team? Leave your answer, in essay form, on my desk by 3:00pm.

This blog will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Top secret trivia for Mission: Impossible.
Highly evolved trivia for X-Men.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Never shop at EB Games on an empty hard drive

I watched more movies this weekend. Surprise, surprise. For those of you keeping track of this blog you can look forward to a couple of mini-reviews of Mission: Impossible and X-Men tomorrow. I'm sure most of you have already seen them, but I'm also sure that you would love to read my review of them. Right?

Something else I did today was stop by EB Game (Electronics Boutique). This guy I know (who happens to live in my spare bedroom) wanted to trade some video games and I tagged along. Potentially a bad idea for my wallet and a fantastic idea for my computer.

My history-teacher friend already knows about the recent release of Age of Empires III. For the non-computer gamers out there, Age of Empires is a computer game franchise that happens to be the second most addictive single-player game I've ever played. It's one of those games where you sit down to play for an hour or two only to have your spouse come into the room 4 days later to ask if you're ever going back to work. And now the 3rd installment is available. This does not bode well for my savings account.

While drooling over the box for AOE III (we computer gamers rarely have time to use their full names), a commercial appeared on the in-store television for another game. Civilization IV. For the non-computer gamers out there, Civilization is a computer game franchise that happens to be the most addictive game I've ever played. It's one of those games where you sit down to play for a couple of days only to have your spouse come into the room 2 years later with a baseball bat. And now the 4th installment is available. Oh dear...

I'm not going to go into all the technical details of either game. Suffice it to say that they both look awesome and I'm worried my movie watching time might take a serious hit if I end up buying either one. Civilization itself has been described as the most acclaimed strategy computer-game of all time. How can I not buy it?

In the mean time, I'll keep watching those wonderful movies and I'll keep blogging about them here. However, if several weeks go by and you haven't heard from me, maybe give my wife a call and suggest she take some food and water to the den; it's very likely I'll have forgotten to eat.

Gamer: "After I installed Civ IV and started playing, I didn't
get up to go to the bathroom for 3 days."
Interviewer: "You didn't go to the bathroom for 3 days!?"
Gamer: "I said I didn't get up."

Saturday, October 22, 2005

"Never try, never fail. Those are the words I live by." (Review)


While browsing through Blockbuster for something fun to watch last night, we came across Robots. You know, one of those computer animated movies from 20th Century Fox's animation studio (respsponsible for Ice Age... shudder). The first thing I thought when I saw it was that it seemed to have arrived on DVD awfully soon. Wasn't it in the theaters just a few months ago? Or maybe it didn't make it to the theaters? I wouldn't know, as I don't go to the theaters anymore. Another blog on that another day.

We decided to rent it anyway since we wanted something lighthearted and potentially funny. We weren't expecting great things as we hadn't heard great things about it. Actually, I can't remember hearing anything about it. However, the audio options did include DTS, so that right there is a good enough reason to rent it. I'll blog about DTS later (is someone keeping track of all these other blogs to which I've commited myself?).

Robots is about, er, robots. Voiced by numerous celebrities (Ewan MacGregor, Drew Carey, Robin Williams, Halle Berry and Mel Brooks to name only a few), Robots tells the story of young Rodney Copperbottom (MacGregor), an energetic inventor who heads to Robot City in the hopes of pitching his new invention idea to the greatest inventor of them all, Bigweld (Brooks). During his journey he meets numerous other robots and discovers a plot to replace all spare-parts with upgrades, reducing Rodney and his 'out-moded' friends to scrap metal.

Despite having a fairly simple and predictable plot, I found this movie very entertaining. It was just a lot of fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected I would. The jokes aren't all that clever or inventive but for some reason they work. The music, the slapstick humor, the fantastic computer animated effects and of course, Robin William's unique comedy-style combine to provide good times.

It's also a very short film, weighing in at only 1 hour and 22 minutes. Normally I prefer long movies (three cheers for Peter Jackson and his extended-edtion Lord of the Rings!), but in this case it was nice to have a short flick to watch and enjoy. Plus, it was really late and I was feeling a little queasy from some questionable seafood I had just eaten, so the short time frame allowed me to get to bed earlier. This movie certainly benefits from a shorter run time. I think the jokes and story would start to wear pretty thin after a while but 82 minutes is a perfect length.

Robots was transferred to DVD in beautiful 1.85:1 Anamorphic video. Being a computer generated feature, it looks about as good as animated shows can look. Did I mention there was a DTS (Digital Theater Sound) option? There are many musical moments and active scenes that really benefit from the 5.1 digital sound. Both the audio and the video helped in making this film put a smile on my face.

If you're looking for something light and fun you can't go wrong with Robots. I'm still trying to decide if this is one I want to own or not. I haven't watched any of the special features yet so I can't comment on them. There is also a commentary available which I haven't watched either. Hmmm, yeah, I'll probably end up getting it eventually. The whole addiction thing you know.

It was just fun. And sometimes you need something that's just fun.

Whee!

Robots gets 7 bolts (out of 10).

Fun trivia for 'Robots'

Friday, October 21, 2005

"I hope never to see Fletcher Christian again. Unless it is to see him hanged." (Review)

I skipped karate. Shhh, don't tell Sensei.

I even put my karate uniform on (that's a gi to you non-martial arts folks) after I got home from work and was fully prepared to go train. But then my wife suggested I stay home and watch a movie with her. What was I to do?

I'm so weak...

When I was fairly young I watched a movie with my family called 'The Bounty'. It was this neat boat movie (sorry, ship) about a really mean Captain who flogs his men and eventually convinces them to mutiny against him. I don't know if I enjoyed the movie so much because of how evil the Captain was, or if I just really enjoyed watching movies with my family. Certainly the latter is true, but I think I was also fascinated by Captain William Bligh and his obsession with discipline.

Watching the movie again more than 15 years later it's interesting to see how perspectice can change. After finishing the movie last night, neither my wife nor I could easily determine who the bad guy really was, or if there even was one.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. For those of you unfamiliar with the movie, or the story, you can probably contact a certain teacher-friend of mine who is a fanatic for history and tall ships. If you're not able to contact him, allow me to fill you in.

True story. In 1787, The Bounty set sail for Tahiti to pick up some breadfruit plants to bring to Jamaica. In charge was Lt. William Bligh (Anthony Hopkins), a Royal officer looking to make a name for himself. In 1789, after picking up said plants and setting sail for England, via the deadly Cape Horn, Master's Mate Fletcher Christian (Mel Gibson) and three other men, armed with cutlasses, bayonets and a musket, took the ship. They set Bligh and 18 officers and crewmen adrift in a small boat.

The Bounty is actually a remake of a 1962 film 'Mutiny on the Bounty', which is actually a remake of the 1935 film 'Mutiny on the Bounty', which is a remake of the 1933 film 'In the Wake of the Bounty', which is based on the 1932 novel 'Mutiny on the Bounty', which is based on the first novel, written in 1879 by Jules Verne titled 'Les Revoltes de la Bounty', which was based on historical events as described in Lt. William Bligh's actual travel logs, published in 1791. Phew...

Suffice it to say that there are many opinions on what actually happened on board that caused the crew to mutiny. Many sources seem to agree that 'The Bounty' is probably the most accurate depiction of what really took place. Regardless, the movie itself is very entertaining and very interesting. Shauna and I both agreed that the movie would make a great school assignment; have the kids watch the film and then write an essay on who they thought was in the right, and why. I found this personally intriguing since I had always remembered Bligh as being the obvious bad-guy. Now I'm not so sure.

I won't give away many of the details of the film itself. You'll just have to come over and watch it. :) However, I will comment on the soundtrack.

Comment: Ugh.

Raise your hand if you've seen LadyHawke. Now keep your hand raised if you felt that the music for LadyHawke just didn't match the film at all. Everyone else, raise your hand again if you think that corny synthesized drums and almost techno-beat music is not a good idea for a period piece like medieval LadyHawke or naval Bounty. The music is really the only bad thing I have to say about this film, but it's pretty bad. And too bad, because several tense moments in the film were almost ruined by the cheesy music. Note: watching this film with a musician will highlight these moments even more.

Gibson gives a great performance, but Anthony Hopkins steals the show. This is one of those early movies that lets us go back and see the beginnings of great actors. It's easy to see how both actors went on to such bigger and better things. When Fletcher exclaims "I am in hell!" you believe him and you feel for him. I remember mentioning to Shauna how you could really feel his torment and anguish with the situation and with his own struggle. Really great acting.

Keeping in mind that the movie is over 20 years old, the video and audio were still pretty good. There were a few artifacts (debris on the film itself) in some scenes and the colors are a little faded, but overall the transfer to DVD seems pretty good. The movie is presented in 5.1 Dolby Digital which works really nicely for the sound effects on the ship, but makes the horrible soundtrack hard to avoid. The video is an Anamorphic 2.35:1 ratio transfer. I'll blog about all that technical stuff another day.

If you like movies that make you think and you can look past the age of this film, you'll probably enjoy The Bounty. If you like Anthony Hopkins or movies about ships, you'll probably enjoy The Bounty. If your name is Dave and you're a history teacher, you'll almost certainly enjoy The Bounty.

The Bounty gets 7 anchors (out of 10).

Interesting Triva for 'The Bounty'

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Wanna watch a movie?


I love movies.

If you know me, it's very likely you've heard me say that before. And it's true. I really do love movies. Tom Hanks' acceptance speech when he was awarded the American Film Institute's (AFI) Life Achievement Award in 2002 pretty much sums up how I feel about movies. I wish I had a transcript of it to share with you, but my Google-search of the Internet was fruitless.

I love watching movies because they are so many things. Art. Escape. Imagination. Beauty. Laughter. I don't know exactly why but especially in the last couple of years movies have really become my main hobby. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that my wife loves movies also, and she let's me spend all our money on DVDs and home theater equipment.

Actually, now that I think about it, Shauna may have been personally responsible for my movie addiction in the first place. She's the one who bought me a surround sound system for my birthday a few years ago. I think loud movie-noise and rumbly subwoofers are like heroin for the human ear. The first time you hear surround sound it's unlike anything you've ever heard before...and you want MORE! And like heroin (so I've heard), each time you hear it, it needs to be louder and bass-ier and there needs to be more speakers.


My name is Tom Ginn, and I'm addicted to surround sound. It's been nearly 16 hours since my last 'hit'.


The best part about watching movies, is watching them with friends. Few things give me greater joy than sitting down to watch a really good movie with someone who's never seen it before. It makes me giggle just thinking about the time I watched the first two Alien movies with Enrique (I've changed his name to protect the terrified), who had never seen either of them before. I'm told he went straight home and watched a Disney movie before he could go to sleep.
Hee hee.

When I hear that someone has never seen a particular movie, I usually respond with "You've never seen Waterworld?! OOOOHHHhhh!!!!" (Ok, bad example). But aside from my astonishment that they've never seen it, I feel excited at the prospect of being with them when they finally do get a chance to watch it.

"You've got to see it! You'd love it! You should come over and watch it sometime. Hey, what are you doing right now? I'm sure Shauna would LOVE to spend our anniversary watching the Die Hard Trilogy! I'll start making the popcorn!"
Yup. I love movies. I love watching them. I love talking about them. And apparently I now enjoy blogging about them too.

Maybe I'll skip karate and watch a movie tonight. Anyone want to come over?

Blogman Begins

About a week ago I submitted a sample DVD review to a website in the hopes of becomming one of their regular reviewers. I got my reply back from them today. I won't bore you with all the feedback I got (well, maybe I will, but not right now), however they did suggest that I create a blog to support my movie-addiction.

So I did.

Just now, in fact.

You're reading it.

I hope to have much, much more content as the days and weeks go by, but right now I'm still trying to figure out how to use this thing. The majority of my posts will be about movies and shows that I've recently watched, or plan to watch, or am watching, or won't watch. As a lucky reader of my blog, you'll get the benefit of my opinions thrown at you.

However, before more content comes your way, I need to fine-tune this blog of mine. I still don't know how to edit my own profile. It's that box on the right-hand side of my blog that has my name...and not much else.

I watched Batman Begins last night. My review of this film will need to be condensed to three words, as I don't have time to write anything more now. "It was good."

Now then...let's see how this blog thing works...