Primer (2004)

What if... you could build a time machine? Would you go back in time and turn your dad into a badass? Would you invent the frisbee? Maybe you'd save the whales? I'd buy a lot of real estate. That's what I would do. I remember reading something in a Discover magazine that said that you could build a time machine if you had a black hole laying around. Unlikely I propose a second scenario. What if... you made a movie about a time machine? Would you make it as confusing as possible and completely ignore characterization and tension? That's what the guys that made Primer did.

The entire movie is riddled with technobabble and cryptic dialogue, but the first half is especially bad. It's like watching an hour of Geordi and Data working on the Starship Enterprise but without knowing that they're trying to get away from the Klingons or whatever. The folks I watched this with said that they liked it as a sort of puzzle to crack, but that wasn't enough for me.

I can imagine that Primer's twisting time-travel plot might be more interesting on a second viewing if the movie is as tightly plotted as the various internet nerds that recommend it say, but Primer offers very little characterization or any sort of tension to get the viewer through their first viewing. A movie can only be so demanding without giving anything in return.

It's too bad, because for a movie that was made on a $7000 budget, it has some really excellent photography and editing, even if their style is mostly stolen from Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg's movies and TV show. It's a rip off, but it's a really impressive ripoff that might lead to a better personal style eventually. The root of my problem with Primer is that it is a movie made by, about and apparently for engineers and other math/science folk. If director Shane Carruth ever manages a follow up, I hope he keeps the technical excellence but adds a little humanity, romance or humor; anything to appeal to us poor souls with liberal arts degrees.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I got it from Netflix, and initially I was really disappointed that I'd wasted two hours of my life. Now that a month or so has passed, I consider it a deeply flawed movie, but each of those flaws is filled with the blood and sweat of a talented and ambitious filmmaker, one that I hope goes on to create bigger and better things. That is enough to recommend the movie. Rent if it you're curious and want to join the conversation, but be aware of what you're getting into.

The Living Daylights (1987) & License to Kill (1989)

Pompous Thomas Presents: A Timothy Dalton/James Bond Double Review

In my review of The American, I ragged on Timothy Dalton, lumping him with faux-James Bonds Austin Powers and Vin Diesel's XXX. This was a cheap shot and I apologize. When I wrote that, I had only seen parts of one of his Bond Movies. It's not that I am averse to the lesser Bond actors. After all, my favorite Bond movie is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the only Bond to star this kilt-wearing weirdo:

When you get right down to it, I actually really like Dalton. Well, he was so great in Hot Fuzz that I'll give him a lifetime pass. So, in the interest of sharing and learning and growing here's a pair of reviews of Dalton's twin Bond movies: The Living Daylights and License to Kill

The Living Daylights
The Living Daylights is a mostly bad movie. It's about as good as A View to a Kill, the crappy Roger Moore movie that preceded it, but where Moore played the part with effortlessness that comes from playing a part for about 15 years, Dalton is awkward as Bond. He doesn't have the charm and he almost seems too smart. He has no chemistry with his cello-playing Soviet assassin/lover, but he does well in the action sequences, especially a fight scene set on and behind a cargo plane.

The plot is mostly garbage; something about Russians and American Arms dealers and I really don't know what else. The Mujaheddin show up towards the end and help Bond out a bit, so this might make a good "White guys help out the Mujaheddin" double feature with Rambo 3. The bit in the middle where Bond and Bondgirl sled down a mountain in a cello case is probably a low point for the entire series, easily eclipsing the moon buggy chase in Diamonds are Forever.

License to Kill
This is much better. The plot is still silly, but so packed to the gills with shark attacks, eel attacks, weddings, semi trucks, golf carts, iguanas, skydiving and Wayne Newton that you don't have time to notice. Bond is written to better suit Dalton's strengths; a bit harder and meaner than before, but he still doesn't have much chemistry with either of the female leads. Bond's quartermaster, Q, has a larger role in this movie than ever before or after, including a scene where he wears a fake mustache and a real sombero. This alone makes the movie worth seeing. The chase scene at the finale is excellent and is up there with The Road Warrior for best pre-CGI chase scenes involving semi trucks.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: These are on Netflix, but are disc-only, so the only cost (other than subscription fees) was the time it took for the mailman to bring my my movies. Totally worth it! ...for License to Kill. I would even take the time to leave my house, drive in my car to a rental place and pay actual dollars for that movie (If I lived in a world where netflix didn't exist). I wouldn't go that far for The Living Daylights though. It's only worth the time of a Bond completionist or the truly bored.

Fun Notes: In The Living Daylights Joe Don Baker plays a character that is probably the bad guy (since he's the last to die), and then he play's Bond's CIA friend with the busted Beetle in Goldeneye! I don't know if that's actually a fun fact or not, but I always thought it was weird.

Faster (2010)

The problem with Faster is the name. It's not a fast movie. No, no, no. It crams in far too many side plots, and side plots for its side plots for that. It could have been saved if the movie had a script to match talent present in the cast. Billy Bob Thorton, Dwayne Johnson, Carla Gugino and more are all completely wasted in this humorless Kill Bill ripoff.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: I was actually paid to see this movie (though at time of writing, I haven't gotten the check quite yet) as a screening audience reporter for a PR firm. Don't think that I'm letting that sway my review.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010)

I'm not really sure that I should be reviewing a Harry Potter movie. Being a big fan of the books, I've dutifully seen each movie in theater without hesitation. While I usually mostly enjoy them, I always have to remind myself to not be a pedantic nerd about everything. There's always something that the filmmakers changed from the way it "really happened," and it takes me out of the movie. Is this silly? Probably. Can I change? No! I've had it up to here with the fact that the movies don't do the patronuses right! Why is this so hard?!

Quibbling aside, this was a pretty good movie, which surprised me. The story eschews the standard Hogwarts setting in favor of a series of wizarding and real world locales that Harry P. and the gang visit while searching for the horcruxes that must be destroyed to kill that awful Voldemort. The book has a reputation for being nothing but camping, camping, camping, but I thought the change of setting was a good way to reduce Hogwarts fatigue.

I don't know if it is enjoyable for Non Potter-fans. The flying-around, wand-waving wizard stuff is exciting and the cast is as engaging and wonderful as ever. However, I think those that haven't immersed themselves in Potter lore might find themselves a bit lost. The horcruxes weren't explained (or re-explained since their introduction in The Half-Blood Prince), certain actions and things happened and weren't really explained, but The Deathly Hallows were explained through a nice animated sequence. Mundungus, who was cut out of The Order of the Pheonix, was awkwardly introduced here in an early scene so that he could fulfill his plot-given duties and will probably never be heard of again. Oh wow, I just realized that I'm being a pedantic nerd again.

Cost/Benefit analysis: I paid full price, like every good HP fan should. I got to see the nice special effects on a big screen and got to laugh at the awkward dancing along with the rest of the audience. Worth it.

The American (2010)

Every spy movie must be compared to James Bond. I didn't invent this rule and I don't like it much either, but that's just the way it is. Whether you're Jason Bourne, XXX, Austin Powers or Timothy Dalton, the people are inevitably compare to you the supposed gold(finger) standard of Sean Connery's classic portrayal of 007. Now that this rule has been firmly established I can say that The American is nothing like a James Bond movie.

For one, it is slow, slow, slow. But that's not a fault by any measure. And it's not really slow, it's calculated. It's geologic. And it's probably much more like being a spy than anything in a Bond movie. Clooney's character is a bit of a wierdo (he's obsessed with butterflies), the kind of wierdo that you become when you're spending lots of time by yourself doing intricate, secretive spy work. However, that's not to say that the movie doesn't have a few exciting action sequences or that Clooney doesn't make a special lady friend (I mean, come on, he's George Clooney) or anything like that. The movie takes these tropes on from a different perspective than usual.

The movie's biggest fault is also a matter of perspective. The bulk of the action is viewed from George Clooney's point of view, with only a few scenes towards the end breaking it up. These scenes steer it all back towards standard action movie land, which is pretty disappointing. I would love to see a version of this movie where I never know anything that Clooney doesn't also know.

Cost/Benefit analysis: Saw it at full price, which it was worth.

Nerdy injoke: G.C., the lone American in a sea of Italians, steps into a diner playing Serio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. Get it? Hint: in this movie, the Italians aren't supposed to be Mexicans.

The A-Team (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Oh boy does this movie suck. It really wants to be a fun, irreverent action movie like Shoot 'Em Up with an ensemble cast like Ocean's 11, but it lacks the inventiveness of the one and the chemistry of the other. Bradley Cooper in particular is a black hole of charisma that sucks any bit of goodness and light that drifts by. Liam Neeson is ok and so is the other white guy but the Mr. T impersonator sucks too. The group lacks the cohesiveness you need for this kind of movie to succeed and in the end it just feels like 4 actors playing different parts. AND YES, I know that most movies have actors playing parts, but you don't usually notice as much as you do here.

Cost benefit analysis: I paid $5 for a mid-week show and I want my money back. I don't even recommend it to fans of the show. Just watch your DVDs of the show, you weirdos.

Inception (2010)

From the Pompous Thomas 2010 Review Backlog!

Inception. Everyone saw this movie and mostly it was awesome. I was super-hyped on it for about two weeks right after it came out. I don't think much about it now. I guess it now seems really empty, especially compared to something like Winter's Bone, or even The American, now that it's been 3 months or whatever since I saw it.

Yeah, the effects were mostly pretty cool and I enjoyed the ride immensely. It was fun to talk about with people and read about on the internet and I even spent an hour at work drawing up a little dream level map. Tommy from Third Rock from the Sun was a baller (per usual), the guy from Titanic squinted a lot and it was fun to see the actors that Nolan brought in from his previous movies (this is my favorite thing, especially when the Coen Bros. do it). Ellen Page may or may not be a 12 year old boy, especially compared to Marion Cotillard.

The notes I wrote immediately after seeing Inception are as follows: "So awesome. Broke Kurt's mind. A movieto talk about, but still fun (sorry Blade Runner) Amazing cast. Amazing imagination." I don't know why I've cooled off on it so much. Maybe it's an Avatar-style hype burnout factor? Maybe writing a completely fawning review this far after the fact would seem completely redundant?

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Definitely benefits from big-screen viewing so if you can find it and are interested, go see it. To prevent this from being a completely negative/apathetic review I'll say that Cotillard was great and so was Tom Hardy. This'll probably be seen as a break-out role for him. The snow fortress/On Her Majesty's Secret Service dream level was great and if Nolan wants to do the next Bond movie, he'll have my permission. It is a good movie, but