Rating:

When I saw the trailer to this one I had high hopes. And then I started to see the reviews. Well, the reviews were right.

This isn’t a horrible film, but it’s not a good one either. Part of the problem is that The Hornet (Seth Rogen, who also co-wrote) is an anti-hero. That is, he’s the son of a billionaire who doesn’t give a crap about much beyond his next drink or piece of tail. This could have worked with a different actor – one with some ability to show introspection and personal growth.

What makes this movie work at all is Jay Chou (as “Kato”) and Christoph Waltz (as “Chudnofsky”). Chou’s martial arts are pretty good – he’s no Bruce Lee, but for what he’s asked to do he does well. But more importantly he’s interesting to watch – more interesting than Rogen. Waltz plays a very bad guy who has issues with people not thinking he’s…

Rating:

Given the way the economy has been the last ten years, it’s almost surprising there aren’t more movies like “The Company Men.” But maybe America doesn’t want to face what’s really going on. “Wall Street 2″ is more face-paced and sexy, as opposed to … well … reality.

“The Company Men” is about what happens when a corporate decides one of it’s holdings isn’t all that useful anymore. More importantly, it’s about what happens to the people involved – on both ends of the spectrum. In this case, it’s a ship-building operation in the Boston area that no longer fits the direction that the company it started is heading.

At the upper end of the food chain, you have Craig T. Nelson as the owner. He’s cutting thousands of jobs, while remaining one of the top-20 highest paid executives in the country – oh and he’s also buying a new executive office building at the same time as he’s…

Rating:

I give this film it’s rating based on style and the watchability of the main characters alone. It’s a beautifully made film, harking back to the classic James Bond kind of feeling from the 1960′s. Everything is bigger than life, all the hotels are amazing, and it’s set mainly in Venice. Jolie’s outfits are amazing and basically nothing was spared on production values. A solid supporting cast rounded it out.

The plot is pretty good and I didn’t really see the ending coming until the last fifteen minutes. Depp played the role of an American tourist caught up in good ole European style international intrigue quite well. And Jolie was acceptable as a super-spy who fell in love with her prey.

On paper, this should have been a great movie.

But … it seems like I always have a “but” … but …

The movie lacked the whimsy that made similar movies – such as Pierce Brosnan…

Rating:

The original “Tron” was a ground-breaking film. Doing things with digital video and exploring digital reality which, for the day, were mind-blowing.

The sequel is visually stunning, but not so much so as to be remarkable. We’ve all seen better CG animation and characters in a range of recent movies. The “game” sequences with the light bikes is well done but … like … who really cares? What was missing was the real sense of speed of riding one of those machines. Something that wasn’t really possible to capture about 30 years ago, but which they could have done now. Instead of making this a visceral experience, it was less involving than an actual video game.

Some of the slickest work was in creating the un-aged Jeff Bridges “program.” It was pretty convincing – I’m not sure if they used full-face make-up or CG, but either way it was well done.

The story basically is about Bridges…

Rating:

On paper, this should be an awesome movie. Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and the Coen Brothers putting together a remake of one of the classic John Wayne Westerns. The film is stunningly made. The dialog is consistent, and the voice coaching works well in that people speak in the movie kind of like you’d expect for the level of education back then. But it’s just … well … kind of dull.

The original “Rooster Cogburn” movies had a sense of humor to them. Wayne, as Cogburn, was bigger than life and it carried into the character. The surrounding cast all played their parts well in those films. And the original movies had pace. Things snapped along.

In the 2010 version, things tend more to crawl. There’s some good action scenes, but they feel kind of clinical in how they’re done. Maybe it’s because the Coen’s strength isn’t action movies. But given the writer/director group there should have…