Jeff's Movie Reviews

Ultraviolet is not going to win any Oscars; however it is no where near as bad as many critics want to make it out to be. I think many of the critics are upset they actually had to wait until the rest of us saw the movie before they could post their criticism. Just survive the first ten minutes and it is okay movie, for a Video Game on the screen, much better than say Resident Evil or Doom.

In my opinion there are three main criticisms of the Ultraviolet.
The movie starts out with a series of Comic Book Covers displaying the opening covers, someone once told me it was a British thing to skip the opening sequence and do the credits. In Ultraviolet I think they could have really used an open sequence to setup the movie. After the credits the Milla Jovoich begins a monologue about being born in a Future World; which chould have been the open sequence.

For a martial arts movie the fight scenes were extremely boring.

For a modern Sci-Fi film on the Big Screen the many of the special effects left a lot to be desired. I would compare them to video game, but video games have better looking effects. However there are a few scenes (not really the Special Effect Kind) where you are amazed by how good those scenes look.

After a very dull 10 the movie gets going and you get a pretty good (all-right an Okay) story, there are no wild twists and turns even though you keep waiting for them. I would say everything is by the numbers.

The acting is wooden and other than an okay performance by Nick Chinlund as Daxus you wonder what the director was asking them to do.

I was very impressed with the Score of the Film.

Now, if you enjoy these types of film you could do worse, however if you are not a 20 something video game junkie this is not the movie for you.

On the Jeff’s Scale - 5 out 10.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Academy Award: Jeff's Pick - Oscar went to:
Actor in a Leading Role: Philip Seymour Hoffman - Correct
Actor in a Supporting Role: Matt Dillion should win, George Clooney will win - Correct
Actress in a Leading Role: Felicity Huffman - Reese Witherspoon
Actress in a Supporting Role: Michelle Williams - please note I have not seen all the movies in this catagory - Rachel Weisz
Animated Feature: Wallace & Gromit in the curse of the were-rabbit - Correct
Art Direction - Memoirs of a Geisha - Correct
Cinematography - Memoirs of a Geisha - Correct
Costume Design - Memoirs of a Geisha - Correct
Directing - Crash - Brokeback Mountain
Documentry Feature - March of the Penguins - Correct
Documentry Short - God sleeps in Rwanda - A Note of Triumph
Film Editing - Munich - Crash
Foreign Language Film - Tsoti - Correct
Makeup - The Chronicals of Narnia - The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - Correct
Score - Memoirs of a Geisha - Brokeback Mountain
Song - In the Deep - Crash - It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp
Animated Short - One Man Band - please note I have not seen all the movies in this catagory.
Short Film - ? - please note I have not seen all the movies in this catagory. - Six Shooter
Sound Editing - King Kong - Correct
Sound Mixing - King Kong - Correct
Visual Effects - The Chronicals of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - King Kong
Adapted Screenplay - Brokeback Mountian - Correct
Original Screenplay - Crash - Correct
Best Picture - Crash - Correct

See the Extended Entry for Commentary

Continue reading "Oscars Picks" »

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

In 2005 Hollywood released a total of seven movies without allowing critics and others to see the film beforehand. In 2006, during the first weekend in March Ultraviolet becomes the NINTH major release to be released without a single preview screening, a gambit being used by Hollywood successfully in 2006 so far as Four of the previous eight releases have been number one movie in America and all eight have beaten sales estimates. For a slumping Hollywood you know this trend is going to continue.

When I first heard about Ultraviolet it was the storyline that really caught my attention. Hidden in the dozens of beauty, I mean publicity shots of Milla Jovoich was the interesting plot. In the not so distant future scientist create a virus that alters Human abilities, creating Super Warriors. When the general populace discovers their existence a war is fought to hunt down these Super Warriors until almost all are destroyed. Not so interesting until you discover our Heroine isn’t fighting for her life, but fighting to protect a young boy from murder by the populace. It is a little twist on the standard tale.

Unfortunately since I saw the first articles on the story until it release my interest has waned greatly.

I will acknowledge that lacking a regular review from anyone credible generally won’t stop me from seeing a movie, a couple of my personal favorites were never previewed for critics; but it takes a special person to like the 13th Warrior. However there is something about this movie that screams “It is going to suck big time man…� and the lack of a review is lowering my expectations even more.

The previews don’t reflect the previously mentioned storyline, and that makes me a little more leary.

In the end, I will see the movie on opening weekend, the question is whether it is an entertaining two hours or will I want those two hours back.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Catogory: Jeff's Pick - Loser
Worst Actor:Rob Schneider - Correct
Worst Actress: Jenny McCarthy - Correct
Worst Supporting Actor: Hayden Christensen - Correct
Worst Supporting Actress: Paris Hilton - Correct
Worst Screen Couple: Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman (can I vote for Tom and Katie here) - Correct
Worst Sequel or Remake: All of thee Above. Okay I have to choose one Duece Bigalow - Son of the Mask
Worst Screenplay: Dirty Love (all could win this one) - Correct
Worst Director: John Asher - Correct
Tiresome Tabloid Story: Tom Cruise - Correct
Worst Picture: Dirty Love (I can't believe I saw this movie) - Correct

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I went into this movie with neutral expectations at best, and I came out with neutral review. I am not going to be asking for my money back, but unless you are a big Samuel L. Jackson fan, don’t go wait for the video.

One of my biggest complaints about modern thriller movies is their really is no reason to see the film in the theater. With even a bad Sci-Fi or awful epic film they director uses the whole screen and awes you with they put on the screen. A movie like Freedomland is better suited to the small screen, there are no scenes that you have to see on the big screen. The sound, the cinematography, excreta, excreta excreta, all leave me wishing I waited for the DVD.

But the Film isn’t all bad, Jackson, Julianne Moore, and Edie Falco give very good performances, hey they even border on great, the rest of the cast is sleep walking through til their next pay check.

The Dialog is at best uneven, you could tell which sections probably were filmed first and which ones the actors finally got the feel for as they filmed more of the movie. It’s too bad they can’t reshoot the first parts.

In the end I was left with a very unhappy situation, the movie ends without wrapping up all the story arcs. There are four or five things your left wondering about, and that’s bad for a movie which will never have a sequel.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many years ago the Navy had a huge recruiting bonaza because of two movies "Top Gun" and an "Officer and a Gentlemen". Those movies propelled Tom Cruise and Richard Gere into thier megastar leading roles they currently posses, no one in this film has to worry about becoming the next superstar, and James Franco best be glad that Spiderman III is filming as he isn't currently leading man stuff.

The film is a formuliac version of the stand story, Boy goys to the Naval Academy, boy meets Girl, Boy over comes obsticals, boy gets girl. And yes it been dumbed down to that simple of the story.

The film is boring and lack luster and missing the great cineomtography that at least makes other is the mold intersting.

Jeff Score - 3.75 out of 10 stars.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay, for those that didn’t read my expectations I feel I must point out that I read the book about 25 years ago and it is one of the few books that I have never felt I had to reread.

For the most part the actors are well played, Tilda Swinton makes a great White Witch, and the brief appearance of James Cosmo and Jim Broadbent were very well done, the same can’t be said about CGI characters. The Bickering Bickersons, I mean the Beavers were a little monotonous after a while, watching the not as majestic as it should have been Aslan and not quite believable giants, dwarves, ogres, and Cyclops also made it a long movie. I will give the minotaurs strong marks however, you can tell who Disney spent the CGI budget on.
There is a huge acting problem in this movie and it is so small most people wouldn’t even notice the problem. There is no awe in the four actos when ever they run into some new and magical. In talking about the problem I think it is like the inability to see the forest for all the trees.
Okay so I am not sure of my opinion of the child actors, so I will skip mentioning them.

The cinematography was sometime very good and other times very bland (and occasionally unbelievable). When Lucy first enters the wardrobe the cinematography is very well done however the second and third times it unacceptably bad. I am not sure if it the cinematographers fault or the directors, but I really want to blame the cinematographer since he should have known better.

A director once told me that directing children is the hardest thing to direct as they don’t necessarily understand the gamut of emotions they are supposed to demonstrate. This movie clearly shows that problem. Unlike a number of CGI filled movies where actors stare into nothing the actors in this movie seem to missing awe. Which is hard to understand as a viewer.

Most of the special effects were very good the exception Aslan mouth which is always bad, I think human mouth movements didn’t look right. A number of the special effects are not up to par with the rest of the movie. The scene on the river is one of those that is just bad. It’s like they ran out of money for that scene and just used a first run copy of the effect.

I am not sure if it is because of the Theater I saw the movie in or if the sound track is just off but there were a lot of echoes in the movie which I did not if they belonged there or not.

I liked the background music during the movie only once or twice did it distract from the movie.

In the end the movie has a lot of things going for it, however it could have been sooo much better. My Boss of years past always told me to do things 100%, because 80% of the work could be done with 20% of the work, but it is the other 20% that people remember. In this case I agree with the Movie critic from the Pioneer Press Chris Hewitt, “Watching The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is like being told a terrific story by a so-so storyteller."

Jeff rating 7.5 (out of 10)

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems like a very long time ago that I read CS Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, in actuality it been at least 20 years and maybe 25. I only read CS Lewis’ works once (unlike Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings which I have read at least a dozen times in that span.)

My Friend Jim has hypothesized that if you read Tolkien’s work first than Lewis’ work will seem like second fiddle and vice versa. I have yet to disappoint him; since I break that mold as I had read Lewis’ work years before Tolkien’s and my sister had to convince me to read Tolkien which made me a “the Geek� that I am today.

Being at least two decades since I have read the novel I don’t remember the details of the story too well. Funny thing is I probably could tell you the outline of every other Sci-Fi/Fantasy Novel I have every written. I don’t plan on re-reading the novel until after I see the movie.

The trailers for Narnia look incredible, but after Episode One I don’t put much stock in trailers any more.

Unlike some other movies based on novels lately the director, Andrew Adamson, had to add details rather than cut them out. I wonder if this is a good or bad thing.

Usually I avoid the user comments and reviews of movies before I see the movie (if I plan on seeing the movie in the open weekend) but not this case, I have seen that 99% of the reviewers like the movie and that scares me. Reviewers usually hate the movies I like.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I need to start out that Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (GoF in Harry speak) is my least favorite book out of the six that have been released so far; So my views should be taken with a few grains of salt and it should also be noted that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (PoA) was my favorite book in the cycle so far and my least favorite movie.

My first compliant is that GoF is the longest book being turned into a movie thus far; originally Warner Brothers wanted to create two movies releasing a month (or six) apart, however Alfonso Cuarón, director of PoA, convinced Mike Newell, Director, against it; its too bad, they would have been two great movies rather than one so-so movie.
I described it like watching two movies interwoven together with a number of the interesting sub-plots removed thus removing the interest in the stories.

My next compliant is one that may be hard for some individuals to comprehend. With most of the original cast members from the first three movies back (Micheal Gambon has replaced Richard Harris) rather than attempting to introduce us to the characters the movie seems to assume that everyone know who everyone is. The first three movies could almost be stand-alone movies, this movie is not. While that alone isn’t a problem until they don’t seem to be introducing us to the new characters either.

I’ll skip the comments on the returning actors/actresses and make a few on the new characters. Brendan Gleeson makes a great Mad-Eye Moody. I have for years like him in the rolls he has played and hope he continues in the HP movies. I am however unsure if I like Ralph Fiennes as Tom Riddle, I am not sure he can be “cold� enough. Clémence Poésy is supposed to be an 18 year-old goddess, however her beauty was diminished by the Teen-ager coming of age shots in the movie, and watching her tush did nothing for me.
I will however make a comment about the three main characters, both Rupert and Emma continue to grow as actors, but Daniel seems too fallen further behind the others in his acting ability. He seems too childish..

The movie doesn’t flow as well as the other movies did, this one surges forward pauses to let things catch up and than surges again. The scene about the dance was way to slow and really bogged down the center portion of the movie.

I was disappointed about what was cut of the movie, JK Rowling has on many cases indicated the “most� important sections of the stories has appeared in the movies, if that is the case with GoF than I must reread the book several times and that will be hard since it is the only book I dislike. (Don’t ask me why cause I just don’t like it)

There are things that most people think about when they see a movie and others that no one ever mentions. Background Music is normally one of those things, what would Star Wars be without it wonderful themes, what would Titanic be without the music. In GoF I am not sure about the music, John Williams decided to do “Memoirs of a Geisha� rather than GoF, so Patrick Doyle stepped in. The background music at times is too overpowering at times and missing in others, I am glad John Williams will be back for the next movie.

Cinematically the movie is an improvement over the first three, experience improved CGI and other details make the backgrounds less foreground and more background (no giraffes walking through the paintings.) and the detail in the Castle is outstanding.

A number of people of who have seen the movie ahead of time remarked how much more dark the movie and more “adult� oriented than the previous three movies. Many of the sub-plots revolve on Harry, Ron and Hermione became young adults rather than teenagers, this helps make the movie less kid like. It was nice to see Ron become less of a comic sidekick and more of an independent character in the movie and Hermione. However there seemed too little of Harry sub-plots and the movie is called “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire� not “Ron and Hermione Grow Up.�

I have tended to ignore the fans and reviews in advance and while I don’t expect GoF to win many Oscars I had hoped to be entertained enough to want to go see it again in the theater. I may go see it again, but nothing compels me to do so.

On the Jeffrey scale, the movie hits a 6.75 (out of 10). It is visually appealing, however the sound is a bit muddled and the story surges to much.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It is nearly impossible for a fourth Harry Potter film not to develop huge expectations from it numerous legions of fans. With dozen of web-sites dedicated the movie has been analyzed and dissected even before it been released.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (GoF in Harry speak) is my least favorite book out of the six that have been released so far; this fact diminishes my expectations of this movie. It should be noted that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (PoA) was my favorite book in the cycle so far and my least favorite movie. So my dislike of the book doesn’t necessarily mean I will hate the movie.
I watch the first three movies on dvd on a regular basis, I saw Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets multiple times in the theater but never truly saw PoA in the theater [My wife went into labor on Friday June 11th while I was the Movie. So I only saw the first half and really had no want to see the rest in the theater]

My first worry if GoF is the longest book being turned into a movie thus far; originally Warner Brothers wanted to create two movies releasing a month (or six) apart, however Alfonso Cuarón, director of PoA, convinced Mike Newell, Director, against it.

Most of the original cast members from the first three movies is back (Micheal Gambon has replaced Richard Harris) so I don’t expect anyone to have to learn their roles as to speak.

Unlike PoA where J.K. Rowling made a number of appearances going on how wonderful the Movie is, she was much more reserved this time, I think is a good sign. If she is less worried that people will like the movie; than it must be better than PoA.

A number of people of who have seen the movie ahead of time remarked how much more dark the movie and and more “adult� oriented than the previous three movies.

I have tended to ignore the fans and reviews in advance and while I don’t expect GoF to win many Oscars I hope to be entertained enough to want to go see it again in the theater.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 6:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Do to a glitch in the system I will be reposting some of my entries so the dates my seem out sync. Sorry. Jeff

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Like I did in the Serenity Expectations blog entry I need to start out and warn people that I am not a Josh Wheldon/Firefly Fanboy by any means. I can’t say that other than Toy Story I have been very impressed by anything Josh Wheldon has worked on and he barely makes the credits for co-writing the screen play for Toy Story.

Many of my friends have seen Serenity three four five ten times before I saw during the third week of release. I probably could have waited until movie was on DVD and gotten from Netflicks and it wouldn’t have bothered me.

The movie is a continuation/supposed conclusion of the Firefly TV show which aired on the Fox network in 2002. Which is it biggest downfall. No where during the movie does the story/director/writer attempt to introduce new viewers (or those of us who haven’t watched the show in three years) to the story line of the movie. You jump right in movie and everyone expects that you saw last weeks adventure and no who what and why everything is going on. I would say as a stand-alone it not very viewer friendly.

It is hard to judge acting when you are confused about what is going on, I can’t really tell you if anyone played their part exceptional or poorly or what not since I was like who are you again and why do I care who you are.

The special effects were adequate for the most part, none of the scenes jumped out at me nor did they overwhelm me or make me oh and ah. With a high budget sci-fi film I think that is a good thing.

On the Jeff Scale the movie rates 6 out of ten stars, not because it is a good movie but because the way I worked out the system; if you don’t like Firefly than don’t go see this movie you won’t like it.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Okay, I am going to start with this opening comment “I am not a Firefly fanboy”. While I watched the show when it aired on Fox I not going to lie and say I like the show very much, it was just a Sci-Fi show so I watched it; I haven’t bought the DVDs and have not seen the missing episodes. I am not a Josh Wheldon fanboy either, neither Buffy nor Angel nor Alien Resurrection have ever tripped my trigger.

I expect Serenity to please it fan base very much and I expect to see my Fan Boy friends go see the movie a half-dozen times before I will go and see it. The question is can it bring in the 50 to 75 million dollars in the first two weeks to justify a sequel? I doubt it, I would suspect it to be more like 25 to 50 million at most.

The reviews of Serenity are kind of interesting; you can tell who is a fanboy and who isn’t based upon their review. “And after reading many of them my desire to see Serenity dropped even lower than it already was.

I wonder if I stay home and watch a Rerun of Farscape would I enjoy it more than Serenity?

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I went into the movie “Kingdom in Heaven” with a great desire to really want to like, but just couldn’t do it when I came out. I don’t think it is a bad movie, rather an uncomplete movie.

The movie has a stellar cast, Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Urich Thomsen, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis, Ghassan Massoud and the list goes on and on.
With Orlando Bloom in the lead role, it been suggested by other critics that them movie could have been better with a more seasoned actor in the lead. I however am not sure that is really the case with this script. While most people think of Orlando as a surfer dude, he showed a wide range in this character.
In a world of political correctness this movie gave us no reason to like or hate any of the characters. It is funny how the one character people connect with is Brendan Gleeson’s portrayal of Reynald, the character most of us should loathe. I enjoyed David Thewlis’ portrayal of a Hospitaler Knight in the end I wish he was in more of the film.

I have some issues with the soundtrack of this movie, at first I though it was just the theater but later when I bough the DVD and watched it at home I had the same problem; it is like the actors are all speaking into a muted microphone.

I think the set designer and costume designer should be commended for their work on this film. While we will never know if they are 100% accurate it was sure a lot closer than most historical movies I have seen. Correct Armor, Correct Coat of Arms, Correct Banners, and it just felt right watching the movie.

I didn’t like the battle sequences in “Kingdom in Heaven”. We were never connected to any of the action, it like watching several boxing matches at the same time with out knowing which bout to be concentrating on. In Gladiator Ridley Scott took us into the battle, into the coliseum, in Kingdom it is jus the opposite he took us out of the battle scenes.

To me the biggest issue with the movie was the script. It either needed to be 20 to 30 minutes shorter OR 20 to 30 minutes longer. It is like th Director/Writer/Exec Producer attempted to compromise with American view habits and picked a no-mans land for movie length. Now I need to quantify this that I have no problem sitting in a sit for four hours to watch a movie like many Americans do, so I am okay with long movies as long as they move the story along. In my opinion you had two incomplete movies meshed together and the director called it a single movie. On the one hand you have the action adventure story of Balian following his father Godfrey into action between the second and third crusades. On the other hand you have the love story of Balain of Ibelin and the Sybilla the sister of King Baldwin IV. The problem is neither story line is actually complete in this movie.

Historically speaking I have another problem, you have an incredible interesting period of history, with love stories, warfare, and other great storylines, so why did the author need to create a new one for this movie. I am reminded of Amistad or Gladiator where the real story is probably better than the one put on film.

On the Jeff scale the movie gets a very marginally passing grade of 5.4 out of 10.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Few movies face the mountian of expectations that Kingdom of Heaven does when it opens this weekend.
Kingdom of Heaven is another historic epic by director Ridley Scott who had much success with the release of Gladitor on the same weekend in 2000. Gladiator went on to both Critical acclaim and box office success something many of the most recent epic historical movies cannot claim.
The movie stars Orlando Bloom as a humble blacksmith turned knight during the beginning of the Second Crusade and the collapes of the Crusader state of Jersalem in late twelveth century.
While themovie has a stellar supporting cast (Liam Nesson, Edward Norton, Ulrich Thomsen, Jeremy Irons and Ghassen Massoud) the question being asked can Orlando Bloom be the strong enough in leading roll to bring success.
The movie is already a hit with a number of critics which build my expectations.

Posted by Jeffrey Johnson at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)