Review: Jumper

jumper_cov.jpgYear: 2008
Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Samuel Jackson, Rachel Bilson, Jamie Bell
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 53

Plot
A young man discovers he has the power to teleport.

Quick Review
The action, pace, and premise of Jumper are intriguing, but the weaknesses with unsatisfactory story development and equally shallow characters hold this film down. Disappointing to see this film not reach its potential.

Full Review
My greatest concern as I sat down to watch Jumper was that they would muck up the intriguing premise. When you give an individual the power to teleport, you run the risk of your movie falling apart in a hash of illogical plot holes. Well, I’m happy to report that the film does an admirable job of sticking to its premise. Unfortunately, other problems with Jumper keep this film entrenched in mediocrity.

In a lot of ways, Jumper feels like a half of a movie. The story starts nicely enough, as we see the fifteen-year-old jumper_2.jpgDavid Rice (Hayden Christensen) learn of his teleportation (jumping) powers. After a somewhat plodding development into adulthood, we rejoin the 23-year-old bachelor living an egotistical life of world travel, parties, and self-gratification. And then everything changes in an instant when the Paladins—hunters of Jumpers—locate David in his urban penthouse. The rest of the movie is basically David and his girlfriend (Rachel Bilson) trying to escape the relentless Paladins, led by Roland (Samuel Jackson).

On the surface of things, this might not sound like such a bad movie, and it’s not. The movie had enough thrills to hold my interest. The action, although it gets a bit repetitive, is engaging and decently edited. There are some frantic jump fights amidst some spectacular cinematography. The film’s pace, with the exception of a few plodding spots, keeps moving things along briskly enough. Rachel Bilson helps with some nice eye candy from the female side, and Christensen (a Theo Epstein clone?) is pleasant on the eyes from the male side. The script is unmemorable, but suffices.
jumper_1.jpg
But one of the major problems with Jumper is that we simply don’t get enough answers. Why are the Paladins hunting the Jumpers? How do the Jumpers get their powers? Why is David’s mother who she is? I love mysteries in a movie, but you’ve got to give me some bones along the way. Jumper gives us lots of questions but few answers. The movie simply doesn’t build on its premise enough to sustain interest over its 88-minute length. The ending, in particular, leaves everything hanging and concludes nothing. In many ways, this film plays like an excellent pilot for a television series.

They might have gotten away with this secrecy and lack of information if they had created characters that were easy to care about, but David Rice is one amazingly shallow protagonist. In essence, the guy is a thief living a hedonistic rachel_bilson.jpglife of luxury. In one defining scene David watches a news report of drowning flood victims. The reporter mentions that the people are certainly doomed because no one can get to them. David’s heroic response? He jumps to a London bar, has a one-night stand, and then jumps to go surfing. David’s shallowness has to be intentionally portrayed, but because David stays essentially the same throughout the film, there is little to like about the guy. The rest of the cast is essentially in the same vain. Millie, David’s girlfriend, shows little to endear her to audiences. Griffin, another jumper that meets David, is equally self-contained. In many ways, you get the sense that they’re saving all development for a sequel.

Jumper is quite mediocre in other ways as well. Christensen and Bilson never find any electricity in their love interest. Samuel Jackson acts convincingly, but his role is one-dimensional. On a bright note, Jamie Bell infuses his character with a frazzled, hunted vibe that makes his character the most intriguing in the film.

In the end, however, while the action, pace, and premise of this film are intriguing, the weaknesses with shallow story development and equally shallow characters hold this film down. It’s a shame, really, as this film has ample unrealized potential.

Score
Pace: 68
Plot: 48
Action: 63
Consistent Premise: 88
Script/Quotes: 58
Characters: 38
Acting: 50
Villain: 61
Body Count: 15
Time to First Dead Body: Unknown
Babes: 63
Hunks: 72
Explosions: 40
Special Effects: 77
Stunts: 60
Ending: 33

Overall: 53

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

narnia_cov.jpgYear: 2005
Director: Andrew Adamson
Starring: William Moseley, Georgie Henley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, Tilda Swinton, Liam Neeson
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 46

Plot
Four children find themselves in a magical land that is imprisoned in winter by an evil witch.

Quick Review
Narnia is a disappointing film. Despite some impressive visual effects, Disney’s influence neuters any sense of realism to the ferocity of the film, the child actors lack force, and the film flows like mud.

Full Review
narnia_3.jpgAt a glance, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe could be a remarkable action film. We’ve got a zoo’s worth of digital creatures filling the story, including a lion for a king and wolves for secret police. The sets are compelling. The story is sufficiently epic. Yet about halfway through this first film of Narnia, I was thoroughly bored. There are too many deadening flaws in this film.

First and foremost, Narnia drags interminably in places. In the film’s defense, I may have been more sensitive to this than others, because I had read the book before seeing the film. In the more important details, the film’s plot stays faithful to the book, so if you’ve read the book, you know what’s going to happen. And part of the problem is that the producers turned a short novel into a two-hour and fifteen-minute movie. There’s just not enough meat in the story to sustain this length of film.

narnia_4.jpgBut even with this in mind, Narnia lacks any sense of velocity and pace. Much of the sluggishness stems from scenes that simply go on a few seconds too long. I found myself waiting for the next scene, waiting for something to happen. This film would have been much better with crisp editing that lopped off 20% of the footage. By the halfway point, I was waiting for the damn thing to end.

And then we get to the acting. I’ve commented in other reviews how risky it is to have children attempt to carry an action film. While Narnia never totally flies into the crapper because of its young cast, the major actors lack punch and conviction. Their rawness reminds you again and again that you are watching a film, and it holds you back from any sense of immersion in the story.

narnia_5.jpgThe film’s Disney-esque action and violence adds more bricks to the wall that prevents viewer immersion. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the conclusion of the film: Narnia culminates in a long battle in which not a drop of blood is spilled. Now, I’m a big fan of escapist action, but Narnia takes this to a new level. I felt like I was watching and entire cast “play” war. On top of this, the action for the most part is generically choreographed. With the exception of a handful of fast, powerful sequences, the action is static and lifeless. Toss in the children actors and you’re left with a final confrontation that looks fake and has the emotional impact of a dress rehearsal. The shame of this is that the digitally created Minotaurs, Cyclops, and aerial creatures look fantastic. Aslan, the lion king, is a work of art. Used properly, these creatures could easily have created a memorable climax to the movie.

In other areas, the film is decidedly mediocre. The script works well enough, but contains nothing particularly memorable of narnia_1.jpgmoving. The White Witch makes for a potentially strong villain, but Tilda Swinton never quite convinced me of her utterly evil nature: perhaps we can blame this on a softening Disney influence as well?

As for babes and hunks ratings, Tilda Swinton has good enough looks and gets enough of an evil vibe going to get the film some points on the babe scale. From the hunk perspective, there are a few centaurs that turn heads, but it’s not a good sign when the hottest males in your film are half horse.

In conclusion, Narnia is a disappointing film. Despite some impressive visual effects, Disney’s influence neuters any sense of realism to the ferocity of the film, the child actors lack force, and the film flows like mud.

Fun Fact
No real lions were used in the film.

Score
Pace: 38
Plot: 41
Action: 54
Consistent Premise: 78
Script/Quotes: 44
Characters: 48
Acting: 42
Villain: 46
Body Count: 39
Time to First Dead Body: 1 hours, 26 minutes
Babes: 45
Hunks: 26
Explosions: 4
Special Effects: 60
Stunts: 20
Ending: 54

Overall: 46

Review: Flyboys

flyboys_cov.jpgYear: 2006
Director: Tony Bill
Starring: James Franco, Jean Reno, Martin Henderson, Jennifer Decker
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 82 (Solid action keeps it airborne)

Plot
American men volunteer to become pilots and fight for France’s Lafayette Escadrille in World War I.

Quick Review
Flyboys is a remarkable showcase of riveting action in the air. Watch this film for its thrilling dogfights, which more than make up for the generic, clunky, and unfinished drama on the ground.

Full Review
Flyboys takes us back to World War I, an era that Hollywood rarely touches. Indeed, Hollywood was so reluctant to fund this movie that the producers had to scrounge together flyboys_4.jpg$60 million of their own money just to make the film. But the risk paid off. Flyboys sparkles in recapturing the honor and brutality of World War I aerial combat. As an action film and as a war film, Flyboys is a gem.

In many ways Flyboys is a throwback to the old-fashioned, traditional war films of fifty years ago. John Wayne could have played the main role of Rawlings, an American rancher who volunteers to fight for France’s Lafayette Escadrille. The generic plot is straightforward and often predictable as it drives home the horror of the war in the air, and the courage and the cowardice of the men that flew as the world’s first fighter pilots. There are plenty of grimaces and steely glares, and the obligatory romantic interest.

Yet what the film lacks in originality of plot, it makes up for with its dynamic action sequences. The twisting, close-range dogfights of World War I are captured with a deft combination of digital and real aircraft. Using motion-captured acrobatic plane footage as flyboys_1.jpgthe basis for the movements of its digital aircraft, Flyboys is a collage of impeccably crafted battles in the air. There is nothing in film history that comes close to capturing the gripping violence in the skies of World War I like this film. The producers string these scenes together with a nice balance of chaos and flow. Although at times I got confused as to who was who in the air, for the most part the action is remarkably easy to follow.

The producers also did a wonderful job in mixing up the action. This film could have easily become a redundant series of identical dogfights, but instead we’ve got a wide range of scenes. There are duels, mass dogfights, zeppelin attacks, bomber runs, and even a thrilling rescue scene on the ground in no-man’s land.

While the action is clearly the strongpoint of Flyboys, it gets help from decent acting and a passable script. James Franco is adequate yet undistinguished in his lead role, but gets help from Jennifer Decker, as Rawlings’ French love interest. Decker positively shines in her role,
flyboys_5.jpgand lends a remarkable charm to her character. Tyler Labine and Abdul Salis also deserve praise in their roles as American pilots. All in all, they engage us just enough for us to care about what happens in the air. Elsewhere, the cast is average.

While Flyboys shines in the air, however, it struggles on the ground, and this keeps the film from rising to any level of greatness. The movie toggles between action in the air and drama on the ground, but the drama on the ground feels incomplete and unfinished. As a matter of fact, in some ways the film itself feels somewhat unfinished. A significant element of the story on the ground is the convincing and charming romance between Rawlings and Lucienne, a local French girl played by Decker. Yet, while the action in the air reaches a satisfying conclusion, this romance inexcusably gets concluded with one sentence flashed on screen as the movie ends. Huh? Many of the sub-plots as well ultimately go nowhere and end in dead-ends. You could argue that this is a nature of war—lives cut short and all—but even for a war film the drama on the flyboys_6.jpgground in Flyboys is more of an interlude to the action in the air than it is a strength of the film. While the weak sub-plots and two-dimensional characters don’t impact the action in the air, they do lessen the amount we end up caring for the pilots when they fly and die.

As for our babes and hunks rating, Jennifer Decker is in essence the only woman of note in the film, and she does give the babe rating a nice nudge up with her mellifluous French. The hunk rating is sky high, with Martin Henderson leading the way in a handsome cast.

In the end, Flyboys is a remarkable showcase of riveting action in the air. This film is worth watching for its thrilling dogfights alone, which more than make up for the generic and clunky drama on the ground.

Fun Facts
Remarkably, the film includes 850 digital scenes yet cost only $60 million to make.

Score
Pace: 80
Plot: 55
Action: 95
Consistent Premise: 90
Script/Quotes: 58
Characters: 66
Acting: 68
Villain: 73
Body Count: 65
Time to First Dead Body: 38 minutes, 39 seconds
Babes: 55
Hunks: 93
Explosions: 82
Special Effects: 95
Stunts: 61
Ending: 37

Overall: 82

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

chamber_of_secrets_cov.jpgYear: 2002
Director: Chris Columbus
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Kenneth Branagh, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 83

Plot
Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts only to find the school threatened by an evil force.

Quick Review
On the whole, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a strong step in the right direction for the series. The main actors are growing into their roles, the emphasis on story lifts the film to a higher plane, and the presentation of the world of Harry Potter is outstanding. However, some clunky acting moments, some sluggishness in pace, and several sub-standard action sequences hold this film back from greatness.

Full Review
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone did an admirable job of introducing the world of Harry Potter, but faltered in spinning an engaging tale. The second movie in the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, does an equally chamber_of_secrets_4.jpgadmirable job of depicting the world of Harry Potter. The film also does a significantly better job of story telling. There are several weaknesses that keep the film from greatness, but on the whole this film makes for a solid evening of entertainment, and is much-improved over the first film.

Visually, this film is a treat. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets literally puts you in the world of Harry Potter, and does so with style and grace. The sets are spectacularly rich and vivid. Once again I was especially impressed with Hogwarts. This film captures the mood, weight, and history of the institution perfectly. But what really makes this world sparkle is the fantastic casting. From Hagrid to Dumbledore and from Harry Potter to Severus Snape, these actors fit their roles marvelously. It’s hard to overstate how much pure fun it is to watch J. K. Rowling’s characters come to life on the big screen.

Enhancing the effectiveness of this film is the much improved acting of the main three characters. In the first film, you could feel the rawness and lack of range of Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter). Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), in particular, missed the mark. Here, however, Radcliffe and Grint are more convincing, and Emma Watson has lost the bitchiness that marked her role in the first film. Watson brings out the gentler side of Hermione, and chamber_of_secrets_3.jpgthis alone markedly improves the film. There is still much room for improvement here, however. Grint, in particular, has a habit of overreaching on some of his expressions, and Radcliffe occasionally comes across flat.

In more minor roles, there are disappointments as well, and once again these center on the younger actors. Bonnie Wright, as Ginny Weasley, is robotic in her role. Tom Felton, as Draco Malfoy, looks the part perfectly and delivers solid one liners, but stumbles badly when asked to handle longer dialogue. Both of these actors will need to mature into their roles effectively as the series moves forward. Elsewhere, however, the acting shines. Jason Isaacs plays a remarkably sinister Lucius Malfoy. I was also particularly impressed with Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), and Alan Rickman (Severus Snape).

Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone’s greatest weakness was an overemphasis on portraying the world of Harry Potter at the expense of crafting a solid story. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, however, the emphasis shifts to chamber_of_secrets_1.jpgstorytelling, and this lifts the film to a higher level. On the whole, the plot presents the main details logically, moves forward consistently, keeps the viewer engaged, and sticks to the premise established in the book. At two hours and 41 minutes, however, this is a long film, and at times the movie stutters and wander a bit. In particular, I felt the pacing a bit sluggish in the middle third of the film.

Supplementing the story are some effective yet inconsistent action sequences. In much the same way as Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone, this second film does a wonderful job with the imagery of Harry’s world, but struggles when elements in this world are fighting with and slamming into each other. In particular, the great spider Aragog looked laughably cheap and artificial. The flying car scenes, as well, struck me as toy-like and clunky. Fawkes, Dumbledore’s phoenix, looked ridiculously mechanical in many scenes. In a film so rich with imagery, these elements stand out like a zit on Emma Watson’s nose, and they pull you sharply out of the world of Harry Potter. To the film’s credit, however, there are many well presented sequences. Spellcasting sparkles with life. Stunts and falls are sparse but effective. The monster chamber_of_secrets_5.jpgof the Chamber of Secrets—who seems to have drawn more of the budget—moves and strikes in a moderately convincing action sequence. Still, for a series as visually magnificent as Harry Potter, it’s a shame the action elements on the whole are not on the same level.

As for our babes and hunks rating, once again I’m close to pleading no comment. I’ll pass on commenting on the child actors, and elsewhere there just isn’t much to speak of. There are essentially no actors that fall into the babe category in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. In the hunk category, we have a strikingly handsome Jason Isaacs, and a moderately good-looking Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle, but their roles are minor.

On the whole, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a strong step on the right direction for the series. The main actors are growing into their roles, the emphasis on story lifts the film to a higher plane, and the presentation of the world of Harry Potter is outstanding. However, some clunky acting moments, some sluggishness in pace, and several sub-standard action sequences hold this film back from greatness.

Fun Fact
Fourteen Ford Anglias were demolished during the making of the scene where the car crash lands into the Womping Willow.

Score
Pace: 69
Plot: 87
Action: 59
Consistent Premise: 96
Script/Quotes: 83
Characters: 97
Acting: 79
Villain: 78
Body Count: 0
Time to First Dead Body: None
Babes: 0
Hunks: 51
Explosions: 31
Special Effects: 79
Stunts: 31
Ending: 83

Overall: 83

Related Reviews: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Review: The Spy Who Loved Me

spy_who_loved_me_cov.jpgYear: 1977
Director: Lewis Gilbert
Starring: Roger Moore, Barbara Bach, Curd Jürgens, Richard Kiel, Caroline Munro
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 56 (Not Quite)

Plot
James Bond works with Soviet spy Major Anya Amasova to find two missing nuclear submarines.

Quick Review
The Spy Who Loved Me gets many elements of a good action movie correct. The story holds up well, there are plenty of creative action sequences, and Roger Moore does an acceptable job as James Bond. But Barbara Bach’s ineffectiveness as the lead female, and the clunky and dated edge to the action sequences hold the film down.

Full Review
There is a lot to like about The Spy Who Loved Me. All the ingredients of a solid Bond film are in place. We’ve got respectable attention to story, some grand action scenes, and high-tech gadgetry. But the film also has critical weaknesses, and these ultimately drag the film down.

roger_moore.jpgThings start off with a bang. The opening scene has one of the more spectacular stunts of the Bond series: a death-defying free-fall ski/parachute jump from Canada’s Mt. Asgard. The scene is breathtaking, and it is captured in one astounding take. The rest of the film keeps up the abundance of action: we’ve got underwater chases, a large scale battle inside a tanker, an amphibious Lotus Esprit that doubles as a submarine, a seven-minute car escape, and a good smattering of the mandatory James Bond fistfights and duels.

On the surface, all this sounds great. But much of the action never reaches good velocity. The fistfights, in particular, reminded me of the fights from the earliest Bond films. They come off particularly wooden. The car chase, as well, seemed a bit stuttering and never reaches its potential. With the exception of the spectacular Lotus Esprit, the high-tech gadgetry is hopelessly outdated, and by relying on this to carry a strong impact in the movie, the film loses the_spy_who_loved_me_3.jpgforce as it ages. For example, in one scene Bond rides a jet ski (a “wetbike”). In 1977, this was a flashy new product seen for the first time in this movie. Now, however, the scene holds nostalgic value but little power. Even the creative underwater scenes with the impressive Lotus Esprit come across as choppy, and this action pales in comparison to the magnificent underwater work of Thunderball, which had impressive scope, elegance, and power.

But more so than the action, The Spy Who Loved Me suffers from the casting of Barbara Bach as Major Anya Amasova, a Soviet spy who teams up with Bond for much of the movie. She is supposedly the best Soviet spy, but at best she comes across as occasionally resourceful, and for much of the movie she degenerates into a deer in the headlights sort of damsel in distress. Even accounting for the Russian accent, her lines are weakly delivered and unconvincing, and she pulls down the otherwise respectable acting of those around her. It’s like someone kidnapped barbara_bach_2.jpga real Russian spy and substituted it with a bright college instructor. Even in the looks department, Bach misses the mark. Admittedly, at times she comes across as strikingly gorgeous, but in many other scenes she struck me as boney and tired. And was it just me, or did she need to see a dentist? All this would be minimal if Bach played a minor role in the film, but she is with Bond for much of the movie, and this weakness takes a lot of the force out of the movie. With better casting in this role, The Spy Who Loved Me would perhaps rise to be one of the best Bond movies.

Fortunately, The Spy Who Loved Me does get a lot of other elements right. The story is crisp, tight, and logical. Roger Moore does an acceptable job as Bond, and the script keeps things moving. And although the movie stretches its premise in a few places, it gives it enough nods of respect that the plot holds together nicely. At least until the end, that is, at which time our evil mastermind brilliantly defends his last base with one measly assistant. But this is forgivable, and by then we’re all ready for the movie to end anyway. To be fair, if you are going to defend a base with one assistant, choosing the likeable, metal-toothed Jaws (Richard Kiel) is a solid choice. The massive Kiel does spy_who_loved_me_1.jpga remarkable job infusing Jaws with an adorably dogged and dopey vibe. His outstanding work overcomes the unmemorable work of the main villain Stromberg (Curd Jürgens), and makes Jaws one of the most original Bond villains.

Although I’ve commented on the attractiveness of Barbara Bach, I’d be remiss if I didn’t comment on the attractiveness of the other characters in a Bond movie. The babe rating of The Spy Who Loved Me benefits from the solid looks of Caroline Munro, who plays one of Stromberg’s assistants. As for our hunk rating, the usually handsome Roger Moore came off a bit pasty and weak to me in this film, but he still keeps the film’s rating well above average. The rest of the male cast varies, but ultimately ends up average.

In the end, The Spy Who Loved Me gets many things correct, and is an improvement over the weak The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). The story holds spy_who_loved_me_4.jpgup well, there are plenty of creative action sequences, and Roger Moore does an acceptable job as James Bond. But Barbara Bach’s ineffectiveness as the lead female, and the clunky and dated edge to the action sequences hold the film down.

Fun Facts
In the breathtaking ski jump in the opening scene, only one of the numerous cameras positioned to film the sequence managed to keep the camera on Rick Sylvester, the jumper.

The Lotus Esprit was in fact a functional underwater car. However, for buoyancy reasons, the driving compartment had to be filled with water while the vehicle was submerged, so scuba divers did the underwater driving.

Score
Pace: 53
Plot: 68
Action: 58
Consistent Premise: 67
Script/Quotes: 40
Characters: 83
Acting: 52
Villain: 81
Body Count: 83
Time to First Dead Body: 6 minutes, 59 seconds
Babes: 72
Hunks: 77
Explosions: 75
Special Effects: 68
Stunts: 87
Ending: 78

Overall: 56

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

← Previous Page — Next Page →