Movie Review: Unknown

Recently, I watched the film "Unknown" starring Liam Neeson and Diane Kruger.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

"Unknown" is an action-thriller-drama movie set in Berlin, Germany. Dr. Martin Harris and his wife arrive in Berlin for an important science conference; however, on the day of their arrival, Harris forgets a bag at the airport and tries to retrieve it, only to end up in a car accident. He wakes up four days later with amnesia and then remembers the conference and his name. However, when Harris returns to the hotel where he and his wife were staying, his wife does not know him and another man has assumed his identity. People start trying to chase Harris, and he turns to the cab driver Gina, who caused the car accident, and a German PI named Jurgen for help.

The plot seemed straightforward and interesting, but it became twisted and did not flow smoothly. As I watched it, it seemed as if the writers couldn't quite make up their mind as to the ending would be; this made the build-up confusing and the revelation looking as if it had suddenly been added with nothing to lead up to it. I still don't fully understand the assassination scheme and the whole thing about genetically modified corn. Also, the ending of the film felt like the ending of a Bourne movie, though it was not as well-done and did not fit in well with the rest of the movie.

The characters were all right though nothing memorable. At first, I sympathized with Harris when I wondered what was going on to him; however, by the end of the movie, he was nothing special. Harris remembering his true identity reminded me of Jason Bourne, but he was far less sympathetic than Bourne; Bourne's change of heart in the first film made sense, but Harris' did not. Neeson and Kruger had no chemistry together, and they did not work together well.

Maybe it was because of the meandering plot, but there was quite a bit of action in the movie though not as cool as other action films. I did have a problem with the shower sex scene and the meaningless off-screen sex in Gina's apartment; neither fit into the movie, and they seemed more like they were thrown in for no good reason whatsoever.

The movie looked like a popcorn film, but I was disappointed. It came across as meandering and then like a Jason Bourne wannabee that miserably failed. It was not a very memorable movie, and I'm not likely to watch it again.

I give it two stars out of five.

Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

This evening, I made my first trip to the movie theater in several months to see "Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

For those who are familiar with the original series that started back in 1968, the current movie is the first one of a reboot and does not deal with the original story.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

"Rise of Planet of the Apes" is a new origin story for the "Planet of the Apes" mythology. James Franco plays Will Rodman, a scientist who is trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's Disease, emotionally inspired by his own father who suffers from the disease. After Will's cure seems to fail when an intelligent chimpanzee Bright Eyes becomes violent, he and his assistant Franklin discover she has a baby. Not wanting to kill it, Will takes the baby home, where his father names it "Caesar." Because of the drugs given to his mother, Caesar becomes a highly intelligent chimpanzee. When Will's father's dementia returns, Will makes a new but more aggressive form of the virus, but he and his company do not test it on humans, preferring to continue the testing with chimps. After an incident involving Will's father, Caesar is sent to a primate house, where he is abused by the workers and is disgusted with the other unruly chimps. Caesar soon becomes the domineering chimp and begins instructing the other orangutans and gorillas, and things become more interesting when he manages to get a hold of the intelligence virus and give it to his companions.

The plot was easy to understand, coherent, and interesting. My one complaint is that it seemed a little slow, as the real action didn't begin until later in the movie. Part of that is that this movie is an origin story, which means that it's a mere introduction to what will happen later. Which means that if there is at least another movie in the works, then that one will likely deal with more actual conflicts between apes and humans and not the build-up.

The characters were divided into the human and the animal. The human ones were generally nothing memorable, but neither were they ones you disliked or hated, except for the greedy cooperation owners and the people who run the primate house. The apes were definitely meant to be sympathetic as they suffer from abuse at the hands of humans, and they all had their different personalities, like the young male who challenges Caesar, the ferocious gorilla Buck, or the orangutan who befriends Caesar.

The special effects for the movie were cool, especially in regards to the CGI apes. Andy Serkis did an excellent job doing Caesar's role, and the apes looked much better than in the 60's and 70's versions where people were just dressed up in makeup for the roles.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie, but I ended up thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an entertaining drama-action film, and I believe worthy of being continued. If a sequel is ever produced of similar quality, you will find me at the movie theater when it arrives.

I give this film four out of five stars.

Miniseries Review: John Adams

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm something of a history geek. So when a movie or TV series based on historical events comes out, I like watching it. There's nothing that pleases me more than a historically accurate telling of real events. Recently, I watched the TV miniseries "John Adams," based on the life of America's second president.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The TV miniseries is in seven parts and begins with John Adams as a farmer and lawyer in Boston, Massachusetts. He is called upon to defend the British soldiers accused of starting the Boston Massacre, much to the chagrin of his hot-headed cousin Samuel Adams. Adams is reluctantly dragged into joining the Continental Congress, but his hot-headed nature tends to alienate him. He is then sent away to France to ask the king for aiding the Americans, which causes him to butt heads with Ben Franklin and which causes tension at home as he misses his wife and children. Eventually he is reunited with his wife and with his friend Thomas Jefferson in France and visits Paris and England. Washington is elected the first president, and political struggles immediately begin, especially between Jefferson and Hamilton. Adams is elected the second president and is also beset with political tensions between Britain and France due to the French Revolution. After he fails to win another election, he retires on his family farm, where he suffers grave losses within his own family as he grows older and outlives most of them.

The show's writers did a good job of capturing the highlights of Adam's life between 1774 and his death. It moved at a good pace, and there was never a dull moment, even if Adams was reading a newspaper criticizing some political event or person; part of this was because of the characters, but I'll get to that later. I really enjoyed the look at power politics, such as the struggles between Jefferson and Hamilton, and it was a reminder that American politics were divided from the very beginning. The writers also did good in making certain scenes emotional, particularly in the last episode which has several deaths in it though other notable scenes are: Adams watching hot-headed Patriots tar a tax collector and Adams and his wife being reunited in France after several years apart.

The characters were very memorable, and the actors and actresses were chosen well. Paul Giamatti made a very good John Adams, capturing his sarcasm and his short-temper in a way that makes him flawed but likable. Laura Linney was a good Abigail Adams, and her character matured as she started off as an unsure young woman who did not like her husband being away so often, but she transformed into a strong shoulder for Adams. Tom Wilkinson, David Morse, and Stephen Dillane were also good in their roles as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, capturing what made these historical men unique. These characters kept the plot going, and they had good chemistry with one another, making the miniseries seem even more real.

The costumes, makeup, and scenery was also well-done. Everything looked accurate, and I felt as if I had been transported back to late colonial times. The makeup was especially excellent, especially as you watched the characters grow old, as their hair grows whiter and more wrinkles appear on their face. I was quite amazed at how they managed to make Giamatti look ninety years old.

All in all, the miniseries was excellent. I did not know much about John Adams and what he had done, but this gave me a good look into America's War for Independence and more into what went on behind the scenes, like in the Continental Congress. If you are an American history buff or someone in search of an accurate historical story, this is definitely the miniseries for you. Case in point: we got my sister, who's not very interested in history (and calls us history people geeks frequently), to watch the show, and she thoroughly enjoyed it.

I give it five out five stars.

Movie Review: Clash of the Titans

This evening, I watched "Clash of the Titans" with the family.

If you're like me, you've seen the original version released in 1981 which dealt with Perseus, the half-god and half-mortal, as he has adventures in saving his love Andromeda. It was also complete with Harryhausen graphics, which don't look very real but are nonetheless classic.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The 2010 "Clash of the Titans" is about Perseus, the illegitimate son of the Greek god Zeus and Danae, a queen; he and his mother are sentenced to die in a coffin, but Perseus survives as a baby and is adopted by a fisherman and his wife. However, the world is restless as men are openly questioning and rebelling against the gods on Olympus, including Perseus and his adopted father. After his family is killed, Perseus ends up in Argos, where his demigod nature is revealed, and he is called upon to save the princess Andromeda from the Kraken, a creature created by Hades to destroy the Titans. As Perseus and his group journey to find a way to kill the Kraken, they battle beasts like Medusa, the three witches, giant scorpions, and others, and Perseus continually resists his demigod nature and refuses to act like a god.

The plot was rather strange and did not smoothly flow together. It seemed to take aspects of the original movie as well as parts of Disney's 1996 "Hercules." Basically, you have the gods trying to get humans to love them, as human prayers power them; then there is Hades who is scheming to get Zeus out of the picture so he can be king of the gods; then there is Perseus resisting his demigod nature and hating the gods, refusing to use their many gifts; then there is the chaos in Argos as religious fanatics scream about doomsday and disobeying the gods, wanting to sacrifice Andromeda, who is willing to die to save others but whose father thinks otherwise. It all may tie in for some semblance of a plot, but I found that it did not really exist or flow. The movie seemed to be more about the big action scenes and declarations of independence from the gods but little else.

Part of the problem, I found was the severe deviance from Greek mythology. Io, instead of being one of Zeus' human lovers who was disguised as a cow, became a mortal cursed with agelessness and a romantic interest for Perseus, which Andromeda originally was. The djinn, an Arabic mythological creature, were added as beings to aid Perseus, but their addition was rather bizarre and did not fit. Acrisius, the husband of Danae, becomes Calibos (in the original movie, he was a monstrous being cursed by Zeus for killing the god's flying horses), and it's his wife, not his daughter, who is impregnated by Zeus; the entire circumstances surrounding Perseus' birth were also not from the original legend (the 1981 version sticks true to what the legend says what happened). Compared to the 1981 version, Zeus and Hades were the only two gods to play a major part in the events, also deviating from the legend. Perhaps it's just me, but I prefer it when movies stick to the original mythology because continuity is better (though Disney's "Hercules" is an exception because it was watered down for young audiences, but it still worked).

The characters were nothing truly memorable or special. Sam Worthington plays the reluctant hero Perseus who hates his true origins, which is a typical stereotype in modern stories. There is the military man Draco who is meant to be likable because he lost his daughter and hates the gods because of it. Queen Cassiopea is meant to be unlikable and boastful, and there is no sympathy at all for her, and her husband barely does anything in the story. Andromeda is supposed to be a beautiful princess, but I found she wasn't anything special other than the stereotypical royal girl who loves her people and wants to save them, despite what her parents want.

My biggest problem with the movie is that it came across as being more of an anti-religious rant than anything else. Practically all of the characters hate the gods while the gods themselves are portrayed as selfish and unlikable. The entire movie was anti-religious to the point that that was its theme, and the movie was meant to drive that theme into your head. It was very annoying (not to mention offensive, because I am a Christian), and it made the movie difficult to watch and enjoy. I would have liked the movie a little better if the theme was not as predominant.

The special effects were neat, ranging from the giant scorpions to the three witches to the Kraken. However, they often reminded me of stuff from other movies, namely "Pan's Labyrinth" or "Hellboy" (both the first and the second), and I would have liked more originality in that area. Also, in my personal opinion, I liked Harryhausen's animation better, even though the recent stuff was neat.

The movie looked like it would be a cheesy guilty pleasure, but it didn't turn out to be one for me. It was an anti-religious rant with little plot and special effects galore. I think I'll just stick to the original movie for the Perseus and Andromeda legend.

I give it one and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review: Hereafter

Last night, my mom and I watched Clint Eastwood's recent film "Hereafter."

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

"Hereafter" takes place in 2004 and 2005 and switches between three main characters. Matt Damon plays George, a psychic who can communicate with the dead but wants nothing more to do with his gift, which he calls a curse. The second character is Marie, a French reporter who has a near-death experience in the 2004 tsunami and decides to write a book about such experiences. The third character is Marcus, who loses his twin brother Jason and is placed in a foster home, where he tries to find a psychic who will enable him to talk to his dead brother. In the last twenty minutes of the film, these three characters finally collide in London, England.

The movie's plot was continually at a snail's pace, and I was constantly waiting for something to happen, but it never happened. There were a few exciting scenes like the tsunami or the train bombing in England, but they were rather out of place in the slow-moving plot. George doesn't do much except take an Italian cooking class and try to avoid giving people a reading, Marie spends her time thinking of her near-death experience and arguing with her publisher to get her controversial book published, and Marcus walks around in an emotionless daze, looking for a psychic or for some sign of his dead brother. And then, in the last twenty minutes, the plot becomes predictable when Marie ends up in London for a book fair and George is there on vacation, and the three characters finally interact, where Marcus finally accepts his brother's death and then George and Marie meet up to begin a romantic relationship. Other than that, there was no real goal for the plot, and it merely trudged along.

The characters were rather dull, and their experiences did not help the already-slow plot. Matt Damon is a talented actor, as seen in his roles in "Good Will Hunting" or the Bourne trilogy, but this was role was a waste of his talent; he spent most of the film complaining about his psychic abilities, and I felt little sympathy for his character. Marie was also a very dry, uninteresting character, and I could have cared less if her boyfriend cheated on her or if she lost her job because of her book. Marcus was also uninteresting, and I found it difficult to sympathize with him as he struggled to deal with the grief of his brother's death. The only character who had a semblance of life was Bryce Dallas Howard as Melanie, who George meets in his class, but she disappeared early on from the story and was not brought up again. Interesting characters can often save a dull story, but the ones in this film only added to its trudging nature.

There was ultimately nothing interesting or memorable about "Hereafter." I spent the entire film feeling bored and wondering when it would be over. The three stories did not interact or mix very well, and the characters were boring and forgettable. The concept was interesting, but it was not well-done; it needed a lot more work if it was to be a memorable, dramatic story about death.

I give it one star out of five.

Fringe- Redeemed Season 3?

Fox's television show "Fringe" had its season finale a little over a week ago. A few posts back, I went on a little rant on how I was disappointed with the way the show was going. However, curious to see if "Fringe" would redeem itself by the end of the season, I continued to watch it, even though I skipped over a few of the episodes. With the season finale, I am disappointed to say that "Fringe" season 3 was not redeemed in my eyes.

Disclaimer: The following views are not fully mine, as other "Fringe" fans have also voiced their own opinions, which I happen to agree with; so I am restating what other fans have said.

Comparing "Fringe" season 3 to its previous seasons, season 3 has fallen extremely short of what it used to be. One of these is in the plots and how the story is becoming weak and poorly written. In seasons 1 and 2, the writing remained consistent, and it was clear that the writers were making their way towards something cohesive and towards a larger picture. In season 3, this was not the case. Even though the machine seemed to be the underlying theme of the entire season, there were other side plots that seemed important and then were dropped and never resolved. For example, as a fan pointed out, Walternate's attempt to figure out how Olivia could cross between universes was never explained; another one would be Bolivia's rapid pregnancy, for which a reason was never given, and I would think there would be easier ways for Walternate and his minions to get Peter's DNA. Peter's vigilante activities against the shapeshifters were never explained, his more aggressive behavior, and the whole affair were quickly dropped after only one episode and never brought back.

Not only that, but looking back over the rest of the season, it became clear to me that the writers were not working with a unified plot anymore. An example is the First People. When the First People were first introduced in the episode "6955 kHz," they seemed like an interesting addition, as they had a different calender, invented the vacuum, and other things. However, by the season 3 finale, this perception changed with the rather weird statement that the First People were actually future Walter, Peter, Olivia, Ella, etc... Everything about that scenario completely contradicted the original information, and it almost looks like the writers had one idea in place and then abruptly changed their minds at the season's finale. This lack of a unified plot only led to further problems and story arcs that looked as if they were just thrown in for fun. I have no idea what the whole Belliva arc was about, as fans speculated that perhaps there was something more to Bell's motives, but in the end the storyline didn't make sense and added nothing to the season. This is very sloppy writing and is not at all what I expected from the writers from previous seasons.

Another problem this season was the pacing. The season started off strong, but as it went along, it felt like it was dragging its feet and not going anywhere. The whole Olivia/ Bolivia switch lasted too long and should have only been for a few episodes. After that arc was resolved, the middle of the season went limp. The episodes at that point became boring and added nothing to the overall plot, and the cases were nothing interesting, compared to those from seasons 1 and 2. Beginning with "6:02 AM," the build-up to the finale took way too long and seemed pointless. I felt as if the events of those three episodes could have been resolved in one episode and that the writers were just dragging out the plot. Not only that, but the entire finale buildup was disappointing; after a season finale, I generally get all excited in looking forward to the next season, but this time I did not feel that way.

Another problem this season was the characters. Because I am re-watching "Fringe" and am working on season 2 at the moment, I was struck by the difference in the characters between seasons 1 and 2 and then season 3. Olivia used to be a strong character, but this season she felt limp and not very interesting. Peter lost his cynic, humorous touch, and I lost respect for him when he did not recognize Bolivia's infiltration. Walter had a few memorable moments, but he was not as funny as he has been in the past. None of the other characters were memorable or deep either.

Given the poor quality of season 3 and how the writing is getting sour, I do not have high hopes for season 4. If Abrams took the reins of the show again, I could see some redemption, but currently I'm only expecting further decline. It is a great shame because "Fringe" started off as something that had great promise and that would not end up turning into "Lost," but now it looks like the original touch has been lost, most likely permanently. I may watch season 4 to see if the show is redeemed, but in the meantime I shall focus on seasons 1 and 2 for my dose of "Fringe."

Movie Review: The Young Victoria

Admittedly, I am a history geek, and, for reasons unknown, I have a thing for the English monarchy. So, when I heard that there was a movie in the works about Queen Victoria, I was interested.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

"The Young Victoria" begins about a year or so before Victoria will ascend to the throne of England. Victoria, the their to the throne, hates her restrictive life that is tightly controlled by Sir John Conroy and her submissive mother the Duchess of Kent, as she makes few public appearances and is treated like a child. Her uncle King William IV fears that if he dies before Victoria's 18th birthday then her mother and Conroy will control the throne. Meanwhile, Victoria's uncle Leopold, who is king of Belgium, wants to manipulate his niece and decides to do so through Victoria's young cousin Albert. Albert woos Victoria at his uncle's command, but he finds himself falling for her. Victoria becomes queen of England and rejects her mother and Conroy's influence, choosing to take her advice from the charming Lord Melbourne. However, this will make Victoria's reign difficult as she finds herself the target of assassination attempts and the hatred of the parliament and the people.

The story of Victoria was well-told and, from what I've read, the movie is pretty accurate. I especially enjoyed the whole complexities of the court and the political games that several of the characters played. One thing I do have against the plot is that it followed history but did not have an underlying flow to it. In other words, the plot runs between the first few years of Victoria's reign, but it seemed as if there was no real resolution. In the end, Victoria lets Albert become her greatest influence, but there is little mention of how she managed to successfully deal with her early unpopularity and her doubts about ruling. I understand all of that can't be explained in a movie that only deals with a few aspects of Victoria's life, but it would have been nice if there was a better flow with the general plot and a satisfactory ending.

The characters were also well-done. I have only seen Emily Blunt in a few films, but she did an excellent performance as Victoria, capturing both the pride and determined nature of the princess/queen as well as her vulnerable and unsure moments. Rupert Friend did well as Albert, and I liked how he transformed from a willing political pawn to an independent man. The characters were written in such a way that you either truly dislike them (like the Duchess of Kent and Conroy) or like them (like William IV or even Melbourne), and all of them behaved in ways that were consistent for that time period.

I truly enjoyed the romance between Victoria and Albert. It was truly well-written, non-sappy, and Blunt and Friend had excellent chemistry between them. Their relationship was one where you would say "awwwwwww" when they marry and then when they are reconciled after their argument. It was sad, though, when at the end of the film they mention Albert's early death and how Victoria remained loyal to him until her own end.

Another good aspect of the film was how realistic it all was. The costumes were good, and the settings of the palaces and gardens were excellent. To me, they all captured the air of nineteenth century England with no sense of modernity in them, as is the tendency to happen in recent historical films.

I truly enjoyed watching "The Young Victoria." I enjoyed its historical accuracy and the realistic characters, which are hard to find nowadays. If you are into films based off of historical events, then this is the movie for you.

I give it four out five stars.