I'm Not There

(2007)

Todd Says:

2.5 STARS

Let me start by saying that I AM a huge Dylan fan, but it just wasn't enough to make this movie work for me. I'm Not There feels too disjointed, and ends up being hard to follow. Which may have been Director Todd Haynes' intention. I know that the point was to show us how many times Bob Dylan reinvented himself throughout his ongoing career, but his method just didn't sit well with me.

To start with, Bob Dylan is not a character in this movie. Haynes invents totally separate persona's for each phase of Dylan's life, complete with new names. So this is, in effect, a movie about six or seven or eight (it's hard to keep up) different characters. I feel that this method detracts from Dylan's actually ability to grow as an artist, because we never see any of these different characters grow. We're just thrown back and forth in this sloppy time frame between one character and another.

With all of that said, the acting in this film, by the truly all-star cast, is phenomenal. Each actor does a great job of becoming the Dylan they are assigned, whether his name is Jack, Jude, or Billy the Kid. I'm Not There (possibly so named because Dylan isn't even in it) is a jumble of surreal imagery, at times beautiful and poetic and at other times dark and unsettling.

This movie is probably going to be a love-it or hate-it movie for you, so I will warn you to approach it cautiously. If you like surreal film than this is probably a safe bet, if you're looking for a straight forward biopic then not so much. The music is great.

Alexis says:

1 STAR

I was really looking forward to this film. I had heard great things about it, especially Cate Blanchett's performance and I really like Bob Dylan's music and had been listening to the I'm Not There soundtrack for months on and off and The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll is one of my all time favorite songs. With that said, I was rather disappointed in this film.

Cate Blanchett was great and so was the music but the rest of it was just blah. I just really didn't care for the idea. The movie's sequence was confusing and unflattering to the film and whole scenes and actors could have been completely cut from the film.

I wish we would have watched No Direction Home or The Other Side of The Mirror, which are more documentary style and I think would probably be much better. I can accept the fact that I didn't get Todd Haynes vision, but regardless, I didn't care much for this film.

The Dark Knight

(2008)

Sue says:

3.5 Stars

I really wanted to love this movie. I'll start with the good. The acting, which I thought was great. To be fair it's an action/comic book movie, not Out of Africa, so when I say great, I'm grading on the comic book scale. Heath Ledger's Joker was everything promised and more. He was transformed. I found myself a few times trying to see if I could see Heath at all. Christian Bale is my favorite Batman, he makes me believe that it's hard to be a hero. Aaron Ekhart, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldham, all very enjoyable. I'm not a big Maggie Gyllenhaal fan, to me she always seems to come off a little self-righteous no matter what the role, and this was no exception.

The movie is action packed and the effects were fabulous. Technically speaking it was a great movie. The bad guys were bad, the cops corrupt, and the Bat conflicted. When all is said and done of course, justice prevails, for now anyway.

The problem for me is that it was just a little too dark. A little too hopeless. I couldn't really get past the pity I felt for all of Gotham's residents, even the Joker. I wanted him to check into Markham, get some plastic surgery and be redeemed.

*One last thing, on my soapbox. If you are thinking of taking a child to see this movie, by child I mean anyone under 15, PLEASE screen it first. In our theater last night there were young children(under 5), this movie is absolutely rated PG-13 for a reason. Be responsible.

Todd Says:

4 STARS

This is the second film that we've seen in the theatre all year, and I think that it was worth it. I do very much enjoy Chirstopher Nolan's vision for the Dark Knight, and I'm glad that he and Hollywood have decided to reinvigorate the franchise. (God knows that everyone regrets that little Mr. Freeze fiasco.)

Too Dark? That depends. It depends on what you want from a story about a man driven to the brink of insanity by grievous loss, who decides to take justice into his own hands no matter what the personal cost to himself. I feel that premise gives you a little leeway to dip into the nearly macabre when you need to.

And the VILLAINS! I don't know about you but that is what has always brought me back to the Batman stories. Such wonderful, colorful, maniacal villains. Heath Ledger does a great Joker, a different Joker than I'm used to, and I've seen my fair share of Joker Incarnations, but a wonderful, twistedly insane "engine of chaos." That's all that I'd like to say on that point, I think that Ledger was a great actor, but I hate to deify a dead junkie.

Bale and Oldman are great, as usual as the conflicted good guys trying to do as much right as possible without breaking too many rules. I think that Aaron Eckhart was brilliant as the goody-goody District Attorney, Harvey Dent.

So go out and pay your $10 per person and help this monster break some more records.

Alexis says:

4.5 STARS

For my second venture into the theatre this year I chose The Dark Knight and what a dark story it was, but overwhelmingly written and acted it was. Maybe it's the fact that Nolan was so involved, maybe it was Ledger's incredible performance, maybe it was the story but the fact is that whatever went into this movie just worked.

I am not as big a fan of the comic genre or Batman even as a lot of other people I know but I thoroughly enjoyed Batman begins as well as Christian Bale's Batman. I was happy to see Bale as well as many of the other actors return in the Dark Knight. I got a little hopeful at the beginning that Scarecrow had returned but alas it wasn't so, maybe in a later sequel? But even with Scrarecrow mournful absent the villians in this movie were well written and portrayed. Ledger's perfromance as the Joker almost lives up to the hype but it was pleasing enough that I won't take anything away from it (not that I even could). My biggest worry is that all the focus gets shifted to Ledger when Oldman, Bale and Eckhart are all as equally impressive (if not more so) in thier roles.

I was a little nervous because I had read many news articles over the weekend about different records The Dark Knight had replaced, I was worried that people are just too willing to drop $10 on anything. Turns out The Dark Knight met if not exceeded all of my expectations. Here's to the sequel!

The Patriot

(2000)


Alexis says:





2.5 STARS


I have now seen this movie twice and it isn't that I dislike it I am just not all that moved by it. The story is historical accurate enough and sad enough I just don't find myself caring about the characters the way I know I should. If I want an epic historical love tale starring Gibson in the future I think I will stick to Braveheart.



Todd Says:

3 STARS


For a semi-historical action/war movie (which may be my favorite genre) The Patriot is just O.K. I enjoyed it fine, I just feel like Mel is a bit melodramatic in parts, like the beginning, the middle and the end.

Sometimes Hollywood tends to overuse an actor because they can fill seats in the theatre, in my humble opinion thats how Gibson gets so much work. If Mad Max hadn't been so good, we never would have had to suffer through eight Lethal Weapon movies.

Anyway, take Mad Max out of it, and the Patriot would have been alot better. But the bottom line is: it's not a bad movie, I did enjoy it, and if you are one of those Detective Riggs fans then you'll probably love it.