John Ford is just such a good director, it’s a surprise when he does a misstep. And this one is not a misstep. It’s another excellent movie from Ford, about the military in the Old West, and the crucial differences between military protocol and military effectiveness. As usual, Ford juggles excellent photography and good performances (although Shirley Temple is a little wooden, apparently she didn’t mature in acting ability as she matured in age). Although it’s great to see members of Ford’s regular ensemble in supporting roles, it’s Wayne and Fonda’s picture, though, as the two men constantly butt heads about how best to deal with the different situations that arise. It’s to Ford and Fonda’s credits that they don’t make Col. Thursday a one-dimensional hardass, showing that although he is a stickler for protocol, that’s not ALWAYS a bad thing. An excellent Western, although I think this one’s more for establish fans of the genre than a movie that would draw new people in.

Some action movies are good because of the blend of humour and action, some are good because of the explosions, some are good because of the fights. And in Taken, it’s the fights, pure and simple. Plus, Liam Neeson. He’s a beast in this movie.

It takes a little time to get going, but that’s the point: you’re thrust into this guy’s life, and while you know he’s a bad dude from the skills he displays while bodyguarding, it’s not until the action REALLY ramps up that pace suddenly goes from first to fifth gear, and you get sucked right in. The quiet parts of the movie are good, but like I said before: it’s all about the fight scenes, and they are AMAZING. And Neeson’s such a good actor that he completely sells the physicality while still embodying the quiet moments. I could easily watch this again. And again.

All my friends told me I would hate this, and while I didn’t hate it, I didn’t love it either. There are a lot of changes from the comics to the film, some of which were interesting, while some were simply unnecessary and therefore left me wondering why they had changed them (which was distracting). I was kind of intrigued by the Training Day vibe I got at the beginning of the movie, but that was quickly abandoned. And there were a lot of internal inconsistencies: I have no problems with space cops powered by magic wishing rings, but you had better have the world those space cops inhabit be consistent, dammit. An interesting re-interpretation of the Green Lantern story; if it was any longer I wouldn’t recommend watching it, but at just over 70 minutes it’s worth it.

The first time I read Identity Crisis, I was blown away. I hadn’t read anything this intense in an in-continuity comic book, and without being overly familiar with some of the main characters – The Atom, Elongated Man, and Dr. Light in particular – I fell for Brad Meltzer’s story hook line and sinker.

The second time I read Identity Crisis, it was just after I’d read Infinite Crisis, and the DC Universe was DEEP in the continuity that Meltzer had set up. I was getting sick and tired of the same plot threads being dragged out over and over again, and I started picking apart Identity Crisis ended up thinking it was a piece of crap.

The third time I read Identity Crisis was this weekend. And it was a weird amalgamation of my previous two times. I got sucked in by the emotional beats of the story – the first issue, with Ralph crying at the funeral, still brings me to tears – and I saw that yes, he really had made a respectable murder mystery out of the thing. Plus, there were some GREAT fight scenes. And yet, I didn’t like some of the characterizations and plot points – does anyone REALLY buy into that “you only use 10% of your brain” claptrap any more? – and there were some really awful moments where I thought that Meltzer had gone wildly out of control, using shock value to hurt the audience rather than tell the story.

And art…well, the art ranges wildly in quality. There are some panels (particularly in issues 1-3) where the faces were almost ugly, and then others where he creates the perfect degree of suspense or horror. Part of it may be the pencils, but inks are suspect too (some of the pages of issue 7 look muddy and unflattering).

Overall? It was a good mystery, an emotional roller-coaster, and a decent read. I just wish the powers-that-be at DC had left it to be its own thing, and not used it as the backbone of their universe for the next few years. Then again, I can’t fault the book for that questionable decision. Worth reading, at least once.

Okay, I knew I shouldn’t have watched that. It wasn’t BAD, per se, but it wasn’t that good. The actors aren’t called on to do too much. John Travolta is “evil Travolta” (see Broken Arrow, Face/Off, etc), and Denzel Washington is a variation on “noble Denzel”. John Tuturro puts in a surprisingly good turn, though, considering the scene-chewing he’s been doing in big blockbusters lately. And all the suspense and genuine excitement from the first movie has been replaced by frenetic camerawork and over-the-top moviemaking. Really, aside from a few chases and crashes, there are hardly any genuine thrills in this movie. All of Scott’s cuts and chops take you right out of the film, turning a scene that should be taut and tense into something sloppy and slow.

Overall? Skip it and watch the original. And if you’ve seen the original? Watch it again.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I mean, I liked it, but only because of Meryl Streep & Stanley Tucci in the “Julia” segments. Either one of them, together or separate, were magic. The modern “Julie” parts? I could have done without those.

Really, this would have been a far superior movie if they had just made “The Julia Child Story” starring Streep & Tucci, and cut out all the Julie scenes. As it was, the contemporary scenes generally fell flat; I like Amy Adams but the character she was playing seemed kind of bland, and neither she nor Chris Messina can hold up to Streep & Tucci’s performances. The story fell apart in the last 20 minutes, and kind of limped towards an ending, but I have to say that overall, I enjoyed it. Nora Ephron puts out a better move than she has in a while, and like I said: the Julia Child scenes make everything worth it.

I thought that Half-Blood Prince was certainly one of the better movies in the franchise, based on one of the better books. There are some fantastic acting turns: Michael Gambon is awesome, as usual, and Rupert Grint does really well with (comparitively) little screen time. And I was surprised at the maturity of the filmmaking: there are some scenes that are crafted exactly like they were from a horror movie, which fits the tone well well. Plus, the film adaptation does away with some of the stuff I didn’t like from the book (for instance, by getting rid of the character of Tonks, they got rid of the ruination of said character).

The biggest problem with Half-Blood Prince is the problem I’ve had with the past few Harry Potter movies. Ever since Goblet of Fire, the movies have felt like the main plot makes up the framework of the movie, and then a handful of interesting scenes from the book are simply slapped on. This can make the movies feel disjointed, with scenes randomly appearing that have no further impact on the story. Still: I thought that this was one of the better Potter movies, and I think I could easily watch it again.

The Count of Monte Cristo is one of my favourite books, so I really tried not to have any of my expectations ruin this movie for me. And overall? I thought it was not bad, I guess, but they really changed a lot about the novel in the adaptation to the movie. Some of the changes are minor and nitpicky, and some of them are a little more blatant (e.g., how the movie ended), in order to “modernize” the story, I guess, despite the fact that it doesn’t need to be made modern. It’s a period piece, dammit!

Still, the story is BASICALLY the same, despite the fact that many of the characters’ motivations and personality traits get a makeover. And there are quite a few lines that made me groan they were so bad. So yeah. In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have liked it so much. But it’s adventure-y, and that’s usually enough to keep me along for the ride. Just remember, if you love the novel, try not to think about it too much during the movie. You’ll just get disappointed.

I really enjoyed Born Yesterday. Sure, the performances are broad, but the comedy is subtler than you would expect from the performances. Not that the performances are bad: some of them are terrific, Judy Holiday in particular.

I’ve read somewhere that the story is pro-Socialist and anti-Capitalist, and while I’ll admit that there are leanings that way, I don’t think that makes it a bad story: sure, the loudmouth lout boyfriend is a businessman, but the way he acts and talks about himself, it becomes fairly apparent that he is a “legitimate businessman,” if you know what I’m saying. William Holden doesn’t have that much to do but he does it well. And Judy Holiday was awesome, which I’ve said before but it bears repeating. At the beginning you might find some of the characters unlikeable and hard to watch, but I think this is definitely worth watching.

This movie was much better than I thought it would be. It’s basically Three Amigos meets Evil Dead: Bruce Campbell, divorced alcoholic B-movie actor, is brought to a small mining town to save them from the the god that’s attacking them. Sure, there’s cheesy acting, plot holes, and the like, but what the hell else would you expect? Campbell, who directs as well, knows exactly what he’s doing, making an effective satire that’s fun, funny, and exciting. Plus: the leading lady is REALLY good-looking, in a not-Hollywood-plastic way, and can act to boot. Something not easy to find in a big-budget horror movie these days. Worth a watch for fans of Bruce, for sure, and not nearly as bad as you’ve heard.