Archive for the 'Reviews' CategoryPage 2 of 4

Movie Review: Inside Man - 4/4

Published
by
Austen
on November 5, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 2 Comments

I know that I said I would review Click, but too bad! It’s my blog. Not yours. So yeah… Inside Man:

Put simply, Inside Man is a heist thriller. No - don’t click away. Yeah, it’s a heist thriller but it has more to it. Directed by Spike Lee (this, I admit is my first Spike Lee film) it takes place at a bank on Wall Street in New York City. And you know what? It was actually filmed ON LOCATION. Unlike some… other films of late. It’s a very enjoyable movie, pretty much sums it up.

The movie starts out following a van through the sites of New York City to some really funky music. After exploring the city and the opening credits, the van finally comes to a stop in front of the bank, and 4 painters get out. The next couple of minutes are beautifully played out with the takeover of the bank. Then the hostage negotiators are called in (Denzel Washington and Chiwetel Ejiofor [from Serenity]) and the movie goes into motion. But that’s not all. Lets just say that someone has something in the bank that needs to be taken care of by someone else. I know, really, really, really, REALLY bad explanation.

Anyway, the direction by Spike Lee is great. The movie is beautifully shot, the scenes are amazingly well-thought out and the interesting-factor of the movie is 100%. It’s not interesting like Stealth is (think explosions, big explosions) but it’s interesting without being super violent or even soft in the violence. There’s just enough of it to keep you worried about the hostage’s lives.

The acting is great. Clive Owen as the lead bad guy person is great, the star of the movie. Denzel Washington is good and fits the witty, smart character but doesn’t add anything amazing. The same with Jodie Foster, only you keep on expecting her to do something, but she doesn’t. There’s a reason why she’s sent to the crime scene, but not much happens with her. Nevertheless, the acting is terrific and believable.

Finally, my favorite part that really made the movie work. You know what I mean, it is the most understated part of all movies: The soundtrack. Terrence Blanchard’s soundtrack is mostly composed of a lone trumpet, strings, and a very nice cool light drum beat that gives the movie an edge of coolness as well as a bit of a jazzy feel. The movie’s musical themes sound REALLY good on that trumpet, making the soundtrack one of the highlights of the movie.

The New York City lore is great. It’s always fun to see a movie with “true New Yorkers” being… well, New Yorkers. Lots of New York jokes, and it helps being on location there.

Wow, you know I’ve gone through an entire review of a Spike Lee film without mentioning the social and racial undertones? Well, there are some. It’s not as in-your-face like in Crash, so it’s definitely not the main focus of the movie, but it’s definitely about all of that stuff.

What didn’t I like? Not much, really. The twist ending wasn’t much of a twist, you saw it coming from a mile away. But that’s about it.

Overall, Inside Man is really just a very, very enjoyable movie with a great setup which plays out really well, especially the big twist at the ending. And don’t forget about it’s high attention span factor.

Note: I am introducing a new rating system… stars!!! It’s out of 4.

So I give Inside Man 4/4 stars.

It should be noted that this movie is Rated R, has some violent violence, and has a lot of cursing.

Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean 2

Published
by
Austen
on July 23, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

I have to say, I really wanted to like the second Pirates movie. I really did. I knew it might not have good acting or story, but I expected for it to be a fun movie like the first one, at the very least. And it was the same director after all, Gore Verbinski. But it wasn’t to be like that. The movie is darker, scarier, and doesn’t get funny until the end.

Although it’s been some time since I last saw it, I really enjoyed the original Pirates of the Caribbean. It was action packed, funny, and had some great effects. And personally, I liked Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. Orlando Bloom was also pretty good, as was Keira Knightley. They all return in this one, but it just doesn’t work. The story is incoherent, and constantly changing, there aren’t any real big stakes, and the first half is just dark, gloomy, and boring.

The second half is more of what I expected. Not much of a story, but Captain Jack Sparrow getting into trouble. Hilarious sword fights, outrageous stunts, things like that. But still - the special effects are great, but there’s to much. In the original the bad guys were some pretty cool special effects, and when it happened it was like “ooooh ahhh!” but now every other character is half-squid or half-hammerhead shark. Yeah, it’s great, but it just doesn’t work like the original.

I have to give them credit, the main bad guy, Davy Jones is great. He’s kinda half-squid and is pretty much completely digital, and even though he’s half-squid he looks amazingly real. Probably the best main character special effects that I’ve ever seen.

Johnny Depp is great as Sparrow, as in the first, the great drunken pirate, Orlando Bloom is pretty good, and Keira Knightley is also good. It’s nothing amazing, but the acting is overall pretty good. But the movie needs more of a story. It’s just confusing. It’s like all of these action scenes for nothing really - no reason.

The music, on the other hand is great, just as in the first one. It’s fun, funny, and fun. (Not to mention fun) and a great score.

So although it has the action scenes, special effects, characters, and comedy of the first one, it’s a Hollywood sequel. That’s really what it comes down to.

[rating:2.5]

I’ve decided to use a harsher rating system now. Basically, what would of used to be a 6 is now a 4. Enjoy!

Movie Review: Superman Returns (Imax 3D)

Published
by
Austen
on July 17, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 1 Comment

The movie is only about a week and a half old, so hopefully I can persuade or disuade some of you from seeing it. First I’ll talk about the movie in general, then about the “Imax Experience.”

To understand the movie you have to get the general picture: Superman (Brandon Routh) left Earth 5 years ago when scienests thought that his home planet Krypton might not have been destroyed. But it was. So he comes back, and everything has changed. Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth,) his former - pretty much girlfriend who knew his true idenity - has moved on. She has gotten married, had a son, and written an award-winning article called “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Ouch.

Meanwhile, his arch-enemy, Lex Luther (Kevin Spacey) has gotten out of jail and is trying to do something evil. Why did he get out of jail so fast? The primary witness, Superman wasn’t there. So he’s back and he has to deal with the new situation with Lois and her husband, who although you want to hate is a very nice guy. Oh - and then there’s the whole evil plot thing.

I saw the original Superman and Superman 2 which were pretty good, but the effects - I guess they were good for back then, but by today’s standards they were horrible. The CGI in Superman Returns, though is just plain amazing. It’s probably the best special effects I’ve ever seen. But that’s not a huge deal, because it’s the most recent summer blockbuster I’ve ever seen. The Spiderman films still have a sense of reality to them, he’s hanging from webs, while Superman just kind of can fly and float. They do a really good job of making him flying look realistic, but not fake.

Although the set-up for the story is good, the playout of it doesn’t really work that well. They never really do resolve the whole thing with Lois’s husband. The action really dominates the movie more than the story or characters.
Brandon Ruth’s acting is pretty much an imitation of Christopher Reeves’. I mean, he has some nice little touches here and there, but it’s pretty much the same as Reeves. I guess that if he had made it his own people would just say “He’s not what I know Superman as” so I can give him some credit there.

Kevin Spacey does a pretty good job. He’s funny, but he’s just a little bit out of sync with the rest of the movie. He’s to cartoonish, to bold and funny. Kate Bosworth, on the other hand is probably the best out of everyone. She acts very realistically throughout the movie, and does some pretty good acting towards the huge and sad event near the end.

The director, Bryan Singer does have some nice things in there. The way he films the beginning and some of the rest of the movie is midly stylistic. He has some nice shots and some cool camera angles, especially in the action scenes.

And of course, the music. Bryan Singer said he would only do this movie if he could use the original Superman theme composed by no other than John Williams. Although Williams didn’t compose the score for this movie, his themes are used throughout, bringing you back to the originals.

And last but not least: T H E 3 D I M A X E X P E R I E N C E. It was pretty cool. The 3D was just an advertising gimmick, a mere 20 minutes of the movie were actually 3D. Hey - it was pretty cool - a lot better than those blue and red paper things they used for Spy Kids 3. In addition, all 3 (!) trailers in the beginning were in 3D which was pretty nice. But you shouldn’t go to the Imax version for the 3D, even though it’s pretty cool when it does happen. Instead, you should go for the H U G E screen and the B O O M I N G sound effects. Overall, worth the extra $5 if there’s an Imax theater near you, and the seats are great because there is like a whole foot of space between each row of seats. Did I mention the huge screen?

So overall, Superman Returns is an action-packed, story slacked, CGI hacked, and super-fat summer blockbuster. With some nice things here and there. But still, it’s nothing compared to the Spiderman films.

8/10

Movie Review: Spiderman 2

Published
by
Austen
on July 14, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

Spiderman 2, the sequel to the summer hit: Spiderman 1. Is it up to par with the first one? Or is it down the drain pipe? We’ll see then, won’t we?

After Spiderman 1, many people were very excited about the second one. So was I. I remember seeing it in theaters. The movie has much of the same things as in 1, but it is slightly different. There is plot and story, but it’s not as character driven as the first one.

Spiderman 2 picks up pretty much where the first one left off, it’s a few years later but not much as changed - he’s still the wall-crawling, web-flinging, tight-wearing, New-York-flying superhero that we all know and love. And he still loves Mary Jane, who he is now friends with. But he wants to be MORE than friends, but knows that he can’t because, hey - Spiderman has quite a few enemies. In addition, on of his idols, (or more, Peter’s) the scientist Otto Octavious has just found a new energy source and is about to test it. But something goes wrong, and the arms that were attached to his back to help him with the new energy source (basically a mini sun) become so smart that they take over him, and now this man will stop at nothing to get the test back up and running again. He becomes Spiderman’s newest enemy. Meanwhile, Spiderman feels conflicted. His powers go away sometimes (”ouch” is right) and he is finding it difficult to deal with his double life. So that’s the scene in Spiderman 2, a pretty complex story, but a good one.

This sequel has much of the same things as the orinal Spiderman, but it misses some other thing. For one, it’s not as much character driven, it’s a little bit more loose on the plot line. There are much more action scenes that are, as in the first one, very well played out, but they don’t have as much to do with the story as in the first one. I mean, it’s still a great and enjoyable movie, but hey - it’s a sequel.

The acting is equal to that of Spiderman 1, and the new actor, Alfred Molina who plays Otto Octavious does a very good job in his role. But a note on Octavious: He has nothing to do with the overall story of Spiderman. I mean, it’s really the same thing as with the Green Goblin, a genius scientist’s science overpowers him and takes control of him. It’s the same theme, and I think that it’s an interesting one, but it repeats two movies in a row.

So although Spiderman 2 is a fantastic movie, an amazing sequel, and very well done, it misses some of the subtle things that Spiderman 1 had. Still, it’s a great movie, so I’ll only take half a point off for it:

8.5/10

Movie Review: Spiderman 1

Published
by
Austen
on July 13, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

I’ve decided not only to review new movies that I see now, but in addition old (and not so old) movies that I have seen in the past. Why? Because I like doing movie reviews, and there are so many great movies that I have seen since starting doing them, so here goes, the first one: Spiderman.

Spiderman stars Tobey Maguire as the crawling superhero. But it also stars him as the geeky nerd, Peter Parker. Spiderman starts out with Peter Parker in high school, constantly made fun of, and in love with “the girl next door,” Mary Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. And then we can’t forget Peter’s best friend, Harry Osborn played by James Franco. After giving a brief intro on Peter’s life, the story dives into superhero power. Peter gets bitten by the spider, and starts to realize his powers. Then he realizes after a wrestling match, a stolen car, a dead _____, and a mean thief that he can use his powers for good, and he becomes the wall-crawling, web-flinging, tight-wearing, New-York-flying superhero that we all know and love. I have read some of the original Spiderman comic book, and the movie does generally follow the same story, but just makes it more cinematic. Meanwhile, we also follow the development of the main bad guy: The Green Goblin, played by Willem Dafoe who also knows Peter in real life somehow… (I’m trying to keep the spoilers down here, so don’t get mad.)

What I love about Spiderman, and Spiderman 2 is the ability of director Sam Raimi to combine amazing special effects, exciting action scenes, pretty good acting, and a very strong story into one movie that sweeps you up off your feet and takes you along for the ride. It’s a summer blockbuster plus a story and some acting.

Speaking of acting, it’s not the most amazing thing that I’ve ever seen, but it’s much better than Tom Cruise in “War of the Worlds” and most other summer blockbusters. The conflicts and situations that the characters are put through are great. And after that, it gets to play out with some spectacular special effects with Spiderman flying through New York City while trying to stop the Green Goblin from killing him.

The soundtrack for Spiderman is composed by Danny Elfman, who is a very good film composer who has a wide variety of films on his plate. The score fits the movie very well, with upbeat strings and a kind of “awed” feeling to it. It has themes for many things like, Peter, Mary Jane, the Green Goblin, flying through New York City, etc.

One problem that I have with Spiderman is… well, not really anything. I mean there’s a teeny thing here, and a tiny thing there but really it’s a great movie that’s enjoyable to watch, and can entertain any “American Idiot” but also entertain film buffs (if they can accept newer movies). So I’m going to give it a very high:

9/10

Movie Review: The Lake House

Published
by
Austen
on July 9, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

I know that “The Lake House” isn’t the type of movie that most 13-year-olds see, but my Mom was seeing it and I was bored so I came along.The

Lake House stars Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock as two people who live in a beautiful glass house over the lake, 2 years apart from each other. But the mailbox lets them communicate with each other, and they eventually fall in love. The movie is essentially a love story, but it also has Sci-Fi mixed in with some drama. The movie is really about their relationship. For instance, Reeve’s character takes Bullock’s on a walk through a city, and plants a tree for her which 2 years later is in full bloom. But sweet things like this eventually lead to the agony of not being able to meet the person you love. Then you find out that their lives are inter-connected in more ways than one that makes the movie a sweeping and beautiful ride.

Both the acting of Reeves and Bullock are great, although I must admit that they fall into the whole “time travel mailbox” thing P-R-E-T-T-Y quickly. But hey - it’s a movie.

I read in the paper (It’s scary, I know - I’m actually finding some of the articles in the times besides circuits… INTERESTING.. DUN Dun duAnywhoywho… that the movie was based on a Japanese one. Good for it, at least it’s not like Ring.The.

The directing is cinematic and terrific, there is great cinematography, but overllyrlly done so it’s distracting. Let me just tell you that it IS a happy ending. Despite time they do get together, but it’s not as simple as “Meet me irestrauntaunt Sunday, July 8th.” Things get in the way - you’ll see.The.

The music is also great. The actual score is in the background, but distinct enough that you notice it, it really helps move the movie along.

So overall, The Lake House, is a beautiful movie that is just enjoyable to watch, and really makes you feel about the characters. There’s not much more that I can say, than that if you like this type of movie, see it. If not, only if you’ve already seen Superman Returns (review next week on 3D IMAX - yeah!) and Pirates of Carribean.

So although it’s not my style (1 point off) I’ll give it because it’s an enjoyable and full movie that makes my heart feel all fuzzy (seriously):

8.5/10

Movie Review: Madagascar

Published
by
Austen
on June 28, 2006
in Life, Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

Yes, I know, I know - Madagascar is a kids movie. But who cares. It was on T.V. so I watched it. No, I won’t be analyzing the ethics of the film, and way the panning shots work, blah blah blah. I’ll just give the movie a fairly short review. I have to admit, when the movie first came out I really didn’t have much interest in seeing it. I mean - it looked like a fun and funny movie, but a little bit out of my genre, and I didn’t like the cartoonish 3D animation as opposed to realistic 3D animation. But it was on T.V. the other day, so I decided to watch it.

Madagascar is about a group of animals living the life in the Central Park Zoo, one that I have visited many, many times. They enjoy entertaining the people, getting fed, and getting back massages. Oh - and they can talk. That’s kind of what the whole movie is based on. But the zebra wants to go out to “The Wiiild” and enjoy the fresh air, he feels like his life is contained in a zoo. As he says in his own words: My life is half over and I don’t even know if I’m black with white stripes or white with black stripes! So eventually they get out… into the wiiiild. But unlike the trailers suggested, it happens in the first half hour. Most of the movie takes place WHILE at Madagascar A.K.A. The Wiiiiild. They have to adapt to the new territory and life, and not being fed every minute by park keepers, and of course the lion… starts seeing steak in places that he’s never seen it before - in his friends. Dun dun dun.

So the movie is really about 4 loveable characters (well… 3 - all the giraffe doess is look tall) who have to adapt to a new environment. It’s no Pixar film, and no Shrek either. But the characters are loveable, and very easy to relate to and they do have pretty complex relationships with each other that play out nicely, but always with comedy first.

The first half hour is very…. New Yorker-ish. They navigate the subways arguing in very New Yorker-ish terms. “No, I’m positive the C takes us to Canal street, so then we can get the N to 31st.” “Yeah, but the N is out of order so…” stuff like that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Also, the central park zoo looks very… central park zoo-ish which is nice, it’s a very nice movie for any new yorker.

At first I was unsure about the cartoon-ish look of the characters, but I really don’t mind it much any more - it’s not really needed for any reason, but hey - if that’s what they want to do it’s there movie, not mine.

So Madagascar is a sweet children’s computer animated film that kids will love and the parents will probably also laugh at a few jokes here and there. But as I said, it’s no Pixar or Shrek. But it’s almost up to bat with Monster’s Inc. and a little bit better than Finding Nemo. So I do recommend this movie, if you enjoy children’s movies.

7.5/10

Oh, also there is a Wihelm scream at one point of the movie - during the Grand Central Station scene. It’s a nice thing to put in.

Movie Review: The Constant Gardener

Published
by
Austen
on June 12, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 2 Comments

Despite the title, this is actually a very exciting and engaging movie. “The Constant Gardener” starts out as a love story, and ends somewhat as a “spy movie” - a thriller but most of it takes place in Africa. It’s really a mix of genres…

Starring Ralph Fiennes as the main character Justin, and Rachel Weisz as his wife Tessa who (this isn’t really a plot spoiler because the whole movie is based around it) is killed at the beginning. The story is then told flashing back to Tessa before you died, how Justin and Tessa met, and of course - what they are doing in Africa. It’s unclear of Justin’s business, but Tessa’s has to do with researching a drug company that she and other suspect of “testing” their HIV patients in Africa - testing in a bad way that might involve death. Tessa couldn’t tell Justin much about any of this, top secret classifed things. Then she was killed. So the rest of the movie is Justin running around Africa, London and other places trying to find out who killed his wife, and prove that these companies are evil.

What’s amazing is it’s not Mission: Impossible spy-gadget-gear-jumping-off-buildings type of mystery-thriller - but much of it takes place in Africa and it’s almost like a documentary. It takes you into the heart of poor towns in Kenya, with the HIV and AIDS all around, innocent kids - very skinny kids. It’s a great view of Africa that makes you want to go there.

Ralph Fiennes does a pretty good job in his role, his coping with his wife’s death, etc. and Rachel Weisz is even better. Even though she’s dead about 30 seconds into the movie, she is the star of the first third of the movie through flashbacks, and she does a very good job. The other characters are fairly minor, but also very good actors.

What makes this movie so amazing is it’s way of blending numerous genres into one movie that just WORKS. Unlike “The New World” it’s interesting, and pretty fast moving. The story is engaging and keeps you watching. I have to admit though, it does drag on a little bit in the end at 2 hours and 9 minutes, which doesn’t seem like that much so I was probably just tired.

There’s not much more that I have to say about this except that it was very well directed by Fernando Meirelles and has style and is just an overall very good movie.

9/10

Movie Review: Munich

Published
by
Austen
on June 7, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 3 Comments

“Munich” is Steven Spielberg’s newest movie. It’s not a summer blockbuster like “War of the Worlds” or “Minority Report” but more in the league of his other movies like “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan.”

Munich starts out with the real life events of the 1972 the murders of the 11 kidnapped Israeli athletes during the Olympics. Eric Bana plays Avner, one of the 5 men who are chosen to find and kill people involved in the murders of the athletes by the Israeli government. The movie outlines his questioning of if what he is doing is right, and of the confliction with his personal life, his wife who has just had a baby. All of the killings express an amazing dilemma - twists in the plan, things like that happen all of the time. In one of them, they plant a bomb inside of a man’s telephone, call him, expecting him to go and pick it up. The telephone is by a window, so they have a look-out keeping watch at the phone. When the phone picks up it’s actually the guy’s 10-year-old daugher! Avner runs to guys with the bomb, hoping it’s not to late and trying to not to blow up this innocent girl… well, I’ll let you see the movie. But it’s things like that that really show that this movie had a lot of thought put into it, making it a masterpiece. Most of the murders have these kind of things in them, really making Avner question the moral of what he is doing.

Eric Bana does a great job. He displays the emotions on his face very well, the conflicting things, etc. Most of the other supporting actors are also very good, although we don’t get to know them as well as we could.

The movie is very violent. Throughout the movie, it shows the story of the 11 Israeli athletes, being killed off one after the other in various different ways. Although it is very violent, it is very effective as the movie is not all explosions and blood. It happens when it happens, and it being (fairly) graphic helps remind you the seriousness of what is happening.

During most of the murder scenes there is a very low and quiet drum anticipating the coming killing, much like the music in Batman Begins, but less obvious, it’s more in the background. In a way it acts like their heartbeat as they commit the murders.

Perhaps what makes this movie work is the fact that it is based on real events. It digs a little bit into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is very interesting as this conflict is still alive and still going on today.

So overall, I recommend this movie to anybody who enjoys movies that question morals and a movie that is a very well-told thriller. Also, anybody who likes those puffs of red smoke that appear when ever someone is shot violently. (Does that really happen???)

8.5/10

Movie Review: The New World

Published
by
Austen
on June 6, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 0 Comments

The New World is basically the story of Pocahontas told in vivid and beautiful detail. Terrence Malick directs it, and the movie is very artistic, very different from what you would expect in most of today’s movies.

The basic story is this: John Smith and the other future of inhabitants of Jamestown come to The New World to create a new life. They encounter the Indians (sorry…. Native Americans) and although their encounters start out peaceful, they eventually lead to war. But before this, John Smith falls in love with the Native American’s tribe’s princess, Pocahontas. The frist 45 minutes or so is essentially their love story. Malik uses many jump-cuts, the same camera angle, but maybe a minute later. I personally find them very annoying because they distract you from the story, and it destroys the flow of the movie.

But after they fall in love Jamestown and the Native Americans eventually fall into a full-scale war. Pocahontas is torn between Smith and her tribe, and she chooses Smith. She goes to live with him in Jamestown and over the movie she has to deal with losing her culture, her tribe from which she is now basically banished from, and her love for Smith, which is challenged when Smith goes away to explore the world.

Every shot is vivid in detail, color, and set up beautifully. The movie is truly a work of art, probably more than any movie that I’ve ever seen. But the story is hard to follow at times, as most of it is conveyed without words. There isn’t much speaking throughout the entire movie, as during most of the beginning they do not speak the same language. Towards the end of the movie, the plot kind of strays from what it was originally set up as: Smith’s and Pocahontas’s love.

The acting is great, especially Q’Orianka Kilcher who played Pocahontas. She does a great job of acting out the actions and feelings of a Indian Native American. She is really the star of the movie, and she’s only 15 or 16 years old. Colin Farrell, who plays John Smith I guess did an okay job, but his character was just kind of silent and gruff, and he was like that to. He really should of opened up more, especially to Pocahontas.

So although the movie is a fantastic piece of art, and a beautiful way to tell a story it just doesn’t work. I don’t know. It’s boring, I actually had trouble sitting through the whole thing. It’s awkwardly paced, and the end is completely backwards and messed up. I’m sorry, I mean I think that I appreciate good cinema, but this movie just doesn’t work. It’s boring. That’s the bottom line. I give this a thumbs down.
6.5/10

Book Review: Angels & Demons

Published
by
Austen
on May 27, 2006
in Books and Reviews
. 3 Comments

It took a while, but I’ve finally finished the prequel to The Da Vinci Code. It’s good, but a little bit different from The Da Vinci Code. The Da Vinci Code was all about the past and researching history; and while Angels & Demons has that it’s really more present-time.

Angels & Demons starts out in almost exactly the same as The Da Vinci Code - Robert Langdon wakes up with an urgent phone call that some guy has been murdered with symbols all over him. After that though, the stories go their seperate ways. In Angels and Demons, the creator of a new technology called “antimatter.” Briefly, antimatter is matter that is negativly charged, and a droplet of it can power New York City for a day… And a gram of it, if it comes in contact with any matter - even air - has the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And it’s actually a real thing in real life! Anyway, someone kills the creator of it and steals the anitmatter in it’s little capsule that, once disconnected, ahs 24 hours of charge keeping the antimater from touching normal matter. After it’s stolen, it’s hidden somewhere in Vatican city and the book is all about trying to find it by uncovering clues about a secret ancient society called the “Illuminati” that has this huge thing against the church and want to destroy it. There are treasure hunts, fights, countdowns, romance, and plot twists - as can be expected by Dan Brown.

Robert Langdon teams with Vittoria Vetra, the daughter of the guy who created antimatter and was killed. They go on a treasure hunt around rome looking for clues to find answers to who the Illuminati are and how to stop the bomb, figure out where it is, etc. Cardinals and other people very close to the Pope play main characters in the book. The characters are fairly complex, and just when you think that you know them - BAM!!! - everything is turned around. Brown does a great job of setting up the plot towards the beginning, giving the general plan, and that happens, but then about halfway through another thing factors in, raising the stakes even higher.

The book is heavily centered on the Science vs. Religion debate. It explores issues how people are losing faith in God and religion and turning towards science for answers. The book isn’t biased either way. It shows both sides of the argument. Still, the ending is almost over the top. Some pretty amazing things happen that is pretty much not possible. Brown goes into some of the cardinal’s minds where they think it is a religous miracle and that God made them survive. The conflict is very well described and played out throughout the book.

One note, out of the 600 or so pages, at around 500 the bomb’s timer counts down and the climax happens. Then the last 100 or so pages are a bunch of plot twists that are fascinating to read but aren’t exactly necessary, and then the resolution.

So overall the book is an enjoyable read, a great thriller with some historical information and recent issues mixed in. The book is a bit over the top, as I mentioned earlier, and the book does go on for a bit to long, some of the middle could have been cut. But besides that, if you enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, this is a great read, and just a great thriller in general.

8/10

Sorry about the convoluted review, it’s kind of all over the place and not in order.

Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code - 3/5

Published
by
Austen
on May 22, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 4 Comments

Well, this is the first movie I’ve seen in theaters for the summer blockbuster season, and although I just saw it Sunday, 2 days after it came out, most of it’s reviews said it was ok, but that was just it. There wasn’t really anything special. It was just ok. I have to agree somewhat…

Ron Howard, who started his career as an actor in such movies as George Lucas’s “American Graffiti” later took off in his film career as a director producer, and much more. He’s done A LOT of stuff. I wide range of things actually, he’s worked on tv shows like 24 and kids movies like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”. So when I heard he was doing “The Da Vinci Code” I had my hopes up that it would be a good movie. To tell you the truth, it was what I expected almost exactly. A good repesentation of the book, but that’s not always good.

The movie is very faithful to the book. There’s no major plot points cut out, though there are a few minor changes and it expands on things only briefly mentioned, like Tom Hank’s character falling into the well when he was a child - they kind of show it in a flashback. It also has all of the same characters. The locations that they visit like the Louvre are all great and obvioulsy real. I feel that someone considering seeing the movie as opposed to the book would get the right feel - it hits the same note as the book.

The acting by Tom Hanks is good. I think that he was a good choice to play Robert Langdon, but his acting was still a little bit wooden, a little much like he didn’t care. The character of Sophie I think could have had a better actor. I mean, she just didn’t really express the character of Sophie in the book. She seemed all closed up. But Silas, the bad guy who is kinda the apprentice to “The Teacher” who’s supposed to be all evil-ish. You know - Silas is the one who carries out all of the murders - Anyway, the guy who they got to do him was great. He was an albino, as said in the book, and gave off the right feel, scary, but not TOO scary. Also, the scenes where he was torturing himself were great. I think he was the best actor of the film, although he didn’t say that much. Sir Leah Teabing, the elderly man who helps Langdon and Sohpie was played by Ian Mckellen was also great, almost equal to Silas. He was a bit over the top in the acting, but he delivered a great performance throughout. The other actors were fairly well chosen, but I won’t go into much detail as they were more minor characters.
The music by Hans Zimmer I think did the book a lot of justice. It was very religous with lots of vocals. I think that it’s a very good choice to go along with the movie. Still, it lacks a good recurring theme throughout that would have been nice to bring it all together. The music just kind of sits in the background, not usually noticible to an un-trained ear. It helps move the story along and it kind of connects the scenes to the events that they’re talking about in history involving the Church, Priory of Sion, and Jesus Christ’s bloodline.

Speaking of Jesus Christ’s bloodline, I counted at least 4 times in the movie where it was emphasised that this was just a THEORY, even a MYTH. In fact, Langdon and Teabing had a little friendly arguement in the movie about whether the theory had enough evidence to support it. And in another note, I think that in bashing against this movie and the book it was based on, the church is just proving what the book says about them is true - that they will do whatever they can to keep people’s faith true, to believe in God, in the church, etc. Besides, there are plenty reminders throughout the movie that the theory is just a theory.

So overall, this movie is good, but it just lacks anything unique. It’s acting isn’t bad, the story is pretty good, but the pace of the movie is so fast in the beginning and long in the end - but hey, what did I expect from a movie that literally was signed on months after the book came out. (It takes about 3 years to make movies these days.)

[rating:3]

Movie Review: The Chronicles of Narnia - 4.5/5

Published
by
Austen
on May 11, 2006
in Movies and Reviews
. 1 Comment

Okay, okay - I know that it’s really “The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” but that would be WAAAY to long. So: I FINALLY got it on DVD today. (I missed all of the movies last Christmas) And here’s what I thought…

The movie starts out with something that wouldn’t normally expect for a supposed PG kids movie to have: Nazi planes bombing London in The Blitz (I have a big test on that tomorrow.) Really, the first shot is of a Nazi plane. Talk about a bad example. Anyway, after the planes attack London, 4 brothers and sisters have to go on a train to live with a professor and his wife in the countryside of Britain, leaving their Mom behind. These kids aren’t supposed to go into the professor’s room. So, guess what? The youngest girl goes in while playing Hide and Go Seek (I love that game) and there’s a wardrobe in their. She opens up, walks into it and comes out on the other side - in another world! So the kids are introduced to the world of Narnia where an evil witch wants to rule the world, and a lion named Aslan wants to stop her. So there’s a lot of running and fake talking animals and then a big battle.

So… The acting in the movie is actually pretty good. The siblings relationships with each other are realistic, and their acting is great, especially the young girl. Seriously, she did a great job for her age. The other main character is “The White Witch” who is also a pretty good actor. Besides that, most of the main characters are… well, not human. Talking beavers, lions, horse-people (torso is a human, legs are of horses), boars, tigers, etc. The talking animals are a little bit hard to get used to, but they are real characters - they aren’t just animals. Of course, these animals are digitally created. The effects are good. Not amazing. King Kong beat these by far. But still, they really don’t distract from the story, which I guess is what matters. I love the part when one of the kids is training on a horse for the huge battle at the end, and his brother comes up, and the horse stands up on it’s back to legs and NEEEIIIGGHS. He says “Hey, careful horsey” The horse replies: “My name is Ralph.”

The end battle is very well done, seeing as most of it consists of computer-generated animals. But the best part of it is probably the music. Harry Gregson-Williams does a great job on the movie, especially in this part. I just can’t get that song out of my head!

The book by C.S. Lewis had A LOT of religous overtones, with Aslan the great lion being like Jesus, things like that. The movie keeps these things. When the kids are first seen by the beavers, they say “Wow, real sons of adam and daughters of eve!” (Should those be capitalized? I’m sorry, but I’m not so experienced in that religous area.)

The animals do look kinda fake as I mentioned before, and also the first 2/3 of the movie are really stretched out, so nothing really happens until the last half hour or so when the battle starts.

[rating:4.5]

Book Review: The Da Vinci Code - 4/5

Published
by
Austen
on April 30, 2006
in Books and Reviews
. 4 Comments

The Da Vinci Code: a very controversial book that has been very popular for the past few years. Over the spring break, and on the eve of the movie coming out starring Tom Hanks, I decided to read it and see what I thought…

The plot starts out with a murder in the Louvre museum in Paris, the curator was murdered, but he had aranged himself like Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Vitruvian Man” and written a code on the floor beside him. The main character, Robert Langdon and Sophie Nevue then must follow this dead man’s clues through Paris, going from one code to the next, trying to uncover this man’s dying secret. We are told the theory that Jesus actually had a wife, and that he may of even had kids, and a bloodline could still be alive today. There are more mysteries than just this, and Dan Brown (the author, in case you were wondering) takes the reader on a ride through Da Vinci’s paintings, churches, bank vaults, museums and more across Paris.

Brown does a terrific job at keeping the story interesting, surprising, but not TOO surprising, which I think is what will eventually be the TV show Lost’s downfall, to many twists and turns. The story blends religion, history, and modern day things like cell phones together in a way that many people cannot do. The book questions the entire Christian faith, and mentions some of the church’s… more violent actions in the past. Once you dive into this book, it is very hard to put it down. Despite it’s title being “The Da Vinci Code”, less than the first third of the story focuses on Da Vinci’s code. Once it’s found out what it is, it kind of leaves Da Vinci behind and him an his paintings are less significant to the rest of the story - what the paintings suggest, are significant though.

What I like most about this story is the way that Brown takes certain things, like that instead of 12 men at Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” their appear to be only 11, and one women - Jesus’s wife. He then takes theory’s that people have had and combining them with other theorys to create an entire history of things, that makes the book such a fascinating read.

There are some things that I didn’t like about The Da Vinci code. First, the epilogue wasn’t an epilogue. It was the climax. So it needed a real epilogue. Also, at times it did seem to be a little bit far fetched, the ideas that Brown was suggesting, but hey, Lost is a lot worse. In addition, the seemingly bad guys were shown much lighter sides in the end, which I think kind of ruined the effect. Anyway, I give this book:

[rating:4]

_________________________________________________

Now I’m reading another one of Dan Brown’s books, featuring the same main character, Robert Langdon that was written before The Da Vinci Code called “Angels and Demons.” Review coming for that one once I finish it.

Website/Program Review: Google Calender

Published
by
Austen
on April 24, 2006
in Reviews
. 0 Comments

Inspired by my friend writing reviews about movies and more, inspired by me writing reviews of just movies, I have now decided to go into the “and more” part. Google Calendar: It had to happen eventually. But then again, doesn’t everything with Google?

Google Calendar is the latest addition to the Google family. It’s still in Beta, but again, isn’t everything with Google? I mean Gmail and has been out for more than a year now and it’s STILL in Beta. Anyway, Google Calendar is simple, colorful, and just plain fun. It’s basically a calendar. You can put in anything you want: meetings, dates, appointments, birthdays, television shows, holidays. It’s great! You set the date(s), time (all day is also possible) and a short description and your done. You can have multiple calendars and color code each one like I did on mine (look to the left). I have one for just normal stuff in blue, and one for birthday of people that I know in red (pinkish really).

So that’s all cool, fun, and totally google simplicity, but here comes the REALLY fun part. You can (with permission) add other people’s calendars to view. For instance, at left I can view Aaron *Big Black Space*’s calendar to (at least what he wants me to see…) and check or uncheck it. It’s unchecked above because of the repetitive schools (wish I could get rid of those repeats…). And then, there are OTHER public calendars that you can search for using the power of Google like Holidays. They have all types, US, Jewish, British, Australian, Islamic - basically any kind of holiday you could want! And then, people create OTHER calendars, like movie release dates, or Apple event dates (I wonder who would find that helpful…?) when the TV show Lost airs and what episode it is (I know…). Thousands of things, that can automatically be put in your calendar with a simple check color-coded to your liking - what else could you ask for???

You can also print easily from Google Calendar your agenda (great for work) and view your calendar in five different ways: Day, Week, Month, Next 4 Days (kinda pointless), and Agenda which is PERFECT for printing. You can also sync it with iCal (mac program) both ways, though not at the same time I hear from Aaron. There is quick and easy scrolling through months, and the settings are very nice and custimizable. For instance, you can choose which day the week starts on, choose your custom view, and set it so you get an email when a new event happens.
So what’s wrong with Google Calendar? As I mentioned before, it would be nice to get rid of repetitive events between users like “School” being shown twice and taking up space. Also, only four events at a time can show on each day in the Month view, but what else could you do? Finally, no mobile - yet. This is great, but not everybody is on the computer all of the time like me, so the email things and notifications wouldn’t really work - unless you have it on a cell phone that’s with you ALL the time. I can’t wait for that.

9/10