one of the quieter moments in the movie...

PG-13

Channing Tatum, Dennis Quaid, Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols, Christopher Eccleston

Duke: What about you?
Scarlett: He doesn’t speak.
Duke: Why?
Breaker: He doesn’t say.

A group of specially trained soldiers, with high tech weaponry at their disposal, attempt to recover a case of nano-technology warheads from the evil Cobra organization.  Lots of things explode in the process.

I suppose I knew what I was getting into when I sat down to watch this one, but I was hoping it would be more tolerable than it was.   I thought it would at least be fun to see the toys I played with as a kid on display.  Unfortunately, most of the machinery in the movie doesn’t resemble anything I had as a kid, plus it’s all so obviously computer animated that I may as well have been watching a cartoon.

The movie is simultaneously more and less realistic than it needs to be.  More realistic in the sense that they use more real jeeps, tanks, helicopters, and planes than they should – as opposed to the ones featured in the line of toys.  Less realistic in the sense that the other technology is so advanced that it almost seems like you’re watching Star Trek at times.  Plus, as I mentioned, there’s way too much computer animated stuff.  I felt like I had accidentally popped in an X-Men DVD by mistake.  Everybody jumps around like they’re superheros.

That stuff could probably be somewhat overlooked if it weren’t for the fact that the characters are just deadly dull.  Their story lines are unoriginal, the dialogue is stiff, and the acting is uninspired.  Basically, the movie was made so that they could slap the title G.I. JOE on it.

Way to go Hollywood, yet another blown opportunity to make an enjoyable movie out of a nice childhood memory.  Instead we’re stuck with one more hyper-edited, over-loud, heartless display of special effects.  Just what we all needed…

The G.I. Joe soldiers are apparently SO good and unbeatable that they’re only called in when the regular army fails.  ‘Cause, ya know, you wouldn’t want to use them from the get-go and preserve the lives of those other regular soldiers…

10 – 2.1 for boring characters and acting – 1 for not using enough of the toys in the movie – 1.2 for being overlong and over loud – 1 for too much computer animation = 4.7

 There’s only two episodes to go until David Tennant bows out of Doctor Who and Matt Smith will be introduced as the 10th Doctor on New Years Day. If you didn’t see the waters of mars; the penultimate Doctor Who story for David Tennant; you missed an absolute treat.

Tennant was in blistering form and the story was probably one of the best that i’ve ever seen.Tennant’s run as the Doctor will finish on New Years Day, and what a run it was. I’ll be gutted to see him go and there’s some HUGE shoes for Matt Smith to fill. I’m really not convinced that he can pull it off but to be fair, I said the same about Tennant when he replaced Christopher Eccleston in 2005.

Smith will be joined for the new series by Karen Gillian who you may have seen in The Kevin Bishop Show on Channel 4. I’m kind of used to the Doctor by himself now so seeing the 10th Doctor with a new companion will be a clean slate all round.

Tennant will be leaving with Russel T Davies who is pretty much solely responsible for the current Dr Who revival and he’ll be replaced by Stephen Moffat. Moffat wrote the Brit comedy drama Coupling and has also tried his hand to various ‘Who’ storylines during the past 5 years, with great success – even managing to bag a couple of Hugo awards in the process.

It’s a crucial time now for fans of the Doctor. If Moffat is good enough, he’ll cement the series and it will run on prosperously for many years to come. If he bombs, Doctor Who could slip away like it did prior to the 1996 feature film. Let’s hope the new series does do well, my only criticism of Russel Davies is his insistence to re-use Dr Who villains. We’ve had the Daleks every series now since 2004, the Cybermen returned for two series and even the Master will be back during ‘The End Of Time’. If Moffat can come up with a new menace or some fresh ideas rather than ‘monster of the week’ style creatures, I think all will be well.

With that in mind, here are my all time favourite Doctor Who episodes of the past five years:

No 5:

The Parting Of The Ways

This was Eccleston’s Swan song and the episode where we actually found out what the hell ‘Badwolf’ meant. After cropping up all through the series at various points in time, it turns out that Badwolf basically means that Rose Tyler is B-A-D-A-S-S. After facing certain death at the hands of a Dalek fleet, the Doctor get’s saved by Rose, albeit at the expense of his 9th incarnation. Full of emotion, the final words uttered by Eccleston were a great way to say goodbye..

“Rose, before I go I just wanna tell you — you were fantastic…absolutely fantastic…and d’you know what? So was I!”

No 4:

 The Impossible Planet/ The Satan Pit

This was brilliant two-parter that introduced us to The Ood. The Doctor and Rose arrive on a planet orbiting a black hole and shortly after the docile Ood start to talk of ‘the beast’. It turns out that the beast is in fact held prisoner in the depths of the planet and has taken over a crew members’ body in order to escape his black hole prison. The special effects are spot on here and we’re given your typical bread-and-butter Doctor Who story. Fantastic.

“Maybe that’s what the Devil is, in the end. An idea.”

No 3:

Blink

Blink was a standalone Who story (as some of the best are) written by Stephen Moffat, so any doubts you may have about him taking the helm for Doctor Who should be eased if he continues to produce work as good as this. We’re introduced to the Weeping Angels, who feed from peoples ‘time energy’. They’ve already got the jump on the Doctor and sent him back in time (minus the Tardis) to the 1960’s. Enter Sally Sparrow, an unlikely heroine who is given various clues in order to solve the riddle of how to save the Doctor. Intelligent, Jumpy and well written, Blink should be high on anyone’s favourite Who episodes of recent years.

“Don’t blink. Blink and you’re dead. Don’t turn your back. Don’t look away. And don’t blink. Good Luck.”

No 2:

Human Nature/ Family of Blood

As a standalone two-parter, Human Nature and Family of Blood were exceptional, but what the episodes served to do was to pave the way for the Master’s return towards the end of the series. Here the Doctor is being attacked by the ‘Family of Blood’ and in order to survive, he takes up human Form in the early 20th Century. His memories are transferred to a watch via the Chameleon Arc and is given false memories by the Tardis in order to hide from the family. The story gives us a glimpse into the other side of the Doctor’s persona and both episodes are equally important during the first part of the season finale, ‘Utopia’. Once Martha realises that she’s seen a watch similar to that carried by Professor Yana, all hell breaks loose…

“He’s like fire and ice and rage. He’s like the night and the storm in the heart of the sun.”

No 1:

The Waters of Mars

The most recent Who story was a proper belter. The Doctor arrives on Mars in 2059 and finds the first human colony on Mars. The problem is that all is not well here. The crew are unaware but they don’t actually make it back to Earth, the expedition goes missing in 2059 never to be heard from again. This is a massive event in time and one that the Doctor knows he can’t alter. After the colony vanishes, the knock on effect for humankind is great. The missing Astronauts inspire generations after them to reach for the stars and although they disappear, fantastic things come out of the tragedy. It quickly transpires that the Colony doesnt simply vanish, they are killed at the hands of the Ice Warriors of Mars. The Doctor is ready to leave and let time take its cause but after the realisation that he’s the last time lord, he decides to intervene and save the remaining colonists. This action has massive repercussions and the result will end with the death of the 10th Doctor Who….

“There are laws of time. Once upon of time there were people in charge of those laws but they died. They all died. Do you know who that leaves? Me! It’s taken me all these years to realise that the laws of time are mine and they will obey me!”

Fans of the hit British television show ‘Doctor Who’ will be glad to know that it’s back, and it’s bigger than ever. Actor David Tennant, who is widely regarded as the most popular doctor so far is set to go out with a bang before handing the famed role over to Matt Smith. Fans of Tennant may or may not know there are indeed three episodes left featuring him, two of which is the two-part Christmas special, so the other episode ‘Waters Of Mars’ will be featuring on BBC one tomorrow night on the 15th November 2009 at 7pm.

For those outside the UK who are Doctor Who fans, you can watch the episode on BBC America on the 19th December 2009, or in the US on the 2nd February 2010.

The ‘Waters of Mars’ will be followed by the two-part Christmas special (entitled TBA and The End of Time respectively.) After ‘Planet of the Dead‘, back in easter, which was named the most aired program on the BBC of all time, it’s estimated that ‘The End of Time‘ will bring in the most viewers the program, the series, and the channel has ever seen with the departure of David Tennant, who is expected to bow out with tear-inducing lines.

Tennant has stated in an interview with The Guardian;

“I remember how exciting it was starting out on this kind of a journey and nerve-racking. I’m jealous that he’s going through that now – but it couldn’t happen to a nicer chap. I’m looking forward to not knowing what happens next. I’m looking forward to being a viewer again.“

On a round-the-world flight, she disappeared.

Starring Hilary Swank, Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor, and Christopher Eccleston. Directed by Mira Nair

This is the kind of movie that will eventually be played in history classes while the teacher is busy updating his/her grades and making lesson plans. For better or worse, that’s what it will be relegated to.

Hilary Swank plays the aviatrix who, as common knowledge and every “mysterious disappearance” TV show and movie points out, wanted to be the first woman to fly around the world. On July 2, 1937 she lost radio contact and the rest has been the stuff of speculation and America’s dark romance with the unexplained.

Gere is George Putnam, a New York publisher known for releasing the book on Charles Lindbergh. Suddenly smitten with the presence of the protagonist, he books her as a passenger on a flight set to cross the Atlantic if it can ever happen. With persistence and can-do spirit Earhart pushes for the flight to happen with her suddenly being thrown into the spotlight.

McGregor is Gene Vidal, a single father even more impressed with Earhart than Putnam. Vidal and Earhart become business partners in the world of aviation and a little more off the scene. Earhart breaks off their romance to stay faithful to her husband.

Eccleston plays Fred Noonan, one of the best navigators in the biz. Equally known is his alcoholism. Earhart, having grown up with an alcoholic father, warns him but he reasserts that he will not let it affect his job performance. He disappeared with Earhart on the day of note.

There ya go.

I didn’t hate the movie as much as I was disappointed, which eventually became ambivalence. I’m a fan of a good mystery and along with Flight 19, Earhart’s disappearance became legend. One of the problems with this movie is that it asks more questions than it answers and in doing so doesn’t bother answering anything. What was Amelia’s background before she showed up at Putnam’s doorstep? Why did she do what she set out to do? Was she a lesbian? Et cetera.

Instead the movie plops you into the point in her life where she meets the publisher and does a straight-forward chronology with minimal interruption of flash-forwards where she is hopelessly looking for Howland Island to land on. While there is some “creative interpretation” of her life’s events a good chunk of the movie seems to play out like plot points or a greatest hits collection of deleted/extended scenes.

And therein lies the frustration of grading or gaging this movie: it’s massively uneven. The director seems to intersperse the disappearance with moments from her life leading up to it but fails to give any mention of previous events. Either I’ve watched the programming from too many movies or this one’s story is really lackluster.

Nair seems to touch upon Earhart’s life as as if she’s afraid to make a statement about anything. It’s like someone asking you “do you think she helped champion the cause of womens’ rights?” Your answer is then followed by “well, what do you think?” I honestly felt like I was in back in school and each question (aviation, alcoholism, commercialism, lesbianism) would be featured at the end of the chapter and I would have to skip to the back of the book and turn it upside down to find the correct one (“There it is: seven”) One of the big themes noted in the film was that Putnam controlled her “image” by having her sponsor ads for luggage, cigarettes, etc. She brings it up to him one time and he explains it off, and she never says anything about it again, not even when more people hound her for that fact.

So much is wasted. I’m not a big fan of Swank but she does seem to carry on as if she doesn’t care that no one else cares, which may be a good thing. Eccleston and Gere have odd accents out-of-place for them. The cinematography had some beautiful moments. The soundtrack seemed to be made for a much better movie.

In my honest opinion this movie would have done right by taking a cue from “Hollywoodland.” No one really knows how George Reeve died, but at least the filmmakers gave the “conspiracy theories” on how it happened. And while George Reeve may have been less extraordinary than Earhart per se, at least the filmmakers gave him his do. Sorry for your loss, Amelia.

In regards to historical dramas, one has to ask themselves, would a History Channel documentary on the same subject be more interesting than this movie? On this one I’m gonna say “yes.”

TRIVIA: This is the first movie since 1994’s “Shallow Grave” to feature both Eccleston and McGregor.

My grade: a straighten-up and fly right C-

P.S. For more information on Amelia Earhart, read a book! Or go look her up on Wiki.

So, last week I blogged about the lack of imagination and message in franchise horror movies. I said that, essentially, franchise horror is the “safe choice,” which is what makes it so popular. I also claimed that I don’t really “get” the appeal of franchise horror movies. For the most part, this is true. While, like many horror fans, I enjoy the “ride” predictable horror movies provide, I still require some kind of moral question, or a good reason behind the violence on screen. Otherwise, I feel like the movie just isn’t worth my time.

Perhaps that’s why, in the entirety of my experience watching horror movies, there is one particular subgenre that, although it’s one of the most formulaic, manages to consistently present a message along with massive amounts of gore. That subgenre is the zombie movie.

Ever since George Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” kicked everything into messy high gear in 1968, the zombie has come to represent more than just an undead cannibal corpse lusting after brains. The zombie is the perfect blank slate for horror movie symbolism. It can represent just about anything you want. The zombie has been used to represent consumerism (“Dawn of the Dead,”) suburban complacency, (“Shaun of the Dead,”) racism and fear of the other (“Night of the Living Dead,” “Land of the Dead”). Romero has said of his films, “My movies are about other things, and zombies are just an annoyance.” In a zombie movie, it’s not the zombies that are actually the important thing. What’s important is the human drama created by their presence.

That human drama is the characteristic that, in my mind, makes the zombie movie so cool, as well as easy to replicate. Zombie movies follow a formula that is tailor-made to create moral dilemmas and human tension. Generally what happens is this: Zombies attack. The main character, in an attempt to escape the carnage, falls in with another survivor, or a group of survivors. After barricading themselves into a makeshift stronghold, the group tentatively starts forming connections. But there’s always at least one jerk that ruins it for everyone else. Arguments and accusations start flying, someone gets bitten, everyone gets conflicted over whether or not they should kill said bite victim. After waiting too long to make a decision (they always wait too long, instead choosing to discuss the ethical implications), the bitten friend or relative comes back to life, at which point all the outside zombies somehow find a way to infiltrate the stronghold, where there is the Final Showdown. At this point, there are usually two outcomes: a) everyone dies, b) the two characters with romantic chemistry survive to (we can only assume) repopulate the earth.

See what I mean? Yes, you can probably figure out from moment one of a zombie movie what’s going to happen and how, but the dynamic that emerges when anxious people with differing points of view are boarded up in one room and asked to work together or die can be just fascinating to watch.

Whenever I’m asked to convince people as to what makes zombie movies a genre worthy of attention, I give two examples: “Dawn of the Dead” (Romero’s original), and “28 Days Later.” Both are excellent representations of zombie movies at their political and morally thoughtful best.

“Dawn of the Dead” strikes me as the most politicized of Romero’s catalog. The consumerist tone is clearly presented from the moment the protagonists set up camp in the shopping mall. At one point, looking over the undead mob congregating outside the mall, one character, Peter, muses, “They’re after the place. They don’t know why, they just remember. Remember that they want to be in here.” Romero is presenting his audience with the notion that, as consumers, people are sheep. We want stuff, and lots of it. We don’t know why, we just know that we want it. In another scene, the whole group of survivors goes hog wild in a department store, excited that they can now appropriate anything they could possibly need or want for free. The mall is their haven. After a while, of course, as is the fashion with zombie movies, everything falls apart. But while it lasts, the situation seems pretty nice.

“28 Days Later” is, in my opinion, about as good a movie as you can find in either the zombie subgenre, or the horror genre as a whole. Generally speaking, director Danny Boyle’s movies can be pretty hit-or-miss, but his horror movies and psychological thrillers tend to be right on the money. His first film, “Shallow Grave,” presented audiences with a moral dilemma if ever there was one, and “28 Days Later” does exactly the same thing. Essentially, the audience is given this horrible apocalyptic situation, and two different ways that people choose to survive in that situation. We could take the moral high ground, with Cillian Murphy and Brendan Gleeson, and realize the importance of maintaining human connection in a mostly-abandoned world. Or, if straight-up ruthless survival sounds better, we can side with Christopher Eccleston and his sexually frustrated soldiers. Of course, Boyle sends the message that the way of Eccleston and co. is basically the road to self-destruction, but you can’t help but feel a little bad for the guy. He may have acted horribly but, in the end, he was only doing what he thought was right.

Zombie movies may be formulaic. They may be easy to set up. But, unlike so many other subgenres, they have the potential to make an audience think. We laugh at the zombies trying to force their way into the mall in “Dawn of the Dead,” or the zombie carnival in “Land of the Dead” because these things are absurd. But, if we consider what these characterizations are meant to represent, how absurd do they make us look? Zombie movies are, at their most basic level, an opportunity for a director to turn the camera back on his audience and say “Look. These guys are us. They are what we have become.” If they want to throw a gallon or two of red corn syrup around for emphasis, then so much the better.

Richard Swank and Hilary Swank hope they've found the route to success.

(Fox Searchlight) Hilary Swank, Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor, Christopher Eccleston, Mia Wasikowska, Cherry Jones, Joe Anderson, Aaron Abrams, William Cuddy, Dylan Roberts, Scott Yaphe, Tom Fairfoot, Ryann Shane. Directed by Mira Nair

One of the more fascinating figures of the 20^th century was Amelia Earhart. An aviatrix in a time where the skies were dominated by men, she was unafraid to take bold chances in pursuing her dream. In the process, she empowered women to follow their dreams and became one of the most popular celebrities of her time, yet today she is perhaps more generally remembered for her mysterious disappearance on her final flight.

Young Amelia Earhart (Shane) grew up in Atchison, Kansas on the wide-open plains but even these endless horizons were not endless enough for her. She sees an airplane flying overhead and dreams of chasing the clouds in the sky.

Grown-up Amelia (Swank) is summoned to an interview with publisher and latter-day P.T. Barnum George Putnam (Gere), who is looking for someone to be the first woman to fly across the Atlantic. Several women had made the attempt but none had as yet succeeded. Amelia is eager to fly but Putnam frankly doesn’t think she has the skill. She will be little more than an ornament on the flight, ostensibly given the command of a pilot (Anderson) – who is oddly named Bill in the movie, but whose name was Wilmer Stultz in reality – and navigator Louis “Slim” Gordon (Abrams). They arrive in Scotland in 1928 and Earhart is catapulted into fame and fortune.

She goes out on the lecture circuit, co-authors a book about her experiences and endorses a variety of products from luggage to clothes to cigarettes (which she only reluctantly does as a non-smoker in order to make sure that her fellow aviators from the Trans-Atlantic flight were paid). She is clearly uncomfortable with the circus but realizes that it is necessary for her to jump through these hoops in order to finance the flights she wants to make.

In addition, she and Putnam become romantically involved and although he wants to marry her, she resists. She doesn’t want her freedom to be impinged on, or have her dreams crushed by the weight of being a wife and mother. Eventually, after Putnam promises that they will be “at the dual controls” of their relationship, she relents.

At a high society party, she meets Gene Vidal (McGregor), former Olympic athlete, suave high society member and aeronautics instructor at West Point. The attraction between the two is immediate and palpable. Even Putnam notices it but chooses to ignore it. Amelia recommends to Eleanor Roosevelt (Jones) that Vidal be named the first Director of the Bureau of Air Commerce (the forerunner to the F.A.A.) which surprises the First Lady since she thought Earhart would be more enthusiastic about a woman in the role.

In 1932, she launches her most ambitious flight yet – a solo Trans-Atlantic flight. She would be the first person since Lindbergh to accomplish it (and of course the first woman). Although Putnam has misgivings, he bids her farewell witha “See you.” Amelia, who was supposed to land in Paris, instead touches down in an Irish meadow, greeting an astonished shepherd and his flock with an enthusiastic “Hello, sheep!!!”

Once home the adulation increases and she finds herself even more constrained and feeling trapped. She begins an affair with Vidal whose son Gore (Cuddy) would eventually grow up to become a famous author and essayist. When Putnam finds a love letter she’d written to Vidal and she realizes how much she’s hurt him, she ends her affair with Vidal.

However, now her sights are set on a feat that nobody had been able to accomplish – an around the world flight. Using a bit of chicanery, Putnam arranges for Purdue University to establish a department of aeronautics with Amelia as chair and has them buy her a Lockheed Elektra as a “flying laboratory.”

But a flight around the world isn’t as easy as it sounds. There is one gap in the Pacific where the expanse of ocean is so broad that refueling is nearly impossible. Amelia doesn’t have the skill needed for air refueling so it is decided a refueling stop would be made on Howland Island, a tiny little low-lying spit of sand in the vast blue of the Pacific. A navigator with experience in celestial navigation is needed and Fred Noonan (Eccleston) is hired, although he has a history of drinking.

Their first try ends in disaster. A mechanical failure causes the Elektra to crash on take-off from Honolulu. They repair the plane but the route must be changed; instead of flying east to west, they must now fly west to east in order to avoid inclement weather. That would put the most dangerous leg, from New Guinea to Howland, near the end of the flight, a flight that would end in tragedy but would elevate Earhart into legend.

Director Mira Nair has made movies with a feminist bent in her career, so this would seem to be a good fit. Swank also physically resembles Earhart pretty closely both in body type and face. She has also picked up the cadences of Earhart’s speech which is a bit of distraction at times – it sounds like Swank is in a screwball comedy – but is authentic at least.

Nair has recreated the roaring ‘20s and the Depression-era ‘30s very nicely, from the costuming and set design to the cadences of speech. She also incorporates newsreel footage of the actual Earhart as well as newspaper headlines to further give perspective to Earhart’s fame and accomplishments.

One of the things that I have to remark upon is the aerial photography. Nair delivers some breathtaking imagery of what Earhart must have seen from her vantage point in the sky. You can see the appeal it must have had to aviators to witness the wonders of our world from a height where you can actually make them out.

The last scenes are harrowing, as Eccleston and Swank deliver painful performances displaying the anguish, fear, frustration and despair the two must have felt as their fuel dwindled and Earhart was unable to communicate with the U.S.S. Itasca, a Coast Guard cutter dispatched to assist her in reaching Howland. Even though we know how the story ends, the tension level is very high, rendering these scenes some of the most effective in the film.

The issue I have with the movie is that it doesn’t really give you any more of a sense of who Amelia Earhart was. She loved to fly, check. She took some risks, check. Advocated civil aviation and encouraged women to fly, check and double check. There are some moments where we get a glimpse of who Amelia might have been but the writers don’t really delve deeply into it. What we get is a bit too much reverence and not enough intuition. The movie is like an issue of Vogue – very glossy but ultimately of little substance. However, the subject matter and the photography are enough to make you want to read the magazine anyway.

REASONS TO GO: The movie captures the period very effectively. The aerial shots are not to be missed. Swank gives an energetic performance that is charming in places. The final scenes of Amelia’s last flight are very well handled, keeping the viewer on the edge of their seats even though they know how the story ends.

REASONS TO STAY: I never got a sense that I had gotten to know Earhart any better than I had before I saw the movie. While the story of Amelia Earhart is fascinating, the movie seemed to capture only her essence rather than fleshing her out. I left feeling there was a better film to be made on the subject, never a good thing.

FAMILY VALUES: There is some implied sexuality, and plenty of drinking and smoking but otherwise suitable for all ages.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Mia Wasikowska, who played Elinor Smith here, will next be seen in the title role in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland.

HOME OR THEATER: The sweeping aerial shots make seeing this in a theater a worthwhile endeavor.

FINAL RATING: 6/10

TOMORROW: The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

Welcome back everyone, to today’s installment of AHHH! SCARY IMAGES AND LOUD NOISES MAKE ME LOSE CONTROL OF MY BOWELS! The Others is one of those films that I’m guilted for having not seen. I tell people I haven’t seen The Others, and, all of a sudden, it turns into “YOU haven’t seen THE OTHERS?!?! I thought you liked movies?”, and I am thusly shamed by the community I work and play in. Nevertheless, it seems that I was indeed missing out on an effective horror film that utilizes a mixture of different scare tactics to try and attack the viewer. It’s dark, rich, and stylistically textured. And while the acting did not impress me on many levels, it’s still a nice film to check out to get a case of the creeps this Halloween.

In a posh British mansion just after the Second World War, a prim mother of two named Grace struggles to raise her children alone. The two children, Nicholas and Anne, have a sensitivity to light, and this becomes quite problematic for her and stressful having to deal with it by herself. She hires a few people to help around the place, and this seems to be the ideal at first. But strange things begin to happen to her family after they arrive, things that one cannot easily explain away. Her daughter Anne claims to have seen people who don’t live in the house, and perhaps don’t live at all, with her odd descriptions of them. There are doors that close without anyone closing them, instruments can be heard clearly even when there is nobody playing them. It’s all very odd, and while the children seem to be at peace with this, it deeply disturbs Grace. She goes one day in a heavy fog to see an exorcist, leaving the children to be tended to by the odd servants. But they are not the ones in any peril, because in the deep, blinding fog outside the mansion, the questions run even deeper once she finds her husband wandering around, who was apparently killed in the war…

Spooky stuff. It’s a period piece set after the war, but the stuffiness of the house makes it feel much older. It’s the fact that all the drapes are pulled shut for the children, and even during the day, everything is lit by a hurricane lantern. The ambiance is suffocating, intoxicating, and yet unknowingly inviting, as if the spirits of the house beckon to the life within us as keepsakes of their former selves. The house itself is really a character, and really the most important character in The Others, because it is the prison, the window from which our protagonists look out of, and the others look into.

A great concept combined with a historical realism seldom present in horror makes for a gripping story. I really cared about all these characters, even the frigid beast of an actress Nicole Kidman evoked some inkling of emotion from me, narrowly evading the Least Wanted List today by actually doing a good job. She plays Grace, and although she had to grow on me, she eventually settled on my heart like dust on a long British mantle. It has a lot to do with director Alejandro Amenabar’s excellent handling of not only her character, but the world she lives in. I enjoy Grace because of what she is in the world Amenabar built; she’s a shadow in the midst of shadows. She is a dark woman in a dark house with dark thoughts in her mind. Her whispers are soft and thread-bare, her movements are slow and graceful like grand old drapery, and the life she has made in the secluded country estate is quiet but tinged with a vague anticipation. She really is, in many ways, tied to the house, as both an actress and a character.

Among the other things that set this film apart, I particularly enjoyed the score by Amenabar himself; it is incredibly fitting, and undeniably moving. Some of the tracks seem to blend in with the visuals as if it had transcended the senses. The set design is immaculate, with almost all the film taking place either in the creaky Victorian house or the surrounding murky forest. Wonderful setting for a scary movie. And Christopher Eccleston dazzles as the mysterious Charles, Grace’s husband who was thought to be dead. I won’t say too much about his character, but he does an excellent job in a role that could have easily been loopy.

There’s a lot to love with The Others. The source of fear here is the complete unknowable will of the others, and the impenetrable cowl that Grace casts over the dark world of the house. it blurs the lines of reality and even the lines between life and death, and it was done in a tasteful, almost delicate way that I can respect as a film connoisseur and a horror junkie. If you haven’t seen it yet, you HAVE to check it out once. I give The Others 9 1/2 light allergies out of 10. A high recommendation!

Keep both eyes peeled for my review of everyone’s favorite barn house thriller, The Messengers! Coming soon!

“Flying lets me move in three dimensions,” she says early on. Well, so does standing on an escalator and scooching over to get out of someone else’s way. But flying is supposed to be more exciting than that. So it’s strange that the first few stolid scenes of “Amelia” suggest otherwise.

She was the first woman to fly alone across the Atlantic, and she would have been the first to fly around the world if she hadn’t vanished halfway across the Pacific in 1937. So any movie about Amelia Earhart’s life has a sort of public obligation to soar. Yet this one, in the beginning, at least, feels much more like being on that escalator, going down.

Director Mira Nair’s steadily reverential biopic, with Hilary Swank in the title role, apparently seeks only to maintain a popular appreciation, gently transferring it from one generation to the next. Hovering around the period of the middle 1930s during which Earhart became a celebrity, it doesn’t have much to add to her lore, but by necessity of movie convention does have much to subtract from her life. Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan’s script is said to derive from not one but two Earhart biographies (Susan Butler’s “East to the Dawn” and Mary S. Lovell’s “The Sound of Wings”), and their ostensible thoroughness serves mostly to convey the semblance of a book report.

Or maybe a poster portrait? That’s where Swank comes in, with a performance so good and gracious that it almost doesn’t matter if the movie isn’t much of a movie. Obviously she understands that the real trick with stories whose endings we know (and, with due respect to the conspiracy theorists, we do know) is reminding us why we cared in the first place. Swank’s consistent and cleverly recessive charisma is what finally gets this film off the ground, if only barely.

We’re allowed the framework of a few proverbial plot points, such as Earhart’s courtship with and marriage to the publisher and promoter George Putnam (played by Richard Gere), her uneasiness with the endorsement deals that subsidized her adventures, and of course the various challenges–not least an alcoholic navigator, played by Christopher Eccleston–of the flights themselves. And we do get testimonials of her character. In one revealing scene, the young son (played by William Cuddy) of an airline-industry pioneer (played by Ewan McGregor) finds himself frightened in a room decorated with exaggerated jungle imagery, including many malevolently predatory animals. Earhart reassures the boy that she decorated the room that way on purpose, in order to confront her own fear. Where and when this fear originated, or why and how she decided to cope with it via freaky wallpaper, we are not meant to know. But the boy is Gore Vidal, whose pugnacity later in life we are expected to know, and to credit at least in part to Earhart’s influence.

In other words, the Amelia of “Amelia” is fully formed as a role model from moment one, and so she remains all the way through to the end (and beyond). All the film really does, dramatically, is observe and endorse her resistance to being thwarted. The rest is just a warm and winning turn from Swank, who manages to dispense advice like “Don’t let anyone turn you around” without a trace of stridency, and to seem birdlike as much for her easy gentility as for her acclimation to an all too briefly airborne life.

The summer of 2009 ought to go down in history for featuring two of the worst blockbusters in recent memory. While 2008 gave us fun superhero flicks like Iron Man and The Dark Knight, 2009’s offerings include a terrible Transformers sequel and this particular clunker, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Yes, it’s based on the toy and yes, it’s as awful as you’d expect.

Directed by Stephen Sommers, G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra seems to want the honour of taking down Michael Bay’s Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen in terms of obnoxiousness and explosions. Unfortunately for Sommers, it’s really difficult to top Bay at anything stupid and he comes up short here. This movie is slightly better than the Transformers sequel, but it doesn’t miss the mark by much.

The movie is produced by Hasbro and is essentially a live-action toy commercial set to a whole lot of weird rap-metal music that shirtless wrestling fans will love. Talking about the plot is almost pointless, but the basic gist of the thing is that some weapons expert (Christopher Eccleston) has created technology that works a little like advanced termites. Called nanotechnology-based weaponry, the idea is to unleash all of these little bug type creatures on structure and have them eat away at it.

Of course, the technology falls into the “wrong hands” after the Baroness (Sienna Miller) and a bunch of other bad guys hijack a transport shipment. This leads two army guys, played by Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans, to want to find out why. It also leads them into the clutches of a group that has been tracking the bad guys for a while. The group is, of course, the G.I. Joe team and they’re led by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid).

One thing leads to another and, over the course of about two hours and a pile of chases and explosions that mean virtually nothing, the Joe team takes on the bad guys and tries to stop their evil plot to…do…something. Loads of the toy characters (?) are present, including Snake Eyes (Ray Park), Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and of course the Cobra Commander (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) himself.

Expectations for a movie like G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra ought to be firmly fixed on the ground. This is about blowing stuff up and doing it for various swooping and slowing camera angles. There’s really nothing else to this project of CGI porn than that and, if you’re unfortunate enough to expect some sort of additional entertainment value, you’re out of luck with this one. Sommers has his target audience in mind and delivers the goods.

The problem is that it’s just all so darn lame and, frankly, oddly disturbing. This is a movie that requires something to blow up about every thirty seconds or so. There are fights galore, none of which are very good, and a lot of chasing around through cities and landmark areas. The thing about all of this racket is that Sommers doesn’t have a bloody clue how to direct these sequences and effectively neuters them from providing any sense of danger or suspense.

A key example of this is one of the film’s key chase sequences through Paris. Cars flip and explode left, right and centre, with their innocent and uninvolved occupants presumably chuckling about it (seriously, what’s the innocent person body count estimate on this beast of a movie? 3000 or so?) after the fact. The Joes race through in ridiculous suits that make them almost impervious to, well, anything, and there’s just no risk to it at all. There’s no reason to care, save for just looking at the explosions and the CGI things flying around, and there’s no real reason to get excited unless G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is, in fact, your first time at the movies.

I’m not going to get into the performances because, quite simply, I don’t care. Sienna Miller is an able replacement for the Megan Fox-ish part, of course, and her appearance in a number of dominatrix-style getups isn’t all that bad. As for the rest of it, you don’t need me to tell you what G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is designed for: yeah, there’s a sequel or two coming and, yeah, there will be toys.

0.9/10

Trailer:

…Or, rather, David Tennant.  But I will get to that in a moment.

Artwork by Neil Cameron

Plot devices and continuity.  Like most hit television shows, in any given genre, be it comedy or drama… from Grey’s Anatomy to Ugly Betty to Lost to Star Trek to Stargate to, yes, Doctor Who.  New writers must come in and draw a fine line where the old left off, and hopefully fill those new shoes properly.  If you were hired to write a hit TV show tomorrow and you were not a fan or somewhat of an expert or historian in that series, somewhat part of the progression of it, I would tell you to get the F out.  Good example, Desperate Housewives. I mean, come on, five years later? OK, prequels I can handle.  Pip and Jane Baker; you wrote about Colin Baker but you never ever bothered to watch the series and analyze your lead character’s progressions?

I have faith Stephen Moffat will make this new improved Doctor Who work to his advantage, and, most importantly, the audience’s advantage.  And don’t be surprised if Russell T. Davies “guest writes” a story every now and then.  Like most science fiction shows, the best writers and collaborators must look at the material of seasons past and see how they can improve on that, go one step further.  They must include an element within a series that will not only keep the viewer attached but something that approximates the previous seasons and the very heart of what the show represents, especially in terms of approach and sophistication.  Good example, historical stories.  Anything else nowadays is a waste of time and a quick cancellation. 

The Two New Stars of Series Five

But, once again, I have faith in the soon-arriving Fifth Series Doctor when it comes to his bow-tie donning persona, what I personally consider to be a 21^st century Peter Davison by way of Jon Pertwee and perhaps a bit of suave “academic emo”.  Then again, over the next three years—in which Matt Smith was contracted—I could end up wrong.  However, I love the new outfit.  And I fell in love with Matt Smith when I saw that new TARDIS, the tweed dandy, and the old crotchety boots and rags he was wearing.  Yes, sometimes fashion makes a bold statement.  The best part: it works for just about all age groups. 

When I was growing up, the late Tom Baker and Peter Davison years were my era.  My son loves Christopher Eccleston.  Who knows, maybe it’s the ears.  But he is young.  The way I grew up to Davison, is the way my boy will start off “fresh” with Matt Smith.  The Eleventh Doctor.  Below you will find set photographs littered across the web of Matt Smith in a rather torn-up outfit belonging to a dead David Tennant.  Yes, the Tenth Doctor’s garb.  Ice cream, anyone? And there’s a surprised Karen Gillan, in standard police uniform, by his side.  So one question now remains: what happened in the aftermath of whatever it is that killed Tennant’s character off?

Well, actually, two: How did David Tennant die?

REGEN-NEWS TIP: The Gallifreyan Embassy (Doctor Who Podshock): ttp://networkedblogs.com/p13718949

Official BBC Doctor Who Homepage:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ 

Doctor Who Series Five Monster Poll:

http://lawrencedagstine.com/2009/03/16/doctor-who-series-five-monsters/

 On-Location Film Shoots:

www.bigpicturesphoto.com

Surprise, surprise!

"Can I get you a Firerocket, Amy?"

The 2010 series assures us the return of Alex Kingston (Professor Riversong, who I suspect might be Amy Pond).  The new series assures us the return of the Daleks.  The 2010 series rumors that Billie Piper and Christopher Eccleston will be back.  How the latter, I do not know.  Maybe Merlin, maybe CGI dragons.  There are rumors of The Sea Devils, Sherlock Holmes, The Yeti, The London Underground (remember The Web of Fear), and possibly Noel Clarke and John Barrowman, too.  But until 2010, that’s all they are: rumors.

Matt Smith

Nevertheless, I’d like to take this time to thank David Tennant, Russell T. Davies, and Julie Gardner for fulfilling a dream I had wished come true way back in the 90’s when I was scouring Forbidden Planet, Barnes & Nobles, and Borders for paperbacks like the “The New Adventures” and places like FYE and Sam Goody for VHS Tapes of past stories.

Goodbye David Tennant

Thank you David Tennant, for being a BRILLIANT Tenth Doctor.  This post is dedicated to you.

Yours Truly,

Lawrence R. Dagstine

Just Another SF Geek.

P.S.: How about that new DW Logo? What do you think?

P.S. 2: I’ll return with more Whovian news and thoughts in 2010.

G.I. Joe comes to the big screen as the team must take down an arms dealer who has created a bomb made of nanites that will literally eat cities until the kill switch is hit.

Directed by – Stephen Sommers

Written by – Stuart Beattie, David Elliot, Paul Lovett, Michael Gordon, Stephen Sommers

Starring – Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Christopher Eccleston, Gregory Fitoussi, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Karolina Kurkova, Byung-hun Lee, Sienna Miller, Rachel Nichols, Kevin J. O’Connor, Gerald Okamura, Ray Park, Dennis Quaid, Said Taghmaoui, Channing Tatum, Arnold Vosloo, Marlon Wayans

I’m sure there’s two running opinions on this flick. I liked it for the sheer action of it. It’s packed full of explosions, car chases, shooting, fighting and over the top bases that nobody could ever build in the first place. The other camp might not like it because it probably screws with G.I. Joe history and doesn’t follow the mythology of the original series. That’s why I liked it so much, I don’t know anything about the history of G.I. Joe beyond the fact that I watched the cartoon as a kid.

The plot does get pretty convoluted at times. This person has a history with this person who’s related to this other person who’s supposed to be dead but still has a job at the local Wal-Mart and sells guns out of his shed. Or something like that. While all the connect the dots history of the characters can get annoying, I was only in this one for the action and that’s exactly what I got.

The Baroness. The hottest girl to knock you out in years!

I don’t think I would even bother trying to go into the plot at this point. While it’s pretty obvious what’s going on, there’s so much of it that you can get lost. Better to just stick to watching things go boom, and man, do things go boom alot. The action is well done and fits the G.I. Joe theme with giant bases and huge battles. I mean, who really has the money to build a giant underwater city! Of course it’s in there anyway, just like I would expect from a G.I. Joe movie.

While I did really enjoy it, there were some things that bothered me. I didn’t like the way Cobra Commander looked. I love the classic Cobra Commander and his look in the movie wasn’t even close to this. I was assured by a friend that he actually did look this way at one point in the history of G.I. Joe but I can’t remember it and I wish they had chosen a look that the general public would recognize more. Either that or everyone else knows it and I didn’t, that could be the case! I was also bothered by the fact that Snake Eyes suit had a mouth on it. The guy doesn’t talk, why does his suit have a mouth on it. And it looked really odd. Here’s this tight fitting mask that is so tight it’s hugging his lips and saying hello to them. I know, it’s a small thing but it was distracting every time I saw it. I’m weird like that.

The Joe team gets ready for action, in black leather of course.

Overall this movie delivers on the promise of over the top action and that’s all that I wanted from it. I certainly enjoyed it more than I thought I would and I can see how it fits into the popcorn action blockbuster section. I mean, it’s G.I. Joe right, did we really think it would be anything else?

Under the marquee – Will

Un buen domingo por la noche un amigo me descubrió una de las series que más me ha marcado últimamente: Torchwood. Poco después. descubrí que se trataba de un spin-off de las nuevas temporadas de Doctor Who. Mi recuerdo de Doctor Who era un poco borroso… Una serie inglesa de hace un montón de años, un tío de pelo rizado, la cabina de policía, telemadrid… No demasiado. Recuerdo que me gustaba, pero poco más.

Rose y El Doctor (Billie Piper y Christopher Eccleston)

No puedo evitar terminar sin poner el video de Billie Piper… ella ya bajaba de una nave espacial…. todo estaba escrito….

por Luiz Alexandre

Amigos, gostaria de começar este texto contando-lhes uma pequena história. Até hoje, no momento em que escrevo meu primeiro texto para o Dia da Fúria, jamais vi um filme de Alex Cox. Até hoje a tarde, não vi nem ao mesmo Repo Man. Sendo mais sincero ainda, até o dia em que fui convidado a participar e Leandro Caraça me deu as opções que restavam na filmografia do diretor só escolhi este por adorar o título. Corri atrás do filme no Cinemaggedon, arrumei umas legendas em inglês e, finalmente, assisti a essa película. Eis que me “desvirgino” no cinema de Alex Cox e, confesso, estou confuso e com uma sensação estranha, como que um tanto impressionado e decepcionado com o que acabei de ver. Mais ou menos como no coito. Enfim, vou prosseguir.

Revenger’s Tragedy, de 2002, é a adaptação de uma tragédia inglesa publicada em 1607 por um autor ainda não confirmado, mas possivelmente de Thomas Middleton. Mas em vez da corte italiana do século XV o que temos é a Liverpool de um futuro caótico onde um cruel duque (Derek Jacobi) e seus filhos inescrupulosos (Eddie Izzard, Justin Salinger, Paul Reynolds, Marc Warren e Fraser Ayres) é quem dominam. Em uma cidade repleta de violência e miséria surge Vindice (Christopher Eccleston), um homem que busca vingança pelo cruel assassinato de sua mulher anos antes pelo próprio Duque. Para tal ele conta com a ajuda de seus irmãos Carlo (Andrew Scofield) e Castiza (Carla Henry), objeto de desejo de um dos filhos do Duque.

O filme, apesar do clima urbano apocalíptico e futurista, é todo falado em inglês elizabetano, como se feito num teatro da época em que o livro foi escrito, o que tornou as citadas legendas quase inúteis em certos momentos, mas que confere um charme especial à trama. Apesar do clima exagerado das roupas e dos diálogos, como se fosse o resultado de uma noite de amor entre Franco Zefirelli e John Carpenter durante um show do David Bowie, o filme possui as famosas pancadas do diretor nas figuras de poder. Todos os “nobres” mostrados no filme têm uma moral que está abaixo da de um pedófilo, esfaqueando-se pelas costas eternamente. O personagem central volta toda a sua ira contra os excessos da “corte”, tanto de status quanto sexuais, utilizando os despudores dos tiranos contra si mesmos para alcançar sua vendeta.

Longe de ser um grande filme, achei que o diretor poderia ter dado um olhar ainda mais grave na relação dos irmãos, a “nobreza” do filme é por demais caricata e imbecil. Contudo, vale pela maneira como ele desmonta a figura dos ídolos políticos, satiriza as convenções entre aqueles que dominam e denuncia até mesmo a cobiça do pobre, na figura da mãe cega de Vindice, além da trilha sonora do Chumbawamba, banda irlandesa declaradamente anarquista. Três cabeças do Lee Van Cleef!

So here we go again; first day of fall, Heroes begins.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but flaws and all I still love this show.  While it’s true season three did not live up to the over-hype from Kring and NBC, and it took a beating in the media (more than it deserved, IMO).  Even if it did fail to “melt my head” (or something similar) as Milo said at 2008 ComiCon, and perhaps I came away from each episode instead  scratching my head wondering what they were trying to accomplish, I still felt they did their job by entertaining me every week.

And yes I was irritated by the “Sylar is a Petrelli…just kidding…he’s really not” storyline.  I’m still bitter!  I loved the idea of Sylar being a Petrelli.  And the way NBC marketing played it we were made to believe it was a sure thing  (i.e.: Arthur Petrelli having three sons, Sylar being revealed as an empathic, calling Peter “brother” five years in the future).  And then they took it all back.  That future as a waffle baking daddy with a cute little boy was gone.  I was devastated!  I know they were trying to drag it out to add drama to the plot, but all they managed to accomplish was to irritate viewers who were now invested in Sylar now being a good guy because they presented an acceptable scenario.  Not your best work guys.

So why do I still love this show?

1. Sylar – There are those who hate him, but I still find him deliciously evil; not to mention smoking hot!

2. Peter – So I’m a sucker for a good Italian boy.

3. HRG – Need I say more?  Has there ever been a better badass?

4. Angela Petrelli – Can a 60ish year old woman who steals socks as a hobby still be a badass?  Hell yeah!

5. Mr. Muggles!!!  Not since the Vampire Pomeranian in Blade III has there been a more badass pom.  And I hate small dogs!

6. THE HAITIAN!  I loves me some Haitian!  I think he needs his own spin-off; perhaps a buddy drama with Claude Raines (the god-worthy Christopher Eccleston).  That would be off the awesomeness scale!

So all in all, Heroes has had its problems, but I remain hopeful.  I am waiting with bated breath for 8pm on Monday September 21 and I will spend the next several months looking forward to Mondays again and spend the day excited because it’s Monday (even though I will be making mental death threats to my boss).

I still believe in Heroes.  This show can still be good and at the end of the day, there are those of us who still love it; warts and all.

Is it Monday yet?

var infolink_pid = 38789;

Amelia Movie

Hilary Swank and Richard Gere star in director Mira Nair’s biopic tracing the life of famed aviator Amelia Earhart — who made history in 1932 by becoming the first woman ever to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. Five years later, as Earhart attempted to fly around the world, the pilot and her plane simply vanished after crashing into the Pacific Ocean. Virginia Madsen and Ewan McGregor co-star in the Avalon Pictures production

Era pra eu ter assistido a UP – Altas Aventuras. Me lembrem de nunca mais ir ao cinema em dia de feriado. O único cinema da cidade… Aí já viu, né?! Filas gigantescas. Bem… Não posso reclamar muito do filme que eu assisti. O ingresso foi grátis! Compraram e me deram de “presente” ;D

Vi minha infância diante dos meus olhos. Que Max Steel que nada! No meu tempo, os bonecos tinhas armas de verdade… Metralhadoras, pistolas, facas (de plástico)! A grande jogada de G.I. JOE- A Origem de Cobra foi fazer uma ambientação meio futurística, até para poder dar uma “explicada” ao que se refere o tema ‘material bélico’. Ah… Só pra constar, nasci em 1986. Fui ter meu primeiro boneco Falcon (ou Comandos em Ação, como você preferir) lá pelos idos de 1992/93. Em 1995 eles pararam de ser fabricados/importados pela Estrela.

A sinopse do filme é a seguinte: o maior fabricante de armas do mundo tem que entregar um superdesenvolvido armamento à OTAN. Entretanto, durante o translado dessa arma, o comboio militar que faz sua segurança é atacado. Graças aos JOE, a superarma não é roubada. Somente dois sobreviventes restam desse comboio e eles são convidados a integrar a equipe JOE. Em uma segunda investida, essa arma é roubada. Agora os JOE têm que descobrir quem a roubou, tentar capturá-la de volta e pôr os bandidos atrás das grades.

Parece uma simples caça ao bandido, né?! Mas não é. Não é quando se envolve uma organização militar secreta internacional, armas superhipermega futurísticas, artes marciais, paisagens bonitas (montanhas no Quirguistão, Paris, o Ártico e as grandes dunas do Saara egípcio foram as “locações”) e  atores que dão conta do recado. Claro que a história é super previsível, mas não chega a ser algo clichê. Tem até erro de continuidade de cena. Entretanto, o que se vê na tela é puro entretenimento.

A Paramount, juntamente com a fabricante de brinquedos Hasbro, se uniram para lançar uma nova franquia cinematográfica (a primeira foi Transformers, com grade sucesso de público). Elas gastaram cerca de 170 milhões de dólares na produção do filme e outros 150 milhões em publicidade. O que se vê no filme é uma hiperdependência de efeitos especiais. Mas qual filme de Stephen Sommers, criador de ‘A Múmia’ e de ‘O Retorno da Múmia”, não é?

Não há no filme um ator que se destaque como sendo o melhor ou que tenha brilhado mais. Todos estão no mesmo patamar, o que é razoavelmente bom num filme assim, cheio de personagens, pois todos podem mostrar seu trabalho sem pressão. Falo isso até do veterano Danis Quaid. Gosto dele. É sempre bom vê-lo atuando.

No mais, G.I. JOE – A Origem de Cobra é um filme sem pretensões, mas que diverte bastante. Os efeitos especiais não são nada fora do comum, mas intrigam e quase nos hipnotizam, principalmente a cena em que há uma perseguição e dois dos Joe estão usando uma roupa aceleradora… É isso. Classifico-o como uma boa diversão, despretenciosa, com boas cenas de ação em bons planos-sequências e que lhe valerão algumas boas risadas. Resumindo: bom filme!

Trailer:

G.I Joe – A Origem de Cobra (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra), distribuído por Paramount Pictures, EUA/2009, um filme de Stephen Sommers, roteiro de Stuart Beattie, David Elliot e Paul Lovett, baseado em estória de Michael Gordon, Stuart Beattie e Stephen Sommers, com Dennis Quaid, Channing Tatum, Sienna Miller, Marlon Wayans, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ray Park, Christopher Eccleston, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Nichols, Jonathan Pryce, Arnold Vosloo, Adewale Akinnuoye Agbaje, Ação, 118 min, inadequado para menores de 14 anos.

Elizabeth (1998)
★★★★ / ★★★★

Shekhar Kapur’s “Elizabeth” moved me in a number of ways and I found it to be strange because I find that to be a rarity in most historical films. Queen Elizabeth I (played by the ever-talented Cate Blanchett) must quickly take control of England and the lands it possesses after the death of her half-sister Queen Mary I (Kathy Burke). But it proves to be a clincher of a task because England was divided by religion, increasing poverty, a lack of men to form a proper army to defend itself from those who were hungry for power, and not to mention those who wanted to assassinate her. I really felt for Blanchett’s character because I saw her change from this warm, free-spirited woman who was open to love and idealism into a fierce queen who learned how to set her heart aside and make difficult decisions. Blanchett was the perfect actor to play the role because I’ve always seen her as warm but having the capacity to turn in an ice queen in a second. I enjoyed how the picture managed to balance the romance between Queen Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes), the insidious affairs of the Duke of Norfolk (Christopher Eccleston), and the eventual revelation of the secretive Sir Francis Walshingham’s (Geoffrey Rush) intentions. I was so engaged with the story because each scene had a purpose and something crucial was always at the forefront. Aside from the acting, I admired the picture’s use of lighting (especially the scenes inside the palace during the day), stunning set pieces and wardrobes. I cannot believe “Shakespeare in Love” won against this film because this one is far superior in every respect. I did enjoy “Shakespeare in Love” in some ways but it did not quite take me in a rollercoaster of emotions as “Elizabeth” did. This is far more complex especially with the issues it tried to tackle such as feminism during a time when men dominated the scene and how religion was often used as an excuse to justify sinful actions (in the least). While I do admit that I do not know much about the history of Queen Elizabeth I, I am now that much more curious to read up on her accomplishments.