Author: crunchonthis

The Good: The first half of the film is absolutely horrifying.  Almost too much so.  The isolation, combined with impending doom makes this a difficult film to stomach at first.  While Smith is charismatic and the relationship with his dog sustains most of the picture, you still find yourself scared silly.  In this regard, the film is very successful.  Also, the special effects with the destruction and isolation of New York are very impressive. 

The Bad: I don’t wish to be the one to give anything away, but the film goes downhill fast after the climactic scene.  Smith’s character slips into a depression and the film follows right behind him.  It’s no longer a fun monster movie, but rather a serious bummer.  While it may be true to the original novel, that still doesn’t make the film fun to watch. 

I don’t want to sit back and compare Will Smith films, but the Zombies in this pic were too similar to the robots in I, Robot, especially in their body movements.  I wish they would have gone with more organic looking creatures, maybe not Romeroesque, but at least something that resembles the humans the creatures used to be. 

Also of note, the trailer has a great scene where Smith is standing between the monsters as they snarl at him.  That scene is nowhere to be found in the film and I found that to be a very distracting omission. 

While there have been many movies with this same basic premise, I enjoyed Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later much more.  It’s just as bleak, but overall it is a much more effective horror flick.

The Good: It appears that Newline spared no expense for the special effects budget of this film.  The look of the film is absolutely stunning and at times a joy to view.  As a lover of polar bears, I especially enjoyed the Kingdom of the Ice Bears and the scenes in the North.  I also found the daemons a very imaginative group of characters.

The Bad: I am still not sure what this story is about.  It’s a mess that makes no sense.  There is something about Dust and the ability to visit other universes, but this is never fully revealed. 
I was quite shocked that the movie is so incomplete.  They left it wide open with zero closure or resolution.  This could be a huge mistake if the film doesn’t make enough money to warrant a sequel.  Time will tell. 
Also, forget about the Catholic church and the controversy they are stirring up.  I didn’t see anything particularly objectionable and wonder if Newline is publicizing their comments in order to bring the film into the public eye. 

The Good: The Coen Brothers have always told their own stories, so to see them take on this novel by Cormac McCarthy is very different for them.  If you hadn’t read the book, or at least known the source, though, you would have thought it was their tale.  As a pseudo-narrator and sometimes participant, Tommy Lee Jones provides for a laid back view of the evil that men do, but the real power here lies behind Javier Bardem – the killer with the chili-bowl haircut.  Bardem is one of the scariest villains since Hannibal Lecter and I will predict that many a trophy will be added to his mantle come awards time.  For the first 90 minutes of this film, I was certain that I was watching the best film of the year. 

The Bad: It’s not that the third act is a disappointment, but there is an artistic choice made here that took me out of the film.  I won’t reveal the ending, and I’m not sure if they were just trying to be true to the source material, but the brothers Coen make a decision that I second guess.  I’m sure that they really don’t care if I act as a backseat driver here, but I’m also sure many will wish that this fantastic film could have ended on a different note.  Imagine, if you will, that you are on an amazing vacation.  One for the ages.  Then, on the last day – you are mugged.  No matter what transpired before, the trip is tainted.  That’s the feeling No Country gave me.

The Summary: Regardless of the strangely uncharacteristic third act, No Country for Old Men remains a powerful and horrifying psychological thriller. 

The Good: If you are fans of the game, you might enjoy this minor thrill ride.  There is lots of violence and nudity which might excite the target audience appropriately.  Olyphant, while not as good as usual, is still fun to watch for most of the film and gives his all to make this another Bourne Identity. 

The Bad: The acting by the rest of the cast is simply atrocious.  Of course the script doesn’t help the film’s cause.  The writing and directing are both novice and make this film very forgettable.  It might have helped to give the hero a real back story, rather than a jumbled montage opening credit sequence, but overall, this film is pretty much an unfixable mess from the start.

The Good: Director Zemeckis uses here the same style of motion-capture animation he used in his Christmas tale Polar Express.  The years have been good to the technology and the look of the film is stunning.  If you really want to see the best possible version of the film, take the 90-minute drive to Houston and see it in 3-D IMAX at the Marquee theater on IH-10 and Silber (just get your tickets early on www.fandango.com as it certain to sell out all of it’s showings over the next ten days).  The production, overall, is truly excellent and the whole experience is very entertaining.  The dragon fight scene at the end of the film is one of the most amazing and breathtaking action sequences I’ve ever laid eyes on. 

The Bad: I wasn’t so sold on the story, and while it’s not bad, the screenplay drags a bit at times and two hours seems a little long for the material.  Also, while it might be a fun film for teenage boys, it is violent and sensual enough to have garnered an R rating.  While blood was spared to achieve a PG-13, I would have given the flick a stronger rating and advise parents of small children to take them to a different movie.