Dragonball: Evolution

Overall Score: 51

Director: James Wong

Run Time: 85 min
Rating: PG

Viewer Bias: 6

Like several young men my age, I had a rather lengthy "Dragonball Z" phase. The non-stop action and excitement of the Japanese anime was incredibly appealing to me in my early teen years and resulted in an obsession the yielded the purchase of a plethora of memorabilia. Alas, hearing that a live-action iteration of the "Dragonball" series was going to be released in theaters brought back a wave of nostalgia that peaked my interest. However, being unable to convince others in their early 20s to fore go their cash (and pride) to go see the film led me to wait many months for the DVD release - and even a couple others to work up the courage at actually rent it.

After reading several reviews of the abomination, I had formulated very low expectations for "Dragonball: Evolution." These low expectations were not met. Despite being a formerly huge fan at least the "Dragonball Z" series, it is easy to see that "Dragonball: Evolution" is a terrible production and does not even attempt to bring justice to the anime series. It even raises several questions such as: Where did the original storyline go? Why is there a mixed number of Caucasian and Asian actors from a Japanese series? What did Chow Yung-Fat do to deserve this? Was that really Ernie Hudson? Sadly, "Winston" from "Ghostbusters" does make an appearance and thus "Dragonball: Evolution" is born.


Direction: 4

Although James Wong may have directed such notable, stellar films as Jet Li's "The One" (Pictures on a Screen) and "Final Destination 3" (straight to DVD), his direction falls very short of the mark. As you will no doubt see in later categories the acting is painful, the writing belongs in a "Star Wars" film, and the overall visual look of the film is laughable. Mr. Wong's direction did little to nothing to help this sinking ship and has officially dragged many formerly notable actor's careers in the mud.


Editing: 6

In a production with few things going for it, the editing isn't too terrible. There are a few awkward cuts, but considering the insanity of the characters and situation the editing is done decently well.


Acting: 5

All you need to know is that the acting is terrible...I mean really bad. Somehow Chow Yung-Fat, a man with numerous award winning accolades, and former Golden Globe nominee Emmy Rossum play second-banana to up-coming actor Justin Catwin who plays the 18-year-old Goku. The poor direction of James Wong and awful writing of Ben Ramsey severally limit the range and illuminate the idiocy of each character to project a facade of a film that only appeals to 12-year-olds even though none of them have any recollection of the source material. Chatwin's performance is garbage and any attempt he makes to convey emotion is laughable.


Writing: 3

I could have sworn that George Lucas wrote this screenplay. Dialogue has more cheese in it than a super market and dilute characters to a infantile state lower than the original cartoon - which is saying something. Somehow screenwriter Ben Ramsey, director James Wong, and actor Chow Yung-Fat all felt that Yung-Fat's Master Roshi character should first intimidate Goku with the line "Believe it punk! You are getting your clock cleaned." Enough said.


Story: 5

The only things that attach "Dragonball: Evolution" to the anime series are character names and the dragon balls themselves. The "PG" rated film takes more time contriving a "geeky high school boy likes high school girl" drama, complete with bullying and teenage insecurity, than it does forwarding a plot in any relation to the source material. At 85 minutes, that is not enough time to create anything of interest. Also, I'm not sure where some of these characters are coming from. For example, Piccolo's (who doesn't looking anything like Piccolo) minion Mia was slapped into this story and is about as one-dimensional as a dot - and has as many lines as well. Dare I say the words stupid, pointless, and a waste of time?


Cinematography: 6

The cinematography ranges from decent to terrible. This inconstancy is most notable between landscaped, panoramic shots and more intimate character reaction and process shots. The former are done pretty well and the latter...lets just say fits in with the rest of the film.


Special Effects: 5

Another strange inconsistency. The realism of CGI in "Drangonball: Evolution" is all across the board. The prologue sequence is done surprisingly well whereas Goku's "Kamehameha" blast belongs in a late night sci-fi mini series. It is difficult to pull off any believability in visual effects when the subject matter calls for a spiky haired man and green villain to fly through the air shooting energy blasts at one another - but they still could have done a better job. The climax of "Matrix Revolutions" is closer to "Dragonball Z" than this.


Music: 7

The music really wasn't all that bad. It is by far, the best part of the "Dragonball: Evolution" experience and co-insides very well with the action on-screen. Nevertheless, it was still not notable enough for you to recall after viewing the film.


Wow Factor: 4

"Dragonball: Evolution" could have made up for some desperately needed points here, but falls flat once again. I don't want to criticize the film for its "PG" rating like an irate teenage fanboy, but the diluted action of "Dragonball: Evolution" yeilded the lower rating. In a world were the average teenager flick is at least rated "PG-13," "Dragonball: Evolution" feels a little too watered down. Although it is refreshing to see an action title attempt to entertain without needless fetishization of women or extensive violence, a live-action take on the "Dragonball" universe does not warrant as delicate of a treatment. The original series would easily be rated "PG-13" or higher if the unrated versions were shown in theaters due to the high-octane, violent action which is the staple of the series. It seems as though Goku pulls too many of his punches and the whole film misses its mark, never to become a "Super Saiyan" in anyone's book.

Pictures on a Screen - 51

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Eric's Review: 64

Director: Gavin Hood

Run Time: 107 min
Rating: PG-13

Overall Enjoyment: 7

Having not followed the "X-Men" comic book series and having little clue as to what the "official" origins of Wolverine really are, I feel like I was approaching the movie from a position where I would have a higher chance of enjoying it. I think I did. "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" seems to be about as good as anyone can expect a non-thinking, blow-everything-up summer blockbuster can be. However, the movie's special effects - of which I will mention later - hindered my full enjoyment of the film. Also, some of the inconsistencies the movie has with other "X-Men" movies in the series detracts quite a bit as well. Also, I must acknowledge that I am by no means a fan of the character of Wolverine.


Acting: 6

The acting in "Wolverine" is par at best. Hugh Jackman gives a somewhat convincing and interesting performance of the same character he has already played in three other movies, but everything feels a little dry. The horrible writing does not help the horrible delivery of said writing by the movie's cast of "Isn't that guy from?" and "I think I've seen him before" actors.


Cinematography: 5

What cinematography? This is about as flat of a movie as you can see. Once again however, I would be surprised to see interesting camerawork in a film about a half-naked man with claws in his hands. It's what you can expect from a summer blockbuster, nothing more.


Writing: 5

Also, it's about what you would expect from a summer blockbuster, nevertheless slightly above the level of "George Lucas" or "monkey with a pen." The writing in the film will very easily take you out of the movie-going experience which unfortunately bodes unfavorably for the film's Oscar chances. However, if you thought "Transformers" had clever philosophical dialogue then you should feel right at home.


Plot: 7

The plot was relatively interesting and did encompass a well developed story between Logan and Victor (Wolverine and Sabretooth). This realtionship does not seem to make sense in realtion to the other "X-Men" movies because there is no obvious relationship between these two character in the first movie of the series. For us non-X-men fanboys, I don't really understand if there is any other meaning as to why Logan and Victor seemed to stop aging for 150 years other than the simple fact that they are mutants. Also, changes his name to Logan anyway? All plot holes aside, this does give a little more insight into Wolverine's character and does offer a twist or two to make it somewhat interesting.


Soundtrack: 8

I actually did enjoy the soundtrack. Composer Harry Gregson-Williams does a masterful job of introducing melodies that appropriately couple with the mood of any given scene. I am a firm believer that a good soundtrack to make a good movie a great film. In this case, it makes a mediocre movie and slightly above mediocre movie.


Special Effects: 5

"Wolverine" deserves a "5" for special effects because some of the movie's CGI looks like it's from 1995. There is one scene in particular where Wolverine examines his new claw like blades in a bathroom and the CGI looks particularly aweful and even seems to float around on his hand. "Woody," the talking doll from Pixar's 1995 release of "Toy Story" looks better. At a time this would all look fine, but not in 2009.


Editing: 7

The movie's editing is one that that did not take me out of the experience. I can't exactly tout "Wolverine" for its editing, but at least it was pieced together well enough that I didn't notice it.


Sound Design: 8

The sound in "Wolverine" is pretty good and sadly the best aspect of the presentation. Everything from sound effects to music was pieced together very well even with a film featuring some pretty obscure sounds.


Climax: 6

Dare I say disappointing? I wasn't ever really sure when I was seeing the climatic end of the movie. The entire plot is driven between this conflict between Logan and Victor, but then a third character is introduced for the apparently sole purpose of leading into that character's solo movie. It all feels just tacked on especially when you know there will be no definitive end to this feud since Sabretooth appears in the first "X-men" movie. Also, I'm not a huge "X-Men" fan, but I could even tell that Gambit's role was shortchanged. He appears to have really interesting powers and is a fan favorite, but he only receives about 10 minutes of screen time. That is a shame and a slap on the face to fans.

Movie - 64

VGF - Video Game Freedom

Check out Eric's blog, VGF - Video Game Freedom:

Milk

Eric's Review: 82

Director: Gus Van Sant
Run Time: 128 min
Rating: R

Overall Enjoyment: 8

"Milk" is shot moreso as a documentary than a dramatic piece of work. Having said that, there were a lot of aesthetic choices in editing and certainly acting that make this a fantastic film that was worth of the Oscar nomination. However, I found it to be particularly interesting how the characters - and even Harvey Milk himself - seemed to accurately mimic stereotypes associated with the gay community ranging from physical gestures, speech, and consistent remarks on how "cute" some guy is. I understand that the film is attempting to accurately portray each character as true to actual statements and moods as possible, I just find it to be interesting how several of the characters play directly to stereotypes. Nevertheless, "Milk" is a film with great pacing and has a sense of humor that makes it an enjoyable film with a positive message albeit a little biased although one cannot look for objectivity in a film titled "Milk" a bio pic in every sense.


Acting: 10

Sean Penn certainly gives an outstanding performance in bringing the character of Harvey Milk to life in a way that the audience can identify with and root for. The supporting cast does an equally fantastic job of portraying believable and well crafted characters. There were only a few instances where acting took me out of the experience (mostly from James Franco) which easily makes this the best cast collaboration I have seen from 2008 thus far. Alas, I do not think that Penn's performance outweighs that of Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler." I was waiting for Sean Penn to take his role to the next level and I felt that Rourke's performance of an aged wrestler was more genuine and should have yielded the Oscar.

Cinematography: 7

The cinematography in "Milk" was relatively flat with a few incredibly interesting shots. However, this interesting shot were so few in between that they felt a little disjointed when you did see something well crafted. I noticed an interesting motif of reflection through the film's cinematography. Most often it was used within a window where we see the character's reflection in the window while his internal thoughts are expressed through the action taking place on the opposite side.

Writing: 9

As far as I have seen thus far, the film's Oscar for original screenplay is on mark. The dialogue of the characters is well written and the political discourse was inspiring and moving. A well written and well performed film.


Plot: 8

One cannot do too much when the plot is already written via history. However, I thought a sense of suspense was built through the plot and progressed well to maintain interest. Shifting through various elections throughout Milk's career was divided in a manner that seemed appropriate. The film did not linger too long in any particular event in his career and seemed concise when something was highlighted.


Soundtrack: 7

To be honest I do not remember the soundtrack very well. This could mean one of two things: either I was so engaged in the story and the soundtrack supplemented the film well or there was little to no music in the film. For some reason I cannot remember if I enjoyed the music or not.


Special Effects: 7

"Milk" suffers from not needing in produce any special effects. However, there was a stylistic choice to make the film appear to be grainy at times and much more clear in other sections. The problem here is that I did not understand what the filmmakers were going for in their choices. Obviously, the grainy nature of a scene has an aged quality and looks like old stock footage. I just do not know why it was used at certain times and not others.

Editing: 9

I felt that the editing between actual stock footage and newly shot material for the film was seamless and brought some authenticity to the film. I also felt that the editing of the film to produce a documentary-like mood did well for the story and added to the emotional impact of the message presented to the audience. Once again, excellent pacing.

Sound Design: 8

This is hard for me to judge since the copy of the film I saw had some problems with the sound track. From what I could tell, the sound of the film was well put together and did its job of sounding like anything from a rally to intimate dialogue.

Climax: 9

I thought the ending of the film was appropriate and to be expected. For whatever reason it seemed to remind of the ending of "Road to Perdition" which I cannot really detail without spoiling anything. Regardless, there is an almost surreal tension produced at the end that left me feeling suspended in a way that only a well developed film can. Outstanding.

Film - 82

Watchmen

Eric's Review: 73

Director: Zach Snyder
Run Time: 163 min
Rating: R

Overall Enjoyment: 7

"Watchmen" has gained a lot of hype from not only its advertising campaign, but from folks across the Internet that have hailed the rated "R" super hero film something that far surpasses "The Dark Knight" as the "Citizen Kane" of the genre. These allegations are a bit far fetched. Although this is a very interesting take on the super hero film genre, it feels a little overly convoluted and melodramatic for a story featuring characters that look like comic book rejects. Nevertheless, I do applaud the dramatic and thematic spirit of the film despite its confusing story filled with more themes and ideas than even the 163 minute running time will allow. Having never read the graphic novel, I may be at a disadvantage although it was a shocking and enjoyable ride while it lasted.


Acting: 6

Overacting is often key in comic book - or in this case graphic novel - inspired films, but "Watchmen" takes this to an extreme. Obviously some characters are more expressive than others, but the fantastic (in the literal sense) style in which these characters are portrayed harm what realism the film still tries to convey. It's rough when the computer generated blue man (Dr. Manhattan) is the best actor.


Cinematography: 9

I felt that the cinematography of the the film was outstanding. The special effects of the film help to create a very stylized and ambient alternate 1985 on the verge of nuclear holocaust. Many of the unique shots in the film are contrived via special effects, yet is done in dynamic fashion that is refreshing to the genre.


Writing: 7

The dialogue in the film ranges from cheesy to pretentious dramatically and very quickly. As I was watching the film, I had a hard time deciding if I liked what I was hearing or not. The film draws a fine line between a somewhat realistic alternative world and a completely fantastical universe. The dialogue follows suit. At times the philosophical dialogue about human nature and the importance of life is well contrived, but then there are silly lines that throw the film off base. Maybe its just my bias of stupid looking Batman wannabe costumes.


Plot: 7

Being new to the story I was very confused. I appreciated the fresh perspective on superheros (although only one of them actually has a super power as far as I can tell) and the mature tone the whole film revolves around. You see a lot of blood and there actually is quite a bit of sexual content including nudity in the film. However, I think what makes "Watchmen" so different from other super hero films is exactly what harms its story: it was based on a graphic novel. In this way, the filmmakers are adapting an existing story as if it was a book instead of a comic book series where only a few story elements need to be inserted and can be pieced together from different points in the series. This is an adaptation of one complete story. The problem therein lies in the fact that the film attempts to introduce and develop several characters - which it does an excellent job of - as well as convey several ideas, themes, and other philosophical theologies. It all seems like too much even though the film flirts around 3 hours in length. It is overbearing for newcomers to the story and leaves you questioning if you like the film because you don't fully understand it.


Soundtrack: 8

In order to convience audiences that this is supposed to be 1985, popular music from the time period is inserted into various scenes. I thought it was an interesting choice on the part of the filmmakers as the music is often used to juxtapose the action that is happening on screen. I even caught the "Apocalypse Now" reference as "Flight of the Valkyries" is played when helicopters fly over a Vietnam landscape. Likewise, we see "President Nixon" - in 1985 strangely enough - in the war room that looks awfully a lot like Kubrick's war room in "Dr. Strangelove." Regardless, the soundtrack is used in a way that contrasts with the images on the screen to create an interesting harmony.


Special Effects: 9

The special effects of the film are very well done. This definitely looks like a 2009 film and could be placed in the summer movie category. Although we don't see our super heroes engage in a whole lot of combat, we do see a wide variety of visual effects that make this a film that is certainly a treat to see on the big screen. Apocalyptic doom never looked so good.


Editing: 8

I did not notice the editing of the film which means it was well done. The best editors are the ones that you don't notice what they do. I felt that one scene in particular was well done as we see two of the heroes fighting foes while another is being attacked by the media. Interesting cross-cutting and flow in editing.


Sound Design: 7

I did not see where the sound design of this film as anything out of the ordinary. Everything seemed to be pretty much as to be expected.


Climax: 5

To be honest, the end and resolution of the film was a bit of a let down. Without giving anything away I would say that I do not feel that everything was satisfactorily resolved. It seems like there was a big build up for an ending that is par at best and could have been more explicit in what the film was trying to say given its philosophical themes. Of course, a few twists keep it exciting, I just was looking for more.

Movie - 73

Nosferatu (1922)

Eric's Review: 76


Acting: 7

Nosferatu comes from an era that pre-dates sound and is considered to be part of the German Expressionistic movement therefore judging the film's acting is somewhat like comparing a mime to a theatrical performance. Of course, the acting to be overly embellished to covey the emotions of the actors, especially in an expressionistic film. Nevertheless, the acting would appear to be very appropriate for its era.


Cinematography: 9

As a German expressionistic film with heavy Freudian overtones, "Nosferatu" features beautiful cinematography. Director F. W. Murnau does a fabulous job of carefully framing his characters so that their screen prominence reflect the symbolic nature of the film. Nosferatu is primarily seen in the center of the frame to establish his authority whereas others are framed around the edges. You have to remember we are working with the technical abilities of the 1920s here.


Writing: 6

Once again, it is difficult to categorize the writing of any film from the silent era. There are title cards of course, but that is hardly the same as dialogue within a piece. Nevertheless, the overly exaggerated acting of the film gives a visual dialogue of which seems disjointed at time.


Plot: 7

Based off of the Bram Stoker novel of "Dracula," "Nosferatu" is a pretty close adaptation. The novel is peppered with Freudian psychology in the role of men and women - specifically the dangerous nature of a woman's unchecked sexuality. Approaching the film from this perspective, the film's plot becomes a scavenger hunt into the Freudian philosophy of the id, ego, and superego.


Soundtrack: 7

This is truly a category that can not be accounted for very well in a silent film. However, many films were accompanied by a live orchestra when shown to audiences during this time frame. In the version I view, there was an added soundtrack comprised of excerpts of various live performance pieces that would typically accompany the film. From what I heard, the music seemed to match the mood and action on the screen, but done so in a painfully obvious fashion.


Special Effects: 9

For its era, "Nosferatu" featured some truly haunting and interesting special effects. You have stop motion footage, time elapsed sequences, and the creative use of the film's negative. The inclusion of this techniques does a brilliant job of contriving a fantasy realm that matches with the film's mood and themes. Very well done.


Editing: 9

"Nosferatu" is not only viewed as one of the first horror films, but as a prime example of early editing techniques. The editing of the film is used as a psychological tool to trick the mind into believing in a mysterious landscape where time and movement is manipulated to create a horrifying creature. Likewise, some creative cross-cutting is used to confuse and mislead the audience into believing in certain assumptions that correlate with Freudian philosophies.


Sound Design: 7

Once again, this is a category that can not be applied to this film - however we are using a 100 point scale so I have to apply a score. The sound design is reflected in the film's added soundtrack which is creative at times by correlating musical gestures in place of sound effects.


Climax: 8

The climax of the film does an excellent job of both striking the inevitable fear of death into the hearts of the audience, but formulates a multitude of suspense due to cross-cutting. A very well crafted climax that is the height of the film's Freudian overtones.


Overall Enjoyment: 7

I am not a fan of the horror genre, but there is something very disturbing about the character of Nosferatu that remains with you. Certainly one of film's most iconic figures - and an inspiration for Karloff's Frankenstein - Nosferatu is a fascinating film that is easily a subject of film study everywhere. One could look to this film as the birth of the horror genre, one of the first films in the German expressionistic movement, and an innovation in editing and special effects. Nevertheless, I was often bored with the film and was dissatisfied with its pace at times.

FILM - 76

Slumdog Millionaire

Eric's Key Points:

- Vibrant and interesting cinematography.
- Engaging pacing that feels similar to "Lost."
- Lacks the grand feel and inspiring themes of a "Best Picture" film.


Colin's Key Points:

- Great Story, Gripping, Sucked me into the film.
- No Named actors made it more personable, I ended up rooting for the main character instead of thinking of what previous movies he was in.
- Oscar worthy.

Powered by Podbean.com

FILM