Doug Gogerty's Blog

[  Currently:  ]

On the Beach is an interesting "Cold War" era movie. It is the story of an American submarine captain and his crew who are essentially stranded in Australia. You see Australia is the only place in the world that hasn't currently been effected by nuclear fallout. The crew is sent on a mission to explore a theory that it isn't as bad as they think. Also, they are sent to discover the source of a mysterious radio signal.

This is a interesting apocalyptic movie. It stars Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. It also has Anthony Perkins and Fred Astaire. It is a look at how people would react if a large population were faced with eventual annihilation, but it would come slowly. It is a movie without a happy ending. It should be taken as a warning of the dangers of Nuclear weapons, which it hammers on perhaps a bit too much. The performances are great. The story keeps you guessing. It is a bit dated, but still entertaining.

[  Currently:  ]

Cloverfield begins with someone tasked to record everyone's good wishes for a character who is leaving for Japan. (Over this character's own video of a day at Coney Island.) Needless to say, at some point the party is interrupted by an event. Luckily our cameraman keeps rolling!

I am not sure about this movie. It definitely has too much American 20 something angst for my taste. I love her, but I haven't told her, and now she is with someone else... Blech!

I also feel the monster is too complicated. If you are doing a POV thing, you should have a simple and scary monster.

These two things hurt the movie. The wise cracking guy with the camera is hit and miss. Shaky home movies are somewhat difficult to watch at times.

However, this movie is one that I SHOULD like. It does a good job at building towards the monster reveal. It does a good job building tension and moving the action along. It draws you in pretty well. However, it is missing something that I haven't quite figured out. Perhaps if I see it again, I'll figure it out. Only then will I enjoy it.

[  Currently:  ]

The Omega Man tells the story of Doctor Robert Neville who is alone in New York City save for some infected former humans -- as it were. Sound familiar? The movie was based upon the same book as the movie I am Legend. This version, however, is full of Charlton Heston 70's Sci-Fi cheese. Do you need to see the 46 year old Heston with his shirt off? Too bad! You get it in full sweaty glory!

While the cheese-o-meter is off the charts, they worked the ending in this one better than I Am Legend. However, the "protagonists" were better in the newer version. They were more vampire-esque in this older version, and they talked and were organized. The creatures became very anti-technology. This gave it a high cheese factor. Not to mention Heston's over-acting.

I think they are zeroing in on the book. There are definite similarities. They get some right in The Omega Man, and they get some right in I am Legend. However, no one has got it right. I do not mean -- right as in how the original story went -- I mean right as in no huge plot holes. For me, because of the cheese, I liked this one a little bit better than the Will Smith one. If you averaged them, you could have one really good movie though!

[  Currently:  ]

I Am Legend tells the story of Doctor Robert Neville who is alone in New York City save for some infected former humans -- as it were. He with his dog Samantha search for a cure to bring these mutant humans back to humanity.

First, I have not read the book, which I have heard that many people like. Thus, I cannot complain that this movie veers from the book, which I am sure it does.

Second, I would call this a zombie film. You have essentially, unstoppable creatures that attack regular human-folk. This film is very reminiscent of 28 Days Later. However, that film is superior to this one, but just a little bit -- in its ending.

Third, as usual it is very anti-science. Science creates the creatures. Science jumps ahead of itself and reeks havoc. This is the usual type of thing from sci-fi of the 50's and 60's. It is less prevalent in todays sci-fi, but it still exists.

Will Smith was terrific in the film, and so was Sam the dog! It was a pretty good roller-coaster ride. The big problem with the movie is the end. While I did not expect a down ending, they really wrecked this movie with its ending. It was far too sappy. They were perfectly set up for a down ending that would have had a statement. However, they went with the hooray -- a happy ending.

[  Currently:  ]

This movie is another entry in the realm of "Cyber Punk". The US DVD title that I rented was called Cyber Wars, but I come to find out it was really called Avatar. Neither title suggests what this movie is about. It stars Genevieve O'Reilly as a no nonsense bounty hunter. She is given the job of tracking down someone, and it seems fishy. However, she finishes the job, but finds herself in a bit of a spot when she finds out why they want this guy.

The movie is good -- save one flaw. It is the flaw that most "Cyber Punk" movies suffer from. That is, I cannot think of any logical reason to have the internet beamed directly into my brain. Sure it would be kind of nice to have some of that information in our brains so we wouldn't have to type. However, at what cost? This movie explores one such cost. Which of course is naturally to big a cost. Which of course is why it would NEVER EVER HAPPEN. In other words, this movie is based upon a premise that would never exist.

If you can get past that part, then the movie is not too bad. It is essentially a thriller set in a sci-fi backdrop. It keeps you guessing for a majority of the movie. The actors are decent for an obvious lowish budget film. The special effects are good. It is just that the entire plot is based upon a false premise -- which adversely affects the movie.

[  Currently:  ]

Beowulfwith a screenplay written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary and directed by Robert Zemeckis was a surprise. There have been many movies with a recognizable title character that has no relation to any previous incarnation of that character. While Godzilla pops immediately into mind, there are plenty of other examples.

If you read Beowulf in any of its incarnations, you would recognize the hero in this movie. That was a very pleasant surprise. They did make some changes, but you have to expect some creative license. However, the changes they made were not random. They made sense within the general story. I applaud them for that.

The characters were well cast, and the movie moved along nicely. It was well paced, and never seemed overly long at 1:45. Also, it did not appear rushed.

The only problem I had with it was the animation. It was *almost* photo-realistic. In other words, it was just slightly off. In standard animation, you give them some slack because of the form. It is hard when it is *close* to looking real. You get into the story, and then something will not quite look right. Small things make a big difference when you are close.

The lip movements and facial expressions were where it was most noticeable. However, some of the gravity was off as well.

If you can get over this distraction, it was a really well done movie. However, if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you are not into heroic fantasy you won't like the movie. For instance, if you were forced to read the story in school, and you hated it then -- you may still not like it. Although, it is more coherent than some versions of Beowulf I have read.