I love Christmas movies as you can imagine, but after watching Christmas Vacation, Scrooged, and A Christmas Story (my favorites), so many times, I thought I would give a couple Xmas alternatives for those who are burnt out. Sick of all those TV made movies, the Classics, already watched It's A Wonderful Life this year, seen the favorites one too many times this season, try these!
Die Hard:
First let me say, YES it is a Christmas movie! Holiday party. Christmas time. Twinkies. Gun taped with holiday tape to the back of a bloody shoeless hero. What says Christmas better? What a ride! Yippee-ki-yay, motherf*cker! Let's not forget this classic that put Bruce Willis on the map. Also Die Hard 2 is a good follow up, when the original leaves you wanting more.
Jack Frost:
No not the Michael Keaton movie, the killer snowman version. There is nothing better than a white Christmas, except when the snow can turn on you! I love this movie. It has just the right amount of cheese. A hot Shannon Elizabeth before she hit it big in American Pie. By the way, where is the carrot? Watch the Shannon Elizabeth death scene and you will know what I am talking about. From the beginning, you will know what you are in for, they really set the tone for the whole film with Uncle Henry telling the story with the montage of a Xmas tree. Very creative. A true classic.
Silent Night Deadly Night:
For those of you that are sick of Xmas already, nothing says Christmas like a killer Santa Claus. Classic 80s fun. Great "death scenes". If you are about to snap because of the Christmas Chaos out there, take a deep breath and watch this instead.
Hope you enjoy these Christmas alternatives. Merry Christmas and Chappy Chanukah!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Vacancy
I liked it. Wilson and Beckinsale are a separating couple unhappy after the loss of their child. On a long trip, Wilson takes the anticipated shortcut and the car, as always, breaks down. Of course, the only place to bed for the night is a no-tell motel. They soon discover the proprietors use the motel as a setting to make snuff films involving the guests. The whole movie is about trying to survive and escape… and may remind you of the The Hills Have Eyes (especially due to a network of tunnels). Amazingly, that’s all there is to tell. I will say that all the performances were good, and Beckinsale thankfully gave better than her average performance without wearing anything skin-tight.
Although the introduction of the loss of the couple's child was used to make us sympathize with the characters, it was never really developed in any manner. It was just a convenience that I found patronizing. Seriously, any past tragedy is soon forgotten when you're being chased by a murderer. I can hear it now, "Aaah! He sliced my arm! It reminds me of the time young Bobby scraped his elbow! Aaaiiieeee! He's trying to kill me!! I sure miss little Bobby." Another aspect of this argument is that a bad relationship probably wouldn't affect someone's request for help: "Someone help me! No, not you! We're still fighting!" But I give it 7 outta 10.
Although the introduction of the loss of the couple's child was used to make us sympathize with the characters, it was never really developed in any manner. It was just a convenience that I found patronizing. Seriously, any past tragedy is soon forgotten when you're being chased by a murderer. I can hear it now, "Aaah! He sliced my arm! It reminds me of the time young Bobby scraped his elbow! Aaaiiieeee! He's trying to kill me!! I sure miss little Bobby." Another aspect of this argument is that a bad relationship probably wouldn't affect someone's request for help: "Someone help me! No, not you! We're still fighting!" But I give it 7 outta 10.
Masters of Horror: Valerie on the Stairs
Here’s the premise. An unsuccessful author takes refuge from failure in a decrepit apartment building left in trust for failing writers. The protagonist sees a nude woman on the stairs and approaches. After several conversations, the protagonist learns that this girl is enslaved by a demon. In investigating the girl-- and her relationship potential-- the protagonist discovers several other authors are working together to create a novel. What they write comes true, and thus they created the girl and the demon.
I preferred this story when entitled In the Mouth of Madness… or when candied up as The Neverending Story. Anyway, the demon starts killing off the authors until our protagonist must destroy it. Do I need to say more, or are you already laughing? If not, the actors’ attempts at making this seem real will make you guffaw quite hardily. Christopher Lloyd can’t help this failure, and neither can the multiple appearances of the nude girl. It just wasn’t good. The story was overly simplistic and heavily borrowed from more familiar works. It’ll remind you of ‘80s cheese horrors. Oh and the effects were horrible. I give it a 3 outta 10.
I preferred this story when entitled In the Mouth of Madness… or when candied up as The Neverending Story. Anyway, the demon starts killing off the authors until our protagonist must destroy it. Do I need to say more, or are you already laughing? If not, the actors’ attempts at making this seem real will make you guffaw quite hardily. Christopher Lloyd can’t help this failure, and neither can the multiple appearances of the nude girl. It just wasn’t good. The story was overly simplistic and heavily borrowed from more familiar works. It’ll remind you of ‘80s cheese horrors. Oh and the effects were horrible. I give it a 3 outta 10.
Perfect Creature
...but not nearly a perfect feature. Once again we have a story that promises to take us in one direction, but the writer or director throws a pick and we’re forced into an entirely different direction. Ahem, apparently this is a “nice” vampire picture, where vampires act in appreciated governance of what seem to be illiterate humans in some hodgepodge of incongruous eras from the first half of our 20th century. Ergo, you have to wonder if the film is set in a distant time in the past, perhaps some period in the future, or maybe in some alternate universe a la Star Trek (Ugh). Then there’s the story.
Vampires have lost the ability to procreate, so chemistry is used to alleviate this natural pressure. A potential serum goes wrong, and an almost rabid vampire results. He’s so strong, such a perfect creature, that his brother can kick his wazoo with only minimal to medium effort. Really, every plot-twist and story device acts independently to tear away any believability. We sit before the screen ready to believe in a premise, but faith only carries so far in the face of a story’s self-destruction.
The acting wasn’t bad, per se, but not great, either. The movie doesn’t give any answers, and doesn't really hint at the questions for which we seek the answers. This is due to a lack of background. We have no real paradigm and so don’t know the rules. But the movie simply shrugs away our attempts to understand. The few scenes that do make an attempt to enlighten the audience are out of synchronization with the rest of the film. They were probably shot post-production when the exec’s noticed that they the film was directionless (I realize I'm giving movie exec's too much credit).
I’m sure this will face a remake at some time in the future, where it might be improved tenfold, but right now, I give it a 5.5 outta 10. The cinematography was good, and creating a new universe-whatever-it-was had to be difficult. And after all, it passed a rainy Sunday.
Vampires have lost the ability to procreate, so chemistry is used to alleviate this natural pressure. A potential serum goes wrong, and an almost rabid vampire results. He’s so strong, such a perfect creature, that his brother can kick his wazoo with only minimal to medium effort. Really, every plot-twist and story device acts independently to tear away any believability. We sit before the screen ready to believe in a premise, but faith only carries so far in the face of a story’s self-destruction.
The acting wasn’t bad, per se, but not great, either. The movie doesn’t give any answers, and doesn't really hint at the questions for which we seek the answers. This is due to a lack of background. We have no real paradigm and so don’t know the rules. But the movie simply shrugs away our attempts to understand. The few scenes that do make an attempt to enlighten the audience are out of synchronization with the rest of the film. They were probably shot post-production when the exec’s noticed that they the film was directionless (I realize I'm giving movie exec's too much credit).
I’m sure this will face a remake at some time in the future, where it might be improved tenfold, but right now, I give it a 5.5 outta 10. The cinematography was good, and creating a new universe-whatever-it-was had to be difficult. And after all, it passed a rainy Sunday.
Blood Diamond
If you believe DeCrappio can portray a battle-hardened, South African diamond-smuggler with any degree of believability, then I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona. Still, I usually like to see Connelly on the screen, but her performance was equally uninspiring in this flic. Finally, the only decent performance was by Hounsou, but it didn’t come close to saving the film as his character seemed incapable of independent, individual thought, leaving the character to appear as a non-sentient being.
This was just another film pandering to social concerns about the diamond trade in Africa. But I believe many will still venture forth to various jewelry stores for engagement rings just after watching the film. “Clean” diamonds represent another advertisement like “organic” foods, which are simply meant to shift marketing (all foods contain carbon and are, therefore, organic. But idiots and hippies are just another demographic for corporate marketing). Another frustration is that the real diamond markets aren’t explored. It’s simply a film about pirates vying for the same treasure, just for different motivations leading back to a single “life’s tough” perspective and resultant selfishness.
I wasn’t too impressed. If you want the realities of the diamond trade, then do some personal research from citable sources rather than relying on a sensationalized story about one character—DeCrappio. Ah, the tragedy of the commons. However, if you seek justification for guilty feelings and tears arising from a glamorization of the social conditions arising from diamonds found in Africa, get this movie. I give it a 5 outta 10 for the scenery and the blame placed so squarely on the demand curve of G4 nations for the wrong reasons. Make that a 4.5 since DeCrappio sucks so much. [Ed.’s Note: Zeke disagrees on this one]
This was just another film pandering to social concerns about the diamond trade in Africa. But I believe many will still venture forth to various jewelry stores for engagement rings just after watching the film. “Clean” diamonds represent another advertisement like “organic” foods, which are simply meant to shift marketing (all foods contain carbon and are, therefore, organic. But idiots and hippies are just another demographic for corporate marketing). Another frustration is that the real diamond markets aren’t explored. It’s simply a film about pirates vying for the same treasure, just for different motivations leading back to a single “life’s tough” perspective and resultant selfishness.
I wasn’t too impressed. If you want the realities of the diamond trade, then do some personal research from citable sources rather than relying on a sensationalized story about one character—DeCrappio. Ah, the tragedy of the commons. However, if you seek justification for guilty feelings and tears arising from a glamorization of the social conditions arising from diamonds found in Africa, get this movie. I give it a 5 outta 10 for the scenery and the blame placed so squarely on the demand curve of G4 nations for the wrong reasons. Make that a 4.5 since DeCrappio sucks so much. [Ed.’s Note: Zeke disagrees on this one]
Sword of Doom
Anyone reading more than one of my opinions might glean that I have an interest in asian and other foreign films. Much as western films, most are based in cultural precepts and traditional tales. Because American writers seem to lack the ability to do anything but update old stories I’ve already heard or seen too many times, I find myself depending on indies and foreign films for new ideas. I think that sentiment is reflected in many audiences as we see huge success in films based in comics and graphic novels. My dissertation aside, this film’s originality can’t save anyone from boredom.
The story here is that a samurai warrior carries his comrade, injured in battle, to a temple for respite from battle. The might-be-priest that welcomes this protagonist actually is a very introspective demon awaiting an opponent that can defeat him in battle. There is a good bit of philosophy dispersed throughout the film in conversational fashion, and the fight scenes are choreographed well when they too infrequently appear. But the story, simple as it is, requires a great deal of time to develop. Plus the ending arrives per a “dues ex machina” mechanism, which leaves you with mouth agape while thinking incredulously, “I waited for this?”
Naturally ,this film was better suited as a short-act drama, where the audience could be prepared to learn the backstories of the characters from mere dialogue. As well, the pace was burdening, so I give it a 4.5 outta 10.
The story here is that a samurai warrior carries his comrade, injured in battle, to a temple for respite from battle. The might-be-priest that welcomes this protagonist actually is a very introspective demon awaiting an opponent that can defeat him in battle. There is a good bit of philosophy dispersed throughout the film in conversational fashion, and the fight scenes are choreographed well when they too infrequently appear. But the story, simple as it is, requires a great deal of time to develop. Plus the ending arrives per a “dues ex machina” mechanism, which leaves you with mouth agape while thinking incredulously, “I waited for this?”
Naturally ,this film was better suited as a short-act drama, where the audience could be prepared to learn the backstories of the characters from mere dialogue. As well, the pace was burdening, so I give it a 4.5 outta 10.
Wind Chill
Hmm. This is a difficult call. Really, there’s only a single setting—a car on the side of a desolate road in the middle of winter—and only two characters. I give it an “A” for the attempt to drive the story with the dialogue and eerie ambience. I also appreciated that the character development of the male/driver (Holmes), who might be a stalker/murderer or a misguided and socially inept victim. But that just wasn’t enough to carry a 90 minute film, and neither were the conversations between that character and the heroine (Blunt). The effects, or what there were of effects, in this more-suitably-categorized-as-drama dud, were lacking. In the end, it’s only a 5 outta 10.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Fans of the cartoon certainly will enjoy the animated film. The DVD is a 2-disc set, with the second disc containing the “deleted” movie. I actually prefer the deleted movie to its more polished counterpart, which some might perceive as less offensive. Either way, followers of Adult Swim should be enthused.
All of the expected characters make an appearance. As in the normal episodes, I catch myself wanting to see more of Carl. I say that with the understanding that all things are best in moderation. Although the entire story represents a crudely assembled set of small, episodic stories, it doesn’t deprive the major plot of attention… too much. In sum, nothing changes with respect to the photoshop animation, and humor remains the work’s driving force. I tag it an 8.5 outta 10 (the deleted movie) versus 7.5 outta 10 (main feature).
All of the expected characters make an appearance. As in the normal episodes, I catch myself wanting to see more of Carl. I say that with the understanding that all things are best in moderation. Although the entire story represents a crudely assembled set of small, episodic stories, it doesn’t deprive the major plot of attention… too much. In sum, nothing changes with respect to the photoshop animation, and humor remains the work’s driving force. I tag it an 8.5 outta 10 (the deleted movie) versus 7.5 outta 10 (main feature).
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Severance
This is an English film, so you might expect some dry wit… even though you might be slightly disappointed if you expect Monte Python or Fawlty Towers. Be that as it may, the idea of the film is excellent: a group of corporate idiots go to a retreat to undergo team-building exercises, but something or someone begins killing them one by one. It’s reminiscent of Dog Soldiers (an awesome movie) in that respect.
Most of the story relies on characters’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their interactions. Of course, the oh-so-foolish corporate types are led by their unqualified manager, who is actually an idiot (and probably reminds you of your own managers). Anyway, the comical escapades of the group make the movie more of a “zomedy” film, but they work more often than not. As well, the identity of the antagonist(s) is a play on urban legend.
The acting, considering the genre, was pretty good. The writing was typical of UK movies following Shaun of the Dead. The cinematography was okay, as well, but nothing about which to write home. I guess, in the end, it lies somewhere between “okay” and “alright”. I give it a 6 outta 10, well maybe 5.5 outta 10. I wanted more dark and/or dry humor. Not all the jokes attempted here worked that well. Also, the character (in real business life) of some underling that wants to become the manager, and so plots, lies, and kisses butt, is missing. That’s not that big of a deal, however, as he would be the first one you would want killed.
Most of the story relies on characters’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as their interactions. Of course, the oh-so-foolish corporate types are led by their unqualified manager, who is actually an idiot (and probably reminds you of your own managers). Anyway, the comical escapades of the group make the movie more of a “zomedy” film, but they work more often than not. As well, the identity of the antagonist(s) is a play on urban legend.
The acting, considering the genre, was pretty good. The writing was typical of UK movies following Shaun of the Dead. The cinematography was okay, as well, but nothing about which to write home. I guess, in the end, it lies somewhere between “okay” and “alright”. I give it a 6 outta 10, well maybe 5.5 outta 10. I wanted more dark and/or dry humor. Not all the jokes attempted here worked that well. Also, the character (in real business life) of some underling that wants to become the manager, and so plots, lies, and kisses butt, is missing. That’s not that big of a deal, however, as he would be the first one you would want killed.
Closure
Wow. Gillian Anderson on my living room TV again after all these years… (so I rented it, okay?!?!). I admit my X-Files fandom from back in the day, but I still think she’s an underrated actress even while acknowledging that her style limits her exposition. That’s her problem here, also. She plays a physically (and mentally) strong to fierce woman, wholly empowered, but with striking flaws in behavior that make you doubt the character’s credibility. The flaws just aren’t fitting, and the moments in which they’re divulged make the character seem superficially altered after the fact.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
Anyway, the storyline wasn’t bad. Its initial realism made it seem foreboding, but simultaneously humanized the perceived threat. By the end of the movie, you’ve almost decided that you should hate the protagonists either as villainous figures or frustratingly weak, spineless heros. I believe much of that arises from the frustrating actions of the protagonists and their poorly scripted interactions.
The ending will leave you wanting, but I will give credit for two points. First, the film seems to explore sexual relationships and acts. We have intercourse between strangers, rape of a female, bonding of the protagonists despite impotence (most obviously depicting the underlying theme of control of self versus others), and the rape of a male. I suggest looking between the lines, as it will really help the experience. Second, we get flesh shots of Anderson. Ergo, I give it a 7 outta 10.
The Messengers
Although a Sam Raimi production, he was not the director (after watching Spiderman 3, I thank goodness for that small respite from Raimi)! The Pang brothers (of “The Eye”) directed, so I didn’t expect any straight forward, in-your-face horror, shock, or suspense. I already knew the entire film would rely on gloomy eeriness. That’s the Pang “thang,” after all. So, we begin.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
The subplots of familial relations and trust, blah, blah, blah, is a little tired nowadays. Add to that performances that couldn’t begin to help. I do say that Miller is pretty believable. McDermot doesn’t fit the character or setting or acting profession, which is one reason that aspects of his character seem so contrived, to the point of patronizing the audience. I won’t give away the bad guy, but you should figure it out with ease, since the movie just doesn’t give that many options from which to choose. The protagonist, the daughter/sister does alright for her age. I’d wager she’s been taking too many acting classes, which makes her performance over-the-top in too many respects.
The plot is alright, but, aside from its obviousness, is just borrowed from other, more familiar stories. The cinematography, when the Pangs are involved, is at least respectable. They always have concrete ideas of how to scare before beginning a film. Thus, they bring a J-horror twist to the film. In the end, however, it’s just not enough. You know the antagonist; you know the plot and story; and so you anticipate a huge, eye-candy climax. But your eyes are left starving. It’s worth a rent during the week if you like soap operas. It’s a 5 outta 10.
Primeval
Has anyone seen the campy '70s flics based on the old urban legend of man-eating crocodiles in NY sewers? Here it is again! Right? No. Really, this is just a remake of parts of The Ghost and the Darkness with the lions replaced by a large crocodile. Initially, potential audience members should realize that this isn't a horror film. Nor is it based in suspense. Most of it is a social commentary about tribes in Africa, corrupt governmental participants, and lack of affirmative involvement by other nations. But Sally Struthers already made us aware of that, right? …And only for a dollar a day.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
Apparently, a man-eating croc is plaguing tribes along a waterway in Africa. Two reporters are sent to investigate while civil wars rage across the plains. The male reporter is the typical pretty boy, American stereotype (Manfrey). Essentially, he's just the superficial metrosexual waiting to learn a valuable lesson about the value of people. The female reporter is another stereotype, a pretty girl with the nice figure who wants the world to learn compassion (Langton). Therefore, she picked up a pen to change the world by talking while berating others for only talking about problems instead of acting. What a saint. Unfortunately, the two take their time to learn lessons about compassion… and taking action… and hypocrisy… and how if everyone in the world held hands, they would not be able to hold guns.
The conflicts arise only after a gruelingly long first act. Tribes are factioned and rulers gain power with brutal, iron fist politics. Thus, we have reporters versus warlords. The croc eats people, so we also have everyone versus the croc. But the scenery was nice in places. The acting was okay. The social commentary is old news. The worst part of the entire, damnable thing is that I chose a film expecting to get a reptilian croc (instead of this crock of $&%#). I wait forever through old-hat, social expose to get a couple of glimpses of a croc. I was defrauded. If you like PBS programs on tribal relations and politics (but not culture or the histories-- human and ecological-- that lead to such relations), then the movie is almost good. If you want what the DVD cover and summary offer, go get The Ghost and the Darkness and then watch Crocodile. I give this film a 4 outta 10.
The Abandoned
Well, this is the film that one the After Dark Horrorfest in 2006, When I ask myself how this trash could have won, I can only conceive of a few, limited scenarios: (1) nepotism; (2) judges received sexual favors; (3) the judges and producers were one and the same; and/or (4) death threats. By now, you've probably guessed my opinion of this exercise in trite boredom, but I'll continue anyway (so I can here myself talk).
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
The story is one of those with potential never realized… even when using one's imagination while reading the script—on drugs. The idiosyncrasies were frustratingly common and obvious. The story itself, when finally reaching the end, made no real sense. Perhaps the target audience was some pagan cult. Either way, the director is an obvious fan of David Lynch, but without things like artistry or talent. The acting was subpar, and the dim lighting couldn't overcome it. The anxiety you may experience from trailers is only available during the trailers. Everything in between those highlights should have been left on the cutting room floor. Those are really the high points. Aside fom that, the film really is… boring. It seems too stylistic in an attempted European or "film noir" manner, perhaps, but without succeeding. I would say, "You'll know what I mean when you see it," but I don't want to inspire you to waste cash on even a one-night rental. Seriously, I wouldn't even borrow this from a friend.
Overall, it gets a 1.5 outta 10. Normally, I'll grant 0.5 points because something's in the horror genre, and I naturally allot 0.5 because some idiot invested time in a given film's creation. That's a 1 outta 10 for breathing. In this film, there was one effect that wasn't bad, so to avoid bashing this rip-off completely, I gave that a 0.5 designation. There you go, 1.5.
Behind the Mask
Note!! It’s not as bad as you would think. I think we all understand, at least unconsciously, two important indicators of cinematic failure. First, if a film goes straight to DVD, chances are the budget wasn't there for good writers, directors, effects, and so on. Second, if your local rental joint only carries a single copy, the production/distribution was probably mapped on the assumption that no one would ever really want to view it, or the fact that the Hollywood wisdom wouldn’t put anything behind the movie. This movie surpasses these presumptions by far.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
The story is based on an up-and-coming mass-killer-wannabe who invites a small, inexperienced documentary crew—probably from the local community college's journalism program—to document his first killing spree and the preparation for it. Therefore, the beginning of the film holds a B-rated documentary style. The killer/protagonist is a regular Joe who is an expert on the horror movie genre. He explains with humor galore his unbelievable intentions, training, and plan. As the story progresses, we see that plan unfold, where the film shifts from B-rated documentary to a true horror film with intensity and a surprise twist.
The story is great, and for those with patience, wonderfully executed. The humor of learning the postulated motivations and strategies underlying the archetypal Vorhees, Myers, and similar mass-killers is worth a watch. When the perspective of the story changes, so does the style. The intensity honestly seems to increase five-fold. True, there wasn't a huge budget, but the documentary style was perfectly fitting in the first half. Plus, Robert Englund appears! All the acting was good, though the heroine was sometimes annoyingly unpolished. The plot and the sub-plot were great, and the twist actually caught me… though in hindsight, I don't know how.
Due to the realism and corniness of the flic, where the lack of budget actually was used as an asset, as were the intensity-shift and ultimate plot-twist, I highly recommend this film. I give it an overall 8.5 outta 10.
Shooter
It's hard to find a good action film these days, but this one fits the bill neatly despite its flaws. Let's hop right into it. Walberg plays an ex-sniper who disavowed the job but remains well-practiced (just in case of what?) and well-known to certain officials. In an attempt to help some government agency in determining an assassination plot on the president, Walberg is framed for the attempt. The rest of the film tells how our height-disabled hero will find and then dispatch the officials who set him up for the fall. Gun battles ensue.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
Well, there are a lot of unbelievable parts of the movie, and a pretty unbelievable sidekick. But this is an action film with all sights (pardon the pun) on Walberg's heroics. The action is good and starts relatively early. Some over-the-top sequences will leave you chuckling. For instance, there were two parts I couldn't overlook. At the end, a hostage trade occurs on a glacier. Somehow, Walberg and sidekick arrive on the glacier which is only accessible by helicopter (I'm assuming the trade wasn't planned for several months in the future, as time would be of the essence). No way that could happen. Second, Walberg-turn-mercenary assassinates the ultimate antagonist at the resolution. He thus assumes a role of one above the law to kill someone for acting above the law. Do we see the conflicting irony? He loses hero status.
I give it a 6.5 outta 10 because the hero's character isn't a figure like Rambo, and a lot of the action scenes are just laughable. However, it is action, so it must be given the benefit of the doubt… as one would a mentally handicapped child.
The Promise
Telling who is who and what role they play in this visual epic really robs the fairytale story of its grandeur. But the eye-candy is astounding. The effects are also delicious, though only in and of themselves. As such, the ever-present story is beautiful when simplified, but if you look to get something out of it… you might as well choose another film.
That said, there's great cinematography and there would be a great story if it was simplified somewhat. But such eastern films often throw in the kitchen sink, and my western attention span won't accept anything over five seconds. The acting was okay, but there were too many characters and mini-stories to sustain the length of the film. Luckily, the backdrop is so wonderful that it's worth a couple of glances on "mute." I give it a 4.5 outta 10 for the visuals.
That said, there's great cinematography and there would be a great story if it was simplified somewhat. But such eastern films often throw in the kitchen sink, and my western attention span won't accept anything over five seconds. The acting was okay, but there were too many characters and mini-stories to sustain the length of the film. Luckily, the backdrop is so wonderful that it's worth a couple of glances on "mute." I give it a 4.5 outta 10 for the visuals.
The Host
Great idea. This politically and socially inspired film makes you wonder if the antagonist is the monster you see consuming people, or the government monster you see consuming people. Actually, it's both.
This is a Korean-born film, but the relation to all governmental/agency performance is ubiquitous. A monster develops in a local river due to chemical dumping. Once it reaches formidable size (i.e. gets huge), it leaves its sewer home to feed on humans, thus abducting the protagonist's younger sister. The government steps in to perform its usual barrage of impotent tests, all the while treating citizens as if they were the monsters. It was a wonderful and well-executed story in that respect.
The characters, however, may seem cookie-cutter. This, I believe, is simply the method the writer/director uses to present representations of the typical members of society. In any case, all the performers gave at least acceptable performances, playing well to the theme's tragic humor. Again, as is found in many eastern productions, too many characters' stories were followed individually, so the audience will be challenged to align with any one character. It simply detracts from the development of a hero with whom you can identify and for whom you can cheer. It also lengthens the story, where breaks in pace may throw the audience's attention. But the parallels to actual events stand as the redeeming grace for the movie as a whole. Plus, the monster is awesome, and I found myself routing for it in many instances.
Overall, a 7.5 outta 10. Those who like monster-horrors and political satire (isn't that really one of the top reasons we love the horror genre?) will love it as much as those who appreciate the frustrations of tragic irony. I especially recommend it for conversation pieces with youth regarding politics and/or egocentrism.
This is a Korean-born film, but the relation to all governmental/agency performance is ubiquitous. A monster develops in a local river due to chemical dumping. Once it reaches formidable size (i.e. gets huge), it leaves its sewer home to feed on humans, thus abducting the protagonist's younger sister. The government steps in to perform its usual barrage of impotent tests, all the while treating citizens as if they were the monsters. It was a wonderful and well-executed story in that respect.
The characters, however, may seem cookie-cutter. This, I believe, is simply the method the writer/director uses to present representations of the typical members of society. In any case, all the performers gave at least acceptable performances, playing well to the theme's tragic humor. Again, as is found in many eastern productions, too many characters' stories were followed individually, so the audience will be challenged to align with any one character. It simply detracts from the development of a hero with whom you can identify and for whom you can cheer. It also lengthens the story, where breaks in pace may throw the audience's attention. But the parallels to actual events stand as the redeeming grace for the movie as a whole. Plus, the monster is awesome, and I found myself routing for it in many instances.
Overall, a 7.5 outta 10. Those who like monster-horrors and political satire (isn't that really one of the top reasons we love the horror genre?) will love it as much as those who appreciate the frustrations of tragic irony. I especially recommend it for conversation pieces with youth regarding politics and/or egocentrism.
Gravedancers
I consider myself a horror flic aficionado of sorts, and I feel lucky to have caught this one at the After Dark Horror Fest 2006. The big screen really makes a big difference in the experience of viewing any film. Anyway, this is the film that should have won the festival title.
The characters were believable and were well-developed through interacting with each other and their antagonists simultaneously rather than in a lengthy and droll first act. The normal-guy-turned-hero character-types allowed this, and really make the film what it is. Of course, there were flaws here and there in the shooting/editing, but they aren't all too obvious, and what film doesn't have them? I'm not proclaiming the story itself was perfect, but it was fresh, and the audience can easily connect to the heroes (since several types are presented) and so easily accept them if not their circumstances.
Plot development was good. Effects were over-the-top in places, but they often worked despite it. The performances were also good for the most part. Touches of humor arose throughout and really added to the film, as did the interplay between the protagonists. The final segment of the climax was straight from 80s cheese-horrors and could have been done with more thought. In whole, I give it an 8 outta 10.
The characters were believable and were well-developed through interacting with each other and their antagonists simultaneously rather than in a lengthy and droll first act. The normal-guy-turned-hero character-types allowed this, and really make the film what it is. Of course, there were flaws here and there in the shooting/editing, but they aren't all too obvious, and what film doesn't have them? I'm not proclaiming the story itself was perfect, but it was fresh, and the audience can easily connect to the heroes (since several types are presented) and so easily accept them if not their circumstances.
Plot development was good. Effects were over-the-top in places, but they often worked despite it. The performances were also good for the most part. Touches of humor arose throughout and really added to the film, as did the interplay between the protagonists. The final segment of the climax was straight from 80s cheese-horrors and could have been done with more thought. In whole, I give it an 8 outta 10.
Number 23
I liked the film. I have always appreciated conspiracy theories, as well as abnormal psychology, as I normally view both as pseudo-scientific exercises used to play make believe. Put those two together and you get something as good as Yoo-hoo's ™.
Although the cinematography was good, I was not a fan of the alternative parallel story, which seemed cartoonish and out of place. As for story, Carry played the role of the stricken hero (as always) who begins his conspiracy-laden descent into paranoia and lunacy upon reading someone's autobiography who not only suffered the same affliction, but tells of a life with eerie parallels to Carry's own. Thus, the secondary, cartoonish story reflects Carry's personified imaginings which place him in the role of the author/hero about which he reads. That device seemed unnecessary in its form, and so steals from the film's primary story.
To the viewer, the ending may be a twist or perhaps not. Certainly, some of the plot devices may keep some guessing. Either way, it's the journey that matters. And that brings us to the strength of the film, the suspense. Most of that sense arises from well-acted characters. The entire cast, although small, performs well. The story was excellent, but I believe the pre-viewing expectations of a horror film will leave quite a few unsatisfied, as will the need to don their thinking caps during the film. In essence, the audience must prepare to confront three character-driven stories. These intertwined stories and the theme of madness and paranoia keep the film moving. Luckily, the editing and the stories' overlaps create a tension that keeps the movie on pace until the ending allows an exhale.
Overall, I rate it an 8/10. It would get a 9, but I always appreciate some gory brutality in my kill-scenes, even if the lack of it doesn't take from the film. And the "Sin City-like" imaginings of Carry's character can get annoying.
Although the cinematography was good, I was not a fan of the alternative parallel story, which seemed cartoonish and out of place. As for story, Carry played the role of the stricken hero (as always) who begins his conspiracy-laden descent into paranoia and lunacy upon reading someone's autobiography who not only suffered the same affliction, but tells of a life with eerie parallels to Carry's own. Thus, the secondary, cartoonish story reflects Carry's personified imaginings which place him in the role of the author/hero about which he reads. That device seemed unnecessary in its form, and so steals from the film's primary story.
To the viewer, the ending may be a twist or perhaps not. Certainly, some of the plot devices may keep some guessing. Either way, it's the journey that matters. And that brings us to the strength of the film, the suspense. Most of that sense arises from well-acted characters. The entire cast, although small, performs well. The story was excellent, but I believe the pre-viewing expectations of a horror film will leave quite a few unsatisfied, as will the need to don their thinking caps during the film. In essence, the audience must prepare to confront three character-driven stories. These intertwined stories and the theme of madness and paranoia keep the film moving. Luckily, the editing and the stories' overlaps create a tension that keeps the movie on pace until the ending allows an exhale.
Overall, I rate it an 8/10. It would get a 9, but I always appreciate some gory brutality in my kill-scenes, even if the lack of it doesn't take from the film. And the "Sin City-like" imaginings of Carry's character can get annoying.
MTV's Beneath
Can you guess what I'm about to say? I watched the film before realizing it was a product of MTV. Normally, I would hit myself in the head with a hammer, thus saving the time this movie took to destroy the same amount of my brain. Perhaps for MTV a new standard has been set, since I only feel like a single frontal lobe was lost.
Cinematography and directing? There's nothing to mention except that the director resisted the quick-change, odd-angle editing reminiscent of music videos. As such, the pace of the film was not the horror one might expect (Get it? Horror?). Similarly, none of the performances were singularly redeeming. Altogether, though, certain questionable flaws and useless scenes made areas of the plot deflating at best.
As for that plot, there was a touch of suspense. Once you figure it out, the writers try to throw in some plot twists. What became annoying were the stacked alternative endings. When you think you've reached the story's resolution, the film tries to one-up it. It becomes exhausting as several climaxes and wholly contrived twists robbed me of the elation that the film finally ended.
Because I was in such a good mood before watching this film, and because I was hammered by the end of it, I give it a 5 outta 10. Mostly, I believe the marketing must rely on teenage boys' misplaced expectations that the almost-cute heroine might divulge some nudity. In sum, without beer or raging hormones, I don't know why anyone would attempt to last through the entire film. But give it a shot, masochists…
Cinematography and directing? There's nothing to mention except that the director resisted the quick-change, odd-angle editing reminiscent of music videos. As such, the pace of the film was not the horror one might expect (Get it? Horror?). Similarly, none of the performances were singularly redeeming. Altogether, though, certain questionable flaws and useless scenes made areas of the plot deflating at best.
As for that plot, there was a touch of suspense. Once you figure it out, the writers try to throw in some plot twists. What became annoying were the stacked alternative endings. When you think you've reached the story's resolution, the film tries to one-up it. It becomes exhausting as several climaxes and wholly contrived twists robbed me of the elation that the film finally ended.
Because I was in such a good mood before watching this film, and because I was hammered by the end of it, I give it a 5 outta 10. Mostly, I believe the marketing must rely on teenage boys' misplaced expectations that the almost-cute heroine might divulge some nudity. In sum, without beer or raging hormones, I don't know why anyone would attempt to last through the entire film. But give it a shot, masochists…
Masters of Horror: Fair-haired Child
Well, first, there is no such word as "firstly." Second, the Masters of Horror gig gives a noted horror director the opportunity to make a film of about an hour in length, give or take. So, you can't expect a big budget or extremely well-developed stories. You only get a taste, a short story put on film. In the case of "Fair-haired Child" I found the underlying story well done. Unlike most films, you don't guess the second act's climax immediately, and the characters' motivations remain shadowed. That "hmmmm" factor, my favorite aspect of any suspenseful film, was present but not perfect because I really didn't care about any of the characters.
As for the acting, there were no big names involved, which is often refreshing. However, the abilities of the less-than-seasoned cast left a little to be desired at times. As such, the slow development of characters and story may leave some viewers initially bored, if not altogether frustrated. But the novel aspects of the story are worth the patience. You have to keep an open mind on this one, folks.
I'm neutral on the effects, as many were lacking where I wanted them. And the use of flashbacks was as annoying as the typical montages found in flics that lack good pacing. Here, at least, I realize the use of such a mechanism was to hide the proverbial ball, thus heightening the climax. But it would've worked just as well placing that info at the beginning of the film.
Overall, I give it somewhere between a 6 to 6.5 on the 10-scale. No great cinematography, no stand-out performances, but some novelty in the storyline. The pacing is annoying, even if Tank Girl is in it.
As for the acting, there were no big names involved, which is often refreshing. However, the abilities of the less-than-seasoned cast left a little to be desired at times. As such, the slow development of characters and story may leave some viewers initially bored, if not altogether frustrated. But the novel aspects of the story are worth the patience. You have to keep an open mind on this one, folks.
I'm neutral on the effects, as many were lacking where I wanted them. And the use of flashbacks was as annoying as the typical montages found in flics that lack good pacing. Here, at least, I realize the use of such a mechanism was to hide the proverbial ball, thus heightening the climax. But it would've worked just as well placing that info at the beginning of the film.
Overall, I give it somewhere between a 6 to 6.5 on the 10-scale. No great cinematography, no stand-out performances, but some novelty in the storyline. The pacing is annoying, even if Tank Girl is in it.
Aeon Flux
Strange, isn't it, how "Flux" rhymes with "sucks," and that's exactly what this movie does. As a former fan of the cartoon, I can understand how compressing numerous episodes of a lengthy and sometimes confusing storyline into a single, four-hour (that's how long the torture seemed to last) film would prove difficult. Also, I understand the difficulty of determining the proper setting and populating it with the most interesting characters. Therefore, I give accolades for such attempts—wait, did these guys attempt any of that? The movie speaks for itself… with a resounding "No."
Charlise Theron has never been a reliable action film heroine. She proves that ineptitude once again. The stuntwork was incredibly bad, reminding me of Carradine in the old "Kung Fu" series. But at least there was balance: Theron struggled with the dramatic aspects of her role, as well. Thankfully for her, she was not alone, as all parts were poorly written, poorly cast, and poorly acted.
Don’t waste time on this one, unless you ate some bad fish and want to get the trauma over with post-haste. Here’s a summary: bad story, bad cinematography, bad stunts/action, bad acting, and bad directing. I feel like over an hour of my life was taken from me under fraudulent pretenses. Seriously, the cartoon series is available on DVD; don't watch this before the series… or after for that matter. 1 outta 10.
Charlise Theron has never been a reliable action film heroine. She proves that ineptitude once again. The stuntwork was incredibly bad, reminding me of Carradine in the old "Kung Fu" series. But at least there was balance: Theron struggled with the dramatic aspects of her role, as well. Thankfully for her, she was not alone, as all parts were poorly written, poorly cast, and poorly acted.
Don’t waste time on this one, unless you ate some bad fish and want to get the trauma over with post-haste. Here’s a summary: bad story, bad cinematography, bad stunts/action, bad acting, and bad directing. I feel like over an hour of my life was taken from me under fraudulent pretenses. Seriously, the cartoon series is available on DVD; don't watch this before the series… or after for that matter. 1 outta 10.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
RED SOX WIN!!! RED SOX WIN!!! RED SOX WIN!!!
Hold on, before you berate me about what this has to do with movies. I was just flipping through the channels, looking for Papelbon doing the river dance, Tessie, Manny being Manny in his white suite, Big Pappi holding the trophy high, or any other trace of the parade in Boston and caught Fever Pitch. Let me just say this is a great movie and a perfect time to revisit this flic again because the RED SOX won their second WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP in four years. Had to throw that in there! LOL! My wife use to just think I was crazy and it was her being punished by baseball. We were still dating at the time of this movie. I had been a Red Sox fan my entire life. She saw me upset and devistated after Arron F-ing Boone in 2003 (we had been together a few years), she just felt my pain (I survived 1986 on my own). She was also there in 2004 when we won! This movie captures that ride again. Fever Pitch nearly killed her. She cracked up at all the little things that take over his life through baseball season (much like me). More so than any other movie that I can think this captures that pains we fans and relatives of fans go through during baseball season. Give it a try. You will love it. As a side note since I have met her, we have three Patriots titles, two Red Sox titles, and the Celtics are on the up and up. Talk about a good luck charm! Yeah, I did write this to just say RED SOX WIN!!!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Halloween Movies Part One
Just a quick guide with a few comments of the movies I have been watching leading to Halloween. Note: these are movies I have seen recently. No rhyme or reason. I hope to keep these coming.
Theater:
30 Days of Night - should be the crown jewel of your Halloween. A must see.
DVD:
Black Sheep - Killer sheep, awesome. I loved this. It just keeps going farther and farther out there. Must see of the DVDs. If you like "campy" you'll love this.
Audition - Great tension. Awesome. Made me cringe. Should be watched uninterrupted front to back.
C.H.U.D - Look for a young John Goodman and Carl (from cheers) husband. Daniel Stern rocks. 80s B-movie. Beware the sewers.
Slumber Party Massacre - Love it. Early nudity, early killing. They don't hide the killer. This movie rocks.
Return of the Living Dead - Cracks me up. If you like zombies and comedy this is it.
Chopping Mall - Another good 80s cheese fest. Kids in a mall after ours when the security system attacks!
Jack Frost - Not the Keaton flic. A killer snowman!!! Keep an eye out for Shannon Elizabeth and where is the carrot?
Dead Alive - Sumatran Rat Monkey. "I kick ass for the lord". "Come to mommy Lionel"! "This requires divine intervention". As you can tell if I am quoting the movie off the top of my head I love it!
Cheerleader Camp - Talk about 80s. This movie totally will bring you back. Great movie, like a lot of horror movies, kind of goes a little crazy as we go along. Lief Garrett, child start is in it.
Camp Fear - Talk about out there, holy crap. Okay. Hmmm. There is a Biker Gang, Indian, Druid, Sea Monster... it is just out there. Supposedly the sequel to Cheerleader Camp, but doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Maniac Cop - Love Bruce Campbell. Not a bad flic, has some slow spots.
Club Dread - One of my favorites. Broken Lizard guys. I love the Pac Man scene. "Son of a " "Son of a... son a... son of a bitch".
Basket Case - Loved this as a kid. We use to call him the stomach. Still holds up pretty well. There is one scene where a door slams and the set shakes. Still cracks me up!
Wow, that was a mind poop. LOL! A good first run, I will have some more coming up soon.
Theater:
30 Days of Night - should be the crown jewel of your Halloween. A must see.
DVD:
Black Sheep - Killer sheep, awesome. I loved this. It just keeps going farther and farther out there. Must see of the DVDs. If you like "campy" you'll love this.
Audition - Great tension. Awesome. Made me cringe. Should be watched uninterrupted front to back.
C.H.U.D - Look for a young John Goodman and Carl (from cheers) husband. Daniel Stern rocks. 80s B-movie. Beware the sewers.
Slumber Party Massacre - Love it. Early nudity, early killing. They don't hide the killer. This movie rocks.
Return of the Living Dead - Cracks me up. If you like zombies and comedy this is it.
Chopping Mall - Another good 80s cheese fest. Kids in a mall after ours when the security system attacks!
Jack Frost - Not the Keaton flic. A killer snowman!!! Keep an eye out for Shannon Elizabeth and where is the carrot?
Dead Alive - Sumatran Rat Monkey. "I kick ass for the lord". "Come to mommy Lionel"! "This requires divine intervention". As you can tell if I am quoting the movie off the top of my head I love it!
Cheerleader Camp - Talk about 80s. This movie totally will bring you back. Great movie, like a lot of horror movies, kind of goes a little crazy as we go along. Lief Garrett, child start is in it.
Camp Fear - Talk about out there, holy crap. Okay. Hmmm. There is a Biker Gang, Indian, Druid, Sea Monster... it is just out there. Supposedly the sequel to Cheerleader Camp, but doesn't really have anything to do with it.
Maniac Cop - Love Bruce Campbell. Not a bad flic, has some slow spots.
Club Dread - One of my favorites. Broken Lizard guys. I love the Pac Man scene. "Son of a " "Son of a... son a... son of a bitch".
Basket Case - Loved this as a kid. We use to call him the stomach. Still holds up pretty well. There is one scene where a door slams and the set shakes. Still cracks me up!
Wow, that was a mind poop. LOL! A good first run, I will have some more coming up soon.
30 Days of Night
I went into this with high expectations. After all the graphic novel has established a great story line for the movie to live up to. Let me just say the the movie lived up to all my expectations. Josh Hartnett did a fantastic job with the part of Eben Oleson the sheriff of a small town in the seclusion of Alaska during a period of winter where there are thirty straight days of night. Hartnett conveys that he clearly has a grasp on the town and town folks. When things start to go a little weird, you can sense his feeling of dread and that something awful is coming. Also the sense of tension and regret displayed between Melissa George's portrayal of Stella Oleson, Eben's estranged wife, really add to the film.
A seclusive town with a month of night. Sounds like a perfect place for a bunch of vampires to go have a snack. Well it is.
David Slade, the director does a great job of creating that feeling of now where to go seclusion that we have felt in movies like Alien and The Thing. The tension builds fast and doesn't let up. So does the gore. Slade does a nice job of keeping you feel slightly uncomfortable and not revealing too much too fast.
A couple other thing that I like about this movie is that the vampires are not the focus, the people are. The vampires are portrayed like blood thirsty monsters, from another land, who are there to feed. You don't see this as much very anymore. There is no sexy vampire seducing the pretty girl here, just the sense of survival by a caged animal.
I was really impressed with this film. Keeps you interested and never lets up.
Good:
Well paced. Great tension through out. End. The Oleson relationship. God gore, but not to much with a nice build up.
Bad:
No background story about the vampires. Maybe in the sequel?
Comments:
Loved it. Also like the changes from the graphic novel. They definitely add to the story and feel of the film.
Recommendations:
Theater. Go now. Remember it takes place in Alaska where there are 30 days of night, so you will be save.
A seclusive town with a month of night. Sounds like a perfect place for a bunch of vampires to go have a snack. Well it is.
David Slade, the director does a great job of creating that feeling of now where to go seclusion that we have felt in movies like Alien and The Thing. The tension builds fast and doesn't let up. So does the gore. Slade does a nice job of keeping you feel slightly uncomfortable and not revealing too much too fast.
A couple other thing that I like about this movie is that the vampires are not the focus, the people are. The vampires are portrayed like blood thirsty monsters, from another land, who are there to feed. You don't see this as much very anymore. There is no sexy vampire seducing the pretty girl here, just the sense of survival by a caged animal.
I was really impressed with this film. Keeps you interested and never lets up.
Good:
Well paced. Great tension through out. End. The Oleson relationship. God gore, but not to much with a nice build up.
Bad:
No background story about the vampires. Maybe in the sequel?
Comments:
Loved it. Also like the changes from the graphic novel. They definitely add to the story and feel of the film.
Recommendations:
Theater. Go now. Remember it takes place in Alaska where there are 30 days of night, so you will be save.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Response to Comments on previous blog
John Doe (Anonymous) responded to my last post and there are a few things that I will clear up.
John Doe: "Oh, come on: 'Sunshine' doesn't hold a cheap plastic flashlight to 'Aliens'. (Not unless, to paraphrase that much-better film of twenty years ago, IQs have indeed sharply dropped.)"
Me: Never said it did. Thought I was pretty clear. There is no really good Sci-Fi movies between the two. The last Sci-Fi movie that I really loved was Aliens, then Sunshine. Robo Cop is probably in there to, but most have been a let down. There are a few with charm Space Truckers to name one. A few that are really great like the first Matrix movie, but they aren't that space Sci-Fi sub genre that I was thinking about. Alien 3 to Alien whatever were all terrible. Altough I haven't seen the re-cut of Alien 3 yet. I hear it make a big difference. A.I. was okay, but long and over bloated (Spielburg trying to be Kubrick in the last third of the movie is my guess). So what I was really referring to is the lack great of Sci-Fi movies in that gap. Also, Aliens more than anything is a great action flic. Yes, it is Sci-Fi, but it is as much action as Alien was horror. Sunshine also has a horror feel, but it still captures that "out in space", secluded feel. As far as IQs go, I don't really have any comment, but one thing I would like is some Sci-Fi movies in the last 20 years that you like as well as Aliens. I would love to check them out.
John Doe: "And-- oh, no-- are you another one of those people who insists they like "2001"--? The only people who truly liked '2001' were sitting in theatres in 1968 completely bombed on acid. Those of us living less LSD-enhanced lives in the twenty-first century only say we like it to sound cool around our geeky film buddies".
Me: Yeah, I like 2001. Let me also say it was the first DVD I ever bought. I don't think I go ga-ga over it, but I really like it. I like the seclusion you feel. The epic feel, the story line and how it is more than just skin deep. How about not having any idea where it was going. So yeah, I like it! Do I think it is the Cat's Meow? No. It is long in places. Yeah that helps to add to the seclusion you feel, but honestly most of Kubrick's movies have that feel, still love them. He creates such as great atmosphere in his movies. Also it has all kinds of questions about new life. Also, to think it was writ en in 1950 and made before we landed on the moon is fantastic. What vision! You can't beat Aliens for action, but as far as being deep with spectacular visuals, well it leaves a little to be desired. I get the same feeling from Sunshine.
If anyone out there has any other Sci-Fi movies they would like to hear my thoughts on throw them out here. I have also been watching a lot of Dystopia movies of late. I will have a blog coming on those soon as well.
Anyway, thanks for the comments, I love to hear from everybody.
John Doe: "Oh, come on: 'Sunshine' doesn't hold a cheap plastic flashlight to 'Aliens'. (Not unless, to paraphrase that much-better film of twenty years ago, IQs have indeed sharply dropped.)"
Me: Never said it did. Thought I was pretty clear. There is no really good Sci-Fi movies between the two. The last Sci-Fi movie that I really loved was Aliens, then Sunshine. Robo Cop is probably in there to, but most have been a let down. There are a few with charm Space Truckers to name one. A few that are really great like the first Matrix movie, but they aren't that space Sci-Fi sub genre that I was thinking about. Alien 3 to Alien whatever were all terrible. Altough I haven't seen the re-cut of Alien 3 yet. I hear it make a big difference. A.I. was okay, but long and over bloated (Spielburg trying to be Kubrick in the last third of the movie is my guess). So what I was really referring to is the lack great of Sci-Fi movies in that gap. Also, Aliens more than anything is a great action flic. Yes, it is Sci-Fi, but it is as much action as Alien was horror. Sunshine also has a horror feel, but it still captures that "out in space", secluded feel. As far as IQs go, I don't really have any comment, but one thing I would like is some Sci-Fi movies in the last 20 years that you like as well as Aliens. I would love to check them out.
John Doe: "And-- oh, no-- are you another one of those people who insists they like "2001"--? The only people who truly liked '2001' were sitting in theatres in 1968 completely bombed on acid. Those of us living less LSD-enhanced lives in the twenty-first century only say we like it to sound cool around our geeky film buddies".
Me: Yeah, I like 2001. Let me also say it was the first DVD I ever bought. I don't think I go ga-ga over it, but I really like it. I like the seclusion you feel. The epic feel, the story line and how it is more than just skin deep. How about not having any idea where it was going. So yeah, I like it! Do I think it is the Cat's Meow? No. It is long in places. Yeah that helps to add to the seclusion you feel, but honestly most of Kubrick's movies have that feel, still love them. He creates such as great atmosphere in his movies. Also it has all kinds of questions about new life. Also, to think it was writ en in 1950 and made before we landed on the moon is fantastic. What vision! You can't beat Aliens for action, but as far as being deep with spectacular visuals, well it leaves a little to be desired. I get the same feeling from Sunshine.
If anyone out there has any other Sci-Fi movies they would like to hear my thoughts on throw them out here. I have also been watching a lot of Dystopia movies of late. I will have a blog coming on those soon as well.
Anyway, thanks for the comments, I love to hear from everybody.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Update - Long time... ....but we're still here. This week: Format change, Cop Washington, Sunshine, Halloween (80s Slasher)?
Sorry, it has been so long since either of us has posted. Been busy. Let me start by saying that I have seen a few movies. I don't feel like writing reviews out for them all. Mostly why I haven't posted. I have a back log of movies that I wanted to write reviews for, but never got to it and it sort of snowballed from there.
I am thinking about changing the format of my entries a little too. I find I get pigeonholded into reviews and then get backed up by them. This is a blog however so I may start just giving my thoughts at the time. Reviews are everywhere. I will still provide traditional reviews, but I may also just right on thoughts about movies as well.
Such as: Have you ever noticed how many movies Denzel Washington plays a cop in? Good cop (Fallen), Misunderstood Cop (Virtuosity), Bad Cop (Training Day), Suicidal ex-Cop(Man On Fire), Shady Cop (Out of Time), Bed Ridden Cop (The Bone Collector), etc... It just occurred to me one day, he plays a lot of cops. Just a comment, not bad, not good. I love Denzel and his movies.
So, let me just start (continue) by saying one excellent movie that I have seen lately is Sunshine from Danny Boyle (director of 28 Days Later). It was a fantastic Sci-Fi movie with a 2001 feel. I am trying to remember the last time I like a Sci-Fi movie as much. Aliens comes to mind, but that was twenty freaking years ago. Yeah, I feel it too. As with a good Sci-Fi movie, it leaves you with more questions than answers touching in all areas (life, religion, why, etc). It is definitely work watching.
Well I have covered just about everything except what movies am I into right now. Well I have been getting gearing up for Halloween by watching and getting horror movies. Let me just say I have been stuck in a bit of an 80s slasher flick mood. Recently I have watched Return of the Living Dead, Cheerleader Camp, Maniac Cop, French Sex Murders, C.H.U.D., and Camp Fear to name a few. Also, I have recently acquired more than a few movies in that sub genre that I will be watched this weekend in a movie marathon.
Oh! Oh! Oh! I can't wait. I got a good list to go through this weekend. Sorority Maniacs, April Fools Day, Birthdays, Trains, an early George Clooney, Killer Sheep... ...oh there is all kinds of stuff waiting for me. I am ecstatic and can't wait to spend a campy weekend with horror movies. I will give a full report after the weekend!
I am thinking about changing the format of my entries a little too. I find I get pigeonholded into reviews and then get backed up by them. This is a blog however so I may start just giving my thoughts at the time. Reviews are everywhere. I will still provide traditional reviews, but I may also just right on thoughts about movies as well.
Such as: Have you ever noticed how many movies Denzel Washington plays a cop in? Good cop (Fallen), Misunderstood Cop (Virtuosity), Bad Cop (Training Day), Suicidal ex-Cop(Man On Fire), Shady Cop (Out of Time), Bed Ridden Cop (The Bone Collector), etc... It just occurred to me one day, he plays a lot of cops. Just a comment, not bad, not good. I love Denzel and his movies.
So, let me just start (continue) by saying one excellent movie that I have seen lately is Sunshine from Danny Boyle (director of 28 Days Later). It was a fantastic Sci-Fi movie with a 2001 feel. I am trying to remember the last time I like a Sci-Fi movie as much. Aliens comes to mind, but that was twenty freaking years ago. Yeah, I feel it too. As with a good Sci-Fi movie, it leaves you with more questions than answers touching in all areas (life, religion, why, etc). It is definitely work watching.
Well I have covered just about everything except what movies am I into right now. Well I have been getting gearing up for Halloween by watching and getting horror movies. Let me just say I have been stuck in a bit of an 80s slasher flick mood. Recently I have watched Return of the Living Dead, Cheerleader Camp, Maniac Cop, French Sex Murders, C.H.U.D., and Camp Fear to name a few. Also, I have recently acquired more than a few movies in that sub genre that I will be watched this weekend in a movie marathon.
Oh! Oh! Oh! I can't wait. I got a good list to go through this weekend. Sorority Maniacs, April Fools Day, Birthdays, Trains, an early George Clooney, Killer Sheep... ...oh there is all kinds of stuff waiting for me. I am ecstatic and can't wait to spend a campy weekend with horror movies. I will give a full report after the weekend!
Friday, August 3, 2007
Live Free or Die Hard
At first I was scared at this movie. No, not like that. I was afraid this was going to be a cheese-fest from an old actor trying to hold on. After all it was the first Die Hard not rated R! I thought this was going to be a Rocky vs Tommy Gunn, instead of what turned out to be a Rocky Balboa!
This sequel isn't without faults, but it feels like a Die Hard movie. Bruce Willis is great as John McClane. Still has that rebellious I want result quit BS-ing me attitude. The "I'm a Mac" Kid as I keep calling him, Justin Long, presents a perfect balance of "I can't believe this just happened" and "what's next". The cast I thought was superb all the way around. I love Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q as bad guys. The action is awesome. There are even subtle hints to the original. The scene where Agent Johnson is supposed to help McClane. Agents Johnson and Johnson (no pun intended) were the two agents that blew the roof in Die Hard one. Even the cameo by "Warlock" is much appreciated.
I love the computer aspect of the movie. Now to be fair there are plot holes and short comings, but they are often overshadowed by the comedy and action taking place. This is what a summer blockbuster should be. Fun and Entertaining. This movie doesn't loose sight of that. It is definitely worth a trip to the cineplex. After all I was pleasantly surprised.
Good:
Action. Actors. Fun. Is definitely a Die Hard movie.
Bad:
Plane part is stretching it, even for Die Hard. It may be somewhat believable, but come on!
Comments:
"I'm a Mac" kid give a good preformance. He is believable and doesn't fall into the trap of this is normal stuff.
Recommendations:
Theater. I think this deserves silver screen time. If not definitely rent it. It is still Die Hard, so you should know what you are getting into.
This sequel isn't without faults, but it feels like a Die Hard movie. Bruce Willis is great as John McClane. Still has that rebellious I want result quit BS-ing me attitude. The "I'm a Mac" Kid as I keep calling him, Justin Long, presents a perfect balance of "I can't believe this just happened" and "what's next". The cast I thought was superb all the way around. I love Timothy Olyphant and Maggie Q as bad guys. The action is awesome. There are even subtle hints to the original. The scene where Agent Johnson is supposed to help McClane. Agents Johnson and Johnson (no pun intended) were the two agents that blew the roof in Die Hard one. Even the cameo by "Warlock" is much appreciated.
I love the computer aspect of the movie. Now to be fair there are plot holes and short comings, but they are often overshadowed by the comedy and action taking place. This is what a summer blockbuster should be. Fun and Entertaining. This movie doesn't loose sight of that. It is definitely worth a trip to the cineplex. After all I was pleasantly surprised.
Good:
Action. Actors. Fun. Is definitely a Die Hard movie.
Bad:
Plane part is stretching it, even for Die Hard. It may be somewhat believable, but come on!
Comments:
"I'm a Mac" kid give a good preformance. He is believable and doesn't fall into the trap of this is normal stuff.
Recommendations:
Theater. I think this deserves silver screen time. If not definitely rent it. It is still Die Hard, so you should know what you are getting into.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Transformers
Although the film's topic aligns itself with childish whims, there's no denying the appeal to those of previous generations that grew up with the Autobots and Decepticons. As well, even though the story kinda lagged in areas, the film as a whole proved to be a great action film.
None of the actors in this flic are A-rated (except the supporting cast of Turturo, who does a great job making the audience hate his character, and Voight), but they all succeeded in their portrayals. My only reservation to that statement concerns the portrayal of the Autobots. In the earlier scenes following their final unmasking/introduction, they were portrayed as almost oafish teenagers. THIS IS A POTENTIAL SPOILER: an example is the group attempting to hide outside the main character's house while he searches for an important artifact. The yard is trampled, none of the Autobots can follow simple directions even though militarily trained, and the dialogue/interactions are sophomoric. That knocked them a rung on the ladder of respect and awe as giant, robotic crusaders. At least despite Bumblebee no longer being a Volkswagon Beetle, his character suffered no loss of identity save a lack of the scratchy, blues voice. So there is redemption.
The dialogue was tongue-in-cheek, but never suffered because of it-- and in many instances it was highly successful-- until the final confrontation. However, at the end, perhaps as almost an effort of comic relief, the lines became a tad silly. The smaller characters were also a little, well, unbelievable. I'll leave it at that, since none were major contributors to the film.
Where were the Decepticons?! That's the biggest question. A greatest part of the stories of yore involved the idea of evil turning upon itself. The Decepticons always defeated themselves. Here, I suppose due to budgeting, most of the old characters-- Autobots and Decepticons-- were not developed with personalities. This deprived the audience of the grand interactions and intrigue I knew so well from childhood. Didn't anyone else want to see some conflict between Starscream and Megatron aside from a single line of dialogue? I know these are skeptical observations, and I am not saying the movie suffered. The effects were great, as was the choreography in most of the battle scenes. That said, the movie was aimed at new audiences rather than loyal viewers of the past (i.e. at the kids of those loyal viewers).
So, overall, I give this one a rare (for me) 9/10. It's an action movie, so I wasn't expecting an Ingmar Bergman film, and neither should anyone else. Effects were great, and the original Optimus Prime voice certainly was icing on the cake. Lots of action, with pretty good segways throughout. If you like action and/or comic books, this is certainly the movie to see.
None of the actors in this flic are A-rated (except the supporting cast of Turturo, who does a great job making the audience hate his character, and Voight), but they all succeeded in their portrayals. My only reservation to that statement concerns the portrayal of the Autobots. In the earlier scenes following their final unmasking/introduction, they were portrayed as almost oafish teenagers. THIS IS A POTENTIAL SPOILER: an example is the group attempting to hide outside the main character's house while he searches for an important artifact. The yard is trampled, none of the Autobots can follow simple directions even though militarily trained, and the dialogue/interactions are sophomoric. That knocked them a rung on the ladder of respect and awe as giant, robotic crusaders. At least despite Bumblebee no longer being a Volkswagon Beetle, his character suffered no loss of identity save a lack of the scratchy, blues voice. So there is redemption.
The dialogue was tongue-in-cheek, but never suffered because of it-- and in many instances it was highly successful-- until the final confrontation. However, at the end, perhaps as almost an effort of comic relief, the lines became a tad silly. The smaller characters were also a little, well, unbelievable. I'll leave it at that, since none were major contributors to the film.
Where were the Decepticons?! That's the biggest question. A greatest part of the stories of yore involved the idea of evil turning upon itself. The Decepticons always defeated themselves. Here, I suppose due to budgeting, most of the old characters-- Autobots and Decepticons-- were not developed with personalities. This deprived the audience of the grand interactions and intrigue I knew so well from childhood. Didn't anyone else want to see some conflict between Starscream and Megatron aside from a single line of dialogue? I know these are skeptical observations, and I am not saying the movie suffered. The effects were great, as was the choreography in most of the battle scenes. That said, the movie was aimed at new audiences rather than loyal viewers of the past (i.e. at the kids of those loyal viewers).
So, overall, I give this one a rare (for me) 9/10. It's an action movie, so I wasn't expecting an Ingmar Bergman film, and neither should anyone else. Effects were great, and the original Optimus Prime voice certainly was icing on the cake. Lots of action, with pretty good segways throughout. If you like action and/or comic books, this is certainly the movie to see.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter is finaly growing up. No, I don't mean Daniel Radcliffe. No, I don't mean the story. I mean the film. Much like Empire Strikes Back to Star Wars, this is the darkest of the bunch so far. That is a good thing. The film permeates the feeling of growing up. I am not going to spoil this for you, but there is a big first here. Get your mind out of the gutter! Sometimes I can't believe you guys.
A couple of things are gone. That wow factor. In the first couple Potter films, I would catch myself looking around, wondering what is coming next. This film does a better job of operating in the framework of J. K. Rowling's world without stopping and pointing and going wow. From what I have heard the books are set up that way as well. I won't read the book before the movie. It destroys the movie, but I will read the book now because the movie only enhances the book. That is just a personal thing.
Back to growing up. The movie also leaves you feeling what Potter is and has gone through. The toll that has had on him as well as other characters. Most importantly, it leaves you with the power of Voldemort. For the first time, you get the feeling that in the end Harry may not make it out of this. This not only helps this film, but I believe it will enhance the next installment. I believe that David Yates is set to direct that as well.
Special effects were fantastic. Action was well directed. Acting was on the spot. The end explodes into what I have been waiting for from the beginning. You are probably thinking it, but are going to have to see it, to be sure. Let me just say that I had grown a little bored with the last couple installments of Harry Potter. This one picks up the slack and goes even farther!
Good:
Darker, more action oriented, finally growing up. Excellent.
Bad:
Kind of short, even at 138 minutes.
Comments:
My favorite so far. I got what I have been waiting for five films for at the end. An awesome battle.
Recommendations:
Theater man! The end is worth it! I may have to go see it at IMAX!
A couple of things are gone. That wow factor. In the first couple Potter films, I would catch myself looking around, wondering what is coming next. This film does a better job of operating in the framework of J. K. Rowling's world without stopping and pointing and going wow. From what I have heard the books are set up that way as well. I won't read the book before the movie. It destroys the movie, but I will read the book now because the movie only enhances the book. That is just a personal thing.
Back to growing up. The movie also leaves you feeling what Potter is and has gone through. The toll that has had on him as well as other characters. Most importantly, it leaves you with the power of Voldemort. For the first time, you get the feeling that in the end Harry may not make it out of this. This not only helps this film, but I believe it will enhance the next installment. I believe that David Yates is set to direct that as well.
Special effects were fantastic. Action was well directed. Acting was on the spot. The end explodes into what I have been waiting for from the beginning. You are probably thinking it, but are going to have to see it, to be sure. Let me just say that I had grown a little bored with the last couple installments of Harry Potter. This one picks up the slack and goes even farther!
Good:
Darker, more action oriented, finally growing up. Excellent.
Bad:
Kind of short, even at 138 minutes.
Comments:
My favorite so far. I got what I have been waiting for five films for at the end. An awesome battle.
Recommendations:
Theater man! The end is worth it! I may have to go see it at IMAX!
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Believe it or not this is a better film that the first installment of the Fantastic Four. Well not the first, that was 1994, and that was a train wreck. All thought that does lend an entertaining aspect to the cult film. Now back to what I was talking about. I meant the 2005 film. My theory is that the second iteration of comic movies usually are better than the first iteration. This is mostly due to the telling of the back story. Once past that you can have more fun with the movie, dive deeper into the characters, and have more focus on other characters and the situations they all face. Also you don't have to spend so much time without the super hero(es) on screen. There are exceptions, which have extremely solid origin stories. Spiderman and Batman come to mind. For the most part, the meat and fun lies within the second movie.
One big noticeable difference is in the characters. Everyone seems to be more comfortable this time around. This results in a movie that feels more like a Fantastic Four comic. Characters have accepted their powers, which makes the audience except the film more. Resulting in a movie that really feels like it flew out of a comic book.
Also the Silver Surfer is an awesome character. I never read much about him, but I like his story. Also I am glad they brought back Doctor Doom. You really get the feeling how powerful and manipulative of a super hero he can be.
The special effects look great. Don't know why they hid Galacus. My guess would probably be money. Still that didn't mess the movie up. Overall I liked it. Not sure how theater worthy it is, but definitely worth watching.
Good:
Silver Surfer Rocks! Feels more like a Fantastic Four comic.
Bad:
Still kind of cheesy, but then aren't the characters supposed to be on some level? It is a comic book movie and it works good as that.
Comments:
Why the smoke and mirrors for Galactus?
Recommendations:
With all the big movies out this summer, it can wait for DVD rental.
One big noticeable difference is in the characters. Everyone seems to be more comfortable this time around. This results in a movie that feels more like a Fantastic Four comic. Characters have accepted their powers, which makes the audience except the film more. Resulting in a movie that really feels like it flew out of a comic book.
Also the Silver Surfer is an awesome character. I never read much about him, but I like his story. Also I am glad they brought back Doctor Doom. You really get the feeling how powerful and manipulative of a super hero he can be.
The special effects look great. Don't know why they hid Galacus. My guess would probably be money. Still that didn't mess the movie up. Overall I liked it. Not sure how theater worthy it is, but definitely worth watching.
Good:
Silver Surfer Rocks! Feels more like a Fantastic Four comic.
Bad:
Still kind of cheesy, but then aren't the characters supposed to be on some level? It is a comic book movie and it works good as that.
Comments:
Why the smoke and mirrors for Galactus?
Recommendations:
With all the big movies out this summer, it can wait for DVD rental.
Friday, July 6, 2007
1408
What would make you crazy enough to jump out of a thirteen story window? 1408 is a evil room in The Dolphin that can make you do just that. This movie does a good job of taking you down that road. Showing what it takes to drive a person insane and why the occupants keep showing up dead. I really like the story. It does an excellent job of developing the character. I also like the evil room. Like, hate, you know what I mean. You start to actually hate the room and get angry at the room, much like the character. It is a bit predictable in places, but not so much that it takes away from the movie. The one thing about the movie that I didn't like, is that I never really feared for the character's saftey. I always got the feeling that he wouldn't take the easy choice. That being said this is a solid scary movie. I really enjoyed the movie.
Good:
Scary movie. Great imagery.
Bad:
Never really fear for John Cusack's character.
Comments:
A couple of years ago I stayed at a hotel on 48th and Lexington in New York City. I swear, they shot some of it in that hotel. Not while I was there because that was at Christmas time. The hotel had a Christmas Tree and some other decorations, but I swear the hotel looks and feels the same. All you would have to do is take out the decorations put in a couple columns and roman busts and there it is. The Radisson on Lexington was the name. It use to be called just The Lexington though. Could be why I liked the movie as well... ...because I stayed there! Not in room 1408 though.
Recommendations:
If you like scary or suspenseful movies it doesn't hurt to see this in the theater. Otherwise I would just rent it. The problem is that with so many summer block buster movies, you may want to wait. Then again, it is a great change of pace.
Good:
Scary movie. Great imagery.
Bad:
Never really fear for John Cusack's character.
Comments:
A couple of years ago I stayed at a hotel on 48th and Lexington in New York City. I swear, they shot some of it in that hotel. Not while I was there because that was at Christmas time. The hotel had a Christmas Tree and some other decorations, but I swear the hotel looks and feels the same. All you would have to do is take out the decorations put in a couple columns and roman busts and there it is. The Radisson on Lexington was the name. It use to be called just The Lexington though. Could be why I liked the movie as well... ...because I stayed there! Not in room 1408 though.
Recommendations:
If you like scary or suspenseful movies it doesn't hurt to see this in the theater. Otherwise I would just rent it. The problem is that with so many summer block buster movies, you may want to wait. Then again, it is a great change of pace.
Transformers
I went in to this movie buying all the hype. I thought it was going to rock! I wasn't sure about the people in it. I hadn't heard of most of them. I knew Peter Cullen was back as Optimus Prime, which was awesome! The acting was great, I was really impressed. Michale Bay did one thing right, he shot it like you would a normal action movie. I was a little worried when I first heard he would direct, but it is clear now that he was the right choice. The movie's special effects are put together so well that you don't really realize what is real and what is added in post production. The action is unbelievable. It was like I was ten again and someone filmed me having Autobots and Decepticons battle. It was great fun. If there is one weakness it is the story. A little simplistic, has some holes, but that being said it is a kids movie! Who cares! You know what, it lived up to the hype! It rocked! This is one of the few movies that I will probably go see it in the theater again! That is how much I liked it.
Good:
Acting. Special Effects. Directing. Cinematography.
Bad:
Simple Story.
Comments:
The first time you hear Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime... ...WOW!! It will take you back.
Recommendations:
See it in the theater!!! Now!!! Quit reading and go see it already!!!
Good:
Acting. Special Effects. Directing. Cinematography.
Bad:
Simple Story.
Comments:
The first time you hear Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime... ...WOW!! It will take you back.
Recommendations:
See it in the theater!!! Now!!! Quit reading and go see it already!!!
Shooter
First a little background. Shooter based off of a book called Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. Stephen Hunters inspiration came from a true Vietnam sniper, Carlos Hathcock. Hathcock is regarded to be the best sniper ever. This book is the first of three in a trilogy. Kind of reminds me of the Bourne trilogy, not in content, but a guy double crossed comes back to set things right.
I really like this movie. More so than the Bourne series, at least so far. Shooter is put together well. You can really tell that they spent some time on it. Some movies feel rushed. Shooter feels the complete opposite. There are subtle detail through out. A couple examples would be like when they are picking out camouflage. He says are you hunting in that forest. You make your own in the field where you are going. Another detail is when they go to where the shot is taken from. You can't even see the target. Stuff like this helps submerge you in the movie.
There are some twists and turns, nothing too complicated or unpredictable, but the ride is a fun one. The action is steady and the movie has a great flow to it. If I had one complaint, it would be the very end. Not going to give it away, not that big a deal. Not sure how I would have changed it. It is definitely worth watching!
Good:
Entertaining chase movie. Great flow. Details.
Bad:
Ending wrap up. Not a big deal. Don't even know if I would change it. Was searching for something though.
Comments:
I hope they make the other two books into movies!
Recommendations:
Rent it. It is a fun ride.
I really like this movie. More so than the Bourne series, at least so far. Shooter is put together well. You can really tell that they spent some time on it. Some movies feel rushed. Shooter feels the complete opposite. There are subtle detail through out. A couple examples would be like when they are picking out camouflage. He says are you hunting in that forest. You make your own in the field where you are going. Another detail is when they go to where the shot is taken from. You can't even see the target. Stuff like this helps submerge you in the movie.
There are some twists and turns, nothing too complicated or unpredictable, but the ride is a fun one. The action is steady and the movie has a great flow to it. If I had one complaint, it would be the very end. Not going to give it away, not that big a deal. Not sure how I would have changed it. It is definitely worth watching!
Good:
Entertaining chase movie. Great flow. Details.
Bad:
Ending wrap up. Not a big deal. Don't even know if I would change it. Was searching for something though.
Comments:
I hope they make the other two books into movies!
Recommendations:
Rent it. It is a fun ride.
Grandma's Boy
Holy crap, I loved this movie! It is probably because I am into video games, computers, monkeys... ...okay, I don't have a monkey, but they are cool. I am actually going to give the same summary I gave Sketch in an email:
Thirty year old guy is a video game tester (because he likes to smoke weed) that gets kicked out of his house and forced to stay with his grandma (because his roommate spent all the rent money on Philippino hookers). Awesome!!!!!!! If that doesn't draw you in, I don't know what will.... ...oh, there is a monkey!
That says it all. The movie isn't about some special cause and is not going to win Oscars, but it is fun and hilarious. The villain speaks like a robot when he is nervous for goodness sake. It is VERY well cast (we are talking Oscar/Emmy/Golden Globe winners) and they don't take themselves serious at all. They role with it. Also they don't rehash all the jokes from other movies. Their is original laughs to be had. They keep it fresh. There are a couple of "I can't believe they went there" moments as well. There are subtle points too. I don't know that everyone will appreciate everything here, but it is funny enough for everyone. All I can say is that it is one heck of a ride. Oh, and it has a monkey... ...and he knows karate!
Good:
Monkey, weed, and videogames. Nuff said!
Bad:
Not long enough. Okay, that is a joke. May be a niche crowd type of movie.
Comments:
You probably want to have a couple drinks while watching this movie.
Recommendations:
Oh, for glory's sake, get a bottle of wine and rent this!!!
Thirty year old guy is a video game tester (because he likes to smoke weed) that gets kicked out of his house and forced to stay with his grandma (because his roommate spent all the rent money on Philippino hookers). Awesome!!!!!!! If that doesn't draw you in, I don't know what will.... ...oh, there is a monkey!
That says it all. The movie isn't about some special cause and is not going to win Oscars, but it is fun and hilarious. The villain speaks like a robot when he is nervous for goodness sake. It is VERY well cast (we are talking Oscar/Emmy/Golden Globe winners) and they don't take themselves serious at all. They role with it. Also they don't rehash all the jokes from other movies. Their is original laughs to be had. They keep it fresh. There are a couple of "I can't believe they went there" moments as well. There are subtle points too. I don't know that everyone will appreciate everything here, but it is funny enough for everyone. All I can say is that it is one heck of a ride. Oh, and it has a monkey... ...and he knows karate!
Good:
Monkey, weed, and videogames. Nuff said!
Bad:
Not long enough. Okay, that is a joke. May be a niche crowd type of movie.
Comments:
You probably want to have a couple drinks while watching this movie.
Recommendations:
Oh, for glory's sake, get a bottle of wine and rent this!!!
The Fountain
I was excited about this movie from the previews and I didn't even know it was the director of Pi. I really thought that I was going to like it, but the more and more it went on... ...and on.... ...and on, I was just waiting for the end. I get the movie. There are three stories running in line with each other. One is from her book, where he is a Spanish explorer and she is queen. One is modern where he is a surgeon and she is a writer. One is symbolic where she represents his tree of life and also parallels a Mayan cycle of life. The problem is that the stories cross and loose themselves within each other. They get in each other's way rather than help propel each other. This movie is about loosing someone close to you. How that person gives you life, is your life. It is told like a David Lynch film, but unsuccessfully. It just doesn't work. It is boring, depressing, and muddled. There is no redemption for the characters. No real point. It is not about how life goes on. However if there is a guiding light it is the imagery. I just didn't care for the film overall. You are better off watching Pi or Requiem for a Dream. Don't get me wrong. I like when directors take chances. It just didn't work for me in this case. I will be interested with what Darren Aronofsky directs next.
Good:
Visuals.
Bad:
Cluttered.
Comments:
Like Darren Aronofsky's other movies like Pi and Requiem for a Dream. He does better without a budget.
Recommendations:
Try one of his other movies. Let this one go. Warning, the trailer can and probably will suck you in!
Good:
Visuals.
Bad:
Cluttered.
Comments:
Like Darren Aronofsky's other movies like Pi and Requiem for a Dream. He does better without a budget.
Recommendations:
Try one of his other movies. Let this one go. Warning, the trailer can and probably will suck you in!
Sopranos - Final Episode
Let me first start by saying that I didn't watch this series of the long 7 or almost 10 years it took to come out. I rented it on DVD. I don't watch a lot of series TV. I have no patients for it, but when you lay it out on DVD, and I can just roll though it... ...I love it! I can watch a series in a couple weeks. Lost for instance. I saw the recap episode, got really interested, then saw a couple of episodes, lost interest. Now I will just watch the recaps of the seasons. What I am saying is that I saw the whole series in a few weeks, maybe a month. We did a mad dash so that we could catch up for the final season. This was a benefit. It flows together better, like one long movie. The Final Episode fit with that very well.
Spoiler Warnings:
[Spoiler Start]
Fade to black. That is what has everyone's panties in a wad. David Chase told us this ending earlier. Tony and Bobby in the boat. You won't see it coming, just fade to black. That is what they said. He literally told us how it was going to end. Did they die? Hmmm, I will be honest I thought at first they did. More because that is what I wanted. I went back and saw the episode a couple more times and realized that they didn't. It doesn't fit with the rest of the series. Watch the ends of other seasons. Life just went on. That was it. That was his way of saying life just goes on. As far as the rest of the episode, some great things are overshadowed.
First Phil's death was fantastic. They really got you to a point where you wanted him to get crushed and they did it! Awesome. Also something we haven't really seen since the beginning of the series. A "flipped" FBI agent. Nice touch. I really like that. I also like that the kids seem to get back on track. AJ finally snapped out of his funk.
[Spoiler End]
Overall the show ended well. It was a nice cap on the series. If you went back and spent a few weekends watching the whole series through again, you will find the same.
Good:
I like the final episode. Ties up a lot of loose ends. Final scene.
Bad:
Final scene.
Comments:
Loved Phil and the "flip".
Recommendations:
Watch the series through on DVD.
Spoiler Warnings:
[Spoiler Start]
Fade to black. That is what has everyone's panties in a wad. David Chase told us this ending earlier. Tony and Bobby in the boat. You won't see it coming, just fade to black. That is what they said. He literally told us how it was going to end. Did they die? Hmmm, I will be honest I thought at first they did. More because that is what I wanted. I went back and saw the episode a couple more times and realized that they didn't. It doesn't fit with the rest of the series. Watch the ends of other seasons. Life just went on. That was it. That was his way of saying life just goes on. As far as the rest of the episode, some great things are overshadowed.
First Phil's death was fantastic. They really got you to a point where you wanted him to get crushed and they did it! Awesome. Also something we haven't really seen since the beginning of the series. A "flipped" FBI agent. Nice touch. I really like that. I also like that the kids seem to get back on track. AJ finally snapped out of his funk.
[Spoiler End]
Overall the show ended well. It was a nice cap on the series. If you went back and spent a few weekends watching the whole series through again, you will find the same.
Good:
I like the final episode. Ties up a lot of loose ends. Final scene.
Bad:
Final scene.
Comments:
Loved Phil and the "flip".
Recommendations:
Watch the series through on DVD.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Heeeeeeeeere's Johnny... again. I went into this movie with great anticipation. After all, the first in the series was pretty good. The second strayed off course, and left me wanting an iceberg. So, I thought, the third will provide redemption. That anticipation was poorly aimed.
The movie wasn't bad, per se, although it did last for quite some time and included numerous unnecessary scenes. I really wasn't too interested in the abstract, metaphysical musings regarding Davy Jones' Locker. But they were a visual triumph, even if they added nothing to the film. The moments of humor-- mostly slapstick-- were well-placed, although meant more for children. And there's the rub! I couldn't figure out whether the film was intended for young audiences (pre-teen) or adults. For instance, there was a great deal of violence, but I believe moral/ethical explanation is the responsibility of parents in governing their spawn. But the violence was really over-the-top in it's presentation. Nevertheless, such conundrums filled the screen.
I analogize the film to the telling of Shakespeare to toddlers. Imagine explaining Macbeth to someone who can barely understand or use the English language. How do you simplify a good story and develop characters with monosyllabic words? Now, for exercise, define "red".
As for the acting, I bump my rating up a bit for the inclusion of Keith Richards. That man is an icon by any person's standards. Depp modeled his character's behavior after the real-life Richards, and to add him in the film was a great choice-- my favorite part of the film. Depp is always good, but his character was just a static extension of the second film, a baffoon aided by circumstance a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Knightley was okay, but just okay. I didn't really care for her personna in this film. I don't know many people who enjoy overt arrogance in humans or characters unless they take a fall. That holds especially true when you can't determine the reason for the arrogance. She looks like some idiotic child when she attempts to strut in confidence. Harris (portraying Calypso) was decent, but the use of the never-present antagonist didn't really develop in the film. Also, that subplot, if you wish to call it that, was easily spotted. However, this was more the fault of the writers and the effects (what is that black crud in her mouth-- balckberries?) than the actress. Anyway, that performance was up's and down's. Rush was better in this film than the second, but the mystery of the character was lost. And besides, how many heros do we need? The runt, Bloom, was just as lackluster as in all his other films, and that's never surprising. He was only good in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's because he never changed expressions. Finally, C.Y. Fat plays an excellent bad guy, but wasn't given the background needed to make the character likeable. Oh, and Nighy (sp?). A really great performance, Nighy ran the gambit of emotion and pulled them all off while wearing tentacles on his face. I was really impressed by that performance. You'll probably also notice that the chemistry between Bloom and Knightley is shriveled. And there's the real problem: the movie wasn't about a hero, a mystery, or anything you follow through the film. It was only about a goal with problems/hurdles thrown in along the way.
So, the effects were good, and visually the film is outstanding. The skits outside the main plot could have been polished or cut. The performances were average at best except for Nighy, Rush, and-- sometimes-- the monkey... just kidding. Depp did a fine job, and Richards was icing on the cake. As for the story, well, better luck next time. I get the feeling the writers just wanted to write a script to include all the stars. Ergo, I give it a 6.5/10 (5.5 if not for Richards).
The movie wasn't bad, per se, although it did last for quite some time and included numerous unnecessary scenes. I really wasn't too interested in the abstract, metaphysical musings regarding Davy Jones' Locker. But they were a visual triumph, even if they added nothing to the film. The moments of humor-- mostly slapstick-- were well-placed, although meant more for children. And there's the rub! I couldn't figure out whether the film was intended for young audiences (pre-teen) or adults. For instance, there was a great deal of violence, but I believe moral/ethical explanation is the responsibility of parents in governing their spawn. But the violence was really over-the-top in it's presentation. Nevertheless, such conundrums filled the screen.
I analogize the film to the telling of Shakespeare to toddlers. Imagine explaining Macbeth to someone who can barely understand or use the English language. How do you simplify a good story and develop characters with monosyllabic words? Now, for exercise, define "red".
As for the acting, I bump my rating up a bit for the inclusion of Keith Richards. That man is an icon by any person's standards. Depp modeled his character's behavior after the real-life Richards, and to add him in the film was a great choice-- my favorite part of the film. Depp is always good, but his character was just a static extension of the second film, a baffoon aided by circumstance a la Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Knightley was okay, but just okay. I didn't really care for her personna in this film. I don't know many people who enjoy overt arrogance in humans or characters unless they take a fall. That holds especially true when you can't determine the reason for the arrogance. She looks like some idiotic child when she attempts to strut in confidence. Harris (portraying Calypso) was decent, but the use of the never-present antagonist didn't really develop in the film. Also, that subplot, if you wish to call it that, was easily spotted. However, this was more the fault of the writers and the effects (what is that black crud in her mouth-- balckberries?) than the actress. Anyway, that performance was up's and down's. Rush was better in this film than the second, but the mystery of the character was lost. And besides, how many heros do we need? The runt, Bloom, was just as lackluster as in all his other films, and that's never surprising. He was only good in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's because he never changed expressions. Finally, C.Y. Fat plays an excellent bad guy, but wasn't given the background needed to make the character likeable. Oh, and Nighy (sp?). A really great performance, Nighy ran the gambit of emotion and pulled them all off while wearing tentacles on his face. I was really impressed by that performance. You'll probably also notice that the chemistry between Bloom and Knightley is shriveled. And there's the real problem: the movie wasn't about a hero, a mystery, or anything you follow through the film. It was only about a goal with problems/hurdles thrown in along the way.
So, the effects were good, and visually the film is outstanding. The skits outside the main plot could have been polished or cut. The performances were average at best except for Nighy, Rush, and-- sometimes-- the monkey... just kidding. Depp did a fine job, and Richards was icing on the cake. As for the story, well, better luck next time. I get the feeling the writers just wanted to write a script to include all the stars. Ergo, I give it a 6.5/10 (5.5 if not for Richards).
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End
Wow! The summer blockbusters are in full effect! Action, Pirates, Great Cast, Pirates, Fun Pirates! Pirates has everything, but doesn't pull punches. You see Davey Jones' locker. The end is unapologetic! Wow! Feels like you are seeing an old family friend!
Now to the movie. First off this is probably the most complex story line of all three movies. I know that is not saying much, but it adds to the film. Keeps it interesting at least. For three hours I did not look at my watch once. Of course I didn't know how long it was until later, but I was stunned at the running time, it felt so fast. This is also the first movie where the bad guy is not a super natural enemy. I think Lord Beckett is a great fiend, but some of the spookiness is lost. I also like all the pirates, including Chow Yung Fat! Awesome! I also like the fun they had within the movie. Keith Richards was used excellently. Their were inside jokes pertaining to the other movies, such as the dog bringing the keys.
What I had the most problems with was the end. The battle between the two main ships was awesome, but the others were not included. It is like the film makers got to two hours and like thirty minutes and said "Crap", we have to end this now! Also Callipso felt added and could have been cut. I wanted the major battle at the end. The last 10 mins felt really rushed and tied up.
That aside. I loved it. I think it should be seen in the theater. It was great fun. Even if I don't agree with everything, I thought it was still the best summer blockbuster so far!!! I especially though Johnny Depp did a great job. I loved the Davey Jones scenes!
Good:
All the great characters.
Bad:
Callipso. Ending to fast. If you didn't care for the other ones, don't bother, but then who the hell are you?
Comments:
Keith Richards is awesome! I loved it. Also stay after the credits. It helps the ending.
Recommendations:
Theater. I think that it has that much eye candy. It is very entertaining. Great Fun! I didn't look at my watch once and I wanted more!
Now to the movie. First off this is probably the most complex story line of all three movies. I know that is not saying much, but it adds to the film. Keeps it interesting at least. For three hours I did not look at my watch once. Of course I didn't know how long it was until later, but I was stunned at the running time, it felt so fast. This is also the first movie where the bad guy is not a super natural enemy. I think Lord Beckett is a great fiend, but some of the spookiness is lost. I also like all the pirates, including Chow Yung Fat! Awesome! I also like the fun they had within the movie. Keith Richards was used excellently. Their were inside jokes pertaining to the other movies, such as the dog bringing the keys.
What I had the most problems with was the end. The battle between the two main ships was awesome, but the others were not included. It is like the film makers got to two hours and like thirty minutes and said "Crap", we have to end this now! Also Callipso felt added and could have been cut. I wanted the major battle at the end. The last 10 mins felt really rushed and tied up.
That aside. I loved it. I think it should be seen in the theater. It was great fun. Even if I don't agree with everything, I thought it was still the best summer blockbuster so far!!! I especially though Johnny Depp did a great job. I loved the Davey Jones scenes!
Good:
All the great characters.
Bad:
Callipso. Ending to fast. If you didn't care for the other ones, don't bother, but then who the hell are you?
Comments:
Keith Richards is awesome! I loved it. Also stay after the credits. It helps the ending.
Recommendations:
Theater. I think that it has that much eye candy. It is very entertaining. Great Fun! I didn't look at my watch once and I wanted more!
Letters From Iwo Jima
I'll begin by saying I haven't viewed "Flags of Our Fathers." I hesitate to watch movies these days which are based on the maneuverings of any war machine. My hesitance arises from a dislike of uneducated opinions expressed through propaganda. Be that as it may, I decided to give this one a try while buttressing myself against what I expected to be the overly sympathizing, tear-jerk intentions of the movie.
First, the defense of Iwo Jima during WWII lasted over a month, where the desolate island was expected to last only a week, give or take. I think the movie missed on this point. The scenes flowed well overall, but failed to adequately portray the the struggles experienced by the Japanese soldiers as individuals and as a cohesive force. Of course, I realize that the brevity of the film medium dictates that the grandest moments be chosen to convey an idea. However, to humanize any plight requires an understanding of that plight as well as a relation to it. The plot moved so quickly that the audience had to be hand-fed facts such as the soldiers lacking food and water. We were deprived of seeing the labor required to construct the labyrinthine mazes of the island. The lack of reinforcements was realized before the soldiers' immense undertaking was shown-- and that realization more or less occurred through conversation. Because of this, relating to the hardships of the Japanese soldiers was nigh impossible.
This segways into another point. The relative success of the Japanese in defending what was believed to be an indefensible hold arose due to the strategies of the General Kuribayashi, as portrayed-- no, well-portrayed-- by Watanabe. Yet, it was difficult to determine upon whom the story focused from Act to Act. We have a baker-turn-soldier who plays a pacifist in most respects, yet nonetheless is our hero. I believe that to be an intentional use of irony, as the character's cowardice allows him to survive and gives rise to the story as told. I also believe that character to be an intentional parallel to the "wise" general who is juxtaposed to the baker. However, these contrivances lack focus, and the dual stories are not inter-weaved to an extent which allows us, as the audience, to choose a ready hero. I found myself pulling for the tortured General because I simply had to choose someone for whom to cheer. But I didn't really know why he was struggling internally.
Finally, the greatest injustice is served by ignoring the role of culture in this story. Perhaps this was excluded to make the baker's character more tear-invoking or to humanize the General, but it also made the movie less reliable and believable. The Emperor of Japan was a divine embodiment of sovereignty. The drive to war meant a religiously dictated course of action. As well, U.S. soldiers were portrayed as vicious torturers and murderers in Japanese propaganda. Otherworldly repercussions and worldly fear are fantastic motivators for action. Alas, there was no real conflict except among the Japanese soldiers, and so what action there was seemed deflating. We missed the background story altogether. All we see is the soldiers starving, but we don't see the underlying reasons for the choice to starve rather than surrender. Therefore, the ultimate failing arises from "Americanizing" and modernizing the main Japanese characters. I would love to see the same story told by a Japanese survivor. At least then the penultimate realization of the Japanese soldiers that the U.S. soldiers were pawns like themselves might have carried some weight.
In the end, my rating depends on how one categorizes the film. As an action film, I rate it 1/10. As a drama, I give it a 3/10. It wasn't about battles. It wasn't about cultural understanding. The characters were superficial rather than insightful. I think it may have been about boredom as an unbearable burden. As a character-driven, philosophical rant on the abstract and unidentifiable, hmmm, a 6/10. Save this one for a rainy day of chicken pox.
First, the defense of Iwo Jima during WWII lasted over a month, where the desolate island was expected to last only a week, give or take. I think the movie missed on this point. The scenes flowed well overall, but failed to adequately portray the the struggles experienced by the Japanese soldiers as individuals and as a cohesive force. Of course, I realize that the brevity of the film medium dictates that the grandest moments be chosen to convey an idea. However, to humanize any plight requires an understanding of that plight as well as a relation to it. The plot moved so quickly that the audience had to be hand-fed facts such as the soldiers lacking food and water. We were deprived of seeing the labor required to construct the labyrinthine mazes of the island. The lack of reinforcements was realized before the soldiers' immense undertaking was shown-- and that realization more or less occurred through conversation. Because of this, relating to the hardships of the Japanese soldiers was nigh impossible.
This segways into another point. The relative success of the Japanese in defending what was believed to be an indefensible hold arose due to the strategies of the General Kuribayashi, as portrayed-- no, well-portrayed-- by Watanabe. Yet, it was difficult to determine upon whom the story focused from Act to Act. We have a baker-turn-soldier who plays a pacifist in most respects, yet nonetheless is our hero. I believe that to be an intentional use of irony, as the character's cowardice allows him to survive and gives rise to the story as told. I also believe that character to be an intentional parallel to the "wise" general who is juxtaposed to the baker. However, these contrivances lack focus, and the dual stories are not inter-weaved to an extent which allows us, as the audience, to choose a ready hero. I found myself pulling for the tortured General because I simply had to choose someone for whom to cheer. But I didn't really know why he was struggling internally.
Finally, the greatest injustice is served by ignoring the role of culture in this story. Perhaps this was excluded to make the baker's character more tear-invoking or to humanize the General, but it also made the movie less reliable and believable. The Emperor of Japan was a divine embodiment of sovereignty. The drive to war meant a religiously dictated course of action. As well, U.S. soldiers were portrayed as vicious torturers and murderers in Japanese propaganda. Otherworldly repercussions and worldly fear are fantastic motivators for action. Alas, there was no real conflict except among the Japanese soldiers, and so what action there was seemed deflating. We missed the background story altogether. All we see is the soldiers starving, but we don't see the underlying reasons for the choice to starve rather than surrender. Therefore, the ultimate failing arises from "Americanizing" and modernizing the main Japanese characters. I would love to see the same story told by a Japanese survivor. At least then the penultimate realization of the Japanese soldiers that the U.S. soldiers were pawns like themselves might have carried some weight.
In the end, my rating depends on how one categorizes the film. As an action film, I rate it 1/10. As a drama, I give it a 3/10. It wasn't about battles. It wasn't about cultural understanding. The characters were superficial rather than insightful. I think it may have been about boredom as an unbearable burden. As a character-driven, philosophical rant on the abstract and unidentifiable, hmmm, a 6/10. Save this one for a rainy day of chicken pox.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Flags of Our Fathers
One may think this is the perfect Memorial Day weekend war movie. The movie is about the picture taken in
The thing that resonated with me though, and made me angry was the manipulation by the government of the soldiers who were in the photo and who weren't. Also how they used these “heroes”, but the thing that made me the maddest was how they treated the families. Now this probably has more to do with the recent events that happened with Pat Tillman and his family, but I couldn't get past the parallels. After all this time, the government is still telling the same lies to its people trying to justify its actions. This is what stuck with me. I think it is a good movie. It is just not what I was expecting, which is necessarily bad. I can't wait to see the companion piece Letters from
Good:
Put together very well. An interesting view into the past.
Bad:
Tend to not show everyone's best side.
Comments:
Not so much a war movie. Want to see Letters from
Recommendations:
Must see. Rent it!
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Queen
Okay, I will be honest. I didn't choose this one. I don't understand the fascination with the royal family. Regardless, I decided to give this a whirl and found it quite interesting. I found it very well acted with splices of real TV clips embedded throughout. The TV clips help take you back to almost being in the movie. The movie did a nice job of not vilifying anyone, while presenting all kinds of different views on England, the Queen, Diana, heck the whole royal family and English government. Also made me think about how hard a job Tony Blair must have. The one real complaint I have is that it feels like it is 7 years too late. Diana died in 1997. I know their were investigation and what not, but still seems like it should have come out before now.
Good:
Nice Real feeling.
Bad:
Maybe a little late.
Comments:
Even the dogs (literally) listen to the queen.
Recommendations:
I thought it was worth a rent. I could also see waiting for HBO, just because the subject doesn't really interest me. Either way, it is definitely worth a watch.
Good:
Nice Real feeling.
Bad:
Maybe a little late.
Comments:
Even the dogs (literally) listen to the queen.
Recommendations:
I thought it was worth a rent. I could also see waiting for HBO, just because the subject doesn't really interest me. Either way, it is definitely worth a watch.
Midnight Madness
Michael J. Fox's first move! I saw this movie as a kid and loved it, so I rented it again recently. It is about Leon's game, "The Great Allnighter". He challenges five teams to a clue driven scavenger hunt type game. It is in the same vain as a "Revenge of the Nerds", "Rat Race", or "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World". It has that "American Where Wolf in London" guy (David Naughton) and Flounder (Stephen Furst) from Animal House among others. What else can you ask for?! Certainly a recipe for success! Don't get me wrong, it shows it's age, which I think adds to it, but it is still just great fun. Remember when movies were fun? I love how the team break down too. Nerds, Jocks, Chicks, Rich, and Normal people. Remember when we could make fun of everybody or just go to a movie that was fun. Well this will take you back. As you can see this is mostly about nostalgia. Although I find myself getting caught up in the race as well. Who will win? I also like seeing the world as it is transitioning from 70s to full blown 80s. I think part of the major appeal is wanting to go on a scavenger hung like this. Plus I think it is something you can watch with your kids.
Good:
Nostalgia. Fun!
Bad:
Dated. Was made on the bring of the 80s (Released in 1980).
Comments:
Hear it inspired "The Game". This was made before Michael J. Fox did "Family Ties", WOW!
Recommendations:
Good luck seeing this in the theater. Grab the kids for a trip down memory lane. Heck, Disney made it! Rent it.
Good:
Nostalgia. Fun!
Bad:
Dated. Was made on the bring of the 80s (Released in 1980).
Comments:
Hear it inspired "The Game". This was made before Michael J. Fox did "Family Ties", WOW!
Recommendations:
Good luck seeing this in the theater. Grab the kids for a trip down memory lane. Heck, Disney made it! Rent it.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Turistas
This is one of those "you asked for it" flics. That is not to say the film is bad, but one should only expect the norm from the genre. There is nothing really new that this film adds to horror-suspense flics, but it remained an enjoyable journey through familiar territory.
First, the spoiler storyline: Tourists meet on a trip in South America due to unfortunate circumstances. Having few alternatives readily available, all the English-speaking tourists retire to an isolated beach-bar and party. Of course, they're drugged and their accouterments stolen. They wish to recover those goods, but enrage the locals in the process and must flee. Enter the bad guy, who wants to carve up these "transient" and untraceable tourists. The conflicting parties meet. Most of the tourists become surgery scraps while enduring the philosophical and social banter of the bad guy. But not everyone cashes in, and the bad guy loses.
Nudity is to be expected on S.A. beaches, and the females naturally were attractive, so the only question was when the nudity would appear. Its placement didn't detract from the plot, so no harm done; I won't attack Stockwell for that choice. And the acting actually wasn't too bad. I imagine it to be a difficult task to fully communicate a backstory through one-dimensional horror characters. Not all of the acting was top-notch, but you already know those characters will be first to perish. Overall, not bad for a re-conception of an old story idea.
However, the best part of the movie was the antagonist. As the stereotypical "mad scientist," the doctor steals organs while analogizing his actions to the theft of the natural resources from his country by first-world nations (as represented by our protagonists). Good comparison. The horror merely arises from the degree of retribution the doctor exacts-- especially since he hypocritically collects money from the sale of those organs. The fear factor, which I believe was underplayed, came from a seemingly intelligent man acting abnormally based on otherwise sound arguments. The suspense, which at times was well-accomplished, was based on unfamiliar territory. The tourists could barely communicate and were unaware of their location. Also, the underwater spelunking scenes could easily inspire clausterphobia, especially when that backdrop involved an armed thug. Once or twice I think I held my breath so they wouldn't drown on the screen... but I was upset at the lack of advertised gore.
The best part is really the end of the film, when the antagonist catches the tourists. Great dialogue there. The speed and suspense rise, as well. And, as an aside, the scenery was nice. The bad area, as in most films, was the middle. One character won't shut up, and his constant whining slows the pace of the film as the audience prays for him to disappear. Most of the character interaction in the middle could be cut without a problem, and the story wouldn't suffer-- especially since it didn't really add to character relationships. Also, the flipped alliance of the tourists' local "guide" is not very believable. Since his relationship to the tourists never really developed, his actions as a savior lacked believability. We can only be expected to buy so much. Regardless, the film remains entertaining, and you can't help but expect some of these contrivances. So, in all, I give it a 7 out of 10.
First, the spoiler storyline: Tourists meet on a trip in South America due to unfortunate circumstances. Having few alternatives readily available, all the English-speaking tourists retire to an isolated beach-bar and party. Of course, they're drugged and their accouterments stolen. They wish to recover those goods, but enrage the locals in the process and must flee. Enter the bad guy, who wants to carve up these "transient" and untraceable tourists. The conflicting parties meet. Most of the tourists become surgery scraps while enduring the philosophical and social banter of the bad guy. But not everyone cashes in, and the bad guy loses.
Nudity is to be expected on S.A. beaches, and the females naturally were attractive, so the only question was when the nudity would appear. Its placement didn't detract from the plot, so no harm done; I won't attack Stockwell for that choice. And the acting actually wasn't too bad. I imagine it to be a difficult task to fully communicate a backstory through one-dimensional horror characters. Not all of the acting was top-notch, but you already know those characters will be first to perish. Overall, not bad for a re-conception of an old story idea.
However, the best part of the movie was the antagonist. As the stereotypical "mad scientist," the doctor steals organs while analogizing his actions to the theft of the natural resources from his country by first-world nations (as represented by our protagonists). Good comparison. The horror merely arises from the degree of retribution the doctor exacts-- especially since he hypocritically collects money from the sale of those organs. The fear factor, which I believe was underplayed, came from a seemingly intelligent man acting abnormally based on otherwise sound arguments. The suspense, which at times was well-accomplished, was based on unfamiliar territory. The tourists could barely communicate and were unaware of their location. Also, the underwater spelunking scenes could easily inspire clausterphobia, especially when that backdrop involved an armed thug. Once or twice I think I held my breath so they wouldn't drown on the screen... but I was upset at the lack of advertised gore.
The best part is really the end of the film, when the antagonist catches the tourists. Great dialogue there. The speed and suspense rise, as well. And, as an aside, the scenery was nice. The bad area, as in most films, was the middle. One character won't shut up, and his constant whining slows the pace of the film as the audience prays for him to disappear. Most of the character interaction in the middle could be cut without a problem, and the story wouldn't suffer-- especially since it didn't really add to character relationships. Also, the flipped alliance of the tourists' local "guide" is not very believable. Since his relationship to the tourists never really developed, his actions as a savior lacked believability. We can only be expected to buy so much. Regardless, the film remains entertaining, and you can't help but expect some of these contrivances. So, in all, I give it a 7 out of 10.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Spiderman 3
Just saw Spiderman 3! If 300 (I did see it, but it was a bad theater experience... ...later... ...well maybe never... ...well maybe now! ...who lets a 3 year old into a theater anyway, and when the kid wants to go home, then take him home! "Daddy can we go home"! for the entire film!! AHHHHH! Okay it was ruined for me, I needed that, but I am not bitter, I will leave a proper review when I see it again for now, back to Spidey) didn't kick off this summer's movie fest/feast, Transformers, Die Hard 4, Harry Potter 4, Fantastic Four 2, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 in the wings... ....WOW, then Spiderman 3 surely will. Won't it? Well I liked it, except for the last ten or fifteen minutes. Quid pro quo? You ever slide down a metal slide and at the end your shorts ride up and give you a little "rug burn"? That is the way this movie felt to me. The ride was fun, but I got a little burnt at the end and it stuck with me for a bit. I don't wanna put any spoilers in here, but there seems to be a little too much cheese at the end. Certain alliances. when he forgives, just seem cheesy. You will know when you see it. Another thing, you know how Batman is driven by his parents death. Well Spiderman and Peter Parker are always at odds. Like in the first two movies. One life pulls from the other and Parker has to take the high road and sacrifice for everyone else's sake. That is a fundamental make up of the character. Spiderman and Peter Parker can't be happy at the same time. That is the real conflict. What makes it interesting. Like Batman's drive and how he won't kill (I know about the early Batman, go home comic guy). Some of that conflict seems to be lost in this film, just a bit. Not enough to detract too much. Maybe it isn't lost so much as just not presented as well as the first films. The focus seems to have shifted from character to action at times. Anyway the action is great, even if the characters suffer some. I love the battles with the Sandman. Don't like how he is handled at the end at all. Venom is cool! One of my favorite bad guys, just wish there was more of him. Like father, like son, was a bit much. Overall, parts of the film were like this review, a little fat and probably could have been trimmed down a bit and made tighter or just edited out. Jazz club scene could be shorter. Overall I would say this is a fun flic with lots of little humor moments. Don't go looking for Shakespeare (we all knew that), but just sit back and enjoy... ...and forgive the cheese. After all, the target audience is probably 10 year olds.
Good:
Action. Sandman. Not too much mush. BRUCE CAMPBELL! Fun. Humor.
Bad:
Ending. Looses Spidey Sense. Cheese at the end.
Comments:
I turned to my wife and said, "Oh this is where Bruce Campbell is going to be" before it happened. I was so excited. I was like a 10 year old. I love that guy! Also what is with the acrobatics (Jazz club) as Parker. Reminded me of when he does that reverse gainer in Spiderman 1. Just a little bit much.
Recommendations:
If you like Spiderman see it in the theater. If not rent. Definitely watch. I really did like it over all. I didn't feel like I wasted my money, but I don't think I would see it in the theater again. Although you never know. Did some one say it is at the IMAX?
Good:
Action. Sandman. Not too much mush. BRUCE CAMPBELL! Fun. Humor.
Bad:
Ending. Looses Spidey Sense. Cheese at the end.
Comments:
I turned to my wife and said, "Oh this is where Bruce Campbell is going to be" before it happened. I was so excited. I was like a 10 year old. I love that guy! Also what is with the acrobatics (Jazz club) as Parker. Reminded me of when he does that reverse gainer in Spiderman 1. Just a little bit much.
Recommendations:
If you like Spiderman see it in the theater. If not rent. Definitely watch. I really did like it over all. I didn't feel like I wasted my money, but I don't think I would see it in the theater again. Although you never know. Did some one say it is at the IMAX?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Black Christmas 2006
I begin by noting the difficulty in re-making what has become a cult classic in horror circles. The original title, released in 1974, set the scene for the unidentified stalker films that followed, such as the infamous "Halloween." With that said, the enjoyment of the remake is also difficult.
Part of the magnificence of the original manifested in not knowing the identity of the killer-- much less his/her motivations. In 2006, we know the killer, "Billy." The remake puts more emphasis on his backstory than did the original, which isn't too bad aside from the fact that the remake hides the Billy of the present story. It's like getting the childhood tales of a person we're never going to meet. In the end, it's a little deflating of expectations. Wanting to see a mass murderer, we're delivered a child.
As to the characters, i.e. the sorority girls, they appeared as multiple incarnations of the same person, except the heroine of the story (you can identify her because she's the only blonde). I guess big sisters sponsor based on the lack of acting skills of the rushees, because that's all these characters seem to have in common. Anyway, when they started the requisite terminations, I was slightly confused. Because everyone looked the same, I couldn't really tell who was still breathing, and I really didn't care.
The good part of the film? Well, it tried to remain true to the outline provided by the original, although the embellishments in this case undermined the stalker/slasher intent to create suspense. There were no big-name actresses used (none should ever become big names based on their performances here). And the gore factor increased. The bad part? Well, the abortion sub-plot was abandoned. Bad choice. At least that way we came to know the heroine in the original. The phone calls were coherent and not at all spooky, fear-invoking, or disturbing in the remake. Finally, the story of Billy's origins undermined the development of the characters we needed to feel for in the present story. That made me cheer for Billy.
It at least passed the time, and I enjoyed comparing the remake to the original while viewing, so I give this about a 4 outta 10. If I hadn't seen the original, I may have bumped it to a 5 or 6. But if you really want to see how the film should have been made, watch Bob Clark's 1974 original. Rest in Peace, Bob.
Part of the magnificence of the original manifested in not knowing the identity of the killer-- much less his/her motivations. In 2006, we know the killer, "Billy." The remake puts more emphasis on his backstory than did the original, which isn't too bad aside from the fact that the remake hides the Billy of the present story. It's like getting the childhood tales of a person we're never going to meet. In the end, it's a little deflating of expectations. Wanting to see a mass murderer, we're delivered a child.
As to the characters, i.e. the sorority girls, they appeared as multiple incarnations of the same person, except the heroine of the story (you can identify her because she's the only blonde). I guess big sisters sponsor based on the lack of acting skills of the rushees, because that's all these characters seem to have in common. Anyway, when they started the requisite terminations, I was slightly confused. Because everyone looked the same, I couldn't really tell who was still breathing, and I really didn't care.
The good part of the film? Well, it tried to remain true to the outline provided by the original, although the embellishments in this case undermined the stalker/slasher intent to create suspense. There were no big-name actresses used (none should ever become big names based on their performances here). And the gore factor increased. The bad part? Well, the abortion sub-plot was abandoned. Bad choice. At least that way we came to know the heroine in the original. The phone calls were coherent and not at all spooky, fear-invoking, or disturbing in the remake. Finally, the story of Billy's origins undermined the development of the characters we needed to feel for in the present story. That made me cheer for Billy.
It at least passed the time, and I enjoyed comparing the remake to the original while viewing, so I give this about a 4 outta 10. If I hadn't seen the original, I may have bumped it to a 5 or 6. But if you really want to see how the film should have been made, watch Bob Clark's 1974 original. Rest in Peace, Bob.
Smoking Aces
Well, I admit my viewing of this flic arose from the thought that Guy Ritchie copycats might use character development and thus out-perform Ritchie's schoolhouse-rock-style. I deceived myself. We have the allure of colorful characters and a convoluted plot, both of which lead to expectations that character interactions, wry wit, and unexpected outcomes (i.e. "character terminations") would yield high entertainment. But the Smoking Aces ("SA") writers were way off base. There really isn't a plot-- there's a goal and a five-minute setup for that goal. Then there are unrelated actions of unrelated parties to which the audience never will relate.
Here we go. Mob guys wanna "off" an insider turning federal witness. The mob publishes a huge payoff for the person who carves out and delivers the witness' heart. Low-rate, unimaginative hitmen (/women) go for the contract. The FBI suddenly realizes they should protect their witness. The competitors race towards the witness and fire weapons. The end.
No one cares for the witness, who seems to be the only antagonist. I'd explain further, but spoilers would naturally ensue. Essentially, the entire movie lacks a hero. The FBI agent we assume to be the hero simply turns out to be an idiot a la Van Wilder (Ryan Reynolds). We never get to know Liotta or Garcia. The other actors play one-dimensional characters. None of the assassins use intriguing methods or invoke any interest. This movie was better suited as a short film. Seriously, this wasn't worth a rental fee. I give it a two outta 10 because I feel sorry for the actors who needed work. Make that a 1.5 outta 10... they shoulda killed the annoying brat (why was that even in the film?!) in Act II. Of course, in this flic, Act II could also be called "an hour of misplaced, useless fill material."
Here we go. Mob guys wanna "off" an insider turning federal witness. The mob publishes a huge payoff for the person who carves out and delivers the witness' heart. Low-rate, unimaginative hitmen (/women) go for the contract. The FBI suddenly realizes they should protect their witness. The competitors race towards the witness and fire weapons. The end.
No one cares for the witness, who seems to be the only antagonist. I'd explain further, but spoilers would naturally ensue. Essentially, the entire movie lacks a hero. The FBI agent we assume to be the hero simply turns out to be an idiot a la Van Wilder (Ryan Reynolds). We never get to know Liotta or Garcia. The other actors play one-dimensional characters. None of the assassins use intriguing methods or invoke any interest. This movie was better suited as a short film. Seriously, this wasn't worth a rental fee. I give it a two outta 10 because I feel sorry for the actors who needed work. Make that a 1.5 outta 10... they shoulda killed the annoying brat (why was that even in the film?!) in Act II. Of course, in this flic, Act II could also be called "an hour of misplaced, useless fill material."
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Hot Fuzz
This movie cracked me up! It ROCKS! A big city (London) cop gets sent to the country (Stanford), let the laughs begin. The humor varies. Everything thing from slap stick jokes to more subtle humor. Much of the humor comes from making fun of themselves and the genre Hot Fuzz represents (buddy cop movies). I found references to Lethal Weapon, Point Break, Bad Boys 2, and He-Man! This movie is not just a reference fest. It has a lot of humor as well. The movie also flows better than Shaun Of The Dead (same guys), which I also loved. This movies feels like a movie fan made it. I think that is some of the appeal. You know how Scary Movie is to Scream is to the horror genre? I would put this more towards Scream than Scary movie except towards action buddy cop movies instead of horror movies. In other words, it is funny and original, but not over the top and overly stupid.
Good:
Hilarious. References to other movies.
Bad:
I am sure there is something. Oh, you will want to see it again!
Comments:
Soundtrack rocks.
Recommendations:
Theater! Go see it. It has been a long time (EuroTrip) since a movie has been so good that I wanted to rewind and watch again.
Good:
Hilarious. References to other movies.
Bad:
I am sure there is something. Oh, you will want to see it again!
Comments:
Soundtrack rocks.
Recommendations:
Theater! Go see it. It has been a long time (EuroTrip) since a movie has been so good that I wanted to rewind and watch again.
Smoking Aces
I had high hopes for this movie. I was thinking Godfather with Pulp Fiction style. Man, was I WAY OFF. Smoking Aces is a crime movie about a hit taken out on a "wanna be" mobster/turn coat. Here is the basic problem. The movie is focused on a bunch of hit men that come together in a hotel. It is like a race to get to this guy. The whole movie wraps around this point. The rest of the movie is just there as filler. The mark is just there as a plot device, you don't feel invested in it at all. I didn't care if he lived or died. This is part of the problem with no investment, I was just like, "Blah, I just wanna see something go boom"! The mob mystery really just bookends the movie. I can hear the conversations now.
Hollywood Exec 1: "Oh crap, we have this center of a movie that we have filmed with these neat characters, and now we better make up something to go around it".
Hollywood Exec 2: "Ooo, I know we'll get some big name actors and pepper them through out the movie and it will all be okay"!
Another words the talents of Andy Garcia are wasted, along with Ray Liotta. Seems like this was done for the paycheck. Heck everyone's talents were wasted. Not to mention an aside in the middle of the movie at a trailer with a hyped up kid. The one thing I liked was the style and the cool characters. You could literally just watch 10 or 15 minuted in the middle and be done with the movie.
The Good:
Stylized action peppered with unique characters.
The Bad:
The plot, time line, you just don't care. The movie is basically there to show off some neat assassins.
Comments:
One other thing, there are a lot of survivors. If a sequel is in the works, please spend some time on the plot. This could have been something great.
Recommendations:
Rent it. Sit with the Fast Forward Button. Watch the sh*t hit the fan. Return!
Hollywood Exec 1: "Oh crap, we have this center of a movie that we have filmed with these neat characters, and now we better make up something to go around it".
Hollywood Exec 2: "Ooo, I know we'll get some big name actors and pepper them through out the movie and it will all be okay"!
Another words the talents of Andy Garcia are wasted, along with Ray Liotta. Seems like this was done for the paycheck. Heck everyone's talents were wasted. Not to mention an aside in the middle of the movie at a trailer with a hyped up kid. The one thing I liked was the style and the cool characters. You could literally just watch 10 or 15 minuted in the middle and be done with the movie.
The Good:
Stylized action peppered with unique characters.
The Bad:
The plot, time line, you just don't care. The movie is basically there to show off some neat assassins.
Comments:
One other thing, there are a lot of survivors. If a sequel is in the works, please spend some time on the plot. This could have been something great.
Recommendations:
Rent it. Sit with the Fast Forward Button. Watch the sh*t hit the fan. Return!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Prestige
What is not to like? The cast of Batman Begins, Magic, David Bowie, are you kidding me, this movie is going to rock! POOF? What happen? The acting was great, the subject matter was great, even the story wasn't bad, two competing magicians. The real trick is how they made this movie so predictable and boring.
First the GOOD:
The acting was great. The subject matter was great. I never felt like turning it off, so I was engaged. I loved the rivalry and how the stakes kept building. I love the tricks. I also loved the settings. Last David freakin' Bowie! I love Bowie. I don't think he does enough movies. That was a great surprise. He didn't even play that big of a role. Somehow he is always engaging.
Second the BAD:
No misdirection. I know this sounds funny coming from a movie about magic, but honestly I saw the whole thing coming. The apifiny came when the hats were found. I kind of suspected anyway. I don't want to ruin it. I put the whole thing together then. The only secret was the Bale's tutor/trick master. Which was given away because they never showed his face. I knew it was... ...well I don't want to spoil it. The ending should be shocking. It probably could have, had there been more misdirection in other areas. Honestly, the hat thing, if you left that out, I probably would never have seen it coming. Well maybe, part of the problem is that it was a movie about magic and I am looking for the misdirection. The problem lies in the way the story was told, not the story, not the direction, not the acting, just the procession of events.
Comments:
I don't want to say that it was a bad movie. I just felt like it was missing something.
Recommendation.
Rental. I think it is entertaining to a point. Don't expect any magic from this movie. Maybe even wait for HBO. It is an entertaining yarn, just not worth buying.
First the GOOD:
The acting was great. The subject matter was great. I never felt like turning it off, so I was engaged. I loved the rivalry and how the stakes kept building. I love the tricks. I also loved the settings. Last David freakin' Bowie! I love Bowie. I don't think he does enough movies. That was a great surprise. He didn't even play that big of a role. Somehow he is always engaging.
Second the BAD:
No misdirection. I know this sounds funny coming from a movie about magic, but honestly I saw the whole thing coming. The apifiny came when the hats were found. I kind of suspected anyway. I don't want to ruin it. I put the whole thing together then. The only secret was the Bale's tutor/trick master. Which was given away because they never showed his face. I knew it was... ...well I don't want to spoil it. The ending should be shocking. It probably could have, had there been more misdirection in other areas. Honestly, the hat thing, if you left that out, I probably would never have seen it coming. Well maybe, part of the problem is that it was a movie about magic and I am looking for the misdirection. The problem lies in the way the story was told, not the story, not the direction, not the acting, just the procession of events.
Comments:
I don't want to say that it was a bad movie. I just felt like it was missing something.
Recommendation.
Rental. I think it is entertaining to a point. Don't expect any magic from this movie. Maybe even wait for HBO. It is an entertaining yarn, just not worth buying.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Prestige: "Watch closely..." or better yet watch without expectations.
Did you read the title of this post? Then when reading the rest of this review, you should not expect any twists! That is the downfall of the film. But allow me to jump to the middle, much as the movie believed leaping between parts of the story added to the unfolding of the plot.
I expect there will be two forms of critiques by the movie-going audience. First will be the GED crowd that claims the complexity of the movie will challenge the audience to discover the plot-twists-- but they amazingly figured it out! These viewers normally delight themselves by opening packages and using products without first reading the directions. "I plugged in my lamp without reading how to plug in my lamp! Aren't I amazing!?" The second form of critique shall be issued by the literate who realize those directions are for those just mentioned. These viewers can not help but scoff at the film, which tells only a story about itself and divulges the "twists" in the beginning.
So, here we go. I dislike those films with simple stories that take sections of an otherwise linear plot and blend them for the sake of "effect." That is what The Prestige attempts. It fails. I also dislike a film that gives what one stretches to call "hints" ad nauseam. "Look how clever we are!"
The Prestige is an adaptation of a novel by the same name authored in the mid-90's by Christopher Priest. The story follows the adult lives of two magicians as portrayed by Christian Bale ("Borden") and Hugh Jackman ("Angier"). The setting is the Victorian era of the late 19th century to the early 20th century, although the film denotes 1887 for the scenes set in its present. The two main characters of Borden and Angier are proclaimed magicians, better described as illusionists, whose competition leads to obsession.
The first failure of the plot is the inability to discern a protagonist. One easily assumes the brash, lower-class Borden will be the underdog protagonist as easily as one assumes he could be a spiteful antagonist, as well. The problem lies in that the audience is never given the opportunity to sympathize with the character. Neither are we given the opportunity to recognize blatant and conscious evils performed by the character in order to identify him as an antagonist. Similarly, Angier can neither be liked nor disliked as his character never develops. He remains static throughout the film, although one may easily attribute this to the acting abilities (or lack of abilities) of Jackman. When a character played by Jackman is angry, he raises the volume of his voice. When sad or regretful, he lowers his voice. Sometimes, if he finds the right motivation, he will blink. So, where are all his oscars? …waiting for him on daytime television.
Where were we? Oh yes, non-linear plot devices. These aren't confusing, yet they never worked to hide the ball in the film, so the viewer isn't astounded as they would be in a Kubrick or Lynch classic. Instead, The Prestige viewers are simply bored. The movie drones on just over two hours. This means the audience discovers the "twist" in the beginning, hops around for two hours, then sees the “twist” they were expecting. Where's the gripe? Well, a director should be restricted when calling something we all expect a “twist.” For instance, if you know young Bobby fell, then you expect him to have reached the ground (read “ground” as a general term for anything that stopped his act of falling). You could begin with the fall, then describe the rock that set in motion the act of falling, and relate that Bobby was aware of the rock beforehand, but you still know Bobby hit the ground. There's no twist or surprise there. This is especially true when every other line and parallel reference alludes to that ending. If this was an emotional or, in some way, spiritual story where we were held clueless to the motivations of the characters, the scene-leaping may have remained neutral. In The Prestige, it only proved annoying.
Misplacement and the poor portrayal of Tesla also proved annoying. Just as a comment, the only members of the audience that would recognize the parallel reference to Tesla would be those already familiar with Tesla's life and relationship with Edison. The three minutes we spend with Tesla on the screen is a disservice. We can only assume this was an effort by the director to sustain Tesla’s reputation as an enigma. First, in 1887, the time given by the film, Tesla had yet to make any claims regarding teleportation, and he never claimed the possibility that human cloning existed. That arose through the steampunk comics. Second, Tesla only stayed in Colorado Springs from 1899 to 1900. Finally, although bad blood existed between Edison and Tesla, neither sabotaged the other. The only character for whom I sympathized in this film was Tesla, and that constituted a bleeding heart weeping for Bowie-- was he duped into playing the role? Generally, I felt a degree of righteous indignation on behalf of the real Tesla… even if I disagree with his opinion of relativity.
As stated earlier, the non-linear format will not confuse the audience or lead to the failure of the film in itself. However, the alternating points of view when leaping between times and the experiences of the characters leave something to be desired, especially when one must tolerate the rampant use of voice-overs. In the end, this is not a film intended to elicit suspense, and one could hardly label it an “action” film, so the slow pace is forgiving of these overly-exploited tools. Apparently, the Nolans simply remained too committed to Priest’s novel, and in doing so took advantage of literary tools better omitted from screenplays.
As to the cinematography, the costumes and sets were exquisite in their accuracy and use, save minor exceptions (apparently Tesla used tape almost 30 years before it was invented—would that be electrical tape? Hahaha). I do reserve one caveat: I grow tired of the constant under-lighting in films generally. The gloom, if one can call it that, has grown trite and hardly conjures anything resembling a foreboding atmosphere. In the case of The Prestige, the Victorian setting allows the lighting to add to the realism of the sets. Edison, after all, did not produce a practical incandescent bulb until the 1870’s (No, he didn’t "invent" the light bulb). Anyway, the dim atmosphere added a touch of realism. The bad aspect is that Nolan always uses the same lighting technique! The idea should amaze us that every theatre, alley, restaurant, bedroom, and so on all look the same! Just like every Nolan film!
If you have an entire Sunday (the movie is just over two hours in length), and you enjoy a simple drama, this is a movie for you. Don’t expect amazing twists, and be prepared for a movie of such pretentiousness that it makes references to its ending throughout. I will say that the reference to science as the new magic of the second industrial revolution was accurate. All in all, the film will pass the time, and since success is a relative term, you may rest assured that this film is better than many of its counterparts. Overall, I give it a 6/10… because I’m a fan of Bale and, naturally, Caine.
I expect there will be two forms of critiques by the movie-going audience. First will be the GED crowd that claims the complexity of the movie will challenge the audience to discover the plot-twists-- but they amazingly figured it out! These viewers normally delight themselves by opening packages and using products without first reading the directions. "I plugged in my lamp without reading how to plug in my lamp! Aren't I amazing!?" The second form of critique shall be issued by the literate who realize those directions are for those just mentioned. These viewers can not help but scoff at the film, which tells only a story about itself and divulges the "twists" in the beginning.
So, here we go. I dislike those films with simple stories that take sections of an otherwise linear plot and blend them for the sake of "effect." That is what The Prestige attempts. It fails. I also dislike a film that gives what one stretches to call "hints" ad nauseam. "Look how clever we are!"
The Prestige is an adaptation of a novel by the same name authored in the mid-90's by Christopher Priest. The story follows the adult lives of two magicians as portrayed by Christian Bale ("Borden") and Hugh Jackman ("Angier"). The setting is the Victorian era of the late 19th century to the early 20th century, although the film denotes 1887 for the scenes set in its present. The two main characters of Borden and Angier are proclaimed magicians, better described as illusionists, whose competition leads to obsession.
The first failure of the plot is the inability to discern a protagonist. One easily assumes the brash, lower-class Borden will be the underdog protagonist as easily as one assumes he could be a spiteful antagonist, as well. The problem lies in that the audience is never given the opportunity to sympathize with the character. Neither are we given the opportunity to recognize blatant and conscious evils performed by the character in order to identify him as an antagonist. Similarly, Angier can neither be liked nor disliked as his character never develops. He remains static throughout the film, although one may easily attribute this to the acting abilities (or lack of abilities) of Jackman. When a character played by Jackman is angry, he raises the volume of his voice. When sad or regretful, he lowers his voice. Sometimes, if he finds the right motivation, he will blink. So, where are all his oscars? …waiting for him on daytime television.
Where were we? Oh yes, non-linear plot devices. These aren't confusing, yet they never worked to hide the ball in the film, so the viewer isn't astounded as they would be in a Kubrick or Lynch classic. Instead, The Prestige viewers are simply bored. The movie drones on just over two hours. This means the audience discovers the "twist" in the beginning, hops around for two hours, then sees the “twist” they were expecting. Where's the gripe? Well, a director should be restricted when calling something we all expect a “twist.” For instance, if you know young Bobby fell, then you expect him to have reached the ground (read “ground” as a general term for anything that stopped his act of falling). You could begin with the fall, then describe the rock that set in motion the act of falling, and relate that Bobby was aware of the rock beforehand, but you still know Bobby hit the ground. There's no twist or surprise there. This is especially true when every other line and parallel reference alludes to that ending. If this was an emotional or, in some way, spiritual story where we were held clueless to the motivations of the characters, the scene-leaping may have remained neutral. In The Prestige, it only proved annoying.
Misplacement and the poor portrayal of Tesla also proved annoying. Just as a comment, the only members of the audience that would recognize the parallel reference to Tesla would be those already familiar with Tesla's life and relationship with Edison. The three minutes we spend with Tesla on the screen is a disservice. We can only assume this was an effort by the director to sustain Tesla’s reputation as an enigma. First, in 1887, the time given by the film, Tesla had yet to make any claims regarding teleportation, and he never claimed the possibility that human cloning existed. That arose through the steampunk comics. Second, Tesla only stayed in Colorado Springs from 1899 to 1900. Finally, although bad blood existed between Edison and Tesla, neither sabotaged the other. The only character for whom I sympathized in this film was Tesla, and that constituted a bleeding heart weeping for Bowie-- was he duped into playing the role? Generally, I felt a degree of righteous indignation on behalf of the real Tesla… even if I disagree with his opinion of relativity.
As stated earlier, the non-linear format will not confuse the audience or lead to the failure of the film in itself. However, the alternating points of view when leaping between times and the experiences of the characters leave something to be desired, especially when one must tolerate the rampant use of voice-overs. In the end, this is not a film intended to elicit suspense, and one could hardly label it an “action” film, so the slow pace is forgiving of these overly-exploited tools. Apparently, the Nolans simply remained too committed to Priest’s novel, and in doing so took advantage of literary tools better omitted from screenplays.
As to the cinematography, the costumes and sets were exquisite in their accuracy and use, save minor exceptions (apparently Tesla used tape almost 30 years before it was invented—would that be electrical tape? Hahaha). I do reserve one caveat: I grow tired of the constant under-lighting in films generally. The gloom, if one can call it that, has grown trite and hardly conjures anything resembling a foreboding atmosphere. In the case of The Prestige, the Victorian setting allows the lighting to add to the realism of the sets. Edison, after all, did not produce a practical incandescent bulb until the 1870’s (No, he didn’t "invent" the light bulb). Anyway, the dim atmosphere added a touch of realism. The bad aspect is that Nolan always uses the same lighting technique! The idea should amaze us that every theatre, alley, restaurant, bedroom, and so on all look the same! Just like every Nolan film!
If you have an entire Sunday (the movie is just over two hours in length), and you enjoy a simple drama, this is a movie for you. Don’t expect amazing twists, and be prepared for a movie of such pretentiousness that it makes references to its ending throughout. I will say that the reference to science as the new magic of the second industrial revolution was accurate. All in all, the film will pass the time, and since success is a relative term, you may rest assured that this film is better than many of its counterparts. Overall, I give it a 6/10… because I’m a fan of Bale and, naturally, Caine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)