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!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)