Thursday, December 24, 2009
Reviews Galore!
Friday, December 4, 2009
Public Enemies
Candy
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Funny People
While the overall plot in the end doesn't turn out to be incredibly special or surprising, the premise itself was ambitious for "funny man" Apatow and for what turned out to be inspired casting in Adam Sandler (who, if you've seen Punch Drunk Love, then you know is capable of an amazing performance). The film overall feels full and warm and insightful, and you come away from it with a greater appreciation of the role of humor and comedy in our lives, and with the thought that humor and comedy can only take us so far when it comes to coping and dealing with life.
8/10
Thursday, November 12, 2009
G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Big Kahuna
Monday, October 19, 2009
Trailer Park Boys: The Movie
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Zombieland
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Orphan
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Pandorum
Friday, September 18, 2009
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Agony & Ecstasy
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The United States of Leland
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Observe and Report
This is not the goofy, cuddly, giggly, lovable Seth Rogen from all those other roles. This is the comedic equivalent of combining "Psycho" with "Rain Man." It is DARK. This mall cop has serious issues. He is so sincere that every step of the way you root for him, while wincing at all he says and does, and then you stop and think about whether unleashing this man on the world is really a great idea.
This film is overall a comedy, but it really fluctuates (intentionally) in the amount of humor it includes. It goes for a very distinct type of laughter that isn't easily defined. The closest I can come to is to say that there's a correlation in how much you laugh to the degree of goodness and morality you have in your soul.
Thus, based on my amount of laughter and the dark, sociopathic joy this film gave me it was a solid B+
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Dark City
"The Empire Strikes Back," "Blade Runner," "2001: A Space Odyssey," and "The Matrix" will always be the films against which I judge other science fiction films. Besides "Equilibrium," "Gattaca," "The Fifth Element," "Minority Report," "Children of Men," and "Alien," few sci-fi films have reached close to the pinnacle of being original, intense, thought provoking, and above all, make fantasy seem like reality and suck you in to the point where nothing else matters for two hours (which my favorites have done for me and all great films should). I hope we've emerged from sci-fi purgatory in 2009 with the enjoyable "Star Trek" reimagining, but the two films which really rose above all else and matched and exceeded my expectations for science fiction were "Moon" and "District 9." I could sing the praises for both of those films endlessly, but that's not what I'm trying to do here.
"Dark City" came out a year before "The Matrix," and as "The Matrix" was the first film I ever saw on DVD (at a friend's house) and recognizing the fact that I didn't have a TV of my own or cable internet until 2002, all "Dark City" ever was to me was a movie in the bargain bin at Best Buy with an unknown male lead and a creepy, indistinguishable cover. The only thing that led to me even watching it tonight was the fact that I saw it had been re-released on BluRay, with a director's cut special edition 15 minutes longer than the original cut. Anytime I see a studio has enough faith in an obscure 1990s film to re-release it on BluRay AND allow the director to recognize his/her own complete, original vision there must be SOMETHING to that film. "Dark City" was a box office flop, yet Roger Ebert called it the best film of the year when it came out in 1998.
The sets, props, and special effects immediately drew me in as a viewer. A sweeping view of outer space pans down to reveal a major city at night, and then Keifer Sutherland appears as a mysterious figure with a disfigured eye and a limp, and when he speaks for the first time his breathless stutter immediately causes you to forget this is the same man who plays Jack Bauer. A man wakes up naked in a bathtub, and receives a phone call. And thus the film begins...
You have absolutely no damn idea where this city is or who these people are or what the plot of the film is for the first 20 minutes, and then the clues and inklings begin to fall, and then an event occurs which must have been the origins of the phrase "what the fuck???"
All the characters keep moving and searching and striving for clues and answers and you as the viewer are propelled through this amazing landscape with them following an original story with unconventional characters and amazing ideas and questions about the nature of human identity and the soul... Sutherland, a beautiful and amazingly talented singer Jennifer Connelly, the always brilliant William Hurt embody their characters. The film is so well made and well written that you don't dismiss a single second as "just Hollywood." And maybe, just maybe, when the action pauses and you get some semblance of an explanation around 80 minutes into this 110 minute film about who is who and what the aims of all the characters and parties involved are... BUT that point in the film is SO far from the climax and "reveals" of the true secrets and eventual finale that... BAH!!!
I certainly don't want to say that this is the best science fiction film ever made... but it has to be one of THE best. And better than being one of the best, it is SO original and mind-bending and exciting that few movies allow my cynical, jaded, and bored imagination to take off and be set free for two hours as "Dark City" was able to do.
Blindness
What would happen if the whole world went blind? This movie provides one possible scenario for that event. Brilliantly assembled, with cinematography and musical score bringing it all together, this is an absolutely wonderful, if at some times dragging and hard-to-watch movie. And Julianne Moore, despite being 48 years old, is still an absolutely beautiful actress.
9/10
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Squid and the Whale
This movie is a delight to watch. Focusing on the lives of two boys who are growing up with an intellectual snob father (Jeff Daniels) and a mentally abused mother (Laura Linney) who simply can’t stand each other any more, this movie plays out, in many ways, like a “real life” story. The performances of all the actors are absolutely superb, and the plot and dialogue is clever, understated, and thoughtful.
8/10
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bangkok Dangerous
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Crossing Over
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Notorious
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Action films*
It's no secret that 90% of action movies suck (or they're clearly below average). However, when trying to review and grade an action film, the first things people begin discussing are the special effects, sound effects, and believability and excitement from the various action scenes.
I hate this.
I also often find myself giving action movies a "pass" when it comes to reviewing them because of the above criteria, as if these films and these criteria affect my objective judgment in different ways than other films, and thus the focus of my review or my initial feelings and reactions to said films is just naturally different.
This is b.s. pure and simple. I am not a worthwhile human being if I allow my judgments about things I see/hear/absorb to shift. Obviously there is no perfect objective measurement for "art" like cinema, but everyone has their own standards and beliefs, and I would be remiss to ever compromise those standards by subjectively saying a piece of crap film is actually "okay" because it was an action film and I shouldn't have expected so much from it. Movie critics of the world, STAND YOUR GROUND and call crap out for what it truly is.
*This post inspired by:
-Roger Ebert's summary of "G.I. Joe" - "It is sure to be enjoyed by those whose movie appreciation is defined by the ability to discern that moving pictures and sound are being employed to depict violence."
-A.O. Scott's editorial in the NY Times about the dumbing down of American cinema
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The International
Terminator: Salvation
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Gran Torino
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
The film will give viewers headaches. On one hand, the action sequences have amazing visual effects and sound effects which almost make one believe that giant freaking robots are bashing the hell out of each other, while on the other hand the schizophrenic nature of the action sequences are sure to give viewers seizures. But in the end, the minimal robot-on-robot destruction in comparison to all of the terrible story development, terrible acting by all of the "human" leads, and the abundance of irrelevant robot characters standing around making "jokes" or interacting with the awful "human" characters over the course of 2 hours and 20 minutes will cause you to say to yourself as you leave the theater "I WISH I WERE AN ALIEN-ROBOT FROM SPACE WHO COULD TRANSFORM FROM A PLANE INTO A DESTRUCTIVE MECHANICAL MONSTROSITY SO I COULD FLY TO CALIFORNIA, BLOW UP MICHAEL BAY'S HOME, AND THEN RIP MICHAEL BAY TO PIECES, WHILE GUARANTEEING THAT HIS FATE IN HELL WOULD BE HIM STRAPPED TO A CHAIR WATCHING ALL OF HIS FILMS ON A CONTINUOUS LOOP FOR ETERNITY!"
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Mexican
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
In the Electric Mist
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Machinist
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Prestige
Monday, May 11, 2009
American Psycho
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Resident Evil: Degeneration
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Resident Evil Trilogy
Friday, May 8, 2009
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek was a film that you couldn't help BUT enjoy from start to finish. The story, acting, effects, score, and general excitement were all well above average for action and sci-fi flicks. But most importantly of all: it felt like Star Trek. The essence of Trek was kept intact and it pervaded the entire film, while not trying too hard to be "Trekkish."
Those cast members whose roles were tantamount to mocking their previous counterparts like Scotty and Chekov were commendable. McCoy was amazing. But then Spock, Kirk, and Uhura while staying true to the spirit of the original characters became unique in this film, and due to the modified timeline, it's okay. In fact, the modified timeline makes everything okay. Nevermind the fact that the film doesn't ever explain how one event seemingly changed the fabric of history. Everyone KNOWS that once you mess with the timeline, then history is changed, and that's that. No additional explanation necessary. So the fact that the Federation hadn't encountered Romulans yet in the original Trek but they have in the film? Timeline changed. The fact that Scotty helped develop transporters and warp technology but both already existed in the film? Timeline changed. Yet, despite this overly convenient plot device, you WANT this universe to be different. There's no way to ape/mimic the original, and even if you could, who would want to?
Yes I'm rambling in no logical order about acting, plot, ect. but that's just it! This Trek film was full of illogical details compared to the history you know about original Trek, but everything is supposed to be new. Spock showing more emotion? That's okay, and there's a good explanation for that. Kirk becoming captain earlier than he had before? There's an explanation for that.
I really didn't think such a modern, spiffy, shiny-looking film could do justice to the original films and universe in any way, but somehow they did. The references and nods to the fans of "true" Star Trek are present and most feel natural and if you're a fan, they warm your heart. The musical score, while a pounding dramatic soundtrack, includes the occasional audio cue that a classic fan will pick up on. In the opening scene of the movie, we get the classic red alert alarm and classic communicators. The classic high-pitched whirring of a ship buzzing past the camera in space is there.
Now, this film truly proved itself when treading upon the most dangerous waters of all: explaining Star Trek history. What happened to young Kirk and young Spock? How did Kirk pass the Kobayashi Maru scenario? How did Dr. McCoy get his nickname? Uhura's first name? How did Pike end up in that wheelchair/scooter?
And again, if you don't like how they tried to explain events in Star Trek cannon, that's okay, because it's all part of the alternate timeline. The alternate timeline began on the day of Kirk's birth, so every event from that moment on can be explained with that plot device. If a fan or a writer of the film so chooses to reject any fact or reference from either "classic" Trek lore or the new film, this explanation works for both!
Eric Bana as the villain Nero was on a path for vengeance the entire film, so he was a pretty one dimensional character. But Kirk and Spock have something to prove to themselves and their legacies, and they carry the film. We see the beginnings of their relationship, and the roots of the dichotamy of the logical Vulcan and headstrong, brazen young Kirk and how in the end they mesh as friends.
Leonard Nimoy's scenes also work well and he seriously does not act as old as he truly is. The elder Spock's influence on the younger Spock is... well, he has a significant influence upon young Spock and offers some key advice which helps you better understand younger Spock, and allows Quinto to make the character his own in future sequels.
The film was fun. It was even exciting, and it was just plain satisfying above all else. I was smiling nearly the entire film. It never lagged. It was a simple revenge story with non-stop action, and that pacing and the constant series of problems allowed the film to be more about the characters solving the problems and interacting with each other than merely focusing on the action, and it was perfect. Each crew member has moments to shine, and there were zero let-downs.
Were there any issues? Well, Chekov's accent seemed to fluctuate between being true to the original and then other times sounding like me doing my best "In Soviet Russia..." joke. The elder/past Spock's final scenes and the way the writers handle him at the very end makes little to no sense. Some of the science behind the science fiction seemed too make zero sense (red matter? fine, use red matter, but at least explain the THEORY of red matter!) And finally, the worst thing about the new film? The Enterprise doesn't feel like the Enterprise. It never became a character in and of itself. The new look and feel to it was excusable because the entire film had a new look and feel, while still feeling like Star Trek. But we don't get to explore the bridge, engineering, or the transporter room in any meaningful ways. Sulu still has a lever for the warp controls, and Uhura has her classic earpiece, but that was it. While the exterior design of the Enterprise was cool, the CGI Enterprise's exterior (in addition to the other starships) was a bit too glossy, and therefore slightly fake. It is ironic then to think of the fact that the Original Series and The Next Generation, by using a plastic model, made their ships appear more "real" than in this new 21st century film.
While the TV ads are correct that this wasn't my father's Star Trek, for the most part, the universe felt like Trek, and my father's Star Trek had died a while ago. And while any attempt to resurrect the corpse of my father's Star Trek could have led to the creation of a mutant-zombie aberration that felt as if it were raping your childhood, Star Trek seems to have found a way to rise from the ashes. The true test of the new universe will be how they handle the inevitable sequel which must go beyond establishing the characters, but truly building characters and using the entire spectrum of the Star Trek universe from which to adapt an epic story. But for now, I loved it and I want more.
8/10
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Review: Truncated
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Mighty Wind
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Ed Wood
Monday, April 27, 2009
Bonnie & Clyde (1967)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Vicky Christina Barcelona
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Dune (1984)
So, having no time to read for pleasure, I rented the extended cut of this film from Netflix. The opening sequence had obviously been tacked on as extra prologue/exposition, because it was a series of paintings with a voice over that sought to explain EVERYTHING at the very beginning. It would have been forgivable if not for its rushed nature and the incomprehensible names, planets, and terms tossed around with no frame of reference. At least "Mordor" and "Gollum" are names I could spell out phonetically...
Needless to say I was asleep before the prologue was finished.
Upon its release, critic Roger Ebert gave Dune one star out of four and wrote "This movie is a real mess, an incomprehensible, ugly, unstructured, pointless excursion into the murkier realms of one of the most confusing screenplays of all time."
Needless to say, despite my initial encounter with the film and Mr. Ebert's blurb, I am always intrigued when a director tries to tackle an epic from literature, and while they tend to fail miserably, perhaps with Dune having no love or familiarity with the source, I'll find something redeeming ina film with a troubled production history and generally negative reviews.