Monday, October 5, 2009
Zombieland (2009)
To start out with i have to say going in to this movie i really did not expect it to be good at all, I watched the previews and i thought wow another stupid movie that all the good parts are in the previews. I was so shocked to find out the funniest parts, which i will not ruin in this review were no where to be found in the previews. So few movies leave the good stuff out of previews now that by the time we get to see the movie we know its coming, and i think in a way it ruins the fun. I think that if you want to watch a movie and laugh no matter who you are you will find funny moments in this movie. While i would not suggest this to small children my point is this movie was really funny. I started laughing before the opening credits were finished and did not stop laughing yet. Even when i sit here at home i am still laughing from that movie it is just that funny. The movie starts out with one kid trying to travel back to columbus ohio where his family lives, however the only catch is he does not know if his family has been attacked and transformed like most of this world has in to flesh hungry zombies, or if they are still alive. Through his journey he meets Tallahassee played by Woody Harrelson who is this violent raging sometimes sensitive redneck who is full of these one liners that will make you laugh and laugh some more. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) also runs in to two sisters witchita played by the oh so beautiful emma stone and her little sister little rock played by little miss sunshines abigail breslin. As the movie progresses the chemistry between jesse and emma is awkward and heartwarming. The movie all in all begins with a bang and keeps going all the way through to the end. If you get the chance to see this movie i would most certainly suggest it because of how amazing it is. `10 out of10 stars in my book'
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Ugly Truth
Abby (Katherine Heigl) is an intelligent producer of a local morning show in Sacramento, California. She lives with her cat in a beautiful, lushly-gardened apartment complex but, the lovely lady longs to meet Mr. Right. One day, bad news arrives, twofold. One, since the show's ratings have slipped, the owners of the station have decided to go in a new direction. And, two, that direction would be south, Abby believes, for they have hired a brash, I-don't-mince-words talk show host, Mike (Gerard Butler) for a reprise of his late-night call-in program, The Ugly Truth. Mike will do small segments of advice, where he will counsel women on what a man "really wants". Since Abby has a past with this gentleman (she had recently called the late night show to tell Mike to take a hike) the young producer is mighty peeved that he has been hired for "her" program. Instant dislike reigns supreme. However, Mike does seem to know about affairs of the heart, even in his twisted fashion, and starts to give advice to Abby, on how to "catch" the very handsome young doctor, Colin (Eric Winter) who has just moved into her complex. two doors down. But, since this requires Abby and Mike to actually converse and confide in one another, could it be that Cupid's arrows could go astray? This is a very raucous and funny romcom but. it is definitely not in the Doris Day tradition. Therefore, if you are easily offended or prefer "sweet" tales of love, with just a touch of spice, this one may not be for you. That said, the cast is really delightful, for Heigl and Butler make a most attractive. sparring duo and Winter turns heads with his looks and smiles. The supporting cast, with Cheryl Hines and the rest, is quite nice, too. Also, the Sacramento setting is lovely while the costumes are terrific and the production values high. As for the direction, it is full of energy and mischief, as befits a script that is clever but rather risqué. All in all, if you love romcoms or any of the stars, you will probably embrace this one with gusto. For the truth is, it is very romantic at its core, and that's the best ingredient a comedic love tale can possess.
Orphan
Orphan REALLY surprised me. I expected some stupid pg-13 movie that somehow got an R rating. That was not the case. Let me tell you, Orphan is very disturbing at parts, and pretty gruesome. The movie overall is excellent, has some great acting, an amazing script, and excellent execution. The movie really has a lot of suspense and the twist is pulled off very well and packs a big punch to the viewer.
The best thing the film has is the script. What Esther does to the family is brilliant. The movie also has several sub-plots that work very well in the movie and add some complexity to the whole thing. The sub-plots never feel like too much, because they are very subtly put in there.
Overall, if you are tired of bad horror films, and want to see a very intelligent and well made film, i would suggest this. Or if you just want to see a great movie see this! I was very surprised at how excellent this movie turned out, and everyone else will be too! Seriously, if you want great, check it out! 9.5/10
The best thing the film has is the script. What Esther does to the family is brilliant. The movie also has several sub-plots that work very well in the movie and add some complexity to the whole thing. The sub-plots never feel like too much, because they are very subtly put in there.
Overall, if you are tired of bad horror films, and want to see a very intelligent and well made film, i would suggest this. Or if you just want to see a great movie see this! I was very surprised at how excellent this movie turned out, and everyone else will be too! Seriously, if you want great, check it out! 9.5/10
I Love you, Beth Cooper.
"Recycle" is generally a good word, one with positive and favorable connotations. But not in the world of movies. I Love You, Beth Cooper is one of those films that horrendously overuses the ideas (and not even the better ones) of previous entries in the teen comedy genre, resulting in an exercise in repetition and failed mimicry. Awkwardly personal advice from a father figure, aggressive small animals, nude scenes without any real nudity, and the all-too-familiar plot line of the bashful introvert chasing after the most popular girl in school are just a few of the rehashed concepts found throughout the picture. There are really only two reasons the film gets a score of two - and both belong to Hayden Panattierre.
During the graduation ceremony at Buffalo Glenn High School, bumbling, socially-challenged valedictorian Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) professes his love for popular head cheerleader Beth Cooper (Hayden Panattiere), as well as insulting his fellow classmates and embarrassing his best friend Rich (Jack Carpenter). While the ill-conceived words toward his peers subsequently cause trouble, his honest confession appears to strike a chord with the idolized teen beauty. Much to Denis' surprise, Beth shows up at his house and a wild night of raucous adventure ensues - one filled with incessant partying, reckless driving, and Beth's maniacally jealous military boyfriend.
It's mildly amusing when the film starts with a rousing rendition of a song entitled "Forget Me" at a high school graduation. Following is a food-for-thought speech comprised of awkward prattling that struggles painfully for even the faintest hope of a smirk. But it doesn't get as much as a smile. As each second ticks away, the jokes get more stale, the slapstick more pathetic, and the plot more unbelievable. It's not that the story is hard to imagine - but it is difficult to understand why the cast and crew of I Love You, Beth Cooper ever thought this unimaginably pointless, hopelessly generic mess could pass as entertainment.
It's very tame, excruciatingly PG-13 and terribly immature - which means teens won't see it and neither will adults. Denis discusses with his father that the teenage coming-of-age subject is not a new idea; if only director Chris Columbus had taken that advice and stayed away from Larry Doyle's vastly unoriginal novel. The presentation is bland, the dialogue is weak and not a single memorable or creative concept is introduced during the entire film. It's as amateurish as the socially inept geeks lumpishly trying to court prom queens. Quite obviously an excuse to put Hayden Panettiere in a movie, the sheer lack of humor is the biggest disappointment, while the constant references to other films by Rich is an embarrassment to decent movies everywhere. Even the most pitiful have a worthwhile minute, but aside from being the first film in which Hayden bares a partial breast, I Love You Beth Cooper has not a single satisfying scene. When the film culminates in an all-guy wet towel fight, Beth Cooper herself sums it up best: "Who said it's supposed to be fun?"
During the graduation ceremony at Buffalo Glenn High School, bumbling, socially-challenged valedictorian Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) professes his love for popular head cheerleader Beth Cooper (Hayden Panattiere), as well as insulting his fellow classmates and embarrassing his best friend Rich (Jack Carpenter). While the ill-conceived words toward his peers subsequently cause trouble, his honest confession appears to strike a chord with the idolized teen beauty. Much to Denis' surprise, Beth shows up at his house and a wild night of raucous adventure ensues - one filled with incessant partying, reckless driving, and Beth's maniacally jealous military boyfriend.
It's mildly amusing when the film starts with a rousing rendition of a song entitled "Forget Me" at a high school graduation. Following is a food-for-thought speech comprised of awkward prattling that struggles painfully for even the faintest hope of a smirk. But it doesn't get as much as a smile. As each second ticks away, the jokes get more stale, the slapstick more pathetic, and the plot more unbelievable. It's not that the story is hard to imagine - but it is difficult to understand why the cast and crew of I Love You, Beth Cooper ever thought this unimaginably pointless, hopelessly generic mess could pass as entertainment.
It's very tame, excruciatingly PG-13 and terribly immature - which means teens won't see it and neither will adults. Denis discusses with his father that the teenage coming-of-age subject is not a new idea; if only director Chris Columbus had taken that advice and stayed away from Larry Doyle's vastly unoriginal novel. The presentation is bland, the dialogue is weak and not a single memorable or creative concept is introduced during the entire film. It's as amateurish as the socially inept geeks lumpishly trying to court prom queens. Quite obviously an excuse to put Hayden Panettiere in a movie, the sheer lack of humor is the biggest disappointment, while the constant references to other films by Rich is an embarrassment to decent movies everywhere. Even the most pitiful have a worthwhile minute, but aside from being the first film in which Hayden bares a partial breast, I Love You Beth Cooper has not a single satisfying scene. When the film culminates in an all-guy wet towel fight, Beth Cooper herself sums it up best: "Who said it's supposed to be fun?"
Bruno
I expected there to be a high level of gay and crude sexual jokes in this latest Sacha Baron Cohen adventure. Then the movie took it 2 steps further than anything I had prepared myself for.
The result; a lot of uneasy moments, a lot of uncontrollable laughing, and some putting my hands over my face in disbelief or disgust. The humour in the film is clearly that of in-your-face slapstick, however given the extremes the film goes to, it's all relatively entertaining. Like Borat, all of the genuine laughs are in everyday peoples reactions, rather than the poorly structured story or scripted scenes.
That said, it was a challenge of how much one could handle, and I wouldn't have minded if they had left out a particular full frontal shot of the male anatomy spinning around (an image that will stay with me for some time and probably haunt my dreams). It's not a movie I could really get 'comfortable' with watching, seeing all hell unravel in a variety of situations one after another with very little in the way of breaks, but time did go by relatively quickly, which helps given the intensity of the scenes.
It's not a film for the faint of heart, and definitely has more potential to offend than Borat ever did, though for the more open minded among us who aren't so easily offended, you may find some enjoyment in this film. Humanities finest moments certainly aren't on display here. Go see it with a few mates or drinking buddies and have fun, though you may exit the cinema a little more disturbed than when you went in.
The result; a lot of uneasy moments, a lot of uncontrollable laughing, and some putting my hands over my face in disbelief or disgust. The humour in the film is clearly that of in-your-face slapstick, however given the extremes the film goes to, it's all relatively entertaining. Like Borat, all of the genuine laughs are in everyday peoples reactions, rather than the poorly structured story or scripted scenes.
That said, it was a challenge of how much one could handle, and I wouldn't have minded if they had left out a particular full frontal shot of the male anatomy spinning around (an image that will stay with me for some time and probably haunt my dreams). It's not a movie I could really get 'comfortable' with watching, seeing all hell unravel in a variety of situations one after another with very little in the way of breaks, but time did go by relatively quickly, which helps given the intensity of the scenes.
It's not a film for the faint of heart, and definitely has more potential to offend than Borat ever did, though for the more open minded among us who aren't so easily offended, you may find some enjoyment in this film. Humanities finest moments certainly aren't on display here. Go see it with a few mates or drinking buddies and have fun, though you may exit the cinema a little more disturbed than when you went in.
Public Enemies
Who was John Dillinger? We all know he was a flamboyant criminal who robbed banks, but who WAS he? The question of who Dillinger WAS is far more interesting than the question of what Dillinger DID, but this film, sadly, chose only to concentrate seriously on the latter and gave up almost immediately on the former.
This film goes out of its way--with a poor grasp of history's time-line, by the way--to show us what Dillinger did and who he hung around with, but it does next to nothing to explore who Dillinger was as a person or even as a criminal. It hints that Dillinger might be a passionate lover and loyal friend, but shows us little evidence aside from a few thrown-together seduction scenes (which make his girlfriend/heroine look like a dim-witted pushover) and an awkward love scene.
Even Dillinger's foil, Melvin Purvis, is a mystery in Mann's hands. Did he care about justice at all, or was he just a fascist on a personal crusade? Was he competent in the least or was he just a bumbling idiot? Squinty-eyed stares can only convey so much, after all.
Michael Mann seems to be in a terrible hurry to tell this story, as he is stuck between the rock of having to relate a relatively complete "crime-ography" of a notorious American gangster and the hard place of keeping the movie shorter than 2 1/2 hours.
As a result, a beautifully shot and edited movie that had a lot of promise ends up little more than a dumb, shoot-'em-up action movie wearing the fedora of "historical romance." Good for a date, but not a serious film.
Grade: C+. Things to look for: Mann's ham-handed and laughably obvious political commentary on the use of torture about 2/3 of the way through the movie; psychotically trigger-happy Baby Face Nelson well-played by Stephen Graham; cool old products (Zenth radio); great fashion sense
This film goes out of its way--with a poor grasp of history's time-line, by the way--to show us what Dillinger did and who he hung around with, but it does next to nothing to explore who Dillinger was as a person or even as a criminal. It hints that Dillinger might be a passionate lover and loyal friend, but shows us little evidence aside from a few thrown-together seduction scenes (which make his girlfriend/heroine look like a dim-witted pushover) and an awkward love scene.
Even Dillinger's foil, Melvin Purvis, is a mystery in Mann's hands. Did he care about justice at all, or was he just a fascist on a personal crusade? Was he competent in the least or was he just a bumbling idiot? Squinty-eyed stares can only convey so much, after all.
Michael Mann seems to be in a terrible hurry to tell this story, as he is stuck between the rock of having to relate a relatively complete "crime-ography" of a notorious American gangster and the hard place of keeping the movie shorter than 2 1/2 hours.
As a result, a beautifully shot and edited movie that had a lot of promise ends up little more than a dumb, shoot-'em-up action movie wearing the fedora of "historical romance." Good for a date, but not a serious film.
Grade: C+. Things to look for: Mann's ham-handed and laughably obvious political commentary on the use of torture about 2/3 of the way through the movie; psychotically trigger-happy Baby Face Nelson well-played by Stephen Graham; cool old products (Zenth radio); great fashion sense
The Goods Live hard,Sell Hard
It seems like every week i'm saying there is a new "funniest movie of the year." "Funny People" is my current favorite but "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" is it's non-dramatic equivalent.
First off this is a great role for Jeremy Piven, very much in Ari Gold-form as Don Ready, a car salesman-for-hire who travels around America with his crew helping out lackluster dealerships. Don is the type of character you immediately love, a born talker who not only manages to smoke on the plane ride over to Temecula, CA, he turns it into an all-out orgy complete with live mariachi band.
Why go to Temecula? The car dealership owned by Ben Selleck (James Brolin) is in trouble, struggling with rag-tag salesman, poor sales returns, and as Babs (Kathryn Hahn), one part of Don's crew points out, the place looks like a "refugee camp for dirty men." Along with his other two sidekicks, Brent (David Koechner) and Jibby (Ving Rhames), Don must sell all the cars off the lot or the dealership faces being sold to Stu Harding (Alan Thicke), another more successful dealer.
His son is Paxton Harding (Ed Helms), a late-30's man whose real dream is for his boy band to finally get off the ground. Paxton is engaged to Selleck's daughter Ivy (Jordana Spiro), who Don also finds attractive. Soon Ivy, plus a long-lost son Don fathered when he was 10-years old, encourages him to think about finally settling down. Wall to wall ridiculousness ensues.
Directed by Neal Brennan (a former writer on Chappelle Show) and written by Andy Stock and Rick Stempson, this is an offensively rude, crude, profane laugh machine from first scene to last. There are a few really good lines and the supporting cast gets some of the most hilarious material i've seen this year. The Daily Show's Rob Riggle as Selleck's son Peter, a 10 year old with a pituitary problem that makes him look 40. Kathryn Hahn as Don's sexually abrasive partner, using porno to sell cars and lusting after the innocent but very hunky Peter. Charles Napier as an older salesman who pines for the olden days and gets crazily angry and offensive to women, gays, Asians, and just about everybody really. Ving Rhames, playing a character who's had sex with thousands of women but has never "made love". Ed Helms, with his pot-belly and spiky hair-do, does nice work with the boy band stuff. James Brolin has a running gay gag with David Koechner that never gets old, and Brolin's car commercial, where he guilt-trips everyone to buy because he is dying of ball cancer, had me in tears. And like I said, I'm trying not to give too much away but Will Ferrell gets a cameo that single-handedly makes you forgive the atrocity that was "Land of the Lost."
This is all just the tip of the iceberg of this insanely hilarious movie. You just want to start listing funny thing after funny thing, its that good
First off this is a great role for Jeremy Piven, very much in Ari Gold-form as Don Ready, a car salesman-for-hire who travels around America with his crew helping out lackluster dealerships. Don is the type of character you immediately love, a born talker who not only manages to smoke on the plane ride over to Temecula, CA, he turns it into an all-out orgy complete with live mariachi band.
Why go to Temecula? The car dealership owned by Ben Selleck (James Brolin) is in trouble, struggling with rag-tag salesman, poor sales returns, and as Babs (Kathryn Hahn), one part of Don's crew points out, the place looks like a "refugee camp for dirty men." Along with his other two sidekicks, Brent (David Koechner) and Jibby (Ving Rhames), Don must sell all the cars off the lot or the dealership faces being sold to Stu Harding (Alan Thicke), another more successful dealer.
His son is Paxton Harding (Ed Helms), a late-30's man whose real dream is for his boy band to finally get off the ground. Paxton is engaged to Selleck's daughter Ivy (Jordana Spiro), who Don also finds attractive. Soon Ivy, plus a long-lost son Don fathered when he was 10-years old, encourages him to think about finally settling down. Wall to wall ridiculousness ensues.
Directed by Neal Brennan (a former writer on Chappelle Show) and written by Andy Stock and Rick Stempson, this is an offensively rude, crude, profane laugh machine from first scene to last. There are a few really good lines and the supporting cast gets some of the most hilarious material i've seen this year. The Daily Show's Rob Riggle as Selleck's son Peter, a 10 year old with a pituitary problem that makes him look 40. Kathryn Hahn as Don's sexually abrasive partner, using porno to sell cars and lusting after the innocent but very hunky Peter. Charles Napier as an older salesman who pines for the olden days and gets crazily angry and offensive to women, gays, Asians, and just about everybody really. Ving Rhames, playing a character who's had sex with thousands of women but has never "made love". Ed Helms, with his pot-belly and spiky hair-do, does nice work with the boy band stuff. James Brolin has a running gay gag with David Koechner that never gets old, and Brolin's car commercial, where he guilt-trips everyone to buy because he is dying of ball cancer, had me in tears. And like I said, I'm trying not to give too much away but Will Ferrell gets a cameo that single-handedly makes you forgive the atrocity that was "Land of the Lost."
This is all just the tip of the iceberg of this insanely hilarious movie. You just want to start listing funny thing after funny thing, its that good
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
I watched this film last night and luckily I had no high expectations. As a fan of the G.I Joe toys when I was a kid (back then they where called Action Force) I had a good idea of the characters and story before hand. I am glad to say this film stayed true to most of the original concepts with a few tweaks for the better here and there.
Go see this film if you want to see a fun action film full of special effects and doesn't take itself too seriously.
Don't go and see this film if you are an uptight, unhappy film critic that spends too much time highlighting plot holes and acting because that's not what this film is about. It's more of a roller-coaster ride. Fast, furious and just fun
Go see this film if you want to see a fun action film full of special effects and doesn't take itself too seriously.
Don't go and see this film if you are an uptight, unhappy film critic that spends too much time highlighting plot holes and acting because that's not what this film is about. It's more of a roller-coaster ride. Fast, furious and just fun
Perfect Getaway
This is a good movie. However, it will probably not get a fair shot by most. The reason is the way the story is structured in which apparently nothing happens in the first 45 minutes. For today's average 18-34 audience this is almost intolerable as they are now conditioned to expect cheap CGI thrills and impossibly huge explosions in the first two minutes of the film (not necessarily a bad thing BTW). What underrated Director/Writer David Towhy is doing is actually putting your brain to work during the first two acts of the movie, all the while enjoying some incredible visuals of the Hawaiian tropical rain forest. Towhy concentrates on subtle character development. The acting is good. Mila Jovovich and Timothy Oliphant are the two that carry the film throughout. All in all I have to say that Towhy put out a fairly plausible story here with none of the CGI generated hyperbole that we see so much of nowaday
Shorts
I got dragged into this movie by my 7 year old brother who did not forget the trailer since he saw a man turn into a wiener (seriously)! After the fantastic and heartwarming artistry that was "Up" which we saw yesterday, "Shorts" was simply its diametrical opposite--brash and hyperactive.
The story is simple enough. A boy gets hold of a colorful wish-granting stone, which initially was only used for some innocent children's fantasies. Later on however when the adults get their hand on it, more seriously dangerous wishes were made. Director Robert Rodriguez (of "Spy Kids") decided to chop up the story into 5 short films and they were not presented in order (purely for effect, but no apparent logic).
Throughout the film though, my seven year old boy was restless. He even called it lame at one point, particularly that short about the "booger monster" (again, seriously). What's worst, his most awaited scene of the guy turning into a wiener happened only in the fifth and last short! So he was antsy until that part showed up, and was only happy afterward it seems.
OK OK, I admit, there were funny parts. My most laugh out loud moment happened at the very end though. And the treatment was light and good-natured. Kids will enjoy this, as they should, since this IS a kids movie first. Adults will just have to try hard to find their inner child and laugh along with their kids. Let's just call it family time.
The story is simple enough. A boy gets hold of a colorful wish-granting stone, which initially was only used for some innocent children's fantasies. Later on however when the adults get their hand on it, more seriously dangerous wishes were made. Director Robert Rodriguez (of "Spy Kids") decided to chop up the story into 5 short films and they were not presented in order (purely for effect, but no apparent logic).
Throughout the film though, my seven year old boy was restless. He even called it lame at one point, particularly that short about the "booger monster" (again, seriously). What's worst, his most awaited scene of the guy turning into a wiener happened only in the fifth and last short! So he was antsy until that part showed up, and was only happy afterward it seems.
OK OK, I admit, there were funny parts. My most laugh out loud moment happened at the very end though. And the treatment was light and good-natured. Kids will enjoy this, as they should, since this IS a kids movie first. Adults will just have to try hard to find their inner child and laugh along with their kids. Let's just call it family time.
Friday, September 25, 2009
PaperHeart
"Paper Heart" falls in line with the "Bruno/Borat" style of film-making, where viewers will probably be asking themselves, "How much of this is real and how much is staged?" Maybe in this case it isn't staged at all. I personally don't know, but I have to say "Paper Heart" feels very real, which is an obvious difference to those two Sacha Baron Cohen movies.
The plot has a documentary crew following around Charlyne Yi who's looking to understand the concept of love, by traveling around America and interviewing people. Charlyne is an offbeat young woman who doesn't believe in true love, herself. She could easily be a geeky friend of Summer from "(500) Days of Summer", another recent Sundance romcom. Charlyne meets Michael Cera at a house party, who acts just like the characters he played in "Juno" and "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist". Charlyne and Michael soon become a couple, although Charlyne not surprisingly retains her status of true love.
While on the road, she meets couples who share their feelings of love and give stories on how they met. Some of these stories are re-enacted in a very whimsical fashion, by using cardboard, cotton, marker, etc. If you saw "The Science of Sleep", they're similar to those fantasy scenes, except those probably were more time consuming to make compared to "Paper Heart". While these scenes are still cute and funny, they are a bit predictable and, yes, pretentious. But hey, I can give credit to the filmmakers for trying to be creative. In fact, the final scene in the movie is the best, because it parodies those scenes in an awesomely over-the-top fashion.
The movie itself is charming and often funny, but it does wear out its welcome after awhile. I felt like there were scenes that could be cut shorter or didn't really have to be included, like the interview with kids at a playground about love. It seems like it was done just for fun or for timing. It does have one good line where a girl says she's in love with Chris Brown (or someone named Brown) and says to Charlyne, "At least I admit it."
"Paper Heart" doesn't have any real direction, but neither does life. Are Charlyne and Michael made for each other? What if their relationship doesn't last? It's something the filmmakers just have to work with. From what I got, there's no defining message about what love is, other than it's to each his own
The plot has a documentary crew following around Charlyne Yi who's looking to understand the concept of love, by traveling around America and interviewing people. Charlyne is an offbeat young woman who doesn't believe in true love, herself. She could easily be a geeky friend of Summer from "(500) Days of Summer", another recent Sundance romcom. Charlyne meets Michael Cera at a house party, who acts just like the characters he played in "Juno" and "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist". Charlyne and Michael soon become a couple, although Charlyne not surprisingly retains her status of true love.
While on the road, she meets couples who share their feelings of love and give stories on how they met. Some of these stories are re-enacted in a very whimsical fashion, by using cardboard, cotton, marker, etc. If you saw "The Science of Sleep", they're similar to those fantasy scenes, except those probably were more time consuming to make compared to "Paper Heart". While these scenes are still cute and funny, they are a bit predictable and, yes, pretentious. But hey, I can give credit to the filmmakers for trying to be creative. In fact, the final scene in the movie is the best, because it parodies those scenes in an awesomely over-the-top fashion.
The movie itself is charming and often funny, but it does wear out its welcome after awhile. I felt like there were scenes that could be cut shorter or didn't really have to be included, like the interview with kids at a playground about love. It seems like it was done just for fun or for timing. It does have one good line where a girl says she's in love with Chris Brown (or someone named Brown) and says to Charlyne, "At least I admit it."
"Paper Heart" doesn't have any real direction, but neither does life. Are Charlyne and Michael made for each other? What if their relationship doesn't last? It's something the filmmakers just have to work with. From what I got, there's no defining message about what love is, other than it's to each his own
Bandslam
Vulnerable music lover Will Burton (played by Gaelan Connell) arrives at his new home in New Jersey after his mother Karen ('Friends' star Lisa Kudrow) is offered a new job. While attending his first day at New Jersey's Van Buren High in Lodi, he meets outsider Sa5m ("The 5 is silent," she explains), played by 'High School Musical' star Vanessa Hudgens, but once he somewhat surprisingly finds himself striking a bond with "it" girl Charlotte Banksasks (Alison Michalka), she asks him to become a part of her band, after learning of his deep interest in music, to compete in a popular regional battle of bands called Bandslam.
This coming-of-age drama from writer/director Todd Graff ('Camp') is by no means a masterpiece, but it most certainly left me rather impressed to say the very least. What truly wowed is the fact that 'Bandslam' is mostly devoid of expectant teen film clichés, ultimately making for a distinctively charming coming-of-age drama.
The performances are splendid across the board. 'High School Musical' star Vanessa Hudgens is at her best yet playing the part of the rather sluggish Sa5m. Lead star Gaelan Connell is reasonably relatable in assuming the part of the insecure Will Burton. He is excellent; and Lisa Kudrow, if not hilarious, convinces as an overprotective single mother who only fears for her son's well-being in what is ultimately truly quite a heartfelt performance. Ryan Donowho, who plays the agitated Basher Martin, and Alison Michalka are also fine.
Cinematographer Eric Steelberg's ('(500) Days of Summer,' 'Juno') sturdy photography yields requisite visual somberness while the film's exuberant soundtrack, composed by Dutch musician Junkie XL, will have audiences dancing through the isles.
Conveying various complexities of adolescence and teen angst, 'Bandslam' intelligently manages to transcend formulae in an earnest, delightfully distinguishable coming-of-age drama
This coming-of-age drama from writer/director Todd Graff ('Camp') is by no means a masterpiece, but it most certainly left me rather impressed to say the very least. What truly wowed is the fact that 'Bandslam' is mostly devoid of expectant teen film clichés, ultimately making for a distinctively charming coming-of-age drama.
The performances are splendid across the board. 'High School Musical' star Vanessa Hudgens is at her best yet playing the part of the rather sluggish Sa5m. Lead star Gaelan Connell is reasonably relatable in assuming the part of the insecure Will Burton. He is excellent; and Lisa Kudrow, if not hilarious, convinces as an overprotective single mother who only fears for her son's well-being in what is ultimately truly quite a heartfelt performance. Ryan Donowho, who plays the agitated Basher Martin, and Alison Michalka are also fine.
Cinematographer Eric Steelberg's ('(500) Days of Summer,' 'Juno') sturdy photography yields requisite visual somberness while the film's exuberant soundtrack, composed by Dutch musician Junkie XL, will have audiences dancing through the isles.
Conveying various complexities of adolescence and teen angst, 'Bandslam' intelligently manages to transcend formulae in an earnest, delightfully distinguishable coming-of-age drama
District Nine
I caught an early screening of this movie last night. I went into it with high expectations considering the high ratings it has been getting already. My expectations were not high enough however because this film exceeded my them in every way possible.
I will not go far into detail because I would prefer to not spoil anything. This is unlike any sci-fi we have seen in years. Forget Terminator 3 and 4, forget the AVP movies, forget all those laughable sci-fi movies, this film is what we have been waiting for. An original idea, an original concept, brilliantly executed, great CGI, good acting, it just has it all. We have seen many aliens come to earth movies, but this is different, I will not say why though. That is for you to find out when you see it, which I HIGHLY recommend you do.
This movie, quality-wise, matches up with the popular Sci-Fi films we love. The original Alien, the original Predator, The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. While I enjoyed those ones more because they are classics, this one clearly meets the standards we expect today when it comes to quality. A big driving force behind this, in my opinion, is the fact that high esteemed Peter Jackson is behind this project as the producer. After seeing his masterful Lord of the Rings saga, anyone can see that he knows what he is doing.
As far as movies for this year, this is definitely top 5 so far on my list (Up, Star Trek, 500 Days of Summer, HP6, and District 9). Thank you Jackson and Hollywood for finally producing the best Sci-Fi in years. If this movie does not make its way to IMDb top 250 then I will be in awe.
See this movie!
I will not go far into detail because I would prefer to not spoil anything. This is unlike any sci-fi we have seen in years. Forget Terminator 3 and 4, forget the AVP movies, forget all those laughable sci-fi movies, this film is what we have been waiting for. An original idea, an original concept, brilliantly executed, great CGI, good acting, it just has it all. We have seen many aliens come to earth movies, but this is different, I will not say why though. That is for you to find out when you see it, which I HIGHLY recommend you do.
This movie, quality-wise, matches up with the popular Sci-Fi films we love. The original Alien, the original Predator, The Matrix, Star Wars, etc. While I enjoyed those ones more because they are classics, this one clearly meets the standards we expect today when it comes to quality. A big driving force behind this, in my opinion, is the fact that high esteemed Peter Jackson is behind this project as the producer. After seeing his masterful Lord of the Rings saga, anyone can see that he knows what he is doing.
As far as movies for this year, this is definitely top 5 so far on my list (Up, Star Trek, 500 Days of Summer, HP6, and District 9). Thank you Jackson and Hollywood for finally producing the best Sci-Fi in years. If this movie does not make its way to IMDb top 250 then I will be in awe.
See this movie!
Taking Woodstock
Building a sweet coming-of-age comedy around a major American cultural event of the Sixties, 'Taking Woodstock' is lodged on the periphery of the legendary half-million-strong August 1969 "peace and love" rock concert held on Max Yasgur's 600-acre dairy farm near the hamlet of White Lake, in the town of Bethel, New York. While director Ang Lee gives perhaps the most vivid sense on film yet of what it might have been like to witness the event unfolding as a "townee," he approaches it crab-wise, getting inside it by hovering on the outskirts.
In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Quentin Tarantino remarked at how hackneyed biopics are. He suggested the best way to depict the life of Elvis would be to make a movie about one day in the life -- say, the one when The King walked into Sun Records the first time. Lee takes a similar approach to the enormous muddy happening of August 15-18 1969 (this film is a 40th-anniversary celebration). After all it's been thoroughly covered by documentary filmmakers, and most of the acts were thoroughly filmed and recorded. But 'Taking Woodstock' partly trumps that real footage by depicting how the happening built like an invasion, focusing on some of the locals and the promoters and a couple of the acid heads but never even focusing on the stage at all.
This might sound like a Robert Altman knockoff, but it's really quite different. Lee isn't trying to build up Woodstock through lots of vignettes and pieces. This is more like Tolstoy's vision of the Battle of Waterloo, but instead of the battle itself, the distant noise and tumult is that of a concert with thousands swarmed around it. That's true for a moment or two, at least, and those moments are haunting. But Ang Lee is no Tolstoy (though he did his own peripheral (Civil) war picture in Ride with the Devil). In the end he doesn't focus on the battle at all. Though Lee's young protagonist, Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin), a gay Jewish every-youth and the dutiful son of an impoverished middle-aged couple whose decrepit motel has useless pretensions to being a Catskills resort, is depicted as making it all happen by, as head of the minuscule township's Chamber of Commerce, linking up charismatic, bushy-haired young promoter Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) with enterprising dairyman Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), Ellie remains a peripheral figure of the concert, not even the witness of any of the 32 acts performed on stage. Ang Lee's new film lacks the somewhat hackneyed solemnity and pretension of his (admittedly far more emotionally powerful) 'Brokeback Mountain' or (much more stylish) 'Lust, Caution,' but his idea of depicting a great event, like Breugel, by magnifying peripheral figures, is a nifty one.
Elliot Teichberg is the main such Breugel figure, but his parents, the long-suffering Jake (Henry Goodman), and the rigid, paranoid Sonia (Imelda Staunton) loom large for him and us, humble laborers who make the crucifixion come to life. So do the damaged but charismatic young Vietnam vet Billy (Emile Hirsch) and Vilma (Liev Schreiber), the drag queen security guard who's a link with Ellie's New York life as a budding interior decorator, and with the Stonewall riots that had happened just a couple weeks earlier when Elliot was in Lower Manhattan. And there are plenty of others, notably the VW Guy (Paul Dano) and VW Girl (Kelli Garner), who start Ellie on a wonderful acid trip in their van, becoming his guides on an introductory tour of psychedelics. Yeah, "you had to be there," but as hackneyed as the Trip trope is, this is a good one: in its details as in its overall approach, 'Taking Woodstock' often succeeds because it doesn't try too hard and is cozy, offhand, and humorous.
The Sixties aren't about heroics or style, but about getting down, smashing barriers, breaking free -- way-stations of the romantic experience and milestones in any coming-of-age. Woodstock didn't really happen on the stage but in the mud and vans and tents, and Lee shows it that way. Its realities also included an insufficient number of Porta Potties, and townspeople raging at Elliot and Max for making the event happen but then charging big fees for cabins or sandwiches or a drink of water. Elliot's own mother is one of these. But then, somebody gets Jake and Sonia high and they dance in the rain. The motorcycle cop comes to do crowd control and ends up wearing a flower and giving rides. It's corny, but it happened. On the other hand, the borderline caricature depictions of Jews, Schreiber's amiable but overly broad transvestite, and even Emile Hirsch's clichéd, if lively, battle-scarred vet, all could have been thought through better.
Broaching such large events even peripherally, Lee and his writers, James Schamus, Elliot Tiber (author of the source memoir) and Tom Monte, arguably do owe us a bit more of the sex, the bad trips, and the music itself -- which can't be left outside the story of a great concert, whether its protagonist got to the stage or not. If you look at the real people -- Michael Lang, for instance -- they were rougher and sexier than anybody in this movie. The images of Elliot Teichberg's coming-of-age are as lightweight as everything else, and in the superficial sketching of his gayness the movie is as bland as the ditsiest biopic. 'Taking Woodstock' is a sweet, gentle, easy take on events. But remember that it's a coming-of-age comedy that happens in the midst of a tumultuous event, and you'll see that the light touch is not invalid. This was not the great Bad Trip concert; it was the great Good Trip concert. And the light touch allows the film to feel comprehensive with delicacy and keep its focus on the young man's sensibility.
In a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Quentin Tarantino remarked at how hackneyed biopics are. He suggested the best way to depict the life of Elvis would be to make a movie about one day in the life -- say, the one when The King walked into Sun Records the first time. Lee takes a similar approach to the enormous muddy happening of August 15-18 1969 (this film is a 40th-anniversary celebration). After all it's been thoroughly covered by documentary filmmakers, and most of the acts were thoroughly filmed and recorded. But 'Taking Woodstock' partly trumps that real footage by depicting how the happening built like an invasion, focusing on some of the locals and the promoters and a couple of the acid heads but never even focusing on the stage at all.
This might sound like a Robert Altman knockoff, but it's really quite different. Lee isn't trying to build up Woodstock through lots of vignettes and pieces. This is more like Tolstoy's vision of the Battle of Waterloo, but instead of the battle itself, the distant noise and tumult is that of a concert with thousands swarmed around it. That's true for a moment or two, at least, and those moments are haunting. But Ang Lee is no Tolstoy (though he did his own peripheral (Civil) war picture in Ride with the Devil). In the end he doesn't focus on the battle at all. Though Lee's young protagonist, Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin), a gay Jewish every-youth and the dutiful son of an impoverished middle-aged couple whose decrepit motel has useless pretensions to being a Catskills resort, is depicted as making it all happen by, as head of the minuscule township's Chamber of Commerce, linking up charismatic, bushy-haired young promoter Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) with enterprising dairyman Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), Ellie remains a peripheral figure of the concert, not even the witness of any of the 32 acts performed on stage. Ang Lee's new film lacks the somewhat hackneyed solemnity and pretension of his (admittedly far more emotionally powerful) 'Brokeback Mountain' or (much more stylish) 'Lust, Caution,' but his idea of depicting a great event, like Breugel, by magnifying peripheral figures, is a nifty one.
Elliot Teichberg is the main such Breugel figure, but his parents, the long-suffering Jake (Henry Goodman), and the rigid, paranoid Sonia (Imelda Staunton) loom large for him and us, humble laborers who make the crucifixion come to life. So do the damaged but charismatic young Vietnam vet Billy (Emile Hirsch) and Vilma (Liev Schreiber), the drag queen security guard who's a link with Ellie's New York life as a budding interior decorator, and with the Stonewall riots that had happened just a couple weeks earlier when Elliot was in Lower Manhattan. And there are plenty of others, notably the VW Guy (Paul Dano) and VW Girl (Kelli Garner), who start Ellie on a wonderful acid trip in their van, becoming his guides on an introductory tour of psychedelics. Yeah, "you had to be there," but as hackneyed as the Trip trope is, this is a good one: in its details as in its overall approach, 'Taking Woodstock' often succeeds because it doesn't try too hard and is cozy, offhand, and humorous.
The Sixties aren't about heroics or style, but about getting down, smashing barriers, breaking free -- way-stations of the romantic experience and milestones in any coming-of-age. Woodstock didn't really happen on the stage but in the mud and vans and tents, and Lee shows it that way. Its realities also included an insufficient number of Porta Potties, and townspeople raging at Elliot and Max for making the event happen but then charging big fees for cabins or sandwiches or a drink of water. Elliot's own mother is one of these. But then, somebody gets Jake and Sonia high and they dance in the rain. The motorcycle cop comes to do crowd control and ends up wearing a flower and giving rides. It's corny, but it happened. On the other hand, the borderline caricature depictions of Jews, Schreiber's amiable but overly broad transvestite, and even Emile Hirsch's clichéd, if lively, battle-scarred vet, all could have been thought through better.
Broaching such large events even peripherally, Lee and his writers, James Schamus, Elliot Tiber (author of the source memoir) and Tom Monte, arguably do owe us a bit more of the sex, the bad trips, and the music itself -- which can't be left outside the story of a great concert, whether its protagonist got to the stage or not. If you look at the real people -- Michael Lang, for instance -- they were rougher and sexier than anybody in this movie. The images of Elliot Teichberg's coming-of-age are as lightweight as everything else, and in the superficial sketching of his gayness the movie is as bland as the ditsiest biopic. 'Taking Woodstock' is a sweet, gentle, easy take on events. But remember that it's a coming-of-age comedy that happens in the midst of a tumultuous event, and you'll see that the light touch is not invalid. This was not the great Bad Trip concert; it was the great Good Trip concert. And the light touch allows the film to feel comprehensive with delicacy and keep its focus on the young man's sensibility.
Halloween II
Yes I'm one of the few people who thoroughly enjoyed rob zombie's remake of halloween. So I was extremely excited to find out he was making the second one.
I love Zombie's directing style and I do think he is somewhat talented. But this movie just wasn't his best. The style and feel of the film was perfect. But the storyline was complete trash. He should have stuck to the original story.
Zombie's "re-imagining" of the second coming of Michael Myers was way off. Yeah he spiced up the original with Michael's backstory, but he completely redid the second one.
So if you just want to see people get stabbed with a cool directorial style and nice lighting(oh and boobs, lots of those) then yeah you might like it.
But for what it's worth, the backbone of any good movie is good source material, and the source material for this was Zombie's lackluster screenplay.
Shame. The first one was so promising. This one definitely ended it. Not only because Zombie says he won't direct another, but because it went so far downhill from the first one it basically killed itself.
Oh and the final scene in the movie is ridiculously laughable and will most likely give you a WTF look on your face.
5/10 for this one. Just don't take it too seriously and think of it as another slasher flick and you may enjoy it for what it is. Just another slasher flick. Nothing special here
I love Zombie's directing style and I do think he is somewhat talented. But this movie just wasn't his best. The style and feel of the film was perfect. But the storyline was complete trash. He should have stuck to the original story.
Zombie's "re-imagining" of the second coming of Michael Myers was way off. Yeah he spiced up the original with Michael's backstory, but he completely redid the second one.
So if you just want to see people get stabbed with a cool directorial style and nice lighting(oh and boobs, lots of those) then yeah you might like it.
But for what it's worth, the backbone of any good movie is good source material, and the source material for this was Zombie's lackluster screenplay.
Shame. The first one was so promising. This one definitely ended it. Not only because Zombie says he won't direct another, but because it went so far downhill from the first one it basically killed itself.
Oh and the final scene in the movie is ridiculously laughable and will most likely give you a WTF look on your face.
5/10 for this one. Just don't take it too seriously and think of it as another slasher flick and you may enjoy it for what it is. Just another slasher flick. Nothing special here
Carriers
I was at the "World Premiere" tonight at the Fantasy Filmfest in Hamburg and I have to say Carriers was completely underwhelming. I liked the general premise but every step of the story is driven plot turns which feel more and more forced and only seemingly take place to get the story as far as the MacGuffin, in this case a secluded beach where the characters will be able to hide from disease and humans alike.
On top of that the characters of the brothers become annoyingly cliché as each lives up to their sensitive-liberal-brain/makes-the-hard-decisions-conservative-brawn stereotypes. It's a pity because the film does make some hard and interesting decisions with the characters but the ideas simply aren't there to keep the tension and overall story steaming along.
A very very average film which is well made and is still worth a view but ultimately disposable.
Epilogue - why does there always have to be a scene in American apocalypse films where the characters inappropriately fondle an American flag to dramatic music? The scene was completely out of place in a film that plays it straight and realistic the whole way through
On top of that the characters of the brothers become annoyingly cliché as each lives up to their sensitive-liberal-brain/makes-the-hard-decisions-conservative-brawn stereotypes. It's a pity because the film does make some hard and interesting decisions with the characters but the ideas simply aren't there to keep the tension and overall story steaming along.
A very very average film which is well made and is still worth a view but ultimately disposable.
Epilogue - why does there always have to be a scene in American apocalypse films where the characters inappropriately fondle an American flag to dramatic music? The scene was completely out of place in a film that plays it straight and realistic the whole way through
extrat
The characters really did seem busy, like they were doing things and having lives outside of what we physically saw on-screen.
Very funny, there weren't long stretches with no laughs There wasn't any false romance thrown in just to jerk us around like idiots. I've noticed many comedies 'these days' can't seem to just stick to being funny; there just HAS to be some kind of falling in love or some bull.
Great performances: Batemen didn't annoy me like he normally does, Mila Kunis didn't play as her 70's show character, Kristen Wiig didn't do the character she seems to always do, Ben had a beard, the whole cast did great.
I also like that none of the Apatow crew is in it, and neither is that girl Zooey whatever.
Office Space is not similar to this movie, but if I had to choose which is better, as the fans seem to imply is necessary, it would be Extract. Better humor, no annoying "IT'S QUOTABLE!!!" fans (yet), there's no forced "this movie is hilarious because it's supposed to be and it represents nerds or something I guess?
Very funny, there weren't long stretches with no laughs There wasn't any false romance thrown in just to jerk us around like idiots. I've noticed many comedies 'these days' can't seem to just stick to being funny; there just HAS to be some kind of falling in love or some bull.
Great performances: Batemen didn't annoy me like he normally does, Mila Kunis didn't play as her 70's show character, Kristen Wiig didn't do the character she seems to always do, Ben had a beard, the whole cast did great.
I also like that none of the Apatow crew is in it, and neither is that girl Zooey whatever.
Office Space is not similar to this movie, but if I had to choose which is better, as the fans seem to imply is necessary, it would be Extract. Better humor, no annoying "IT'S QUOTABLE!!!" fans (yet), there's no forced "this movie is hilarious because it's supposed to be and it represents nerds or something I guess?
Whiteout
I saw this film last night. I had been traveling, and did not see any advertising cause I was not watching TV. Point? I went into the film without any real expectations. I only knew the cast and saw a short blurb on the premise.
Question?? – Is Kate Beckinsale's agent and representatives TRYING to Whiteout her career? Her agent should be shot for getting her involved in the films she has been associated with lately.
Whiteout has it all – Starts with a long unnecessarily drawn out shower scene with a pre-shower shot focused on KB bending over, in her underwear, right into the camera. Not that I mind, but a total B-movie skin-a-max move. It is followed up with a pointless story that lacked any originality (except I guess the location) that included routine plot points and every EXPECTED twist!! We even get an uninspired, contrived history for KB's character. Add some REAL BAD dialogue at times (you know the kind – the writers are not sure the audience will get the absolute obvious, so they have a character actually say the obvious out loud. They have to spell it out for all the morons they must be pandering) and you got a B-Movie with what I assume is still an A-list star??? The directing does not help, nor does the editing (whom I'll give a pass since the director handed the editor B-movie scenes). In all the film is uninspired, routine and mostly flawed with an inconsistent feel on every level.
At some points I would have given this film a 3 (mostly when that awful dialogue would proceed), a moment here and there a 5. But luckily, the best performance came from Tom Skerritt, (who managed to maintain a level of quality the rest involved could not) and his presence near the end saved a lower rating (yes, its true, parts of this film deserve lower than the overall 4).
No need to spend you hard earned money on this at the box office mess. Rent it on DVD if your REALLY bored or have an unlimited plan….or wait till skin-a-max shows it!! It may be worth the $1 Red Box rental.
Question?? – Is Kate Beckinsale's agent and representatives TRYING to Whiteout her career? Her agent should be shot for getting her involved in the films she has been associated with lately.
Whiteout has it all – Starts with a long unnecessarily drawn out shower scene with a pre-shower shot focused on KB bending over, in her underwear, right into the camera. Not that I mind, but a total B-movie skin-a-max move. It is followed up with a pointless story that lacked any originality (except I guess the location) that included routine plot points and every EXPECTED twist!! We even get an uninspired, contrived history for KB's character. Add some REAL BAD dialogue at times (you know the kind – the writers are not sure the audience will get the absolute obvious, so they have a character actually say the obvious out loud. They have to spell it out for all the morons they must be pandering) and you got a B-Movie with what I assume is still an A-list star??? The directing does not help, nor does the editing (whom I'll give a pass since the director handed the editor B-movie scenes). In all the film is uninspired, routine and mostly flawed with an inconsistent feel on every level.
At some points I would have given this film a 3 (mostly when that awful dialogue would proceed), a moment here and there a 5. But luckily, the best performance came from Tom Skerritt, (who managed to maintain a level of quality the rest involved could not) and his presence near the end saved a lower rating (yes, its true, parts of this film deserve lower than the overall 4).
No need to spend you hard earned money on this at the box office mess. Rent it on DVD if your REALLY bored or have an unlimited plan….or wait till skin-a-max shows it!! It may be worth the $1 Red Box rental.
The Final Destination 3D Expirence
On what should have been a fun-filled day at the races, Nick O'Bannon has a horrific premonition in which a bizarre sequence of events causes multiple race cars to crash, killing him and his friends. When he comes out of this grisly nightmare Nick panics, persuading his friends and others to leave, escaping seconds before Nick's frightening vision becomes a terrible reality. Thinking they've cheated death, the group has a new lease on life, but unfortunately, it is only the beginning. As his premonitions continue and the crash survivors begin to die one-by-one Nick must figure out how to cheat death once and for all before he, too, reaches his final destination.
I would like to start off by saying I'm a fan of the FINAL DESTINATION series. Even the much maligned third film is starting to grow on me. When it was announced that David Ellis was returning to the director chair (along with screenwriter Eric Bress), I was quite excited, considering that part two is arguably the best in the series. But this one. If I were to describe this film in one word, I would say DISAPPOINTING. In fact, this is one of the most disappointing movies of this year! The fact that the makers of part two has returned just adds on to the frustration.
The movie starts off pretty good. The premonition sequence works fantastically with the 3D, even though it's not as good as part two's brilliant car pile-up. The opening credits is ingenious, showing us the previous films' memorable death scenes. From there on, I was enjoying the film for what it was. This film also contains the most ironic and funniest death scene in the whole series but since everyone knows that people go watch these movies for the death scenes, I'll keep my mouth shut. One paradoxical thing I should say is that the death scenes in here are more for quantity than quality, which is quite unfortunate. However, these deaths work really well with the 3D.
In fact, one can argue that the laziness from the filmmakers is because of the format of the 3D. You see, what's presented on the screen should work in relationship with the 3D. Even the clever foreshadowing from the previous films are quite blatant here, most of them just being premonitions that (like I said earlier) works in relationship with the 3D. The filmmakers have embraced the fact that their film is in 3D and uses all of the tricks in the book to use the 3D to add to the entertainment.
But there's a huge problem: There comes a point in the film where things get tedious, uninteresting, and predictable. Like I said, the death scenes are just so unoriginal and lazy, some even borrowed from the previous three films! Sure, there are some funny scenes and scenes in which the characters in the film are aware that they are in a film, like the SCREAM films. However, you just wish that the filmmakers could have done better from what they were given. You would be thinking, "This is all they can do?" by the end of the movie.
The characters in here are more like an excuse to kill them off later, which doesn't really bother me. It's apparent that this isn't a movie but more of a carnival ride, waiting to see who dies and how they will die. However, I would liked to have known more about two characters in the film that we barely get to see in the film before getting killed off in a gruesome way. The most fleshed out character is played by Mykelti Williamson, who also starred in FORREST GUMP. The main characters are sufficient enough in their role, usually just screaming or looking afraid. It's not that hard to do.
Another problem of in the movie was the pacing. It felt way too rushed with a running time of 75 minutes without credits. There's barely enough time to learn anything from characters or about characters. This is, by far, the weakest in the series because there's nothing new, which means it's going to be predictable. The only thing they have left is the anticipation of who's going to die and even that doesn't work here. Usually, in the FINAL DESTINATION films, there's suspense in how a person is going to die. In here, the deaths just appear out of nowhere. There's only the punchline and not the joke.
By the end of the film, you feel underwhelmed. There's nothing new here. You wished they could have done better. In fact, you KNOW they could have done better. If they were to make a fifth film (which I wouldn't mind), they better put some thought into it. If you're thinking about to watch this movie only ONCE, you should see it in its intended format: 3D AND in theaters. Other than that, there should be no other reason to wait for it on DVD or watch it in theaters in 2D. This is so unfortunate. The film started off big and ended in a whimper
I would like to start off by saying I'm a fan of the FINAL DESTINATION series. Even the much maligned third film is starting to grow on me. When it was announced that David Ellis was returning to the director chair (along with screenwriter Eric Bress), I was quite excited, considering that part two is arguably the best in the series. But this one. If I were to describe this film in one word, I would say DISAPPOINTING. In fact, this is one of the most disappointing movies of this year! The fact that the makers of part two has returned just adds on to the frustration.
The movie starts off pretty good. The premonition sequence works fantastically with the 3D, even though it's not as good as part two's brilliant car pile-up. The opening credits is ingenious, showing us the previous films' memorable death scenes. From there on, I was enjoying the film for what it was. This film also contains the most ironic and funniest death scene in the whole series but since everyone knows that people go watch these movies for the death scenes, I'll keep my mouth shut. One paradoxical thing I should say is that the death scenes in here are more for quantity than quality, which is quite unfortunate. However, these deaths work really well with the 3D.
In fact, one can argue that the laziness from the filmmakers is because of the format of the 3D. You see, what's presented on the screen should work in relationship with the 3D. Even the clever foreshadowing from the previous films are quite blatant here, most of them just being premonitions that (like I said earlier) works in relationship with the 3D. The filmmakers have embraced the fact that their film is in 3D and uses all of the tricks in the book to use the 3D to add to the entertainment.
But there's a huge problem: There comes a point in the film where things get tedious, uninteresting, and predictable. Like I said, the death scenes are just so unoriginal and lazy, some even borrowed from the previous three films! Sure, there are some funny scenes and scenes in which the characters in the film are aware that they are in a film, like the SCREAM films. However, you just wish that the filmmakers could have done better from what they were given. You would be thinking, "This is all they can do?" by the end of the movie.
The characters in here are more like an excuse to kill them off later, which doesn't really bother me. It's apparent that this isn't a movie but more of a carnival ride, waiting to see who dies and how they will die. However, I would liked to have known more about two characters in the film that we barely get to see in the film before getting killed off in a gruesome way. The most fleshed out character is played by Mykelti Williamson, who also starred in FORREST GUMP. The main characters are sufficient enough in their role, usually just screaming or looking afraid. It's not that hard to do.
Another problem of in the movie was the pacing. It felt way too rushed with a running time of 75 minutes without credits. There's barely enough time to learn anything from characters or about characters. This is, by far, the weakest in the series because there's nothing new, which means it's going to be predictable. The only thing they have left is the anticipation of who's going to die and even that doesn't work here. Usually, in the FINAL DESTINATION films, there's suspense in how a person is going to die. In here, the deaths just appear out of nowhere. There's only the punchline and not the joke.
By the end of the film, you feel underwhelmed. There's nothing new here. You wished they could have done better. In fact, you KNOW they could have done better. If they were to make a fifth film (which I wouldn't mind), they better put some thought into it. If you're thinking about to watch this movie only ONCE, you should see it in its intended format: 3D AND in theaters. Other than that, there should be no other reason to wait for it on DVD or watch it in theaters in 2D. This is so unfortunate. The film started off big and ended in a whimper
Sorority Row
This movie has enough frights & thrills to make you jump multiple times, but it's not just that that makes the movie for me. What makes this film different from all of the recent mediocre horror films is that it is very much character and dialogue driven. The characters become as compelling as the plot itself and you actually find yourself starting to care about these characters. The dialogue shoots back and forth between the characters and further builds up the suspense until the final revelation. The suspense is very well drawn-out - it doesn't reveal the killer too early and it doesn't make you impatient for the end. The resulting finale is a big bang and not disappointing at all.
The acting was also a cut above the rest - I didn't cringe at the lame screams or badly-acted terrified facial expressions because there weren't any. Kudos to all the girls because they gave performances beyond what I expected would be given.
This movie doesn't deserve any awards, because it doesn't want any. Thinking about this movie is useless; if you want a movie that makes you think then go catch Inglorious Basterds. This film is meant to entertain, and entertain it did. It's what most horror films today should be. This movie has set a standard which all subsequent horror films (especially teen horrors) should follow.
Just let yourself be drawn in instead of attempting to guess who the killer is and ruining the experience for yourself. If you just go in with a blank mind and just leave all you doubts at the door you will enjoy it as it is and not blame it for being what it's not afterwards.
I hadn't watched the 1983 version before going in, but I have no doubt in my mind that this remake is at least as good as, if not better, than the original film. As a film, I give it a 7. But as a horror film, it definitely deserves an 8. I loved every moment of this movie. Completely worth my mone
The acting was also a cut above the rest - I didn't cringe at the lame screams or badly-acted terrified facial expressions because there weren't any. Kudos to all the girls because they gave performances beyond what I expected would be given.
This movie doesn't deserve any awards, because it doesn't want any. Thinking about this movie is useless; if you want a movie that makes you think then go catch Inglorious Basterds. This film is meant to entertain, and entertain it did. It's what most horror films today should be. This movie has set a standard which all subsequent horror films (especially teen horrors) should follow.
Just let yourself be drawn in instead of attempting to guess who the killer is and ruining the experience for yourself. If you just go in with a blank mind and just leave all you doubts at the door you will enjoy it as it is and not blame it for being what it's not afterwards.
I hadn't watched the 1983 version before going in, but I have no doubt in my mind that this remake is at least as good as, if not better, than the original film. As a film, I give it a 7. But as a horror film, it definitely deserves an 8. I loved every moment of this movie. Completely worth my mone
All About Steve
I went in to the theater for the eye candy (Sandra Bullock), and came out laughing at the great job of parody they did on my former area of employment (TV News). And they do a nice revision of the main plot of "The Big Carnival" by Kirk Douglas - not a comedy - about an unscrupulous journalist (is there any other kind...) who tries to milk every drop from a man-trapped-in-cave story to jump-start his career. Sandra does a fine job of portraying her character realistically, as much realism as you can expect in a comedy/satire. This is what they used to call "screwball comedies" back in the black-and-white film era, except that the male actor always had talent. I haven't seen any evidence yet that Bradley Cooper gets work for any reason except being cute; no problem, talent will not be required from him for another ten to fifteen years. Thomas Hayden Church, as usual, nails the self-absorbed pompous airhead character they always have him play. That's OK, if you're good at only one thing and can make a career of it, at least he's a step ahead of Bradley. My main disappointment was that the apple-head sculpture website they mention for one character doesn't exist. You type in the domain name, and it takes you to the movie website. I wanted apple-heads, doggonnit! Oh, and they didn't put Katie Mixon to nearly enough use, what a waste of......TALENT! This one is a keeper on my Sandra Bullock DVD shelf.
Inglourious Bastards
I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.
We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.
War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.
The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.
Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.
We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.
War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.
The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.
Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.
9
Man I got to tell ya it is so nice to see something different that has the intensity of a mature movie yet lies within the realm of the animated world. Every scene was beautifully done and you can literally hang every frame up on a wall if you so choose to. The story was great, the suspense was amazing. Who ever complained about it not having a story, tell that to the crowd I saw jumping every so often from the intense confrontations. What I also liked about it was the hidden parts of the story. They give you enough information to enjoy the film but yet you can extract more of the back ground thought that went into what we saw in the completed film. For the first time ever I saw half of the audience stay behind after the credits role to not just see who worked on the movie but to debate back and forth about what they thought of it, what the characters represented, what happen in this or that scene, and of course the animation style and technique and how it moved them. Never seen anyone ever do that after watching a movie
Jennifers Body
This is all i need to say...The Bridge to Terebithia was the all time worst movie i've ever seen before Jennifer's Body and that's sort of understandable because it's a kid movie...after watching Jennifer's Body I know I'd much rather watch TBTT...JB is terrible, you don't know whether to laugh or get scared, literally every person in the theater that i was in was laughing at either a)Megan fox's trying-to-be-sexy-but-trying-way-too-hard lines b)the ridiculous lack of structure, storyline and plot or c)the way the movie introduces some new thing every 5 Min's that has nothing to do with the last thing it brought up...if your not laughing at how ridiculously stupid this movie is your not very smart...the quote of the movie is by Megan fox (where you will lose all attraction to her, but throughout the movie your losing it anyways because of her arrogance, bitchiness and the way she tries way too hard to be sexy):"I'm going to eat your soul and sh** it out."...ha ha what?...so anyways the only reason I gave it a 2 and not a 1 is because there's one pretty scary part where a naked f***d up looking Jennifer is crouching weirdly on an armchair...see it if you want to laugh but don't see it in theaters
Love Happens
went to a preview of this movie last night. I was expecting the standard romantic comedy chick flick. Although there are plenty of funny moments in this movie, it has an emotional depth that is very appealing. It also has another really great performance by Aaron Eckhart, who must be one of the most unappreciated actors in the business. I'm no Jennifer Aniston fan, but I have to admit she's a talented actress and not just a celebrity when I see her in a role like this. Judy Greer and Dan Fogler are great in supporting roles.
It's difficult to say much about the plot without giving most of it away. The script is full of the physco-babble you would expect in a movie about a self help guru; sometimes it comes across as intentionally silly, and sometimes it seems to have real meaning. There are small revelations made all the way through the movie that lead up to the final conclusion.
There is also unexpected eye candy in the form of beautiful floral arrangements that contrast well with the gloomy Seattle weather.
It's difficult to say much about the plot without giving most of it away. The script is full of the physco-babble you would expect in a movie about a self help guru; sometimes it comes across as intentionally silly, and sometimes it seems to have real meaning. There are small revelations made all the way through the movie that lead up to the final conclusion.
There is also unexpected eye candy in the form of beautiful floral arrangements that contrast well with the gloomy Seattle weather.
The Informant
Professionally executed, well, that's the least you can say about a Steven Soderbergh movie but, I felt, the whole thing had been done in a rush without real conviction, merely to showcase the talents of a friend, Matt Damon in this case. Terrific pace, involving and surprising. That's more I can say about most movies but The Informant with or without the exclamation mark left me kind of cold. I was far too aware of the intention. Matt Damon is a good actor but his acting is still too much of that, acting. I couldn't forget it was him, not for a moment. No matter how much extra pounds he had put on, the terrible hair do, the suits etc. It all felt like the dress rehearsal for something that wasn't quite there yet. I longed for Alec Guinness in that part. Visibly invisible. The story is so outrageous, with bumbling, sentimental FBI agents that couldn't see through this man until it was too late, is a pill hard to swallow and yet, we're told, the whole thing it's true. I suppose that the Marvin Hamlisch score was enough of a clue as to how to detect and read the tone of the movie but I was confused by it. I also must say I was never bored so, I guess that's a recommendation of sorts
Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs.
'Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs' may as well be called the funniest animated film of the year, because I have never laughed as much as I did at an animated movie.Parents, I guarantee you that if you go see this movie with your kids, you will be in for one hilarious and exciting ride that makes this film almost as good as 'Up'.
Flint Lockwood has been an inventor ever since he was a kid, but most of his inventions have been failures.He has made a walking television set, a lotion that can give you hair, and rat birds, which I claim to be rats and birds combined together.It then hits him.The whole town has been forced to eat nothing but sardines.Of course, nobody in the town of Swallow Falls enjoy sardines.There's also a heading in the newspaper that says sardines are gross.What if Flint can fix all of that? What if he can invent a machine that converts water into food? Well, he tries it and it actually works.Soon, everyone in Swallow Falls love Flint's invention.What's even better is that it will give you any food you want.Pizza, french fries, mashed potatoes, jello, ice cream, bacon, cheeseburgers, eggs, cheese, steak, olives, toast, donuts, and so on.Unfortantly for Swallow Falls, things get much worse.The food starts to get bigger and causes the town and everyone else in the world nothing but destruction and chaos.It's now up to Flint to save the day from what may be a food apocalypse.
Me and my friend sat in our seats, laughed endlessly, and couldn't wait until the DVD came out.When it does, I'll be sure to get it on the first day.If not the first day, I'll be sure to get it and watch it over and over again
Flint Lockwood has been an inventor ever since he was a kid, but most of his inventions have been failures.He has made a walking television set, a lotion that can give you hair, and rat birds, which I claim to be rats and birds combined together.It then hits him.The whole town has been forced to eat nothing but sardines.Of course, nobody in the town of Swallow Falls enjoy sardines.There's also a heading in the newspaper that says sardines are gross.What if Flint can fix all of that? What if he can invent a machine that converts water into food? Well, he tries it and it actually works.Soon, everyone in Swallow Falls love Flint's invention.What's even better is that it will give you any food you want.Pizza, french fries, mashed potatoes, jello, ice cream, bacon, cheeseburgers, eggs, cheese, steak, olives, toast, donuts, and so on.Unfortantly for Swallow Falls, things get much worse.The food starts to get bigger and causes the town and everyone else in the world nothing but destruction and chaos.It's now up to Flint to save the day from what may be a food apocalypse.
Me and my friend sat in our seats, laughed endlessly, and couldn't wait until the DVD came out.When it does, I'll be sure to get it on the first day.If not the first day, I'll be sure to get it and watch it over and over again
I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell
From Tucker Max's website; he gets excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregards social norms, indulges every whim, ignores the consequences of his actions, mocks idiots and posers, sleeps with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally acts like a raging d*ck-head, and I loved every second of it.
This movie should be compared with The Hangover. Its about 3 grown man-children on a bachelor road trip to a strip club. After that it all goes down hill and Tucker almost has a self realization. The Best part is that this is all based of Tucker Max's real stories so as ridiculous as some of it gets, there's a sense of realism. Basically no tigers in bathrooms but it does have one famous hotel scene. While the two are much alike they are different enough for this movie to be as or more enjoyable.
In short if you loved the Hangover, like I did, then this movie is a must see.
This movie should be compared with The Hangover. Its about 3 grown man-children on a bachelor road trip to a strip club. After that it all goes down hill and Tucker almost has a self realization. The Best part is that this is all based of Tucker Max's real stories so as ridiculous as some of it gets, there's a sense of realism. Basically no tigers in bathrooms but it does have one famous hotel scene. While the two are much alike they are different enough for this movie to be as or more enjoyable.
In short if you loved the Hangover, like I did, then this movie is a must see.
CoCo Avant Chanel
my girlfriend loves Chanel. I can't actually afford to buy her the clothes, but that won't stop her from liking them. Just like reading one or two bad reviews didn't stop her from wanting to see 'Coco Avant Chanel' so i was dragged along.
The first part of the movie seemed very promising. It didn't take me long to like Coco's character, and everything seemed to have a reasonable pace. Then the movie zooms in on Coco's relationship with 'Boy' and you keep hoping things get interesting, but they don't.
I spent most of the movie admiring the wonderful atmosphere while the lovebirds exchanged meaningful looks. I would have liked this movie more if it paid more attention to things like Coco's hat shop, rather than a relationship of which we all know the ending anyway.
The best thing about this movie is the wonderful atmosphere, but if you don't like slow romance you can skip this one
The first part of the movie seemed very promising. It didn't take me long to like Coco's character, and everything seemed to have a reasonable pace. Then the movie zooms in on Coco's relationship with 'Boy' and you keep hoping things get interesting, but they don't.
I spent most of the movie admiring the wonderful atmosphere while the lovebirds exchanged meaningful looks. I would have liked this movie more if it paid more attention to things like Coco's hat shop, rather than a relationship of which we all know the ending anyway.
The best thing about this movie is the wonderful atmosphere, but if you don't like slow romance you can skip this one
Pandorum
Echoing such luminous sci-fi classics as 2001 and Alien, Pandorum is a terrific psychological thriller, although it does struggle at times to be coherent and original. But it's a true mindbender, and it's packed with action that moves so quickly neither the actors nor the audience can really catch a breath, which is a good move if your plot is shaky to begin with.
As with the best deep-space movies, the context is mental illness, what the Professor on Gilligan's Island called, oddly enough, "island madness." Only in space. In the distant, distant future, a ship has been sent from the Earth carrying a lot of people, headed to the only Earth-like planet ever found. Sometime during the journey, things go awry. We pick up the story as an astronaut named Bower (Ben Foster) awakens from hypersleep, abruptly; he's soon followed by his commanding officer, Payton (Dennis Quaid). The rest of the crew is gone, and the only door is locked from the outside. What's happened here? Making matters more difficult is the amnesia that each man suffers from, owing to their having been in hypersleep way longer than intended. Somehow, they must piece together what has happened and find out what lies behind that door - and throughout the rest of the gigantic ship.
Not only does the movie recall Aliens and 2001, you can also see similarities to The Descent and The Abyss; really, any movie in which people are trapped in claustrophobic environs. And although the pacing is frenetic at times, the movie is really chillingly shot (by Wedigo von Schultzendorff). On the one hand, the plot flows linearly - Bower needs to get to the ship's reactor so he can reboot it and save everyone - meaning that the actors race from scene to scene, running out of time. On the other hand, they don't piece together what's happened as quickly as they might in other, lesser films; they seem to figure things out gradually, as if assembling a puzzle in their heads. Bowers and others - and there are others - discover right away, though, that they're not really alone on the ship and that their enemies are extremely strong and fast and vicious.
Injected into this oh-my-goodness-what's-out-there madness is, well, madness. The movie's title is explained as being a sort of mental illness that affects astronauts from time to time, when they just plain go bonkers for seemingly no reason and kill everyone on board. Is that's what's happening here? Is Bower the crazy one? Or is it Payton? Are they, in fact, alone on the ship? Foster is excellent as the hero who remembers a little bit more of their mission as time elapses; Quaid, in turn, shows a few more layers than we're accustomed to seeing from him (he's usually more of a poor man's Harrison Ford). Both actors turn in convincing, full-throated performances that complement, rather than succumb to, the special effects and cinematic wizardry. Often, the effects are the entire show. Now, it's true that you won't see a lot of character development here, as you might in the most cerebral of sci-fi, but what works best here is the paucity of knowledge about the situation and the characters. By spinning the tale gradually, feeding the audience only a snippet at a time, director Christian Alvart dangles the mystery in front of his viewers without allowing them to settle back and solve the mystery on their own. When you're constantly kept on your toes with sudden lurches of unseen shapes and reverberating noises, you - like the befuddled characters - are concurrently kept off balance. The result is an unsettling, entertaining delight.
As with the best deep-space movies, the context is mental illness, what the Professor on Gilligan's Island called, oddly enough, "island madness." Only in space. In the distant, distant future, a ship has been sent from the Earth carrying a lot of people, headed to the only Earth-like planet ever found. Sometime during the journey, things go awry. We pick up the story as an astronaut named Bower (Ben Foster) awakens from hypersleep, abruptly; he's soon followed by his commanding officer, Payton (Dennis Quaid). The rest of the crew is gone, and the only door is locked from the outside. What's happened here? Making matters more difficult is the amnesia that each man suffers from, owing to their having been in hypersleep way longer than intended. Somehow, they must piece together what has happened and find out what lies behind that door - and throughout the rest of the gigantic ship.
Not only does the movie recall Aliens and 2001, you can also see similarities to The Descent and The Abyss; really, any movie in which people are trapped in claustrophobic environs. And although the pacing is frenetic at times, the movie is really chillingly shot (by Wedigo von Schultzendorff). On the one hand, the plot flows linearly - Bower needs to get to the ship's reactor so he can reboot it and save everyone - meaning that the actors race from scene to scene, running out of time. On the other hand, they don't piece together what's happened as quickly as they might in other, lesser films; they seem to figure things out gradually, as if assembling a puzzle in their heads. Bowers and others - and there are others - discover right away, though, that they're not really alone on the ship and that their enemies are extremely strong and fast and vicious.
Injected into this oh-my-goodness-what's-out-there madness is, well, madness. The movie's title is explained as being a sort of mental illness that affects astronauts from time to time, when they just plain go bonkers for seemingly no reason and kill everyone on board. Is that's what's happening here? Is Bower the crazy one? Or is it Payton? Are they, in fact, alone on the ship? Foster is excellent as the hero who remembers a little bit more of their mission as time elapses; Quaid, in turn, shows a few more layers than we're accustomed to seeing from him (he's usually more of a poor man's Harrison Ford). Both actors turn in convincing, full-throated performances that complement, rather than succumb to, the special effects and cinematic wizardry. Often, the effects are the entire show. Now, it's true that you won't see a lot of character development here, as you might in the most cerebral of sci-fi, but what works best here is the paucity of knowledge about the situation and the characters. By spinning the tale gradually, feeding the audience only a snippet at a time, director Christian Alvart dangles the mystery in front of his viewers without allowing them to settle back and solve the mystery on their own. When you're constantly kept on your toes with sudden lurches of unseen shapes and reverberating noises, you - like the befuddled characters - are concurrently kept off balance. The result is an unsettling, entertaining delight.
Fame (2009)
I remember when I was younger I enjoyed the original Fame movie. Although I currently can't remember anything about the movie at all, save for the theme song. Tonight I got the chance to see the sneak peek of the 2009 version. Overall, I wasn't impressed. What was wrong with the movie? 1.) The plot…or lack thereof. There were so many "main" characters, that the scenes just jumped from one to another without any real cohesion. Sometimes there were even two scenes going on at the same time with the camera flashing back and forth between the two.
2.) The timeline. Before each "section" of the movie, you got a title like "Freshman Year", "Sophomore Year", "Junior Year", and "Senior Year". This would have been fine if they spent any time in these years. Instead, they went by so fast that the title just threw off the pace. For example, you get introduced to the characters and see "Freshman Year". Then you get to see their insecurities and character flaws all over the course of one day. The next day is "Sophomore Year" and the characters have made no forward progress since day one of freshman year. The movie could have been vastly improved by simply stripping out these time stamps.
3.) Character development. Tied to the first two problems with this movie is the character development. There is so much going on and time passes so fast that you don't really get to see much development of many of the characters. I understand there is only so much time in the movie, but that could have been resolved by reducing the number of "lead" characters. If you reduced the number of people we had to keep track of, we'd be able to see more how those characters evolve, and care more about them in the end.
4.) Lack of resolution. None of these characters really show any sign of improvement until the last scene in the movie, and then we still get no resolution on how things turned out. The last scene is graduation and we have no idea if any of these people amounted to anything after that. Very few even make mention to what they MIGHT be doing after the movie ends. Heck, I would have even settled for the lame freeze frame with written text explaining what people went on to do (which is a pretty cheesy cheat out of writing a resolution to your story as is).
5.) Predictability and memorable characters/scenes. I am going to lump these two issues together, because they go pretty much hand-in-hand. the movie from beginning to end was pretty predictable. There were absolutely zero surprises within. As a result, there was very little memorable about the movie. In fact, without looking at IMDb, I couldn't name a single character in the movie.
So was there anything good about the movie? I guess for what it was, it was an okay movie. No real surprises, and nothing you are going to remember any length of time from now (which is maybe why I don't remember the first movie). But I did enjoy the gratuitous completely unrealistic cafeteria jam session on day one of Freshman Year. And some of the cast music (which I assume was mostly original…at least nothing I've heard elsewhere) was good. Actually, I would have been okay if it was just one jam session after another, because I kinda dug that cheesy scene. Otherwise I say that if you are really interested in this movie, or perhaps a fan of the previous one, wait for the DVD. There are much better movies you could spend your money watching, especially since tickets are so high these days.
2.) The timeline. Before each "section" of the movie, you got a title like "Freshman Year", "Sophomore Year", "Junior Year", and "Senior Year". This would have been fine if they spent any time in these years. Instead, they went by so fast that the title just threw off the pace. For example, you get introduced to the characters and see "Freshman Year". Then you get to see their insecurities and character flaws all over the course of one day. The next day is "Sophomore Year" and the characters have made no forward progress since day one of freshman year. The movie could have been vastly improved by simply stripping out these time stamps.
3.) Character development. Tied to the first two problems with this movie is the character development. There is so much going on and time passes so fast that you don't really get to see much development of many of the characters. I understand there is only so much time in the movie, but that could have been resolved by reducing the number of "lead" characters. If you reduced the number of people we had to keep track of, we'd be able to see more how those characters evolve, and care more about them in the end.
4.) Lack of resolution. None of these characters really show any sign of improvement until the last scene in the movie, and then we still get no resolution on how things turned out. The last scene is graduation and we have no idea if any of these people amounted to anything after that. Very few even make mention to what they MIGHT be doing after the movie ends. Heck, I would have even settled for the lame freeze frame with written text explaining what people went on to do (which is a pretty cheesy cheat out of writing a resolution to your story as is).
5.) Predictability and memorable characters/scenes. I am going to lump these two issues together, because they go pretty much hand-in-hand. the movie from beginning to end was pretty predictable. There were absolutely zero surprises within. As a result, there was very little memorable about the movie. In fact, without looking at IMDb, I couldn't name a single character in the movie.
So was there anything good about the movie? I guess for what it was, it was an okay movie. No real surprises, and nothing you are going to remember any length of time from now (which is maybe why I don't remember the first movie). But I did enjoy the gratuitous completely unrealistic cafeteria jam session on day one of Freshman Year. And some of the cast music (which I assume was mostly original…at least nothing I've heard elsewhere) was good. Actually, I would have been okay if it was just one jam session after another, because I kinda dug that cheesy scene. Otherwise I say that if you are really interested in this movie, or perhaps a fan of the previous one, wait for the DVD. There are much better movies you could spend your money watching, especially since tickets are so high these days.
surrogates
I went to an advance showing of Surrogates tonight and while it starts out a bit silly I ended up really liking it. The films strives for the mock realism of district nine but ends up falling short of that level of intensity. I have not read the graphic novel upon which the film is based, however knowing it's a multi part graphic novel is a bit odd since the film in incredibly short. I believe it clocks in at less than an hour and a half long. Rarely do I feel that the climax is reached TOO quickly in a film but everything seems to fall into place with little explanation as too how the characters know what's going on other than blind luck.
The movie sees Tom, played by Bruce Willis as a cop whose living through a surrogate. Think i-Robot but with less tension between the humans and the robots. Surrogates function in a way that humans can lie down with caps over their eyes and neurologically control attractive, boring versions of themselves. Curiously, Tom's surrogate is a cop with a blond comb over. Tom however is growing tired of relying on his surrogate. He wants to see his wife more often...his real wife.
In one of the film's many plot holes, a vagrant "meatbag" human (one who is against the idea of surrogates) uses a "device" to kill surrogates which somehow kills humans at the same time by making their brains exploded. If that sounds convoluted...that's because it is. There's many things in this film left unexplained including that aspect as well as the need for surrogates in the first place. Why bother? These thoughts are quickly erased once Tom is on a chase to find out who is trying to kill surrogates and why.
The film has a very fast pace like I said above with from the point of action to the climax very little digression. Within the title crawl you already what surrogates are, what their purpose is and the history of the surrogates. I wish they could slow down a bit and discuss more of the mentality behind the process, but I suppose that's up to the audience to decide.
Surrogates is a film that made me happy to be alive as I walked out and thought about it. It's an entertaining film but I can't help but feel that it falls into the same lines of action/drama/sci fi movies as recent ones like The Happening, I am Legend and i-Robot. It's definitely that kind of movie and if you enjoy that, then it won't disappoint.
The movie sees Tom, played by Bruce Willis as a cop whose living through a surrogate. Think i-Robot but with less tension between the humans and the robots. Surrogates function in a way that humans can lie down with caps over their eyes and neurologically control attractive, boring versions of themselves. Curiously, Tom's surrogate is a cop with a blond comb over. Tom however is growing tired of relying on his surrogate. He wants to see his wife more often...his real wife.
In one of the film's many plot holes, a vagrant "meatbag" human (one who is against the idea of surrogates) uses a "device" to kill surrogates which somehow kills humans at the same time by making their brains exploded. If that sounds convoluted...that's because it is. There's many things in this film left unexplained including that aspect as well as the need for surrogates in the first place. Why bother? These thoughts are quickly erased once Tom is on a chase to find out who is trying to kill surrogates and why.
The film has a very fast pace like I said above with from the point of action to the climax very little digression. Within the title crawl you already what surrogates are, what their purpose is and the history of the surrogates. I wish they could slow down a bit and discuss more of the mentality behind the process, but I suppose that's up to the audience to decide.
Surrogates is a film that made me happy to be alive as I walked out and thought about it. It's an entertaining film but I can't help but feel that it falls into the same lines of action/drama/sci fi movies as recent ones like The Happening, I am Legend and i-Robot. It's definitely that kind of movie and if you enjoy that, then it won't disappoint.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
I was so excited when I heard they were making a Wolverine movie. He and Gambit were my two favorite characters from the comics, and Wolverine was by far the best written and one of the best acted characters in the X-Men franchise. I thought, "This should be good!" I counted down the days until it came out. And I went to the theatre, and came out not disappointed, but not excited either. It was a middle-of-the-road movie, which seemed to not know what it wanted to be. But I would say go see it if you're an X-Men or Hugh Jackman fan.
The main crime committed in Wolverine is in the writing. I always say writers don't get enough credit on a good movie. But no amount of good acting (pretty much everyone in Wolverine does well with what they're given) and okay directing can cover up crappy writing like this. The script was all over the place. It didn't have any of the jaunty yet edgy feel of the first two X-Men movies. Wolverine's wisecracks and smart wit were all but forgotten. That would've maybe been okay if they had chosen to make Wolverine the dark, nearly evil character that he was supposed to have been before he lost his memory. But they didn't. He was neither good nor evil. This was ambivalent Wolverine. Kind of Emo Wolverine. Not above doing bad, but not really into it because it made him Feel Bad. No really interesting lines or plot points either way. The writers didn't seem to even know how to develop the relationship between Wolverine and Sabertooth. And was the love story put in by the studio just to satisfy chicks who wouldn't go a see a comic-book movie without it? If so, the studio did them a great disservice, because if you wanted to make a story about Wolverine the lover, this movie wasn't that either.
And when I saw in the trailer that Gambit was in the movie, too, I was thrilled! Gambit in a movie, at last! But here he is, the underdeveloped and kind of confusing Gambit. Couldn't he at least have had his New Orleans accent? The cards were cool, but he was mostly underutilized and didn't feel like Gambit that much.
The movie does have some good moments in it where you actually say, "Yes!" I'm not putting spoilers, so I won't tell you what they are, but for me, they made the movie worth seeing. While I wouldn't put it anywhere on my worst-movie list, I wouldn't rank it with X-Men and X2 on my favorites list, either.
The main crime committed in Wolverine is in the writing. I always say writers don't get enough credit on a good movie. But no amount of good acting (pretty much everyone in Wolverine does well with what they're given) and okay directing can cover up crappy writing like this. The script was all over the place. It didn't have any of the jaunty yet edgy feel of the first two X-Men movies. Wolverine's wisecracks and smart wit were all but forgotten. That would've maybe been okay if they had chosen to make Wolverine the dark, nearly evil character that he was supposed to have been before he lost his memory. But they didn't. He was neither good nor evil. This was ambivalent Wolverine. Kind of Emo Wolverine. Not above doing bad, but not really into it because it made him Feel Bad. No really interesting lines or plot points either way. The writers didn't seem to even know how to develop the relationship between Wolverine and Sabertooth. And was the love story put in by the studio just to satisfy chicks who wouldn't go a see a comic-book movie without it? If so, the studio did them a great disservice, because if you wanted to make a story about Wolverine the lover, this movie wasn't that either.
And when I saw in the trailer that Gambit was in the movie, too, I was thrilled! Gambit in a movie, at last! But here he is, the underdeveloped and kind of confusing Gambit. Couldn't he at least have had his New Orleans accent? The cards were cool, but he was mostly underutilized and didn't feel like Gambit that much.
The movie does have some good moments in it where you actually say, "Yes!" I'm not putting spoilers, so I won't tell you what they are, but for me, they made the movie worth seeing. While I wouldn't put it anywhere on my worst-movie list, I wouldn't rank it with X-Men and X2 on my favorites list, either.
Observe and report
I was a little bit hesitant on this film at first because i was not too pleased with pineapple express however i gave in and i have to say this was one of the best films I've ever seen for all the wrong reasons. You just get used to how films are going to play out, you can read the ending just by watching the first 10 minutes. All films just repeat the same undertone in different scenes for an hours and a half. Not this film.
I have no idea what kind of film this is, I would not call it a comedy or any specific genre, I really was left amazed and shocked. It just doesn't really give a clear message or direction. When you feel you're starting to understand the film, it turns again.
I've watched thousands upon thousands of films and have never had a movie experience like this. There are dark moments which you feel shouldn't be in the film but that's because you've been led to believe it's a comedy.
Really enjoyed it, glad I took the chance to see it..
I have no idea what kind of film this is, I would not call it a comedy or any specific genre, I really was left amazed and shocked. It just doesn't really give a clear message or direction. When you feel you're starting to understand the film, it turns again.
I've watched thousands upon thousands of films and have never had a movie experience like this. There are dark moments which you feel shouldn't be in the film but that's because you've been led to believe it's a comedy.
Really enjoyed it, glad I took the chance to see it..
Ghosts of girlfriends past
The film started out a little slowly but began to move well. I thought that there was really good chemistry between the two main characters. I liked the film for its well conveyed message about commitment and what it means to care for people. In order to receive you need to give and vice versa. The film used Dickens as a clever vehicle for its plot and it worked for me anyway. I am not saying the film is a classic but it was a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours and I definitely would recommend it to people I know. I thought that the acting was terrific and the characters were well developed. I think the film is definitely worth seeing so i would give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)