Director: Frank Miller
Produced by: Gigi Pritzker, Deborah Del Prete, Michael Uslan
Screenplay: Frank Miller
Starring: Scarlett Johansson “Silken Floss”, Samuel L. Jackson “The Octopus”, Gabriel Macht “Denny Colt/ The Spirit”, Eva Mendes “Sand Saref”
"The Spirit" of Purgatory
Sometimes, after an arduous week full of incompetent co-workers and mind-numbing work, the urge will arise to choke the nearest bone-headed-looking person. Instead of serving time for such a crime, many people find an outlet in television or movies. "The Spirit", based off Will Eisner’s graphic novel of the same name, is good for no other purpose than a mild case of such an urge.
Able to heal from any wound or brake in his body, The Spirit is a stubborn, womanizing, vigilante/ex-cop (it’s not worth explaining) who works with the police department to bring down his nemesis, the city’s head drug dealer, The Octopus. The opening introduction scene is well crafted with state of the art CGI and blue-screen magic. We are immediately consumed in contrasting black and white silhouettes with our only focus on The Spirit’s lonely red tie and his voice-over explaining to us his paradoxical love for his city. But this is where the promise in the film ends. Our next baptism comes in a mud/tar-pit full of God-awful one-liners and a seemingly pointless (and ultimately actually pointless) drawn out semi-physical, semi-trash-talk brawl between The Octopus and The Spirit. Only twenty minutes into the film we’re half way into the grave of boredom.
Normally a puppet-master at inducing ultra slow-motion fight scenes that some consider especially violent, and others genius, The Spirit’s PG-13 rating definitely hindered Miller’s usual selling point in his films. Without superb and groundbreaking action sequences to rely upon, Miller was forced to turn to character development. Unfortunately for the studios, a high budget film was not the setting for such a trial in development, and obvious failure. Like the ailing city in which the film takes place, the ideal fiery passion between Mendes and Macht smolders in the cold snow. Macht found himself in a role that his director failed to- direct. Mendes attempts to emulate the dark, violent, and sexy performance of Rosario Dawson in "Sin City", but ends up overacting and showing her bare backside for a poor film.
For many, including myself, much of the pull for audiences in seeing this film came from the featuring of Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson. Jackson has been great in numerous cult-classic films with his zeal for the bizarre and fun, which is why I see why he signed onto the film. In the context of the ridiculous nature of the film and characters, Jackson succeeds in being affable and believable in his portrayal of a witty, criminal mastermind. On the other hand, Johansson, who played Jackson’s side-kick, made me feel out of place with her unconvincing and uncomfortable display of slightly-psychotic sexiness.
The acting failed in its attempt at purposeful overacting for emphasis of fictional characters. The CGI overpowered and attempted to control the mood and tone in the film, but failed due to its appeal to a PG-13 rating, and outside of the average fight scenes, there was no redeeming quality to the plot. Overall, being that today is a good day; I rate the film 5/10.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Meta Critic Watch: "Observe and Report"
"Observe and Report" features Seth Rogan, Anna Faris, and few short appearances by Jay Liotta. Seth Rogan plays an ambitious mall cop looking to arrest a "serial flasher" terrorizing the mall to impress Anna Faris' character and garner credentials for admittance to the Police Academy. The popular buzz is that the film will be another installment in the great collection of Seth Rogan comedies, but it would seem the vast majority of reviewers observed otherwise.
Scott Mendelson of "Film Threat" gave "Observe and Report" the highest rating of the critics being discussed for this movie with a score of 80/100. Although this film is a comedy, the review focused much more on the extending metaphors and satires of the American experience developed in the film. It almost seemed as if he was attempting to justify the uncomfortable jokes in the film with contemplative commentary: "The picture is a case study of both a garden-variety delusional thug and the bitter disillusionment of an entire nation." Overall, Scott seemed to enjoy the film, but not as a comedy.
"USA TODAY" critic Claudia Puig was next down on the depth chart with a score of 63/100. As reflected by her rating, Ms. Puig was split on the nature of the film. "While she But where Mall Cop is broad, safe and sticks to a formula, Observe and Report is unabashedly crude, cynical, off-kilter and funnier." But her kudos seem more out of respect for what the film is trying to do than what it actual does. For her it fell too deeply into the pressing depression and hovering despair experienced by the characters.
Michael Phillips of "The Chicago Tribune" is the next one down on the list of decreasing enjoyment of the film. Mr. Phillips' review bordered on a pan of the film with a score of 50/100. Saving graces for Michael: Seth Rogan is too lovable a character to let the film go completely to hell. Woeful aspects: well, there were a lot more of these than saving graces. "But the fault lies with writer-director Jody Hill, whose micro-budget comedy "The Foot Fist Way" got a strange amount of attention from the sleep-deprived regulars at the Sundance Film Festival." Not only does he not like Hill's last film, but he obviously feels he shouldn't have gotten a second-chance at a higher-budget film. According to Michael only 10/85 minutes were actually funny. Enough said.
"I thought it was gonna be funny, but it's just sad." For the "Dallas Observer's" Robert Wilonsky, this line was his experience with the film. The characters evolved from overly optimistic to nearly overbearing in their gloominess. Outside of a few scenes of shock-humor, there are just poor attempts at dark-humor. While Seth Rogan commands respect for his newly developed range of acting, the writing and attempts at humor were just that: attempts. For his effort, Robert awarded Jody Hill a 30/100.
Manohla Dargis of "The New York Times" gave the film the lowest rating of the barrel: 10/100. His opening statement of the review says it all: "If you thought Abu Ghraib was a laugh riot then you might love “Observe and Report,” a potentially brilliant conceptual comedy that fizzles because its writer and director, Jody Hill, doesn’t have the guts to go with his spleen. The sadistic induced laughter and incongruities in the comedic themes repulsed and created a melancholy nature in the film. Instead of being able to just sit back and laugh, there were too many instances where questioning of political and ethical idealisms overwhelmed the audiences ability to laugh. Manohla loves Seth Rogan, but the writing-directing of Jody Hill ruined the film for him.
Overall, the film garnered a rating of 54/100, and the vast majority of critics seemed extremely let down by the writing and directing of Jody Hill. Many already did love and continue to love Seth Rogan in the film, but the lack of actual funny material in contrast to the amount of depressing dialogue and lost dreams ruin the film. Having read many reviews on the film I'm under the impression I should wait until it comes out to rent.
Scott Mendelson of "Film Threat" gave "Observe and Report" the highest rating of the critics being discussed for this movie with a score of 80/100. Although this film is a comedy, the review focused much more on the extending metaphors and satires of the American experience developed in the film. It almost seemed as if he was attempting to justify the uncomfortable jokes in the film with contemplative commentary: "The picture is a case study of both a garden-variety delusional thug and the bitter disillusionment of an entire nation." Overall, Scott seemed to enjoy the film, but not as a comedy.
"USA TODAY" critic Claudia Puig was next down on the depth chart with a score of 63/100. As reflected by her rating, Ms. Puig was split on the nature of the film. "While she But where Mall Cop is broad, safe and sticks to a formula, Observe and Report is unabashedly crude, cynical, off-kilter and funnier." But her kudos seem more out of respect for what the film is trying to do than what it actual does. For her it fell too deeply into the pressing depression and hovering despair experienced by the characters.
Michael Phillips of "The Chicago Tribune" is the next one down on the list of decreasing enjoyment of the film. Mr. Phillips' review bordered on a pan of the film with a score of 50/100. Saving graces for Michael: Seth Rogan is too lovable a character to let the film go completely to hell. Woeful aspects: well, there were a lot more of these than saving graces. "But the fault lies with writer-director Jody Hill, whose micro-budget comedy "The Foot Fist Way" got a strange amount of attention from the sleep-deprived regulars at the Sundance Film Festival." Not only does he not like Hill's last film, but he obviously feels he shouldn't have gotten a second-chance at a higher-budget film. According to Michael only 10/85 minutes were actually funny. Enough said.
"I thought it was gonna be funny, but it's just sad." For the "Dallas Observer's" Robert Wilonsky, this line was his experience with the film. The characters evolved from overly optimistic to nearly overbearing in their gloominess. Outside of a few scenes of shock-humor, there are just poor attempts at dark-humor. While Seth Rogan commands respect for his newly developed range of acting, the writing and attempts at humor were just that: attempts. For his effort, Robert awarded Jody Hill a 30/100.
Manohla Dargis of "The New York Times" gave the film the lowest rating of the barrel: 10/100. His opening statement of the review says it all: "If you thought Abu Ghraib was a laugh riot then you might love “Observe and Report,” a potentially brilliant conceptual comedy that fizzles because its writer and director, Jody Hill, doesn’t have the guts to go with his spleen. The sadistic induced laughter and incongruities in the comedic themes repulsed and created a melancholy nature in the film. Instead of being able to just sit back and laugh, there were too many instances where questioning of political and ethical idealisms overwhelmed the audiences ability to laugh. Manohla loves Seth Rogan, but the writing-directing of Jody Hill ruined the film for him.
Overall, the film garnered a rating of 54/100, and the vast majority of critics seemed extremely let down by the writing and directing of Jody Hill. Many already did love and continue to love Seth Rogan in the film, but the lack of actual funny material in contrast to the amount of depressing dialogue and lost dreams ruin the film. Having read many reviews on the film I'm under the impression I should wait until it comes out to rent.
Monday, May 4, 2009
DVD Review: Twilight
In the wake of blockbuster book-based cash cows like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings comes Hollywood's latest offering, Twilight, this time with an influx of rabid fangirls. Twilight is every teenage girl's dream come true: a drab, ordinary year at high school is interrupted by the introduction of an perfectly handsome and well-mannered boy (Robert Pattinson) who saves a young girl's life(Kristen Stewart), makes her his girlfriend, and the two fall deeply in love. Oh, and also he is a vampire. Many will quibble over the immaterial untruths the movie tells by deviating from the book, but fortunately I will not harp on said untruths, since I have never read Twilight. What I will say is that while Twilight was clearly designed to be some sort of female masturbatory aid, it also functions adequately as a major motion picture. For those of us who aren't steamed up by the teenage romance, there also happens to be a plot. The bad vampires want Bella, and the good vampires do too. But being the good guys, they restrain themselves from eating her and protect her from the bad guys. The fights are well-choreographed and the special effects are good, and if you can drown out the noise of shrieking fangirls, Twilight can be a mildly entertaining fantasy movie. That's right, girls. Fantasy.
Blog Review: Adventureland
Seemingly aimed at the raunch comedy market revitalized by Superbad, Adventureland is a little light on raunch and heavy on drama. Following the summer job escapades of affluent college graduate and near spot-on Michael Cera impersonator James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg), Adventureland is a surprisingly heavy "dramedy" that delivers some genuinely smart humor, but may leave the raunch comedy crowd a bit out in the cold. The majority of the film deals with Brennan's summer romance with "co-worker" Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart). When this movie isn't dramatic, it is very funny and the 80's setting adds a welcome flair to the props and costume design. Eisenberg plays the role flawlessly as the soft-spoken underdog hero, and it doesn't take long before the whole audience is rooting for him. While the characters seem to insist that working at a carnival over the summer sucks, the movie does anything but discourage it as a dream summer job. Hanging out all day getting high and living out some good old-fashioned teenage drama seems like more than any young adult could hope to ask for in a summer job. So while this film certainly won't be remembered for its realism, it has some memorable characters, a genuinely interesting setting, and a good mix of drama and awkward moment jokes. Just don't expect any McLovin's to make an appearance.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire
Slumdog Millionaire’s Final Answer
By Joe Dawson
Director: Danny Boylev
Written By: Simon Beaufoy and Vikas Swarup
Produced By: Christian Colson
Starring: Dev Patel, Madhur Mittal, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, and Irrfan Khan
Slumdog Millionaire is an inspirational love story between two young souls from India. The film shows Jamal Malik played by Dev Patel on an Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? As the questions are being asked Jamal draws from his past experiences in the slums of India for the answers. The question, his thoughts, and his answers on the show depict the different struggles he faced in his life. His brother is the only family he has left after his mother is killed. The two have to work together in order to survive. During their travels Jamal sees a young girl played by Freida Pinto all alone standing in the rain; he reaches out to here and invites her to share what meager dry space they have. It is obvious there is love at first sight, but the two are continually separated by their harsh environment. Throughout the film he is always searching trying to save the girl so they can be together.
The film tells a very complex story with many different characters all coming together in a unique and interesting way. Jamal constantly has flashbacks of his childhood that help to progress the story line. The flashbacks are incorporated seamlessly causing it to flow smoothly throughout the film. The acting by all the cast members is superb; Jamal’s struggles come to life and become extremely real. It is easy to relate and sympathize with him because his acting is so genuine. Even with all of his problems in the slums he still cannot let go the love of his life. This is a must see. He has everything to lose and even more to gain; will he win the money and save the girl or go back to the slums alone?
By Joe Dawson
Director: Danny Boylev
Written By: Simon Beaufoy and Vikas Swarup
Produced By: Christian Colson
Starring: Dev Patel, Madhur Mittal, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, and Irrfan Khan
Slumdog Millionaire is an inspirational love story between two young souls from India. The film shows Jamal Malik played by Dev Patel on an Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? As the questions are being asked Jamal draws from his past experiences in the slums of India for the answers. The question, his thoughts, and his answers on the show depict the different struggles he faced in his life. His brother is the only family he has left after his mother is killed. The two have to work together in order to survive. During their travels Jamal sees a young girl played by Freida Pinto all alone standing in the rain; he reaches out to here and invites her to share what meager dry space they have. It is obvious there is love at first sight, but the two are continually separated by their harsh environment. Throughout the film he is always searching trying to save the girl so they can be together.
The film tells a very complex story with many different characters all coming together in a unique and interesting way. Jamal constantly has flashbacks of his childhood that help to progress the story line. The flashbacks are incorporated seamlessly causing it to flow smoothly throughout the film. The acting by all the cast members is superb; Jamal’s struggles come to life and become extremely real. It is easy to relate and sympathize with him because his acting is so genuine. Even with all of his problems in the slums he still cannot let go the love of his life. This is a must see. He has everything to lose and even more to gain; will he win the money and save the girl or go back to the slums alone?
Blog Review: Yes Man
Directed by: Peyton Reed
Written by: Nicholas Stoller, Jarrad Paul, and Andrew Mogel
Producers: David Heyman and Richard D. Zanuck
Starring: Jim Carrey, Terence Stamp, Zooey Deschanel
Yes Man is based on the true story and 2005 book Yes Man by Danny Wallace. This is a film starring Jim Carrey in another crazy adventure that only could happen to
In the film, Carl Allen (Jim Carrey) is very withdrawn and depressed since he and his wife divorced. He never goes out, not even to see his friends, a “no man” in a sense. Somehow a friend convinces him to go to one of the seminars that he has gone to for some time now. The seminar is meant to motivate you to say yes and go out and do something with your life. Not really going on with all the mumbo jumbo the guru is talking about, he is call out and is told that he has to do it; he doesn’t have a choice anymore.
After leaving the seminar, he runs into a homeless bum that asks for a ride. With the help of a friend, Carl agrees and goes on a long trip around town trying to find the mans home. When they finally do reach the home, a bunch of branches on the side of the road, Carl notices he has no gas. Somehow he manages to walk back to the gas station were he runs into a girl. Her name is Allison (Zooey Deschanel). The two hit it off as they drive to his car, were she kisses him as she leaves.
Sparked by this sudden good luck, Carl adopts this style of living agreeing to everything. Somehow, in the process of doing this, he is promoted at his job, friends hang out more, and everything turns out to be great until his secret is revealed.
This film has a lot of laughs just like every other Jim Carrey film out there. Don’t be surprised if after you feel like it wasn’t worth the money. There is an appearance of a French skater named Jean- Yves Blondeau that is probably a lot more interesting then this film. Overall it is a good film though considering everything but probably not worth the twenty bucks to get just yet, you should wait a couple months.
Blog Review: I Love You, Man
Directed by: John Hamburg
Written by: John Hamburg and Larry Levin
Producers: John Hamburg and Donald De Line
Starring: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, and Rashida Jones
I love You, Man is probably one of the funniest films that came out in last couple months. From the plot to the story, everything about this film is funny. The Plot is about a guy who has had more girl friends then guy friends which isn’t bad but when it comes into question if he has any, it becomes a big problem. Not to mention that he is getting married and needs a best man. So the main character Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) goes out on “man dates” as instructed by his brother. In the process of some very funny encounters, he ends up meeting Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) at an open house. The two hit it off right away and they both start hanging out.
The two couldn’t have been anymore different, one being a real-estate salesman and the other being just himself. The eventually start hanging out at what Sydney calls his house as the “man cave” which is really just a space in his garage where there is a bunch of things men would have. The two talk about their lives trying to see where each other stood in their lives and they go into an awkward conversation about Peter’s sexual life which is brought up later at a family diner in front of Peter’s parents and other people.
The story continues with the two getting into a fight and the wedding coming up and whether the two will go back to being friends in time for the wedding.
This movie has so many funny scenes in it, one memorable one being when the Peter and Sydney meet up for the first time. There is a guy trying to impress a girl so he was taking her around looking at the houses to try and possible sleep with her.
This film should be watched by anyone that is up for a good laugh. The combination of awkward scenes and goofiness of some of the characters really makes this film great. Paul Rudd and Jason Segel did a great job working together to make this film what it is today.
Blog Review: WALL-E
Director: Andrew Stanton
Produced by: Jim Morris,Lindsey Collins(co-producer), John Lasseter(executive producer)
Written by: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon (screenplay), Pete Docter
Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin
Robot love, isolation, and desecration of earth all come together to make a feel-good Pixar film. WALL-E or (Waste Allocation Load Lifter- Earth class) is a lonely robot on earth who moves trash to try to detoxify the planet in hope that humans can live on earth again. While WALL-E and robots like WALL-E are cleaning up the large toxic landfill that used to be the planet earth, humans are living in a large “space-ship like home” in space getting no exercise and having everything they desire handed to them.
WALL-E the robot seems to have more human qualities than the humans themselves. With his loneliness on earth alone, he is not the heartless robot that is what misconceptions about robots seem to show. His human qualities include making collections of the things he likes, watching Hello Dolly and wanting a little bit of companionship. He’s in luck when a new, shiny and feminine robot shows up on earth. This robot is skeptical of WALL-E and is obviously not in tune to feeling as WALL-E is. Her name is EVE and WALL-E tries to win her friendship and companionship by saving her from a dust storm. EVE soon starts to respond to WALL-E’s sweet and friendly nature. There is a possible romance between the two robots. WALL-E then decides to show EVE his most prized possession, a plant that he found.
Almost automatically, EVE snatches the plant from WALL-E and shuts down, guarding the plant. The audience has gotten the sense that the plant is what she may have been looking for on earth. Then WALL-E concerned with his crush’s state, goes to space with her to try to figure out what’s wrong. The plant is supposed to indicate that earth is now non-toxic enough for humans to live there. The journey soon begins as WALL-E tries to save EVE and humans realize that they can finally go home, despite the grossly obese and greedy state that they are in.
WALL-E is a hear-warming and satisfying film which sparks sense into American audiences about what America is becoming. Even though WALL-E is a robot, he is more human than any of us can imagine. Even though the film has basically no dialogue for the most of it, music is a very important part of the film. The creators are very successful with bringing out emotion in the audience through music and the actions of WALL-E. The film is recommended for children and adults alike. The children will enjoy the graphics and the innocent robot story while both parents and children will learn a thing or two about how we should treat our precious planet earth.
Produced by: Jim Morris,Lindsey Collins(co-producer), John Lasseter(executive producer)
Written by: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon (screenplay), Pete Docter
Starring: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin
Robot love, isolation, and desecration of earth all come together to make a feel-good Pixar film. WALL-E or (Waste Allocation Load Lifter- Earth class) is a lonely robot on earth who moves trash to try to detoxify the planet in hope that humans can live on earth again. While WALL-E and robots like WALL-E are cleaning up the large toxic landfill that used to be the planet earth, humans are living in a large “space-ship like home” in space getting no exercise and having everything they desire handed to them.
WALL-E the robot seems to have more human qualities than the humans themselves. With his loneliness on earth alone, he is not the heartless robot that is what misconceptions about robots seem to show. His human qualities include making collections of the things he likes, watching Hello Dolly and wanting a little bit of companionship. He’s in luck when a new, shiny and feminine robot shows up on earth. This robot is skeptical of WALL-E and is obviously not in tune to feeling as WALL-E is. Her name is EVE and WALL-E tries to win her friendship and companionship by saving her from a dust storm. EVE soon starts to respond to WALL-E’s sweet and friendly nature. There is a possible romance between the two robots. WALL-E then decides to show EVE his most prized possession, a plant that he found.
Almost automatically, EVE snatches the plant from WALL-E and shuts down, guarding the plant. The audience has gotten the sense that the plant is what she may have been looking for on earth. Then WALL-E concerned with his crush’s state, goes to space with her to try to figure out what’s wrong. The plant is supposed to indicate that earth is now non-toxic enough for humans to live there. The journey soon begins as WALL-E tries to save EVE and humans realize that they can finally go home, despite the grossly obese and greedy state that they are in.
WALL-E is a hear-warming and satisfying film which sparks sense into American audiences about what America is becoming. Even though WALL-E is a robot, he is more human than any of us can imagine. Even though the film has basically no dialogue for the most of it, music is a very important part of the film. The creators are very successful with bringing out emotion in the audience through music and the actions of WALL-E. The film is recommended for children and adults alike. The children will enjoy the graphics and the innocent robot story while both parents and children will learn a thing or two about how we should treat our precious planet earth.
Blog Review: Bedtime Stories
Director: Adam Shankman
Producers: Adam Sandler, Andrew Gunn, and Jack Giarraputo
Written by: Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
Starring: Adam Sandler
Bedtime Stories is another comedy starring Adam Sandler that is a family oriented film. Adam Sandler has always done comedy and in this film he tries to show his acting skills by doing a family oriented film but of course it has a lot of comedy in it just like all of his films.
This film is about Skeeter Bronson (Adam Sandler) who is a hotel handyman. His sister Wendy (Courteney Cox) asks him to watch her kids due to problems at work. After meeting the kids and starting to get them to fall asleep, they ask him to read them a bedtime story so he makes a story up about a medieval squire and as he goes through the story, the kids add their own opinions as to what happens. They come up with gumballs start raining and the story ends after some concluding thoughts. Little does Skeeter know though that this little add on to the story come true in real life and Skeeter decides he is going to try and make this help out his current situation. After attempting to try and make a free Ferrari appear, he comes to the conclusion that the kids are the ones that have the powers so he attempts to make them make his wishes.
Even though this film is about family more then Adam Sandler’s typical comedy film, it still retains a lot of aspects from most of his films. Almost every film he plays in, he is the underdog and has to find a way to come out on top and does in the goofiest way. There are a lot of aspects of the types of film in this and when it really comes down to whether he did show that he could act in different types of films or not, some would have to say the latter of the two. He should just try to stick with what people love him for instead of trying to broaden his range of acting.
After everything is said and done with, I would recommend anyone to go out and see this movie. It really is interesting and I haven’t seen another movie like it in a long time. I really did like how creative the kids were in the film and it really made the film interesting and funny.
Blog Review: Fast and Furious
Director: Justin Lin
Producer: Samantha Vincent
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster
Fast and Furious is the fourth film in the series, going back to the basics by bringing the original cast back but still using director Justin Lin who directed the third installment of the series. Once again, the crew is hijacking, but this time its fuel tankers in the
In this movie, Brain O’Conner is a FBI agent who has been assigned to track down a drug lord named Arturo. He ends up running into Dom when he goes to a witness’s house and the two reunite. They both compete in a race, Dom modifying his Chevrolet Chevelle SS and Brain taking a Nissan Skyline R34 from the impound. The race is to smuggle drugs across the border so the team’s driver and their cars are sent across the border to receive the packages. After finding out some important information about the race and the end, Dom and Brain come up with a second plan or back up plan like the second film of the series. The movie continues as the two try to figure out what to do with everything from the FBI to the drug lords and each other.
The Fast and Furious franchise has always been about the flashy cars and girls, not so much about good stories. The first film was the best one hands down compared to the rest due to the good story and character development, which was what made the 2 sequels not so good. This film tries to bring that story back one more time for one final film ending the series but this film really doesn’t fulfill anything other than just another car race.
The special effects have changed a little from the first film of the franchise which used actual cars. This film uses CGI more and more making the car chases seem not up to par with the rest of the series. Event the commercials looked fake, but these films are about the flashy explosions and races more then good overall visuals.
Overall, it was a good film if you’re just looking for another car movie but if you’re looking for something else, this film may not be what you’re looking for.
Blog Review: Milk
Director: Gus Van Sant
Produced by: Dan Jinks, Bruce Cohen, Michael London
Written by: Dustin Lance Black
Starring: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna, James Franco
Milk
Milk is based on Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay man voted into office. Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, is almost forty and working a job he despises saying “Forty years old and I haven't done a thing that I'm proud of.” Being a gay man living in New York working at a high end job, Harvey is dissatisfied with his life and moves to San Francisco with his partner, Scott Smith (James Franco) to live somewhere a little more “gay friendly.” Despite he feels safer in San Francisco, he realizes that there is still a lot of unfair treatment for homosexuals. He then decides with his business background, to run for city supervisor and get equal rights for everyone.
Harvey works hard to recruit people and starts to campaign strong. He tries to get his ideas on ballot as get gays, minorities, and the disabled to vote for him. This way, he feels that he will be able to win the election. All of his hard work starts to pay off but is never enough. After losing city supervisor twice, his partner and campaign manager Scott leaves him. He feels that Milk isn’t spending enough time focusing on their relationship and is more concerned with his activism.
Milk feeling lost and sad starts to have another realization that he can win the race. He tries once more with the help of his friends and wins city supervisor. Now that he is in office, he can fight even more effectively for the people he represents. One main proposition he wants to fight against is proposition 6 which bans both gays and lesbians from teaching. Whilst fighting against proposition 6, he is finding himself building tensions with fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin) and feeling uneasy about Dan’s intentions. Dealing with personal problems and political problems, Harvey Milk continues to fight to get the right so of his people and have gay rights more accepted and allow them to have the same rights as everyone else in America.
Milk was a fantastic film which followed Harvey Milk’s passion for activism and equal rights for all. Despite his personal problems, he was able to effectively fight for his people and start to create change by influencing rally’s and political activism. Sean Penn’s portrayal of Milk is heart-warming and the audience gets a feel of Milk’s willingness to create change and acceptance for all. The whole cast added a lot to the film, making it enjoyable and powerful. Despite their views, the audience feels for Harvey’s hard work to speak for the people he represents. The movie is incredible and makes anyone want to go out and make a difference.
Produced by: Dan Jinks, Bruce Cohen, Michael London
Written by: Dustin Lance Black
Starring: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna, James Franco
Milk
Milk is based on Harvey Milk, America’s first openly gay man voted into office. Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, is almost forty and working a job he despises saying “Forty years old and I haven't done a thing that I'm proud of.” Being a gay man living in New York working at a high end job, Harvey is dissatisfied with his life and moves to San Francisco with his partner, Scott Smith (James Franco) to live somewhere a little more “gay friendly.” Despite he feels safer in San Francisco, he realizes that there is still a lot of unfair treatment for homosexuals. He then decides with his business background, to run for city supervisor and get equal rights for everyone.
Harvey works hard to recruit people and starts to campaign strong. He tries to get his ideas on ballot as get gays, minorities, and the disabled to vote for him. This way, he feels that he will be able to win the election. All of his hard work starts to pay off but is never enough. After losing city supervisor twice, his partner and campaign manager Scott leaves him. He feels that Milk isn’t spending enough time focusing on their relationship and is more concerned with his activism.
Milk feeling lost and sad starts to have another realization that he can win the race. He tries once more with the help of his friends and wins city supervisor. Now that he is in office, he can fight even more effectively for the people he represents. One main proposition he wants to fight against is proposition 6 which bans both gays and lesbians from teaching. Whilst fighting against proposition 6, he is finding himself building tensions with fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin) and feeling uneasy about Dan’s intentions. Dealing with personal problems and political problems, Harvey Milk continues to fight to get the right so of his people and have gay rights more accepted and allow them to have the same rights as everyone else in America.
Milk was a fantastic film which followed Harvey Milk’s passion for activism and equal rights for all. Despite his personal problems, he was able to effectively fight for his people and start to create change by influencing rally’s and political activism. Sean Penn’s portrayal of Milk is heart-warming and the audience gets a feel of Milk’s willingness to create change and acceptance for all. The whole cast added a lot to the film, making it enjoyable and powerful. Despite their views, the audience feels for Harvey’s hard work to speak for the people he represents. The movie is incredible and makes anyone want to go out and make a difference.
Blog Review: Revolutionary Road
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Produced by: Bobby Cohen, Sam Mendes, Scott Rudin, Sharan Kapoor
Written by: Justin Haythe and based on the book by Richard Yates
Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kathy Bates
Revolutionary Road
Frank’s (DiCaprio) attraction is inevitable when he first lays his eyes on April, (Winslet) a young, sexy woman blowing smoke from her cigarette giving Frank a smoldering look of mystery. This is where their life together begins. Both first speak of wanting to explore, not be a part of the mainstream, live a life that is daring and exciting. It is their desire to be a different couple that attracts them towards each other, their life should be different than what is considered the norm.
A few years later they find themselves far from what they both dreamed of. Married with children, their lives are at a standstill. They seem like the perfect suburban to outsiders. They have two beautiful blond-haired blue-eyed children with a nice little house down on Revolutionary Road. Their lives seem perfect as Frank works for Knox business. But when Frank turns thirty, he feels restless and cheats on his wife. April, sick of her cookie-cutter life as a suburban wife, starts to numb herself from feeling anything, especially love for her husband.
Trying to help themselves love each other again, both promise each other to go to Paris and leave everything they have behind, just as they wanted to when they first met each other. April tells Frank that she’ll work as a secretary so he can figure out what he wants to do with his life as they enjoy Paris. Soon, they start telling their friends their Paris plans who in turn think that they are ridiculous for leaving their perfect lives. Then, Frank gets a promotion at the job he hates making him rethink the move to Paris. April, angry that Frank will not commit to their dream starts to disconnect herself from him once again. Fights starts, affairs commence, and no matter how hard the two try to love each other again, the disconnect between them is too strong. April feels that they are living a lie and hates herself and Frank for what they’ve become.
Revolutionary Road shows that broken promises are what can make or break relationships. In the story, the characters have changed so much from how they were when they fell in love and society has influenced them to “do the right thing” so they cannot be themselves anymore. The story is painful and very real. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet do an amazing job of portraying heartbreak, hatred and hope. By no means is this movie a Titanic remake. The love the characters feel for each other in Titanic is short-lived in Revolutionary Road and the movie is heartbreaking as well as depressing. This movie is recommended for anyone who enjoys great acting and character depth and realistic movies.
Produced by: Bobby Cohen, Sam Mendes, Scott Rudin, Sharan Kapoor
Written by: Justin Haythe and based on the book by Richard Yates
Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kathy Bates
Revolutionary Road
Frank’s (DiCaprio) attraction is inevitable when he first lays his eyes on April, (Winslet) a young, sexy woman blowing smoke from her cigarette giving Frank a smoldering look of mystery. This is where their life together begins. Both first speak of wanting to explore, not be a part of the mainstream, live a life that is daring and exciting. It is their desire to be a different couple that attracts them towards each other, their life should be different than what is considered the norm.
A few years later they find themselves far from what they both dreamed of. Married with children, their lives are at a standstill. They seem like the perfect suburban to outsiders. They have two beautiful blond-haired blue-eyed children with a nice little house down on Revolutionary Road. Their lives seem perfect as Frank works for Knox business. But when Frank turns thirty, he feels restless and cheats on his wife. April, sick of her cookie-cutter life as a suburban wife, starts to numb herself from feeling anything, especially love for her husband.
Trying to help themselves love each other again, both promise each other to go to Paris and leave everything they have behind, just as they wanted to when they first met each other. April tells Frank that she’ll work as a secretary so he can figure out what he wants to do with his life as they enjoy Paris. Soon, they start telling their friends their Paris plans who in turn think that they are ridiculous for leaving their perfect lives. Then, Frank gets a promotion at the job he hates making him rethink the move to Paris. April, angry that Frank will not commit to their dream starts to disconnect herself from him once again. Fights starts, affairs commence, and no matter how hard the two try to love each other again, the disconnect between them is too strong. April feels that they are living a lie and hates herself and Frank for what they’ve become.
Revolutionary Road shows that broken promises are what can make or break relationships. In the story, the characters have changed so much from how they were when they fell in love and society has influenced them to “do the right thing” so they cannot be themselves anymore. The story is painful and very real. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet do an amazing job of portraying heartbreak, hatred and hope. By no means is this movie a Titanic remake. The love the characters feel for each other in Titanic is short-lived in Revolutionary Road and the movie is heartbreaking as well as depressing. This movie is recommended for anyone who enjoys great acting and character depth and realistic movies.
Valkyrie
It's a WWII movie, only it has Tom Cruise in it. And that's kind of a shame.
Because the actual story of Operation Valkyrie is an interesting one that's not well known. But the fact that Tom Cruise landed the lead role as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, a man who should be revered and commemorated, makes me a little uncomfortable. His acting, as usual, is a little dead.
However, even Tom Cruise's poor acting skills are overwhelmed by the storyline, which like so many nonfiction stories that are taken by Hollywood and redone, is thrilling and interesting. The visuals are also interesting, allowing the viewer to feel that he or she is in 1940's Germany.
And after the mutiny is discovered, it becomes even more thrilling. Some viewers may or may not have already known the historical circumstances, but the uneasy feeling given by the uncertainty portrayed by most of the characters is a good one, unlike the uneasy feeling given by having Tom Cruise as Col. Claus von Stauffenberg.
Because the actual story of Operation Valkyrie is an interesting one that's not well known. But the fact that Tom Cruise landed the lead role as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, a man who should be revered and commemorated, makes me a little uncomfortable. His acting, as usual, is a little dead.
However, even Tom Cruise's poor acting skills are overwhelmed by the storyline, which like so many nonfiction stories that are taken by Hollywood and redone, is thrilling and interesting. The visuals are also interesting, allowing the viewer to feel that he or she is in 1940's Germany.
And after the mutiny is discovered, it becomes even more thrilling. Some viewers may or may not have already known the historical circumstances, but the uneasy feeling given by the uncertainty portrayed by most of the characters is a good one, unlike the uneasy feeling given by having Tom Cruise as Col. Claus von Stauffenberg.
Blog Review: Rachel Getting Married
Director: Jonathan Demme
Producers: Neda Armian, Jonathan Demme, Marc E. Platt
Written by: Jenny Lumet
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin
Music, entertainment, family, and love are what make weddings enjoyable. Or is it? What’s missing is the family screw up who makes the embarrassing wedding toast and brings back painful memories in a time of happiness. Sadly, although Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) is getting married in…Rachel Getting Married, it is her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) who is stealing all of the thunder.
Kym is a young recovering drug addict getting out of rehab, nine months sober. Her first stop is home to see her sister Rachel, who’s wedding is in a few days. She is ready to come home but seems to expect some drama with her return. It seems her father is happy to have her home but when she sees her sister Rachel, there are some underlying hints that Rachel isn’t as happy to see Kym as Kym is to see Rachel. Kym continuously brings up how thin Rachel but says it disappointingly. The audience gets a sense that Rachel’s fluctuating weight must have been the only flaw Kym could ever point out about her sister, but now she can’t anymore, causing Kym even more insecurity about herself. Kym obviously feels unwelcome in her own home but is striving for acceptance from her family. Her father, although he wants her there the most, he won’t let her drive or go anywhere without letting him know. The audience soon learns that there is a stronger reason about where Rachel’s anger stems from. It is also learned why Kym’s mother is also not close to her children and chooses to be distant from them.
The rest of the movie deals with Rachel and Kym trying to reconnect and Kym trying to figure her life out before her sister’s wedding. Although there is craziness from wedding planning as the day gets nearer and nearer, the love and hate between the two sisters and Kym’s problems starts to show more and more throughout the movie. In the end, it is seen whether or not the sisters are there for each other despite all that they have been through.
Rachel Getting Married is an amazing movie which shows the difficulties of family. All of the actors and actresses in this movie do a fabulous job of becoming their characters and make the audience believe that they are going through these problems that they show. This movie should be watched by anyone who enjoys raw, independent films. Beautifully written and acted, Rachel Getting Married is definitely worth watching.
Producers: Neda Armian, Jonathan Demme, Marc E. Platt
Written by: Jenny Lumet
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin
Music, entertainment, family, and love are what make weddings enjoyable. Or is it? What’s missing is the family screw up who makes the embarrassing wedding toast and brings back painful memories in a time of happiness. Sadly, although Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) is getting married in…Rachel Getting Married, it is her sister Kym (Anne Hathaway) who is stealing all of the thunder.
Kym is a young recovering drug addict getting out of rehab, nine months sober. Her first stop is home to see her sister Rachel, who’s wedding is in a few days. She is ready to come home but seems to expect some drama with her return. It seems her father is happy to have her home but when she sees her sister Rachel, there are some underlying hints that Rachel isn’t as happy to see Kym as Kym is to see Rachel. Kym continuously brings up how thin Rachel but says it disappointingly. The audience gets a sense that Rachel’s fluctuating weight must have been the only flaw Kym could ever point out about her sister, but now she can’t anymore, causing Kym even more insecurity about herself. Kym obviously feels unwelcome in her own home but is striving for acceptance from her family. Her father, although he wants her there the most, he won’t let her drive or go anywhere without letting him know. The audience soon learns that there is a stronger reason about where Rachel’s anger stems from. It is also learned why Kym’s mother is also not close to her children and chooses to be distant from them.
The rest of the movie deals with Rachel and Kym trying to reconnect and Kym trying to figure her life out before her sister’s wedding. Although there is craziness from wedding planning as the day gets nearer and nearer, the love and hate between the two sisters and Kym’s problems starts to show more and more throughout the movie. In the end, it is seen whether or not the sisters are there for each other despite all that they have been through.
Rachel Getting Married is an amazing movie which shows the difficulties of family. All of the actors and actresses in this movie do a fabulous job of becoming their characters and make the audience believe that they are going through these problems that they show. This movie should be watched by anyone who enjoys raw, independent films. Beautifully written and acted, Rachel Getting Married is definitely worth watching.
Adventureland
Kristen Stewart is a quiet, understated homewrecker in Adventureland, and Jesse Eisenberg embibes the awkwardness that each one of us carries around. The film was advertised as a comedy like Superbad, and it was directed by the same man (Greg Mottola). But Adventureland had many deeper aspects, and while Superbad was nostalgic and raunchy, Adventureland tugged a little bit at viewer's heartstrings.
Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart) is a veteran at Adventureland theme park in Pittsburgh, PA, and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) never thought he would have to work there a day in his life. He falls in love with her almost immediately. Too bad she is sleeping with the park mechanic, Connell (Ryan Reynolds) who happens to be married. Em's homelife also has some interesting baggage, including a mother who died of cancer and a father that remarried a bald woman.
James' homelife is also interesting. His parents never quite seem to know what's going on, and the whole reason he took the job at Adventureland was because his dad got demoted and could no longer afford to send him to Europe for the summer.
But, nevertheless, Em and James fall in love. Or the twentysomething version of it. Adventureland embodies the eighties twentysomething scene and for those of you who were around then will surely bring back some memories with its repetition of "Rock Me Amadeus", which James' is subjected to day in and day out.
Adventureland, though advertised as a comedy, comes out a winner despite its lack of raunch.
Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart) is a veteran at Adventureland theme park in Pittsburgh, PA, and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) never thought he would have to work there a day in his life. He falls in love with her almost immediately. Too bad she is sleeping with the park mechanic, Connell (Ryan Reynolds) who happens to be married. Em's homelife also has some interesting baggage, including a mother who died of cancer and a father that remarried a bald woman.
James' homelife is also interesting. His parents never quite seem to know what's going on, and the whole reason he took the job at Adventureland was because his dad got demoted and could no longer afford to send him to Europe for the summer.
But, nevertheless, Em and James fall in love. Or the twentysomething version of it. Adventureland embodies the eighties twentysomething scene and for those of you who were around then will surely bring back some memories with its repetition of "Rock Me Amadeus", which James' is subjected to day in and day out.
Adventureland, though advertised as a comedy, comes out a winner despite its lack of raunch.
Bride Wars
Bride Wars is a classic chick flick starring Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson, two classicly pretty female stars. Their boyfriends are classicly males, who say dumb things and take no interest in wedding planning. There is a not-so-subtle classic rivalry between Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) even BEFORE they schedule their weddings on the same date, which is something the film tries to keep a secret but the viewer knows is going to happen from the getco.
While the story line is a little, well, weak, the acting in Bride Wars is well done. Anne Hathaway plays a sweet, loving Emma when she has to then turns on the assertiveness later in the film. Kate Hudson plays the controlling Liv well, and the depth of character is seen in the scenes when she is conflicted about having the wedding on the same date, though she knows that Emma (Hathaway) has already sent out Save-the-Dates.
A minor role is played very well by Candice Bergen, the wedding planner, whom the girls turn to and who books the simultaneous wedding date for both the girls. She at first seems rude and snarky, but then it turns out that she, too, has a heart.
All in all, though Bride Wars was predictable, except for the little twist at the end. While any viewer could have guessed it would not end with Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) getting married on the same date at the same time, the ending was different and fun.
While the story line is a little, well, weak, the acting in Bride Wars is well done. Anne Hathaway plays a sweet, loving Emma when she has to then turns on the assertiveness later in the film. Kate Hudson plays the controlling Liv well, and the depth of character is seen in the scenes when she is conflicted about having the wedding on the same date, though she knows that Emma (Hathaway) has already sent out Save-the-Dates.
A minor role is played very well by Candice Bergen, the wedding planner, whom the girls turn to and who books the simultaneous wedding date for both the girls. She at first seems rude and snarky, but then it turns out that she, too, has a heart.
All in all, though Bride Wars was predictable, except for the little twist at the end. While any viewer could have guessed it would not end with Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) getting married on the same date at the same time, the ending was different and fun.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Review: Tyson
Directed and Written by: James TobackStarring: Mike Tyson
---In the United States there are a few people that the public loves to hate. Generally these individuals are those who have the people’s support for a while but then do a series of things that make their constituency shake their heads and put their hands up in disgust. Recently these people were Britney Spears and Michael Jackson. About ten years ago though it was ferocious fighter ‘Kid Dynamite’ Mike Tyson. He committed a series of acts that the public didn’t take a liking to and so he faded into ‘bolivion.’ Filmmaker James Toback decided to chronicle the boxer’s life, as if just to pick his brain in this 2008 documentary “Tyson.”
---The film starts with Mike Tyson explaining his childhood. His parents split up at a young age and he moved to a rough neighborhood in Brooklyn where it was either ‘kill or be killed.’ He was picked on a lot which lead to his first fight, something he wouldn’t have even dreamed of doing a few years before that. He went to a corrections facility at the age of twelve for a crime he didn’t commit and he was introduced to boxing. He met a fighter and turned his life around to show he really wanted to fight, becoming a gentleman, young scholar, and athlete. Getting a trainer, he competed at the junior Olympics setting many records.
---His trainer became his best friend and father figure affecting every aspect of his life. He was disciplined and clean cut. However after some time his trainer died which was tragic for Tyson. He let the fame swell to his head and became promiscuous and practically lost some of his sanity. During some of his fights he became blinded by fury and won in seconds. Later on he was jailed a few more times and started losing fights and training much less. In his last fight, he lost to Kevin McBride and made the announcement after the fight that he didn’t have the will to continue fighting and that it wasn’t in his heart anymore. Currently he lives with his children and wants to see them grow up and graduate school and eventually have grandkids. As far Tyson’s opinion on his own life, he considers it a failure and a waste. He is extremely disappointed with it and wishes he could do it over.
---Toback does a great job at with this documentary. Most of the film is a direct interview with Tyson. There is no footage of the interviewer. There is also a decent amount of fight and training footage from all across Tyson’s career. The cinematography in this film is the best part of the film. Much of the interview is done with a tight close up, as to see the emotion and weariness on the fighter’s face. The viewer can tell that ‘Iron Mike’ has been through a lot and really regrets a lot of it. Toback also uses a technique consisting of cut scenes that have three pieces of footage playing at once so as to show the hectic nature of Tyson’s life.
---There is not too much to this film. It is really quite simple. However the viewer has a tendency to become transfixed on the eyes of Mike Tyson and feel sympathy for him. I give this documentary a 4.5 out of 5.
Blog Review: Horton Hears a Who
Directed by: Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino
Produced by: Bob Gordon and Bruce Anderson
Starring: Jim Carrey and Steve Carell
An elephant and a flower with a speck of dust on it does not exactly sound like a very interesting story. But with it being Dr. Seuss's story and having Jim Carrey and Steve Carell involved you know it has to be crazy. There are Whos , purple kangaroos, and plenty more interesting creatures in this movie. The film has elephants dancing and singing as well as some anime thrown in there. It is an interesting film and wonderfully made. It is a good movie enjoyable for all ages.
The film is about an elephant named Horton who discovers the city of Who-ville that happens to exist on a floating speck of dust. With that he embarks on a adventure filled with lots of laughs and lots of danger in order to save this microscopic city. Unfortunately no one believes that this city really exists. The only two individuals that know of these two worlds are Horton and the mayor of Who-ville. A purple kangaroo, who's ultimate goal in life seems to be to ruin everyone else's day, thinks Horton is lying and causing problems in the jungle. Her philosophy is "if you can't see it, hear it, or feel it, then it doesn't exist." She turns the entire jungle against Horton and when she tries to destroy the speck, the entire town of Who-ville made a loud sound. The sound is loud enough for all of the jungle animals to hear and with that they believe Horton.
The film has more than one great message to learned, but the lesson that is most obvious and memorable in the film is said best by Horton: "a person's a person no matter how small." This is a great movie with wholesome themes running through it. It is funny, entertaining, and a delightful movie. This movie could be enjoyed by an age. I would give this movie a rating of 9 out of 10.
Blog Review
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings, Ari Gaynor
Produced by: Nathan Kahane, Adam Brightman, Joe Drake
Directed by: Peter Sollett
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is an ode to Generation Y. The entire movie focuses on a group of young people's night in New York city and a quest to find an elusive band who's playing somewhere in the city. Michael Cera is Nick, a high schooler who has recently been dumped by his girlfriend. His bandmates decide that performing at a show in Manhattan will help him out of his funk. While at the show Nick meets Norah, his ex's frenemy. Nick and Norah bond over their mutual love of the band Fluffy, and they embark on a night-long trip to find where the band is playing. Along the way, the group loses Norah's best friend, the perpetually drunk Caroline. This is a romantic comedy, but certainly not for everyone. It is specifically made for those just embarking into adulthood.
Michael Cera is great in his typical role of the slightly nerdy but still lovable guy who desires to be in a relationship. Kat Dennings is also good as Norah, a young girl who just wants to step out from behind the shadows of the giants in her life which includes Nick's ex and her father. For me the real star is Ari Gaynor as Caroline. Caroline's drunk excursions, which include a running theme of a piece of chewing gum, provide the majority of the laughs. It is a romantic commedy and as such the ending is pretty predictable, but its the happenings along the way is what makes it worthwhile. With a gaycore band as the group of sidekicks for the couple, you know it will be funny. Rewatching the film made me enjoy it even more and more. I would not watch it with my mom but watching it with my friends prompted us to have a music-filled night. And I think that was the goal.
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings, Ari Gaynor
Produced by: Nathan Kahane, Adam Brightman, Joe Drake
Directed by: Peter Sollett
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is an ode to Generation Y. The entire movie focuses on a group of young people's night in New York city and a quest to find an elusive band who's playing somewhere in the city. Michael Cera is Nick, a high schooler who has recently been dumped by his girlfriend. His bandmates decide that performing at a show in Manhattan will help him out of his funk. While at the show Nick meets Norah, his ex's frenemy. Nick and Norah bond over their mutual love of the band Fluffy, and they embark on a night-long trip to find where the band is playing. Along the way, the group loses Norah's best friend, the perpetually drunk Caroline. This is a romantic comedy, but certainly not for everyone. It is specifically made for those just embarking into adulthood.
Michael Cera is great in his typical role of the slightly nerdy but still lovable guy who desires to be in a relationship. Kat Dennings is also good as Norah, a young girl who just wants to step out from behind the shadows of the giants in her life which includes Nick's ex and her father. For me the real star is Ari Gaynor as Caroline. Caroline's drunk excursions, which include a running theme of a piece of chewing gum, provide the majority of the laughs. It is a romantic commedy and as such the ending is pretty predictable, but its the happenings along the way is what makes it worthwhile. With a gaycore band as the group of sidekicks for the couple, you know it will be funny. Rewatching the film made me enjoy it even more and more. I would not watch it with my mom but watching it with my friends prompted us to have a music-filled night. And I think that was the goal.
Blog Review
Obsessed
Starring: Beyonce Knowles, Idris Elba, Ali Larter, Jerry O'Connell
Written by: David Loughery
Produced by: Beyonce Knowles, Matthew Knowles
Directed by: Steve Shill
Obsessed, also known as Fatal Attraction Part Deux, stars Idris Elba as a successful businessman named Derek Charles who seems to have it all: great job, great family, and a great new home. Elba is a nice guy known as the friendliest guy in the office. So when a new temp named Lisa (Larter) comes in, he tries to make her comfortable by helping her around the office. He even provides a comforting shoulder to her when she cries over a supposed failed relationship. Nothing of a sexual sort ever happens between the two, infact Derek seems to be the only man in the office who is committed to remaining faithful to his wife Sharron, played by Beyonce. Of course, those facts do not matter to Lisa, as she becomes obsessed with Derek and their "relationship".
If the plot sounds eerily familiar it is because it is almost point for point the same as Michael Douglas and Glenn Close's Fatal Attraction. The main difference is that, unlike Michael Douglas' character, Derek Charles has done nothing to win the attraction of this woman. The acting is very convincing. I heartily believed that Larter had a severe delusional mind. It could have been very easy for her to oer do it, but she doesn't, and we as the audience believer her portrayal. Beyonce has certainly progressed far in her acting career, plays the role of the unknowing wife very well. Infact, for me the best part of the film is the climax between Lisa and Shannon.
I really enjoyed the film. Yes, the plot is very familiar, if not predictable, but the actor's style makes up for it. The most important thing for this type of film movie is for it to be believable, and it certainly achieves that. Between the script and the acting style we definitely believe the story. And that is what makes it scary.
Starring: Beyonce Knowles, Idris Elba, Ali Larter, Jerry O'Connell
Written by: David Loughery
Produced by: Beyonce Knowles, Matthew Knowles
Directed by: Steve Shill
Obsessed, also known as Fatal Attraction Part Deux, stars Idris Elba as a successful businessman named Derek Charles who seems to have it all: great job, great family, and a great new home. Elba is a nice guy known as the friendliest guy in the office. So when a new temp named Lisa (Larter) comes in, he tries to make her comfortable by helping her around the office. He even provides a comforting shoulder to her when she cries over a supposed failed relationship. Nothing of a sexual sort ever happens between the two, infact Derek seems to be the only man in the office who is committed to remaining faithful to his wife Sharron, played by Beyonce. Of course, those facts do not matter to Lisa, as she becomes obsessed with Derek and their "relationship".
If the plot sounds eerily familiar it is because it is almost point for point the same as Michael Douglas and Glenn Close's Fatal Attraction. The main difference is that, unlike Michael Douglas' character, Derek Charles has done nothing to win the attraction of this woman. The acting is very convincing. I heartily believed that Larter had a severe delusional mind. It could have been very easy for her to oer do it, but she doesn't, and we as the audience believer her portrayal. Beyonce has certainly progressed far in her acting career, plays the role of the unknowing wife very well. Infact, for me the best part of the film is the climax between Lisa and Shannon.
I really enjoyed the film. Yes, the plot is very familiar, if not predictable, but the actor's style makes up for it. The most important thing for this type of film movie is for it to be believable, and it certainly achieves that. Between the script and the acting style we definitely believe the story. And that is what makes it scary.
Friday, May 1, 2009
CRITIC WATCH: X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
Superhero movies seem to be all the rage these days, it seems a new one is coming out every few months. The newest movie out is one of a familiar topic, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The film has had months of hype, but the first reviews only suggest an average film.
Lou Lumenick of the New York Post had a pretty positive review of the movie. He pointed out that this is the first of the summer blockbusters to be released, and he says it was a good start to the summer. An interesting story line, a ton of action, and a great performance of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine allowed Lumenick to give this movie a 75 out of 100.
Claudia Puig of USA today also had a pretty positive review of the newest X-Men. She claims that while the movie is a “quintessential popcorn” movie, that the story telling and acting bring a great deal of depth to the comic book film. Like Lumenick, she agrees that there is plenty of action to keep the audience entertained. Puig also gave the film a 75 out of 100 rating.
Rick Bentley of the Charlotte observer gave a more average review of the movie. He suggested the action and intensity was all there to make this a great start to the summer blockbuster parade, but he though the film had some flaws. It was his opinion that the familiarity of the X-Men story has been over used, and hurt the film over all. He gave the film a 63 out of 100 rating.
Roger Ebart of the Chicago Sun-Times had a more negative view of the film. He felt the character of Wolverine just isn’t an exciting enough one to really bring a movie like this together. The lack of dialogue and wittiness from the character took away from the movie in his eyes. He gave the movie a 50 out of 100 rating.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquire also had a negative view of the film. He felt Jackman’s performance of Wolverine did not live up the ones in the previous X-Men movies. He also felt the film had too many “meaningless” battle scenes that took away from the plot. He too, gave the film only a 50 out of 100 rating.
Over all, X-Men Origins: Wolverine has accumulated a pretty average movie. This movie probably wont be winning any awards, but it still sounds like it will be a solid summer blockbuster.
Lou Lumenick of the New York Post had a pretty positive review of the movie. He pointed out that this is the first of the summer blockbusters to be released, and he says it was a good start to the summer. An interesting story line, a ton of action, and a great performance of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine allowed Lumenick to give this movie a 75 out of 100.
Claudia Puig of USA today also had a pretty positive review of the newest X-Men. She claims that while the movie is a “quintessential popcorn” movie, that the story telling and acting bring a great deal of depth to the comic book film. Like Lumenick, she agrees that there is plenty of action to keep the audience entertained. Puig also gave the film a 75 out of 100 rating.
Rick Bentley of the Charlotte observer gave a more average review of the movie. He suggested the action and intensity was all there to make this a great start to the summer blockbuster parade, but he though the film had some flaws. It was his opinion that the familiarity of the X-Men story has been over used, and hurt the film over all. He gave the film a 63 out of 100 rating.
Roger Ebart of the Chicago Sun-Times had a more negative view of the film. He felt the character of Wolverine just isn’t an exciting enough one to really bring a movie like this together. The lack of dialogue and wittiness from the character took away from the movie in his eyes. He gave the movie a 50 out of 100 rating.
Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquire also had a negative view of the film. He felt Jackman’s performance of Wolverine did not live up the ones in the previous X-Men movies. He also felt the film had too many “meaningless” battle scenes that took away from the plot. He too, gave the film only a 50 out of 100 rating.
Over all, X-Men Origins: Wolverine has accumulated a pretty average movie. This movie probably wont be winning any awards, but it still sounds like it will be a solid summer blockbuster.
CRITIC WATCH: OBSESSED
Obsessed is a new release in the box office that is advertised to be a major thriller movie. Staring Beyoncé Knowles, the film looks to attract a younger audience to see this film about a young couple who has become victim to an obsessive stalker. Unfortunately, the critics aren’t a fan of this idea.
---John Anderson of variety was not at all impressed with this film. He claims the film is a poor attempt at a female-domestic thriller, and lacks and kind of exciting surprised. He also goes on to describe how the story has a lot of lose ends and no clear cut explanation, which doesn’t work well for the audience. Anderson gave the film a 50 out of a 100 rating.
---Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly also had a very average reaction to the film. He claims the movie has “little plausibility”, which really hurts the story. He did however describe the performers as “vivid” and said the movie has entertaining moments. Over all though, he also gave the film 50 out of 100 rating.
---Joe Numaier of the New York Daily news had a pretty negative response to the film. He claims the movie seemed to have been made simply to get a famous singer into a role where she can get into a “cat fight” with another attractive actress to gain cheap attention from the audience. He gives the movie a 25 out of 100 rating.
---Stephen Holden of the New York Times had a more interesting interpretation of the film. He believes the main characters were meant to resemble OJ and Nicole Brown Simpson. He calls this a “distasteful attempt of cheap exploitation”. He gives the film only a 10 out of 100 rating.
---Peter Travers of Rolling Stone had the most negative review. He thinks the movie is just full of cheap clichés and bad acting that really fail to make the movie anything worth watching. He gives the movie a 0 out of 100 rating.
---As can be seen, Obsessed hasn’t been received very well at all from the critics. It will still make money, but is not anything to get excited about.
---John Anderson of variety was not at all impressed with this film. He claims the film is a poor attempt at a female-domestic thriller, and lacks and kind of exciting surprised. He also goes on to describe how the story has a lot of lose ends and no clear cut explanation, which doesn’t work well for the audience. Anderson gave the film a 50 out of a 100 rating.
---Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly also had a very average reaction to the film. He claims the movie has “little plausibility”, which really hurts the story. He did however describe the performers as “vivid” and said the movie has entertaining moments. Over all though, he also gave the film 50 out of 100 rating.
---Joe Numaier of the New York Daily news had a pretty negative response to the film. He claims the movie seemed to have been made simply to get a famous singer into a role where she can get into a “cat fight” with another attractive actress to gain cheap attention from the audience. He gives the movie a 25 out of 100 rating.
---Stephen Holden of the New York Times had a more interesting interpretation of the film. He believes the main characters were meant to resemble OJ and Nicole Brown Simpson. He calls this a “distasteful attempt of cheap exploitation”. He gives the film only a 10 out of 100 rating.
---Peter Travers of Rolling Stone had the most negative review. He thinks the movie is just full of cheap clichés and bad acting that really fail to make the movie anything worth watching. He gives the movie a 0 out of 100 rating.
---As can be seen, Obsessed hasn’t been received very well at all from the critics. It will still make money, but is not anything to get excited about.
Blog Review: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Director: Peter Sollett
Starring: Michael Cera and Kat Dennings
Two teenagers meet and fall in love, all in the matter of a single night. A pretty common love story turned into a romantic film. It would sound as though this film falls into that category of easily forgotten, but those that think that will be proven wrong once they watch the movie. This film is not the typical love story. It is more like a a story of two teenagers that meet and fall in love while having the craziest night of their life. The crazy adventures of these teen lovers include the quest to find a drunk friend while simultaneously searching for the greatest concert ever. This movie is a well made romantic comedy, while being a little predictable at times it makes for a good teen date movie.
It is not the best romantic comedy i've seen, it is not even the best romantic comedy that has come out in the last year, but it is very well made. It is also very enjoyable, but for a teen and young adult audience. Certain things about the story are predictable; boy and girl meet, they hit it off, they begin to fall in love, there is something that causes the two to separate, but in the end they reunite. Although it has the typical elements of a romantic comedy, it has a unique story line. It is odd, ridiculous, and quirky which adds a lot to its comical theme.
The story runs as two teens, Nick and Norah, who meet in a club and they begin to fall for each other. Friends of Nick who are trying to set him up with Norah take Norah's friend Caroline home. Well, were supposed to take Caroline home, but lost her. The comical element of all this is she is completely drunk. They all have to meet up to find Caroline and have a ridiculous night searching for her as well as the band, "Where's Fluffy?". It is very entertaining and really reaches the target audience, teens and young adults.
This movie is well made and different from the typical romantic comedy, but is not for all audiences. It has its memorable qualities and it also has its cliche moments. The film was quite enjoyable and I would give it an 8 out of 10.
Blog Review: Burn After Watching
Director: Ethan and Joel Coen
Starring: Jon Malkovic, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Frances McDormand
A sex addict, exercise instructor, ex-CIA agent, and a woman desperate for plastic surgery; what do these people have in common? Not much, other than being thrown into a movie together. There are famous actors and some funny moments in the movie. Aside from that it was an extremely slow moving film with a ridiculous and pointless plot line.
The movie begins with Jon Malkovic's character getting fired from the CIA. Several men are sitting in an office and Jon walks in and is told he is being fired. He freaks out for a long while, making about a 5 minute scene. The scene is then followed by him at home drinking. There is a party at his house that night and the audience finds out his wife is cheating on him with a married man. At this point in the film you begin to wonder if there is a point to all this.
The unfortunate thing is that there really is no point. A woman who is unable to afford plastic surgery comes across some information that her and a coworker believe is valuable. They use the information to try and get money; blackmail. The information that was found is really the memoirs of an ex-CIA agent, Jon Malkovic's character. The last few scenes of the film basically show you how everything fits together, but it does not really make sense even then. It all just seems absolutely ridiculous. Basically, in the end two innocent men are killed and the government gets involved. The conclusion is that the woman gets her money in order to pay for her surgery.
This type of film may be funny to some and even enjoyable, but I found it to be an hour and a half of my life I will never get back. It was long, drawn-out, and totally pointless. The emotions likely to be experienced while watching this movie include but are not limited to anger, annoyance, confusion, and frustration. My advice would be to avoid this movie, but if you are unfortunate enough to own it do yourself a favor and burn it.
Blog Review: Fast & Furious
Director: Victor Lin
Producer: Samantha Vincent
Starring: Vin Diesel and Michelle Rodriguez
The 4th film in the Fast and the Furious series, the film brings back much of the original cast in an almost desperate attempt to give the series a reboot. In a sense however one can guess at the target audience and the popularity of it amongst its legions of eager, young fans.
Although there is only a single race in the entire film with various chase sequences, the main appeal of the film, street racing, is not entirely utilized to full effect. Often the chases sequences too end rather predictably giving way to basically special effects that are not laid with any sort of plot foundation. However even the car chases and special effects involved in the car scenes is rather composed of rather dull CGI images. This CGI replaces traditional actual car crashes and replaces them with pathetic CGI representations. One particular atrocious scene involves a bouncing flaming tanker rolling down a steep road towards Dominic (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez). They avoid the flaming death trap in a ridiculous way. They have no choice but to speed towards the bouncing tank and drive under it. Normally this would be a moment of tension, but it's not as the audience is aware that they will come out of it alive and well. Nevertheless, Fast and Furious does attempt to tell a reasonably interesting story. Reasonably because it never really works by the film's end. The story does not take long to give an emotional pull for the audience, but it pans out rather uninterestedly. Any calamities brought about by the first two films, such as O'Connor's betrayal of Mia, are brushed aside and given far too conventional, and easy explanations. Make no mistake, Fast and Furious is all about style over substance.
CRITIC WATCH: FRIDAY THE 13TH
---A new phase that has hit Hollywood in the last few years has been the remaking of the classic “slasher films” from the 1970’s and 1980’s. In 2006 the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released, followed by the remake of Halloween in 2007. This new tradition has continued right on into 2009, with the remake of classic Friday the 13th. Opening on February 13th, 2009, the film received mixed reviews from various media sources both praising and condemning the attempted remake.
---Clark Collins of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a pretty positive review. He suggested that the film was suspenseful and exciting, delivering an entertaining treat for the audience. While he does go on to mention that some of the acting is a bit cheesy and predictable, he still gave the film a B rating. Despite some flaws, he claimed that the film was “head and shoulders better” than some of the other horror remakes that have been released recently.
---Nathan Lee of the New York Times had a more average opinion on the film. He suggests that this genre of film, including the 1980 original, are typically lousy films to begin with, but he wasn’t too harsh on the film over all. He suggests the film has a lot of material that would appeal to a younger audience with all the sex and gore. Even though the film itself isn’t that great, he says it’s entertaining none the less if you are a fan of these kinds of movies.
---Michael Rechtshaffen of the Hollywood reporter had less kind things to say about the movie. He suggested that despite a good casting choice and reinvention of Jason, that the rest of the film simply lacked structure. He says that most of the film seemed like it was just there to “kill time”.
---Claudia Puig of USA today has a more negative review of the film. She suggests the movie is predictable and is exactly what you’d expect to get out of a Friday the 13th movie. She state the movie has brought the franchise into the 21st century, but has failed to reinvent it, making it very redundant.
---Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles times had one of the most negative reviews on the film. He suggested that the movie was an awful attempt to reinvent an already over done concept. In addition, the movie was not exciting enough action wise to over come all of that.
---The reviews as a whole were mixed, but on average Friday the 13th was viewed as well, just that, average. A typical modern slasher film with more focus on the gore than story. The over all feeling for this movie is that Friday the 13th is just an idea done too many times.
---Clark Collins of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a pretty positive review. He suggested that the film was suspenseful and exciting, delivering an entertaining treat for the audience. While he does go on to mention that some of the acting is a bit cheesy and predictable, he still gave the film a B rating. Despite some flaws, he claimed that the film was “head and shoulders better” than some of the other horror remakes that have been released recently.
---Nathan Lee of the New York Times had a more average opinion on the film. He suggests that this genre of film, including the 1980 original, are typically lousy films to begin with, but he wasn’t too harsh on the film over all. He suggests the film has a lot of material that would appeal to a younger audience with all the sex and gore. Even though the film itself isn’t that great, he says it’s entertaining none the less if you are a fan of these kinds of movies.
---Michael Rechtshaffen of the Hollywood reporter had less kind things to say about the movie. He suggested that despite a good casting choice and reinvention of Jason, that the rest of the film simply lacked structure. He says that most of the film seemed like it was just there to “kill time”.
---Claudia Puig of USA today has a more negative review of the film. She suggests the movie is predictable and is exactly what you’d expect to get out of a Friday the 13th movie. She state the movie has brought the franchise into the 21st century, but has failed to reinvent it, making it very redundant.
---Mark Olsen of the Los Angeles times had one of the most negative reviews on the film. He suggested that the movie was an awful attempt to reinvent an already over done concept. In addition, the movie was not exciting enough action wise to over come all of that.
---The reviews as a whole were mixed, but on average Friday the 13th was viewed as well, just that, average. A typical modern slasher film with more focus on the gore than story. The over all feeling for this movie is that Friday the 13th is just an idea done too many times.
BLOG REVIEW: I LOVE YOU, MAN
Directed by: John Hamburg
Written by: John Hamburg, Larry Levin
Produced by: John Hamburg, Donald De Line
Staring: Paul Rudd, Rashida Jones, Jason Segel
---Romantic comedies have become a film-viewer favorite in the world of cinema. This genre of film provides a light story line with a lot of laughs and memorable moments, making them ideal films for entertainment. What is also special about them is they tend to focus on relatable themes that general people can relate to, making the film that much more enjoyable to viewers. The newest romantic comedy out is John Hamburg’s I Love You, Man. This film has all the usual ingredients of a good romantic comedy with a slight twist. Instead of being about a person’s journey in a romantic relationship, it focuses on one man’s journey through male friendship.
---Not since Jerry Seinfeld’s humorous relationship with former New York Mets outfielder Keith Hernadez in the Seinfeld episode “The Boyfriend”, has a film so perfectly captured the bizarre world of male friendship. The movie centers around the main character Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) who gets engaged to his long time girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones). Unlike the traditional romantic comedy, Peters problem is not getting the girl, it’s his lack of a true male best friend. Worried about not having a best man for his wedding, Peter begins a search for a best friend. After a few awkwardly hilarious attempts, Peter meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), who seems to be a worthy candidate. The remainder of the movie follows the relationship of Peter and Sydney and takes a look at the rarely talked about world of male bonding. It also focuses on Peter’s struggle of balancing the male friendship he never had, and the relationship with Zooey that he’s always wanted.
---It seems too often romantic comedies are written mostly with a female audience in mind. It is not often you see a film like this where they explore themes that mostly a male audience can understand. I Love You, Man does a solid job of focusing on true aspects of male bonding, stemming from poker night to rocking out to Rush. Giving the audience this rare perspective of a male’s makes I Love You, Man a unique experience for all audiences.
---The key to any romantic comedy is that it is just that, a comedy. Audiences expect to laugh when they go see these films, and I Love You, Man delivers strongly on this front. There really is not a dull point in the movie; it is filled with clever humor, both verbal and physical, that keep the laughs coming the whole way. The cast does a great job of bringing the story to life, and everyone works well together through out the film.
---If you are looking for a fun night out and want to see a movie that will leave you leaving the theater with a smile on your face, I Love You, Man is a movie worth seeing. If you are afraid this is just another redundant romantic comedy, you have nothing to worry about. This film will give you laughs while portraying an original storyline, so you will be entertained on all fronts.
Written by: John Hamburg, Larry Levin
Produced by: John Hamburg, Donald De Line
Staring: Paul Rudd, Rashida Jones, Jason Segel
---Romantic comedies have become a film-viewer favorite in the world of cinema. This genre of film provides a light story line with a lot of laughs and memorable moments, making them ideal films for entertainment. What is also special about them is they tend to focus on relatable themes that general people can relate to, making the film that much more enjoyable to viewers. The newest romantic comedy out is John Hamburg’s I Love You, Man. This film has all the usual ingredients of a good romantic comedy with a slight twist. Instead of being about a person’s journey in a romantic relationship, it focuses on one man’s journey through male friendship.
---Not since Jerry Seinfeld’s humorous relationship with former New York Mets outfielder Keith Hernadez in the Seinfeld episode “The Boyfriend”, has a film so perfectly captured the bizarre world of male friendship. The movie centers around the main character Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) who gets engaged to his long time girlfriend Zooey (Rashida Jones). Unlike the traditional romantic comedy, Peters problem is not getting the girl, it’s his lack of a true male best friend. Worried about not having a best man for his wedding, Peter begins a search for a best friend. After a few awkwardly hilarious attempts, Peter meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), who seems to be a worthy candidate. The remainder of the movie follows the relationship of Peter and Sydney and takes a look at the rarely talked about world of male bonding. It also focuses on Peter’s struggle of balancing the male friendship he never had, and the relationship with Zooey that he’s always wanted.
---It seems too often romantic comedies are written mostly with a female audience in mind. It is not often you see a film like this where they explore themes that mostly a male audience can understand. I Love You, Man does a solid job of focusing on true aspects of male bonding, stemming from poker night to rocking out to Rush. Giving the audience this rare perspective of a male’s makes I Love You, Man a unique experience for all audiences.
---The key to any romantic comedy is that it is just that, a comedy. Audiences expect to laugh when they go see these films, and I Love You, Man delivers strongly on this front. There really is not a dull point in the movie; it is filled with clever humor, both verbal and physical, that keep the laughs coming the whole way. The cast does a great job of bringing the story to life, and everyone works well together through out the film.
---If you are looking for a fun night out and want to see a movie that will leave you leaving the theater with a smile on your face, I Love You, Man is a movie worth seeing. If you are afraid this is just another redundant romantic comedy, you have nothing to worry about. This film will give you laughs while portraying an original storyline, so you will be entertained on all fronts.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Blog Reveiw: Gran Torino
Director:Clint Eastwood
Producer: Bill Gerber and Clint Eastwood
Starring Clint Eastwood
Much of the joy of "Gran Torino” derives from watching Walt's deepening relationship with his newfound Asian friends, whom he persists in giving names like "Yum Yum" and "Toad" even as he develops a surly affection for them. In several scenes Walt can even be seen moving beyond the barriers that he has kept up his entire life and coming to terms with a war that still haunts him. Amusing however, throughout the film Walt is an equal-opportunity verbal bomb-thrower, as evidenced by the quick, unprintable way he dispatches one of Sue's white boyfriends when he sees the couple being threatened by a group of African American teenagers.
As its title suggests, "Gran Torino" is a nostalgia trip, in this case for the 1970s vigilante action pictures that Eastwood made his own. The film feels not only like a culmination of a director who has spent much his later years filming gritty realistic movies, but also an actor who’s past is filled with the contours and lines of a pulp genre.
Tough has never been enough for Eastwood, instead the film concludes on a twist ending in which Walt exorcises his demons without easy violence or false redemption. A lifetime in movies runs through this vintage Eastwood performance. You can't take your eyes off him. The no-frills, very gritty and realistic Gran Torino is one film you will not regret seeing.
Critic Watch: The Haunting in Connecticut
The critic Roger Moore in Charlotte Observer titled the film The Haunting in Connecticut as “Amityville’s retread manages a few surprises.” He means that the film is an “Amityville Horror” one, which mean only one guy believes in ghosts and nobody else. But there is a man who cans senses the evil, however, his warnings is not enough for the people to know. Then he said that the writers were plainly recycling this “Amityville” story structure.
Austin Chronicle’s critic, Peter Cornwell’s review on “The Haunting in Connecticut” is about his dislike of the film bases really on the older horrors kinds of film such as The Beyound, Shock, The Others and The Amityville Horror, and is adapted from the book In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting. Beside that, he also hates lines of the actors and actress, where he calls couple “boring upper-middle-class.” They make the decision to move into the house served as both a mortuary and nexus of eternal evil.
Jeaninetter Catsoulis on, The New York Times, give the film the title “A Family Plot.” It review says that when the Campbells discover that the house is a former funeral parlor, the family just leave the ill son to handles this clients. Also it also compares to the movie “Psycho,” “The Shining” and “The Exorcist” saying that “these mnemonics movie are far less distracting this endlessly prompting, screeching score.” Beside the ghostly conversation needs the shrieking violins in order to compete it.
Jason Buchanan, a TV GUIDE critic, also gives a bad review that is the score of 1.5 star out of 5. He said that film has some interesting ideas, but it is too far to please a large crowd, where this film can be forgotten instantly. He views the film as too less emotional action toward the characters.
Los Angeles Time’s critic, Mark Olsen, is writing in his bad review for “ “, is about the characters and the director. He says the characters were oddly fitted in film; it is like the “oil-and-water” mix of acting styles. He views the film as a domestic drama rather than a completely horror tale. He believes that the film better off as a “straight-up horror film”
Austin Chronicle’s critic, Peter Cornwell’s review on “The Haunting in Connecticut” is about his dislike of the film bases really on the older horrors kinds of film such as The Beyound, Shock, The Others and The Amityville Horror, and is adapted from the book In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting. Beside that, he also hates lines of the actors and actress, where he calls couple “boring upper-middle-class.” They make the decision to move into the house served as both a mortuary and nexus of eternal evil.
Jeaninetter Catsoulis on, The New York Times, give the film the title “A Family Plot.” It review says that when the Campbells discover that the house is a former funeral parlor, the family just leave the ill son to handles this clients. Also it also compares to the movie “Psycho,” “The Shining” and “The Exorcist” saying that “these mnemonics movie are far less distracting this endlessly prompting, screeching score.” Beside the ghostly conversation needs the shrieking violins in order to compete it.
Jason Buchanan, a TV GUIDE critic, also gives a bad review that is the score of 1.5 star out of 5. He said that film has some interesting ideas, but it is too far to please a large crowd, where this film can be forgotten instantly. He views the film as too less emotional action toward the characters.
Los Angeles Time’s critic, Mark Olsen, is writing in his bad review for “ “, is about the characters and the director. He says the characters were oddly fitted in film; it is like the “oil-and-water” mix of acting styles. He views the film as a domestic drama rather than a completely horror tale. He believes that the film better off as a “straight-up horror film”
DVD Review: Bedtime Stories
Directed by: Adam Shankman
Screenplay by: Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
Produced by: Jack Giarraputo, Andrew Gunn and Adam Sandler
Starring: Adam Sandler, Keri Russell, Courteney Cox, Jonathan Morgan Heit and Laura Ann Kesling
When we look into our pasts, we remember the good days of being so carefree. We remember our favorite games, TV shows, toys, friends and of course, we remember bedtime. For some, it was an ongoing battle for just "5 more minutes" and for others it was a time to hear the greatest tales ever told. Director Adam Shankman takes us back to a time when our imaginations would simply run wild.
Skeeter (Adam Sandler) is recruited to watch his niece and nephew while his sister leaves to search for a new job. To get the kids to sleep at night, Skeeter begins to tell them stories. When things in the stories begin to happen in real life, Skeeter discovers that he could he could finally get everything he's ever wanted. But is what he wants really for the best? When Skeeter discovers that in order to achieve his dreams he risks putting his niece and nephew in a tight situation, Skeeter must do some self-reflection.
We immediately get a feel for the movie as soon as it starts; a pop-up book gives us the opening introductions. The movie is geared towards a more younger audience with it's exciting and entertaining stories contained within the movie. Adam Sandler plays the part of a carefree uncle that is very similar to his character in Big Daddy. However, Bedtime Stories has a less serious tone to it. Because of this difference, audiences in the upper age range would not go out of their way to see this movie; unless they have a child begging to go.
Overall, if it's a laid-back, simple entertainment that you're looking for, then this movie is the one to watch. Adam Sandler does his typical comedy tricks to entice a laugh from the audience. Although there is a time when things become a bit more serious, the ending is what we would expect. As the famous saying goes, and they all lived happily ever after.
Screenplay by: Matt Lopez and Tim Herlihy
Produced by: Jack Giarraputo, Andrew Gunn and Adam Sandler
Starring: Adam Sandler, Keri Russell, Courteney Cox, Jonathan Morgan Heit and Laura Ann Kesling
When we look into our pasts, we remember the good days of being so carefree. We remember our favorite games, TV shows, toys, friends and of course, we remember bedtime. For some, it was an ongoing battle for just "5 more minutes" and for others it was a time to hear the greatest tales ever told. Director Adam Shankman takes us back to a time when our imaginations would simply run wild.
Skeeter (Adam Sandler) is recruited to watch his niece and nephew while his sister leaves to search for a new job. To get the kids to sleep at night, Skeeter begins to tell them stories. When things in the stories begin to happen in real life, Skeeter discovers that he could he could finally get everything he's ever wanted. But is what he wants really for the best? When Skeeter discovers that in order to achieve his dreams he risks putting his niece and nephew in a tight situation, Skeeter must do some self-reflection.
We immediately get a feel for the movie as soon as it starts; a pop-up book gives us the opening introductions. The movie is geared towards a more younger audience with it's exciting and entertaining stories contained within the movie. Adam Sandler plays the part of a carefree uncle that is very similar to his character in Big Daddy. However, Bedtime Stories has a less serious tone to it. Because of this difference, audiences in the upper age range would not go out of their way to see this movie; unless they have a child begging to go.
Overall, if it's a laid-back, simple entertainment that you're looking for, then this movie is the one to watch. Adam Sandler does his typical comedy tricks to entice a laugh from the audience. Although there is a time when things become a bit more serious, the ending is what we would expect. As the famous saying goes, and they all lived happily ever after.
BLOG REVIEW: WATCHMEN
Directed by: Zach Snyder
Written by: David Haytler, Alex Tse
Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Loyd Levin
Staring: Jeff Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Bill Crudup
---Superhero movies seem to be the new trend in Hollywood these days. Film makers of all kinds have been sorting through their old comic book collections and bringing them to life of the big screen. Zack Snyder’s Watchmen is the latest superhero blockbuster to make its way into theaters. Don’t be fooled however, Watchmen is not your normal superhero movie...
---Set in America in 1985, Watchmen takes the audience on a twisted journey through the lives of several superheroes and shows a side of them we are not used to seeing. The basic idea behind the film is that history is portrayed as it would have played out if superheroes had existed in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, a group of individuals decided to dress up in costumes and fight crime, a tradition that carried over up until the 1970’s. At this time, President Nixon outlawed superheroes, and the group known as the Watchmen were forced into retirement. The film begins a decade later in 1985, with Nixon still president and the Cold War tensions high between the US and the Soviet Union. The first scene shown is the murder of one of these superheroes known as the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). The murder ignites a sense of paranoia in another one of these heroes Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who goes on to investigate why one of his own had been killed. As the plot develops, the audience is introduced to the other Watchmen, including Daniel Dreiberg (the Night Owl II, played by Patrick Wilson), Laurie Juspeczyk (the Silk Spectre II, played by Malin Akerman), Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode) and Dr. Manhatten (Bill Crudup). The film goes on to unveil the back stories of all of these characters and how they relate to one another. The movies then becomes a bit of a psychological thriller as these group of superheroes must uncover a conspiracy among themselves, as well as saving the world from a nuclear holocaust.
---Watchmen’s story line is very elaborate and has plenty to tell. This fact however proves to be the films greatest strength, as well as its greatest weakness. The skewed view of American history that the film offers, as well as the many interest characters, gives the audience plenty to think about through out the movie. However, in the end there seemed to be just too much to fit into one film. The characters of Watchmen are very powerful, but there just was not enough time in the film to fully develop them for the audience. Snyder had the challenge of introducing this complex world to the audience as well as introducing all of these characters, but it all was just a little too much. The film proved to have many twists and surprises in the plot, but because of the lack of character development, those moments failed to stimulate much emotion in those watching. It became a challenge to really connect with any of the characters because they were introduced so quickly, it felt throughout the film as if the audience was just getting to know them. To Snyder’s credit, the film did flow well and the story was presented cleverly in a series of flashbacks and narrations. However, their just was not enough time to present all the details that the story deserved. At a run time of two hours and forty minutes, the film was already too long for most people’s liking.
---Overall, not a bad attempt. Watchmen had plenty of superhero action to keep the audience entertained, and with an R rating, the graphics could reach an extreme beyond most comic book movies. If you are a fan of these kind of movies, Watchmen is worth seeing, even if it is just once.
Written by: David Haytler, Alex Tse
Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Loyd Levin
Staring: Jeff Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Bill Crudup
---Superhero movies seem to be the new trend in Hollywood these days. Film makers of all kinds have been sorting through their old comic book collections and bringing them to life of the big screen. Zack Snyder’s Watchmen is the latest superhero blockbuster to make its way into theaters. Don’t be fooled however, Watchmen is not your normal superhero movie...
---Set in America in 1985, Watchmen takes the audience on a twisted journey through the lives of several superheroes and shows a side of them we are not used to seeing. The basic idea behind the film is that history is portrayed as it would have played out if superheroes had existed in the 20th century. In the early 1900s, a group of individuals decided to dress up in costumes and fight crime, a tradition that carried over up until the 1970’s. At this time, President Nixon outlawed superheroes, and the group known as the Watchmen were forced into retirement. The film begins a decade later in 1985, with Nixon still president and the Cold War tensions high between the US and the Soviet Union. The first scene shown is the murder of one of these superheroes known as the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). The murder ignites a sense of paranoia in another one of these heroes Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who goes on to investigate why one of his own had been killed. As the plot develops, the audience is introduced to the other Watchmen, including Daniel Dreiberg (the Night Owl II, played by Patrick Wilson), Laurie Juspeczyk (the Silk Spectre II, played by Malin Akerman), Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode) and Dr. Manhatten (Bill Crudup). The film goes on to unveil the back stories of all of these characters and how they relate to one another. The movies then becomes a bit of a psychological thriller as these group of superheroes must uncover a conspiracy among themselves, as well as saving the world from a nuclear holocaust.
---Watchmen’s story line is very elaborate and has plenty to tell. This fact however proves to be the films greatest strength, as well as its greatest weakness. The skewed view of American history that the film offers, as well as the many interest characters, gives the audience plenty to think about through out the movie. However, in the end there seemed to be just too much to fit into one film. The characters of Watchmen are very powerful, but there just was not enough time in the film to fully develop them for the audience. Snyder had the challenge of introducing this complex world to the audience as well as introducing all of these characters, but it all was just a little too much. The film proved to have many twists and surprises in the plot, but because of the lack of character development, those moments failed to stimulate much emotion in those watching. It became a challenge to really connect with any of the characters because they were introduced so quickly, it felt throughout the film as if the audience was just getting to know them. To Snyder’s credit, the film did flow well and the story was presented cleverly in a series of flashbacks and narrations. However, their just was not enough time to present all the details that the story deserved. At a run time of two hours and forty minutes, the film was already too long for most people’s liking.
---Overall, not a bad attempt. Watchmen had plenty of superhero action to keep the audience entertained, and with an R rating, the graphics could reach an extreme beyond most comic book movies. If you are a fan of these kind of movies, Watchmen is worth seeing, even if it is just once.
BLOG REVIEW (DVD): CLOVERFIELD
Directed by: Mark Reeve
Written by: Drew Goddard
Produced by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Mike Vogel, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Odette Yustman
The “Monster” movie has been apart of cinema since the beginning. For decades, audiences have enjoyed being horrified by large creatures terrorizing cities and the people who reside in them. Mark Reeve’s 2008 film Cloverfield is that latest monster movie to terrify audiences around the world.
Inspired by movie monsters of the past, such as Godzilla or King Kong, Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams sought to capture the majesty of those creatures in a modern day scene with a brand new monster. The movie starts out with a very obvious twist, it is told in a first person, real time style from an every day camcorder. The movie focuses around the main character Robert Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David), who is attending a going away party for his upcoming trip to Japan. The party was being thrown by his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and his brother’s girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucus), and was being filmed by his best friend Hudson (T.J. Miller). The first 15 minutes or so of the film focus on the characters and their back stories, specifically Rob and his struggling relationship with his best friend/girl friend Beth (Odette Juliette Yustman). This information, like the rest of the movie, is all presented through the eyes of the hand held cam, so the audience is left to put together the pieces. The party is soon interrupted by an earthquake like event, and the characters soon find themselves in the streets of Manhattan with an unexplained event happening. As the movie goes on, more is revealed about a monster invading the city, and the movie focuses on the characters trying to escape from the city.
The key to Cloverfield is the style of filming; it is the Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla. The unique style works well for the film though, it give the audience a very realistic and human feel to a very none realistic situation. The film does a good job delivering a deeper love story in the midst of all the chaos, and it serves to be a solid secondary plot. The monster element of the movie is very much there, as the movie is full of suspense and action. The monster is gradually revealed to the audience, in traditional fashion, until the end where the whole thing is shown.
All and all, Cloverfield is a pretty entertaining film. A decently short run time and suspenseful structure make it a fun movie to sit down and watch. The one element of the film that does disappoint however is the lack of explanation of the monster, which weakens the ending. Cloverfield won’t replace King Kong and Godzilla in American pop-culture, but it is a good monster movie.
Written by: Drew Goddard
Produced by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Mike Vogel, Jessica Lucas, T.J. Miller, Odette Yustman
The “Monster” movie has been apart of cinema since the beginning. For decades, audiences have enjoyed being horrified by large creatures terrorizing cities and the people who reside in them. Mark Reeve’s 2008 film Cloverfield is that latest monster movie to terrify audiences around the world.
Inspired by movie monsters of the past, such as Godzilla or King Kong, Reeves and producer J.J. Abrams sought to capture the majesty of those creatures in a modern day scene with a brand new monster. The movie starts out with a very obvious twist, it is told in a first person, real time style from an every day camcorder. The movie focuses around the main character Robert Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David), who is attending a going away party for his upcoming trip to Japan. The party was being thrown by his brother Jason (Mike Vogel) and his brother’s girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucus), and was being filmed by his best friend Hudson (T.J. Miller). The first 15 minutes or so of the film focus on the characters and their back stories, specifically Rob and his struggling relationship with his best friend/girl friend Beth (Odette Juliette Yustman). This information, like the rest of the movie, is all presented through the eyes of the hand held cam, so the audience is left to put together the pieces. The party is soon interrupted by an earthquake like event, and the characters soon find themselves in the streets of Manhattan with an unexplained event happening. As the movie goes on, more is revealed about a monster invading the city, and the movie focuses on the characters trying to escape from the city.
The key to Cloverfield is the style of filming; it is the Blair Witch Project meets Godzilla. The unique style works well for the film though, it give the audience a very realistic and human feel to a very none realistic situation. The film does a good job delivering a deeper love story in the midst of all the chaos, and it serves to be a solid secondary plot. The monster element of the movie is very much there, as the movie is full of suspense and action. The monster is gradually revealed to the audience, in traditional fashion, until the end where the whole thing is shown.
All and all, Cloverfield is a pretty entertaining film. A decently short run time and suspenseful structure make it a fun movie to sit down and watch. The one element of the film that does disappoint however is the lack of explanation of the monster, which weakens the ending. Cloverfield won’t replace King Kong and Godzilla in American pop-culture, but it is a good monster movie.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Blog Review: W.
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Written by: Stanley Weiser.
Produced by: Tom Ortenberg, Bill Block
Starring: Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfuss, Toby Jones
Hyped as a parody of possibly he worst president in U.S. history W. manages to pull off an ideally simple film with only moderate success. It does not feel as if the actors can’t get the film off the ground, in fact, Josh Brolin manages to play a truly magnificent role as George W. Bush going from life of privilege to commander in chief. However, it seems that director Oliver Stone and screenwriter Stanley Weiser simply do not agree on whether to bash the president or to simply leave the issue alone. Whatever the case may be the movie stutters, ironically, in the same way our ex President George W. Bush once did.
Like many Oliver Stone films, W. focuses on one man, George W. Bush (Josh Brolin) the focus is always on him: His personality, his addiction, his insecurities, his unwavering faith in a mission from God, his yearning to prove himself, his inability to deal with those who advise him. In the film, most of the decisions of his presidency were shaped and placed in his hands by the crafty vice president Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and the political mastermind Karl Rove (Toby Jones). However, Unlike Stone's "Nixon," this film revises no part of the president’s life. Everything including the scenes behind closed doors, is now pretty much familiar from books written by former Bush aides, and reporting by reporters such as Bob Woodward.
Throughout the movie however, the political bias of stone makes it clear that if Bush had only become commissioner of baseball, we would all be better off. Obviously, Stone released the movie during the election as if to remind us all what happens when we vote the wrong man in because he looks like a fighter or someone we would all like to have a beer with. Brolin plays him well; the confusion is palpable even when he's asked to answer a question on the fly, the pain of being Daddy's second-favorite son even when he uses the Iraq invasion to avenge his father.
At its best, W. is a father-son story. Near the end, Stone shows a scene with Dubya and Dad trading punches in the Oval Office. Although a great it is the kind you expect to see more of More of that, and W. would have been a movie that makes sense of Bush's legacy instead of excuses.
Blog Review: Knowing
Directed by: Alex Proyas
Written by: Ryne Douglas Pearson
Produced by: David Alper, David J. Bloomfield
Starring: Nicholas Cage, Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne
Unabashedly predictable, Knowing casts a famous actor (Nicholas Cage) throws a few curveballs scenes, and wraps it all up with nice Christian overtones. Mirroring the trademark crises of faith which made M. Night Shymalan immensely popular, director Alex Proyas both tries and fails miserably at combining themes of Christian morality and Shymalan suspense into one feature length film. In short, the film was one really long version of the biblical version of Armageddon.
The movie is generally straightforward, a grouchy MIT professor (Nicholas Cage) prone to alcohol driven fits of hysteria and outbursts of atheism, changes once his mewling young son (Chandler Canterbury) comes into possession of a handwritten scrawl of numbers—a 50-year-old single-spaced page full of digits that just so happens to provide dates, times, latitudes and longitudes for every natural or man-made catastrophe— including the forthcoming Armageddon. As the storyline progresses, more characters are slowly introduced and soon it becomes clear that Armageddon is something much more than simply a “natural” event. In fact, there’s not much investigating to be done or story left to tell once Cage guzzles a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red and figures out this numerical code. There’s much ado about the disturbed psychic child who penned these prophecies back in 1959, but that just amounts to arbitrary wheel-spinning before the CGI can finally kick in.
After a few climax building moments and mysterious flashbacks the storyline seems to rely more on running and pure special effects rather than on storyline and dialogue. The special effects complement the theme of Armageddon in the film fairly well and certainly help to bring the moral conclusion, occasionally providing visual cues to foreseen events and a lending a spooky inhuman backdrop to the chaos onscreen. Yet, after all provide only seems to truly shine once the storyline fails to hold the audience’s interest. Without spoiling the plot, it is sufficient to say that the overarching conclusion of the movie is conceived in such a way that the audience will walk away from the film believing they had both their money and time clearly wasted on a cinematic version of one of Kirk Cameron’s Left Behind flicks.
State of Play: Blog Review
It's the kind of movie that makes ex-Political Science majors like myself drool. Combining journalistic saavy in a not so polished package (Russell Crowe as Cal McAffrey), and political power dressed to the nines (Ben Affleck as Rep. Stephen Collins) faceoff in this political thriller set in Washington.
Crowe plays the character he is cast as almost flawlessly, beat up and beat down, while Ben Affleck could be the new poster child for Congress. But, despite the ragged appearance of Cal McAffrey (Crowe), he does his job well, knows everyone in Washington, or so it would seem, and the seemingly good boy Collins (Affleck) might just be hiding a dirty little secret.
And McAffrey knows all about it. They were college roommates. Surprise, surprise.
But the Congressman might be getting, as so many things in Washington are, framed. The movie is a high paced thrill ride, absolutely perfect for anyone interested in politics or the innerworkings of journalism, or even just a good movie.
Crowe plays the character he is cast as almost flawlessly, beat up and beat down, while Ben Affleck could be the new poster child for Congress. But, despite the ragged appearance of Cal McAffrey (Crowe), he does his job well, knows everyone in Washington, or so it would seem, and the seemingly good boy Collins (Affleck) might just be hiding a dirty little secret.
And McAffrey knows all about it. They were college roommates. Surprise, surprise.
But the Congressman might be getting, as so many things in Washington are, framed. The movie is a high paced thrill ride, absolutely perfect for anyone interested in politics or the innerworkings of journalism, or even just a good movie.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Blog Review: Slumdog Millionaire
Directed by: Danny Boyle
Produced by: Christian Colson
Screenwriter: Simon Beaufoy
Starring: Dev Patel, Irrfan Khan, Anil Kapoor, Madhur Mittal, and Freida Pinto
Born to nothing in the slums of India to grow up and become a millionaire. It wasn't luck nor greed that got him there, rather it was love and the desire to be with the one he loved, no matter what it took. This is no common love story, which may already be obvious, instead it is a story filled with danger, pain, greed, an unrelentless love, and a game show. What would seem to be an odd combination is actually a movie that you will fall in love with.
Danny Bole's "Slumdog Millionaire" steps away from the typical love story and makes a film that crosses several genres but can still be identified as a beautiful love story. This film is a story of how and why an uneducated man from India was able to answer every question correctly on "What Wants To Be A Millionaire?". This young man, Jamal Malik, is suspected of cheating on the game show and is kidnapped and questioned in order to find out how he knew these answers. Most of the movie consists of Jamal telling his captor exactly how he knew each question and how he had learned these things in his life. As he explains himself, the audience watches his life unfold from a young boy to a young adult and we find out how he got where he is.
The film is really a story within a story. As Jamal is telling his life story, he is also revealing his feelings for a girl he saved when he was very young and all the times he lost her. His purpose is finally revealed as his desire to find Latika, his one true love, and take her as his own.
The audience is able to view Jamal's life by the use of flashbacks throughout the film. This film really takes you for a crazy ride through the life of Jamal Malik and the amazing adventures he experienced. The story is thrilling, disturbing, and beautiful at the same time. This movie will make you laugh and cry and will ultimately keep you on the edge of your seat as you root for Jamal.
The use of flashbacks in this film truly adds to its uniqueness. Danny Boyle does an excellent job of connecting two stories without making it confusing or too busy. The film has a great plot line and the story would keep anyone's attention. The cinematography is excellent, the acting was exceptionally good, and the story itself was nothing short of fantastic. It was altogether a great movie and is sure to entertain.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
DVD Review: Frost/Nixon
Directed by: Ron Howard
Written by: Peter Morgan
Produced by: Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon
---History does not make for good entertainment very often. When it does there is typically a war involved and politics are certainly not the main focus. “Tricky Dick” Richard Nixon’s most infamous stunt was the Watergate Scandal, involving wiretapping and many civilian laws broken at a series of Democratic National Committee meetings at the Watergate Hotel. This was not a physical war but a political war that ended up in the first and only president to resign from office. Few attempts have been made to bring this to Hollywood. There has been a biographical style movie, “Nixon”, by Oliver Stone. Released on DVD on Tuesday April 21, “Frost/Nixon” tried to characterize the time after Richard Nixon left office. At this point it has grossed more than “Nixon” made and it is still in the spotlight.
---The film focuses on British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) and his attempts at getting Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) to sit down for a post-presidential interview. The film starts with Nixon leaving office after being tried for a battery of charges regarding the Watergate Scandal. Frost realizes that Nixon knows how to work the crowd and get out of actually making a confession; so he focuses on getting Nixon to admit that he was responsible for this act against democracy and to apologize. Eventually they all agree to terms and Frost interviews Nixon, at first with some difficulty, and gets Nixon to acquiesce to everything.
---Director Ron Howard, being known for his work “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind”, is great at making anything full of emotion and emphasizing one or two characters. “Frost/Nixon” really focuses on Frost and Nixon. During some of the interview scenes you can see Frost really squirming trying to get a word in edgewise. Nixon is shown to be really focused on answering every question in order to get out of something that may condemn him. Lots of close ups were used which really added to the meaning of the film as a whole.
---The actors did a fantastic job with the characters they were hired to play. It would be incredibly easy to go wrong with a character like Nixon and make him seem very evil. Frank Langella played Nixon perfectly; someone who clearly has the ability to commit crimes but who also has a heart. Michael Sheen also played Frost up to all expectations. Sheen acted out a great talk show host and slick talker that is respectful to those he is around.
---Overall this movie was great for a non-war related political movie. I give it a 4 out of 5 for the acting and directing.
Written by: Peter Morgan
Produced by: Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon
---History does not make for good entertainment very often. When it does there is typically a war involved and politics are certainly not the main focus. “Tricky Dick” Richard Nixon’s most infamous stunt was the Watergate Scandal, involving wiretapping and many civilian laws broken at a series of Democratic National Committee meetings at the Watergate Hotel. This was not a physical war but a political war that ended up in the first and only president to resign from office. Few attempts have been made to bring this to Hollywood. There has been a biographical style movie, “Nixon”, by Oliver Stone. Released on DVD on Tuesday April 21, “Frost/Nixon” tried to characterize the time after Richard Nixon left office. At this point it has grossed more than “Nixon” made and it is still in the spotlight.
---The film focuses on British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) and his attempts at getting Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) to sit down for a post-presidential interview. The film starts with Nixon leaving office after being tried for a battery of charges regarding the Watergate Scandal. Frost realizes that Nixon knows how to work the crowd and get out of actually making a confession; so he focuses on getting Nixon to admit that he was responsible for this act against democracy and to apologize. Eventually they all agree to terms and Frost interviews Nixon, at first with some difficulty, and gets Nixon to acquiesce to everything.
---Director Ron Howard, being known for his work “Apollo 13” and “A Beautiful Mind”, is great at making anything full of emotion and emphasizing one or two characters. “Frost/Nixon” really focuses on Frost and Nixon. During some of the interview scenes you can see Frost really squirming trying to get a word in edgewise. Nixon is shown to be really focused on answering every question in order to get out of something that may condemn him. Lots of close ups were used which really added to the meaning of the film as a whole.
---The actors did a fantastic job with the characters they were hired to play. It would be incredibly easy to go wrong with a character like Nixon and make him seem very evil. Frank Langella played Nixon perfectly; someone who clearly has the ability to commit crimes but who also has a heart. Michael Sheen also played Frost up to all expectations. Sheen acted out a great talk show host and slick talker that is respectful to those he is around.
---Overall this movie was great for a non-war related political movie. I give it a 4 out of 5 for the acting and directing.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Blog Review: "Watchmen"
Director: Zack Snyder
Produced by: Lawrence Gordon, Lloyd Levin, Deborah Snyder
Screenplay: David Hayter, Alex Tse
Starring: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Carla Gugino, Jackie Earie Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson
SPOILER ALERT! MONKEYS AND DINGLEBERRIES BEWARE
Who Watches the Watchmen? You Should
Watchmen, one of the most highly anticipated films of 2009, adapts the apocalyptic, quasi-dystopia alternate future of the graphic novel by the same name. All masked *heroes have been outlawed by 5th term president Richard M. Nixon. The film casts a caveat on the label “hero” through depictions of narcissistic sadism by “The Comedian” and the affluent “Ozymandius.” But is either of them in the wrong? Is the public at large wrong to revolt against the heroes who risk their lives to protect them? While the film is visually astounding, has a story line unique but logical enough to follow, and is caked with a sufficient amount of high-definition-choreographed violence and sex to satisfy fans of Snyder’s 300, 2 hours and 40 minutes was simultaneously too long and short for such a venture.
Showing off his mastery of slow-motion and possibly gratuitous violence in the opening battle sequence, those of us whom seldom witness superfluous violence in movies in comparison to that which propagates the non-fiction world offer Snyder our praise. But the next twenty minutes reveal that Snyder not only is attempting to, but has developed in his vision as a director. We witness the world Bob Dylan surely could not have imagined as his song “The Times They Are A-Changin’” peruses through what the world became as the Cold War escalated, Nixon stayed in office, and Vietnamese communism was defeated. Our narrator then makes his entrance as Rorschach, a pessimistic realist; he represents an extreme product of his time. Through his journal we retrace the steps of his and other heroes as they deduce why ex-hero Ozymandius is killing retired heroes.
Considering the film introduces the story behind over 10 heroes from pre-WWII up until 1987, introduces us to the alternate reality of 1987, and effectively develops character and story plots all while hopping back forth through time, it is a masterpiece. There really is very little confusion as to who are whom, what day and age each scene is taking place in, and the current or changing point of view of each character. And because this is done so effectively, we are allowed to become witness to the varying natures of a number of characters, each of whom may represent the nature of mankind.
Dr. Manhattan, the only true superhero in the film, obtained god-like powers in a lab experiment gone wrong. Able to see time in the past, present, and future simultaneously, be in a nearly infinite number of places at once, capable of living in any environment in the universe, and actually capable of creating his own universe, Dr. Manhattan is suppose to be the savior- or rather, God realized for man. The only problem is that, like the understanding of God in real life, the masses can’t conceive his understanding of the larger picture in the universe. For all the power he has been endowed with, the power of human understanding still eludes him, as it does us.
Other heroes serve as the pessimistic, the hopelessly optimistic, the nurturing, the idealist, the pious, and the base aspects (among many others) of humanity. Perhaps it is because the various heroes are portrayed as such familiar humans that we can empathize with “The Comedian” even though he shot a woman pregnant with his child at point blank range. Or how we find our selves empathizing with Rorschach even though he killed 3 policemen for doing their job. Yet, in the film the masses rebelled against their heroes and dismissed them while chanting “Who watches the Watchmen?”
And we see that they too, to a point, want some one to guide them and tell them what is right and wrong. This question is put to the ultimate test at the end of the film when Ozymandius and Dr. Manhattan agree that to save the world they must destroy much of it. By framing Dr. Manhattan, nuclear war will be averted through mankind’s instinct of self preservation: they will ally themselves in fear of a power outside their control. It is in this view of Dr. Manhattan that he truly becomes a god: the good in mankind is stimulated by its fear of god’s power. I give "Watchmen" 9/10 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)