Date Watched: 1/16/10
Viewing: 1st
Don't judge this movie upfront based on the movie cover and the fact that it is German. It makes it look like an unsophisticated horror movie that involves lots of gore and little thought. Let me guarantee you, it's not. The police catch who they believe to be a serial murderer, but need a confession out of. At the same time, a local police officer believes a murder in his town a few years ago might be related and goes to the city to find out, so his town can finally have some peace.
This movie was so intense. The initial scene involves the aforementioned capture and gives you your first glimpse into the dark world of Gabriel Engel, the serial murderer. What I loved about this movie was, like the movie before this, they kept everything very realistic. But, at the same time they added such a dark and twisted antagonist that truly got in your head. The whole local cop talking to the serial murderer does mimic "Silence of the Lambs" (Anthony Hopkins was classic). However this killer is just as sophisticated, maybe not polished, but dark, twisted, smart, disturbed and most of all unstable. I think he is more frightening despite the fact that he doesn't eat his victims. The movie has lovely commentary on evil and where it comes from. How it is almost contagious and how it develops and evolves over time. The plot is very detailed and there are some twists along the way. The acting was very good and each character well thought out and developed. I was watching this alone at night, but it was the first time in a while that i was scared walking through my empty, dark, silent house to get water. It's because I believe there are people out there that are doing crazy things like this as hard as it is for us to believe. A movie like this provides much more frightening images and fears than something so ludicrous like "Paranormal Activity" or "Friday the 13th".
Overall, one of the best movies I've seen in a while. I love the thriller/mystery/murder genre so there might be something to that, but it was very original and well made. I loved almost everything about it.
I would recommend it if: you liked "Silence of the Lambs", like serial killer movies, want to see a good, timely discussion of evil, like disturbing movies, or want to further a bad stereotype of the Germans.
Rating: 5 Stars
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Movie #11: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Date Watched: 1/15/10
Viewing: 1st
This movie and its counterpart "The Girl who Played with Fire" recently showed up on my netflix radar. Then I was at Sam's club with my father and I saw a stack of books about 3 meters high (yes, I just used the metric system) of these books. Apparently they are currently best-sellers over here now and quite popular with the mainstream audience. And so I decided to watch the first of the trilogy of Swedish movies (based on the respective books by Stieg Larsson). The plot is actually quite interesting, it starts off with a journalist, Mikael Blomqvisk, who is sent to jail for libel (not slander) and thus has 6 months before he serves a short sentence (3 months, but they act like it's the end of the world). He is hired by a rich man to find out who murdered his niece a long time ago and he later gets help from a crazy computer hacker, Lisbeth Salander, in solving this mystery.
A quick caveat, I'm sure the book is far better than the movie is, as is usually the case, so I recommend you read the book if my review sounds interesting. Let me start off my saying I hate knowing exactly what a movie is about so I did not research what exactly the book was about or like. So I was very surprised when the movie was so dark. The rich family has quite the troubled past only equaled by Lisbeth's dark present life. The parallels are quite interesting and often quite gripping and traumatic. The character of Lisbeth is great. She has deep-rooted issues, is complicated, irrational, brilliant, distant, and reserved yet you fell somewhat drawn to her. I loved watching her various relationships with other characters unfold and progress. Although this movie wasn't too graphic visually, mentally it was fairly intense in the most realistic of ways. Then I watched the next movie ("Antibodies", review coming shortly) which made this look like a Disney movie. The plot kept me guessing a little and definitely spread the doubt early as to which family member it might be. The end wasn't necessarily great but it was conclusive and nice for the protagonists. I loved the questions posed about morality and whether evil is created or inherent. Also it asks if it is ok for revenge in some sense, especially if it's provoked in one capacity or another. When is it alright to either look the other way or take things into your own hands?
Overall, this movie was a dark, mystery type that does a good job keeping you engaged. It's realistic portrayals of abuse, family, and darkness is what makes this Swedish film quite brilliant.
I would recommend if you: like realistic mysteries, enjoy deeply disturbed and fragmented families, love foreign movies, or love puzzling protagonists (Lisbeth in this case)
Rating: 4 Stars
Viewing: 1st
This movie and its counterpart "The Girl who Played with Fire" recently showed up on my netflix radar. Then I was at Sam's club with my father and I saw a stack of books about 3 meters high (yes, I just used the metric system) of these books. Apparently they are currently best-sellers over here now and quite popular with the mainstream audience. And so I decided to watch the first of the trilogy of Swedish movies (based on the respective books by Stieg Larsson). The plot is actually quite interesting, it starts off with a journalist, Mikael Blomqvisk, who is sent to jail for libel (not slander) and thus has 6 months before he serves a short sentence (3 months, but they act like it's the end of the world). He is hired by a rich man to find out who murdered his niece a long time ago and he later gets help from a crazy computer hacker, Lisbeth Salander, in solving this mystery.
A quick caveat, I'm sure the book is far better than the movie is, as is usually the case, so I recommend you read the book if my review sounds interesting. Let me start off my saying I hate knowing exactly what a movie is about so I did not research what exactly the book was about or like. So I was very surprised when the movie was so dark. The rich family has quite the troubled past only equaled by Lisbeth's dark present life. The parallels are quite interesting and often quite gripping and traumatic. The character of Lisbeth is great. She has deep-rooted issues, is complicated, irrational, brilliant, distant, and reserved yet you fell somewhat drawn to her. I loved watching her various relationships with other characters unfold and progress. Although this movie wasn't too graphic visually, mentally it was fairly intense in the most realistic of ways. Then I watched the next movie ("Antibodies", review coming shortly) which made this look like a Disney movie. The plot kept me guessing a little and definitely spread the doubt early as to which family member it might be. The end wasn't necessarily great but it was conclusive and nice for the protagonists. I loved the questions posed about morality and whether evil is created or inherent. Also it asks if it is ok for revenge in some sense, especially if it's provoked in one capacity or another. When is it alright to either look the other way or take things into your own hands?
Overall, this movie was a dark, mystery type that does a good job keeping you engaged. It's realistic portrayals of abuse, family, and darkness is what makes this Swedish film quite brilliant.
I would recommend if you: like realistic mysteries, enjoy deeply disturbed and fragmented families, love foreign movies, or love puzzling protagonists (Lisbeth in this case)
Rating: 4 Stars
Movie #10: Zombieland
Date Watched: 1/13/10
Viewing: 1st
I'm really not one for the zombie like gore. I don't know why. Gore doesn't bother me in the least bit, perhaps it's a deeply buried fear of zombies. Thus I have not even seen the classics of the genre. The plot seems pretty standard. Some catastrophe, most of humanity wiped out, zombies still roaming about.
This movie does so many things right, I feel like I loved everything about it except the zombie issues. The main character was very Michael Cera (pathetic, funny, somewhat charming) but it still worked. The script was pretty funny and I loved the cast. Little girl from little miss sunshine, aforementioned Michael Cera clone, Emma stone, and Woody Harrelson (one of my favorite roles he's done). The violence is mostly stupid and zombie like. I feel like the characters were interesting enough to carry the movie though. Very solid acting throughout and for some reason a very entertaining film. Zombieland was very humorous and played with and off the stereotype of zombies in general. The plot itself is fairly boring and there's no deep message or commentary. And for once a movie gives a good reason why a good looking girl might end up with a goober (unlike "She's out of your League"). That reason being no one is left of earth...
Overall, I liked this movie so much more than I thought I would. I still dislike the zombie genre but this semi-satire was enjoyable. Expect some gore but not a whole lot of disturbing images.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy satires, enjoy zombie movies, want to see Bill Murray as a pseudo-zombie, like odd comedies, or haven't got enough of the "Michael Cera character" yet.
Rating: 4 stars
Viewing: 1st
I'm really not one for the zombie like gore. I don't know why. Gore doesn't bother me in the least bit, perhaps it's a deeply buried fear of zombies. Thus I have not even seen the classics of the genre. The plot seems pretty standard. Some catastrophe, most of humanity wiped out, zombies still roaming about.
This movie does so many things right, I feel like I loved everything about it except the zombie issues. The main character was very Michael Cera (pathetic, funny, somewhat charming) but it still worked. The script was pretty funny and I loved the cast. Little girl from little miss sunshine, aforementioned Michael Cera clone, Emma stone, and Woody Harrelson (one of my favorite roles he's done). The violence is mostly stupid and zombie like. I feel like the characters were interesting enough to carry the movie though. Very solid acting throughout and for some reason a very entertaining film. Zombieland was very humorous and played with and off the stereotype of zombies in general. The plot itself is fairly boring and there's no deep message or commentary. And for once a movie gives a good reason why a good looking girl might end up with a goober (unlike "She's out of your League"). That reason being no one is left of earth...
Overall, I liked this movie so much more than I thought I would. I still dislike the zombie genre but this semi-satire was enjoyable. Expect some gore but not a whole lot of disturbing images.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy satires, enjoy zombie movies, want to see Bill Murray as a pseudo-zombie, like odd comedies, or haven't got enough of the "Michael Cera character" yet.
Rating: 4 stars
Monday, January 17, 2011
Movie #9: Jaws
Date Watched: 1/12/10
Viewing: 1st
For some reason I refused to watch this movie because I just knew it would disappoint. The kind of movie your parents rave about and tell you it scared them so much that they never went swimming again (oh and that's why you never vacation by a beach, thanks Spielberg). But in the spirit of having a balanced genre pool, I gave it a shot. The basic idea of the plot is simple: There is a shark, he attacks people, eventually it is decided that the shark must be killed.
I have to humbly say that this movie earns its "classic" status. I feel like it's one of the movies that is so well made that you can't argue that it's not "good". Whether you truly love it or not, you know while watching it that it'd be hard to improve in any way (similar to "The Godfather"). Yes, you can tell that the movie is about 20 years older from the sheer picture, yet it's hard to find many complaints. It was a pretty excellent script that preys on a fear that still plagues many of us: sharks. The actual attack footage was more gory than I expected and actually was probably incredibly bold for its day (1975). It provides a great deal of suspense which is probably all credit to Spielberg and how it was shot. I looked away for a few seconds and heard a shrieking noise, so I decided to rewind it so I could see what happened. When I rewatched it and reached that scene, I still jumped even though I knew it was coming. It definitely did a great job of actually showing the shark which also didn't look half bad for the day. The acting performances were absolutely awesome and I believe why the movie has withstood the test of time. Dreyfuss was awesome (also rocked a huge beard) and Roy Schneider and Robert Shaw were very good as well.
Overall, a classic movie that deserves all the respect in the world. Personally classics and artsy movies aren't my genre of choice, but I did enjoy Jaws thoroughly.
I would recommend this if: you like classic, well-made movies, consider yourself a movie buff and haven't seen it, want to frighten your children from swimming in the water, or have an appreciation of good beards.
Rating: 4 Stars
Viewing: 1st
For some reason I refused to watch this movie because I just knew it would disappoint. The kind of movie your parents rave about and tell you it scared them so much that they never went swimming again (oh and that's why you never vacation by a beach, thanks Spielberg). But in the spirit of having a balanced genre pool, I gave it a shot. The basic idea of the plot is simple: There is a shark, he attacks people, eventually it is decided that the shark must be killed.
I have to humbly say that this movie earns its "classic" status. I feel like it's one of the movies that is so well made that you can't argue that it's not "good". Whether you truly love it or not, you know while watching it that it'd be hard to improve in any way (similar to "The Godfather"). Yes, you can tell that the movie is about 20 years older from the sheer picture, yet it's hard to find many complaints. It was a pretty excellent script that preys on a fear that still plagues many of us: sharks. The actual attack footage was more gory than I expected and actually was probably incredibly bold for its day (1975). It provides a great deal of suspense which is probably all credit to Spielberg and how it was shot. I looked away for a few seconds and heard a shrieking noise, so I decided to rewind it so I could see what happened. When I rewatched it and reached that scene, I still jumped even though I knew it was coming. It definitely did a great job of actually showing the shark which also didn't look half bad for the day. The acting performances were absolutely awesome and I believe why the movie has withstood the test of time. Dreyfuss was awesome (also rocked a huge beard) and Roy Schneider and Robert Shaw were very good as well.
Overall, a classic movie that deserves all the respect in the world. Personally classics and artsy movies aren't my genre of choice, but I did enjoy Jaws thoroughly.
I would recommend this if: you like classic, well-made movies, consider yourself a movie buff and haven't seen it, want to frighten your children from swimming in the water, or have an appreciation of good beards.
Rating: 4 Stars
Friday, January 14, 2011
Movie #8: Gossip
Date Watched: 1/12/10
Viewing: 1st
This little gem is from 2000 and had an interesting cast (James Marsden, Kid from Dawson's creek, Kate Hudson, brother from Boondock Saints) so I gave it a shot. Three students decide to start a rumor so they can study how it travels and evolves and later they can write about it for a college paper. Little do they know that their rumor may be a little true and things start to spiral out of control.
I gave this movie little potential because I couldn't see where the plot could go. Obviously I foresaw the first few complications of spreading the rumor and as they unfolded, I was less than enthused. However, what I did not anticipate was all the other inner workings of the plot. There are a few surprises that come up and for a while it becomes quite murky as to what really is true. Also the acting was solid given the cast and the characters' interactions are quite realistic. I think this movie is more gripping than an interesting discussion of gossip, as I feel like the movie was intended to be. I thought the movie was effective at showing how actions and words can be warped and twisted, and I thought the most interesting commentary might be on perception in general.
Overall, a surprisingly good movie that harps on what you should listen to and maybe more importantly what you should (or shouldn't) say.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy movies where you're not sure what is and isn't true until the end, like odd casts that work for some reason, really miss "Dawson's Creek" and want to see pacey in his prime.
Rating: 3 Stars (I was on the fence between 3 and 4)
Viewing: 1st
This little gem is from 2000 and had an interesting cast (James Marsden, Kid from Dawson's creek, Kate Hudson, brother from Boondock Saints) so I gave it a shot. Three students decide to start a rumor so they can study how it travels and evolves and later they can write about it for a college paper. Little do they know that their rumor may be a little true and things start to spiral out of control.
I gave this movie little potential because I couldn't see where the plot could go. Obviously I foresaw the first few complications of spreading the rumor and as they unfolded, I was less than enthused. However, what I did not anticipate was all the other inner workings of the plot. There are a few surprises that come up and for a while it becomes quite murky as to what really is true. Also the acting was solid given the cast and the characters' interactions are quite realistic. I think this movie is more gripping than an interesting discussion of gossip, as I feel like the movie was intended to be. I thought the movie was effective at showing how actions and words can be warped and twisted, and I thought the most interesting commentary might be on perception in general.
Overall, a surprisingly good movie that harps on what you should listen to and maybe more importantly what you should (or shouldn't) say.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy movies where you're not sure what is and isn't true until the end, like odd casts that work for some reason, really miss "Dawson's Creek" and want to see pacey in his prime.
Rating: 3 Stars (I was on the fence between 3 and 4)
Movie #7: Exam
Date Watched: 1/12/10
Viewing: 1st
Netflix brought this movie to my attention and I knew immediately it would be right up my alley. Exam is a British movie about 8 people who are apply for one mysterious job. They are put into a room and each given an exam. However, the exam is quite abnormal and they must try to decide if working together is helping or hurting them in the hopes of landing this job.
I am so thoroughly amused by movies that only use one set. I don't know what it is, but I think it is quite genius to have the movie do so much merely with the plot and character development. This movie is a close sibling to a "Saw" or "The Cube," however I would say it strays a little away from the horror genre. It is a thriller in its purest form. From the very beginning you are personally sizing each character up and trying to get ahead of them. You scan the room for clues, try to brainstorm ideas, think back on the instructions given by the proctor, wonder more about why things are the way they are. It's quite an enjoyable 90 minutes or so. The time will honestly fly because it moves very well from scene to scene. The acting was actually pretty good as opposed to "Saw" and there are enough twists to keep you guessing till the end. Ah, the end. Now it isn't nearly as epic, in my humble opinion, as you may hope. But just remember this movie is about the ride. It's a lot like playing Clue. You don't play Clue for an hour just to find out Scarlet did it with the rope. You play for the challenge and excitement of solving the mystery.
Overall, a mentally stimulating movie with solid plot twists and good acting. I feel as though it is original enough to keep you entertained.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy the thriller/mystery solving genre (Saw, Cube, Mindhunters,etc.), want to watch an original, low-cost, well-made movie, or like British people fighting over a job they know nothing about (oh those British).
Rating: 4 Stars
Viewing: 1st
Netflix brought this movie to my attention and I knew immediately it would be right up my alley. Exam is a British movie about 8 people who are apply for one mysterious job. They are put into a room and each given an exam. However, the exam is quite abnormal and they must try to decide if working together is helping or hurting them in the hopes of landing this job.
I am so thoroughly amused by movies that only use one set. I don't know what it is, but I think it is quite genius to have the movie do so much merely with the plot and character development. This movie is a close sibling to a "Saw" or "The Cube," however I would say it strays a little away from the horror genre. It is a thriller in its purest form. From the very beginning you are personally sizing each character up and trying to get ahead of them. You scan the room for clues, try to brainstorm ideas, think back on the instructions given by the proctor, wonder more about why things are the way they are. It's quite an enjoyable 90 minutes or so. The time will honestly fly because it moves very well from scene to scene. The acting was actually pretty good as opposed to "Saw" and there are enough twists to keep you guessing till the end. Ah, the end. Now it isn't nearly as epic, in my humble opinion, as you may hope. But just remember this movie is about the ride. It's a lot like playing Clue. You don't play Clue for an hour just to find out Scarlet did it with the rope. You play for the challenge and excitement of solving the mystery.
Overall, a mentally stimulating movie with solid plot twists and good acting. I feel as though it is original enough to keep you entertained.
I would recommend this if: you enjoy the thriller/mystery solving genre (Saw, Cube, Mindhunters,etc.), want to watch an original, low-cost, well-made movie, or like British people fighting over a job they know nothing about (oh those British).
Rating: 4 Stars
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Movie #6: Killer at Large: Why Obesity is America's Greatest Threat
Date Watched: 1/11/10
Viewing: 1st
Ah I've been slow on the posts, but I have been watching movies as if I was DiCaprio from the Aviator (the shut inside thing, not the peeing in bottles thing). Now, I don't rush out to see documentaries or look to preach to the world. I feel as though the hipster in me is usually suppressed a fair amount, but I wanted to switch up my movie genres to get an eclectic sample. This is a documentary from 2008 in the same vein as "Supersize Me". It's a little more credible and traditional in it's unfolding and less hands on. It talks to presidents, professors, gym teachers, and people who have personally struggled with obesity.
I was quite reluctant to watch this movie at first and it does play very much like a documentary. Caveat, it has a few brief graphic moments (liposuction, diabetic feet,). At first I didn't think I was learning anything new. I know about exercise and our diets and how consumerism is destroying our country, etc etc. But as the movie unfolded, I found out a lot of really interesting information. They give you great statistics, historic examples, and most importantly a lot of viewpoints of the issue at hand. It becomes a discussion and not a lecture which is exactly what a documentary should do. It draws you in and engages you. After seeing this movie I was absolutely floored (I stopped eating my dinner of buttered noodles and pizza rolls halfway through). There was so much I didn't know that was adding to this nagging problem that plagues our country.
Now the most important thing to take away is what this movie is. I read a review that said something along the lines of "oh yeah they say this and that but not what to do to stop it". That's missing the point. It is really more of a public service announcement to inform you of what's going on. Quite literally, it has a bit that says, the point of the democracy is to give you all the information and let you decide what you want to do with it. It's almost a challenge pointing that proverbial finger back at all of us. I thought the movie did a good job not placing the blame with any one party too. It's become such an ordeal that I don't think it should be looked at as a group of individual battles, but a collective war.
Overall, an outstanding documentary that could not have a more relevant topic of discussion. I'll flat out say that everyone should watch this so they can understand obesity and be better informed. Then you may think or say whatever you want.
Rating: 5 Stars
Viewing: 1st
Ah I've been slow on the posts, but I have been watching movies as if I was DiCaprio from the Aviator (the shut inside thing, not the peeing in bottles thing). Now, I don't rush out to see documentaries or look to preach to the world. I feel as though the hipster in me is usually suppressed a fair amount, but I wanted to switch up my movie genres to get an eclectic sample. This is a documentary from 2008 in the same vein as "Supersize Me". It's a little more credible and traditional in it's unfolding and less hands on. It talks to presidents, professors, gym teachers, and people who have personally struggled with obesity.
I was quite reluctant to watch this movie at first and it does play very much like a documentary. Caveat, it has a few brief graphic moments (liposuction, diabetic feet,). At first I didn't think I was learning anything new. I know about exercise and our diets and how consumerism is destroying our country, etc etc. But as the movie unfolded, I found out a lot of really interesting information. They give you great statistics, historic examples, and most importantly a lot of viewpoints of the issue at hand. It becomes a discussion and not a lecture which is exactly what a documentary should do. It draws you in and engages you. After seeing this movie I was absolutely floored (I stopped eating my dinner of buttered noodles and pizza rolls halfway through). There was so much I didn't know that was adding to this nagging problem that plagues our country.
Now the most important thing to take away is what this movie is. I read a review that said something along the lines of "oh yeah they say this and that but not what to do to stop it". That's missing the point. It is really more of a public service announcement to inform you of what's going on. Quite literally, it has a bit that says, the point of the democracy is to give you all the information and let you decide what you want to do with it. It's almost a challenge pointing that proverbial finger back at all of us. I thought the movie did a good job not placing the blame with any one party too. It's become such an ordeal that I don't think it should be looked at as a group of individual battles, but a collective war.
Overall, an outstanding documentary that could not have a more relevant topic of discussion. I'll flat out say that everyone should watch this so they can understand obesity and be better informed. Then you may think or say whatever you want.
Rating: 5 Stars
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Movie #5: Top Gun
Date Watched: 1/10/10
Viewing: 2nd
I watched this movie when I was in high school, maybe 5 years ago. At the time I did not enjoy it, but everyone loves this movie (including my roommate) so I decided to give it another shot. Warning, if you love top gun to death stop reading now. The movie is about a pilot, Maverick (Cruise), who gets into Top Gun, the best flight school for naval pilots, by chance and wants to be the best. He has a rival, Ice Man and they have very brief interactions that lack intensity throughout the movie (the best actually being when they play volleyball in my opinion).
This movie is horrendous. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up with it. Maybe it's because it's a little older (1986) and doesn't quite deliver for me visually due to the progress of the industry. Or maybe it's because it is just that bad. Where to begin.... Probably the best "worst soundtrack" of all time. Trivia: What song gets played more times in the movie, "Danger Zone" or "Take my Breath Away?" You'll have to find out for yourself, I lost track at 3 and 4 respectively. Tom Cruise's character is arrogant and mostly a jackass. Val Kilmer (Ice Man) is the least intimidating rival ever (he does chomp at Cruise at one point, sit down Tom). The dialogue is awful and consists of smack talk such as "hey....you stink" and "it's not your flying that's your problem, it's your attitude". Really Ice Man? Is this an after school special? You are so very undeserving of such an awesome nickname (the nicknames are the only reason this movie gets 2 stars instead of 1). I only liked Viper's character and the action sequences were quite pedestrian. Every cut shows one plane flying (usually by itself or casually next to one other) so you have no real feel for what's going on in each flight battle. Some cool aerial shots, but the scenes are boring when you get down to it. I feel like there's only one thing to blame for this movie's inadequacies: The 80's.
Overall, not really worth watching if you haven't by now. I'm pretty sure the movie was written by two 10-year-olds who were really excited to get model planes for Christmas one year. They then shot it using said model planes and used their worthless mix tape of bad 80's songs for the score.
I would recommend this for you if: you want to live vicariously through the characters because you always wanted to be a pilot and never will, love all things 80's, are highly entertained by watching things that go fast.
Rating: 2 stars
Viewing: 2nd
I watched this movie when I was in high school, maybe 5 years ago. At the time I did not enjoy it, but everyone loves this movie (including my roommate) so I decided to give it another shot. Warning, if you love top gun to death stop reading now. The movie is about a pilot, Maverick (Cruise), who gets into Top Gun, the best flight school for naval pilots, by chance and wants to be the best. He has a rival, Ice Man and they have very brief interactions that lack intensity throughout the movie (the best actually being when they play volleyball in my opinion).
This movie is horrendous. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up with it. Maybe it's because it's a little older (1986) and doesn't quite deliver for me visually due to the progress of the industry. Or maybe it's because it is just that bad. Where to begin.... Probably the best "worst soundtrack" of all time. Trivia: What song gets played more times in the movie, "Danger Zone" or "Take my Breath Away?" You'll have to find out for yourself, I lost track at 3 and 4 respectively. Tom Cruise's character is arrogant and mostly a jackass. Val Kilmer (Ice Man) is the least intimidating rival ever (he does chomp at Cruise at one point, sit down Tom). The dialogue is awful and consists of smack talk such as "hey....you stink" and "it's not your flying that's your problem, it's your attitude". Really Ice Man? Is this an after school special? You are so very undeserving of such an awesome nickname (the nicknames are the only reason this movie gets 2 stars instead of 1). I only liked Viper's character and the action sequences were quite pedestrian. Every cut shows one plane flying (usually by itself or casually next to one other) so you have no real feel for what's going on in each flight battle. Some cool aerial shots, but the scenes are boring when you get down to it. I feel like there's only one thing to blame for this movie's inadequacies: The 80's.
Overall, not really worth watching if you haven't by now. I'm pretty sure the movie was written by two 10-year-olds who were really excited to get model planes for Christmas one year. They then shot it using said model planes and used their worthless mix tape of bad 80's songs for the score.
I would recommend this for you if: you want to live vicariously through the characters because you always wanted to be a pilot and never will, love all things 80's, are highly entertained by watching things that go fast.
Rating: 2 stars
Movie #4 Angels & Demons
Date Watched: 1/10/10
Viewing: 1st (although I did read the book)
I had pretty mediocre expectations for this movie as I did not foresee it making a smooth transition from book to the big screen. I decided to give it a chance due to my love of Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) and Tom Hanks (Money Pit-coming soon!). Both men have done much better work and I think just wanted to make a couple extra million dollars. The basic idea is that there is an epidemic in the Vatican city while the cardinals are electing a new pope and Robert Langdon (Hanks) is brought in to help solve the mystery due to his knowledge of Symbols (and apparently everything there is to know about history).
The movie itself wasn't in of and of itself a failure. It did however have some downsides. As I somewhat predicted, there was way too much detail from the book (both plot and descriptions) to try to force it into a movie. Thus, the entire movie feels rushed and uncomfortable. The scenery is beautiful and I enjoyed all the architecture. The movie is an interesting discussion of science and religion. The dialogue is actually sometimes thought provoking and the theme itself holds. I also really enjoyed the little history facts, however I don't know how much of it is true or just speculation. I absolutely hate Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon (one of the worst castings of all time in my opinion), with his sleazy greased-back hair, but he does OK. I loved the casting of the cardinals, who all seemed very authentic and gave good performances. Ewan McGregor's character was changed a great deal from the book and it was a little hit or miss at times. Mostly, I feel like it was forced and too long to hold my attention.
Overall, a much better book than movie. A pretty basic box-office movie which would probably entertain most, especially if they had made the plot flow better and shortened the movie a bit.
I would recommend it if: you don't read books, like box office movies, are interested in Italian history, or want to see Tom Hanks briefly in a speedo.
Rating: 3 stars
Viewing: 1st (although I did read the book)
I had pretty mediocre expectations for this movie as I did not foresee it making a smooth transition from book to the big screen. I decided to give it a chance due to my love of Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) and Tom Hanks (Money Pit-coming soon!). Both men have done much better work and I think just wanted to make a couple extra million dollars. The basic idea is that there is an epidemic in the Vatican city while the cardinals are electing a new pope and Robert Langdon (Hanks) is brought in to help solve the mystery due to his knowledge of Symbols (and apparently everything there is to know about history).
The movie itself wasn't in of and of itself a failure. It did however have some downsides. As I somewhat predicted, there was way too much detail from the book (both plot and descriptions) to try to force it into a movie. Thus, the entire movie feels rushed and uncomfortable. The scenery is beautiful and I enjoyed all the architecture. The movie is an interesting discussion of science and religion. The dialogue is actually sometimes thought provoking and the theme itself holds. I also really enjoyed the little history facts, however I don't know how much of it is true or just speculation. I absolutely hate Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon (one of the worst castings of all time in my opinion), with his sleazy greased-back hair, but he does OK. I loved the casting of the cardinals, who all seemed very authentic and gave good performances. Ewan McGregor's character was changed a great deal from the book and it was a little hit or miss at times. Mostly, I feel like it was forced and too long to hold my attention.
Overall, a much better book than movie. A pretty basic box-office movie which would probably entertain most, especially if they had made the plot flow better and shortened the movie a bit.
I would recommend it if: you don't read books, like box office movies, are interested in Italian history, or want to see Tom Hanks briefly in a speedo.
Rating: 3 stars
Monday, January 10, 2011
Movie #3: An Education
Date Watched: 1/10/2010
Viewing: 1st time
I chose to take a much different route with this movie selection and avoid kung fu and comics and choose an artsy looking drama. I got exactly what I expected. No more excitement and fighting. Instead it was sad, sad, realistic drama. "An Education" is a movie set in 1961 about a young girl who aspires to go to oxford who meets and is charmed by an older man. She gets caught up in his way of life and is elated by the sophistication and care-free time they spend together. Much drama ensues.
I should start by acknowledging that it was a well made movie for the most part. I could see why it had been nominated for various awards. It was an interesting look at life in England in the 1960s. It explores the concepts of morality, education and the role of gender in society. That being said, so much of this movie is hard to watch due to how uncomfortable it makes you feel (which is probably a tip of the hat to the director). This is not a box office movie with a perfect love interest who wins you over. It is complicated and you continually question what outcome you want to see (even though your first instinct is probably correct). You sway back and forth and get caught up with Jenny's interactions: her relationship with her parents, teachers, David (older man), and David's friends (Danny and Helen). The contrast of her old life of a school girl and her new life as a pseudo-woman becomes apparent and she must eventually choose between them.
Overall, a good artsy movie that explores a young girl's interpretation of love and her role/future in society.
I would recommend it to you if: you like time-pieces, you enjoy intense dramas, or if you want to feel uncomfortable watching a young girl (who looks very young) interact romantically with an older man (maybe 30?).
Rating: 4 stars
Viewing: 1st time
I chose to take a much different route with this movie selection and avoid kung fu and comics and choose an artsy looking drama. I got exactly what I expected. No more excitement and fighting. Instead it was sad, sad, realistic drama. "An Education" is a movie set in 1961 about a young girl who aspires to go to oxford who meets and is charmed by an older man. She gets caught up in his way of life and is elated by the sophistication and care-free time they spend together. Much drama ensues.
I should start by acknowledging that it was a well made movie for the most part. I could see why it had been nominated for various awards. It was an interesting look at life in England in the 1960s. It explores the concepts of morality, education and the role of gender in society. That being said, so much of this movie is hard to watch due to how uncomfortable it makes you feel (which is probably a tip of the hat to the director). This is not a box office movie with a perfect love interest who wins you over. It is complicated and you continually question what outcome you want to see (even though your first instinct is probably correct). You sway back and forth and get caught up with Jenny's interactions: her relationship with her parents, teachers, David (older man), and David's friends (Danny and Helen). The contrast of her old life of a school girl and her new life as a pseudo-woman becomes apparent and she must eventually choose between them.
Overall, a good artsy movie that explores a young girl's interpretation of love and her role/future in society.
I would recommend it to you if: you like time-pieces, you enjoy intense dramas, or if you want to feel uncomfortable watching a young girl (who looks very young) interact romantically with an older man (maybe 30?).
Rating: 4 stars
Movie #2: Batman: Under the Red Hood
Date Watched: 1/9/10
Viewing: 1st time
Let me start out my saying yes, this is an animated batman movie. And I will go one step further and say I watched this purely for myself and not because I was babysitting or something like that. The grand architecture of the plot is not very unique, however at a more detailed level I think it was actually very different, especially from other batman movies/shows. Once again, basic idea, Batman vs. new and old bad guys. Mainly a new masked villain named "Red Hood" (hence the title), however other bad guys also need to be fought such as the Joker, Black Mask, assassins and an old dude with a goatee.
Simply put: I loved it. I know i'm already a huge nerd by admitting that but i'll go on.
It was animated in the style of the older batman cartoon (for those of you still reading this post) but it was cleaned up a little. Also I felt like some of the animation might have been taken from the later series "Batman Beyond", however it was nowhere near as futuristic and ridiculous. The movie itself was quite dark and a little more graphic (PG-13) due to it not being an old episode for TV. It did a solid job of bringing in somewhat new characters who seemed as though they should be familiar, as well as a few old ones such as the Joker (naturally). Somehow after watching it I didn't feel as though I had just seen a kids' animated movie. It seemed so much more sophisticated and dare I say bad-ass. I felt like it posed legitimate questions regarding action and causation and ethical dilemmas.The fighting and various gadgets were quite entertaining and my eyes were glued for each of the glorious 75 minutes always wanting to know how it would end.
Overall, Batman: Under the Red Hood is a must watch if: you watched the old TV show, watch animated "comic book-esque" movies, or have an interest in Batman.
Otherwise please stay away so you don't get mad at me.
Rating: 5 Stars (I always rate within the genre for future reference)
Viewing: 1st time
Let me start out my saying yes, this is an animated batman movie. And I will go one step further and say I watched this purely for myself and not because I was babysitting or something like that. The grand architecture of the plot is not very unique, however at a more detailed level I think it was actually very different, especially from other batman movies/shows. Once again, basic idea, Batman vs. new and old bad guys. Mainly a new masked villain named "Red Hood" (hence the title), however other bad guys also need to be fought such as the Joker, Black Mask, assassins and an old dude with a goatee.
Simply put: I loved it. I know i'm already a huge nerd by admitting that but i'll go on.
It was animated in the style of the older batman cartoon (for those of you still reading this post) but it was cleaned up a little. Also I felt like some of the animation might have been taken from the later series "Batman Beyond", however it was nowhere near as futuristic and ridiculous. The movie itself was quite dark and a little more graphic (PG-13) due to it not being an old episode for TV. It did a solid job of bringing in somewhat new characters who seemed as though they should be familiar, as well as a few old ones such as the Joker (naturally). Somehow after watching it I didn't feel as though I had just seen a kids' animated movie. It seemed so much more sophisticated and dare I say bad-ass. I felt like it posed legitimate questions regarding action and causation and ethical dilemmas.The fighting and various gadgets were quite entertaining and my eyes were glued for each of the glorious 75 minutes always wanting to know how it would end.
Overall, Batman: Under the Red Hood is a must watch if: you watched the old TV show, watch animated "comic book-esque" movies, or have an interest in Batman.
Otherwise please stay away so you don't get mad at me.
Rating: 5 Stars (I always rate within the genre for future reference)
Movie #1: Kung Fu Hustle
Date Watched: 1/7/2010
Viewing: 1st time
I don’t know why I haven’t watched this movie until now. I consider myself someone who enjoys the genre of kung fu, and yet I did not search this one out for whatever reason. I’ve had it on loan from my friend John, sorry John, for months now and just got around to watching it. The very simple version of the plot is that there is an axe gang (bad guys) who assault many people. Eventually they attack a small village, due to a misunderstanding, but the village has a few surprises up it's sleeve. As the plot untangles you find that various characters are actually quite good at kung fu, and it kind of spirals out of control.
Despite how ridiculous it was, I loved almost everything about it. Let me backtrack and now put in a disclaimer: I don’t think most people would agree with me. It’s an absurd satire of kung fu, yet delivers on creativity and solid action sequences. Even if you don’t appreciate the subtle, and not as subtle, humor of Stephen Chow, it’s still a good kung fu movie. The plot is quite crafty and keeps you guessing where it might head next. It also gives you a feel good happy ending for those of you who enjoy that. There are some graphic violent moments, but I don’t mind that in my cinema personally. Most of it is over the top (like stallone) and thus not realistic at all. The best part, and really the allure, of this film are the small moments of genius and innovation of Chow. Things such as the antagonist, and later crew, dancing with axes at odd moments or using curtain rings in a fight are what distinguish this movie within its genre.
Despite how ridiculous it was, I loved almost everything about it. Let me backtrack and now put in a disclaimer: I don’t think most people would agree with me. It’s an absurd satire of kung fu, yet delivers on creativity and solid action sequences. Even if you don’t appreciate the subtle, and not as subtle, humor of Stephen Chow, it’s still a good kung fu movie. The plot is quite crafty and keeps you guessing where it might head next. It also gives you a feel good happy ending for those of you who enjoy that. There are some graphic violent moments, but I don’t mind that in my cinema personally. Most of it is over the top (like stallone) and thus not realistic at all. The best part, and really the allure, of this film are the small moments of genius and innovation of Chow. Things such as the antagonist, and later crew, dancing with axes at odd moments or using curtain rings in a fight are what distinguish this movie within its genre.
Overall, Kung Fu Hustle was incredibly entertaining and a lovely addition to the genre.
Watch this movie If: You love entertaining movies, love kung fu, or haven't seen a kung fu movie before.
Watch this movie If: You love entertaining movies, love kung fu, or haven't seen a kung fu movie before.
Rating: 5 Stars
Intro
Date: 1/1/10
Who?
My name is Phillip Huddleston and I am a junior at Indiana University. I have no formal knowledge of film per say, however I have seen many a movie. Thus google ok-ed my credentials.
What?
This is a blog detailing my own personal challenge: I plan on watching 365 movies in 365 (consecutive) days.
Why?
……….
Rules:
· Has to be a full length movie
· I have to watch it in its entirety during the next 365 days for it to count
· I’m allowing myself to watch movies I’ve seen before, but the majority will be new
· I don’t have to watch one each day (me cutting myself some slack)
· I’ll do my best not to give away plot points
· Start Date:1/7/10
· End Date: 1/6/10, 11:59 PM
· I’ll rate movies on a Netflix of 1-5 stars scale (whole numbers only)
Let’s get started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)