So I am going to start this off by saying two things **SPOILER ALERT** and I did not read a single page of any Harry Potter book. I have only seen the movies and all of my opinions/experiences with this movie are based as such. So with that, let us dive right in.
The Harry Potter(HP) series has been beloved to many, and known to pretty much all who have lived in the last decade. The movies themselves seemed to have as much fanfare as the people who waited in line for the books. Each one expanding the HP world more and more and getting darker every step along the way. Personally, I did not really like any of the HP movies until the fourth installment Goblet of Fire. The story finally got dark, instead of just pretending to be, and you start to see what Harry is truly up against and really what the whole series is leading towards. Fifth and sixth movies lose me a little bit, mainly because I did not read the books, and I know the big event from the both of them combined is Dumbledore dying.
I did not re-watch any of the previous films before watching Deathly Hallows parts 1 & 2. I saw part one about a month and half ago, and of course saw part 2 yesterday afternoon. There are a lot of things happen in this last installment that I had completely forgotten or needed refreshers from my wife to really understand what was going on. Obviously that is as much my own fault as it is the movies skipping or compacting so much information into its films.
This is the best installment of the franchise. There really is not question about that. Aside from maybe one awkward kiss, every performance from the actors feels natural and polished. The young stars are complimented very well by the large cast of very seasoned and talented actors, and I do not really ever feel the need to say "why did they chose this guy?". The first part of The Deathly Hallows did not really make me very interested in seeing this film. I thought it was very distant, the action was forced, and it was fairly boring and slow paced. Not the case here. Pacing was very good. Transitions between characters led well into what was happening next, and as usual everything from an effects standpoint were stellar, sound, visuals, animation, all top notch.
I have a few reservations from a storytelling standpoint, and yes I do realize that the movies are still more of a service to those who read the books, but I do not have the extensive background knowledge. I am going to give you one more **SPOILER ALERT** although in all fairness if you really care about the series you probably have read the books, unlike myself. The thing that made me happiest in this movie was finally learning about Snape. From the early parts of the series I just wanted to know who the hells side he was on. Now just doing a 15 minutes dump on his whole history, which was not even really ever eluded to in the other movies was kind of a cop out in my opinion. I like twists in movies, and most great thriller or action movies have them. This story twist though was bordering on a little too far fetched for me. It made sense in the end of course, but I prefer when the story teller shows me something from the past story that may have tipped you in some way. The ties with the plague/black hand thing that Dumbledore had, which I did not even remember, I had to have explained to me later. Again it makes sense, but after so long it was something that felt like a stretch.
Now the final sequences. I was thinking from about the halfway point on, where is the other Deathly Hallow, the resurrection stone? Cool its in the snitch, of course Dumbledore had everything planned from the first movie, apparently so did Megatron. I would not have shown him finding the stone until after he was dead and talking to Dumbledore. I know it was not written that way, but it is a better surprise for the viewers, and those who did not read the book. Also you could have saved the "heavens gates" scene for right when Neville challenges Voldemort and he comes to right there. Also having V just disintegrate after the fight was a letdown. Blast him Harry, come on. You have spent your whole childhood knowing that this guy was out to kill you, and you let him die by some curse instead of killing him yourself? Sure that may not be the way Harry would do things, but it would have felt more like closure.
The epilogue felt forced to me as well. Yes I am stealing that idea from a friend who brought it up on facebook, but why is he not teaching? He never seemed very desperate to live a normal muggle life, and I really expected to end up in Hogwarts when they started that segment.
Overall the movie was better than I was expecting and made a heck of a lot more sense that some of the previous films. It actually has made me more of a HP fan than I ever was, and maybe I will make my way around to reading the books. There are a few things that like i mentioned could have made for better cinema for those who had not read the book, but it was well executed none the less.
Score: 8.4 I think it probably deserves a spot in the top 100. Not near the top, like the current unweighted 8.7 on IMBD would put it, but in there. Needless to say must see, after you have read/seen all the other installments.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Back on the wagon, and a few other movies I watched lately
Ive been gone for a while, long enough that some of the movies have even shifted up and down on IMDB since I posted last. I am watching the list movies again, and like before my free time also includes many movies.
I have not caught all the summer films that I have wanted to, but seeing the new Pirates and The Hangover 2 have been worth their time. I wont get into either too much, but Pirates 4 is about a 7.5 Depp was good but not nearly as funny as he was from the trilogy, and Hangover 2 is the same ride with a new paintjob, so 7.7 sounds about right. We all watched the Austin Powers movies and they were the same thing each time and equally funny each time out, so who cares if the Hangover is the same blueprint as the first one. I know that score is equal to what I rated Tron: Legacy to a while back, but every time I watch that film I like it more and more, it is my geek addiction I guess.
I still want to see Kung Fu Panda 2, and X-Men First Class before the new Transformers comes out later this month, and I should be able to get the next few list movies out of the way by then as well.
One thing that will make watching some of the films more enjoyable and perhaps more like they were intended was my recent purchase of surround sound. Now it was not my dream system, but it sounds very good for what it was worth, and it is by no means a all-in one home theater in a box crap.
I have not caught all the summer films that I have wanted to, but seeing the new Pirates and The Hangover 2 have been worth their time. I wont get into either too much, but Pirates 4 is about a 7.5 Depp was good but not nearly as funny as he was from the trilogy, and Hangover 2 is the same ride with a new paintjob, so 7.7 sounds about right. We all watched the Austin Powers movies and they were the same thing each time and equally funny each time out, so who cares if the Hangover is the same blueprint as the first one. I know that score is equal to what I rated Tron: Legacy to a while back, but every time I watch that film I like it more and more, it is my geek addiction I guess.
I still want to see Kung Fu Panda 2, and X-Men First Class before the new Transformers comes out later this month, and I should be able to get the next few list movies out of the way by then as well.
One thing that will make watching some of the films more enjoyable and perhaps more like they were intended was my recent purchase of surround sound. Now it was not my dream system, but it sounds very good for what it was worth, and it is by no means a all-in one home theater in a box crap.
The last blip before I get of the interwebz for a bit was a small interesting film that kept showing up on netflix called Pandorum. Now it looked very interesting from the box art, that means something right, and me and my wife thought it was worth the time. From the onset it is very dark, and you really do not know anything more than what the main character(Ben Foster) does about what is going on. His lieutenant played by Dennis Quaid also knows nothing as they both emerge from stasis pods around the same time. For those who have seen Event Horizon there are definitely similarities in the dark stuck in a space ship atmospheres. The discovery that the characters go through is engaging and keeps you wondering what the heck is going on. I personally was slightly disappointed at the ending, not for any particular reason, just thought it could have been done better, but it was an interesting watch, and the more and more I see Foster in films the more I see the range of acting he can achieve. When he first appeared as Archangel in the X3 I would have preferred not seeing him in film again, but that was X3 and not really his own fault. Score 7.0
Lets see if I can get in a list review every Wednesday and Saturday and other movie news when things of interest pop up. Next three movies are all on the older side, but lets give them a chance before I write them off.
I'm just sayin...
Lets see if I can get in a list review every Wednesday and Saturday and other movie news when things of interest pop up. Next three movies are all on the older side, but lets give them a chance before I write them off.
I'm just sayin...
Movie 106* Rebecca
It has been a while, and that is all I am going to say about that. I have been putting off this movie for quite some time, mainly because from the surface there did not look to be anything interesting about this movie to me. Beggars cannot be choosers though, so I finally bit the bullet and watched this film.
Growing up in the era of the summer blockbuster, I knew this movie was not going to be paced anywhere near what I am used to with a film. In Hollywood nowadays a movie is long if it goes past an hour and a half. The movies that do go farther than that, usually have at least 3 story lines they are trying to keep you up to speed on at any given time. This movie focuses on one character for the entire two hours of film. There are very few scenes where the new Mrs. De Winter(Joan Fontaine) is not on screen. As expected, the setup for the story takes quite a while to get going.
I tried to stay open minded about the movie, but I never really got drawn in like I felt I should. Even reading other peoples reviews I understand the qualities of the film, but still do not think it is as good as many of the movies I have already watched and am to watch soon. Laurence Olivier's performance was pretty good, but his transitions from good guy to pissed off emotionally closed off man seemed to abrupt and forced to me. I think the best performance came from the main housekeeper Mrs. Danvers(Judith Anderson) who keeps her dark obsessed demeanor going throughout the film. Even Fontaine's performance seemed stale and repeated every time she came under stress.
I do see the sensory and emotional styles of Hitchcock in this film, but this being his first movie made for an American viewing audience, I think it was clearly a sign of better things to come. Again it is really hard for me not to be biased with this film spending much of my summers in theaters watching the next big thing, including Will Smiths 100 million dollar movie run, but I kind of view this movie as one where a lot of people just use the standard of older is better just because. A viewpoint that I do not share.
Overall it is definitely a movie of the time period, and the ending keeps this movie from being a snore fest. The last 45 minutes keep the pace up enough to make it bearable and actually give you some story to really chew on, rather than the few small pieces every 20 minutes given in the first two thirds of the movie.
Score: 7.9 And that is a generous "benefit of the doubt" score.
Growing up in the era of the summer blockbuster, I knew this movie was not going to be paced anywhere near what I am used to with a film. In Hollywood nowadays a movie is long if it goes past an hour and a half. The movies that do go farther than that, usually have at least 3 story lines they are trying to keep you up to speed on at any given time. This movie focuses on one character for the entire two hours of film. There are very few scenes where the new Mrs. De Winter(Joan Fontaine) is not on screen. As expected, the setup for the story takes quite a while to get going.
I tried to stay open minded about the movie, but I never really got drawn in like I felt I should. Even reading other peoples reviews I understand the qualities of the film, but still do not think it is as good as many of the movies I have already watched and am to watch soon. Laurence Olivier's performance was pretty good, but his transitions from good guy to pissed off emotionally closed off man seemed to abrupt and forced to me. I think the best performance came from the main housekeeper Mrs. Danvers(Judith Anderson) who keeps her dark obsessed demeanor going throughout the film. Even Fontaine's performance seemed stale and repeated every time she came under stress.
I do see the sensory and emotional styles of Hitchcock in this film, but this being his first movie made for an American viewing audience, I think it was clearly a sign of better things to come. Again it is really hard for me not to be biased with this film spending much of my summers in theaters watching the next big thing, including Will Smiths 100 million dollar movie run, but I kind of view this movie as one where a lot of people just use the standard of older is better just because. A viewpoint that I do not share.
Overall it is definitely a movie of the time period, and the ending keeps this movie from being a snore fest. The last 45 minutes keep the pace up enough to make it bearable and actually give you some story to really chew on, rather than the few small pieces every 20 minutes given in the first two thirds of the movie.
Score: 7.9 And that is a generous "benefit of the doubt" score.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Post Academy Reaction
I made a point to sit down and watch the Oscars last night, mainly because I had not done so in a couple years. Me and my mom always used to sit down together and watch the Academy Awards, and this year I had to give her the play by play through text messages because the bus she was on returning from her skiing trip broke down. They are fine, they got home, I am sure you were concerned.
The show itself was decent. Anne Hathaway did a pretty good job as the co-host, along side a stale and boring James Franco. He looked worn out, tired, never looked at the camera, and was fairly monotone the whole night. Too bad they decided against Hugh doing it again. At least he has the energy to keep you entertained.
Other than one flub we will call it, it was a rather run of the mill, just above boring presentation. I have not seen a good portion of the best picture nominees, and did not really have any actors that really caught my eye with their performances, aside from the two that I figured were in the bad anyway. So let's get to the awards.
Best Director:Tom Hooper won for The King's Speech. It was great watching him throughout the rest of the evening, because I do not think he ever gave up his two handed stranglehold on his award. His story about his mother telling him she found his next film by watching an unrehearsed play screening was pretty cool as well. As he stated, "Always listen to your mother". Still this category irks me that Christopher Nolan was not nominated, but I guess I may just have to see the film to make a better gauge of the direction.
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter. I did praise her performance in my oscar picks post, and it is still well deserved. Again seeing her up there on stage you have to do double and triple takes to see that she indeed played the mom in the movie. She also gave us the most exciting part of the evening, by dropping the big F-bomb on live television. Of course they were able to bleep it out, but it was the only part of her speech that was not in complete disarray and disbelief on her part.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter. I told you this one was easy. It also rounded out The Fighter in winning both supporting actor roles. Lead actor roles were not even nominated in this movie, which shows you that the headline actor is not always the main reason to watch the movie. Bale was a little long winded in his acceptance, but it was cool that he did give credit to Dickey Ecklund and his brother Mickey Ward, who were both in attendance. Now go put on some weight and get moving on that next Batman film.
Best Actress: Natalie Portman, Black Swan. A lot of people were rooting for Portman to win this award. It was well deserved and if you know some of the work she put into the, and how long they have been talking about making it, it is astounding. Hopefully she will continue making films for a long time, because I do enjoy watching her passion filled roles.
Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech. Told you Bridges was just my hope in the category. He was also nominated in this same category last year for A Single Man, which Bridges won for Crazy Heart. So I guess it is fair that Colin gets this round. From the clips shown throughout the program he definitely portrayed someone with a speech impediment pretty well, while keeping some humor with his screen partner Geoffrey Rush.
Best Picture: The King's Speech. I was clearly fishing with Toy Story 3 as my choice, but again it was not a prediction, just what I wanted to see win. This is a clear sign that I need to see this film. Winning 3 of the biggest awards at the Oscars means something, and when its available off the big screen, I will definitely be giving it a gander. A pretty funny remix with clips from all sorts of shows and movies about stuttering can be seen here. Parodies means it must be good right?
That is about all I have on the Oscars. I was a little disappointed that Tron was not even nominated for special effects, but whatevs. Gonna watch Rebecca soon, and the review will follow.
I'm just sayin...
The show itself was decent. Anne Hathaway did a pretty good job as the co-host, along side a stale and boring James Franco. He looked worn out, tired, never looked at the camera, and was fairly monotone the whole night. Too bad they decided against Hugh doing it again. At least he has the energy to keep you entertained.
Other than one flub we will call it, it was a rather run of the mill, just above boring presentation. I have not seen a good portion of the best picture nominees, and did not really have any actors that really caught my eye with their performances, aside from the two that I figured were in the bad anyway. So let's get to the awards.
Best Director:Tom Hooper won for The King's Speech. It was great watching him throughout the rest of the evening, because I do not think he ever gave up his two handed stranglehold on his award. His story about his mother telling him she found his next film by watching an unrehearsed play screening was pretty cool as well. As he stated, "Always listen to your mother". Still this category irks me that Christopher Nolan was not nominated, but I guess I may just have to see the film to make a better gauge of the direction.
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter. I did praise her performance in my oscar picks post, and it is still well deserved. Again seeing her up there on stage you have to do double and triple takes to see that she indeed played the mom in the movie. She also gave us the most exciting part of the evening, by dropping the big F-bomb on live television. Of course they were able to bleep it out, but it was the only part of her speech that was not in complete disarray and disbelief on her part.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter. I told you this one was easy. It also rounded out The Fighter in winning both supporting actor roles. Lead actor roles were not even nominated in this movie, which shows you that the headline actor is not always the main reason to watch the movie. Bale was a little long winded in his acceptance, but it was cool that he did give credit to Dickey Ecklund and his brother Mickey Ward, who were both in attendance. Now go put on some weight and get moving on that next Batman film.
Best Actress: Natalie Portman, Black Swan. A lot of people were rooting for Portman to win this award. It was well deserved and if you know some of the work she put into the, and how long they have been talking about making it, it is astounding. Hopefully she will continue making films for a long time, because I do enjoy watching her passion filled roles.
Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech. Told you Bridges was just my hope in the category. He was also nominated in this same category last year for A Single Man, which Bridges won for Crazy Heart. So I guess it is fair that Colin gets this round. From the clips shown throughout the program he definitely portrayed someone with a speech impediment pretty well, while keeping some humor with his screen partner Geoffrey Rush.
Best Picture: The King's Speech. I was clearly fishing with Toy Story 3 as my choice, but again it was not a prediction, just what I wanted to see win. This is a clear sign that I need to see this film. Winning 3 of the biggest awards at the Oscars means something, and when its available off the big screen, I will definitely be giving it a gander. A pretty funny remix with clips from all sorts of shows and movies about stuttering can be seen here. Parodies means it must be good right?
Eclectic Method - The King's Remix from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.
That is about all I have on the Oscars. I was a little disappointed that Tron was not even nominated for special effects, but whatevs. Gonna watch Rebecca soon, and the review will follow.
I'm just sayin...
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Academy awards
I am going to make an effort to watch the Academy Awards tonight. I have not seen a lot of the movies but, there are still people and movies that I would like to see win awards. Here are some of my choices for the major categories:
Best Picture: Toy Story 3. It is a stretch, but for those of us who have grown up watching the Toy Story movies, this was probably the best, and if you did not cry, you are a liar.
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges. More of a hopeful than anything else, but I do enjoy watching him perform. There was some talk about the odd omission of Mark Wahlberg, but it was not that much different of a performance than what we have come to expect of him
Best Actress Natalie Portman. For me the infatuation began with Star Wars, because it was Star Wars. In reality she was a good actress before and after playing Padmé, see The Professional and V for Vendetta, and hopefully now she will win an award for her performance.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale. This one is easy. Watching The Fighter you knew that it was a good performance. Than you see footage of Dicky Ecklund at the end, and it blows you away how perfectly he portrayed that man. If anyone else wins, there is a conspiracy.
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo. Playing the mom in The Fighter, she did an amazing job. She has already won an award or two for the performance, and it is either her or Amy Adams for the top spot.
Best Director: This is the one place where I have a big bone to pick. Christopher Nolan should by all means be nominated, and likely win this category. I guess it is because Hollywood people are starting to view him like Michael Bay, with all the flashy effects and over the top stories. The difference is that Inception is nothing without the direction it was given. Just being able to convey every aspect the way it was without completely losing the audience is a feat. I personally still do not think that it is a top 10 movie all time, like it's current place on IMDB top 250, but it does at least deserve some credit for the execution of a concept.
I do not plan on being very accurate with my choices, it was more of a dream sheet. I will weigh in after the awards on what I saw, and maybe I will complain about some ones ridiculous outfit, although I could give two pennies about fashion. Also if you missed it from news sources earlier this week, here is a top ten WTF they got nominated for an oscar list.
Rebecca is the next movie on the list and it is on its way to me. Be patient, I am getting there.
I'm just sayin...
Best Picture: Toy Story 3. It is a stretch, but for those of us who have grown up watching the Toy Story movies, this was probably the best, and if you did not cry, you are a liar.
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges. More of a hopeful than anything else, but I do enjoy watching him perform. There was some talk about the odd omission of Mark Wahlberg, but it was not that much different of a performance than what we have come to expect of him
Best Actress Natalie Portman. For me the infatuation began with Star Wars, because it was Star Wars. In reality she was a good actress before and after playing Padmé, see The Professional and V for Vendetta, and hopefully now she will win an award for her performance.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale. This one is easy. Watching The Fighter you knew that it was a good performance. Than you see footage of Dicky Ecklund at the end, and it blows you away how perfectly he portrayed that man. If anyone else wins, there is a conspiracy.
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo. Playing the mom in The Fighter, she did an amazing job. She has already won an award or two for the performance, and it is either her or Amy Adams for the top spot.
Best Director: This is the one place where I have a big bone to pick. Christopher Nolan should by all means be nominated, and likely win this category. I guess it is because Hollywood people are starting to view him like Michael Bay, with all the flashy effects and over the top stories. The difference is that Inception is nothing without the direction it was given. Just being able to convey every aspect the way it was without completely losing the audience is a feat. I personally still do not think that it is a top 10 movie all time, like it's current place on IMDB top 250, but it does at least deserve some credit for the execution of a concept.
I do not plan on being very accurate with my choices, it was more of a dream sheet. I will weigh in after the awards on what I saw, and maybe I will complain about some ones ridiculous outfit, although I could give two pennies about fashion. Also if you missed it from news sources earlier this week, here is a top ten WTF they got nominated for an oscar list.
Rebecca is the next movie on the list and it is on its way to me. Be patient, I am getting there.
I'm just sayin...
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Movie 107 Return of the Jedi
So after watching Indiana Jones, you think we would get a little bit of a lull in the grand adventure Harrison Ford department. Ya, that was not going to happen. Not to mention it is another romp around George Lucas' imagination
If you are alive breathing right now, or have been some time in the last 30 years, you know what Star Wars is. Now some of you, somehow, still have not seen the original trilogy. I will let that slide, for now, because I am feeling nice. But, for those who have not seen it, and those who portend to show the movies to your children, please start with episode 4, "A New Hope", also known as the first one. Really you do not really need to watch the most recent movies, episodes 1,2, and 3, because they do not hold the same feel as the originals, and in some eyes overdo the special effects and make it feel less emersive.
It is hard for me to review the Star Wars movies. For me, and many others, there is something about these movies that never get old. The sarcastic main cast of good guys, Luke Han and Leia. You have the Droids who have emotions and are true characters in their own right, even though R2D2 talks in beeps. You have the Jim Henson, of Muppet fame, creation in Yoda that even in its crude form, transforms into a full character. Not to mention the most iconic bad guy to ever be put on film, Darth Vader.
Its not just the Characters either. In the film hour of the film, you see a swamp planet(Degobah), desert planet(Tatooine), manufactured planet(Death Star), and a forest moon(Endor). Each one looks and feels like you are in a completely different universe. Also unlike a lot of Sci-Fi franchises, there are countless other species shown in Star Wars. Not handfuls, hundreds. Big, small, quadrupeds, giants slug, you name it, its probably in one of the movies. Even the sets when they are on ships are convincing enough to not look fake.
The version I watched was the original theatrical release of the film. That is without the added "Special Edition" content that you will hear many Star Wars purists express their displeasure over. The biggest change that most people hear of is "Han shot first". It refers to a seen in the first movie where he shots a bounty hunter that has come to kill him. In the remake they had Han react to being shot at, not preemptively killing the bounty hunter. It was surprising to me that watching this movie today, with all the advances in computer graphics and special effects, that something like this could have been made without it, and 30 years ago at that. It truly makes you understand why it started such a following, and why it still draws people in today.
The Star Wars theme is again one known to many many people, and none other than John Williams composed the score for these films. Sound effects, special effects, cinematography, all of them were revolutionized by Lucas and his work with Star Wars. My only real qualm? His use of spin fades and gradient fades between scenes. They were cheesy then, still are now, but he is George fricken Lucas, and I dare you to tell him he is wrong.
Overall I will admit it is not my favorite of the three original films, but I still enjoy it every time through. This film draws the biggest movie franchise of all time to a close, we can only wish that the newest trilogy was 20% of what these movies were.
Score: 8.6 You must see the original trilogy. Probably the must see movies of the list, bar none.
If you are alive breathing right now, or have been some time in the last 30 years, you know what Star Wars is. Now some of you, somehow, still have not seen the original trilogy. I will let that slide, for now, because I am feeling nice. But, for those who have not seen it, and those who portend to show the movies to your children, please start with episode 4, "A New Hope", also known as the first one. Really you do not really need to watch the most recent movies, episodes 1,2, and 3, because they do not hold the same feel as the originals, and in some eyes overdo the special effects and make it feel less emersive.
It is hard for me to review the Star Wars movies. For me, and many others, there is something about these movies that never get old. The sarcastic main cast of good guys, Luke Han and Leia. You have the Droids who have emotions and are true characters in their own right, even though R2D2 talks in beeps. You have the Jim Henson, of Muppet fame, creation in Yoda that even in its crude form, transforms into a full character. Not to mention the most iconic bad guy to ever be put on film, Darth Vader.
Its not just the Characters either. In the film hour of the film, you see a swamp planet(Degobah), desert planet(Tatooine), manufactured planet(Death Star), and a forest moon(Endor). Each one looks and feels like you are in a completely different universe. Also unlike a lot of Sci-Fi franchises, there are countless other species shown in Star Wars. Not handfuls, hundreds. Big, small, quadrupeds, giants slug, you name it, its probably in one of the movies. Even the sets when they are on ships are convincing enough to not look fake.
The version I watched was the original theatrical release of the film. That is without the added "Special Edition" content that you will hear many Star Wars purists express their displeasure over. The biggest change that most people hear of is "Han shot first". It refers to a seen in the first movie where he shots a bounty hunter that has come to kill him. In the remake they had Han react to being shot at, not preemptively killing the bounty hunter. It was surprising to me that watching this movie today, with all the advances in computer graphics and special effects, that something like this could have been made without it, and 30 years ago at that. It truly makes you understand why it started such a following, and why it still draws people in today.
The Star Wars theme is again one known to many many people, and none other than John Williams composed the score for these films. Sound effects, special effects, cinematography, all of them were revolutionized by Lucas and his work with Star Wars. My only real qualm? His use of spin fades and gradient fades between scenes. They were cheesy then, still are now, but he is George fricken Lucas, and I dare you to tell him he is wrong.
Overall I will admit it is not my favorite of the three original films, but I still enjoy it every time through. This film draws the biggest movie franchise of all time to a close, we can only wish that the newest trilogy was 20% of what these movies were.
Score: 8.6 You must see the original trilogy. Probably the must see movies of the list, bar none.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Movie 108 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
This is yet another iconic movie character, Indiana Jones. McClane, Bond, Luke, Hannibal, Gump, Terminator, all of them immediately recognizable, both as their characters and the actors that play them. Characters that young and old people grow to love, both for their hero qualities and the real human qualities that we can all relate to, that make us feel that we "know" what the character is going through. Indiana is clearly no different. He defines action hero. He is not the anti-hero, he is not the feel pity for me, he is the f*ck ya I am America and can get out of every situation, no matter how dire.
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg teamed up to create these adventures. Both remembering matinee shows from when they were young, short 15 minute adventures that always ended on "to be continued..." with the protagonist always getting out of the crazy predicaments he found himself in in the next episode. There was a debate between Lucas and Spielberg on who to use as Jones. Spielberg first suggested Harrison Ford to play the part, but Lucas resisted due to already casting him in "American Graffiti" and the first two Star Wars films. After a long search they settled on Tom Selleck. They were only a few weeks from filming when CBS refused to let Selleck film "Raiders of the Lost Ark" because they were set to start filming "Magnum PI". After this setback, Lucas relented and called in Ford to film. No one can argue against that the right choice was made.
Crusade is the last of the original three Indiana movies. Luckily it stayed true to the formula of the first movie, and gave just as many thrills as smiles, and still had the grand fanciful storyline to guide the adventure. The movie includes Sean Connery as Indiana's father. Both a surprising appearance, and a memorable one. Its not the Sean Connery suave that made Bond who he was, but an aloof, archaeologist who seems to lose himself in his work continuously. Once both are on screen together, their joking father son dynamic keeps the mood light, even in moments of peril. The other smaller support characters play convincing parts, and as outlandish as the Nazi characters are, it all fits.
The cinematography is great and having Spielberg direct Lucas' ideas and vision works out like most of us would have liked "A New Hope" and "Return of the Jedi" to turn out like. I say that because most will argue "Empire Strikes Back" was the best Star Wars film, and it was not directed by Lucas. The music is again spot on, and that is expected from John Williams, whose resume looks a little like this, every Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones, Hook,
Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, all of the Harry Potters, and that's not including all of his TV credits and countless other films.
Interesting tidbit about naming Indiana Jones. Originally he was to be Indiana Smith, Indiana coming from Lucas' own Alaskan Malamute. Spielberg thought Smith was a little too generic and convinced Lucas that Jones was a better fit. If you pay close attention to the film, there is an Alaskan Malamute in the Jones' house at the beginning of the film, and Connery's character calls Indy, Jr through the whole movie. Finally revealing at the end that his chosen nick name of Indiana was in fact dogs name.
Overall this is another very fun, enjoyable movie for all. Good characters that are not exactly superbly played but still great, and cheesiness that just adds to the fun. Clearly if you have not seen the orignal three, Crystal Skull is not really a must see, it is time.
Score: 8.7 Another must see classic.
Lastly my favorite quote:[after commandeering a plane]
Professor Henry Jones: I didn't know you could fly a plane.
Indiana Jones: Fly, yes. Land, no.
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg teamed up to create these adventures. Both remembering matinee shows from when they were young, short 15 minute adventures that always ended on "to be continued..." with the protagonist always getting out of the crazy predicaments he found himself in in the next episode. There was a debate between Lucas and Spielberg on who to use as Jones. Spielberg first suggested Harrison Ford to play the part, but Lucas resisted due to already casting him in "American Graffiti" and the first two Star Wars films. After a long search they settled on Tom Selleck. They were only a few weeks from filming when CBS refused to let Selleck film "Raiders of the Lost Ark" because they were set to start filming "Magnum PI". After this setback, Lucas relented and called in Ford to film. No one can argue against that the right choice was made.
Crusade is the last of the original three Indiana movies. Luckily it stayed true to the formula of the first movie, and gave just as many thrills as smiles, and still had the grand fanciful storyline to guide the adventure. The movie includes Sean Connery as Indiana's father. Both a surprising appearance, and a memorable one. Its not the Sean Connery suave that made Bond who he was, but an aloof, archaeologist who seems to lose himself in his work continuously. Once both are on screen together, their joking father son dynamic keeps the mood light, even in moments of peril. The other smaller support characters play convincing parts, and as outlandish as the Nazi characters are, it all fits.
The cinematography is great and having Spielberg direct Lucas' ideas and vision works out like most of us would have liked "A New Hope" and "Return of the Jedi" to turn out like. I say that because most will argue "Empire Strikes Back" was the best Star Wars film, and it was not directed by Lucas. The music is again spot on, and that is expected from John Williams, whose resume looks a little like this, every Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones, Hook,
Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan, all of the Harry Potters, and that's not including all of his TV credits and countless other films.
Interesting tidbit about naming Indiana Jones. Originally he was to be Indiana Smith, Indiana coming from Lucas' own Alaskan Malamute. Spielberg thought Smith was a little too generic and convinced Lucas that Jones was a better fit. If you pay close attention to the film, there is an Alaskan Malamute in the Jones' house at the beginning of the film, and Connery's character calls Indy, Jr through the whole movie. Finally revealing at the end that his chosen nick name of Indiana was in fact dogs name.
Overall this is another very fun, enjoyable movie for all. Good characters that are not exactly superbly played but still great, and cheesiness that just adds to the fun. Clearly if you have not seen the orignal three, Crystal Skull is not really a must see, it is time.
Score: 8.7 Another must see classic.
Lastly my favorite quote:[after commandeering a plane]
Professor Henry Jones: I didn't know you could fly a plane.
Indiana Jones: Fly, yes. Land, no.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Movie 109 Die Hard
So finally, a truly iconic movie. there have been times, when no matter the part of the day, I could turn the TV on and "Die Hard" would be on some channel. It is a big enough movie franchise, that I bet any of you reading this, there are people reading this right, could tell me who played John McClane without me telling you the movie. I bet you could even tell me the most famous line from this franchise, "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker!" without skipping a beat. This movie coming out in a time where special effects were starting to become a thing of their own, and action movies starred guys with more muscles that words in their vocabulary.
Watching this movie is so easy. Although like most it takes a little while to start, but once it does, it is frenetic and fun all the way to the end. Supposedly Bruce Willis was the 6th choice of actor for the role of McClane. Behind Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Richard Gere, Harrison Ford, and Mel Gibson. Of course like many of our favorite movie characters none of those other guys even make sense, but who knows and what if's generate a lot of office conversations.
Its hard to really talk about the technical and artistic merit of the movie. If you try and nit-pic it, like I found myself doing a little, you do notice that this is the cliché movie of cliché movies. Bad lines, barely established character relationships, guns that never run out of ammo, multiple outrageous explosions, and a bad guy that has to explicitly get shot 5 times after being strangled, and falling 30+ stories after the top of the building that he was in exploded. All of this aside, it still is a joy to watch.
Willis' performance of the tough wise cracking down on his luck hero is perfect. He gets into and out of amazing situations, each time thinking he won't see the other side. Not to mention he does all this butt kicking with no shoes on, the whole movie.
The direction of the movie is done well, especially because the viewer is never left with too much down time. It is not non-stop gun fighting and explosions, but just when the movie could have started to feel like it was dragging, it would pick right up again and off on another adventure you are. The music and ambiance of the movie definitely remind anyone of the 80's, but not in the tacky way that makes us want to forget it.
Overall it is definitely a must see in your lifetime. As much as the cliché moments bothered me, the movie never tried to be what it wasn't, and performed the crime action thriller to a T.
Score: 8.5 Fun for everyone. Lower score because compared to what I consider "great" movies, this is missing a lot, but it still is perfector a genre that led to many good, and bad, action films of the 90's that may not have seen the light of day were it not for John McClane.
Watching this movie is so easy. Although like most it takes a little while to start, but once it does, it is frenetic and fun all the way to the end. Supposedly Bruce Willis was the 6th choice of actor for the role of McClane. Behind Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds, Richard Gere, Harrison Ford, and Mel Gibson. Of course like many of our favorite movie characters none of those other guys even make sense, but who knows and what if's generate a lot of office conversations.
Its hard to really talk about the technical and artistic merit of the movie. If you try and nit-pic it, like I found myself doing a little, you do notice that this is the cliché movie of cliché movies. Bad lines, barely established character relationships, guns that never run out of ammo, multiple outrageous explosions, and a bad guy that has to explicitly get shot 5 times after being strangled, and falling 30+ stories after the top of the building that he was in exploded. All of this aside, it still is a joy to watch.
Willis' performance of the tough wise cracking down on his luck hero is perfect. He gets into and out of amazing situations, each time thinking he won't see the other side. Not to mention he does all this butt kicking with no shoes on, the whole movie.
The direction of the movie is done well, especially because the viewer is never left with too much down time. It is not non-stop gun fighting and explosions, but just when the movie could have started to feel like it was dragging, it would pick right up again and off on another adventure you are. The music and ambiance of the movie definitely remind anyone of the 80's, but not in the tacky way that makes us want to forget it.
Overall it is definitely a must see in your lifetime. As much as the cliché moments bothered me, the movie never tried to be what it wasn't, and performed the crime action thriller to a T.
Score: 8.5 Fun for everyone. Lower score because compared to what I consider "great" movies, this is missing a lot, but it still is perfector a genre that led to many good, and bad, action films of the 90's that may not have seen the light of day were it not for John McClane.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Karate Kid
So I had family in town over the weekend that prevented me from working on "the list" as much as I had hoped, but I did get a fluff movie in thanks to my brothers persistence.
Now I am not one that has particularly fond memories of the original "The Karate Kid", but I at least remember the ending and the general premise of the movie. This remake version does the core of the movie the same, while of course freshening it up for a newer audience.
Jayden smith is the main attraction of the movie, if you don't already know he is Will Smiths son, and he is in nearly every scene of this 2 hour plus movie. I found it very interesting to see a few of the same facial expressions and attitudes of his father coming out in his acting, which is fun to watch for Wills fans, and shows that for a youngin this kid has at least been taught well.
Basic premise, kid and now single mother move to China, and he gets picked on for being new, and different. But I do not just mean pushed and made fun of, I mean full on fist to face, roundhouse kick beat up. It took me aback a little because I thought this movie was made for kids, and popular because of that. It shows struggles that I know many kids face, but I found it to be a little violent for small children. What probably saved it form a higher than PG rating was the lack of blood during those scenes.
Clearly the other name drawing people to this movie is Jackie Chan. I have seen many, many of his films, even going back to his Chinese "classic", "Drunken Master" I half expected to see the same goofy, trick laden performance that I have grown accustomed to. Again to my pleasant surprise, that is not what he gives. He gives a worn down old man, that has all but given up on himself and the people around him. It is a very deep performance given his few words, and fewer lines throughout the film.
Now even given the good acting performances by the main characters, and the great scenery from around China used in the film, it is by no means great. It drags on a little, due to its 140 minute run time, and there were a couple opportunities for character involvement that were left out. Mainly the first kid Dre, Jayden, meets in China. The next 10-15 minutes play out like they are going to be friends and be seen together throughout the film. I don't even know if the character shows up on screen more than two times, at most, and just in passing. Lastly romance between 12 year-olds is a little weird, and without the kissing scene halfway through the movie it wouldn't have bothered me.
Overall to say it was good, and watchable is fair, given it finished in the top ten of last years ticket sales, and many people took their families to see it last year. In the grand scheme of movies it won't be on any ones "top" lists, but for a family film and occasional fluff, not bad.
Score: 6.5 If you have not seen it, and you are interested, it is worth your time. If not, you won't miss out on watercooler talk about it.
Lastly anything rating above a 5 in my eyes means its a movie that if you have the time, get around to watching it. 5 of course doesn't mean you get Heath Ledger acting perfomances, but it won't create a hole of wasted time in your life. Next the review of "Die Hard"
I'm just sayin...
Now I am not one that has particularly fond memories of the original "The Karate Kid", but I at least remember the ending and the general premise of the movie. This remake version does the core of the movie the same, while of course freshening it up for a newer audience.
Jayden smith is the main attraction of the movie, if you don't already know he is Will Smiths son, and he is in nearly every scene of this 2 hour plus movie. I found it very interesting to see a few of the same facial expressions and attitudes of his father coming out in his acting, which is fun to watch for Wills fans, and shows that for a youngin this kid has at least been taught well.
Basic premise, kid and now single mother move to China, and he gets picked on for being new, and different. But I do not just mean pushed and made fun of, I mean full on fist to face, roundhouse kick beat up. It took me aback a little because I thought this movie was made for kids, and popular because of that. It shows struggles that I know many kids face, but I found it to be a little violent for small children. What probably saved it form a higher than PG rating was the lack of blood during those scenes.
Clearly the other name drawing people to this movie is Jackie Chan. I have seen many, many of his films, even going back to his Chinese "classic", "Drunken Master" I half expected to see the same goofy, trick laden performance that I have grown accustomed to. Again to my pleasant surprise, that is not what he gives. He gives a worn down old man, that has all but given up on himself and the people around him. It is a very deep performance given his few words, and fewer lines throughout the film.
Now even given the good acting performances by the main characters, and the great scenery from around China used in the film, it is by no means great. It drags on a little, due to its 140 minute run time, and there were a couple opportunities for character involvement that were left out. Mainly the first kid Dre, Jayden, meets in China. The next 10-15 minutes play out like they are going to be friends and be seen together throughout the film. I don't even know if the character shows up on screen more than two times, at most, and just in passing. Lastly romance between 12 year-olds is a little weird, and without the kissing scene halfway through the movie it wouldn't have bothered me.
Overall to say it was good, and watchable is fair, given it finished in the top ten of last years ticket sales, and many people took their families to see it last year. In the grand scheme of movies it won't be on any ones "top" lists, but for a family film and occasional fluff, not bad.
Score: 6.5 If you have not seen it, and you are interested, it is worth your time. If not, you won't miss out on watercooler talk about it.
Lastly anything rating above a 5 in my eyes means its a movie that if you have the time, get around to watching it. 5 of course doesn't mean you get Heath Ledger acting perfomances, but it won't create a hole of wasted time in your life. Next the review of "Die Hard"
I'm just sayin...
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Weekend box office, "No Strings Attached", and my ratings
So "No Strings Attached" won the box office this weekend, ousting "The Green Hornet" From the top of last weekends ticket sales. even though there was a lot of advertising around 'No Strings' I expected 'Hornet' to spend at least one more week atop the ticket sales. I personally do not have much interest in seeing 'Hornet', or at least paying to see it in theaters, as Seth Rogan is starting to get a little stale with his overplaying of the same characters again and again. I was also surprised that 'Tron' is still in the top ten of ticket sales, given its poorer performance over the holidays. Complete top ten listed, now. And I guess everyone that was going to see Harry Potter already has.
1. "No Strings Attached," $20.3 million.
2. "The Green Hornet," $18.1 million.
3. "The Dilemma," $9.7 million.
4. "The King's Speech," $9.2 million.
5. "True Grit," $8 million.
6. "Black Swan," $6.2 million.
7. "The Fighter," $4.5 million.
8. "Little Fockers," $4.4 million.
9. "Yogi Bear," $4.1 million.
10. "Tron: Legacy," $3.7 million.
I did see 'No Strings' this past Friday, and it was enjoyable for a romantic comedy. The first half of the movie was a little refreshing, having a little more edge to the comedy with straight forward sexual comedy, no innuendos or cutesy jokes. On screen Kutcher and Portman have fairly good chemistry, although not quite as good as something like "The Proposal" and they make everything seem at least plausible. Some of the minor characters are a little off, but do not really get enough screen time to make things bad. My favorite quote from the movie is referring to a "period mix" that Kutchers character makes for Portmans, ""I've got the whole world on a string", by Frank Sinatra, really?" Hardest I laughed during the whole movie.
Overall, it's a well made romantic comedy that only disappoints in the aspect that the second half of the movie loses the edginess that it started with. You have your predictable rom com ending, complete with tacky forced final line.
Score: I guess ill use a ten point scale here instead, and give it a 6.8. If you are in the mood for a rom com, why not.
Now I had a friend give me a fair criticism on my scoring system, as it seems somewhat arbitrary and comparing one movie to another may be difficult. I could use a 10 point system, only using whole numbers, only halves, using 5 stars and only breaking it down as far as halves, but no matter how I do it, it probably will not make sense to someone. I guess when I rate a movie, I keep in mind the overall production, acting, directing qualities, as well as social impact and viewer experience. I also think of the types of movies that are on the top of the list, you "Godfathers" and "Shawshank Redemptions" of the world, and think of how the movie I am currently reviewing compares. There will probably be some biased to certain movies, and growing up in an age where the media is heavily action oriented and the status-quo is changing image every 3 seconds, I may not like "older" style films as much. I think using a 10 point system is easier to understand because it can kind of be seen as a percentage, rather than just out of five, but I will continue to break down the points to the tenths place, because with this many great movies, I feel I need a larger range of scores at my disposal. I will go back through and edit the previous posts as well, but here is an update on the movies I have already reviewed.
Tron Legacy: 7.7
Movie 112, Princess Mononoke: 8.4
The Fighter: 7.4
Movie 111, Batman Begins: 9.4
Season of the Witch: .9
Movie 110, The Great Escape: 9.1
That's it for now, I will be finished watching "Die Hard" tomorrow night, and hopefully I have time to review it with family here. Until then...
I'm just sayin...
Monday, January 17, 2011
Movie 110 The Great Escape
It took me a while, but I finally watched the next movie on the list, "The Great Escape". Started the Netflix account so reviews should come more consistently now, every 3rd day or so depending on other obligations.
There are a couple things that you should take note of if you plan on watching this movie for yourself. Number 1, it is VERY long. 2 hours and 53 minutes to be exact. I postponed watching it twice because of commitments I had made and wanted to watch the movie in its entirety. Number 2, during World War 2, all officers of the allied forces swore an oath the escape as often as possible to inconvenience the Germans as much as possible and try to keep as many troops off the front lines as they could. The camp depicted in the movie was built to house the most persistent escape offenders, and from the small bit of research I did, it was very close to the actual conditions and many of the events happened as seen.
My first thought when seeing the opening credits and knowing that Steve McQueen was in this film, I expected him to dominate screen time. To my surprise this was not the case, and although his characters role in the escape was embellished, as well as the other American prisoner, screen time was broken up well between all the major players in the planning and digging of the escape tunnels. All the actors do a very good job at playing their roles, and although McQueen was the only name I knew, I hope to see more of the others in some of the older films still on the list. Several of the actors actually served in conflicts around the globe, and a few of those actually spent time as POWs. the one detraction I have with the performances is the characters are very nonchalant about their situation. You find out that many of them had already spent nearly 3 years as POWs which kind of explains their demeanor, but it seemed more like summer camp at times as compared to a POW camp.
The scope of the movie is very small while taking place during WW2. Two thirds of the movie happen inside the fence of the e camp, which itself only covers 4-5 football fields worth of space. Even with that focus, the movie does not feel stagnant, and it introduces you to literally every part of the escape that helps keep the 3 hour affair paced well. The end of the movie especially picks up the pace following the escapees on their respective journeys.
I have commented a lot on the previous movies on their musical scores and the impacts they had on the film. "The Great Escape" does not falter by providing one of the most recognizable theme songs of all time. You probably did not even know it came from this movie, I didn't, but you will recognize it, and probably even whistle right along with it. Start at 20 seconds if you want to skip to the main part, otherwise listen all the way through.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie. I could have easily fallen asleep had it not been so well done, and it kept pulling me back in with the constant interaction and maturation of the characters. It may not be your cup of tea if you cannot sit through the first hour and a half, but the ending definitely rewards you with enough action, including a motorcycle chase scene with "the king of cool" himself, McQueen, and a satisfying conclusion to a true story that changed Allied policy on how to act as a POW. If I had to pick, I would still probably watch "Saving Private Ryan" if we are talking WW2 movies, but that's the new age action man in me.
Score: 4.2 Two thumbs up, must see for anyone who enjoys historic films.
Next movie "Die Hard" until then...
I'm just sayin...
There are a couple things that you should take note of if you plan on watching this movie for yourself. Number 1, it is VERY long. 2 hours and 53 minutes to be exact. I postponed watching it twice because of commitments I had made and wanted to watch the movie in its entirety. Number 2, during World War 2, all officers of the allied forces swore an oath the escape as often as possible to inconvenience the Germans as much as possible and try to keep as many troops off the front lines as they could. The camp depicted in the movie was built to house the most persistent escape offenders, and from the small bit of research I did, it was very close to the actual conditions and many of the events happened as seen.
My first thought when seeing the opening credits and knowing that Steve McQueen was in this film, I expected him to dominate screen time. To my surprise this was not the case, and although his characters role in the escape was embellished, as well as the other American prisoner, screen time was broken up well between all the major players in the planning and digging of the escape tunnels. All the actors do a very good job at playing their roles, and although McQueen was the only name I knew, I hope to see more of the others in some of the older films still on the list. Several of the actors actually served in conflicts around the globe, and a few of those actually spent time as POWs. the one detraction I have with the performances is the characters are very nonchalant about their situation. You find out that many of them had already spent nearly 3 years as POWs which kind of explains their demeanor, but it seemed more like summer camp at times as compared to a POW camp.
The scope of the movie is very small while taking place during WW2. Two thirds of the movie happen inside the fence of the e camp, which itself only covers 4-5 football fields worth of space. Even with that focus, the movie does not feel stagnant, and it introduces you to literally every part of the escape that helps keep the 3 hour affair paced well. The end of the movie especially picks up the pace following the escapees on their respective journeys.
I have commented a lot on the previous movies on their musical scores and the impacts they had on the film. "The Great Escape" does not falter by providing one of the most recognizable theme songs of all time. You probably did not even know it came from this movie, I didn't, but you will recognize it, and probably even whistle right along with it. Start at 20 seconds if you want to skip to the main part, otherwise listen all the way through.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie. I could have easily fallen asleep had it not been so well done, and it kept pulling me back in with the constant interaction and maturation of the characters. It may not be your cup of tea if you cannot sit through the first hour and a half, but the ending definitely rewards you with enough action, including a motorcycle chase scene with "the king of cool" himself, McQueen, and a satisfying conclusion to a true story that changed Allied policy on how to act as a POW. If I had to pick, I would still probably watch "Saving Private Ryan" if we are talking WW2 movies, but that's the new age action man in me.
Score: 4.2 Two thumbs up, must see for anyone who enjoys historic films.
Next movie "Die Hard" until then...
I'm just sayin...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Little Fockers, Season of the Witch, List discussion
This last weekend when my cousin was in town we decided to watch a movie after eating dinner. Since I have been choosing a lot of the movies lately, and there is not much in theaters, we decided to all go see "Little Fockers". Now I do not really remember the first movie very well, as in I did not even remember Owen Wilson was in it until he showed up in this film. "Meet the Fockers" on the other hand is a movie I watch on occasion for some cheap laughs that do not put me into a stupor or a coma.
Now this franchise is something that I have always at least somewhat enjoyed, and this movie follows suit, but, is way overplayed. Obviously Stiller is not removing himself from the pity/bad luck stereotype he has made for himself, nor is the movie particularly clever on the whole. It is painfully predictable, and seeing Jessica Alba in her underwear does not really make me like the movie any more. Her character is just painful every time she talks, and although she is not a great actress by any stretch, it is a really poor performance. Overall, it is a renter, and I would be hard pressed to give it more than a 2.3 out of 5.
Bringing back the good ol' days of high school, we noticed "Season of the Witch" was starting as we got out of "Fockers" and decided to theater hop into that movie. Very few times have I ever regretted watching a movie for free more than this time. Now we all have a favorite Nicholas Cage movie. Whether it is "Face Off", "Con Air", "The Rock", or "Gone In 60 Seconds". Guess what? The newest of those movies came out in 2000, and the only good one to come after that, "National Treasure", which I cannot argue is a fun movie to watch. You want to hear some of his other "work" since then? "The Weather Man", "The Wicker Man", "Ghost Rider", "Grindhouse", "Next", "National Treasure: Book of Secrets", "Bangkok Dangerous", "Knowing", "G-Force", "The Bad Lieutenant", and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". If you have seen all of those, I am sorry for your soul, and may the gods be easy on you. "Kick-ass" was a good movie, but I will argue that Cage added nothing to it, and anyone could have played that role successfully. Not to mention two of his next films are "Drive Angry 3D", and a sequel to Ghost Rider, things are not getting better for Cage fans anytime soon.
What do you mean I have not talked about the movie yet? Here ya go, Ron Perlman is enjoyable to watch, for what that is worth. Cage does not play a knight of the crusades to any degree of convincing, although I guess the long hair and the scruffiness fit the part. The storyline? Terrible. They try and convince you that the twist at the end was something you should have seen all along, even though there was no mention that it was a possibility within the fantasy environment. Some of the other actors do an ok job of playing their dark ages roles, but of course all the face time goes to Cage. Special effects? EddieW on youtube could have done a better job, and there was not any real redeeming quality to any of the sound, music, or cinematography done either.
Overall, save yourself, do not even watch it when it comes on cable, for free.
Score: .6 I will never watch it again. I would rather watch all 3 twilight films than watch this again, and that is saying a lot.
The list.
So I have had the discussion a couple times on the validity of the List I have chosen. Biggest beef has been from the womenfolk who complain that it is a very gender biased list, and they are all guy movies. I hear you to a point. While many of these movies are more action oriented, or thrillers, those type of movies seem to be enjoyed by a wider audience than any other genre. I want to see all the guys who would put "The Notebook" in their top 20 movies of all time. Or even their favorite 100 movies, or better yet, make a list of 200 movies of the top of your head that you would watch if you were just bored and wanted to watch a movie by yourself. Do all of those lists, and I am pretty sure that almost no guy will put "Notebook" on those lists. I am not saying that "chick" flicks are bad, or not enjoyable at times, but on a wide scale, they are not well received by male audiences. so while this list does seem to have more "action" movies, these movies appeal to both genders, and most of the movies on the list tend to transcend generations as well. Lastly I chose to use the IMDB.com because it is user ranked, voted by all who chose to on the internet. And as skewed as user voted thing can get, the lowest vote count in the top 10 is "12 Angry Men" with 127,000 votes. I may compare IMDB's list with the top 100 on Empire
to see how different they are and where I might disagree.
I will get another real review done this weekend, but until next time,
I'm just sayin...
Now this franchise is something that I have always at least somewhat enjoyed, and this movie follows suit, but, is way overplayed. Obviously Stiller is not removing himself from the pity/bad luck stereotype he has made for himself, nor is the movie particularly clever on the whole. It is painfully predictable, and seeing Jessica Alba in her underwear does not really make me like the movie any more. Her character is just painful every time she talks, and although she is not a great actress by any stretch, it is a really poor performance. Overall, it is a renter, and I would be hard pressed to give it more than a 2.3 out of 5.
Bringing back the good ol' days of high school, we noticed "Season of the Witch" was starting as we got out of "Fockers" and decided to theater hop into that movie. Very few times have I ever regretted watching a movie for free more than this time. Now we all have a favorite Nicholas Cage movie. Whether it is "Face Off", "Con Air", "The Rock", or "Gone In 60 Seconds". Guess what? The newest of those movies came out in 2000, and the only good one to come after that, "National Treasure", which I cannot argue is a fun movie to watch. You want to hear some of his other "work" since then? "The Weather Man", "The Wicker Man", "Ghost Rider", "Grindhouse", "Next", "National Treasure: Book of Secrets", "Bangkok Dangerous", "Knowing", "G-Force", "The Bad Lieutenant", and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". If you have seen all of those, I am sorry for your soul, and may the gods be easy on you. "Kick-ass" was a good movie, but I will argue that Cage added nothing to it, and anyone could have played that role successfully. Not to mention two of his next films are "Drive Angry 3D", and a sequel to Ghost Rider, things are not getting better for Cage fans anytime soon.
What do you mean I have not talked about the movie yet? Here ya go, Ron Perlman is enjoyable to watch, for what that is worth. Cage does not play a knight of the crusades to any degree of convincing, although I guess the long hair and the scruffiness fit the part. The storyline? Terrible. They try and convince you that the twist at the end was something you should have seen all along, even though there was no mention that it was a possibility within the fantasy environment. Some of the other actors do an ok job of playing their dark ages roles, but of course all the face time goes to Cage. Special effects? EddieW on youtube could have done a better job, and there was not any real redeeming quality to any of the sound, music, or cinematography done either.
Overall, save yourself, do not even watch it when it comes on cable, for free.
Score: .6 I will never watch it again. I would rather watch all 3 twilight films than watch this again, and that is saying a lot.
The list.
So I have had the discussion a couple times on the validity of the List I have chosen. Biggest beef has been from the womenfolk who complain that it is a very gender biased list, and they are all guy movies. I hear you to a point. While many of these movies are more action oriented, or thrillers, those type of movies seem to be enjoyed by a wider audience than any other genre. I want to see all the guys who would put "The Notebook" in their top 20 movies of all time. Or even their favorite 100 movies, or better yet, make a list of 200 movies of the top of your head that you would watch if you were just bored and wanted to watch a movie by yourself. Do all of those lists, and I am pretty sure that almost no guy will put "Notebook" on those lists. I am not saying that "chick" flicks are bad, or not enjoyable at times, but on a wide scale, they are not well received by male audiences. so while this list does seem to have more "action" movies, these movies appeal to both genders, and most of the movies on the list tend to transcend generations as well. Lastly I chose to use the IMDB.com because it is user ranked, voted by all who chose to on the internet. And as skewed as user voted thing can get, the lowest vote count in the top 10 is "12 Angry Men" with 127,000 votes. I may compare IMDB's list with the top 100 on Empire
to see how different they are and where I might disagree.
I will get another real review done this weekend, but until next time,
I'm just sayin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)