Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Fall meets Be Kind Rewind, sorta. I thought this was gonna be pretty funny to see after just recently watching the entire Rambo series, but it turns out the references are pretty minimal. This movie is pretty cute, kinda loses it's way for a while in the final third by overly complicating things and having the story get a little too outlandish, but then has a sweet ending. Worth my time, but not what it could have been.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday the 13th part 3 IN 3-D!!!!!!!!!!! (2-D version)
Saturday, August 30 2008
This is both one of the best made Friday the 13th sequels, and most unintentionally hilarious. The movie was shown in 3-D in theaters, but is always 2-D on home video. So there's constant shots of things flying at the camera, often times for no good reason, and in 2-D it's borderline surreal. I mean, I can see why Jason would shoot that speargun thing right at the camera even in 2-D, that could look cool, but what about that part where the kid points his baseball bat at the camera, or where the guys juggle right into the camera, or when there's a 5 second shot of popcorn popping right at the camera. It's fucking awesome.
Diary of the Dead
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I pretty much knew this one was going to suck, but it's a Romero zombie movie, so I felt compelled. It has a terrible premise, a lot of awful, heavy-handed dialogue made even worse by a voice-over narration that explains the already over-stated themes and ideas. I don't exactly expect subtlety in a horror movie, but this is ridiculous. The few good ideas the movie does have are ruined because the characters have to draw attention to them and point them out in case you didn't get it. Ugh.
The zombie stuff is good though. It's a lot like Romero's Day of the Dead, where a terrible movie is made watchable by some entertaining zombie action.
Blue
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I have been meaning to check out a Kieslowski movie for a long time. This one is the first in his "Three Colors" trilogy: Blue, White and Red, and I certainly plan on checking the others out. This is a very peculiar drama with a lot of strange stylistic touches. It's a bit of a challenge at times, not in a boring way but in a "what does this all mean?" sort of way. I'm still not sure I got everything, but that can be a good thing. It means that there's a lot to chew on here.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Repulsion
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I don't feel like I gave this one a fair chance. The movie wasn't engaging me, so I kept losing my focus and flat out stopped paying attention at points. Not showing a lot of kommitment, I know, but I wasn't enjoying myself.
So I'm probably not qualified to say too much about it, other than what I saw wasn't working for me. It's an early Roman Polanski horror movie, and I'll admit to general ignorance of his work, but for some reason I thought this would be a good place to start. Other than maybe a couple of cool shots and ideas, I thought this was a bore, and I'm rarely one to criticize a movie for being boring. Hell, I'm the guy who's a big fan of Gus Van Sant's Last Days and who thought Werckmeister Harmonies was pretty cool.
There's a girl, and she's a prude about sex, and not much interesting happens for a long time, and then her sister goes on a vacation and she's left alone in her apartment. She starts to go crazy or something, but in a very slow, uninteresting way, and eventually kills some people in a handful of awkwardly staged scenes. I got the sense that this was trying to be an artier horror film, which I'm all for, but it's not very interesting. It tries to imply all this subtextual, subconscious sexual stuff going on with the main character in an attempt at depth, but none of it makes the movie scary. I mean, I could care less if her insanity stems from her deep seated psycho/sexual issues when her insanity is so tedious. All the "depth" in the world doesn't make this a scary movie.
But like I said, I lost my concentration a lot during this movie a feel like I missed quite a bit. Maybe if I had been more into it, I would have noticed more details I liked, or notice that it created a mood, or whatever.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I don't feel like I gave this one a fair chance. The movie wasn't engaging me, so I kept losing my focus and flat out stopped paying attention at points. Not showing a lot of kommitment, I know, but I wasn't enjoying myself.
So I'm probably not qualified to say too much about it, other than what I saw wasn't working for me. It's an early Roman Polanski horror movie, and I'll admit to general ignorance of his work, but for some reason I thought this would be a good place to start. Other than maybe a couple of cool shots and ideas, I thought this was a bore, and I'm rarely one to criticize a movie for being boring. Hell, I'm the guy who's a big fan of Gus Van Sant's Last Days and who thought Werckmeister Harmonies was pretty cool.
There's a girl, and she's a prude about sex, and not much interesting happens for a long time, and then her sister goes on a vacation and she's left alone in her apartment. She starts to go crazy or something, but in a very slow, uninteresting way, and eventually kills some people in a handful of awkwardly staged scenes. I got the sense that this was trying to be an artier horror film, which I'm all for, but it's not very interesting. It tries to imply all this subtextual, subconscious sexual stuff going on with the main character in an attempt at depth, but none of it makes the movie scary. I mean, I could care less if her insanity stems from her deep seated psycho/sexual issues when her insanity is so tedious. All the "depth" in the world doesn't make this a scary movie.
But like I said, I lost my concentration a lot during this movie a feel like I missed quite a bit. Maybe if I had been more into it, I would have noticed more details I liked, or notice that it created a mood, or whatever.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I Know Who Killed Me
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
It's gotten to the point now where I just ignore this movie's many flaws and focus on it's insanity. I noticed this time that images of owls are hidden all over the film. It's kind of like Where's Waldo?
It's gotten to the point now where I just ignore this movie's many flaws and focus on it's insanity. I noticed this time that images of owls are hidden all over the film. It's kind of like Where's Waldo?
White Heat
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Between this, The Godfather, and the arrival of season 5 of The Wire, this is turning into Gangster Week here or something.
This is a famous gangster film starring James Cagney, and I had seen two other movies by this director, Raoul Walsh: The Roaring Twenties and High Sierra. Those were both pretty decent old crime movies, but this one is a big step up. It's surprisingly cold blooded and reasonably exciting, with a good over-the-top performance by Cagney, showing the same kind of bluster that Pacino would go for years later in Scarface. I haven't been as into the gangster films as I have other noir-y movies of the era, but this was one of the better ones.
Between this, The Godfather, and the arrival of season 5 of The Wire, this is turning into Gangster Week here or something.
This is a famous gangster film starring James Cagney, and I had seen two other movies by this director, Raoul Walsh: The Roaring Twenties and High Sierra. Those were both pretty decent old crime movies, but this one is a big step up. It's surprisingly cold blooded and reasonably exciting, with a good over-the-top performance by Cagney, showing the same kind of bluster that Pacino would go for years later in Scarface. I haven't been as into the gangster films as I have other noir-y movies of the era, but this was one of the better ones.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Godfather
Monday, August 25, 2008
Oh boy. Where to start. A while back I ashamedly admitted that I had never seen The Godfather Part 2, my reason being that, um... I wasn't really a big fan of the first film.
I know, I know. Pretty much every human being on the planet agrees that The Godfather is a great movie. I recognize that I am clearly in the wrong. But let me explain myself a little.
I had only seen The Godfather one time. And the thing I noticed about it was I didn't feel like it was the first time I saw it. The film is so deeply ingrained in our culture that every scene was familiar... it was a collection of moments I had already heard about. There was no impact.
Like I said though, I'm aware that I'm wrong. And since I'm kommitted 2 klassiks, I decided that it was high time I watched the entire Godfather trilogy. So I now present you with Godfather Mondays for the next 3 weeks, to fill in the gap left in my heart now that Rambo Mondays are over.
I figured this time, having seen The Godfather once before, I could get over the fact that I knew everything that was going to happen, because everyone knows everything that happens the second time through. It would be an actual second viewing, instead of my original sort of 1.5 times viewing. And I can see clearly now, the rain is gone, this is a pretty damn good yarn, well made, well acted, and obviously iconic. Pretty strong stuff.
I still didn't exactly love it.
I'm sure I'm going to sound like I'm just trying to be contrarian, but let me promise you that I'm at least not intentionally trying to do that. Maybe subconsciously, I don't know, but I'm not disagreeing with the general public just for the sake of disagreeing. I had a handful of serious issues with the film.
For one, the portrayal of women. All the female characters feel hazily defined. Diane Keaton disappears without a mention, only to reemerge whenever the plot requires. She has reservations about Michael's family, but then suddenly she's married to him even though she seems opposed to what he does. And then there's Michael sister, who isn't really given a personality, is almost entirely defined by the fact that her husband beats her, and then is expected to carry a big emotional scene near the end where she calls Michael out on his villainry. And maybe worst of all is the woman Michael marries in Sicily, who has almost no dialogue of substance, yet we just sort of accept that Michael loves her, and then she gets killed and is never mentioned again.
In fact, I have a problem with the whole Sicilian chunk of the movie. I understand that it's about Michael becoming closer to his roots, which will influence him in taking up the mantle of godfather, but ultimately it all feels too long and has little bearing on anything. As I mentioned above, there's his underdeveloped marriage that feels like little more than a plot device. But for me it really felt like there was a lack of progression, not just in terms of the subplot that doesn't add up to much, but in terms of Michael's character.
Which leads me to my final complaint: Michael Corleone's character arc. I love the idea of him going from disassociated from his family to becoming the new don, like it was his fate or something. But it's not very well transitioned. For the first hour or so, Michael is little more than a peripheral character, mainly defined by his objection to the family business. Then, after his father is shot, he's suddenly on board and raring to go. He's in all the way, no sense of hesitation. I think in the end his story is supposed to be sort of tragic or dark, but it doesn't really come across. We never see how a good man becomes bad, we don't see him fretting too much over his decisions, or debating his values or anything. One minute he's a good man, the next he's a killer. It's like they skipped the transition, which to me would be the interesting part.
All of which isn't to say I didn't very much enjoy this movie. The strength of the performances and the filmmaking and the immensely quotable screenplay really covers up a lot of these problems. And if nothing else, this movie is incredibly watchable. I am genuinely excited to see part 2 next week, and from what I gather it's considered better than this one.
Well, like I said, I'm not trying to be contrarian here. Still though, I'd love it if this pissed some of my friends off and they wrote in to tell me how wrong I am and that I'm an asshole.
Oh boy. Where to start. A while back I ashamedly admitted that I had never seen The Godfather Part 2, my reason being that, um... I wasn't really a big fan of the first film.
I know, I know. Pretty much every human being on the planet agrees that The Godfather is a great movie. I recognize that I am clearly in the wrong. But let me explain myself a little.
I had only seen The Godfather one time. And the thing I noticed about it was I didn't feel like it was the first time I saw it. The film is so deeply ingrained in our culture that every scene was familiar... it was a collection of moments I had already heard about. There was no impact.
Like I said though, I'm aware that I'm wrong. And since I'm kommitted 2 klassiks, I decided that it was high time I watched the entire Godfather trilogy. So I now present you with Godfather Mondays for the next 3 weeks, to fill in the gap left in my heart now that Rambo Mondays are over.
I figured this time, having seen The Godfather once before, I could get over the fact that I knew everything that was going to happen, because everyone knows everything that happens the second time through. It would be an actual second viewing, instead of my original sort of 1.5 times viewing. And I can see clearly now, the rain is gone, this is a pretty damn good yarn, well made, well acted, and obviously iconic. Pretty strong stuff.
I still didn't exactly love it.
I'm sure I'm going to sound like I'm just trying to be contrarian, but let me promise you that I'm at least not intentionally trying to do that. Maybe subconsciously, I don't know, but I'm not disagreeing with the general public just for the sake of disagreeing. I had a handful of serious issues with the film.
For one, the portrayal of women. All the female characters feel hazily defined. Diane Keaton disappears without a mention, only to reemerge whenever the plot requires. She has reservations about Michael's family, but then suddenly she's married to him even though she seems opposed to what he does. And then there's Michael sister, who isn't really given a personality, is almost entirely defined by the fact that her husband beats her, and then is expected to carry a big emotional scene near the end where she calls Michael out on his villainry. And maybe worst of all is the woman Michael marries in Sicily, who has almost no dialogue of substance, yet we just sort of accept that Michael loves her, and then she gets killed and is never mentioned again.
In fact, I have a problem with the whole Sicilian chunk of the movie. I understand that it's about Michael becoming closer to his roots, which will influence him in taking up the mantle of godfather, but ultimately it all feels too long and has little bearing on anything. As I mentioned above, there's his underdeveloped marriage that feels like little more than a plot device. But for me it really felt like there was a lack of progression, not just in terms of the subplot that doesn't add up to much, but in terms of Michael's character.
Which leads me to my final complaint: Michael Corleone's character arc. I love the idea of him going from disassociated from his family to becoming the new don, like it was his fate or something. But it's not very well transitioned. For the first hour or so, Michael is little more than a peripheral character, mainly defined by his objection to the family business. Then, after his father is shot, he's suddenly on board and raring to go. He's in all the way, no sense of hesitation. I think in the end his story is supposed to be sort of tragic or dark, but it doesn't really come across. We never see how a good man becomes bad, we don't see him fretting too much over his decisions, or debating his values or anything. One minute he's a good man, the next he's a killer. It's like they skipped the transition, which to me would be the interesting part.
All of which isn't to say I didn't very much enjoy this movie. The strength of the performances and the filmmaking and the immensely quotable screenplay really covers up a lot of these problems. And if nothing else, this movie is incredibly watchable. I am genuinely excited to see part 2 next week, and from what I gather it's considered better than this one.
Well, like I said, I'm not trying to be contrarian here. Still though, I'd love it if this pissed some of my friends off and they wrote in to tell me how wrong I am and that I'm an asshole.
The Dark Knight
Sunday, August 24, 2008
I thought it would be pretty cool to check this shit out in IMAX, and I was right, even if only a small amount of the movie is actually in IMAX.
I'm thinking that Christopher Nolan's talent is in his ability to flesh out and make plausible a completely implausible world. Very little of this film or The Prestige can really apply to our actual lives, but they feel real and authoritative. I'm not sure there's much relevance in a real world sense, but I'm also not sure that art requires that. It's pretty cool how he explores the emotional and ethical depths of a reality that doesn't exist.
Now, The Dark Knight is topical and relevant in certain respects, in how it may pose ideas of terrorism and surveillance and some of those issues. But mostly it's about the psychological and moral duel between Batman and the Joker, two characters who could not exist in our world and do not really serve as an accurate metaphor for anything either. I don't mean that as a criticism. In fact, I think it fucking rules that they've created this moral and psychological depth for two outlandish characters, that they've made a patently false world seem like a fully realized world.
I especially like the idea that the very existence of Batman would create the need for a person like the Joker. And I'm greatly intrigued by the Joker trying to make a philosophical statement with his crimes, although at times he does seem like he must be a big fan of the Saw movies or something, or maybe he's like Anton Chirgurh.
One of my favorite touches in the movie is that, in true noir fashion, characters are constantly compromising or redefining their values. Batman, Gordon, Harvey Dent, Fox, even Alfred all make choices in the moral grey area, and I'm not always convinced they make the right choice. No one seems to stick to their values... no one except, of course, the Joker, who understands exactly what he is and what he stands for. Few movie villains have been this self-aware or this philosophical.
I thought it would be pretty cool to check this shit out in IMAX, and I was right, even if only a small amount of the movie is actually in IMAX.
I'm thinking that Christopher Nolan's talent is in his ability to flesh out and make plausible a completely implausible world. Very little of this film or The Prestige can really apply to our actual lives, but they feel real and authoritative. I'm not sure there's much relevance in a real world sense, but I'm also not sure that art requires that. It's pretty cool how he explores the emotional and ethical depths of a reality that doesn't exist.
Now, The Dark Knight is topical and relevant in certain respects, in how it may pose ideas of terrorism and surveillance and some of those issues. But mostly it's about the psychological and moral duel between Batman and the Joker, two characters who could not exist in our world and do not really serve as an accurate metaphor for anything either. I don't mean that as a criticism. In fact, I think it fucking rules that they've created this moral and psychological depth for two outlandish characters, that they've made a patently false world seem like a fully realized world.
I especially like the idea that the very existence of Batman would create the need for a person like the Joker. And I'm greatly intrigued by the Joker trying to make a philosophical statement with his crimes, although at times he does seem like he must be a big fan of the Saw movies or something, or maybe he's like Anton Chirgurh.
One of my favorite touches in the movie is that, in true noir fashion, characters are constantly compromising or redefining their values. Batman, Gordon, Harvey Dent, Fox, even Alfred all make choices in the moral grey area, and I'm not always convinced they make the right choice. No one seems to stick to their values... no one except, of course, the Joker, who understands exactly what he is and what he stands for. Few movie villains have been this self-aware or this philosophical.
Monday, August 25, 2008
All the Real Girls
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Here's another home run from David Gordon Green, fast becoming a favorite director of mine. I don't even understand how he can make a movie that feels both poetic and down-to-earth at the same time. Something this artsy usually feels... if not pretentious, then at least like it exists on some other level. But Green's films feel like they're about real people, and they have a quirky charm and humor about them.
I can't really figure out what I was trying to say next. The film is about a womanizing young man who falls in love for the first time and tries to form a real relationship. This could inspire a pretty typical romantic comedy or something, but somehow it feels like much more; a meditation on the different kinds of love, and on the way we depend on our connections with others, and maybe just on the passage of time. It deals with some big ideas, but somehow expresses them without having the characters sit down and talk specifically about them. A lot is expressed, even when not a lot is happening, and there are a lot of moments that strike exactly the right note and feel perfect, even though I can't exactly explain why. Which I guess is the mark of a great film.
Here's another home run from David Gordon Green, fast becoming a favorite director of mine. I don't even understand how he can make a movie that feels both poetic and down-to-earth at the same time. Something this artsy usually feels... if not pretentious, then at least like it exists on some other level. But Green's films feel like they're about real people, and they have a quirky charm and humor about them.
I can't really figure out what I was trying to say next. The film is about a womanizing young man who falls in love for the first time and tries to form a real relationship. This could inspire a pretty typical romantic comedy or something, but somehow it feels like much more; a meditation on the different kinds of love, and on the way we depend on our connections with others, and maybe just on the passage of time. It deals with some big ideas, but somehow expresses them without having the characters sit down and talk specifically about them. A lot is expressed, even when not a lot is happening, and there are a lot of moments that strike exactly the right note and feel perfect, even though I can't exactly explain why. Which I guess is the mark of a great film.
American Graffiti
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Another one on my list that I'm a little embarrassed I'd never seen before. Needless to say, this is a pretty good one. I'm not interested in or nostalgic for the 50's at all, in fact I hate a lot of the music and fashion and all that shit, but George Lucas still gives this one a lot of charm and humor. I didn't have the impact that Dazed and Confused or especially Superbad had on me, but I enjoyed it a lot and can see why it's a classic in the teen movie genre.
Mirrors
Saturday, August 23, 2008
I'm gonna have to alter my viewpoint on Alexandre Aja a little bit. I was convinced that this guy was one of the most promising young directors in the horror genre today. His breakout film, High Tension was 2/3rds of a great slasher movie, exceptionally well shot, that starts to drag after a while and then reaches a stunningly terrible ending that kind of ruins everything that came before it. But, you know, it was clear he had talent and would likely improve. Then he remade Wes Craven's kinda terrible The Hills Have Eyes, and that's one that I think totally fulfilled his potential, and is one of the best slasher movies of this decade. Exciting, disturbing, tense, great looking and with surprisingly solid writing and acting, and deeper themes and symbolism than you might expect in a movie about mutant hillbillies. I was pretty excited to see what he did next.
Turns out what he did next was take a big shit. I honestly hated this movie, I don't think any of it worked for me except perhaps a few isolated moments, and I would have to be feeling pretty generous to even give it that much credit. There is one aspect of it that I did kind of like, the burned down department store set (even though it doesn't make any sense... why are all the walls and ceilings and floors burned, but lots of random pieces of furniture and things like curtains aren't?), so of course hardly any of the movie takes place there after the first 15 minutes or so.
The movie has a stupid premise, and executes it in my least favorite way possible. Which is to say, it's another ghost movie where the supernatural evil force can essentially do anything it wants, no rules are established, so all the "scary" stuff seems arbitrary.
I'm not gonna call Aja a sellout just yet (even though this movie is another American studio remake of a recent Asian horror flick) because his last film was a remake and it was pretty good. But even with some fairly graphic violence, this movie feels kind of like a ball-less mainstream horror movie without much of an original identity. Aja's next movie is Pirana 3-D, and although I bet I'll go see it, I'm not feeling very excited. It just seems like another step on the path to him becoming a generic, hired-gun sorta director.
Vicky Christina Barcelona
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Since Saturday was my birthday, I was able to drag Shenan along on a double feature at the theaters: Woody Allen's new one Vicky Christina Barcelona, and Alexandre Aja's long-awaited (by me) follow up to The Hills Have Eyes. Kind of a weird pairing, I admit it, but they were the only things out I really wanted to see.
I skipped Woody's last two movies because they were supposed to be turds, but this one shows that he's still definitely got it. It's good enough that I might still give Cassandra's Dream a chance, despite the bad reviews, although Scoop looks so deadly that I don't know if I can bring myself to watch it.
I don't know why it took me so long to figure out, but like 2/3rds of way into this one, I realized that it was Woody's homage to Jules and Jim, complete with 3rd person narration, off-beat threeway romance, and an unstable woman unexpectedly pulling a gun. Allen's done plenty of movies about romantic and sexual relationships, but I can't remember any that had ideas this open about the characters' sexuality. Which is all the more interesting because this is more chaste than some of his other films.
This also reminds me that I should work some Truffaut into my K2k. I saw The 400 Blows, Jules and Jim and Day for Night back in college, and it's about time I saw some more.
Since Saturday was my birthday, I was able to drag Shenan along on a double feature at the theaters: Woody Allen's new one Vicky Christina Barcelona, and Alexandre Aja's long-awaited (by me) follow up to The Hills Have Eyes. Kind of a weird pairing, I admit it, but they were the only things out I really wanted to see.
I skipped Woody's last two movies because they were supposed to be turds, but this one shows that he's still definitely got it. It's good enough that I might still give Cassandra's Dream a chance, despite the bad reviews, although Scoop looks so deadly that I don't know if I can bring myself to watch it.
I don't know why it took me so long to figure out, but like 2/3rds of way into this one, I realized that it was Woody's homage to Jules and Jim, complete with 3rd person narration, off-beat threeway romance, and an unstable woman unexpectedly pulling a gun. Allen's done plenty of movies about romantic and sexual relationships, but I can't remember any that had ideas this open about the characters' sexuality. Which is all the more interesting because this is more chaste than some of his other films.
This also reminds me that I should work some Truffaut into my K2k. I saw The 400 Blows, Jules and Jim and Day for Night back in college, and it's about time I saw some more.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Gilda
Saturday, August 23, 2008
This was kind of a Casablanca knock off, at least slightly, although a much better one than To Have and Have Not, and with a lot more noir thrown in. This is, I believe, the 2nd Rita Hayworth film I've seen, and although she's no Ingrid Bergman, I can see the attraction. I could have done without the unnecessary song and dance sequences, which really wreck the mood of what's otherwise a dark story. It's even worse than when she suddenly started singing for no reason in The Lady From Shanghai. I'm sensing a weird trend here of studio executives shoehorning her other talents into movie in which they don't appropriately fit. I wonder if it happens in her other movies?
Child's Play
Thursday, August 21, 2008
I don't know why, but I don't think I realized that this was directed by Tom Holland. Which means that, along with Fright Night, he made two minor classics in the 80's horror/comedy genre. And then he didn't ever do anything good ever again. Weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)