I saw on Rotten Tomatoes, that Lips (singer of Anvil) and Robb (drummer of Anvil) revealed their top 5 movies, and first on that list? Anvil! The Story of Anvil. It makes complete sense, because Lips and Robb are completely vulnerable in this movie. They expose themselves of who they are and only hope for attention and praise in return. I'm not sure if it happened, but all the audience can do is hope for them, because they are really doing whatever they can to make it. And they have done so for the past 30 years.
As a metal band, their time is probably gone to get the exposure, respect, and money that they deserve, want and need. They are still rocking it out, hoping for that major label contract, hoping for the manager to guide them through tours, and hoping for that large fan-base that will support them across countries. Perhaps these dreams are unrealistic and misguided, but it is the only thing they can set their sights on in the long run. They don't know what else to do, because they've done almost everything else and they can't really make it. Perhaps they need a better publicist, but at this point they don't know how to get one nor have the right funds for one. But would that even help? Metal isn't what it was before, and they are simply old. They have a loyal fan-base right now, but they seem to be there for nostalgia. We want them to succeed, but everything does not seem to be in the right conditions. The band, though stable as far as the two core members, it struggles and is internally unstable.
As Robb and Lips both agree, Robb is set. And it's really heartwarming to see Lips and his relationship so deep and profound for the sake of the band and their shared dreams. But Lips is the core of this story. He is the sore thumb of his family, of all his siblings who chose an "artsy" career path. He even looks quite different from his siblings, and his wife and son. He's struggled with acceptance his whole life, starting from his father. His words are articulate, and his feelings are real. There's nothing not to like about this guy's passion. He lives for it, and suffers from it. The movie's overall somber, because the self infliction that it will never become real for him, even though we wish it. And that's the story, but it exposes so much more as well about human character and music industries. It inspires and informs. It is good.
The director and screened interviews don't push anything at you, instead give you information for your own processing. I didn't spoil the whole thing because there is so much more... You should watch it.
Four out of Four.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Rawwwrrr.
How to Train Your Dragon: my really simplistic and half-assed review.
This movie delightfully surprises, but doesn't underwhelm nor overwhelm with its message and moral. Despite it's unique core story, it doesn't quite match up to the emotional intricacies of a Pixar movie, but with its increasing awareness of detail and storytelling, it may just catch up.
The story starts with a voice-over and a swooping view over an island inhabited by Vikings. Their pests are dragons that steal their food, and the age old tradition is this continuing war between Vikings and dragons. Hiccup is the boy behind the weapons department, and his dad is the man behind the army. The story goes from there. You can imagine it yourself with these somewhat stock characters. Add an animal, and there you go. Charming story. The highlights of this movie isn't this base story, but the interactions between Hiccup and the dragons. This includes his lessons with the man who looks over him, Gobber, and the other younglings of the island. However, it also brings some downfalls of the writing of the story. It uses cliche dialogue between cliche characters. It uses old comedic jokes and lines. Of course the dragon that he catches is the only cute dragon. The others are funny looking. The graphics are really great though. It doesn't hold out in any of the scenes that it does, and the flow of the story I enjoyed. The overall logic is nicely executed, even with the other plot deficiencies.
I give it 3 out of 4.
Other notes by me: Gerard Butler's voice is distracting. How come all the kids don't have accents? We're missing some female characters! Breast plates.
This movie delightfully surprises, but doesn't underwhelm nor overwhelm with its message and moral. Despite it's unique core story, it doesn't quite match up to the emotional intricacies of a Pixar movie, but with its increasing awareness of detail and storytelling, it may just catch up.
The story starts with a voice-over and a swooping view over an island inhabited by Vikings. Their pests are dragons that steal their food, and the age old tradition is this continuing war between Vikings and dragons. Hiccup is the boy behind the weapons department, and his dad is the man behind the army. The story goes from there. You can imagine it yourself with these somewhat stock characters. Add an animal, and there you go. Charming story. The highlights of this movie isn't this base story, but the interactions between Hiccup and the dragons. This includes his lessons with the man who looks over him, Gobber, and the other younglings of the island. However, it also brings some downfalls of the writing of the story. It uses cliche dialogue between cliche characters. It uses old comedic jokes and lines. Of course the dragon that he catches is the only cute dragon. The others are funny looking. The graphics are really great though. It doesn't hold out in any of the scenes that it does, and the flow of the story I enjoyed. The overall logic is nicely executed, even with the other plot deficiencies.
I give it 3 out of 4.
Other notes by me: Gerard Butler's voice is distracting. How come all the kids don't have accents? We're missing some female characters! Breast plates.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Lame sidenote.
So it's kind of really hard to rate movies out of 4, but I'm lazy to change it. I think I just went with it because of what I saw on my cable box and Ebert's reviews that I read. Its problematic because I often re-read and process my thoughts so much that I am always in the in-between... I'm so stingy, but I'll stick with it anyways.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Really Scorsese?!
I am going to spunk it up tonight and try to make a review that goes something like "Seth and Amy's REALLY?" segment... did I say that right? The following is about Shutter Island, and spoilers ahead. Also, it won't be as funny, because I'm not a comedy writer, AM I?
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
I warned you. If you plan to watch and haven't, you should not read!!!
Really Scorsese? You wanted to so badly to create a scary and suspenseful movie that you had to use your intense music in the beginning when it didn't fit?!
Ok, I'll give it to you, you really used the creepy silencing moments where you can barely hear the weird swooshing noise very well. It was pretty creepy and I liked it, but really? Using that and then introducing loud noises like those cheap thriller movies use... Really?
Leonardo DiCaprio was great (Really? Another accented Leo?), and I always love Mark Ruffalo. Michelle Williams was unexpected, and Ben Kingsley seemed right. I guess I have no complaint there, but can we just talk about the story... Really?
I was really loving your conspiracy theory and got really into it. I kept trying to think of past instances in the movie while the movie was still going on, to make logic for what was happening right now. Yeah, that statement I just wrote was really confusing, but you know what sucked about the confusingness of your movie? That it was pointless in the end! REALLY SCORSESE? Did we really need another of those, OH HE'S CRAZY endings? Did you just make me think in circles to aid your need to make this thriller movie. WAS it really necessary? REALLY!
Not only was it just another crazy movie, but did you REALLY have to include that scene with Leonardo DiCarpio and Michelle Williams in the end? It's like you're testing our intelligence! We're not that stupid Scorsese. Afterall, this is our like 5th time of these plots, did you really think you were that special? Really?!
Okay, I give it to you, there's probably new intricacies that haven't been explored before in a these "he's crazy" films, but that doesn't make you special Scorsese. The plot is vaguely familiar and un-new.
The cinematography was pretty good, and the mise en scene. But sometimes I did feel like you were pleasing yourself too much like most of the movie... really? Shots for shots sake... really?
Oh yeah, the classic name scramble to make a new name thing? Really?! I guess it's not your fault, you didn't write the book it was based on... But really?! Made me think of Voldemort although I'm sure Rowling wasn't the first to come up with that.
REALLY SCORSESE? I'm still thinking in circles to try to make sense of why you would want to do this movie so badly. Trying to piece out what good I can, but really Scorsese, stick to what your good at. Really.
I'll give it a 3 out of 4 anyways... pity.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
I warned you. If you plan to watch and haven't, you should not read!!!
Really Scorsese? You wanted to so badly to create a scary and suspenseful movie that you had to use your intense music in the beginning when it didn't fit?!
Ok, I'll give it to you, you really used the creepy silencing moments where you can barely hear the weird swooshing noise very well. It was pretty creepy and I liked it, but really? Using that and then introducing loud noises like those cheap thriller movies use... Really?
Leonardo DiCaprio was great (Really? Another accented Leo?), and I always love Mark Ruffalo. Michelle Williams was unexpected, and Ben Kingsley seemed right. I guess I have no complaint there, but can we just talk about the story... Really?
I was really loving your conspiracy theory and got really into it. I kept trying to think of past instances in the movie while the movie was still going on, to make logic for what was happening right now. Yeah, that statement I just wrote was really confusing, but you know what sucked about the confusingness of your movie? That it was pointless in the end! REALLY SCORSESE? Did we really need another of those, OH HE'S CRAZY endings? Did you just make me think in circles to aid your need to make this thriller movie. WAS it really necessary? REALLY!
Not only was it just another crazy movie, but did you REALLY have to include that scene with Leonardo DiCarpio and Michelle Williams in the end? It's like you're testing our intelligence! We're not that stupid Scorsese. Afterall, this is our like 5th time of these plots, did you really think you were that special? Really?!
Okay, I give it to you, there's probably new intricacies that haven't been explored before in a these "he's crazy" films, but that doesn't make you special Scorsese. The plot is vaguely familiar and un-new.
The cinematography was pretty good, and the mise en scene. But sometimes I did feel like you were pleasing yourself too much like most of the movie... really? Shots for shots sake... really?
Oh yeah, the classic name scramble to make a new name thing? Really?! I guess it's not your fault, you didn't write the book it was based on... But really?! Made me think of Voldemort although I'm sure Rowling wasn't the first to come up with that.
REALLY SCORSESE? I'm still thinking in circles to try to make sense of why you would want to do this movie so badly. Trying to piece out what good I can, but really Scorsese, stick to what your good at. Really.
I'll give it a 3 out of 4 anyways... pity.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Broken Almodovar
The title (of this post) is way exaggerated. He isn't broken! Broken Embraces literally embraces all the qualities of a Pedro Almodovar story and illustrates the amazing cinematography; not to mention the inclusion of Penelope Cruz. But where it lacks is the thoughtful and provoking quality that other Almodovar films leave me with. The disturbed yet bittersweet ending that perturbs me.
Perhaps I had too high of hopes for this film. I thought Volver was pretty great, but my favorite is Bad Education. Talk to Her and All About My Mother stay in my fond memories of Almodovar, but I would have to say this one, although I appreciated, will be on the bottom of my Almodovar spectrum.
The movie begins with a man and a voice over. He explains that he was a man of two personas. One was Mateo, and in present day, as a writer he is now known as Harry Caine (Lluis Homar). We know we are in present day, because soon we have text that brings us to another character set in 1994 Spain, Lena (Cruz). The story unfolds with pieces and fragments exposed to you until the ultimate climax occurs, as in most Pedro Almodovar films. The brilliance of Almodovar is the creativity in the story and the unfolding of the story itself is the spectacle, to keep you on the edge of your seat. In this movie, the unfolding of the story is slow and plays out like a soap opera. The story rings familiar, and I kept waiting for the climax. Even though his turning points are not always so with-standing in films, I felt that this movie buried itself as it went on, and so that the end was stagnant and lazy. The structure and pacing of the film made it difficult to gauge the screenplay's sign posts. I can see the qualities of Almodovar's films: the reveal/confession (medium shot of a dining table, moving back and forth with not that much emotion involved), the drama, etc. And I grabbed onto those factors as I went on with the movie, so it kept me interested. Like I said, I was just waiting for the grandiose ending. In a way, I felt that Almodovar was more embracing the homage to filmmaking as he filmed this movie, and left the audience to embrace an empty story.
I felt the acting by Penelope Cruz was great as usual. Her scenes where she tries on different wig just explains her place in Pedro Almodovar's movies. She's a doll to dress up and play with. I thought her display of her character evoked the most emotion and attachment for the viewer. Lluis Homar did fine in his role, but did not really display the emotions I expected him to or that the words dictated to him. I feel the other actors that played Diego and Judit did great with their characters, and the screen resonated with their presence.
The best best best thing about this movie was the cinematography or the (I forgot the term for it) where you color over the film like in Amelie. However, I don't think that was it, and in that case I am not sure what to call it. I just loved how the images popped off the screen and made me feel as if I was watching a moving painting. The colors were so bright like modern art. I loved the shots and the mise en scene. There were some beautiful moments in this movie that I will embrace (yeah I'm beating in that word in this "review"), and the way the two past and present things collided I admired. Overall, how the script was structured I liked, but the story itself was not that creative as I would have hoped. The inclusion of Diego I found to be fascinating as a screenplay tool. I may give it a second viewing.
My thoughts: 3 out of 4
Perhaps I had too high of hopes for this film. I thought Volver was pretty great, but my favorite is Bad Education. Talk to Her and All About My Mother stay in my fond memories of Almodovar, but I would have to say this one, although I appreciated, will be on the bottom of my Almodovar spectrum.
The movie begins with a man and a voice over. He explains that he was a man of two personas. One was Mateo, and in present day, as a writer he is now known as Harry Caine (Lluis Homar). We know we are in present day, because soon we have text that brings us to another character set in 1994 Spain, Lena (Cruz). The story unfolds with pieces and fragments exposed to you until the ultimate climax occurs, as in most Pedro Almodovar films. The brilliance of Almodovar is the creativity in the story and the unfolding of the story itself is the spectacle, to keep you on the edge of your seat. In this movie, the unfolding of the story is slow and plays out like a soap opera. The story rings familiar, and I kept waiting for the climax. Even though his turning points are not always so with-standing in films, I felt that this movie buried itself as it went on, and so that the end was stagnant and lazy. The structure and pacing of the film made it difficult to gauge the screenplay's sign posts. I can see the qualities of Almodovar's films: the reveal/confession (medium shot of a dining table, moving back and forth with not that much emotion involved), the drama, etc. And I grabbed onto those factors as I went on with the movie, so it kept me interested. Like I said, I was just waiting for the grandiose ending. In a way, I felt that Almodovar was more embracing the homage to filmmaking as he filmed this movie, and left the audience to embrace an empty story.
I felt the acting by Penelope Cruz was great as usual. Her scenes where she tries on different wig just explains her place in Pedro Almodovar's movies. She's a doll to dress up and play with. I thought her display of her character evoked the most emotion and attachment for the viewer. Lluis Homar did fine in his role, but did not really display the emotions I expected him to or that the words dictated to him. I feel the other actors that played Diego and Judit did great with their characters, and the screen resonated with their presence.
The best best best thing about this movie was the cinematography or the (I forgot the term for it) where you color over the film like in Amelie. However, I don't think that was it, and in that case I am not sure what to call it. I just loved how the images popped off the screen and made me feel as if I was watching a moving painting. The colors were so bright like modern art. I loved the shots and the mise en scene. There were some beautiful moments in this movie that I will embrace (yeah I'm beating in that word in this "review"), and the way the two past and present things collided I admired. Overall, how the script was structured I liked, but the story itself was not that creative as I would have hoped. The inclusion of Diego I found to be fascinating as a screenplay tool. I may give it a second viewing.
My thoughts: 3 out of 4
Monday, March 15, 2010
Good grief!
*Warning: Review may be sloppy because of finals, but I needed to write this before I forget, which has sort of happened already.*
I walked into The Greatest without too many expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. I recently watched An Education, so I expected that Carey Mulligan would be a stand out in the film, considering the hit and misses that are of Susan Sarandon and Pierce Brosnan. Most of my expectations were not bad, but were underestimated.
The Greatest is about a family's grieving process after their son/brother dies in a car crash, and leaves his unfamiliar girlfriend pregnant. The movie delves into the different ways that people grieve without getting to depressing and highlights relationships between each of the family members and other people, including Carey Mulligan's character, Rose. Rose plays a role in their lives that she doesn't even understand, and neither do they.
The story itself is simple and charming. There was only one instance when I was a little worried about the dialogue. I was a little worried about the somewhat awkward jokes that were spoken by the little brother character... but I thought it made the movie more light-hearted and he was probably the only comedic factor of the movie. I enjoyed his performance. Rose's character is charismatic and charming, innocent and daring. It really fit. I love Carey Mulligan. Susan Surandon gave a pretty average performance, but it worked for her. Her emotion wasn't really portrayed that well, and I thought it was dry. The same could be said about Pierce Brosnan... dude can't cry (that is not a spoiler). He was more emotional and convincing than Sarandon, but I think his character was a little flat. The highlight for me, I feel as a girl, was the whole romantic subplot that takes place in the past, but is conveniently placed throughout the movie, either when Rose is retelling their story or at certain strategic plot points. I loved it. I think it was the main reason I wanted to see the movie from the trailers.
Walking out of the movie, I was confused about whether I loved it or whether it was pretty mediocre. I give it credit for sucking me in, but making me feel betrayed that it fooled me. So, I think overall, the plot may not be that amazing, but I feel that it took an idea and tried to give it a new spin, and the result was a very coherent piece of drama/romance. It didn't try to be some kind of indie classic or epic drama or anything; it didn't try too hard at all to be anything. It takes guts these days to not try to stand out, and they just pretty much aimed to be another pretty good movie but nothing too full of themselves. Even though it probably won't be a movie I will remember, I would recommend it, and in the end, that's what matters.
3 out of 4 (on second thought, I thought about changing this to 2.5)
Rabble rabble rabble!
I walked into The Greatest without too many expectations, and was pleasantly surprised. I recently watched An Education, so I expected that Carey Mulligan would be a stand out in the film, considering the hit and misses that are of Susan Sarandon and Pierce Brosnan. Most of my expectations were not bad, but were underestimated.
The Greatest is about a family's grieving process after their son/brother dies in a car crash, and leaves his unfamiliar girlfriend pregnant. The movie delves into the different ways that people grieve without getting to depressing and highlights relationships between each of the family members and other people, including Carey Mulligan's character, Rose. Rose plays a role in their lives that she doesn't even understand, and neither do they.
The story itself is simple and charming. There was only one instance when I was a little worried about the dialogue. I was a little worried about the somewhat awkward jokes that were spoken by the little brother character... but I thought it made the movie more light-hearted and he was probably the only comedic factor of the movie. I enjoyed his performance. Rose's character is charismatic and charming, innocent and daring. It really fit. I love Carey Mulligan. Susan Surandon gave a pretty average performance, but it worked for her. Her emotion wasn't really portrayed that well, and I thought it was dry. The same could be said about Pierce Brosnan... dude can't cry (that is not a spoiler). He was more emotional and convincing than Sarandon, but I think his character was a little flat. The highlight for me, I feel as a girl, was the whole romantic subplot that takes place in the past, but is conveniently placed throughout the movie, either when Rose is retelling their story or at certain strategic plot points. I loved it. I think it was the main reason I wanted to see the movie from the trailers.
Walking out of the movie, I was confused about whether I loved it or whether it was pretty mediocre. I give it credit for sucking me in, but making me feel betrayed that it fooled me. So, I think overall, the plot may not be that amazing, but I feel that it took an idea and tried to give it a new spin, and the result was a very coherent piece of drama/romance. It didn't try to be some kind of indie classic or epic drama or anything; it didn't try too hard at all to be anything. It takes guts these days to not try to stand out, and they just pretty much aimed to be another pretty good movie but nothing too full of themselves. Even though it probably won't be a movie I will remember, I would recommend it, and in the end, that's what matters.
3 out of 4 (on second thought, I thought about changing this to 2.5)
Rabble rabble rabble!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
