Having just been to Spain and hearing about the illegal immigrant problems and the poverty, watching this movie made everything so surreal and depressing. But I really enjoyed it and thought it was beautifully sad.
I can't seem to remember how to write about movies, and I feel like I can write too much and spoil the movie, so I will briefly write something. Javier Bardem's character has a lot on his hands; he has two children, a difficult wife that doesn't live with him, and he helps run a somewhat illegal business of selling fake goods with illegals. We sympathize for him not only because of his stenuous duties, but because of the way he takes care of business. Oh and also he has a medical condition. As the movie progresses, we see things getting better and things unraveling. The movie does great to accentuate the pain and the bittersweet moments in the character's life. The only thing I found strange about the movie was a minor plot point that provided a few scary and chilling moments, and it almost gave me nightmares as I was trying to sleep. It was reminiscent of the Japanese version of "The Eye." The movie probably would have survived without it, but it was an interesting, if non-realistic, addition to the movie. It added to the sadness I felt, and I love feeling sad in Inarritu's movies.
Three and a half stars.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Thoughts after watching some comedies.
Some movies just suck and some movies are just stupid, but I think the difference is important. A movie that sucks is trying to make something good, but is just horrible and fails at life. A movie that is stupid, doesn't try to be good, it's just trying to get out there for it's target audience and doesn't try to get anything more. A movie that suck, may try to do something new and maybe in their mind, creative and unique, but it's just a way to please himself in his writing skills and it's just really stupid and really sucks.
Movies I saw recently:
Step Brothers - Stupid
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - SUCKS
I Love You Man - Love it!
Movies I saw recently:
Step Brothers - Stupid
Zack and Miri Make a Porno - SUCKS
I Love You Man - Love it!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Every once in awhile...
So working at a video store is a blessing and a curse. I feel the need to watch every movie to form a real opinion and be able to give recommendations to the HUNDREDS (tens) of people that ask me day by day. This drone has made me not pay attention to most English-spoken movies, especially ones that I know did not get good reviews or do not gain my interest straight away. Even when I come across a movie I like in the smallest way, I will forget about it when people ask me for recommendations. I am just good at hating, I suppose. Haters gonna hate. But, sometimes I'll watch something so lovely and entrancing, that my world changes a little and I can't really stop thinking about it for awhile. I really quite liked Greenberg without really letting reviews get to me. So, that's all I can remember of the past three months. THREE MONTHS (or more). But OMG, I just saw The Secret in Their Eyes, and it changed my world!!!
It made me linger on the sad thought that North Americans can never make such a romantic and beautifully unfolded story as the makers of that movie did. I had the same feeling with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Maybe the Academy voters really know how to catch them, but it seems like the only way for me to access these movies is the Academy Awards... I'm just not out there enough I guess. I thought The Road was pretty good though. I know we're trying and there are many respectable North American filmmakers, but I feel like the story writing techniques of Europeans and now, Latin Americans... it's on a level that very few North Americans can reach. I feel like it could be a media thing. I don't know... I'm just RAMBLING. But man... that movie. Love it!
It made me linger on the sad thought that North Americans can never make such a romantic and beautifully unfolded story as the makers of that movie did. I had the same feeling with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Maybe the Academy voters really know how to catch them, but it seems like the only way for me to access these movies is the Academy Awards... I'm just not out there enough I guess. I thought The Road was pretty good though. I know we're trying and there are many respectable North American filmmakers, but I feel like the story writing techniques of Europeans and now, Latin Americans... it's on a level that very few North Americans can reach. I feel like it could be a media thing. I don't know... I'm just RAMBLING. But man... that movie. Love it!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Runaways, more like sleepaways.
I wanted to tweet about this, but it would've been more than 140 characters. So, let's see if I can expand my ideas here.
Whatever interest I had (a lot) in the Runaways (the band), was quickly lost as I found the fault not necessarily the movie, but just their story. I'm sure it was really fascinating during that time to have an all girl rock band start from one girl's idea, but perhaps it was the movie's fault that the story didn't portray this enough. It did not make me want to know more or care at all.
Making a biopic may be hard these days, where documentaries seem like the easy way out, but seeming like you're making a biopic just because you found a great young adult cast and milking them for performances seems like a really self-absorbed fantasy, Joan Jett. Perhaps I am wrongly accusing her, but she is an executive producer.
Anyways, the main problem I had with this movie was that there wasn't anything extravagant about the characters or about the band that seem remotely interesting and worth a movie about. I am all for girl power and stuff, but focusing more on Cheri Currie kind of made it worst. Of course she was young and naive, but why should I care about her false dreams. The whole movie seemed like a dull note of band dynamics that happens to most bands during rock 'n' roll and in general. The performances were fine, but not anything great. The movie even had more interest in itself by recording them singing the songs, which were not very good (although I don't know what the originals sound like, but rock should get me pumped up not sleepy). Mix in some artsy shots and mood music, and this just another biopic. It sort of felt like Across the Universe. Ugh.
Two stars out of four.
Whatever interest I had (a lot) in the Runaways (the band), was quickly lost as I found the fault not necessarily the movie, but just their story. I'm sure it was really fascinating during that time to have an all girl rock band start from one girl's idea, but perhaps it was the movie's fault that the story didn't portray this enough. It did not make me want to know more or care at all.
Making a biopic may be hard these days, where documentaries seem like the easy way out, but seeming like you're making a biopic just because you found a great young adult cast and milking them for performances seems like a really self-absorbed fantasy, Joan Jett. Perhaps I am wrongly accusing her, but she is an executive producer.
Anyways, the main problem I had with this movie was that there wasn't anything extravagant about the characters or about the band that seem remotely interesting and worth a movie about. I am all for girl power and stuff, but focusing more on Cheri Currie kind of made it worst. Of course she was young and naive, but why should I care about her false dreams. The whole movie seemed like a dull note of band dynamics that happens to most bands during rock 'n' roll and in general. The performances were fine, but not anything great. The movie even had more interest in itself by recording them singing the songs, which were not very good (although I don't know what the originals sound like, but rock should get me pumped up not sleepy). Mix in some artsy shots and mood music, and this just another biopic. It sort of felt like Across the Universe. Ugh.
Two stars out of four.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Anvil thoughts and rambles
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.
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.
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!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Avatar
I was thinking of attempting to write a real review, but I'd rather not until I learn from a teacher. Which probably won't happen. :(
I saw Avatar 3D and it was visually really pretty and awesome and creative and cool beans. But aside from that the story wasn't that new or that clever. Most of the characters were one dimensional, and I'm still trying to figure out why I sympathized with the lead character. He was stupid most of the time, I think it was just cause he's crippled. Some things didn't really make sense to me, like why the People felt they could learn from him... it seemed like a loophole for him to be accepted to the group. Of course it was emotional because of the environment and stuff, which was a little overkill. Also, the dialog was lacking aka it was corny. Everything was almost cliche. The originality only comes from all the animals and plants and space and technology and it looks very great, as I said. The movie did what it was supposed to, which is entertain, excite and what have you and they probably spent the budget on cgi rather than story and whatever.
2 1/2 out of 4.
I saw Avatar 3D and it was visually really pretty and awesome and creative and cool beans. But aside from that the story wasn't that new or that clever. Most of the characters were one dimensional, and I'm still trying to figure out why I sympathized with the lead character. He was stupid most of the time, I think it was just cause he's crippled. Some things didn't really make sense to me, like why the People felt they could learn from him... it seemed like a loophole for him to be accepted to the group. Of course it was emotional because of the environment and stuff, which was a little overkill. Also, the dialog was lacking aka it was corny. Everything was almost cliche. The originality only comes from all the animals and plants and space and technology and it looks very great, as I said. The movie did what it was supposed to, which is entertain, excite and what have you and they probably spent the budget on cgi rather than story and whatever.
2 1/2 out of 4.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Fantastic Mr. Fox
I was going to go to the library and borrow this book today to contrast it, but I probably shouldn't since I have to 'study.' BLEHHH
Anyways... I did an embarrassing thing and decided to try to record a video review for the Rotten Tomatoes Show, and I realized that it's a lot harder than it looks and that my speech teacher was ultimately right; I need more enthusiasm. And Jimmy Fallon was right; I need to up my volume (which I tried to do with the iMovie settings). But I uploaded it anyways, in case I get lucky. You never know, but please don't watch it.
Here's basically what I said, or what I meant to say but it came out differently on video:
Fantastic Mr. Fox is another Roald Dahl book to movie adaptation with a few changes.
Director Wes Anderson has churned another successful movie adaptation as well as another successful 'Wes Anderson' movie.
Even with the stop motion being a little strange at times, there is never a dull moment in this movie. Even with the still shots of the characters, you see the little movement of the hairs on their heads.
The attention to detail by Wes Anderson is very satisfying throughout the movie.
Some, if not all, of the voice recordings were done on set to get the real ambient noises of the fields and such.
Although, sometimes the humor is somewhat adult, it is still more age appropriate than Where the Wild Things are.
It is very lighthearted and funny and gratifying till the end.
George Clooney, Jason Schwartzman, and Michael Gambon stand out for me as the voice actors, even though I kept thinking of Dumbledore for the later. The deliveries of the lines are perfect.
Overall, Fantastic Mr. Fox doesn't take itself too seriously and is charming for both adults and children.
Side note: It has one of the best scenes I could imagine. Please watch it.
Anyways... I did an embarrassing thing and decided to try to record a video review for the Rotten Tomatoes Show, and I realized that it's a lot harder than it looks and that my speech teacher was ultimately right; I need more enthusiasm. And Jimmy Fallon was right; I need to up my volume (which I tried to do with the iMovie settings). But I uploaded it anyways, in case I get lucky. You never know, but please don't watch it.
Here's basically what I said, or what I meant to say but it came out differently on video:
Fantastic Mr. Fox is another Roald Dahl book to movie adaptation with a few changes.
Director Wes Anderson has churned another successful movie adaptation as well as another successful 'Wes Anderson' movie.
Even with the stop motion being a little strange at times, there is never a dull moment in this movie. Even with the still shots of the characters, you see the little movement of the hairs on their heads.
The attention to detail by Wes Anderson is very satisfying throughout the movie.
Some, if not all, of the voice recordings were done on set to get the real ambient noises of the fields and such.
Although, sometimes the humor is somewhat adult, it is still more age appropriate than Where the Wild Things are.
It is very lighthearted and funny and gratifying till the end.
George Clooney, Jason Schwartzman, and Michael Gambon stand out for me as the voice actors, even though I kept thinking of Dumbledore for the later. The deliveries of the lines are perfect.
Overall, Fantastic Mr. Fox doesn't take itself too seriously and is charming for both adults and children.
Side note: It has one of the best scenes I could imagine. Please watch it.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Wild Things you make my heart sing.
Where the Wild Things Are
This movie... immediately after it started, I already felt this pit in my stomach, an ache in my heart for childhood and it's emotional toll. Max Records was pretty good at displaying all those emotions and it made me irk with uncomfortableness because it's half frustrating to see him that way and half sad cause you can kind of familiarize with him. I was really happy at some parts and really sad at most of the parts, and I think overall it was too much sad and not enough happy. I thought the overall theme was very easy to catch and it didn't take away from the lovable book, but I did think with the movie, it kind of took the easy way out with things especially with the ending. I just didn't feel it was quite right... I still like it. I thought some of the scenes could have managed without the shakiness and dizziness, but most of the scenes were beautifully shot.
2 1/2 out of 4.
This movie... immediately after it started, I already felt this pit in my stomach, an ache in my heart for childhood and it's emotional toll. Max Records was pretty good at displaying all those emotions and it made me irk with uncomfortableness because it's half frustrating to see him that way and half sad cause you can kind of familiarize with him. I was really happy at some parts and really sad at most of the parts, and I think overall it was too much sad and not enough happy. I thought the overall theme was very easy to catch and it didn't take away from the lovable book, but I did think with the movie, it kind of took the easy way out with things especially with the ending. I just didn't feel it was quite right... I still like it. I thought some of the scenes could have managed without the shakiness and dizziness, but most of the scenes were beautifully shot.
2 1/2 out of 4.
Short Post about Lying
The Invention of Lying
Before the movie even starts, you get your pure dose of Ricky Gervais during the credits. This movie pretty much is just a movie for his fans. I love Ricky Gervais, but that doesn't mean that I love this movie. I watched it online, a bad quality rip, without watching the full thing on the little screen it was showing on, doing other things. But I did start out watching the whole thing with no distractions, but then it started to get kind of boring. He tries to save peoples lives with lies, and we just see him going around to background music. I guess that's an awe, but it was stretched out a little long and it got kind of corny. I was trying to figure out what about not knowing how to lie makes people so shallow and stupid... but I guess those people were just that way and don't know how to cover it. It made me think a little about what it would really be like, and I wonder if this was a good depiction or not. It is up to your imagination.
It gets a little cliche by the end, but actually, really cliche and I questioned what the point was. It was pretty silly and I like it for the cameos and all the funny parts were basically in the trailers but it was pretty eh otherwise.
2 out of 4. I love Gervais though. He took an idea, but didn't really make it into a unique story like he could have, just used it for the laffs and there weren't that many.
Before the movie even starts, you get your pure dose of Ricky Gervais during the credits. This movie pretty much is just a movie for his fans. I love Ricky Gervais, but that doesn't mean that I love this movie. I watched it online, a bad quality rip, without watching the full thing on the little screen it was showing on, doing other things. But I did start out watching the whole thing with no distractions, but then it started to get kind of boring. He tries to save peoples lives with lies, and we just see him going around to background music. I guess that's an awe, but it was stretched out a little long and it got kind of corny. I was trying to figure out what about not knowing how to lie makes people so shallow and stupid... but I guess those people were just that way and don't know how to cover it. It made me think a little about what it would really be like, and I wonder if this was a good depiction or not. It is up to your imagination.
It gets a little cliche by the end, but actually, really cliche and I questioned what the point was. It was pretty silly and I like it for the cameos and all the funny parts were basically in the trailers but it was pretty eh otherwise.
2 out of 4. I love Gervais though. He took an idea, but didn't really make it into a unique story like he could have, just used it for the laffs and there weren't that many.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Brothers Bloom
First impressions:
-Cute
-Brick cameos!
-Cool shots! and locations!
-A little slow
-Rachel Weisz!
-Reminded me a little bit of Wes Anderson
-Beginning to get a little boring
-Don't care much for the characters
-Robbie Coltrane will always be Hagrid
I didn't really pay attention to the movie, because it was confusing me and I think it confused itself sometimes. Brick confused me a little, but in the end it made sense. And this one wasn't that way. But honestly, I had to read the plot summary to understand it better, and I could see where it was trying to get to, and it almost did it right, but not quite. The sadness was lost. I might watch it again, but otherwise I can't say anything more. Except I still like Rian Johnson's style and his music!
-Cute
-Brick cameos!
-Cool shots! and locations!
-A little slow
-Rachel Weisz!
-Reminded me a little bit of Wes Anderson
-Beginning to get a little boring
-Don't care much for the characters
-Robbie Coltrane will always be Hagrid
I didn't really pay attention to the movie, because it was confusing me and I think it confused itself sometimes. Brick confused me a little, but in the end it made sense. And this one wasn't that way. But honestly, I had to read the plot summary to understand it better, and I could see where it was trying to get to, and it almost did it right, but not quite. The sadness was lost. I might watch it again, but otherwise I can't say anything more. Except I still like Rian Johnson's style and his music!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Zombieland.
Another Zombie movie... some more funny Woody Harrelson... some more violence and blood. As much as I didn't want to watch this movie because it looked like a zombie version of freaking Inglourious Basterds, I watched it because it was free and because I grew a liking to Jesse Eisenberg.
The movie knows its approaching known territory, but whatever it chose to do, it stuck to it and that worked effectively. From the beginning you knew it what you were in for, and as the movie progressed it didn't get boring because refreshing new ideas came in with a nice flow to it. I could see this being a book before it was made into a movie, because of the rules the Jesse Eisenberg character has. The little subtleties made comedic moments more comedic, or violence moments more comedic, or anything to that nature. It was a little corny in the dramatic scenes and there are some plot holes and predictability. I could look over those for the main surprise, the best surprise that all should see.
I think some of it is kind of self-aware and a product of our times (Hannah Montana, what?), but I think it could translate to a kind of zombie classic to some bros.
Blah blah blah. IM BORING
I give it a 3(.25) out of 4.
The movie knows its approaching known territory, but whatever it chose to do, it stuck to it and that worked effectively. From the beginning you knew it what you were in for, and as the movie progressed it didn't get boring because refreshing new ideas came in with a nice flow to it. I could see this being a book before it was made into a movie, because of the rules the Jesse Eisenberg character has. The little subtleties made comedic moments more comedic, or violence moments more comedic, or anything to that nature. It was a little corny in the dramatic scenes and there are some plot holes and predictability. I could look over those for the main surprise, the best surprise that all should see.
I think some of it is kind of self-aware and a product of our times (Hannah Montana, what?), but I think it could translate to a kind of zombie classic to some bros.
Blah blah blah. IM BORING
I give it a 3(.25) out of 4.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Movie Fest Part 6!
Two Lovers
I actually saw this before Special, but forgot to write about it. I feel like story wasn't anything new, but Joaquin Phoenix's performance and the progression of the story felt very well executed. I feel like the screenplay followed everything I learned in my screenplay class, as far as format. Gwenyth Paltrow's usage in this movie bothered me, but it didn't take away from the film. You are made to hate her character, I think anyways. It was worth watching.
I actually saw this before Special, but forgot to write about it. I feel like story wasn't anything new, but Joaquin Phoenix's performance and the progression of the story felt very well executed. I feel like the screenplay followed everything I learned in my screenplay class, as far as format. Gwenyth Paltrow's usage in this movie bothered me, but it didn't take away from the film. You are made to hate her character, I think anyways. It was worth watching.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Movie Fest Part 5!
Special
This is going to be cute. At first I thought it was going to be kind of artsy fartsy with the camera, but overall it just seemed like a low budget indie film. Michael Rappaport (sp? lazy to check) was very convincing and good in this role and I really liked it. I think it was kind of silly sometimes in the character and situation exaggerations. But I still think it was quite clever and nicely written and shot. If I had to I would probably give it a 3/4.
This is going to be cute. At first I thought it was going to be kind of artsy fartsy with the camera, but overall it just seemed like a low budget indie film. Michael Rappaport (sp? lazy to check) was very convincing and good in this role and I really liked it. I think it was kind of silly sometimes in the character and situation exaggerations. But I still think it was quite clever and nicely written and shot. If I had to I would probably give it a 3/4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
