So just to mix things up a bit here are some thoughts on the Fall's current line up. Just some notes about the Fall shows I'm watching.
The Office: So it's now the post Michael season and it's not all that bad. Ed Helms was the right choice as manager and James Spader makes a cool new CEO. What does work without Michael is now all the other characters are given a little more to do each week. It's just not worth the trade off though. Michael Scott was the show and there is a hole from where he left. The current season seems in a loop of mediocrity. It's certainly still watchable but nothing great. The again Season 6 and 7 weren't that great either. Pretty good but the show's on its last legs.
Parks & Recreations: As far as NBC Thursdays go this is the best show (30 Rock aside because it hasn't premiered yet). Not that it's the best currently but it's one of the few shows I think that gets better as it goes on. It's really grown into it's own and should no longer be known as a side project of "The Office". Ron Swanson is the best character on NBC Thursdays right now (although Dwight's Kerrigan was amazing). Actually this season is a little behind the last one but give it time. If you were like me and gave up on this show during the beginning, give it a second chance. I love it now.
Community: After its bumpy second season Community is back and in full fury. It has been on fire recently in what may be it's best season. We haven't gotten a bad episode yet. Although not all have been memorable, the last two have been works of art. They were original and yet throwbacks to other shows. "Community" does halloween episodes like nobody else. Gillian Jacobs has stepped her game this year. "Community" has won me over again.
How I Met Your Mother: "HIMYM" has replaced the hole in my heart that "Scrubs" left. However it's going along the same lines of "The Office". It hasn't lost any characters but it hasn't been as good as some previous seasons. Maybe I should just watch the episodes all at once like I did with seasons 1-5 (Thank you Sara). I did find the second episode involving Barney doomed to his duck tie quite funny. It's just since then the show hasn't wowed me. I watch more with a smile instead of laughing whole heartedly like I used too. However at any given time the show has potential to turn around and be awesome again.
Terra Nova: Actually I only watched the first two episodes and deemed it wasn't worth my time. It wasn't terrible but honestly I didn't see anything special. From what I did see it didn't make full potential of it's plot.
The Walking Dead: Season 2 is here and it's good, but it's in a weird limbo. See we're only two episodes in so I can't make rash assumptions but so far nothing is really happening. You may be saying "how" with the whole son angle but think about it this way. There's no clear plot outline for this season. It's just survive. Before it was Rick getting back to his family and finding a safe place. Now they're just surviving the day. What is interesting with the son angle is the way this can play out. Say the son is fine, nothing happens and the show will have gone down a dark path. If the son dies (harsh but hear me out), the show now has a dangerous vibe. Any character can die at any given moment now. Yet we have to deal with Rick and Lori crying for episodes, that would suck. We're just in the beginning with a long season. I'm sure we're going to be shocked by the end.
The League: I like the league which is surprising because football talk normally bores me. However the league is doing quite well right now. Nothing great, actually there has yet to be a very memorable episode. However the level of good is quite nice. No bad episodes but non great. Since I don't expect much I like the consistency .
It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia: So far I like what I see. I've never seen a episode of It's Always Sunny I haven't liked. Not all have been great but even the worst of the show is in some ways enjoyable. We've had six episodes and three have been fantastic, one very good and two that would take the bottom five of all time. The Jersey Shore episode showed how funny road trip episodes are. The Storm of the Century episode has some fun chaos. When the gang is terrified the episode is a blast. However CharDee MacDennis is the winner her. It's a bottle episode which means one location and no new characters. When the gang doesn't leave the bar (The hostage episode and the dance off episode for examples) the show is instantly great. CharDee MacDennis makes my top ten even. Let's hope they keep it up after that.
South Park: Your doing great here. Don't change a thing. Plenty of pop culture and current events references make this show. The first episode of the season or the second part of Stan seeing everything as shit is going to be very memorable for years to come. How I long to see drunk Stan once more. The last broadway episode was brilliant too. It pushed the limits and had an idea that I'm sure people will talk about. Also the fact the episode revolved around the Marsh family without much Stan made it special. It could have went horribly wrong but my god it was great. Don't change a thing.
Happy Endings: Let me stop for a moment to stand. This show deserves a standing ovation. Ladies and gentlemen let me praise the best show of the fall season. I gave up on it last year during it's first season. It just didn't seem special. However the second season has hit a great high where every character has brought their A game. Every episode has been great, not just good, but the show is in the top three every week. Probably the best every week (CharDee MacDennis may have won this time though). The characters all have something funny to do which is surprising to think about. How many episodes of "name a sitcom" where a main character does next to nothing. "Happy Endings" please continue this level of awesomeness for years to come.
American Horror Story: The worst and most interesting show on TV right now. Story structure, plot holes, editing, most the acting and many other things makes this a pit of despair. However the show at least feels fresh and Jessica Lange's great acting makes it watchable. I laugh a lot watching this. Especially when I'm not supposed to. I don't get scared or even creeped out at all. I'm getting sick of it in a way but I'll keep watching. I'll admit I'm hooked. I want to see how it turns out. The show may be pretty poor but in no way is it unwatchable. Honestly if this show gets past two seasons I'll be surprised.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The Rum Diary (**1/2 out of **** stars)
Hunter S. Thompson was an interesting man. His ideas and just general behavior is the most bizarre thing you'll read about. Johnny Depp and he were friends and this film is based of a fictional story Thompson wrote. Well not all fictional. He went down to Puerto Rico for a job, didn't get it and went home to write an account based off him actually getting the job. As a movie it's good but nothing brilliant. It's a tad slow and I prefer the chaos brought in Terry Gillian and Depp's collaboration on Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a journalist hired at a newspaper in Puerto Rico. He drinks heavily ( he says "the high end of social") and likes to experiment in drugs. He pals around with photographer Sala (Michael Rispoli) and the loose canon and drug tripping Moburg (scene stealing Giovanni Ribisi). Paul also meets Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a real state tycoon. Sanderson and his legion of doom friends are planning on building a series of hotels. This of course is just displacing the locals and in some way enslaving them. Paul actually has his eyes more on Chenault (Amber Heard), Sanderson's girl instead of opposing his plans until the end of the earth. Chenault is pretty one dimensional, Paul's thoughts are murky, the plot never really kicks in and there are a few other things that make this descent but nothing great. It's still quite good thanks in part to Bruce Robinson (director of the classic Withnail & I). I personally don't see the lasting appeal of this work in the end.
**1/2 out of **** stars
Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) is a journalist hired at a newspaper in Puerto Rico. He drinks heavily ( he says "the high end of social") and likes to experiment in drugs. He pals around with photographer Sala (Michael Rispoli) and the loose canon and drug tripping Moburg (scene stealing Giovanni Ribisi). Paul also meets Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a real state tycoon. Sanderson and his legion of doom friends are planning on building a series of hotels. This of course is just displacing the locals and in some way enslaving them. Paul actually has his eyes more on Chenault (Amber Heard), Sanderson's girl instead of opposing his plans until the end of the earth. Chenault is pretty one dimensional, Paul's thoughts are murky, the plot never really kicks in and there are a few other things that make this descent but nothing great. It's still quite good thanks in part to Bruce Robinson (director of the classic Withnail & I). I personally don't see the lasting appeal of this work in the end.
**1/2 out of **** stars
Sleeping Beauty (*** out of **** stars)
I said earlier this year that Womb was the most "haunting" movie I've seen this year... it still is. Sleeping Beauty makes a worthy second place though. The film is dark and oozing with sexuality. It has mystery to make your skin crawl and your mouth drop. Don't mix this up with the Disney classic. This is a odd movie probably unlike you've ever seen.
Lucy (Emily Browning showing her talent) is a unusual college girl. She works several jobs, avoids her alcoholic mother, is in love with a dying man (the only man she won't sleep with) and fucks random bar patrons at an up scale establishment. She enters a program to earn some extra money. This is where things get interesting. She goes to a mansion, drinks some tea, the tea has sleeping pills in it of course and she's placed in a grand room in a large bed. Then a man enters the room. They pay to be able to do anything they want to her but they can't penetrate her. You may ask "what's the point?" without sex but that's where the intrigue lies. What they do is bizarre but you can't look away. Your drawn into what brought these men here. Sleeping Beauty is unafraid of being all it could be. It's not a perfect movie, or really something that is brilliant. It works well with what it is but not every mystery is intoxicating from the start. Some are better than others. This would fall just above the middle.
*** out of **** stars
Lucy (Emily Browning showing her talent) is a unusual college girl. She works several jobs, avoids her alcoholic mother, is in love with a dying man (the only man she won't sleep with) and fucks random bar patrons at an up scale establishment. She enters a program to earn some extra money. This is where things get interesting. She goes to a mansion, drinks some tea, the tea has sleeping pills in it of course and she's placed in a grand room in a large bed. Then a man enters the room. They pay to be able to do anything they want to her but they can't penetrate her. You may ask "what's the point?" without sex but that's where the intrigue lies. What they do is bizarre but you can't look away. Your drawn into what brought these men here. Sleeping Beauty is unafraid of being all it could be. It's not a perfect movie, or really something that is brilliant. It works well with what it is but not every mystery is intoxicating from the start. Some are better than others. This would fall just above the middle.
*** out of **** stars
In Time (**1/2 out of **** stars)
Andrew Niccol welcome back! Only three films over fifteen years, your killing me man. However let's do with less S1m0ne and more Gattaca. As a director he has a cool sense of style and is one of the few men out there tries new ideas. That's the thing though... "tries". If you had asked me three months of ago I'd have said this movie will rock your socks off. After seeing it I'll say it's good but has a lot of plot holes and silly moments.
Set in what I assume is an alternate reality where aging has stopped. People stop aging at 25 and are giving one year to live. They earn more time by working, gambling or just stealing it (robbers are killed minutemen, I thought that was clever). Will Salas (Justin Timberlake on his way to a promising acting career) is our hero. In every sense of the word. He's going to beat up bad guys, help the poor and be kind to others when it's called for. Will lives in the ghetto with his mother (Olivia Wilde, only in this movie) where he wakes up with only hours to live. He meets Henry (Matt Boomer) by chance and he's life will change. Will's life is now in danger from Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and he's wrapped up with the beautiful heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Let me just say that I love the character names in this movie. Like the movie they're cool and fashionable. The movie has a great plot... for about fifteen minutes. Then the typical chase scenes and character development step in and make it slightly better than your average movie. Pretty good but could have been better.
**1/2 out of **** stars
(did you really think I'd put a picture of Justin Timberlake when Cillian Murphy is in the movie)
Set in what I assume is an alternate reality where aging has stopped. People stop aging at 25 and are giving one year to live. They earn more time by working, gambling or just stealing it (robbers are killed minutemen, I thought that was clever). Will Salas (Justin Timberlake on his way to a promising acting career) is our hero. In every sense of the word. He's going to beat up bad guys, help the poor and be kind to others when it's called for. Will lives in the ghetto with his mother (Olivia Wilde, only in this movie) where he wakes up with only hours to live. He meets Henry (Matt Boomer) by chance and he's life will change. Will's life is now in danger from Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and he's wrapped up with the beautiful heiress Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried). Let me just say that I love the character names in this movie. Like the movie they're cool and fashionable. The movie has a great plot... for about fifteen minutes. Then the typical chase scenes and character development step in and make it slightly better than your average movie. Pretty good but could have been better.
**1/2 out of **** stars
(did you really think I'd put a picture of Justin Timberlake when Cillian Murphy is in the movie)
Real Steel (**out of **** stars)
This was movie! It has plot plaints, characters, and is filmed with a camera. That's my was reaction walking out of this. Was it bad? Of course not. Was it very good? Not really. It makes a good popcorn movie though. Much better than The Three Musketeers in that aspect. Family friendly is how it should be advertised.
So in the future the only really change is now we have twelve foot tall robots fighting in boxing matches. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie who makes a living off these matches. He's got a talent for controlling these robots (most of these robots have a large controller) probably because he was once a talented boxer. He was the underdog that never gave up even against the stronger opponent. Jackman flirts with a robot repair woman played by Lost's Evangeline Lilly. That's really I need to say about her. Anyway Charlie has a son Max (Dakota Goyo) who he left with his mother. You can say abandoned because Jackman pulled the whole "knock up and dash" scenario. Charlie will get $50,000 if he takes care of Max for the summer. If you don't think they'll form a bond then I can't help you. Well they find Atom, the sparring robot and the underdog fights begin. The fights do have a certain intrigue. They're well choreographed, Michael Bay take note of this movie. It's fun for a while but I'll forget about it next month.
** out of **** stars
So in the future the only really change is now we have twelve foot tall robots fighting in boxing matches. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie who makes a living off these matches. He's got a talent for controlling these robots (most of these robots have a large controller) probably because he was once a talented boxer. He was the underdog that never gave up even against the stronger opponent. Jackman flirts with a robot repair woman played by Lost's Evangeline Lilly. That's really I need to say about her. Anyway Charlie has a son Max (Dakota Goyo) who he left with his mother. You can say abandoned because Jackman pulled the whole "knock up and dash" scenario. Charlie will get $50,000 if he takes care of Max for the summer. If you don't think they'll form a bond then I can't help you. Well they find Atom, the sparring robot and the underdog fights begin. The fights do have a certain intrigue. They're well choreographed, Michael Bay take note of this movie. It's fun for a while but I'll forget about it next month.
** out of **** stars
Paranormal Activity 3 (*1/2 out of **** stars)
I'm personally sick of this series. They're the same movies over and over. The same things keep happening. The only thing different this time is we get a camera set up on a fan stand so it rotates. This creates suspense for what... five seconds. I was bored of this setup quite fast. Maybe it was me. I don't know really. I just saw it to Mystery Science Theater it (make funny comments in the front of the theater without disturbing anyone of course). In that sense it was a laughing riot. I mean now it's about the two sisters as little girls being haunted as well their parents. Problem is the amount of plot holes and development issues. This prequel actually contradicts the other two films. Also this film starts with the supposed watching of the tapes. I mean we see the husband of the second one pick up these tapes and then they're turned on. Was it just a what if or was he watching it? Somebody should call the Ghostbusters. I'm sure the government would be also very interested in these tapes as well. If you like the first two then you'll like this. If you hated those then this one will be hilarious. My rating is based off my experience. I'm sure fans of the series can say it's pretty good, but you won't convince me.
*1/2 out of **** stars
*1/2 out of **** stars
The Three Musketeers (** out of **** stars)
Mindless fun really. I don't really have to spend much time here because it's such a simple movie. I'm sure from the previews you can guess how this movie will be. It's certainly watchable, a bit stupid, some nice action scenes, some terrible actions scenes too, brilliant costumes and a pretty tame script. The Three Musketeers (Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson) are French loyalists, spies and heroes. I will give credit to Paul W. Anderson who did keep their personalities intact. They spend most of their days drinking and having fun since king Louis XVI is but a child. They don't have the fire in their heart that once inspired them. Well Richelieu (Christoph Waltz no where near his villain greatness) looks to overthrow the king with the help of Milady (Milla Jovovich). They're great plan is so childish that it can't be anything but effective. Weird I know but for some reason it's believable. Milady sneaks the Queen's jewels into England's Duke of Buckingham's (Orlando Bloom, surprisingly the best here) airship. Yes... airship. Well our three heroes and the young and douchey D'Artgnan (Logan Lerman) go to save France. It's a pretty poor movie but you won't truly hate I suppose. It can be fun at parts. I thought it was a blast watching Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen) kick the shit out of Lerman's character. Oh Mads... why didn't you just break script and snap his neck. You were One Eye from Valhalla Rising. What? It's not going off topic, I'm just saying I wanted the main character dead. Seems fair in my mind.
** our of **** stars
** our of **** stars
The Thing (** out of **** stars)
Thank god I read some reviews before going into this movie. If I hadn't I'm sure I would have walked out hating it. With seeing ALOT of average reviews I knew not to expect a lot. I went in with no spoilers but guessing what would happen was as easy knowing there would be a kiss at the end of a romantic comedy. The Thing is shameful to the original and even more so to John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece. However I have seen worse movies out there.
So remember that Norwegian base in the 1982 version. The one where the Thing killed everyone and escaped to the American base. Yea that's where we are now. So setting yourself up in a prequel where we know the outcome is an odd start. Let's ignore this because it seems unfair to start off terribly. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is the young and pretty american researcher that is hired to help investigate a mysterious creature and ship that was uncovered in Antarctica. Well this creature can repurpose a person. In a way take over a person's form but at anytime can mutate into something horrible. The crew on base is now at odds with one another because anyone of them could be the Thing. Same thing as the first one. We even have Joel Edgerton as an american helicopter pilot that fills Kurt Russell's role. Well we saw it all in the 1982 version and this one becomes old fast. We can guess what will happen and believe you me when I saw you'll probably be right. Updating the series with a horrendous cgi Thing was not the way to go. It's not unwatchable mind you. I don't regret seeing it. However this is nothing special. It's mediocre as a movie but since The Thing universe is so small, it's not terrible to see more action, despite it being nothing new. Forgettable is the bottom line.
(** our of **** stars)
So remember that Norwegian base in the 1982 version. The one where the Thing killed everyone and escaped to the American base. Yea that's where we are now. So setting yourself up in a prequel where we know the outcome is an odd start. Let's ignore this because it seems unfair to start off terribly. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is the young and pretty american researcher that is hired to help investigate a mysterious creature and ship that was uncovered in Antarctica. Well this creature can repurpose a person. In a way take over a person's form but at anytime can mutate into something horrible. The crew on base is now at odds with one another because anyone of them could be the Thing. Same thing as the first one. We even have Joel Edgerton as an american helicopter pilot that fills Kurt Russell's role. Well we saw it all in the 1982 version and this one becomes old fast. We can guess what will happen and believe you me when I saw you'll probably be right. Updating the series with a horrendous cgi Thing was not the way to go. It's not unwatchable mind you. I don't regret seeing it. However this is nothing special. It's mediocre as a movie but since The Thing universe is so small, it's not terrible to see more action, despite it being nothing new. Forgettable is the bottom line.
(** our of **** stars)
The Second Coming... or new guidelines
So after not updating for a couple of weeks due to school work I decided that there's a need for change. The new blog will be shorter but more direct. I'll just list of the changes and why.
1.) Four star system instead 10/10: With the star system I can be more direct and tougher on certain films. I use to give a 6/10 for a average movie. I think I was thinking it was like a test and below a 6 would be failing. 6/10 in most people book is actually good but for some reason i saw it as watchable. The star system is easy and I think will make for more interesting ratings.
****/**** (four out four stars)
Masterpiece, classic, you know the drill.
***1/2 (three and a half out four stars)
Fantastic, brilliant , really great, must see
*** (three out of four stars)
very good, pretty great, watch it
**1/2 ( two and a half stars out of four)
Decent, pretty good, A good watch but you can probably see something better
** (two out of four stars)
Average, fair, not very good but not bad either. More cons than pros, wait for the dvd
*1/2 (one and a half sour of four stars)
Really mediocre, pretty bad but there is worse, watching is not required
* (one out of four stars)
Bad
1/2 (half a star)
Truly awful
I don't think I'll get a zero out four stars but know that will be one of the worst movies in history.
2.) Only recent films with exceptions: Doing every movie I've seen is tiring. I've actually spent hours in a day dedicated to the blog. Doing only recent movies seems more appropriate and will get more readers. However I'll do older films as well if I feel they deserve them. I'll write "Revisited" next to it in the title so you know it was not released this year.
3.) No more recommendation: Actually I was split on this, I'll keep it out for now but I may add it in later
4.) Won't post on Facebook every week, I'll do it probably once a month
So let's get back into things
1.) Four star system instead 10/10: With the star system I can be more direct and tougher on certain films. I use to give a 6/10 for a average movie. I think I was thinking it was like a test and below a 6 would be failing. 6/10 in most people book is actually good but for some reason i saw it as watchable. The star system is easy and I think will make for more interesting ratings.
****/**** (four out four stars)
Masterpiece, classic, you know the drill.
***1/2 (three and a half out four stars)
Fantastic, brilliant , really great, must see
*** (three out of four stars)
very good, pretty great, watch it
**1/2 ( two and a half stars out of four)
Decent, pretty good, A good watch but you can probably see something better
** (two out of four stars)
Average, fair, not very good but not bad either. More cons than pros, wait for the dvd
*1/2 (one and a half sour of four stars)
Really mediocre, pretty bad but there is worse, watching is not required
* (one out of four stars)
Bad
1/2 (half a star)
Truly awful
I don't think I'll get a zero out four stars but know that will be one of the worst movies in history.
2.) Only recent films with exceptions: Doing every movie I've seen is tiring. I've actually spent hours in a day dedicated to the blog. Doing only recent movies seems more appropriate and will get more readers. However I'll do older films as well if I feel they deserve them. I'll write "Revisited" next to it in the title so you know it was not released this year.
3.) No more recommendation: Actually I was split on this, I'll keep it out for now but I may add it in later
4.) Won't post on Facebook every week, I'll do it probably once a month
So let's get back into things
Monday, October 10, 2011
Flashbacks of a Fool (7/10)
I'll do this quick because for several personal reasons I shouldn't explain in a review I don't want to spend a lot of time here. The film stars a quite good Daniel Craig who is lonesome and fading actor. He's got cash but nothing at all to do with it. One day his mother calls and tells him that his childhood friend Boots (strange name I know) has died. Now here comes the flashbacks of his teenage years with Boots. Things go wrong when he gets involved with two women and his friendship with Boots will be tossed in the middle. I guess instead meeting a girl your crazy over for a date on time You having sex with a married woman is a bad idea? Yea weird right? Daniel Craig's scenes are good due to a natural charm he brings. Olivia Williams and Felicity Jones make strong supporting roles. Who wouldn't fall for Felicity Jones. I liked it more than I thought I would so maybe that's why the rating is decently high. Either way... yea that's it.
7/10
Recommendation: If you like Daniel Craig.
7/10
Recommendation: If you like Daniel Craig.
Dogville (9/10)
So let's add to my Lars Von Trier list of films as I drive my self into depression. It comes with the territory. It's like watching "Schindler's List" for the first time and expecting the rest of the day to be joyful. It's a fair trade in my mind. Yet either way "Dogville" is a marvelous and groundbreaking movie. I mentioned cliches in my "Stupid, Crazy, Love" review but "Dogville" has never heard of such an idea. It's so original that the film will rock your socks off. It must be seen.
I'll start with the story because I want it to hook you first. Once upon a time in in the small mountain town of Dogville lived about twenty villagers. They are poor but manage to survive with what they got. Tom (Paul Betttany) is walking outside one night when he hears gunshots. Soon arrives Grace (Nicole Kidman in perhaps her best performance) fleeing these gangsters. Tom hides her and so overcome by her beauty and weakness he decides to help her. In exchange for letting her stay in the town she has to do some chores for the people. Things won't go well. Silly to stop explaining the plot there right. Wrong! This movies will suck you in like no other. It needs to be surprise because nobody like Von Trier knows how to shake your spine and leave you numb for days.
Now for the special part. This entire movie is filmed on a soundstage. Imagine a play but instead of having only a background, it's set in a warehouse that's been converted to seem like a full stage. There are chalk outlines to show where the houses are and only a few key props to supply interaction (even the dog is a chalk outline). Did nobody tell Kidman she didn't have to do a three hour art house film to gain our respect. I'm glad they didn't really. The film is meant to be very anti-american but I see it as more anti-society. Some of the characters seem more universal to me. What's a weird strength in the film is how it manages to lose your interest at times. This is so when something big happens your emotions will explode with interest and shock. Still at three hours long it's quite punishing. However those wanting to see a film like no other (except it's sequel "Manderlay" which I plan on watching) need to watch this.
9/10
Recommendation: It's slow but my god will grab your attention. It's got more originality going for it than almost any other film I've seen.
I'll start with the story because I want it to hook you first. Once upon a time in in the small mountain town of Dogville lived about twenty villagers. They are poor but manage to survive with what they got. Tom (Paul Betttany) is walking outside one night when he hears gunshots. Soon arrives Grace (Nicole Kidman in perhaps her best performance) fleeing these gangsters. Tom hides her and so overcome by her beauty and weakness he decides to help her. In exchange for letting her stay in the town she has to do some chores for the people. Things won't go well. Silly to stop explaining the plot there right. Wrong! This movies will suck you in like no other. It needs to be surprise because nobody like Von Trier knows how to shake your spine and leave you numb for days.
Now for the special part. This entire movie is filmed on a soundstage. Imagine a play but instead of having only a background, it's set in a warehouse that's been converted to seem like a full stage. There are chalk outlines to show where the houses are and only a few key props to supply interaction (even the dog is a chalk outline). Did nobody tell Kidman she didn't have to do a three hour art house film to gain our respect. I'm glad they didn't really. The film is meant to be very anti-american but I see it as more anti-society. Some of the characters seem more universal to me. What's a weird strength in the film is how it manages to lose your interest at times. This is so when something big happens your emotions will explode with interest and shock. Still at three hours long it's quite punishing. However those wanting to see a film like no other (except it's sequel "Manderlay" which I plan on watching) need to watch this.
9/10
Recommendation: It's slow but my god will grab your attention. It's got more originality going for it than almost any other film I've seen.
Stupid, Crazy, Love. (8/10)
About five minutes into this movie and I wanted to turn it off. I'm glad I didn't because I ended up quite liking the movie. Steve Carrel was playing too awkward, Gosling was more of a dick than a cool guy, and don't even get me started on the Carrel's kid. Don't worry it gets better and actually is one of the best romantic comedies of the year. Maybe even the best since I consider "Bridesmaids" and "Cedar Rapids" more comedies with romance subplots. "Stupid, Crazy, Love" may just charm you to a state of bliss.
There are three stories here. Cal (Steve Carrel) and his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) are getting a divorce. They were high school sweethearts and soul mates. The soul mate idea to the film is eye roll worthy but does make for some funny scenes. Cal goes to drink at the strangest place. Why would a depressed man go to a upscale singles bar. Slum it out man. However while there Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) sees him and decides to teach him his trade. Why? Cal is such a piece of work it's embarrassing for Jacob to see him. So he makes Cal a cool guy who can pick up any chick. I felt him trying to sleep with anything that moves instead of trying to get his wife back was an awful idea. Thank god the film addresses that and tries to change it's ways. The second love story is Jacob and Hannah (Emma Stone). There's is by the best. Emma Stone is a live wire here and here scenes with Gosling have a lot of kick. Jacob is going to find the right woman to have him retire his womanizing ways. There's no winning here in the land of cliches. The third story is of Cal's and Emily's thirteen year old son who "loves" his seventeen year old babysitter. Well I can respect him seeing her as everything beautiful in life. However the level of creepiness he brings to his almost stalking ways weirded me out. I hope that was the point. The kid in my opinion has too many hormones. The ending between the two actually is the best way they could have done it through.
Pretty negative review right? Yea I'm making it out to be bad when I did enjoy watching. Where the film finds it's real strength is in it's dialogue. Not so much what the characters are saying but what they aren't. There is a pain in their voices every time they laugh at how crappy their lives are. Jacob says he collects stupid things because he's so alone and then laughs it off. Gosling is a great enough actor to let the truth slip out subtly. These characters are hurting and their pain is evident in their words. That's what I liked. Strange how my favorite part of this romantic comedy was the depressing parts. Well maybe it's the kind of person I am. Either it's a very good film.
Recommendation: I'm sure it's a good couple movie.
Melancholia (10/10)
There is so much to love about this film I hardly know where I should start. Should I begin with plot, or perhaps it's filming, maybe symbolism. There are so many possibilities my head is spinning. It has been about 36 hours since I saw "Melancholia" for the first time and I can't stop thinking about it. The feeling was stronger before I watched it again the next day. Watching the following day was for three purposes. One was I really liked it and wanted to experience it again. The second I had no idea how to write this review nor a clue on what to give it for a rating. The third was to see if it would hold up on a rewatch. I often find films I love the first time around such as "Slumdog Millonare" are rather lackluster the second time. How pleased I was watching it again. The film is just as strong the second time around and you'll pick up on little things you may have missed the first time. As far as articulating my thoughts for this review, I'll do my best.
I'll talk about Lars Von Trier first. It's important to attempt to understand him to get "Melancholia"s full effect. Von Trier is perhaps on of the greatest filmmakers of the past twenty years. I say perhaps because it's up for interpretation. He's the king of love him or hate him. Tarantino P.T.A, Scorsese, Speilberg and Johnny Depp have all said they would do anything to work with him. I think he is a genius having seen "Antichrist" and "Dancer In The Dark" beforehand. I actually watched "Dogville" as soon as I finished "Melancholia" the second time. He's a very dark and intriguing director. He'll dive deep into your emotions and tear them asunder. "Antichrist" will shake you for days and "Dancer In The Dark" will take you on a emotional roller coaster. "Melancholia" is a film I can't forget nor do I want too. Von Trier was very depressed for years and after giving up alcohol and seeking help he's bounced back to make what he calls his most optimistic film. After seeing his movies it makes sense but my god! This is bleeding with trauma. It is also interesting how Von Trior expresses his emotions with movies and even more so by making his leads females. Von Trier's work should be recognized as the masterpiece it is.
Now for the plot. Justine (A tour de force by Kirsten Dunst) has just gotten married. Her husband is the rather simple Michael (Alexander Skarsgard). He's a nice guy but doesn't really know Justine at all. They arrive at the reception late due to a pretty hilarious limo scene. Her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is not happy. That goes double for Claire's husband John (Kiefer Sutherland). He's spent a fortune on the wedding and Justine is nearly ruining it. They set themselves at the table with their family. Justine's father (John Hurt) is a nice man but doesn't quite get what people want. Her mother (Charlotte Rampling) is quite rude. She doesn't believe in marriage and on Justine's wedding night tells her to "enjoy it while it lasts". Throw in killer roles played by Stellan Skarsgard (who calls Von Trier one of the finest directors in history), Brady Corbet, Udo Kier and Jesper Christensen and we have one terrific cast. Gainsbourg who took us to hell and back in "Antichrist" co-leads with Dunst. Kirsten Dunst has never done work this good, she's phenomenal. The Cannes film festival gave her best actress and I'd like to see her get a Oscar nomination.
Justine gets more and more depressed as the night goes on. Everyone is demanding things from her and have all these crazy expectations. It's her wedding night so people should give her some slack. She's a depressed woman and depression isn't something to get over with quickly. Everyone thinks she's crazy because of her actions, but that just leads to all the more stratifying conclusion. The first half of the film is dedicated to Justine's wedding. The second half... is something else. This is where things become strange in the grandest ways.
The film opens with some surreal images. One is another planet crashing into Earth. The series of images to Wagner is one of the best openings in film history in my mind. The other planet is Melancholia and it's suppose to pass by the Earth. It's been hiding behind the Sun and is moving through the galaxy at a rapid speed. This planet is not going to pass simply by... it will hit and kill everyone on the planet. The opening images confirms this so this is no way a spoiler. Hell it's in the tagline of the movie. Knowing the ending to a film is sometimes good. Seeing how they got to that point is what's mesmerizing. The second half deals with a uncontrollably depressed Justine being taken care of by Claire. John is not to happy having her around. As the planet draws closer and doom seems more imminent, Claire and John panic. Now Justine seems sane and is ready to face this disaster. No news reports, no riots, no government meetings are shown. Just a single family dealing with these events. It's personal and brilliant. The panic of an entire population is felt in Claire (googling death now results in Melancholia being the first result). Justine stands strong and in awe of the impending doom. It's a beautiful thought is some ways.
This is a strange year in film. Or at least in universal issues. "Another Earth" which unfortunately I've yet to see is about a parallel Earth appearing in our orbit. "The Tree of Life" is an astonishing film dealing with life in the universe. There is also "Take Shelter" with a man preparing for the end of days. "Melancholia" is like a mix of those three but also it's own movie entirely. It's beautifully shot, has a deep story, wonderfully acted and so many other things. It's a highlight in a great year. I could go on and on about this film but my ideas will change by the day. Everyone will take away something different here, but the end goal is clear. "Melancholia" is a masterpiece.
10/10
Recommendation: Give it a chance because it's worth it. It's slow and symbolic so don't expect understand it all in one viewing. You'll however remember it for some time to come. Of course it may make you feel gloomy for a while. But there's a happiness in sadness like I said was present in "Beginners". It's currently on Video on Demand and PSN before it hits limited theaters in November. Strange marketing strategy but at least I got to see it. I will never regret it.
Cracks (6/10)
I'm going to make this short. Not to be rude but I doubt anybody is going to to watch this. I mean it's about bullying in a english girl's boarding school. The swim team girls don't like the new spanish student because she's pretty and gets all the attention the coach (Eva Green). The film is decent but nothing worth remembering next week. The bullying is realistic and Eva Green is talented as always but honestly if it barely got my attention, why would anybody else watch it?
6/10
Recommendation: I think my review says it all. Rather good ending though.
The Ides of March (9/10)
Politics is a dirty game. We all know this but seeing it played out before us is something else. There is so much speculation and crazy theories that people have about government officials that most deserve to be laughed at. However there are some stories that have something to go off of. "The Social Network" said something along the lines that 85% of court cases are based on emotions. The other 15% are true because devils do need creation myths. So that's our dirty side of politics. What I lkie even better is the way campaigns are won. One party (in this case the Republicans) will vote in a open election against the best candidate the democrats have during primaries. This way the weaker candidate is the democratic party option. Let the other party fight each other and beat the weakened winner. "The Ides of March" is a fantastic political drama with a lot going for it.
Mike Morris (George Clooney in a strong supporting role) is a gift from God for the democratic party. He's young, experienced and knows how to draw a crowd. Picture him as Obama because the connections are there. If he wins the Ohio primary he'll no doubt be the democratic pick for the upcoming presidential election. The republicans don't have a guy that can beat Morris. They do have a guy that can beat the other democratic option of Pullman (never shown on screen). Voters will not want him in office even more than actually having Morris run the country. Stephen Meyer (Ryan Gosling) works for Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who is the campaign manager. Stephen believes in Mike and the messages the man spouts off like gospel sermons. Mike himself seems to believe in telling people more what they want to hear but not caring for the ideas personally. Pullman's manager Duffy (Paul Giamatti) wants Stephen on his side because of idealistic the kid is and his bright future. Well even talking with Duffy will cause Stephen problems. That and well the sexy intern (Evan Rachel Wood).
"The Ides of March" is a great political drama but that's really it. Some have said they have noticed the story is more focused on showing Stephen losing his soul to politics but it's minimal at best. The ending helps that message though. I see it as more of a twist on the man with nothing lose angle. Stephen will do whatever it takes to remain in power. "The Ides of March" is worth watching. It's not the Oscar cleaning film I hoped it would be earlier this year, but it's till quite strong. Clooney as a director is really growing into his own. Instead of focusing the details on his performance as some directors would, Clooney wants the story to be first. "Good Night and Good Luck" is still his masterpiece and trust me when I say it is a masterpiece. "The Ides of March" is worthy film to add to his list in the end.
9/10
Recommendation: Rent it when it comes out for sure.
Mike Morris (George Clooney in a strong supporting role) is a gift from God for the democratic party. He's young, experienced and knows how to draw a crowd. Picture him as Obama because the connections are there. If he wins the Ohio primary he'll no doubt be the democratic pick for the upcoming presidential election. The republicans don't have a guy that can beat Morris. They do have a guy that can beat the other democratic option of Pullman (never shown on screen). Voters will not want him in office even more than actually having Morris run the country. Stephen Meyer (Ryan Gosling) works for Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who is the campaign manager. Stephen believes in Mike and the messages the man spouts off like gospel sermons. Mike himself seems to believe in telling people more what they want to hear but not caring for the ideas personally. Pullman's manager Duffy (Paul Giamatti) wants Stephen on his side because of idealistic the kid is and his bright future. Well even talking with Duffy will cause Stephen problems. That and well the sexy intern (Evan Rachel Wood).
"The Ides of March" is a great political drama but that's really it. Some have said they have noticed the story is more focused on showing Stephen losing his soul to politics but it's minimal at best. The ending helps that message though. I see it as more of a twist on the man with nothing lose angle. Stephen will do whatever it takes to remain in power. "The Ides of March" is worth watching. It's not the Oscar cleaning film I hoped it would be earlier this year, but it's till quite strong. Clooney as a director is really growing into his own. Instead of focusing the details on his performance as some directors would, Clooney wants the story to be first. "Good Night and Good Luck" is still his masterpiece and trust me when I say it is a masterpiece. "The Ides of March" is worthy film to add to his list in the end.
9/10
Recommendation: Rent it when it comes out for sure.
Big Bang (5.5/10)
I can wrap up this review pretty quickly. If I tried to explain the story I'd lose you before I even began getting on certain details. So let's do this in... two sentences. Antonio Banderas plays a detective hired to search for a missing stripper. Well things go awry when strange events start occurring and the laws of physics are challenged. Confused? I was. There is little I could I actually tell about the plot. I will say it plays out like a more science based "Sin City" meets "The Big Lebowski". It's however nowhere near as great as those two. I was hoping for a strange noir movie, What I got was something to leave me scratching my head without much interest to know the real answers.
5.5./10
Recommendation: Yea.. Maybe if you like Antonio Banderas but even then I could pass this one by.
5.5./10
Recommendation: Yea.. Maybe if you like Antonio Banderas but even then I could pass this one by.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Tucker & Dale vs Evil (7/10)
The premise for this movies is so awesome I can't believe it took them until 2011 to make this. In all this horror movies where you get some crazy and bizarre villain ("The Hills Have Eyes, Wrong Turn" or what have you), what if they were nice people. These guys just look evil and every death is the result of some freak accident. Yea I doubt that was ever the case but that's what "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" does. Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) are kind and goodhearted men. They just happen to look like those crazy/dirty rednecks that torture college kids. Speaking of college kids... yea we got those too. About eight or so of them are going camping and play they typical roles you see in horror movies (hot blonde, the douchebag good looking guy and of course a token black guy). They see Tucker & Dale who come off as lunatics but really just are trying to be friendly. The two buddies are going to fix up a vacation cabin in the woods. One night while the college kids are skinny dipping, Tucker & Dale are nearby fishing. Allison (Mega babe Katrina Bowden) sees them, falls and hits her head. Tucker & Dale try to help her by bandaging the wound at the Cabin and finding her friends in the morning. Well the college kids think they're apart of one of those horror movies and need to stop these two rednecks. Things go hilariously crazy. That's more or less most of the first third of the film. It loses a lot of steam as it progresses despite it's rather short run time. You'll have fun but maybe this should have been a short film. The last 30 minutes drag. However it's still a riot at the beginning so it the pros out do the cons.
7/10
Recommendation: If you like what I described above then hell yes go for it!
7/10
Recommendation: If you like what I described above then hell yes go for it!
Killer Elite (5.5./10)
Note to self. Don't look forward to Jason Statham movies. I stumbled into "Crank", "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch" and all those are great. "Killer Elite" was something I was anticipating for some time but I just left the theater feeling disappointed. This is not the movie they promised us. "Killer Elite" is a film that tries to act smart and cool but doesn't have the interest to back it up. "Munich" is a fantastic movie in part due to how interesting the plot was. "Killer Elite" is a big mess.
Danny (Jason Statham) is an assassin, or at least was one. He's been out of the business for about a year after a change of heart. Well his old mentor and friend Hunter (Robert Deniro) is captured and is held as ransom. In exchange for his release, Danny must kill three ex S.A.S soldiers who killed the kidnapping Sheik's son. Not only that but Danny must make every death look like a accident and record a confession too. Didn't Statham just kill people and made them look like accidents in "The Mechanic". Atleast that movie didn't try to be anything special. "Killer Elite" feels like a poor mans version of "Munich" with awful dialogue. Why do the secret organization known as The Feather Men have the need to explain who they are to each other? Also for a secret organization they hand out a lot of business cards. Spike (Clive Owen) works for these men. They protect ex soldiers incase men like Danny come after them. The film tries to set up a scenario where you root for either Statham or Owen but fails miserably. The good guys aren't that good and the bad guys aren't that bad. The audience just feels like a third party watching with little involvement or stake in this game. The film is billed as Owen vs Statham but they share about one and half fight scene. One really awesome scene is not worth the endlessly boring dialogue in between. "Killer Elite" is a failure but not the worst movie I've seen. Maybe I should just stop caring for Statham movies so that one day maybe he'll surprise me again.
5.5/10
Recommendation: Wait for the DVD and even then I'm sure there's something better out there. My theater seemed pretty bored and a few left half way through. Nothing compared to the excited and cheering audience I had for "Straw Dogs" For two actors I love (Owen and Deniro) and one I admit is a lot of fun sometimes (Statham) they all have better movies. Yvonne Strahovski may not have a lot to do but my god is she gorgeous. Also the amount they spent on B-roll of Paris must have been quite a lot. A good portion of the movie takes place in Paris. Yea... that was London. Just cause you put french words on signs doesn't mean the London underground isn't instantly recognizable.
Danny (Jason Statham) is an assassin, or at least was one. He's been out of the business for about a year after a change of heart. Well his old mentor and friend Hunter (Robert Deniro) is captured and is held as ransom. In exchange for his release, Danny must kill three ex S.A.S soldiers who killed the kidnapping Sheik's son. Not only that but Danny must make every death look like a accident and record a confession too. Didn't Statham just kill people and made them look like accidents in "The Mechanic". Atleast that movie didn't try to be anything special. "Killer Elite" feels like a poor mans version of "Munich" with awful dialogue. Why do the secret organization known as The Feather Men have the need to explain who they are to each other? Also for a secret organization they hand out a lot of business cards. Spike (Clive Owen) works for these men. They protect ex soldiers incase men like Danny come after them. The film tries to set up a scenario where you root for either Statham or Owen but fails miserably. The good guys aren't that good and the bad guys aren't that bad. The audience just feels like a third party watching with little involvement or stake in this game. The film is billed as Owen vs Statham but they share about one and half fight scene. One really awesome scene is not worth the endlessly boring dialogue in between. "Killer Elite" is a failure but not the worst movie I've seen. Maybe I should just stop caring for Statham movies so that one day maybe he'll surprise me again.
5.5/10
Recommendation: Wait for the DVD and even then I'm sure there's something better out there. My theater seemed pretty bored and a few left half way through. Nothing compared to the excited and cheering audience I had for "Straw Dogs" For two actors I love (Owen and Deniro) and one I admit is a lot of fun sometimes (Statham) they all have better movies. Yvonne Strahovski may not have a lot to do but my god is she gorgeous. Also the amount they spent on B-roll of Paris must have been quite a lot. A good portion of the movie takes place in Paris. Yea... that was London. Just cause you put french words on signs doesn't mean the London underground isn't instantly recognizable.
Straw Dogs (7.5/10)
If you asked me earlier this year what I thought about this movie I would just have complained about them remaking an already great film. A month before it came out and I'd have said I got no intention of seeing it. Well a week before it's release is when I found out how faithful to the original this version would be. So seeing it wouldn't be a problem in my mind. Asking me what I thought walking out of the theater and I'd say "it's pretty damn good, see it if you get the chance". "Straw Dogs" keeps the story details while balancing in some gruesome violence. A great remake. It's quite the well made product at the end of the day.
David (James Marsden) and his new wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) are moving into her childhood home in the deep south. He is a screenwriter (working on one about Stalingrad) and she was a TV actress he wrote some parts for. The town is the kind of place where everybody knows everyone else and to go against the norm is asking for some stares. Amy's old high school flame Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and some other men are hired to fix the old barn roof near the house. David is polite and warm to the men and the townsfolk, but he's not like them. Going into another culture is always a strange thing. David orders a round for the bar but doesn't stay for a drink and he skips out early in church. Somethings just do as the Romans would. Yet is he wrong? He's just a nice guy that has his own way of doing things. David's not calling them stupid or anything, but just has expectations from these people that just don't seem are going to be broken anytime soon. It's questions like these that make the film so fascinating. Well that and one huge plot development area that I think some people may debate on like they did with the original. The plot is wisely carried out and it makes from a satisfying and bloody finale. It's a lot better than most will give it credit for. It's very entertaining.
7.5/10
Recommendation: You know all those "Last House on the Left" and other just redneck invasion films. Well this is their poison because it's actually so well done. It kicks their asses. I wouldn't turn it off if you got the chance.
David (James Marsden) and his new wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) are moving into her childhood home in the deep south. He is a screenwriter (working on one about Stalingrad) and she was a TV actress he wrote some parts for. The town is the kind of place where everybody knows everyone else and to go against the norm is asking for some stares. Amy's old high school flame Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard) and some other men are hired to fix the old barn roof near the house. David is polite and warm to the men and the townsfolk, but he's not like them. Going into another culture is always a strange thing. David orders a round for the bar but doesn't stay for a drink and he skips out early in church. Somethings just do as the Romans would. Yet is he wrong? He's just a nice guy that has his own way of doing things. David's not calling them stupid or anything, but just has expectations from these people that just don't seem are going to be broken anytime soon. It's questions like these that make the film so fascinating. Well that and one huge plot development area that I think some people may debate on like they did with the original. The plot is wisely carried out and it makes from a satisfying and bloody finale. It's a lot better than most will give it credit for. It's very entertaining.
7.5/10
Recommendation: You know all those "Last House on the Left" and other just redneck invasion films. Well this is their poison because it's actually so well done. It kicks their asses. I wouldn't turn it off if you got the chance.
50/50 (9/10)
Cancer is a virus in some ways. While one person is diagnosed, all in that person's life is are affected. Parents must fear the death of their child. No parent should have to worry about their child dying before they pass away. Friends are in a loop trying to find how they can help and in some ways where to back off. Your significant other is placed in a position of caregiver and they will feel the pain their loved one goes through. Cancer is a nasty thing.
So with an intro like that I wouldn't be surprised if you think "50/50" is going to be a downer. Well appearances are deceiving because "50/50" is a delight. It's funny, heartfelt and has a lot to get your attention. Comedies that deal with dark details often go along one or two paths. There is the dark comedies along the lines of "In Bruges" or you go for downers with big laughs like "Funny People". "50/50" walks a miracle line and manages just the right amount of laughs with just the right amount of emotions. Some laughs will be joyous and others may sting, but you'll love the affect either way.
Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Adam, our central character in "50/50" First I just want to take a second to give praise when it's due. JGL has given one of the years finest performances. Every step in his journey you'll feel as it were happening to you. It takes a rare gift to do that and JGL is an actor that has achieved that and more. He's easily of of the best actors working today. back to the story. Adam is the ultimate nice guy. He doesn't J-walk, litter, drink, smoke or even get truly angry. Adam works in radio and genuinely cares about his pieces. He's been having some back pains and goes to the hospital where the doctor tells him he has a rare spinal cancer where the odds of living are of course 50/50.
His girlfriend Rachel (fiery redhead Bryce Dallas Howard) says she'll stick by him. This of course is not the whole truth. A couple of years ago I'd have said she was a well... shitty person for not trying to help Adam in every way imaginable. However some growing up and two viewings of "Angels in America" showed me that is wrong to think. She's put in the role of caretaker, not something she signed up for. She feels obligated to help but she's not ready to throw 100% of herself into the situation. I may not agree with her backing away but I can't blame her. I do wish the film didn't make her look as villainous though. You'll see why.
Adam's best friend is Kyle. Kyle is played by Seth Rogen in the typical Rogen performance. While he is a major character, Rogen's "style of comedy" is keep in check. I prefer in that way since Adam is the lead and doesn't need to be shown up. Kyle helps in the way a best friend would. He tries to cheer him up and is always ready to offer a helping hand. Adam's mother (Angelica Huston) worries to the point it causes Adam to shy away from her. Neither person is right but Cancer doesn't make people thing soundly.
Since Adam doesn't drive, he has to rely on others to get him to his chemotherapy. There he jokes around and talks to two older men (Phillip Baker Hall & Matt Frewer). Adam is 27 and these men are well passed middle aged. It's a terrible thing for such a young and kind man to be in this situation. In the same hospital Adam sees a therapist to help him deal with the situation. Katherine (Anna Kendrick) is young (younger than Adam) and ill experienced in helping Adam. Both learn things from each other. Either way you'll like the conversations they have.
"50/50" is a fantastic movie. One of the year's best even. I'm sure I'll be looking kindly upon it some time from now. It pulls on some heartstrings but never does the next laugh seem to distant. I left the theater with a smile on face and little warmth in my heart. I loved it and you should too.
9/10
Recommendation: It may sound depressing and while it will make you sound, the end product is all too great to be ignored by anybody.
So with an intro like that I wouldn't be surprised if you think "50/50" is going to be a downer. Well appearances are deceiving because "50/50" is a delight. It's funny, heartfelt and has a lot to get your attention. Comedies that deal with dark details often go along one or two paths. There is the dark comedies along the lines of "In Bruges" or you go for downers with big laughs like "Funny People". "50/50" walks a miracle line and manages just the right amount of laughs with just the right amount of emotions. Some laughs will be joyous and others may sting, but you'll love the affect either way.
Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Adam, our central character in "50/50" First I just want to take a second to give praise when it's due. JGL has given one of the years finest performances. Every step in his journey you'll feel as it were happening to you. It takes a rare gift to do that and JGL is an actor that has achieved that and more. He's easily of of the best actors working today. back to the story. Adam is the ultimate nice guy. He doesn't J-walk, litter, drink, smoke or even get truly angry. Adam works in radio and genuinely cares about his pieces. He's been having some back pains and goes to the hospital where the doctor tells him he has a rare spinal cancer where the odds of living are of course 50/50.
His girlfriend Rachel (fiery redhead Bryce Dallas Howard) says she'll stick by him. This of course is not the whole truth. A couple of years ago I'd have said she was a well... shitty person for not trying to help Adam in every way imaginable. However some growing up and two viewings of "Angels in America" showed me that is wrong to think. She's put in the role of caretaker, not something she signed up for. She feels obligated to help but she's not ready to throw 100% of herself into the situation. I may not agree with her backing away but I can't blame her. I do wish the film didn't make her look as villainous though. You'll see why.
Adam's best friend is Kyle. Kyle is played by Seth Rogen in the typical Rogen performance. While he is a major character, Rogen's "style of comedy" is keep in check. I prefer in that way since Adam is the lead and doesn't need to be shown up. Kyle helps in the way a best friend would. He tries to cheer him up and is always ready to offer a helping hand. Adam's mother (Angelica Huston) worries to the point it causes Adam to shy away from her. Neither person is right but Cancer doesn't make people thing soundly.
Since Adam doesn't drive, he has to rely on others to get him to his chemotherapy. There he jokes around and talks to two older men (Phillip Baker Hall & Matt Frewer). Adam is 27 and these men are well passed middle aged. It's a terrible thing for such a young and kind man to be in this situation. In the same hospital Adam sees a therapist to help him deal with the situation. Katherine (Anna Kendrick) is young (younger than Adam) and ill experienced in helping Adam. Both learn things from each other. Either way you'll like the conversations they have.
"50/50" is a fantastic movie. One of the year's best even. I'm sure I'll be looking kindly upon it some time from now. It pulls on some heartstrings but never does the next laugh seem to distant. I left the theater with a smile on face and little warmth in my heart. I loved it and you should too.
9/10
Recommendation: It may sound depressing and while it will make you sound, the end product is all too great to be ignored by anybody.
Waking Life (9.5/10)
This is not so much a movie as it is a meditation. It proposes ideas, feelings, emotions and facts about dreams and life. These thoughts are expressed by various people throughout the film. All the ideas are intriguing and something worth thinking about. It's a film unlike anything you've ever seen before.
"Waking Life" is peculiar to say the least. It needs to be said now that this film is animated in a sense. They filmed live action scenes and animated each one in a visceral haze. The style works better for a film that deals primarily with dreams. Dreams are so hard to describe because the world they inhabit makes no sense. There are no physical laws and trying to remember a layout of a dream seems impossible. The animated style matches the distortion. There is a central character with no name because he might as well be you. He is stuck in a dream and goes through multiple dream levels meeting new people each time. No it's not "Inception". This isn't meant to be a story rather it's a collection of philosophies.
Every idea is stimulating and glows with life. It's pretty big things for younger people who are still looking for their place in the world. It's a film that feels like listening to a great lecture or reading a mind defying book. It's unique in every way.
9.5/10
Recommendation: Lot's of deep ideas here, I'd give it a chance if you want to do some thinking.
"Waking Life" is peculiar to say the least. It needs to be said now that this film is animated in a sense. They filmed live action scenes and animated each one in a visceral haze. The style works better for a film that deals primarily with dreams. Dreams are so hard to describe because the world they inhabit makes no sense. There are no physical laws and trying to remember a layout of a dream seems impossible. The animated style matches the distortion. There is a central character with no name because he might as well be you. He is stuck in a dream and goes through multiple dream levels meeting new people each time. No it's not "Inception". This isn't meant to be a story rather it's a collection of philosophies.
Every idea is stimulating and glows with life. It's pretty big things for younger people who are still looking for their place in the world. It's a film that feels like listening to a great lecture or reading a mind defying book. It's unique in every way.
9.5/10
Recommendation: Lot's of deep ideas here, I'd give it a chance if you want to do some thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)