If you see one movie in 2008, and you don't mind a little cursing in your movies, I highly suggest giving In Bruges consideration.
I believe the 'F' word is dropped 126 times in the movie, averaging somewhere in the realm of 1.6 'F-bombs' per minute, but if that doesn't bother you, you are in for a treat.
The movie revolves around Ray (Colin Ferral) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson...you may remember him as the sheriff from Lake Placid), who are two Irish hitmen and are forced to get out of London and take a short break in Bruges (It's in Belgium).
The movie has a variety of levels, many of which you may only recognize on multiple viewings. On the surface, the movie is a bit of a comedy and a bit of a sad story. You see, Ray accidently killed a child on his first mission when he was sent to shoot a priest while Ken still carries a torch for his wife who died in the 1970s (I believe the movie is set in current time).
The movie follows both men trying to rebuild their lives, handle a vacation in extremely seperate ways, and eventually try to survive their boss - who decides Ray has brought too much attention to himself.
I don't know if I have been this excited about a Colin Ferral performance in a movie since Tigerland. In Bruges Ferral hit a surprisingly wide range of emotions, ranging from despair to a cocaine-fueled joy that was very realistic.
In all, five stars out of five is within reach for this movie, but as I've only watched it once and am waiting with anticipation until I can watch it again (I normally only give 5 stars to movies I can enjoy with repeated viewings) I give it a solid 4.5 stars out 5.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Movie Review - 12 Days of Terror
If you are a big Jaws fan like I am, you know that the book and the movie originated from an incident(s) in New Jersey round about 1916. There were a few shark attacks off the coast and at some point a shark swam up a stream and also killed a few people.
Scary stuff. But also just the kind of incident that would be the fuel for one tremendous book and one tremendous movie.
So imagine my surprise when I was running through my Blockbuster account and I stumbled across a little gem called 12 Days of Terror. Essentially this movie deals specifically with those incidents in New Jersey nearly 100 years ago, following the protagonist of a lifeguard at the small Jersey town of...while...somewhere.
I'm going to be honest. I wasn't expecting a whole lot with this movie. The title doesn't exactly inspire a whole lot of confience. Don't let it fool you.
With its 1916 setting, the movie benefits from not needing a whole lot of flash-bang special effects and instead benefits from some pretty solid acting performances, including John Rhys-Davies (of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lord of the Rings triology fame) who is solid as always.
One interesting thing about this movie is how many elements of Jaws resurface. For instance, after the first shark attack, it is covered up so the beach dollars don't dry up.
But all in all, the movie is certainly better than you would think, the shark effects are limited, but stand up (more so than most shark movies) and the movie also raises an interesting question: why is it so hard to believe that two sharks were to blame?
Sure it could have been a great white shark that attacked people along the coast, but it is the calling card of the bull shark to be in freshwater. Bull sharks are certainly nothing to mess around with and have a real ugly attitude - yet it is the great whites that always get tagged as man-killers.
All in all, this movie made a bit of an impression on me. I would certainly suggest anyone who enjoys shark movies to give it a watch. 3.5 stars out of 5.
Scary stuff. But also just the kind of incident that would be the fuel for one tremendous book and one tremendous movie.
So imagine my surprise when I was running through my Blockbuster account and I stumbled across a little gem called 12 Days of Terror. Essentially this movie deals specifically with those incidents in New Jersey nearly 100 years ago, following the protagonist of a lifeguard at the small Jersey town of...while...somewhere.
I'm going to be honest. I wasn't expecting a whole lot with this movie. The title doesn't exactly inspire a whole lot of confience. Don't let it fool you.
With its 1916 setting, the movie benefits from not needing a whole lot of flash-bang special effects and instead benefits from some pretty solid acting performances, including John Rhys-Davies (of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Lord of the Rings triology fame) who is solid as always.
One interesting thing about this movie is how many elements of Jaws resurface. For instance, after the first shark attack, it is covered up so the beach dollars don't dry up.
But all in all, the movie is certainly better than you would think, the shark effects are limited, but stand up (more so than most shark movies) and the movie also raises an interesting question: why is it so hard to believe that two sharks were to blame?
Sure it could have been a great white shark that attacked people along the coast, but it is the calling card of the bull shark to be in freshwater. Bull sharks are certainly nothing to mess around with and have a real ugly attitude - yet it is the great whites that always get tagged as man-killers.
All in all, this movie made a bit of an impression on me. I would certainly suggest anyone who enjoys shark movies to give it a watch. 3.5 stars out of 5.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Movie Review - Predator
It is rare when a movie can be viewed 20 years after it was made and not appear dated. It is a special kind of movie.
And while it might sound kind of strange to put Predator in this category, the truth is pretty undeniable. If you put this movie up against movies with the benefit of far advanced special effects available, AVP and AVP:R for example, Predator is far away a more enjoyable experience.
The movie is a showcase of what made Arnold Schwarzenegger such a strong action actor. He is imposing physically, slightly brooding, and completely realistic as someone who can carry fully-automatic guns and create havoc in a jungle.
Schwarzenegger was just one of a handful of brilliant casting choices in the movie. Carl Weathers plays the stock 'warrior turned ripped deskie that has an alterior agenda but finds redemption' character. Former governor Jesse Ventura plays Blain, the stock 'MTV t-shirt wearing, large gun brandishing badass' character. And Kevin Peter Hall (Harry from Harry and the Hendersons) pulls off a daunting task of playing a character (the Predator) that has to impose a presence with nearly no lines of dialogue.
The movie could be split into two parts, the first half of the movie in which Schwarzenegger's band of merry men aren't aware they are being hunted, and the second half in which that becomes a very grim reality. What makes the movie memerable to me is something often overlooked in movies of this ilk: character development.
This movie gives you small, but extremely effective glimpses, into characters that could have been easily brushed off because they were simply fodder. Instead, you felt the loss of each character.
What I find interesting about the predator species is the code they live by. At its most simple definition, it is about honor. The pursuit of honor is akin to a holy journey and the weak are not regarded as worthy of the predator's time. He will not kill unless someone is armed with a weapon or has attacked him.
The predator is primal, Schwarzenneger is reduced to making most of his weapons and to me, the movie has a bit of a brutal hand-to-hand feel to it. There aren't a ton of high-tech weapons in this movie, basically it amounts to two species slugging it out in the middle of a jungle. It kind of toes the line of over-the-top alpha, but in the case of the protagonist and antagonist, both have their strengths exploited and both species have to use cunning and intellect, not just brute braun. That made it more enjoyable for me. It wasn't about who had the biggest gun. It was about who used the available resources, who found something that could push himself that little bit further, who clung to life harder.
I don't know of too many big bang movies that can be pealed apart like this one. If you want to kill a Saturday in January, watch the four movies that deal with the Predator franchise. If you watch Predator first, it will likely stand out as the most polished of the four, the one you will want to watch again and again.
5 stars out of 5.
And while it might sound kind of strange to put Predator in this category, the truth is pretty undeniable. If you put this movie up against movies with the benefit of far advanced special effects available, AVP and AVP:R for example, Predator is far away a more enjoyable experience.
The movie is a showcase of what made Arnold Schwarzenegger such a strong action actor. He is imposing physically, slightly brooding, and completely realistic as someone who can carry fully-automatic guns and create havoc in a jungle.
Schwarzenegger was just one of a handful of brilliant casting choices in the movie. Carl Weathers plays the stock 'warrior turned ripped deskie that has an alterior agenda but finds redemption' character. Former governor Jesse Ventura plays Blain, the stock 'MTV t-shirt wearing, large gun brandishing badass' character. And Kevin Peter Hall (Harry from Harry and the Hendersons) pulls off a daunting task of playing a character (the Predator) that has to impose a presence with nearly no lines of dialogue.
The movie could be split into two parts, the first half of the movie in which Schwarzenegger's band of merry men aren't aware they are being hunted, and the second half in which that becomes a very grim reality. What makes the movie memerable to me is something often overlooked in movies of this ilk: character development.
This movie gives you small, but extremely effective glimpses, into characters that could have been easily brushed off because they were simply fodder. Instead, you felt the loss of each character.
What I find interesting about the predator species is the code they live by. At its most simple definition, it is about honor. The pursuit of honor is akin to a holy journey and the weak are not regarded as worthy of the predator's time. He will not kill unless someone is armed with a weapon or has attacked him.
The predator is primal, Schwarzenneger is reduced to making most of his weapons and to me, the movie has a bit of a brutal hand-to-hand feel to it. There aren't a ton of high-tech weapons in this movie, basically it amounts to two species slugging it out in the middle of a jungle. It kind of toes the line of over-the-top alpha, but in the case of the protagonist and antagonist, both have their strengths exploited and both species have to use cunning and intellect, not just brute braun. That made it more enjoyable for me. It wasn't about who had the biggest gun. It was about who used the available resources, who found something that could push himself that little bit further, who clung to life harder.
I don't know of too many big bang movies that can be pealed apart like this one. If you want to kill a Saturday in January, watch the four movies that deal with the Predator franchise. If you watch Predator first, it will likely stand out as the most polished of the four, the one you will want to watch again and again.
5 stars out of 5.
Movie Review - Boondock Saints
So here's a question. What happens when you take the driving force behind The Punisher, take it times two and turn the protagonists into Irish brothers? Toss in a cross-dressing Willem Dafoe, and you have the recipe for the Boondock Saints.
What probably should have been a cheesy movie was pulled off fairly effectively, partially because I'm partial to a couple of Irish guys swearing at each other and deciding they are going to make the world right by extinguishing untouchable bad guys.
A quick imdb.com check revealed the f-word is said a total of 246 times. That in itself is an accomplishment of some kind considering the movie is 110 minutes (I'm guessing that includes the time at the end of the movie when credits are rolling). So basically, if swearing gets on your nerves, I think it might be best to pass up this movie. If not, enjoy.
Long story short: Two Irish brothers decide they are on a mission from God to clean up the city in which they live. Willem Defoe is the cop trying to figure out who is pulling off these murders, all the while sympathizing and empathizing with the brothers' cause.
The movie turns into a hail of bullets, followed by some relatively dark humor about life, death, and the quick exit the brothers are inflicting on some bad guys.
-----------------------------------
Spoiler Alert
Something I didn't care for with the movie was how the brothers square off with a character that turns out to be their father in a gun battle, yet the brothers fail to recognize him. Maybe I missed something important, but I couldn't ever figure out why they didn't recognize him. Seemed like a bit of a reach to me. But other than that, the movie was full of good stuff, as the ending turned into a family affair with the mission from God.
-------------------------------------
It's rated R, it's funny and there is some real good gun play. Basically, for my money, it doesn't get much better than that. Save for a minor complaint here and there, the movie is worth a watch. While seeing Defoe in a dress is something I care not to repeat any time in the near future, it did not effect my rating.
4 stars out of 5. You could rent it, you could own it. Either way you will enjoy it.
What probably should have been a cheesy movie was pulled off fairly effectively, partially because I'm partial to a couple of Irish guys swearing at each other and deciding they are going to make the world right by extinguishing untouchable bad guys.
A quick imdb.com check revealed the f-word is said a total of 246 times. That in itself is an accomplishment of some kind considering the movie is 110 minutes (I'm guessing that includes the time at the end of the movie when credits are rolling). So basically, if swearing gets on your nerves, I think it might be best to pass up this movie. If not, enjoy.
Long story short: Two Irish brothers decide they are on a mission from God to clean up the city in which they live. Willem Defoe is the cop trying to figure out who is pulling off these murders, all the while sympathizing and empathizing with the brothers' cause.
The movie turns into a hail of bullets, followed by some relatively dark humor about life, death, and the quick exit the brothers are inflicting on some bad guys.
-----------------------------------
Spoiler Alert
Something I didn't care for with the movie was how the brothers square off with a character that turns out to be their father in a gun battle, yet the brothers fail to recognize him. Maybe I missed something important, but I couldn't ever figure out why they didn't recognize him. Seemed like a bit of a reach to me. But other than that, the movie was full of good stuff, as the ending turned into a family affair with the mission from God.
-------------------------------------
It's rated R, it's funny and there is some real good gun play. Basically, for my money, it doesn't get much better than that. Save for a minor complaint here and there, the movie is worth a watch. While seeing Defoe in a dress is something I care not to repeat any time in the near future, it did not effect my rating.
4 stars out of 5. You could rent it, you could own it. Either way you will enjoy it.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Movie Review - Rambo
Sometimes it is beter to leave a sleeping dog lie.
Sylvester Stallonlone had a pretty decent thing going with his Rambo franchise. There is nothing quite like a movie where the bad guy is so easy to hate, creating a hero that fights these bad men while saving someone really innocent like a kid, or a doctor helping kids, whatever. If only war/life was that simple.
I actually thought Rambo III would be the end of the franchise. Dedicated 'to the brave Afganese people' or some such thing, the movie certainly felt dated after the September 11 attacks. Kind of the same thing with Rocky IV...anymore there just isn't quite that fear of Russia in this country and so the movie lost a little bit from one generation to the next. Such is life I suppose.
Anyway, Rambo is probably non-stop roller coaster ride of adrenaline or some such nonsense. To me, the 'one-man force' movie has been done to death and likely through no fault of its own, the Rambo franchise just isn't quite as effective as it once was.
Stallone is a bit bulkier than he was in the previous installments (he was 62 when he made the movie and with that in mind he looks nothing short of amazing) and seems to be a little darker and a little less human than he was in the previous movies. To me, he just wasn't quite the guy I was pulling for in First Blood. I empathized with a war vet who was trying to make his life his own again after coming home. To me, that person was someone I could know.
The movie also certainly took advantage of new technologies not available in the 1980s. In the previous three movies there was plenty of shooting, plenty of violence, etc., but Rambo seemed to take it to another level. CG work now blew off heads, chopped off arms or legs, seemed to make the violence a bit more over the top (clever Stallone reference).
I can't exactly say I liked this movie, it just didn't do much for me. Rambo was a bit more hands-on with his killing craft, a bit bloodier with the end result and while it wasn't a horrible waste of time, it seemed a bit too much of a very simple action movie.
---------------------
Spoiler Alert
But as far as the franchise goes, I did enjoy how the John Rambo character finally went home at the movie's conclusion. That, to me anyway, went back to the First Blood roots. That seemed to make the Rambo character someone I could cheer for. It seemed completely appropriate, and I was actually caught off guard by it, while enjoying it all at the same time.
-------
As far as a rating, it is farily mindless, fairly stock, but with the ending being what sticks in my mind, it gets a bit of a waivering 2.5 stars out of 5, leaning a bit towards 2 stars.
Sylvester Stallonlone had a pretty decent thing going with his Rambo franchise. There is nothing quite like a movie where the bad guy is so easy to hate, creating a hero that fights these bad men while saving someone really innocent like a kid, or a doctor helping kids, whatever. If only war/life was that simple.
I actually thought Rambo III would be the end of the franchise. Dedicated 'to the brave Afganese people' or some such thing, the movie certainly felt dated after the September 11 attacks. Kind of the same thing with Rocky IV...anymore there just isn't quite that fear of Russia in this country and so the movie lost a little bit from one generation to the next. Such is life I suppose.
Anyway, Rambo is probably non-stop roller coaster ride of adrenaline or some such nonsense. To me, the 'one-man force' movie has been done to death and likely through no fault of its own, the Rambo franchise just isn't quite as effective as it once was.
Stallone is a bit bulkier than he was in the previous installments (he was 62 when he made the movie and with that in mind he looks nothing short of amazing) and seems to be a little darker and a little less human than he was in the previous movies. To me, he just wasn't quite the guy I was pulling for in First Blood. I empathized with a war vet who was trying to make his life his own again after coming home. To me, that person was someone I could know.
The movie also certainly took advantage of new technologies not available in the 1980s. In the previous three movies there was plenty of shooting, plenty of violence, etc., but Rambo seemed to take it to another level. CG work now blew off heads, chopped off arms or legs, seemed to make the violence a bit more over the top (clever Stallone reference).
I can't exactly say I liked this movie, it just didn't do much for me. Rambo was a bit more hands-on with his killing craft, a bit bloodier with the end result and while it wasn't a horrible waste of time, it seemed a bit too much of a very simple action movie.
---------------------
Spoiler Alert
But as far as the franchise goes, I did enjoy how the John Rambo character finally went home at the movie's conclusion. That, to me anyway, went back to the First Blood roots. That seemed to make the Rambo character someone I could cheer for. It seemed completely appropriate, and I was actually caught off guard by it, while enjoying it all at the same time.
-------
As far as a rating, it is farily mindless, fairly stock, but with the ending being what sticks in my mind, it gets a bit of a waivering 2.5 stars out of 5, leaning a bit towards 2 stars.
Movie Review - Jaws
When it comes to really great horror movies, Jaws is a movie that has been redone in one form or another. It is brilliant in its pacing, story telling and intricacies. While three subpar sequels kind of made the franchise lose a bit of steam, there is no doubt the first movie was groundbreaking.
I'm certainly not going to ignore that this is a movie that came from a book. Peter Benchley's book is pretty captivating, but for me, the movie takes my entertainment of the story to a whole new level. Benchley also wrote the screenplay and in that way, I don't really feel like anyone stole his ideas. Instead, he just built a more visual story, versus a story built in the framework of your mind's eye.
The story revolves around Roy Scheider as Martin Brody, the reluctant hero, a police chief who had been worked in the big city before moving his family to the summer East Coast travel destination of Amity. The move is all good and fine, right up until a 25-foot Great White takes up shop and begins devouring swimmers/boaters/dogs/boats/etc.
Scheider plays the role of an aquaphobe to a 'T', and is right at home with his interpretation of someone out of his element. Really, the casting of the movie could not be better. Robert Shaw just 'is' that gnarled salty sea dog, Quint, whose cursing and old-school ways make him someone that you laugh at for his over-the-top hatred of city-folk, women, and anything other than sea life. Richard Dreyfuss plays Hooper, the second-generation rich kid (immediately the natural arch enemy of Quint) who is the shark expert.
Basically the movie feels like it split between two parts: when the three main characters are on land, trying to decide how to fight the shark, and then when Brody, Quint and Hooper get on Quint's boat, Orca, and take the fight to the shark.
Likely one of the single most powerful scenes in the movie has nothing to do with the movie's shark (named Bruce by the filming crew, in 'honor' of Steven Spielberg's lawyer). Instead it is when Quint relays a story of when he was on the U.S.S. Indianapolis. Basically, in that three or four minutes, the camera is just on him, and he relays a story about the ship that delivered the Hiroshima bomb, was sunk by a submarine, and had hundreds of crew members eaten by sharks as they waited for rescue.
This movie may have been one of the single-largest killers of sharks in the last 30 years, but basically I think that is because it was done so well. A poorly-done movie wouldn't generate this kind of response. But because it captures a real fear, bottles it, and hits you with it over the course of three hours, sharks are branded killers. I guess I'm not going to go into my feelings on the issue any more than that sharks are wild animals and should be treated as such. They are just doing what they are do.
You don't actually see the shark until midway through the movie, likely one of the better movie decisions or blunders (the shark machine didn't react well to salt water) of all time. Your mind creates a lot of suspense and a lot of anticipation throughout the first half of the movie because you never actually see the beast. It isn't until Brody is chumming when he and the audience first see the shark. Scheider then produces one of the all-time great on-the-fly movie quotes in 'We're going to need a bigger boat...'.
Music-wise, this is about as rich as a score can be. It is full symphony, it conveys mystery, horror, suspsense, all of it. Appropriately for the subject matter, there is a lot of what sounds like harp involvement in the music. To me it sounds very fluid, very appropriate for a movie on the sea.
Spoiler Alert
I find the different endings of the book and movie pretty interesting. In the book, Brody ends up in the water with the shark (Hooper and Quint have both been killed by this point). The shark is approaching Brody and basically just stops and dies. For a fairly tremendous book, I found this to be one of the all-time great letdowns. Maybe it was trying to get at a larger point (even forces of nature are subject to their own mortality or something along those lines) but for the most part, I left the book feeling disapointed.
The movie more than made up for that blah ending. Brody faces the approaching shark with gun in hand, shooting an airtank in the animal's mouth and blowing the shark into 8590487857483849494959585 pieces (approximately). It is a great movie moment. Hooper (who had a little more character development in the book) lives in the movie version...It didn't seem quite right, but then again Dryfuss is a pretty decent guy.
With this franchise, I am a pretty big believer that the cumulative stars given to Jaws 2, Jaws 3 and Jaws 4 don't add up to the amount of stars given to the first movie. Jaws is as good as horror movies get.
5 stars out of 5.
The musical score is for the ages.
I'm certainly not going to ignore that this is a movie that came from a book. Peter Benchley's book is pretty captivating, but for me, the movie takes my entertainment of the story to a whole new level. Benchley also wrote the screenplay and in that way, I don't really feel like anyone stole his ideas. Instead, he just built a more visual story, versus a story built in the framework of your mind's eye.
The story revolves around Roy Scheider as Martin Brody, the reluctant hero, a police chief who had been worked in the big city before moving his family to the summer East Coast travel destination of Amity. The move is all good and fine, right up until a 25-foot Great White takes up shop and begins devouring swimmers/boaters/dogs/boats/etc.
Scheider plays the role of an aquaphobe to a 'T', and is right at home with his interpretation of someone out of his element. Really, the casting of the movie could not be better. Robert Shaw just 'is' that gnarled salty sea dog, Quint, whose cursing and old-school ways make him someone that you laugh at for his over-the-top hatred of city-folk, women, and anything other than sea life. Richard Dreyfuss plays Hooper, the second-generation rich kid (immediately the natural arch enemy of Quint) who is the shark expert.
Basically the movie feels like it split between two parts: when the three main characters are on land, trying to decide how to fight the shark, and then when Brody, Quint and Hooper get on Quint's boat, Orca, and take the fight to the shark.
Likely one of the single most powerful scenes in the movie has nothing to do with the movie's shark (named Bruce by the filming crew, in 'honor' of Steven Spielberg's lawyer). Instead it is when Quint relays a story of when he was on the U.S.S. Indianapolis. Basically, in that three or four minutes, the camera is just on him, and he relays a story about the ship that delivered the Hiroshima bomb, was sunk by a submarine, and had hundreds of crew members eaten by sharks as they waited for rescue.
This movie may have been one of the single-largest killers of sharks in the last 30 years, but basically I think that is because it was done so well. A poorly-done movie wouldn't generate this kind of response. But because it captures a real fear, bottles it, and hits you with it over the course of three hours, sharks are branded killers. I guess I'm not going to go into my feelings on the issue any more than that sharks are wild animals and should be treated as such. They are just doing what they are do.
You don't actually see the shark until midway through the movie, likely one of the better movie decisions or blunders (the shark machine didn't react well to salt water) of all time. Your mind creates a lot of suspense and a lot of anticipation throughout the first half of the movie because you never actually see the beast. It isn't until Brody is chumming when he and the audience first see the shark. Scheider then produces one of the all-time great on-the-fly movie quotes in 'We're going to need a bigger boat...'.
Music-wise, this is about as rich as a score can be. It is full symphony, it conveys mystery, horror, suspsense, all of it. Appropriately for the subject matter, there is a lot of what sounds like harp involvement in the music. To me it sounds very fluid, very appropriate for a movie on the sea.
Spoiler Alert
I find the different endings of the book and movie pretty interesting. In the book, Brody ends up in the water with the shark (Hooper and Quint have both been killed by this point). The shark is approaching Brody and basically just stops and dies. For a fairly tremendous book, I found this to be one of the all-time great letdowns. Maybe it was trying to get at a larger point (even forces of nature are subject to their own mortality or something along those lines) but for the most part, I left the book feeling disapointed.
The movie more than made up for that blah ending. Brody faces the approaching shark with gun in hand, shooting an airtank in the animal's mouth and blowing the shark into 8590487857483849494959585 pieces (approximately). It is a great movie moment. Hooper (who had a little more character development in the book) lives in the movie version...It didn't seem quite right, but then again Dryfuss is a pretty decent guy.
With this franchise, I am a pretty big believer that the cumulative stars given to Jaws 2, Jaws 3 and Jaws 4 don't add up to the amount of stars given to the first movie. Jaws is as good as horror movies get.
5 stars out of 5.
The musical score is for the ages.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Movie Review - Spring Break Shark Attack
I'm a sucker for a shark movie. It is one of my personal vices. I'm working through it. And, it normally comes back to bite me on a fairly regular basis. I'm expecting Jaws and I get Shark Attack 3: Megaladon.
So, I get Spring Break Shark Attack from my Blockbuster account. I'll be honest, I'm not expecting much. The title leads me to believe I'm looking at a B movie. I have made piece with that. But maybe the movie will have some kind of redeeming quality. I hadn't ever heard of it, but maybe there will be some funny one-liners in it.
Ugh. No, there wasn't.
The movie was a made-for-TV movie that someone made the mistake of putting on a DVD. It had built-in fade outs for commercial breaks. It had sub-par acting (I expected that), but what really disappointed me was there really wasn't much 'shark' in any scene. There was a lot of dorsal fins, there were a lot of 'attacks' (mostly of people being pulled under followed by an erruption of bubbles and red dye), but basically the movie didn't live up to any kind of miniscule hopes I had.
The movie is not rated. That is not because there is any over-the-top nudity or swearing, or even violence. It is basically a movie that you could find on primetime NBC or CBS or ABC. It is not rated, I'm guessing anyway, because it just never got rated.
I normally try not and spoil movies with my movie reviews, I don't really feel that is fair. But for this movie, as you will never see it (I'm begging you...seriously), I'll spoil the one reason why I'm not giving this movie no stars.
At one point towards the end, one of the lead characters is diving underwater and fooling with some electronic gizmo that repels sharks. In the background you see a shark quit circling her, flatten out and begin to accelerate towards her. The shark gets closer and closer, building the slightest bit of tension, but - shockingly enough - the person gets the gizmo to work and the shark immediately peals off and is repelled.
That moment right there, earns this movie a half-star. Like I said, my standards aren't exactly high for a movie like this. I'm willing to forgive quite a bit if there is some kind of redeeming value...anything...
In closing, I'm stupid. I watched Spring Break Shark Attack. Don't be stupid. Don't see this movie.
So, I get Spring Break Shark Attack from my Blockbuster account. I'll be honest, I'm not expecting much. The title leads me to believe I'm looking at a B movie. I have made piece with that. But maybe the movie will have some kind of redeeming quality. I hadn't ever heard of it, but maybe there will be some funny one-liners in it.
Ugh. No, there wasn't.
The movie was a made-for-TV movie that someone made the mistake of putting on a DVD. It had built-in fade outs for commercial breaks. It had sub-par acting (I expected that), but what really disappointed me was there really wasn't much 'shark' in any scene. There was a lot of dorsal fins, there were a lot of 'attacks' (mostly of people being pulled under followed by an erruption of bubbles and red dye), but basically the movie didn't live up to any kind of miniscule hopes I had.
The movie is not rated. That is not because there is any over-the-top nudity or swearing, or even violence. It is basically a movie that you could find on primetime NBC or CBS or ABC. It is not rated, I'm guessing anyway, because it just never got rated.
I normally try not and spoil movies with my movie reviews, I don't really feel that is fair. But for this movie, as you will never see it (I'm begging you...seriously), I'll spoil the one reason why I'm not giving this movie no stars.
At one point towards the end, one of the lead characters is diving underwater and fooling with some electronic gizmo that repels sharks. In the background you see a shark quit circling her, flatten out and begin to accelerate towards her. The shark gets closer and closer, building the slightest bit of tension, but - shockingly enough - the person gets the gizmo to work and the shark immediately peals off and is repelled.
That moment right there, earns this movie a half-star. Like I said, my standards aren't exactly high for a movie like this. I'm willing to forgive quite a bit if there is some kind of redeeming value...anything...
In closing, I'm stupid. I watched Spring Break Shark Attack. Don't be stupid. Don't see this movie.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Movie Review - A Clockwork Orange
Anyone who has ever talked favorite movies with me, has probably heard me reference A Clockwork Orange. Arguably (though there are a couple to pick from) Stanley Kubrick's finest film, the movie asks a tremendous question:
Is a person's capacity for violence a bad thing?
It is a very complex question. On one hand, that capacity can hurt others. On the other hand, that capacity can also defend yourself.
And there is also a question of humanity involved here. Is having the capability of violence and choosing not to act on it, truly just a human capability? Is that what makes up the human soul, that notion of right and wrong?
It seems as though everywhere you look, those large questions are facing the world. In bouncing back to the movie review of Untraceable for a minute, the question was asked: How far do people take the anonymous nature of the internet and what are the repercussions of this? A Clockwork Orange, asks this question also, but in every-day life.
The protagonist is a violent character by nature, but also embraces art, especially the music of Beethoven. To a point (and I realize I'm making a bit of a reach here, as some people view the movie differently) the violence he creates is grand and artistic, too. The wardrobe he dons is ultra-male with a sensible sort of style.
If you haven't seen the movie, you must. There is no way around it. None. You must see it. However, let me caution you. The movie is violent. Extremely violent. I believe it is rated R, and it is rated as such for good reason. It shows the basic defiling of human nature and this may not be pleasant. But, to me anyway, it is also necessary in order to appreciate the questions being asked.
When it comes to 'smart' movies, this movie is what I judge all other movies against and I try to watch it at least once a month, despite having owned it for years. It is that kind of movie for me.
5 starts out of 5. If the scale went to six, it would be given a six. If the scale went to 400, I would give it a 400. Enjoy.
Is a person's capacity for violence a bad thing?
It is a very complex question. On one hand, that capacity can hurt others. On the other hand, that capacity can also defend yourself.
And there is also a question of humanity involved here. Is having the capability of violence and choosing not to act on it, truly just a human capability? Is that what makes up the human soul, that notion of right and wrong?
It seems as though everywhere you look, those large questions are facing the world. In bouncing back to the movie review of Untraceable for a minute, the question was asked: How far do people take the anonymous nature of the internet and what are the repercussions of this? A Clockwork Orange, asks this question also, but in every-day life.
The protagonist is a violent character by nature, but also embraces art, especially the music of Beethoven. To a point (and I realize I'm making a bit of a reach here, as some people view the movie differently) the violence he creates is grand and artistic, too. The wardrobe he dons is ultra-male with a sensible sort of style.
If you haven't seen the movie, you must. There is no way around it. None. You must see it. However, let me caution you. The movie is violent. Extremely violent. I believe it is rated R, and it is rated as such for good reason. It shows the basic defiling of human nature and this may not be pleasant. But, to me anyway, it is also necessary in order to appreciate the questions being asked.
When it comes to 'smart' movies, this movie is what I judge all other movies against and I try to watch it at least once a month, despite having owned it for years. It is that kind of movie for me.
5 starts out of 5. If the scale went to six, it would be given a six. If the scale went to 400, I would give it a 400. Enjoy.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Movie Review - Alien vs. Predator
As a huge fan of both series, I was more than just excited when the announcement was first made there would be a blending of the movies: Alien vs. Predator.
There is that moment near the end of Predator 2 when Danny Glover is in the Preadtor spaceship and he sees the trophy wall with the Alien skull. Suddenly, there were so many directions that could be had as two of the better sci-fi franchises went wild.
Be careful what you wish for.
With a movie series that I thought to be extremely difficult to mess up, somehow the crew behind AVP found a way.
I think what was most disapointing about the movie was the lack of energy put towards certain rules that were established in the previous movies. I'm okay with taking a franchise in a new direction (a four-legged xenomorph in Alien3 for example) but basically there were some pretty hard-and-fast rules that were played with here.
First, you have to deal with location. The movie is set in Antarctica, essentially one large ice cube. Apparently, the Predator species is no longer drawn to heat and conflict. Apparently, they tolerate the cold just fine. Forget that in Predator and Predator2 there was scenes dedicated to how hot the temperature was. Forget that in Predator2, the special forces team was going to neutralize the Predator with some kind of cold gas. These AVP Predators seem to just shake off the cold as no big deal.
One theory I've heard on this is that because it was a training mission the young Predators were put in an adverse climate. I would buy that if in some of the AVP flashbacks, the Predators weren't seen training in what appeared to be a desert climate. If they return to the same location every 100 years, it isn't as though the ice just suddenly appeared there.
Second, when it comes to the time between a host being attacked by a facehugger to the appearance of a chestburster, there is little to no continuity to the previous films. In Alien, there is enough time for the infected character to wake up, talk, go to the cafeteria and have a meal before the embryo exits the host. In Alien3, the character of Ripley goes through the course of the movie carrying an embryo. In Alien Resurrection, one character lasts throughout the second half of the movie with an embryo.
However, in AVP the time elapsed appears to be mere seconds. One explanation I've heard for this (from audio commentaries on AVP Requiem) is that the Predators gentically engineered a faster-gestation period to speed up the hunt. I find it fairly sad that an audio commentary from the sequel movie has to explain a plot hole from the first movie.
Third, the Predator species is one founded on the notion of honor. In Predator and Predator2 there was one fact repeatedly beat over your head: Predators do not attack anyone without a weapon because there is no sport. Yet, in AVP the Predator forms a kinship with the human protagonist after she kills one of the aliens, in a near-accidental way. As the xenomorph falls on a spear the protagonist is holding and dies, she shows fear clearly and it wasn't as though she really did much for that kill. Yet, this still managed to impress the Predator enough for him to mark the protagonist, essentially giving her a mark of his family.
Fourth, I found it interesting that AVP made such a point of marking one of the xenomorphs, to distinguish it from the others. In the audio commentary, this is mentioned as one of the movies goals because it had not been done before. Yet, when it came to deciding the masks of the Predators, one with a fairly bland mask survived the longest of the three youth Predators. Essentially the most unique mask was used as a bit of a set-up gag, to surprise you when it eventually falls victim to the marked xenomorph at the film's midway point.
The movie has fault after fault, but there are some redeeming qualities. Seeing the first real 'Alien vs. Predator' scene is fairly amazing. The director put quite a bit of work into the whole scene and it really is the part of the movie that stands out to me.
Overall though, the payoffs are few and far between, the movie doesn't deliver on enough levels to be considered anything but a 'wait for it on TV movie', and its full-of-fail qualities make me want to write a screenplay that would erase this movie from the minds' of fans of the franchises.
1 star out of 5.
There is that moment near the end of Predator 2 when Danny Glover is in the Preadtor spaceship and he sees the trophy wall with the Alien skull. Suddenly, there were so many directions that could be had as two of the better sci-fi franchises went wild.
Be careful what you wish for.
With a movie series that I thought to be extremely difficult to mess up, somehow the crew behind AVP found a way.
I think what was most disapointing about the movie was the lack of energy put towards certain rules that were established in the previous movies. I'm okay with taking a franchise in a new direction (a four-legged xenomorph in Alien3 for example) but basically there were some pretty hard-and-fast rules that were played with here.
First, you have to deal with location. The movie is set in Antarctica, essentially one large ice cube. Apparently, the Predator species is no longer drawn to heat and conflict. Apparently, they tolerate the cold just fine. Forget that in Predator and Predator2 there was scenes dedicated to how hot the temperature was. Forget that in Predator2, the special forces team was going to neutralize the Predator with some kind of cold gas. These AVP Predators seem to just shake off the cold as no big deal.
One theory I've heard on this is that because it was a training mission the young Predators were put in an adverse climate. I would buy that if in some of the AVP flashbacks, the Predators weren't seen training in what appeared to be a desert climate. If they return to the same location every 100 years, it isn't as though the ice just suddenly appeared there.
Second, when it comes to the time between a host being attacked by a facehugger to the appearance of a chestburster, there is little to no continuity to the previous films. In Alien, there is enough time for the infected character to wake up, talk, go to the cafeteria and have a meal before the embryo exits the host. In Alien3, the character of Ripley goes through the course of the movie carrying an embryo. In Alien Resurrection, one character lasts throughout the second half of the movie with an embryo.
However, in AVP the time elapsed appears to be mere seconds. One explanation I've heard for this (from audio commentaries on AVP Requiem) is that the Predators gentically engineered a faster-gestation period to speed up the hunt. I find it fairly sad that an audio commentary from the sequel movie has to explain a plot hole from the first movie.
Third, the Predator species is one founded on the notion of honor. In Predator and Predator2 there was one fact repeatedly beat over your head: Predators do not attack anyone without a weapon because there is no sport. Yet, in AVP the Predator forms a kinship with the human protagonist after she kills one of the aliens, in a near-accidental way. As the xenomorph falls on a spear the protagonist is holding and dies, she shows fear clearly and it wasn't as though she really did much for that kill. Yet, this still managed to impress the Predator enough for him to mark the protagonist, essentially giving her a mark of his family.
Fourth, I found it interesting that AVP made such a point of marking one of the xenomorphs, to distinguish it from the others. In the audio commentary, this is mentioned as one of the movies goals because it had not been done before. Yet, when it came to deciding the masks of the Predators, one with a fairly bland mask survived the longest of the three youth Predators. Essentially the most unique mask was used as a bit of a set-up gag, to surprise you when it eventually falls victim to the marked xenomorph at the film's midway point.
The movie has fault after fault, but there are some redeeming qualities. Seeing the first real 'Alien vs. Predator' scene is fairly amazing. The director put quite a bit of work into the whole scene and it really is the part of the movie that stands out to me.
Overall though, the payoffs are few and far between, the movie doesn't deliver on enough levels to be considered anything but a 'wait for it on TV movie', and its full-of-fail qualities make me want to write a screenplay that would erase this movie from the minds' of fans of the franchises.
1 star out of 5.
Movie Review - The Thing
When it comes to remakes, I have a tendency to be an all-or-nothing fan. Fortunately for me, when it comes to The Thing, I haven't seen the original and so my views on the 1982 John Carpenter creation, I don't have a reference point.
As far as sci-fi creature flics go, this movie should be near or at the top of movies in your collection. Kurt Russell stars in this movie which features a research team in Antarctica suddenly having to deal with an alien species that takes over a host and adapts itself to those characteristics.
One interesting part of this movie is that in 1982 there was no kind of CG to work with and all of the special effects are practical. To me anyway, there is a real appreciation to movie people that are actually creating what is on the screen. Add to that a type of special effect that hasn't been seen in a movie since this one and basically you have one of the great horror movies of our time.
I think what I like about this movie is the levels that it brings. On the outset, you have a horror movie and you can take everything you see at face value. There is an interesting aspect of isolation in this movie, the protagonists are about as far from help as a person can be.
Wilford Brimley is absolutely tremendous in this movie and I do wish he had more time to shine on camera. For someone who grew up watching him on oatmeal comercials, I don't think I ever did truly appreciate how strong of an actor he is.
Also, after listening to one of the audio commentaries, Carpenter brought up an interesting parallel for how this movie related to the world with regards to the AIDS outbreak in the early 1980s. At that time there suddenly became all of these people with AIDS and suddenly these people started dying. The thing with AIDS is you couldn't (can't) just look at someone and say, "Yep, they have AIDS." The same thing with this movie. You can't tell who the infected people are just by looking at them. So (in the movie and at that time in the world) you have paranoia about who is safe and who isn't, and it is interesting to place yourself in that kind of setting.
Finally, without giving too much away, I loved the ending. It didn't exactly follow the prototypical Hollywood ending and I appreciated a break from the norm.
The movie is rated R and the special effects certainly warrant a bit of caution for anyone who does not like that kind of thing. That said, this movie is tremendous and one of my personal favorites. Rock solid 4.5 stars out of 5.
As far as sci-fi creature flics go, this movie should be near or at the top of movies in your collection. Kurt Russell stars in this movie which features a research team in Antarctica suddenly having to deal with an alien species that takes over a host and adapts itself to those characteristics.
One interesting part of this movie is that in 1982 there was no kind of CG to work with and all of the special effects are practical. To me anyway, there is a real appreciation to movie people that are actually creating what is on the screen. Add to that a type of special effect that hasn't been seen in a movie since this one and basically you have one of the great horror movies of our time.
I think what I like about this movie is the levels that it brings. On the outset, you have a horror movie and you can take everything you see at face value. There is an interesting aspect of isolation in this movie, the protagonists are about as far from help as a person can be.
Wilford Brimley is absolutely tremendous in this movie and I do wish he had more time to shine on camera. For someone who grew up watching him on oatmeal comercials, I don't think I ever did truly appreciate how strong of an actor he is.
Also, after listening to one of the audio commentaries, Carpenter brought up an interesting parallel for how this movie related to the world with regards to the AIDS outbreak in the early 1980s. At that time there suddenly became all of these people with AIDS and suddenly these people started dying. The thing with AIDS is you couldn't (can't) just look at someone and say, "Yep, they have AIDS." The same thing with this movie. You can't tell who the infected people are just by looking at them. So (in the movie and at that time in the world) you have paranoia about who is safe and who isn't, and it is interesting to place yourself in that kind of setting.
Finally, without giving too much away, I loved the ending. It didn't exactly follow the prototypical Hollywood ending and I appreciated a break from the norm.
The movie is rated R and the special effects certainly warrant a bit of caution for anyone who does not like that kind of thing. That said, this movie is tremendous and one of my personal favorites. Rock solid 4.5 stars out of 5.
Movie Review - Untraceable
Untraceable, what to say about this. On one hand this movie asked a fairly interesting question, that is how dangerous is the anonimity aspect of the internet, but all-told I left unfulfilled by this movie.
Essentially you have a really disturbed person capturing people and putting their torture on the internet. However, the torture was linked to the number of people that logged on to the website. As an example, at one point a person is cemented into place with a host of bright lamps placed around him. The more people that log on to the site, the more lamps turn on.
Without giving away too much about the movie, I did find it interesting the large question of morality that the internet does pose. If you (the general you, not actually you) are in a world (in this case, the internet) where essentially you have no identity and are not held accountable for what it is you do, what would you do?
I found this question to be almost too big, though, too general. In listening to the audio commentary (maybe it was one of the special features, I can't remember) one of the creators of the movie said if the movie situation was playing out in real life, he would likely log on to the site and watch, only to later be disgusted with himself. In that respect, maybe the movie served as a bit of a cultural mirror and I didn't like what I saw.
Special effects were certainly graphic and I would not suggest this movie for anyone that is doesn't like movies of this sort (I would lump this in with the Saw movies).
The movie is rated R, so basically if you aren't 17, you shouldn't be seeing it. But, if you qualify to watch a rated R movie, it has the possibility of being a one-watch kind of thing.
Two and a half stars out of five.
Essentially you have a really disturbed person capturing people and putting their torture on the internet. However, the torture was linked to the number of people that logged on to the website. As an example, at one point a person is cemented into place with a host of bright lamps placed around him. The more people that log on to the site, the more lamps turn on.
Without giving away too much about the movie, I did find it interesting the large question of morality that the internet does pose. If you (the general you, not actually you) are in a world (in this case, the internet) where essentially you have no identity and are not held accountable for what it is you do, what would you do?
I found this question to be almost too big, though, too general. In listening to the audio commentary (maybe it was one of the special features, I can't remember) one of the creators of the movie said if the movie situation was playing out in real life, he would likely log on to the site and watch, only to later be disgusted with himself. In that respect, maybe the movie served as a bit of a cultural mirror and I didn't like what I saw.
Special effects were certainly graphic and I would not suggest this movie for anyone that is doesn't like movies of this sort (I would lump this in with the Saw movies).
The movie is rated R, so basically if you aren't 17, you shouldn't be seeing it. But, if you qualify to watch a rated R movie, it has the possibility of being a one-watch kind of thing.
Two and a half stars out of five.
Movie Review - Badder Santa: The Unrated Version
I watched Badder Santa: The Unrated Version today.
Not sure what I was expecting with it, but it far exceeded whatever I went into it with. I'm not calling it a modern masterpiece or anything, far from it.
It is basically vulgar and if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, I don't believe you will enjoy this kind of movie at all. It is rated R, and so if you are under age, you would have to get approval from your parents to watch it...best of luck convincing them you should view this movie.
That said, if you do like those kind of off-color comedies, the movie might be worth a watch. Basically the story centers around Billy Bob Thornton as the protagonist, a down-on-his-luck guy that spends time being a mall Santa in order to set up mall thefts with his elf sidekick (Tony Cox, who is tremendous).
He has all the loveable faults of an anti-hero. He really doesn't want the job of 'hero' but basically is thrust into the role because of found compassion for one of the kids who ends up on his lap. Some of his less-polished qualities turn into strengths and he can serve as a spokesperson for how not to live your life. In essence the movie almost takes a 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas' kind of turn. Thornton is about as low as a person can be, but by the end you are nearly (I stress nearly) rooting for him.
Other notables in the film include John Ritter (in his last film before passing away, the film is dedicated to him) and Bernie Mac.
All things totaled, I give it a solid three out of five stars. Probably not a movie I would dedicate my life to, but it has its moments and is worth a watch, especially if you are craving a little holiday cheer.
Not sure what I was expecting with it, but it far exceeded whatever I went into it with. I'm not calling it a modern masterpiece or anything, far from it.
It is basically vulgar and if you are sensitive to that sort of thing, I don't believe you will enjoy this kind of movie at all. It is rated R, and so if you are under age, you would have to get approval from your parents to watch it...best of luck convincing them you should view this movie.
That said, if you do like those kind of off-color comedies, the movie might be worth a watch. Basically the story centers around Billy Bob Thornton as the protagonist, a down-on-his-luck guy that spends time being a mall Santa in order to set up mall thefts with his elf sidekick (Tony Cox, who is tremendous).
He has all the loveable faults of an anti-hero. He really doesn't want the job of 'hero' but basically is thrust into the role because of found compassion for one of the kids who ends up on his lap. Some of his less-polished qualities turn into strengths and he can serve as a spokesperson for how not to live your life. In essence the movie almost takes a 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas' kind of turn. Thornton is about as low as a person can be, but by the end you are nearly (I stress nearly) rooting for him.
Other notables in the film include John Ritter (in his last film before passing away, the film is dedicated to him) and Bernie Mac.
All things totaled, I give it a solid three out of five stars. Probably not a movie I would dedicate my life to, but it has its moments and is worth a watch, especially if you are craving a little holiday cheer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
