As I don’t have the time to see and post any movie reviews until *at least* Monday night, I’ll just write something short for tonight. It has to do with this article from chud.com.
In short, it deals with a movie that was filmed in 1992 involving Genghis Khan and it had some famous faces attached to it. Problem is, despite the fact that the budget was either 45 million or 55 million bucks (depends on who’s telling the story), they ran out of money either way and it wasn’t until just this year (!) that it was finished by director Ken Annakin (he directed, amongst other things, Swiss Family Robinson and Battle of the Bulge; yes, he was 94 when he passed away a few months ago) and “soon” it’s supposed to come out to DVD.
That’s interesting enough, but note that it has Charlton Heston and Pat Morita in the cast, so you get to see something new from these late actors. The guy who played the title role of this motion picture, though, will shock you. It’s Richard Tyson. Don’t recognize the name? I know him best for being the villain in Kindergarten Cop. Yes, this guy. No offense to him, but he looks SO European that he could never pass for any sort of Asian, let alone a Mongol. It’s even more ridiculous than The Conqueror, that mid 50’s movie where John Wayne (!) played Khan. Yes I’ve seen that and it IS as bad as you may have heard. I’ll need to rent it again from the library so that I can talk about it more in depth here, and how it was so putrid and how it allegedly caused cancer for many of the cast members due to where they shot it, and some of the howlingly goofy dialogue that Wayne uttered.
Anyway, even better is that the upcoming Khan motion picture has a trailer out already and it’s something else, to say the very least. Seeing CHARLTON HESTON as a Mongol is pretty laughable. Thus, I can’t wait to see this flick ASAP.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 213 reviews)
Runtime: 153 minutes
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Michael Fassbinder, Eli Roth
From: Weinstein Company/Universal
As I had stated already, previous to my viewing this motion picture, I wasn’t sure if I was going to like it or not. I mean, Tarantino’s hit or miss with me so I didn’t know what to expect.
To quote from a MySpace blog I wrote about the experience:
“To continue on with this, Saturday I went to Daytona Beach; I was hoping to go on the beach itself, but as the weather was ass, so I instead went and saw the movie Inglourious Basterds and then went to a nearby wrestling show. There was a lot of people in that screening and much to my surprise, they were actually patient with that 2 ½ hour movie, and it was filled with subtitled dialogue too. I really enjoyed it… until one plot point happened. At the time and even up to about Sunday I didn’t care for it and thought it really hampered the film. But, after some thought, I don’t think it’s as bad as I initially thought. I’ll still see it again to see if I view the movie any differently now… in short, I still recommend you see the movie, but like I said it has a good amount of subtitles, it’s a typical Tarantino movie filled with much dialogue, and what violence you get to see is pretty brutal (scalpings!), so as long as you know that… oh, and the Basterds aren’t as much of the story as you’d guess if you’ve only seen the commercials for it.”
To elaborate, I’m real interested in seeing this again (although I don’t plan on that to be until next week) as with a new perspective on it maybe I won’t be bugged by that one moment and if I see that as being better than I initially thought, I’m prepared to say this is the best thing that Quentin has ever done. Yes, even better than Pulp Fiction. This long tale is more about revenge and love of the cinema (no, really) than about the Basterds and their exploits, but the story is so magnificent-for the most part-and the acting from the actors all across America *and* Europe was quality stuff. Even Mike Myers was fine in the one scene he had, although I don’t know why he was in the movie, aside from him possibly being owed a favor by Tarantino, or maybe he just loves his British accent. Fair or not, I couldn’t help but think “Austin Powers” the entire time I heard Myers.
THE performance of the movie, though, was from Waltz as Landa, a “Jew Hunter” who was the main antagonist of the movie. He was so sly as a detective who could speak several different languages well and could manipulate people with ease. The opening scene that he had with the owner of a farm in France (Denis Menochet) proved this right away, and seeing the ending of the scene and how Denis slowly but surely reacted to what he ended up having to do was a very moving moment.
I won’t reveal much more as that may ruin things, but I’ll say that it’s more than one plot that you see in the film and it all comes together in a hot finale in Paris, and amongst the way you get talk about such stuff as German director G.W. Pabst, French food, shoes, and the “celebrity” game where you stick the name of a celebrity on your forehead and other people answer your questions to reveal the identity of who it is.
I'll be back in a few days with another movie or two to talk about here.
88% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 213 reviews)
Runtime: 153 minutes
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Michael Fassbinder, Eli Roth
From: Weinstein Company/Universal
As I had stated already, previous to my viewing this motion picture, I wasn’t sure if I was going to like it or not. I mean, Tarantino’s hit or miss with me so I didn’t know what to expect.
To quote from a MySpace blog I wrote about the experience:
“To continue on with this, Saturday I went to Daytona Beach; I was hoping to go on the beach itself, but as the weather was ass, so I instead went and saw the movie Inglourious Basterds and then went to a nearby wrestling show. There was a lot of people in that screening and much to my surprise, they were actually patient with that 2 ½ hour movie, and it was filled with subtitled dialogue too. I really enjoyed it… until one plot point happened. At the time and even up to about Sunday I didn’t care for it and thought it really hampered the film. But, after some thought, I don’t think it’s as bad as I initially thought. I’ll still see it again to see if I view the movie any differently now… in short, I still recommend you see the movie, but like I said it has a good amount of subtitles, it’s a typical Tarantino movie filled with much dialogue, and what violence you get to see is pretty brutal (scalpings!), so as long as you know that… oh, and the Basterds aren’t as much of the story as you’d guess if you’ve only seen the commercials for it.”
To elaborate, I’m real interested in seeing this again (although I don’t plan on that to be until next week) as with a new perspective on it maybe I won’t be bugged by that one moment and if I see that as being better than I initially thought, I’m prepared to say this is the best thing that Quentin has ever done. Yes, even better than Pulp Fiction. This long tale is more about revenge and love of the cinema (no, really) than about the Basterds and their exploits, but the story is so magnificent-for the most part-and the acting from the actors all across America *and* Europe was quality stuff. Even Mike Myers was fine in the one scene he had, although I don’t know why he was in the movie, aside from him possibly being owed a favor by Tarantino, or maybe he just loves his British accent. Fair or not, I couldn’t help but think “Austin Powers” the entire time I heard Myers.
THE performance of the movie, though, was from Waltz as Landa, a “Jew Hunter” who was the main antagonist of the movie. He was so sly as a detective who could speak several different languages well and could manipulate people with ease. The opening scene that he had with the owner of a farm in France (Denis Menochet) proved this right away, and seeing the ending of the scene and how Denis slowly but surely reacted to what he ended up having to do was a very moving moment.
I won’t reveal much more as that may ruin things, but I’ll say that it’s more than one plot that you see in the film and it all comes together in a hot finale in Paris, and amongst the way you get talk about such stuff as German director G.W. Pabst, French food, shoes, and the “celebrity” game where you stick the name of a celebrity on your forehead and other people answer your questions to reveal the identity of who it is.
I'll be back in a few days with another movie or two to talk about here.
The Split
The Split (1968)
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Gordon Flemyng
Starring: Jim Brown, Diahann Carroll, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Hackman, Donald Sutherland
From: MGM
Here’s a rather obscure movie. I mean, I say that as not only isn’t it on DVD, it apparently was never on home video at all! That’s right, no VHS or hell, even Betamax. Not that I’ve really looked to find out why, but it’s rather odd to me, considering the cast it has and the fact that according to what I’ve read, once the MPAA was created, this was the first movie ever to get an R rating. Current times, it’s PG-13 level material, but that’s how it was back then.
The way I was able to see this was that last week it was on one morning on TCM. Yep, Turner Classic Movies is a pretty sweet place, although I don’t watch as much of it as I should. I taped it onto a blank VCR tape (snicker if you wish for me not having a DVR or Tivo or anything else) and watched it just last night. During the period of time between the airing and me watching it, some people on a messageboard praised it.
My opinion… not too praise-worthy. It’s a crime drama about a group of thieves who steal the money from the box office of a pro football game in Los Angeles, back when pro football was played in LA and only a few years after Brown retired from being one of the best NFL players of all time. After that, the group feuds with the money… and well, I won’t give it away, but overall I thought this was a lackluster movie. I mean, the story didn’t always captivate me, there were obvious jump-cuts and as others online have noted, it seemed like entire scenes were missing thus making the narrative hard to follow at times. It was nice seeing a famous cast work together, and it’s pretty odd seeing a fight in an office between Brown and Borgnine, but otherwise I wouldn’t say this is worth going out of your way to see, even though it DOES have the typically groovy soundtrack from Quincy Jones. Still, I’m not sure why it got praised on that one board, although as you can guess already, I don’t always agree with the popular or even the “niche” opinion, no matter how small it is.
Runtime: 91 minutes
Directed by: Gordon Flemyng
Starring: Jim Brown, Diahann Carroll, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Hackman, Donald Sutherland
From: MGM
Here’s a rather obscure movie. I mean, I say that as not only isn’t it on DVD, it apparently was never on home video at all! That’s right, no VHS or hell, even Betamax. Not that I’ve really looked to find out why, but it’s rather odd to me, considering the cast it has and the fact that according to what I’ve read, once the MPAA was created, this was the first movie ever to get an R rating. Current times, it’s PG-13 level material, but that’s how it was back then.
The way I was able to see this was that last week it was on one morning on TCM. Yep, Turner Classic Movies is a pretty sweet place, although I don’t watch as much of it as I should. I taped it onto a blank VCR tape (snicker if you wish for me not having a DVR or Tivo or anything else) and watched it just last night. During the period of time between the airing and me watching it, some people on a messageboard praised it.
My opinion… not too praise-worthy. It’s a crime drama about a group of thieves who steal the money from the box office of a pro football game in Los Angeles, back when pro football was played in LA and only a few years after Brown retired from being one of the best NFL players of all time. After that, the group feuds with the money… and well, I won’t give it away, but overall I thought this was a lackluster movie. I mean, the story didn’t always captivate me, there were obvious jump-cuts and as others online have noted, it seemed like entire scenes were missing thus making the narrative hard to follow at times. It was nice seeing a famous cast work together, and it’s pretty odd seeing a fight in an office between Brown and Borgnine, but otherwise I wouldn’t say this is worth going out of your way to see, even though it DOES have the typically groovy soundtrack from Quincy Jones. Still, I’m not sure why it got praised on that one board, although as you can guess already, I don’t always agree with the popular or even the “niche” opinion, no matter how small it is.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
District 9
District 9 (2009)
89% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 186 reviews)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Neill Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, William Allen Young, Robert Hobbs
From: TriStar Pictures/Wingnut Films
I know, I’ve been lax in putting up new stuff here but the past few days have been busy with a variety of activities, so thus it is just now that I’ve been able to do this. Last Friday I went to downtown Orlando and not only did I watch this, but I went to a local club that happens to be like a 2 minute walk away from the theatre. It was quite the night there. I was at the club for a 1 dollar beer and then I left to go watch the movie at the Plaza Cinema Café, which is better than what it was when it opened in late May, but still needs some work. While I was there I had some sort of frozen alcoholic fruity drink known as an Orange Creamsicle. It was good. However, that didn’t affect what I thought of the movie. I did write about it once I got home from a night where it ended on drama but the next night I realized what the drama was about so I wasn’t mad about it anymore. I won’t talk about that, but I will post what I said about the movie on MySpace a few days ago, where I wrote it while drinking a mixed drink at home, so I don’t think that really affected it, but I figured I’d better mention it anyway, just in case.
“It’s a shame (I didn’t like this more), as the movie looks to cost a lot more than its small budget would indicate, the acting was fine-enough all around, the aliens looked nice, the director of this has great potential, and shit blows up nicely in the action scenes. The story, though… sorry to say, but I thought that the story was absolute horseshit, with a horrible ending. I can’t really delve into my issues with the story here without giving out major spoilers, but one thing I can admit here is that believe it or not, the aliens and humans are somehow able to communicate with each other with no effort, as if they both speak the same language, even though that’s far from the case. The aliens speak gibberish that’s akin to Klingon or the language that Chewbacca speaks! No shit. I can’t suddenly understand why Klingons or Wookiees speak without subtitles but for whatever reason, the humans and aliens can speak to each other with no problems. The aliens even know curse words like “fuck”! That’s far from the only complaint I have, though. The entire reason why the aliens are there and can’t leave and are a part of the city that they’re stuck in (Johannesburg, South Africa; the story relates to apartheid in the past and yes I realize that; they doesn’t do anything to change my opinion on the film) is illogical and dumb. Many questions were arisen as I watched the film and not really any of them were answered. Stuff happened that shouldn’t have only because “it’s a movie” and certain characters were needed for later or whatnot. The ending… it’s not a happy one and it makes all the main characters look like shit and total chumps… one of them goes directly against what he said motivated him to continue on rather than give up and just die. Yeah, this movie royally pissed me off and judging by the response I got already when I logically bitched about it on an internet forum, I guess I’ll be labeled a “troll” for my opinions on this even though I’m not being honest and not trolling, and I’ll probably not understand why most everyone is slobbering over this movie.”
Yeah, I curse more often while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or 10.
A few days later and after the virulent reaction I got online for saying that I didn’t care for the movie, I still stand by what I said. I mean, to give away a SPOILER here, the reason why the alien ship is in South Africa and is stuck in limbo is because some sort of part fell off it and it vanished, without anyone finding it or whatever. If you think that’s dumb, note that the aliens have amazing firepower, which is an important part of the plot, and yet they don’t use it to prevent being abused by us humans because… well, just because, as far as I could tell. I mean, I could see no explanation for why that happened and yet it did. It’s this kind of stuff that bothered me and I guess I’ll never figure out why everyone else is able to look past such major plot holes like that and fall in love with this. Oh well, though. Like I said, I liked the acting all in all (especially from Copley; this was pretty much his debut and he was in most of this film) and the director could be a big name in the future.
89% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 186 reviews)
Runtime: 112 minutes
Directed by: Neill Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, William Allen Young, Robert Hobbs
From: TriStar Pictures/Wingnut Films
I know, I’ve been lax in putting up new stuff here but the past few days have been busy with a variety of activities, so thus it is just now that I’ve been able to do this. Last Friday I went to downtown Orlando and not only did I watch this, but I went to a local club that happens to be like a 2 minute walk away from the theatre. It was quite the night there. I was at the club for a 1 dollar beer and then I left to go watch the movie at the Plaza Cinema Café, which is better than what it was when it opened in late May, but still needs some work. While I was there I had some sort of frozen alcoholic fruity drink known as an Orange Creamsicle. It was good. However, that didn’t affect what I thought of the movie. I did write about it once I got home from a night where it ended on drama but the next night I realized what the drama was about so I wasn’t mad about it anymore. I won’t talk about that, but I will post what I said about the movie on MySpace a few days ago, where I wrote it while drinking a mixed drink at home, so I don’t think that really affected it, but I figured I’d better mention it anyway, just in case.
“It’s a shame (I didn’t like this more), as the movie looks to cost a lot more than its small budget would indicate, the acting was fine-enough all around, the aliens looked nice, the director of this has great potential, and shit blows up nicely in the action scenes. The story, though… sorry to say, but I thought that the story was absolute horseshit, with a horrible ending. I can’t really delve into my issues with the story here without giving out major spoilers, but one thing I can admit here is that believe it or not, the aliens and humans are somehow able to communicate with each other with no effort, as if they both speak the same language, even though that’s far from the case. The aliens speak gibberish that’s akin to Klingon or the language that Chewbacca speaks! No shit. I can’t suddenly understand why Klingons or Wookiees speak without subtitles but for whatever reason, the humans and aliens can speak to each other with no problems. The aliens even know curse words like “fuck”! That’s far from the only complaint I have, though. The entire reason why the aliens are there and can’t leave and are a part of the city that they’re stuck in (Johannesburg, South Africa; the story relates to apartheid in the past and yes I realize that; they doesn’t do anything to change my opinion on the film) is illogical and dumb. Many questions were arisen as I watched the film and not really any of them were answered. Stuff happened that shouldn’t have only because “it’s a movie” and certain characters were needed for later or whatnot. The ending… it’s not a happy one and it makes all the main characters look like shit and total chumps… one of them goes directly against what he said motivated him to continue on rather than give up and just die. Yeah, this movie royally pissed me off and judging by the response I got already when I logically bitched about it on an internet forum, I guess I’ll be labeled a “troll” for my opinions on this even though I’m not being honest and not trolling, and I’ll probably not understand why most everyone is slobbering over this movie.”
Yeah, I curse more often while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or 10.
A few days later and after the virulent reaction I got online for saying that I didn’t care for the movie, I still stand by what I said. I mean, to give away a SPOILER here, the reason why the alien ship is in South Africa and is stuck in limbo is because some sort of part fell off it and it vanished, without anyone finding it or whatever. If you think that’s dumb, note that the aliens have amazing firepower, which is an important part of the plot, and yet they don’t use it to prevent being abused by us humans because… well, just because, as far as I could tell. I mean, I could see no explanation for why that happened and yet it did. It’s this kind of stuff that bothered me and I guess I’ll never figure out why everyone else is able to look past such major plot holes like that and fall in love with this. Oh well, though. Like I said, I liked the acting all in all (especially from Copley; this was pretty much his debut and he was in most of this film) and the director could be a big name in the future.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Inglorious Bastards
Inglorious Bastards (Quel maledetto treno blindato) (1978)
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Enzo G. Castellari
Starring: Bo Svenson, Fred Williamson, Peter Hooten, Michael Pergolani
From: Films Concorde/Capitol International
Yes, it’s Inglorious Bastards, not Inglorious Basterds. This is the original film that Tarantino took the title from, the barebones plot, and little else for his Basterds, coming out this Friday. Before I talk about the original, let me mention that I’m not sure how Basterds will turn out. I know that many people seem to slobber over everything that Quentin does and say that all of his movies are all-time classics, but I sure as shit don’t feel the same way. While I know there are probably some people who dislike all of his work, I’ll say that I really enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and I enjoyed Death Proof (I was able to tolerate those harpy women characters and their nonstop yakking; the car chase and ending does a lot for the flick), but his other stuff, no way. Jackie Brown bored me and I really disliked both Kill Bill movies. Sorry, but I disliked *all* of the characters in that movie, so it’s kind of hard to like a movie when you feel that way. What people see in that movie, I’m not quite sure.
What I’ve seen of Basterds (the trailer and that’s really it) and I’m not sure if this is going to be any good or if it’s something that will make me angry. I’m not blown away by the footage like most people apparently are, let me put it that way. Still, I’ll likely see it on the big screen; I saw a screening of Pulp Fiction earlier in the year when it was shown specially at Universal Studio Citywalk’s movie theatre, but that’ll be the first first-run movie from QT for me.
As for this 1978 Italian war drama/action flick, it’s about a band of soldiers who are about to be court-martialed for various crimes, but after an attack they escape and they you’ll see their escapades. I managed to find this DVD at a Movie Gallery, of all places. They had a 1 DVD version of the 3 DVD set that was released last year. The movie isn’t all that great (oddly enough, I also have to complain about the characters here. They weren’t that bad, come to think of it, but not really all that likeable either) but it’s helped out by its pace and how a lot of stuff happens. To give you an idea as to what to expect here, there’s a scene where they stumble upon a bevy of naked beauties and of course, the scene ends with a gunfight between the squad and the naked beauties! Stuff happens and the action sequences are pretty entertaining, so I’ll say that while this isn’t a must-see European cinema classic or anything like that, if you at least want to see the original Bastards, then you’ll want to check it out.
I do have to give praise, though, to the people that did the score throughout the movie and the opening credits, both of which can be experienced here. In a few days I'll probably post something new here.
Runtime: 99 minutes
Directed by: Enzo G. Castellari
Starring: Bo Svenson, Fred Williamson, Peter Hooten, Michael Pergolani
From: Films Concorde/Capitol International
Yes, it’s Inglorious Bastards, not Inglorious Basterds. This is the original film that Tarantino took the title from, the barebones plot, and little else for his Basterds, coming out this Friday. Before I talk about the original, let me mention that I’m not sure how Basterds will turn out. I know that many people seem to slobber over everything that Quentin does and say that all of his movies are all-time classics, but I sure as shit don’t feel the same way. While I know there are probably some people who dislike all of his work, I’ll say that I really enjoyed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and I enjoyed Death Proof (I was able to tolerate those harpy women characters and their nonstop yakking; the car chase and ending does a lot for the flick), but his other stuff, no way. Jackie Brown bored me and I really disliked both Kill Bill movies. Sorry, but I disliked *all* of the characters in that movie, so it’s kind of hard to like a movie when you feel that way. What people see in that movie, I’m not quite sure.
What I’ve seen of Basterds (the trailer and that’s really it) and I’m not sure if this is going to be any good or if it’s something that will make me angry. I’m not blown away by the footage like most people apparently are, let me put it that way. Still, I’ll likely see it on the big screen; I saw a screening of Pulp Fiction earlier in the year when it was shown specially at Universal Studio Citywalk’s movie theatre, but that’ll be the first first-run movie from QT for me.
As for this 1978 Italian war drama/action flick, it’s about a band of soldiers who are about to be court-martialed for various crimes, but after an attack they escape and they you’ll see their escapades. I managed to find this DVD at a Movie Gallery, of all places. They had a 1 DVD version of the 3 DVD set that was released last year. The movie isn’t all that great (oddly enough, I also have to complain about the characters here. They weren’t that bad, come to think of it, but not really all that likeable either) but it’s helped out by its pace and how a lot of stuff happens. To give you an idea as to what to expect here, there’s a scene where they stumble upon a bevy of naked beauties and of course, the scene ends with a gunfight between the squad and the naked beauties! Stuff happens and the action sequences are pretty entertaining, so I’ll say that while this isn’t a must-see European cinema classic or anything like that, if you at least want to see the original Bastards, then you’ll want to check it out.
I do have to give praise, though, to the people that did the score throughout the movie and the opening credits, both of which can be experienced here. In a few days I'll probably post something new here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Quiet Cool
Quiet Cool (1986)
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Clay Borris
Starring: James Remar, Adam Coleman Howard, Daphne Ashbrook, Nick Cassavetes
From: New Line Cinema
Here is an example of a movie that I’ll talk about most of the time… you know, one out on tape/DVD/whatever. This one in particular is pretty obscure but I found out about it on a messageboard and then found it via… but I’d rather not give away just how I found it.
It’s a mid 80’s action flick with James Remar, most familiar to me for being Ajax in The Warriors, a classic movie and an AWESOME videogame, but to others is probably best known for being in Dexter. It’s a low-budget movie about a cop (Remar) who is called to the Northwest to help out his family and he ends up helping his nephew (Howard, who ironically resembles Luther from The Warriors) and takes down a marijuana ring in the process.
None of the scenes are really all that impressive, although an opening bit with a motorcycle-riding Remar going after a man on rollerskates is amusing. It’s just a flick that if you happen to find (it’s not really worth spending too much time searching for; it’s not like a prototypical Pineapple Express or anything) on a rainy day or whatever you may enjoy. It’s short and breezy and won’t be too much of an investment to watch. At least it borrows from a few different action sub-genres (like “buddy movies”) and there’s a Western theme throughout that becomes pretty apparent by the end. There’s also a mystery of who is behind the entire operation and it’s a surprise although it logically isn’t too implausible.
One scene I do have to mention, though, is one that’s about ¼ of the way in. James is in a restaurant with Ashbrook and they are harassed by a pair of henchmen, one fat and the other skinny. The fat guy has a beard and VERY fake-looking mustache. I mean, a toddler wouldn’t believe it’s real. There ends up being a reason why the mustache is fake, but the thing is, it’s supposed to be real in the movie! It’s not like something that is used for a disguise or anything of that nature; it’s supposed to be real. So, if you ever see this flick, that’s what you have to look forward to…
Runtime: 80 minutes
Directed by: Clay Borris
Starring: James Remar, Adam Coleman Howard, Daphne Ashbrook, Nick Cassavetes
From: New Line Cinema
Here is an example of a movie that I’ll talk about most of the time… you know, one out on tape/DVD/whatever. This one in particular is pretty obscure but I found out about it on a messageboard and then found it via… but I’d rather not give away just how I found it.
It’s a mid 80’s action flick with James Remar, most familiar to me for being Ajax in The Warriors, a classic movie and an AWESOME videogame, but to others is probably best known for being in Dexter. It’s a low-budget movie about a cop (Remar) who is called to the Northwest to help out his family and he ends up helping his nephew (Howard, who ironically resembles Luther from The Warriors) and takes down a marijuana ring in the process.
None of the scenes are really all that impressive, although an opening bit with a motorcycle-riding Remar going after a man on rollerskates is amusing. It’s just a flick that if you happen to find (it’s not really worth spending too much time searching for; it’s not like a prototypical Pineapple Express or anything) on a rainy day or whatever you may enjoy. It’s short and breezy and won’t be too much of an investment to watch. At least it borrows from a few different action sub-genres (like “buddy movies”) and there’s a Western theme throughout that becomes pretty apparent by the end. There’s also a mystery of who is behind the entire operation and it’s a surprise although it logically isn’t too implausible.
One scene I do have to mention, though, is one that’s about ¼ of the way in. James is in a restaurant with Ashbrook and they are harassed by a pair of henchmen, one fat and the other skinny. The fat guy has a beard and VERY fake-looking mustache. I mean, a toddler wouldn’t believe it’s real. There ends up being a reason why the mustache is fake, but the thing is, it’s supposed to be real in the movie! It’s not like something that is used for a disguise or anything of that nature; it’s supposed to be real. So, if you ever see this flick, that’s what you have to look forward to…
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Hurt Locker
The Hurt Locker (2008)
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 130 reviews)
Runtime: 131 minutes
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly
From: Summit Entertainment
To start this off, I’ll mention that as of the past few years, the way that I get movie recommendations is from CHUD and its forums and from horror website Dread Central. For the most part, you can’t go wrong with either site and its recommendations.
I found out about this flick from the forums of CHUD. It’s from the director of such films as Point Break and K19:Widowmaker. As surprising as it may seem, I’ve seen a grand total of zero films from her up to this point.
The fact that she’s a woman director and has been doing this since the 80’s is noteworthy, I say. Women directors aren’t that common and one who does action and horror flicks is even rarer. It became more widely released in late July but due to my vacation I didn’t have time to see it until I was in the middle of said vacation, on August 8th to be exact. I saw it with someone I know in the suburbs of Chicago.
In the past few years there have been a handful of movies released concerning our “residence” in Iraq since 2003, such as Lions for Lambs, In The Valley of Elah, and Stop-Loss; no matter how highly regarded those movies were, audiences generally didn’t go to see it (which would include me; I’ve never seen any of those flicks or any of the other Iraq movies). I presume it’s because people just didn’t want to be reminded of that controversial war and it’s not a topic I’ll delve into here, but I know people who went over there to fight and not everyone made it back, unfortunately, so like most people it’s had an effect on me.
This movie isn’t something for mass audiences either but it is in 478 theatres now so it’s more of a niche thing. It’s doing fine, money-wise, so that’s good. The film is about a trio of soldiers (Renner, Mackie, Geraghty) who diffuse bombs in Iraq and we see a series of vignettes where they do more than just their job description. It’s a *very* tense drama with some action where you’re on edge most of the time as you don’t know who to trust and who may shoot at you or blow you up out of nowhere. While I’ve heard this isn’t the most accurate depiction of what it’s like over there or to do that particular job, the general idea of “war is hell” and what it must be like over in the Middle East is conveyed very well, I think. The performances from the trio are all great, especially from Renner, who is the guy that takes apart the bombs and is a wildcard that likes to be rebellious but like all the other characters, it’s not cut and dried like that and all of them have flaws and their good points. The bigger names in the cast equate themselves well also in more limited roles. The way the movie sounds is tremendous. If you’re in a theatre with something like Dolby Digital, it will sound great and when explosions or gunfire are heard, you’ll literally feel it and it seems like the entire auditorium is rumbling. For that reason, I say this is something well worth seeing on the big screen if it’s playing by you… if you’re interested in the topic, that is.
Later this will I'll post a review or two of a movie/movies that are older.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 130 reviews)
Runtime: 131 minutes
Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly
From: Summit Entertainment
To start this off, I’ll mention that as of the past few years, the way that I get movie recommendations is from CHUD and its forums and from horror website Dread Central. For the most part, you can’t go wrong with either site and its recommendations.
I found out about this flick from the forums of CHUD. It’s from the director of such films as Point Break and K19:Widowmaker. As surprising as it may seem, I’ve seen a grand total of zero films from her up to this point.
The fact that she’s a woman director and has been doing this since the 80’s is noteworthy, I say. Women directors aren’t that common and one who does action and horror flicks is even rarer. It became more widely released in late July but due to my vacation I didn’t have time to see it until I was in the middle of said vacation, on August 8th to be exact. I saw it with someone I know in the suburbs of Chicago.
In the past few years there have been a handful of movies released concerning our “residence” in Iraq since 2003, such as Lions for Lambs, In The Valley of Elah, and Stop-Loss; no matter how highly regarded those movies were, audiences generally didn’t go to see it (which would include me; I’ve never seen any of those flicks or any of the other Iraq movies). I presume it’s because people just didn’t want to be reminded of that controversial war and it’s not a topic I’ll delve into here, but I know people who went over there to fight and not everyone made it back, unfortunately, so like most people it’s had an effect on me.
This movie isn’t something for mass audiences either but it is in 478 theatres now so it’s more of a niche thing. It’s doing fine, money-wise, so that’s good. The film is about a trio of soldiers (Renner, Mackie, Geraghty) who diffuse bombs in Iraq and we see a series of vignettes where they do more than just their job description. It’s a *very* tense drama with some action where you’re on edge most of the time as you don’t know who to trust and who may shoot at you or blow you up out of nowhere. While I’ve heard this isn’t the most accurate depiction of what it’s like over there or to do that particular job, the general idea of “war is hell” and what it must be like over in the Middle East is conveyed very well, I think. The performances from the trio are all great, especially from Renner, who is the guy that takes apart the bombs and is a wildcard that likes to be rebellious but like all the other characters, it’s not cut and dried like that and all of them have flaws and their good points. The bigger names in the cast equate themselves well also in more limited roles. The way the movie sounds is tremendous. If you’re in a theatre with something like Dolby Digital, it will sound great and when explosions or gunfire are heard, you’ll literally feel it and it seems like the entire auditorium is rumbling. For that reason, I say this is something well worth seeing on the big screen if it’s playing by you… if you’re interested in the topic, that is.
Later this will I'll post a review or two of a movie/movies that are older.
Orphan
Orphan (2009)
55% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 119 reviews)
Runtime: 123 minutes
Directed by: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman, CCH Pounder, Aryana Engineer
From: Warner Brothers/Dark Castle Entertainment
I’ll start off this blog by talking about a movie I saw in the theatre once when I was up in Illinois on vacation and then I just recently saw it again. Yep, this will be a positive review.
When I first heard about the movie via it’s trailers and ads I wasn’t too interested in it. But, I heard praise for the film from various online websites I have at least some trust in, so that piqued my interest. Then, I heard that there was a rather shocking twist as to the secret of what is wrong with the title character. I didn’t highlight any of the spoilers but knew that it was a twist no one would expect.
I had free time one afternoon on my Illinois trip so I went online (at an Apple Store, of all things) and found a local theatre that was showing it at the right time for me. I went to it and it (a Marcus Theater) was pretty nice.
As for the movie, I really enjoyed it. It’s about a couple (Farmiga, Sarsgaard) with two children who adopt a girl (Fuhrman) they find in an orphanage, but soon things start to happen… as for the flick it’s not a gore-fest horror movie by any means (although what little you get to see there is well-done) but rather a suspenseful engrossing flick where the plot is that the title character is playing a Machiavellian plot against Farmiga, because… but I won’t give it away. The plot twist is indeed something that no one could have ever guessed beforehand. It’s one of a few things/images in the movie that alone are pretty incredible and it’s something that you can’t ever forget. In the movie, though, it manages to work and it’s not SO ridiculous that you laugh at the movie like you do I Know Who Killed Me, a movie that this has been compared to by a few people, and even I was reminded of it. Now, I’ll probably see that flick again on DVD eventually (I saw it in a theatre in Tampa… and I was the only one in there; what an experience that was) and talk about it here but that was just wrong from beginning to end and its plot twist is SO much higher on the implausibility scale; it’s really not fair to compare the two movies except to say that Orphan is a million times better than I Know Who Killed Me, in terms of stuff like acting, cinematography, the plot, the tone, etc. With Orphan, I enjoyed the way it was filmed and how it looked, with a snowy Connecticut as the backdrop.
What made it so good, though, were the performances. Farmiga did a great job as a mom/wife whose husband starts not to believe her. But, the young daughter in the family, Max (Engineer) who is hearing-impaired, did a great job in the role, especially considering that this was her first-ever movie and she is hearing-impaired in real life. She was definitely the most adorable part of the film. The thing that made this so fun, though, was Fuhrman as the title character. She hasn’t done that much work herself and she did an incredible job here with what ended up being quite the role. Both of those young ladies and the director (he did the House of Wax remake, another film I haven't seen but from all appearances that's not necessarily something I really need to see) may end up having a promising future so this would be a chance to see them before they have any possible prosperity.
Overall, while this is a movie that goes pretty far (especially for a wide release like this) it is something that I highly recommend, especially for horror fans who are fed up with most of the movies in the genre that have been released in theatres in the past several years. You’ll end up having a good time with this, a film that straddles the lines of campiness and seriousness but it doesn’t go over the line and that’s why I dug it so much. I say that you should see it in the theatre if you can; after this upcoming week it’ll probably be gone from most theatres and while I’m sure it’ll eventually hit the dollar theatres in like a month or two, seeing it in front of a decent crowd may be the way to go; the shared experience can be fun.
I'll post another movie I saw recently in a moment.
55% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 119 reviews)
Runtime: 123 minutes
Directed by: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman, CCH Pounder, Aryana Engineer
From: Warner Brothers/Dark Castle Entertainment
I’ll start off this blog by talking about a movie I saw in the theatre once when I was up in Illinois on vacation and then I just recently saw it again. Yep, this will be a positive review.
When I first heard about the movie via it’s trailers and ads I wasn’t too interested in it. But, I heard praise for the film from various online websites I have at least some trust in, so that piqued my interest. Then, I heard that there was a rather shocking twist as to the secret of what is wrong with the title character. I didn’t highlight any of the spoilers but knew that it was a twist no one would expect.
I had free time one afternoon on my Illinois trip so I went online (at an Apple Store, of all things) and found a local theatre that was showing it at the right time for me. I went to it and it (a Marcus Theater) was pretty nice.
As for the movie, I really enjoyed it. It’s about a couple (Farmiga, Sarsgaard) with two children who adopt a girl (Fuhrman) they find in an orphanage, but soon things start to happen… as for the flick it’s not a gore-fest horror movie by any means (although what little you get to see there is well-done) but rather a suspenseful engrossing flick where the plot is that the title character is playing a Machiavellian plot against Farmiga, because… but I won’t give it away. The plot twist is indeed something that no one could have ever guessed beforehand. It’s one of a few things/images in the movie that alone are pretty incredible and it’s something that you can’t ever forget. In the movie, though, it manages to work and it’s not SO ridiculous that you laugh at the movie like you do I Know Who Killed Me, a movie that this has been compared to by a few people, and even I was reminded of it. Now, I’ll probably see that flick again on DVD eventually (I saw it in a theatre in Tampa… and I was the only one in there; what an experience that was) and talk about it here but that was just wrong from beginning to end and its plot twist is SO much higher on the implausibility scale; it’s really not fair to compare the two movies except to say that Orphan is a million times better than I Know Who Killed Me, in terms of stuff like acting, cinematography, the plot, the tone, etc. With Orphan, I enjoyed the way it was filmed and how it looked, with a snowy Connecticut as the backdrop.
What made it so good, though, were the performances. Farmiga did a great job as a mom/wife whose husband starts not to believe her. But, the young daughter in the family, Max (Engineer) who is hearing-impaired, did a great job in the role, especially considering that this was her first-ever movie and she is hearing-impaired in real life. She was definitely the most adorable part of the film. The thing that made this so fun, though, was Fuhrman as the title character. She hasn’t done that much work herself and she did an incredible job here with what ended up being quite the role. Both of those young ladies and the director (he did the House of Wax remake, another film I haven't seen but from all appearances that's not necessarily something I really need to see) may end up having a promising future so this would be a chance to see them before they have any possible prosperity.
Overall, while this is a movie that goes pretty far (especially for a wide release like this) it is something that I highly recommend, especially for horror fans who are fed up with most of the movies in the genre that have been released in theatres in the past several years. You’ll end up having a good time with this, a film that straddles the lines of campiness and seriousness but it doesn’t go over the line and that’s why I dug it so much. I say that you should see it in the theatre if you can; after this upcoming week it’ll probably be gone from most theatres and while I’m sure it’ll eventually hit the dollar theatres in like a month or two, seeing it in front of a decent crowd may be the way to go; the shared experience can be fun.
I'll post another movie I saw recently in a moment.
Introduction
Hello everyone, I figured that I would stop updating my music blogs* (as if you read them as of late, updating them on my own announced timetable became more and more difficult) and instead focusing on me talking about movies. Besides the fact that I can recommend a wide variety of movies (as I have quite eclectic tastes) it’ll motivate me to watch more movies; I have countless numbers of them on DVD/tape/taped off of TV/whatever that I haven’t even watched yet; maybe this way I’ll whittle it down.
* Yet Another Idiot With A Music Blog and The Best Mashups
Hopefully this will be enjoyed by at least one person and it will give recommendations to anyone interested in renting something out of the ordinary or seeing something in the theatre that they otherwise would not have decided upon.
* Yet Another Idiot With A Music Blog and The Best Mashups
Hopefully this will be enjoyed by at least one person and it will give recommendations to anyone interested in renting something out of the ordinary or seeing something in the theatre that they otherwise would not have decided upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)