The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing (2004)
Runtime: 98 minutes
Directed by: Wendy Apple
Narrated by: Kathy Bates
From: A.C.E./BBC/NHK Enterprises/TCEP Inc.
Here is something a little interesting from me. It’s a documentary-I’m a dork, so that’s naturally of interest to me-that can be found on, among other places, the Blu-Ray disc of the classic Steve McQueen flick Bullitt*; the only tie the two have is that Bullitt won an Oscar for Best Film Editing for 1968. It’s a feature-length take on the history of film editing in motion pictures, all the way from when the technique began in 1903. It explained how things were back then and how it involved into what it is today.
• That’s a movie you should really see. It’s most famous for its epic car chase scene, still one of the best of all-time, but that’s not the only thing of note from the movie.
You get to see clips of interviews from highly regarded film editors, along with the directors who often work with them (directors and editors seem to enjoy working together often). Those directors are a who’s who of greats, such as Tarantino, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, etc. All of them praise the role of editors in motion pictures. You also get to see many film clips from many films, and they’re used to show how important a film editor is. It can be a huge factor in determining how great-or not so great-a movie is. In any case, the editor determines the mood of a film and to the best of their ability crafts the moments where the audience is supposed to produce an expected reaction, whether it be laughter, sadness, or any other mood. You even get to see legendary editor Walter Murch in action in editing together some stuff for the renowned movie Cold Mountain. For example, Walter covers up an error with a change in cameras with skillful editing. That was a great example.
So, if you're a dork like me and wish to learn more about an always underappreciated topic, you should check this out.
I'll be back this Monday with at least one new review. I'll be happy to have this week over with and have some free time, believe me.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Kick-Ass
Kick-Ass (2010)
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 197 reviews)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Moritz, Lyndsy Fonseca, Nicolas Cage
From: Lionsgate/Marv Films
Finally, I saw a movie released in 2010. This will be the first one I’ll review here too. Now, this is a film that I heard about even before it was made. Back then I heard about the comic book (even though I have not read any of it as hey, I am definitely NOT a comic book fan at all) and how some people wanted it made into a movie, but the studios were gun-shy about it, as it’s about teenagers-and people even younger-who apparently do some pretty shocking things, and that’s bound to get controversy if it’s made in that way to a movie. Instead of changing it to be more mainstream, those people made the film themselves and it ended up getting released-at least in the U.S.-by Lionsgate. None other than Brad Pitt ended up being one of the producers. So, even though people like Roger Ebert were not happy with seeing various things done and said by a girl who plays an 11 year old in the movie, it was still released without much concessions and hey, the official figures now say that it squeaked out a number one spot in the box office.
So, after seeing it, I have to say… I do not understand the hype. But, I’ll get to that in a moment.
To explain the setup, the film is about a young kid, Dave (Johnson) who is clearly an average nerdy guy who lives in an insular world with a single father and he hangs out with two equally nerdy guys (Clark Duke and Evan Peters; both were amusing in those roles, especially Duke). He and Peters ends up getting mugged-again-and a person in a nearby apartment sees it but does nothing. So, he decides that there should be a real life superhero that would help out people, and he should be that person, despite his pals laughing at the suggestion. He finds a suit online and becomes the title character. He tries to help someone, but he runs into trouble right away… meanwhile, there is a more renowned (but lesser-known in New York City, as unlike Kick-Ass, they don’t brag about themselves on MySpace) father-daughter duo who fight crime (Cage, Moritz), and the daughter is only 11! Then, there’s a father (Mark Strong) who is a big criminal and not only does he have a pack of thugs, but also a teenage son (Mintz-Plasse) who ends up getting treated second-rate by old dad. Not only do those people all interact with each other, but Dave also has a young lady in school that he has a crush on (Fonseca).
Here is a film that many are going gaga for, especially nerdy movie messageboard types. However, I don’t feel the same way. Maybe it’s that this film is apparently supposed to be a satire on superhero films or the fact that I am not a comic book fan AT ALL, but the strong love this is getting in some circles I just don’t quite get. Sure, the actors all do fine with their roles (and Moritz did a great job with her character, which is a foulmouthed lady that ends up doing some rather improbable things) so I’m not hating on them. Personally, I thought that Lyndsy wasn’t too bad to look at either. The story, though… tonal changes the entire time, and it was either hyper-realistic or utterly fantastical, with little middle ground. I’m not even quite sure what it was, but I lost interest in it early (on one board, even a fan of the film admitted the first twenty minutes weren’t all that great) and Lord knows I wanted to like it, as hey I’ve been wanting to see it for the past few months now, but despite attempts for me to turn the corner on it, it ultimately wasn’t to be. I can’t really explain the problems with the story much further without giving away major spoilers, and I don’t want to do that. Also, I know that the action scenes have gotten a lot of love, but I strongly disagree. It’s yet more of that shakycam BS where you can barely make out what in the hell is going on, and boy, when a strobe light is added… then, I come to find out that the movie manages to lift music for much of it from other, more recent films, such as Sunshine and 28 Days Later, both films I didn’t see. Hearing an obvious song get lifted from For A Few Dollars More, though, I noted, and was all this music lifting an ode to Tarantino? I wish they would have gone with a more traditional score… but Christ, that’s a rather minor complaint when it’s measured against the other things that I noted that I had a problem with.
So, I wish I could see the love that many others have for this; I just don’t, and given that I ended up having high expectations for it and possibly had no idea what I was going to get (as what I ended up with…), talk about a big disappointment for me.
I’ll be back by this time next week, and hopefully the next movie I see I’ll enjoy more.
78% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 197 reviews)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Moritz, Lyndsy Fonseca, Nicolas Cage
From: Lionsgate/Marv Films
Finally, I saw a movie released in 2010. This will be the first one I’ll review here too. Now, this is a film that I heard about even before it was made. Back then I heard about the comic book (even though I have not read any of it as hey, I am definitely NOT a comic book fan at all) and how some people wanted it made into a movie, but the studios were gun-shy about it, as it’s about teenagers-and people even younger-who apparently do some pretty shocking things, and that’s bound to get controversy if it’s made in that way to a movie. Instead of changing it to be more mainstream, those people made the film themselves and it ended up getting released-at least in the U.S.-by Lionsgate. None other than Brad Pitt ended up being one of the producers. So, even though people like Roger Ebert were not happy with seeing various things done and said by a girl who plays an 11 year old in the movie, it was still released without much concessions and hey, the official figures now say that it squeaked out a number one spot in the box office.
So, after seeing it, I have to say… I do not understand the hype. But, I’ll get to that in a moment.
To explain the setup, the film is about a young kid, Dave (Johnson) who is clearly an average nerdy guy who lives in an insular world with a single father and he hangs out with two equally nerdy guys (Clark Duke and Evan Peters; both were amusing in those roles, especially Duke). He and Peters ends up getting mugged-again-and a person in a nearby apartment sees it but does nothing. So, he decides that there should be a real life superhero that would help out people, and he should be that person, despite his pals laughing at the suggestion. He finds a suit online and becomes the title character. He tries to help someone, but he runs into trouble right away… meanwhile, there is a more renowned (but lesser-known in New York City, as unlike Kick-Ass, they don’t brag about themselves on MySpace) father-daughter duo who fight crime (Cage, Moritz), and the daughter is only 11! Then, there’s a father (Mark Strong) who is a big criminal and not only does he have a pack of thugs, but also a teenage son (Mintz-Plasse) who ends up getting treated second-rate by old dad. Not only do those people all interact with each other, but Dave also has a young lady in school that he has a crush on (Fonseca).
Here is a film that many are going gaga for, especially nerdy movie messageboard types. However, I don’t feel the same way. Maybe it’s that this film is apparently supposed to be a satire on superhero films or the fact that I am not a comic book fan AT ALL, but the strong love this is getting in some circles I just don’t quite get. Sure, the actors all do fine with their roles (and Moritz did a great job with her character, which is a foulmouthed lady that ends up doing some rather improbable things) so I’m not hating on them. Personally, I thought that Lyndsy wasn’t too bad to look at either. The story, though… tonal changes the entire time, and it was either hyper-realistic or utterly fantastical, with little middle ground. I’m not even quite sure what it was, but I lost interest in it early (on one board, even a fan of the film admitted the first twenty minutes weren’t all that great) and Lord knows I wanted to like it, as hey I’ve been wanting to see it for the past few months now, but despite attempts for me to turn the corner on it, it ultimately wasn’t to be. I can’t really explain the problems with the story much further without giving away major spoilers, and I don’t want to do that. Also, I know that the action scenes have gotten a lot of love, but I strongly disagree. It’s yet more of that shakycam BS where you can barely make out what in the hell is going on, and boy, when a strobe light is added… then, I come to find out that the movie manages to lift music for much of it from other, more recent films, such as Sunshine and 28 Days Later, both films I didn’t see. Hearing an obvious song get lifted from For A Few Dollars More, though, I noted, and was all this music lifting an ode to Tarantino? I wish they would have gone with a more traditional score… but Christ, that’s a rather minor complaint when it’s measured against the other things that I noted that I had a problem with.
So, I wish I could see the love that many others have for this; I just don’t, and given that I ended up having high expectations for it and possibly had no idea what I was going to get (as what I ended up with…), talk about a big disappointment for me.
I’ll be back by this time next week, and hopefully the next movie I see I’ll enjoy more.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)
97% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 116 reviews)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Alex Gibney
Starring: The infamous people of Enron Corporation, narrated by Peter Coyote
From: Magnolia/2929 Entertainment/HDNet Films/etc.
Here is the time to talk about a documentary. It’s one I saw on the big screen in 2005 at a run-down theatre in Altamonte Springs, Florida, then I’ve seen later on DVD. I picked it up at the Blockbuster I’ve mentioned recently which is located by me and is closing down. I was there one time to get some DVD’s and Blu-Rays. Well, I decided a few days ago to visit the place a second time, and I got more DVD’s there, including this film.
It is a renowned documentary based on a book of the same name* and it tells you just what happened with the massive Enron Corporation and just how and why they managed to fail spectacularly. While it’s a tale full of complex transactions and incredibly sly number-spinning, the movie focuses on three people-Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Andy Fastow-in particular and how their mindset allowed for rampant greed to run wild. Through the legal accounting trick of mark to market accounting-where they could book *potential earnings* on deals as soon as they could, and basically make up any number they want to-they appeared to be wildly successful when in actuality they were losing billions of dollars. When the stockmarket crashed they further got into trouble, and an initial article in Fortune Magazine by Bethany McLean-who wrote the book on the case along with Peter Elkind-started to focus attention on how shady Enron was. The stuff hit the fan in 2001, and from watching the movie, you’ll see what happened and why they finally crashed and burned.
• After I first saw the film, I ended up getting that book. It’s great stuff and says a whole lot more about the story. While the movie does a nice job streamlining the situation into a 110 minute block, the book is naturally more informative stating all of the stuff that went on, including some somewhat important people that don’t get mentioned in the film. I have it somewhere in my room and when I get around to cleaning my room one of these years… er, I mean days, I’ll keep it somewhere safe and I’ll read it again.
Sure, the movie may be too slick at times in its usage of random stock footage (I mean, for no reason at all you have strip club footage, with random topless strippers! Not that I’m complaining about bare boobs, but it was rather gratuitous), and random song usage (from Dusty Springfield to Marilyn Manson) it otherwise is important to see if you wish to better understand what happened with Enron, how the safeguards that were supposed to prevent rampant corporate greed and illegal acts from happening failed, and the effects that this had on the United States as a whole and to millions of individuals in particular. Of course reading that book, or any book on the case, or even the Wiki page on the scandal, but for a 2 hour recap of the situation, this works very well.
I’ll be back by Monday night with a new review. I plan on talking about a movie actually released in this calendar year of 2010.
97% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 116 reviews)
Runtime: 110 minutes
Directed by: Alex Gibney
Starring: The infamous people of Enron Corporation, narrated by Peter Coyote
From: Magnolia/2929 Entertainment/HDNet Films/etc.
Here is the time to talk about a documentary. It’s one I saw on the big screen in 2005 at a run-down theatre in Altamonte Springs, Florida, then I’ve seen later on DVD. I picked it up at the Blockbuster I’ve mentioned recently which is located by me and is closing down. I was there one time to get some DVD’s and Blu-Rays. Well, I decided a few days ago to visit the place a second time, and I got more DVD’s there, including this film.
It is a renowned documentary based on a book of the same name* and it tells you just what happened with the massive Enron Corporation and just how and why they managed to fail spectacularly. While it’s a tale full of complex transactions and incredibly sly number-spinning, the movie focuses on three people-Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Andy Fastow-in particular and how their mindset allowed for rampant greed to run wild. Through the legal accounting trick of mark to market accounting-where they could book *potential earnings* on deals as soon as they could, and basically make up any number they want to-they appeared to be wildly successful when in actuality they were losing billions of dollars. When the stockmarket crashed they further got into trouble, and an initial article in Fortune Magazine by Bethany McLean-who wrote the book on the case along with Peter Elkind-started to focus attention on how shady Enron was. The stuff hit the fan in 2001, and from watching the movie, you’ll see what happened and why they finally crashed and burned.
• After I first saw the film, I ended up getting that book. It’s great stuff and says a whole lot more about the story. While the movie does a nice job streamlining the situation into a 110 minute block, the book is naturally more informative stating all of the stuff that went on, including some somewhat important people that don’t get mentioned in the film. I have it somewhere in my room and when I get around to cleaning my room one of these years… er, I mean days, I’ll keep it somewhere safe and I’ll read it again.
Sure, the movie may be too slick at times in its usage of random stock footage (I mean, for no reason at all you have strip club footage, with random topless strippers! Not that I’m complaining about bare boobs, but it was rather gratuitous), and random song usage (from Dusty Springfield to Marilyn Manson) it otherwise is important to see if you wish to better understand what happened with Enron, how the safeguards that were supposed to prevent rampant corporate greed and illegal acts from happening failed, and the effects that this had on the United States as a whole and to millions of individuals in particular. Of course reading that book, or any book on the case, or even the Wiki page on the scandal, but for a 2 hour recap of the situation, this works very well.
I’ll be back by Monday night with a new review. I plan on talking about a movie actually released in this calendar year of 2010.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Death Wish 3
Death Wish 3 (1985)
Directed by: Michael Winner
Runtime: 92 minutes
Starring: Charles Bronson, Ed Lauter, Deborah Raffin, Gavan O’Herlihy
From: Cannon
Here is a movie that has become famous in some circles due to just how over-the-top ridiculous (yet fun) it is. For example, Ruthless Review’s take on the film, which I do admit is full of exaggerations (it’s not “the bloodiest film in history” or the source of over 500 on-screen deaths) but yet describes just why it’s popular amongst some people.
I haven’t seen the first or fifth-and final-film in the series, but it’s not like they’re really connected in any way. I should try and find the first one, though, as it’s a more serious look at a common man, Paul Kersey (Bronson) who decides to become a vigilante against crime after his wife is killed and his daughter sexually assaulted by criminals, and the ramifications of doing so, including problems with the law. The second film, that is just 80’s sleaze, with a really nasty gang-rape scene in the beginning (one of the guys who participates was… Laurence Fishburne! Really.) and other sexual assaults done, including one done on the daughter in the first movie (she became catatonic in the years since the attack in the original film); yeah, that’s not too appealing to me, and even though you have decent action and some stuff to laugh at (not to mention a synthesizer-heavy soundtrack from Jimmy Page; yes, THAT Jimmy Page), it’s hard to enjoy. The third and fourth, though, are more goofy and you can enjoy them more, especially this one.
Basically, old Chuck is a professional vigilante, more or less, and he ends up in New York to visit an old friend. However, a gang attacks them in his apartment, and the friend ends up dead. The cops blame Kersey for the crime but the chief (Lauter) lets him go to continue being a vigilante as long as he reports directly to the chief. As you can see, “realism” isn’t a big factor in the film. So, Bronson ends up living in his buddy’s apartment (I know, but go with it) and it’s filled with old people and/or minorities, and yet it’s in the middle of a mainly white neighborhood that can be best described as “post-apocalyptic”, that’s how run-down and lawless it is. But, I don’t want to keep on harping on how it’s not that plausible-for example, maybe it should’ve been set in a black neighborhood and he helped the people there against a more realistic gang setting… oh wait, there’s the “knight in white armor” sort of thing with a white guy helping out black people…-so I’ll continue on. After he’s in town for the time being, that’s where you get an almost non-stop amount of violence and assaults, with some romance and drama filled in there.
Here is a film review on YouTube, and while it’s goofy at times, I guess it matches the tone of the movie itself. You at least get a taste of how over-the-top yet great it is, along with hearing the music, also done by Jimmy Page. So, if you enjoy action films and those that are preposterous yet satisfying to watch for that exact reason, then this is a must-see. Sure, Bronson himself ended up not liking the movie for it's ridiculousness and he wasn't pals with director Winner any longer, but you can ignore that in order to kick back and enjoy this slice of meagcheese.
Check back Sunday night as I'll post at least one new review between now and then.
Directed by: Michael Winner
Runtime: 92 minutes
Starring: Charles Bronson, Ed Lauter, Deborah Raffin, Gavan O’Herlihy
From: Cannon
Here is a movie that has become famous in some circles due to just how over-the-top ridiculous (yet fun) it is. For example, Ruthless Review’s take on the film, which I do admit is full of exaggerations (it’s not “the bloodiest film in history” or the source of over 500 on-screen deaths) but yet describes just why it’s popular amongst some people.
I haven’t seen the first or fifth-and final-film in the series, but it’s not like they’re really connected in any way. I should try and find the first one, though, as it’s a more serious look at a common man, Paul Kersey (Bronson) who decides to become a vigilante against crime after his wife is killed and his daughter sexually assaulted by criminals, and the ramifications of doing so, including problems with the law. The second film, that is just 80’s sleaze, with a really nasty gang-rape scene in the beginning (one of the guys who participates was… Laurence Fishburne! Really.) and other sexual assaults done, including one done on the daughter in the first movie (she became catatonic in the years since the attack in the original film); yeah, that’s not too appealing to me, and even though you have decent action and some stuff to laugh at (not to mention a synthesizer-heavy soundtrack from Jimmy Page; yes, THAT Jimmy Page), it’s hard to enjoy. The third and fourth, though, are more goofy and you can enjoy them more, especially this one.
Basically, old Chuck is a professional vigilante, more or less, and he ends up in New York to visit an old friend. However, a gang attacks them in his apartment, and the friend ends up dead. The cops blame Kersey for the crime but the chief (Lauter) lets him go to continue being a vigilante as long as he reports directly to the chief. As you can see, “realism” isn’t a big factor in the film. So, Bronson ends up living in his buddy’s apartment (I know, but go with it) and it’s filled with old people and/or minorities, and yet it’s in the middle of a mainly white neighborhood that can be best described as “post-apocalyptic”, that’s how run-down and lawless it is. But, I don’t want to keep on harping on how it’s not that plausible-for example, maybe it should’ve been set in a black neighborhood and he helped the people there against a more realistic gang setting… oh wait, there’s the “knight in white armor” sort of thing with a white guy helping out black people…-so I’ll continue on. After he’s in town for the time being, that’s where you get an almost non-stop amount of violence and assaults, with some romance and drama filled in there.
Here is a film review on YouTube, and while it’s goofy at times, I guess it matches the tone of the movie itself. You at least get a taste of how over-the-top yet great it is, along with hearing the music, also done by Jimmy Page. So, if you enjoy action films and those that are preposterous yet satisfying to watch for that exact reason, then this is a must-see. Sure, Bronson himself ended up not liking the movie for it's ridiculousness and he wasn't pals with director Winner any longer, but you can ignore that in order to kick back and enjoy this slice of meagcheese.
Check back Sunday night as I'll post at least one new review between now and then.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
A Delay of One Day
Unfortunately, I had "Internet issues" at home (i.e. God-awful BrightHouse (which is where I get phone, cable, and Internet from) totally failed for 3 1/2 hours! I won't get into details, but it screwed up my plans) so Monday night will be my posting of a new review. I'm not quite sure which film it'll be yet, but I'll come up with a good one at a moment's notice, I'm sure.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Red Letter Media’s Star Wars Reviews
I’ll do something different now. Instead of talking about a movie I’ve seen, I’ll plug a pair of extensive reviews of movies that the people behind the website are a part of, and you can see (and download, if you know how to or want to) via the wonders of YouTube. It is Red Letter Media’s reviews of the first two episodes in the Star Wars saga known as The Phantom Menace (clocking in at around 70 minutes) and Attack of the Clones, at 90 minutes. You can look at Part 1 of both reviews here and here.
Now, I haven’t seen any of the prequel movies in years, but even back then I recognized that Episode 1 and Episode 2 weren’t too good. Episode 3 was better rated by me… it’s not in the league of the original movies, though. These reviews of Episodes 1 and 2 do an excellent job of explaining just what is wrong with the movies; in short, the story is awful and makes no sense, and is not engaging at all. The way it’s explained, though, makes it a high recommendation.
And, that’s even with some things that would normally really turn me off. For example, it’s narrated by a guy with a droll monotone bizarre-sounding voice that I know is off-putting to some and at first it started to turn me off. But, I stuck with it and it’s hilarious stuff. Stuff gets broken down in a meticulous way, and it’s great comedy mixed with great points. However, one thing I do have to fast-forward/ignore is some of the most off-beat humor aspects, which is the point that the guy is apparently a serial killer! No kidding. You see girls tied up and about to be killed, and a lot of people online seem to find that to be a knee-slapper. But, they’re the cretin Troglodyte type who likes worthless garbage such as Bubba the Love Sponge or Howard Stern… let me get back on topic. If you ignore that stuff (in the Episode 1 review, most of the dumb stuff is done after around Part 2 or so of the 7 part upload; in Episode 2, most of it is at the last minute or two of each part.
So, if you’ve seen those movies and disliked them but weren’t quite sure as to why you disliked them so much, this is perfect for you, as it accurately* describes the biggest failures of the first three episodes. I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
• I point that out, as in the Episode 2 review, the character of Jango Fett (Boba's dad) is always referred to as Bobo. I know that was done on purpose to state how it was a blatant attempt at making the fanboys happy by basically having the same character as in the original trilogy, but saying that it's his dad.
Now, I haven’t seen any of the prequel movies in years, but even back then I recognized that Episode 1 and Episode 2 weren’t too good. Episode 3 was better rated by me… it’s not in the league of the original movies, though. These reviews of Episodes 1 and 2 do an excellent job of explaining just what is wrong with the movies; in short, the story is awful and makes no sense, and is not engaging at all. The way it’s explained, though, makes it a high recommendation.
And, that’s even with some things that would normally really turn me off. For example, it’s narrated by a guy with a droll monotone bizarre-sounding voice that I know is off-putting to some and at first it started to turn me off. But, I stuck with it and it’s hilarious stuff. Stuff gets broken down in a meticulous way, and it’s great comedy mixed with great points. However, one thing I do have to fast-forward/ignore is some of the most off-beat humor aspects, which is the point that the guy is apparently a serial killer! No kidding. You see girls tied up and about to be killed, and a lot of people online seem to find that to be a knee-slapper. But, they’re the cretin Troglodyte type who likes worthless garbage such as Bubba the Love Sponge or Howard Stern… let me get back on topic. If you ignore that stuff (in the Episode 1 review, most of the dumb stuff is done after around Part 2 or so of the 7 part upload; in Episode 2, most of it is at the last minute or two of each part.
So, if you’ve seen those movies and disliked them but weren’t quite sure as to why you disliked them so much, this is perfect for you, as it accurately* describes the biggest failures of the first three episodes. I'll be back Sunday night with a new review.
• I point that out, as in the Episode 2 review, the character of Jango Fett (Boba's dad) is always referred to as Bobo. I know that was done on purpose to state how it was a blatant attempt at making the fanboys happy by basically having the same character as in the original trilogy, but saying that it's his dad.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Wargames
Wargames (1983)
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: John Badham
Starring: Matthew Broderick, Ally Sheedy, Dabney Coleman, John Wood
From: United Artists
Here is a relatively famous movie from the 80’s that I hadn’t seen, even though I’m interested in both 80’s cheese and computers. Thursday, I was able to see this for the first time, and that’s no April Fool’s joke.
I’m sure you have heard of this, but if you haven’t, it’s about a brilliant but underachieving computer geek (Broderick) who has a galpal (Sheedy). He lives in Seattle; I say that’s no surprise as I’m sure the filmmakers even then knew of Microsoft. He tries to hack a computer in California in order to find out about an upcoming model of computers; he accidentally breaks into the NORAD computer (named WOPR, called “Whopper”) that manages the launch of nuclear weapons. With his galpal, he plays a game with WOPR called “Global Thermonuclear War”. Later on he sees that the start of this game unknowingly started a real-life scenario where WOPR playing the game appears as if the start of nuclear war is actually taking place. The government tracks him down-as they believe he’s a spy for the Soviets!-but no one at NORAD (including Coleman) believes his story that what WOPR is saying is just a fantasy. Matthew has to try and find a way to convince them…
I won’t give away anything more. I will say that while this is popcorn faire that seems to be geared towards the younger set, it’s at least entertaining for what it is. You have the likeable protagonists and enemies who of course are adults and don’t believe what the highschoolers are telling them, yet aren’t unlikeable people that you can’t stand watching, which is a problem that I have sometimes with certain flicks. So, if it sounds like something of interest to you and you haven’t seen it yet, I’d say it’s worth checking out. You have some drama, adventure, and comedy (the scene about asexual reproduction got a big lol from me). No word on the made for DVD sequel that just came out less than 2 years ago, except that apparently it isn’t too good; shocker of shockers that a random DVD only sequel sucks, right?
By the way, to me it was interesting seeing all the old computer technology from the time and how it pales in comparison to what we’re fortunate to have now. I know it inspired many later computer geeks, considering that in the film, the act of war dialing (named after the movie; it’s dialing all the numbers in a particular city to try and find a particular company’s private phone number) was later used in stuff like “war driving”, where you cruise around in a car and try to find an unsecure wireless connection so that you can surf the web on a laptop free of charge. Speaking of computer geeks, even back then the term was well-known. Wait until you see early on the scene where Broderick visits some ubernerds; it’s exactly how you imagine the stereotypical computer geek to be.
I’ll be back next weekend with at least one new review.
Runtime: 114 minutes
Directed by: John Badham
Starring: Matthew Broderick, Ally Sheedy, Dabney Coleman, John Wood
From: United Artists
Here is a relatively famous movie from the 80’s that I hadn’t seen, even though I’m interested in both 80’s cheese and computers. Thursday, I was able to see this for the first time, and that’s no April Fool’s joke.
I’m sure you have heard of this, but if you haven’t, it’s about a brilliant but underachieving computer geek (Broderick) who has a galpal (Sheedy). He lives in Seattle; I say that’s no surprise as I’m sure the filmmakers even then knew of Microsoft. He tries to hack a computer in California in order to find out about an upcoming model of computers; he accidentally breaks into the NORAD computer (named WOPR, called “Whopper”) that manages the launch of nuclear weapons. With his galpal, he plays a game with WOPR called “Global Thermonuclear War”. Later on he sees that the start of this game unknowingly started a real-life scenario where WOPR playing the game appears as if the start of nuclear war is actually taking place. The government tracks him down-as they believe he’s a spy for the Soviets!-but no one at NORAD (including Coleman) believes his story that what WOPR is saying is just a fantasy. Matthew has to try and find a way to convince them…
I won’t give away anything more. I will say that while this is popcorn faire that seems to be geared towards the younger set, it’s at least entertaining for what it is. You have the likeable protagonists and enemies who of course are adults and don’t believe what the highschoolers are telling them, yet aren’t unlikeable people that you can’t stand watching, which is a problem that I have sometimes with certain flicks. So, if it sounds like something of interest to you and you haven’t seen it yet, I’d say it’s worth checking out. You have some drama, adventure, and comedy (the scene about asexual reproduction got a big lol from me). No word on the made for DVD sequel that just came out less than 2 years ago, except that apparently it isn’t too good; shocker of shockers that a random DVD only sequel sucks, right?
By the way, to me it was interesting seeing all the old computer technology from the time and how it pales in comparison to what we’re fortunate to have now. I know it inspired many later computer geeks, considering that in the film, the act of war dialing (named after the movie; it’s dialing all the numbers in a particular city to try and find a particular company’s private phone number) was later used in stuff like “war driving”, where you cruise around in a car and try to find an unsecure wireless connection so that you can surf the web on a laptop free of charge. Speaking of computer geeks, even back then the term was well-known. Wait until you see early on the scene where Broderick visits some ubernerds; it’s exactly how you imagine the stereotypical computer geek to be.
I’ll be back next weekend with at least one new review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)