I have a friend who would enjoy this movie very much.
Not because this is a very good movie, or very funny, or very entertaining. But because she's a vegetarian (wannabe vegan, but can't quite cut it). She loves animals. And this movie was made for those kinds of people.
In fact, I don't know if it was made for anyone else. Not that others aren't allowed to see it or enjoy it. But it wasn't made with the intention of entertaining people who weren't animal-loving vegetarians specifically. Unless it was far more pretentious than I gathered and it really thought it was going to convert a lot of the audience, which I want to believe it wasn't. Nah. I have faith.
This is a sad sack movie. The characters are never happy. Sure, at times they are. But not really. When it comes down to it, everyone is sad. And that's not a bad thing. That's one view of the world, and it's not one that I find to be all that difficult to relate to. It doesn't drag the movie down. Well, in and of itself it doesn't. But the characters start to become boring and unmotivated, and then they drag the movie down.
Once Molly Shannon's character starts to become very passionate about saving animals, the movie kind of loses me. Well, my bond with the movie was lost. Because that was a point when the movie took a side on the issue of animals. Not that I want to hurt animals, but I don't want to get spoonfed about saving animals. I was just sad that Molly Shannon was never happy, even though she did all of the stuff to make herself happy.
The ending was probably the right thing for the character. But sometimes the right things for the characters aren't the best endings for movies. In other words, maybe this character shouldn't have been in a movie. The fact that she was in a movie made it end the way it did, which made the movie just feel like a bowl of cereal with milk that just expired: it's okay, but somehow... not. And then you just let it leave your mind and dump it down the drain.
I didn't dislike the movie. It was a sort of indifference a lot. I was entertained by a lot of parts. I enjoyed certain techniques it used to portray certain aspects of life, like the first person angle always used when she'd talk to her friend. I liked the unconventional aspects of the movie. But it didn't take me anywhere further. A few times I laughed, and in those cases it did. But I forgot about them by the time I left the theater.
The film was written and directed by Mike White, whose similar film The Good Girl gave me an almost identical feeling. So any other movies he make that feel this way when they're through... I won't say I'm surprised next time.
C+
IMDB information on YEAR OF THE DOG
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Hot Fuzz
Hot Fuzz is a real movie-lovers movie. It caters right to us; it's funny, it pokes fun at cliches in film, it's full of action and fun, and it's British. The British part doesn't really matter, but it's a good ending to a list.
The creators of Shaun of the Dead (being writer/director Edgar Wright and writer/star Simon Pegg) have done it again. They've created a comedy based on a genre they know very well and create a funny version of it. Many would call them parodies, but this isn't really so. Unlike Mel Brooks-like spoofs, they create movies that are not too over-the-top or in your face about what they're poking fun at. In fact, the subtleness (or "British-ness") is often miscontrued and many ignorant American audiences end up hating the films that they make. But alas, those of us who understand and appreciate it have much to appreciate.
And Hot Fuzz delivers.
That's just about all I can say with what I want to say. There's no need to go into specifics because those are the things that are better watched than described. But I nod my head with a smirk on my face in approval. Thumb up.
But the film isn't perfect. I have to give some semblance of a legitimate review, and so I'll go into the few problems I have with both of the films that this "team" has created. There is a lot of brilliance here. But, at the same time, a few moments of slowdown. There are points where not a lot is accomplished in any way (be it comedy, plot, anything). This is definitely more true with Shaun of the Dead. Hot Fuzz shows much improvement and a lot more to love. And it hardly matters, for the good overshadows the not-as-good. But it is there, so these films aren't perfect. But some of the best fun in theaters these days (save Grindhouse), and a much appreciated step forward as far as movies these days go. If Wright and Pegg (and Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's buddy in the pictures, as well) continue like this, there is still hope for decent consistent comedy films.
A future is almost guaranteed with the group involved in these films, and I, for one, cannot wait.
A-
IMDB information on HOT FUZZ
The creators of Shaun of the Dead (being writer/director Edgar Wright and writer/star Simon Pegg) have done it again. They've created a comedy based on a genre they know very well and create a funny version of it. Many would call them parodies, but this isn't really so. Unlike Mel Brooks-like spoofs, they create movies that are not too over-the-top or in your face about what they're poking fun at. In fact, the subtleness (or "British-ness") is often miscontrued and many ignorant American audiences end up hating the films that they make. But alas, those of us who understand and appreciate it have much to appreciate.
And Hot Fuzz delivers.
That's just about all I can say with what I want to say. There's no need to go into specifics because those are the things that are better watched than described. But I nod my head with a smirk on my face in approval. Thumb up.
But the film isn't perfect. I have to give some semblance of a legitimate review, and so I'll go into the few problems I have with both of the films that this "team" has created. There is a lot of brilliance here. But, at the same time, a few moments of slowdown. There are points where not a lot is accomplished in any way (be it comedy, plot, anything). This is definitely more true with Shaun of the Dead. Hot Fuzz shows much improvement and a lot more to love. And it hardly matters, for the good overshadows the not-as-good. But it is there, so these films aren't perfect. But some of the best fun in theaters these days (save Grindhouse), and a much appreciated step forward as far as movies these days go. If Wright and Pegg (and Nick Frost, Simon Pegg's buddy in the pictures, as well) continue like this, there is still hope for decent consistent comedy films.
A future is almost guaranteed with the group involved in these films, and I, for one, cannot wait.
A-
IMDB information on HOT FUZZ
Friday, April 13, 2007
Pathfinder
It's hard to put it into words. Well, maybe it's just hard to find the right words. Hell, nevermind. It's not hard at all.
This movie sucked.
It was doomed from the get-go. The movie has no plot. The protagonist has no personality. He barely even speaks. The antagonist has no... well... no characters have any depth to them what-so-ever. And it's not the kind of movie that can pull this off. It's too slowly paced. Even with the billions of decapitations (which there are, granted), the movie just drags. Action scenes lead to actions scenes lead to actions scenes lead to NO WHERE!
This film has a whole lot of nothing. And it never goes anywhere. It's a waste of time. My worst movie experience of this year so far (although, I must admit, I tend to skip movies that I find will probably offend me as much as this did).
I didn't like a second of it.
F
IMDB information on PATHFINDER
This movie sucked.
It was doomed from the get-go. The movie has no plot. The protagonist has no personality. He barely even speaks. The antagonist has no... well... no characters have any depth to them what-so-ever. And it's not the kind of movie that can pull this off. It's too slowly paced. Even with the billions of decapitations (which there are, granted), the movie just drags. Action scenes lead to actions scenes lead to actions scenes lead to NO WHERE!
This film has a whole lot of nothing. And it never goes anywhere. It's a waste of time. My worst movie experience of this year so far (although, I must admit, I tend to skip movies that I find will probably offend me as much as this did).
I didn't like a second of it.
F
IMDB information on PATHFINDER
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Grindhouse!
The wait (for those who did, actually, wait) is finally over, and well worth the wait! Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's double feature, entitled Grindhouse (after the cinematic style of the 60's/70's in which the films pay much homage). And it's as fun and violent as anyone would hope.
The opening film is Planet Terror, Rodriguez's take on the zombie franchise. Picture hot babes, lots of cheesy lines, great violence, and yes, a woman with a machine gun for a leg. This is creatively fun. It's well-crafted.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second feature. It's his take on... all sorts of cinema. He doesn't stick to one gun. It opens up a spooky slasher kind of movie about a stuntman who likes to kill people with his "death proof" car. But it eventually turns into a fun movie centered around four sassy girls, talking about this and that (in a typical and still fun Tarantino fashion). Then it becomes a crazy car chase kind of film. And finally, in the end, it just becomes a violent beat up movie. Although the film lacks a singular direction, as Rodriguez's has, Tarantino crafts a film that has more to offer, while still staying at the surface level. In this way, I feel Tarantino made the superior film. However, Rodriguez's film is a non-stop blast, and most people prefer that film.
I don't think that the films should be compared, anyhow. The movies are meant to be run together. You shouldn't just see one. See both. That's part of the experience.
Before each movie there are some fake trailers for would be grindhouse flicks made by some friends of the two (including Rob Zombie and Hostel's Eli Roth). And I must say, these trailers do not disappoint. Each one made me laugh, some quite hysterically. So even though the entire experience of Grindhouse lasts around 3 and a half hours, you won't want to take any breaks between features.
Simply put, if you have the time and are ready for fun, Grindhouse is the best movie experience you'll have during this movie season (and, thus far, this year). If you know what you're getting yourself into, you'll have a blast. Hands down. If you're not ready for it... well, that's a different story.
A-
IMDB information on GRINDHOUSE
The opening film is Planet Terror, Rodriguez's take on the zombie franchise. Picture hot babes, lots of cheesy lines, great violence, and yes, a woman with a machine gun for a leg. This is creatively fun. It's well-crafted.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second feature. It's his take on... all sorts of cinema. He doesn't stick to one gun. It opens up a spooky slasher kind of movie about a stuntman who likes to kill people with his "death proof" car. But it eventually turns into a fun movie centered around four sassy girls, talking about this and that (in a typical and still fun Tarantino fashion). Then it becomes a crazy car chase kind of film. And finally, in the end, it just becomes a violent beat up movie. Although the film lacks a singular direction, as Rodriguez's has, Tarantino crafts a film that has more to offer, while still staying at the surface level. In this way, I feel Tarantino made the superior film. However, Rodriguez's film is a non-stop blast, and most people prefer that film.
I don't think that the films should be compared, anyhow. The movies are meant to be run together. You shouldn't just see one. See both. That's part of the experience.
Before each movie there are some fake trailers for would be grindhouse flicks made by some friends of the two (including Rob Zombie and Hostel's Eli Roth). And I must say, these trailers do not disappoint. Each one made me laugh, some quite hysterically. So even though the entire experience of Grindhouse lasts around 3 and a half hours, you won't want to take any breaks between features.
Simply put, if you have the time and are ready for fun, Grindhouse is the best movie experience you'll have during this movie season (and, thus far, this year). If you know what you're getting yourself into, you'll have a blast. Hands down. If you're not ready for it... well, that's a different story.
A-
IMDB information on GRINDHOUSE
Friday, March 09, 2007
300
300 is meant for its audience. I loved Sin City, so I was immediately drawn into a movie based off of graphic novels by Frank Miller again. But as I waited for the midnight showing of the film and witness over 1000 people come to see the movie, I saw who the audience was. People who wanted lots of fighting, blood, gore... basically, people who didn't care much beyond how many decapitations there are.
And on that standard, 300 does please. Let me assure you, there are plenty of violent moments, plenty of battle scenes (95% of the movie?), plenty of all of that lovely stuff. And I state this not saying that it is a bad thing, as it could possibly sound. I'm just stating the facts.
But is there flaw in this? Perhaps. Perhaps there could have been more to the film than that. The story is one that centers around the ego of Spartans. With this, motivations for plot points are based on the fact that "Spartans don't back down!" Therefore, the story aspects aren't so important. But the many, many battle sequences did feel like a bit much at times. There are only so many times that slow motion followed by a sudden burst of fast motion can make certain battle maneuvers look cool.
The look of the movie is really wonderful at times. Spectacular. The vision behind the film is very beautiful. But, then again, it was a graphic novel. All of that came almost directly from the graphic novel.
Maybe there didn't need to be a movie made of this. Perhaps the graphic novel was fine by itself. The movie probably doesn't offer much more than the graphic novel itself did, except for live action and a medium where people can react to the situations at the same time. But then again, sometimes it's good to watch things like this in live actions with other people. It's entertainment. It works as such. So we'll leave it as such.
B-
IMDB information on 300
And on that standard, 300 does please. Let me assure you, there are plenty of violent moments, plenty of battle scenes (95% of the movie?), plenty of all of that lovely stuff. And I state this not saying that it is a bad thing, as it could possibly sound. I'm just stating the facts.
But is there flaw in this? Perhaps. Perhaps there could have been more to the film than that. The story is one that centers around the ego of Spartans. With this, motivations for plot points are based on the fact that "Spartans don't back down!" Therefore, the story aspects aren't so important. But the many, many battle sequences did feel like a bit much at times. There are only so many times that slow motion followed by a sudden burst of fast motion can make certain battle maneuvers look cool.
The look of the movie is really wonderful at times. Spectacular. The vision behind the film is very beautiful. But, then again, it was a graphic novel. All of that came almost directly from the graphic novel.
Maybe there didn't need to be a movie made of this. Perhaps the graphic novel was fine by itself. The movie probably doesn't offer much more than the graphic novel itself did, except for live action and a medium where people can react to the situations at the same time. But then again, sometimes it's good to watch things like this in live actions with other people. It's entertainment. It works as such. So we'll leave it as such.
B-
IMDB information on 300
Monday, February 19, 2007
Sue me, I can't see EVERYTHING!
This Sunday is the Academy Awards. I'm going to try to compile my Oscar predictions by Friday. However, they will be based off of what I have seen. I won't be able to see everything. Therefore, I cannot be perfect (implying that were I able to see everything I would be perfect). I'm planning on watching all of the short films one of these next few days (and posting about them, of course). But I will probably not be able to watch the following films:
-Blood Diamond (nominated -- Leonardo DiCaprio for Actor, Djimon Hounsou for Supporting Actor, Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-Venus (nominated -- Peter O'Toole for Actor)
-The Pursuit of Happyness (nominated -- Will Smith for Actor)
-Notes on a Scandel (nominated -- Judi Dench for Actress, Cate Blanchett for Supporting Actress, Adapted Screenplay)
-Cars or Monster House (both nominated for Animated Feature)
-The Black Dahlia (nominated for Cinematography)
-The Curse of the Golden Flower (nominated for Costume Design)
-Marie Antoinette (nominated for Costume Design)
-Iraq in Fragments or My Country, My Country (both nominated for Feature Documentary)
-After the Wedding or Days of Glory (both nominated for Foreign Language Film)
-Apocalypto (nominated for Make-up, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-The Good German (nominated for Music)
-Flags of Our Fathers (nominated for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-Poseidon (nominated for Visual Effects)
If you think that list is long, try seeing the list of what I have seen.
-Blood Diamond (nominated -- Leonardo DiCaprio for Actor, Djimon Hounsou for Supporting Actor, Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-Venus (nominated -- Peter O'Toole for Actor)
-The Pursuit of Happyness (nominated -- Will Smith for Actor)
-Notes on a Scandel (nominated -- Judi Dench for Actress, Cate Blanchett for Supporting Actress, Adapted Screenplay)
-Cars or Monster House (both nominated for Animated Feature)
-The Black Dahlia (nominated for Cinematography)
-The Curse of the Golden Flower (nominated for Costume Design)
-Marie Antoinette (nominated for Costume Design)
-Iraq in Fragments or My Country, My Country (both nominated for Feature Documentary)
-After the Wedding or Days of Glory (both nominated for Foreign Language Film)
-Apocalypto (nominated for Make-up, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-The Good German (nominated for Music)
-Flags of Our Fathers (nominated for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing)
-Poseidon (nominated for Visual Effects)
If you think that list is long, try seeing the list of what I have seen.
Breach
It's this time of year that many, many, many movies come out that will never be remember. They're not necessarily bad movies, they're just movies that are decent to what we the movie-watchers know as "pretty good," and they come out at a time of the year when people don't care enough about new movies. This is Oscar season. People only care about Oscar nominated movies from the past year.
Breach is one of these films. It's not a bad film, by any means. It's a perfectly adequate piece of film. It's an interesting thriller, a well-told tale. But at the same time, it's missing that extra umph that would give it enough soul to make it a truly great film. The movie just lacks that soul. The soul is the overall "why do I care" factor. It's a good movie, but halfway into it I couldn't help but feel like I didn't really care all that much about where it was going. It's not that it's not interesting, it's just that it doesn't have enough substance. The way the movie opens tells you straight up how things are going to be. The actual duration of the movie is merely the fancy stuff that brings you from point A to point B.
But Chris Cooper does a wonderful job as the veteran FBI mole. In fact this doesn't even need to be stated. Everything that Chris Cooper has done has been wonderful. That man can do no wrong. And this is no exception. His performance really put some life into that character, which is something that could have been done wrong by another actor and would have led to a worse film. Chris Cooper alone gives this movie a little more reason for one to go see it.
But give it 5 years. Let the dust settle. Then you'll see what I mean. That's the sad part. Now go watch the Oscars.
B-
IMDB information on BREACH
Breach is one of these films. It's not a bad film, by any means. It's a perfectly adequate piece of film. It's an interesting thriller, a well-told tale. But at the same time, it's missing that extra umph that would give it enough soul to make it a truly great film. The movie just lacks that soul. The soul is the overall "why do I care" factor. It's a good movie, but halfway into it I couldn't help but feel like I didn't really care all that much about where it was going. It's not that it's not interesting, it's just that it doesn't have enough substance. The way the movie opens tells you straight up how things are going to be. The actual duration of the movie is merely the fancy stuff that brings you from point A to point B.
But Chris Cooper does a wonderful job as the veteran FBI mole. In fact this doesn't even need to be stated. Everything that Chris Cooper has done has been wonderful. That man can do no wrong. And this is no exception. His performance really put some life into that character, which is something that could have been done wrong by another actor and would have led to a worse film. Chris Cooper alone gives this movie a little more reason for one to go see it.
But give it 5 years. Let the dust settle. Then you'll see what I mean. That's the sad part. Now go watch the Oscars.
B-
IMDB information on BREACH
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Grindhouse Trailer!
Still 2 more months until this sure-to-please grindhouse tribute is released, but the trailer makes it look like it'll be what we're hoping for.
Trailer for GRINDHOUSE
Trailer for GRINDHOUSE
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Jon's Top 10 of 2006
I've finally made my decision. Now, without further ado, my list is as follows:
1. The Departed
2. Pan's Labyrinth
3. Little Children
4. Children of Men
5. The Prestige
6. Letters From Iwo Jima
7. Little Miss Sunshine
8. United 93
9. Babel
10. The Last King of Scotland
1. The Departed
2. Pan's Labyrinth
3. Little Children
4. Children of Men
5. The Prestige
6. Letters From Iwo Jima
7. Little Miss Sunshine
8. United 93
9. Babel
10. The Last King of Scotland
The Queen
Just as I suspected. The Queen is a movie solely based upon its leading performance. I had to dive right into that because this is the most essential information about the film.
I don't know, the subject matter doesn't seem entirely interesting enough to hold a film. Frankly, if Helen Mirren's performance wasn't as perfectly spot-on as it was, the film wouldn't really have a saving grace. Well, Michael Sheen also does quite a good job. The acting in the movie, in general, I guess, should get a round of applause. But it's the actual movie itself that I just find to be slightly interesting. It's very much a character study about a character that I had no reason to be very interested in. I got the depth of what was trying to be portrayed pretty early on... and it just stayed there. I was just not very satisfied with this film. Perhaps Rotten Tomatoes and it's near-perfect rating of it had me expecting a masterpiece, but this was just not too much.
Now Helen Mirren will win the Oscar, and she deserves it, too. No one is as convincing at being someone that they are not as she is at being the queen. But as for the other awards, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, I would be baffled if it one them. It's definitely not one of the best movies of the year, and the screenplay was hardly noteable.
I really think I was expecting more. Disappointment is never good. Especially this close to the Oscars.
C+
IMDB information on THE QUEEN
I don't know, the subject matter doesn't seem entirely interesting enough to hold a film. Frankly, if Helen Mirren's performance wasn't as perfectly spot-on as it was, the film wouldn't really have a saving grace. Well, Michael Sheen also does quite a good job. The acting in the movie, in general, I guess, should get a round of applause. But it's the actual movie itself that I just find to be slightly interesting. It's very much a character study about a character that I had no reason to be very interested in. I got the depth of what was trying to be portrayed pretty early on... and it just stayed there. I was just not very satisfied with this film. Perhaps Rotten Tomatoes and it's near-perfect rating of it had me expecting a masterpiece, but this was just not too much.
Now Helen Mirren will win the Oscar, and she deserves it, too. No one is as convincing at being someone that they are not as she is at being the queen. But as for the other awards, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, I would be baffled if it one them. It's definitely not one of the best movies of the year, and the screenplay was hardly noteable.
I really think I was expecting more. Disappointment is never good. Especially this close to the Oscars.
C+
IMDB information on THE QUEEN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)