So, the two new movies for the Memorial Day weekend were "Dear John" and "The Road." Is Memorial Day not enough of an important holiday to get some better movies to watch on that weekend? Does everyone have to go to the beach on Memorial Day? What if it rains and all the kids are off school? Is Hollywood supposing that everyone's actually going to hang with the families and sit around, talk and read books that day in the case? I thought Hollywood was shallower than that - in fact, I pretty much have run with that assumption ever since Avatar became the biggest movie of all time. If Hollywood is commercially-driven and shallow, wouldn't they put out bigger movies than these two? Like, a family-film... like... "Alice in Wonderland," which, by the way, comes out to DVD the day after Memorial Day.
This just seems retarded. But I guess Hollywood has their reasons. I have no idea what they are, but they must be something. Oh, and by the way, I'm going to post an Avatar review in a little bit, because I have to say my peace about this movie.
So, the two movies out are "Dear John" and "The Road." Now, I tried to watch "Dear John," but only made it through the first five minutes. Now remember, these reviews are highly critical, but I have to believe that if you can't catch my interest (as the audience) in the first five minutes, the film is on a downhill slope, and will probably get the fast-forward button for the majority of the film, just so I can see the ending. Now, I'm not saying I'm not going to watch "Letters to Juliet" because the trailer gives away the ENTIRE PLOT because it does, but I will probably fast-forward through most of it if it gets slow, which it undoubtedly does.
I guess I should talk about "Dear John." I like Channing Tatum and I like Amanda Seyfried. I think they hold promise as actors. But these fast adaptations of Nicholas Sparks novels? You see, the root of the issue here are the books themselves. We need to consider if Sparks' books are considered good literature in a "theory of literature" sense of the phrase. You can argue all you want about this topic, and there can be multiple perspectives here.
But the answer is no.
So the movies are only going to be so good. They have the potential to be better than the books (like Twilight, which is still horrible, but I thought the movie was better than the book, and the book could not catch my attention when I gave it the benefit of the doubt and thoroughly read the first... 250 PAGES!), but this rarely happens with book to film adaptations. So the people who liked "Dear John" probably have read the book, are already in love with the characters (which is nothing to be ashamed of - I didn't say they weren't good books - they just aren't great literature in an academic sense), and so they get to see on film things they already like.
This is called a subjective bias to the film.
Obectively, if anyone were watching this film who hadn't read the book, then it just comes off as slow, somewhat depressing, but mostly slow. Now Sparks' is a good storyteller (again, this is not about great literature, which his books are not), so it has a plot that structurally works. But it's still slow and somewhat depressing.
Happy Memorial Day.
And then "The Road." Now this is a movie also based on a book (with the same title) by Cormac McCarthy. And that same author is the one who wrote "No Country for Old Men," of which the film adaptation was realy good. And Viggo Mortensen's in there. So maybe this movie is good. At least that's what you think to yourself. But this movie comes off to audiences the same way "Up in the Air" comes off. That it's a good movie, mostly everyone can say that, but that a bunch of people just really don't like it that much.
Talk about a depressing movie. Happy Memorial Day, again.
So on Memorial Day weekend, we get two movies that not all the family can enjoy, and even those groups that these films are marketed to will probably not enjoy all that much. So anyway, until next time...
Coming up: Avatar review and DVD releases 1 June 2010.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
2010 Update
Hello everybody - sorry I haven't posted anything in a while. I've been distracted by other important blogging and this blog has fallen to the wayside, but I really want to start posting on it again. So this is, I guess, my apology post in which I say that if you have been following this blog, it's about to get updated (finally) and I thank you for your patience.
And if you don't follow this blog, well, then, you can enjoy it from here on out with some updated information.
And if you don't follow this blog, well, then, you can enjoy it from here on out with some updated information.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
STATE OF PLAY
Movie Review #8: State of Play
(DVD release date: 08/04/09)
Directed by: Kevin Macdonald, Rated PG-13
Reviewer Rating: A
This was an extremely well done movie. To date this year, I've watched two new Russell Crowe movies, Body of Lies and State of Play, and both, while in a very similar genre (drama/action), were extremely satisfying films.
The plot, through all of the scathing criticisms (spoken in dialogue or quietly implied) of the federal government's political system and acts which impact the world at large, is really a classic who-dun-it. This is extremely refreshing. What is also refreshing is Ben Affleck who seems to have reinvigorated his career with this film. It's now way past the point that he got done making silly romantic comedies and such (was that the last decade) and lower-rated action thrillers and started working again on some serious material (like Good Will Hunting). And as much as many people dislike Ben Affleck, I, personally, have always sort of rooted for him because I remember watching the Academy Awards the night that he and Matt Damon won the Oscar for that movie.
Then of course you have Helen Mirren and Jeff Daniels in a movie, and I really can't pass up movies with Jeff Daniels. Except for Dumb & Dumber. I have no time for that movie. Why, Jeff Daniels, WHY?
The other subject that this film examines is behind-the-scenes at the source of media writing. I adore Russell Crowe's character as nostalgic for quality writing and him being upset at Rachel McAdams' and her silly blog-like column in the paper, but what I really like more is the implied depression her character is in at being stuck in such lame, lame stories. That idea really kicks in to high gear when you think about all of the things the media obsesses about and about how little those items really mean.
I love the lines "that's wrath of God money" and "this is about as big and connected as it gets" and I really enjoy the fact that the writer's really thought about what they were makign when they wrote the script for this film.
A note of caution to families: this film is rated PG-13, but it is not a good movie for children or young teenagers (15 and under). To be honest, I think that the vast majority of them would be bored with this film, but high schoolers should watch it and would enjoy it. The rating system is so entirely messed up, that in this film's case, just think that it is like The Dark Knight (psychological/reflection of society-wise), and if you don't think that was appropriate for your teenager, etc., then this film is probably not appropriate either.
(DVD release date: 08/04/09)
Directed by: Kevin Macdonald, Rated PG-13
Reviewer Rating: A
This was an extremely well done movie. To date this year, I've watched two new Russell Crowe movies, Body of Lies and State of Play, and both, while in a very similar genre (drama/action), were extremely satisfying films.
The plot, through all of the scathing criticisms (spoken in dialogue or quietly implied) of the federal government's political system and acts which impact the world at large, is really a classic who-dun-it. This is extremely refreshing. What is also refreshing is Ben Affleck who seems to have reinvigorated his career with this film. It's now way past the point that he got done making silly romantic comedies and such (was that the last decade) and lower-rated action thrillers and started working again on some serious material (like Good Will Hunting). And as much as many people dislike Ben Affleck, I, personally, have always sort of rooted for him because I remember watching the Academy Awards the night that he and Matt Damon won the Oscar for that movie.
Then of course you have Helen Mirren and Jeff Daniels in a movie, and I really can't pass up movies with Jeff Daniels. Except for Dumb & Dumber. I have no time for that movie. Why, Jeff Daniels, WHY?
The other subject that this film examines is behind-the-scenes at the source of media writing. I adore Russell Crowe's character as nostalgic for quality writing and him being upset at Rachel McAdams' and her silly blog-like column in the paper, but what I really like more is the implied depression her character is in at being stuck in such lame, lame stories. That idea really kicks in to high gear when you think about all of the things the media obsesses about and about how little those items really mean.
I love the lines "that's wrath of God money" and "this is about as big and connected as it gets" and I really enjoy the fact that the writer's really thought about what they were makign when they wrote the script for this film.
A note of caution to families: this film is rated PG-13, but it is not a good movie for children or young teenagers (15 and under). To be honest, I think that the vast majority of them would be bored with this film, but high schoolers should watch it and would enjoy it. The rating system is so entirely messed up, that in this film's case, just think that it is like The Dark Knight (psychological/reflection of society-wise), and if you don't think that was appropriate for your teenager, etc., then this film is probably not appropriate either.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Watchmen
Movie Review #7: Watchmen
(DVD release date: 07/21/09)
Directed by: Zack Snyder, Rated R, 2 hr. 42 min. (Director's Cut: 3 hr. 6 min.)
Reviewer Rating: B+
This is a movie that I really wanted to watch in the theaters. It's large scale and epic and full of special effects. If you're going to spend over $10 at a movie theater for a ticket, it might as well be for a movie like this one. However, I did nto get to go to the theaters to see Watchmen, and so I watched it at home instead.
It held up to basically all of the expectations that I had for the film: namely those things mentioned prior: epic, large scale and special effects heavy. I was pleased to note that the tone is the exact same kind of tone for the film that, say, The Dark Knight had, and the cinematography was similar. I also enjoyed the acting in the movie, and the script was taken almost word for word from the book, at least in the opening. The book's vocabulary and prose is a real delight.
The only thing I can say for it though, is that it is dated subject matter. While I was amused with some of the items in the movie, Nixon in his third term and so on, I don't think the message at the finale at the film is one for the 21st century. Everyone's used to the hero's journey story by now, even if we are not consciously aware of it, and we know (in most stories and films), that doing things for the greater good by sacrificing even one person is not a good thing at all, and those sorts of actions are to be despised. This movie, with a plot created in the 1980s, basically states that this idea is debatable. This is where I felt uncomfortable with the film. It didn't say outright that things can and should be sacrificed for the greater good, but it does pull the issue up to mind. And this is an issue we should be beyond. This is the difference between Watchmen and Superman or Star Wars or Harry Potter. We know, without a doubt, that choosing the greater good by sacrificing others, is the wrong thing to do. We know that we should learn to sacrifice ourselves for our beliefs, to die to ourselves and succeed in that way. Watchmen calls this into question. Perhaps it should, perhaps its point is to question this and to shake our resolve (or at least shake us in the shoulders to make us resolve something). Perhaps it is a lesson for us should we turn down the wrong path.
All in all, this makes for a very philosophical and political movie. And for that I give it two thumbs up, because it makes one think. But you have to be thinking to watch this one (especially at its length) in order to get the message, or the one we should understand at the end of the film since we're not in the 1980s. Since this is the 21st century.
Ozymandias was completely wrong. Don't doubt it.
(DVD release date: 07/21/09)
Directed by: Zack Snyder, Rated R, 2 hr. 42 min. (Director's Cut: 3 hr. 6 min.)
Reviewer Rating: B+
This is a movie that I really wanted to watch in the theaters. It's large scale and epic and full of special effects. If you're going to spend over $10 at a movie theater for a ticket, it might as well be for a movie like this one. However, I did nto get to go to the theaters to see Watchmen, and so I watched it at home instead.
It held up to basically all of the expectations that I had for the film: namely those things mentioned prior: epic, large scale and special effects heavy. I was pleased to note that the tone is the exact same kind of tone for the film that, say, The Dark Knight had, and the cinematography was similar. I also enjoyed the acting in the movie, and the script was taken almost word for word from the book, at least in the opening. The book's vocabulary and prose is a real delight.
The only thing I can say for it though, is that it is dated subject matter. While I was amused with some of the items in the movie, Nixon in his third term and so on, I don't think the message at the finale at the film is one for the 21st century. Everyone's used to the hero's journey story by now, even if we are not consciously aware of it, and we know (in most stories and films), that doing things for the greater good by sacrificing even one person is not a good thing at all, and those sorts of actions are to be despised. This movie, with a plot created in the 1980s, basically states that this idea is debatable. This is where I felt uncomfortable with the film. It didn't say outright that things can and should be sacrificed for the greater good, but it does pull the issue up to mind. And this is an issue we should be beyond. This is the difference between Watchmen and Superman or Star Wars or Harry Potter. We know, without a doubt, that choosing the greater good by sacrificing others, is the wrong thing to do. We know that we should learn to sacrifice ourselves for our beliefs, to die to ourselves and succeed in that way. Watchmen calls this into question. Perhaps it should, perhaps its point is to question this and to shake our resolve (or at least shake us in the shoulders to make us resolve something). Perhaps it is a lesson for us should we turn down the wrong path.
All in all, this makes for a very philosophical and political movie. And for that I give it two thumbs up, because it makes one think. But you have to be thinking to watch this one (especially at its length) in order to get the message, or the one we should understand at the end of the film since we're not in the 1980s. Since this is the 21st century.
Ozymandias was completely wrong. Don't doubt it.
Monday, December 29, 2008
THE WACKNESS
Movie Review #6: THE WACKNESS
(DVD release date: 01/06/09)
Directed by Jonathan Levine, Rated R, 1 hr. 39 min.
Genre: Drama/Comedy (Dramedy)
Reviewer Rating: A-
This is a movie that is going to have a definite niche, and the name of that niche is those people who are now between the ages of twenty and forty.
This is a period piece.
Set in 1994.
I don't know how else to explain this movie, except that it's a period piece like Rent (2005) is a period piece (and also a musical).
Anyway, the world is wack and some things are dope. And if you weren't around to experience that in the last years of the millennium you may not like this movie. Except for the fact that Ben Kingsley stars in the film alongside Josh Peck (he looks like Harvey Keitel from the cover), and he has some great comedic moments (which is awesome, as Kingsley doesn't do too many comedic roles).
The main plot of the film is that Luke Shapiro (Josh Peck) pays his psychiatrist, Dr. Squires (Ben Kingsley), with marijuana. Most of the film takes place over the course of the summer and contains their conversations on life. Again, I adore this film, but some won't, and it is not recommended for anybody under the age of eighteen.
(DVD release date: 01/06/09)
Directed by Jonathan Levine, Rated R, 1 hr. 39 min.
Genre: Drama/Comedy (Dramedy)
Reviewer Rating: A-
This is a movie that is going to have a definite niche, and the name of that niche is those people who are now between the ages of twenty and forty.
This is a period piece.
Set in 1994.
I don't know how else to explain this movie, except that it's a period piece like Rent (2005) is a period piece (and also a musical).
Anyway, the world is wack and some things are dope. And if you weren't around to experience that in the last years of the millennium you may not like this movie. Except for the fact that Ben Kingsley stars in the film alongside Josh Peck (he looks like Harvey Keitel from the cover), and he has some great comedic moments (which is awesome, as Kingsley doesn't do too many comedic roles).
The main plot of the film is that Luke Shapiro (Josh Peck) pays his psychiatrist, Dr. Squires (Ben Kingsley), with marijuana. Most of the film takes place over the course of the summer and contains their conversations on life. Again, I adore this film, but some won't, and it is not recommended for anybody under the age of eighteen.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
FRED CLAUS
Movie Review #5: FRED CLAUS
(DVD release date: 11/25/08)
Directed by David Dobkin, Rated PG, 1 hr., 56 minutes
Genre: Family
Reviewer Rating: C+
There's only one true reason that I watched this movie, and that is because of Vince Vaughn. I liked his "smart-mouthness" in comedies prior to this, and so I thought I might be entertained by moments in this film that he likely improvised on the spot. To that extent, I was not truly let down. Also, Kevin Spacey is in this movie (I honestly don't really know why), but that was a pleasant surprise and although his role is predictable and sappy, he does a good job at lending to the comedy, and so the movie becomes watchable.
And there's a Baldwin. I don't want to give this away, but there is a Baldwin. Soon there will be a "Six Degrees of Separation from Alec Baldwin" game as well. Very soon.
Anyway, this is a Christmas movie which follows in the wake of Elf (2003), but feels much more like Christmas With the Cranks (2004). It will rent a lot this holiday season, and will manage to occupy kids for the nearly two hours that this movie runs, and it won't absolutely annoy the parents who will probably be forced to watch it as well, so that's a plus.
My problem is Paul Giamatti, who I really respect as an actor, but still can't see as Santa. I don't know why, but it just doesn't work for me. It's okay, but I thought it could have been better cast. But it's okay. The story is a little long, and I like the premise, but it gets ridiculous as the movie continues. About twenty minutes of this movie probably could have been cut, and it would have been better for it. I have to be honest in that I fast-forwarded about fifteen minutes of this movie, and I think it made the film better.
So, rent it if you have no other options for Christmas comedies or have already watched Elf (2003) so many times you are going to explode and that is the only kind of comedy your family will watch. It's truly not that bad, but that's probably only because of its cast.
(DVD release date: 11/25/08)
Directed by David Dobkin, Rated PG, 1 hr., 56 minutes
Genre: Family
Reviewer Rating: C+
There's only one true reason that I watched this movie, and that is because of Vince Vaughn. I liked his "smart-mouthness" in comedies prior to this, and so I thought I might be entertained by moments in this film that he likely improvised on the spot. To that extent, I was not truly let down. Also, Kevin Spacey is in this movie (I honestly don't really know why), but that was a pleasant surprise and although his role is predictable and sappy, he does a good job at lending to the comedy, and so the movie becomes watchable.
And there's a Baldwin. I don't want to give this away, but there is a Baldwin. Soon there will be a "Six Degrees of Separation from Alec Baldwin" game as well. Very soon.
Anyway, this is a Christmas movie which follows in the wake of Elf (2003), but feels much more like Christmas With the Cranks (2004). It will rent a lot this holiday season, and will manage to occupy kids for the nearly two hours that this movie runs, and it won't absolutely annoy the parents who will probably be forced to watch it as well, so that's a plus.
My problem is Paul Giamatti, who I really respect as an actor, but still can't see as Santa. I don't know why, but it just doesn't work for me. It's okay, but I thought it could have been better cast. But it's okay. The story is a little long, and I like the premise, but it gets ridiculous as the movie continues. About twenty minutes of this movie probably could have been cut, and it would have been better for it. I have to be honest in that I fast-forwarded about fifteen minutes of this movie, and I think it made the film better.
So, rent it if you have no other options for Christmas comedies or have already watched Elf (2003) so many times you are going to explode and that is the only kind of comedy your family will watch. It's truly not that bad, but that's probably only because of its cast.
HANCOCK
Movie Review #4: HANCOCK
(DVD release date: 11/25/08)
Directed by Peter Berg, Rated PG-13, 1 hr., 32 minutes
Genre: Action/Sci-fi
Reviewer Rating: D
I really don't understand the production of this movie. It seems that there are two movies in this one. Did Will Smith sit down with his agent and say, "Hey, I'm fresh off of I Am Legend (2007) and The Pursuit of Happyness (2006), and I'd really like to make a film with elements of both," and the agent was like "well, I've got this superhero/romance??? film which has some awkward moments (actually it has a lot of them) that you may be interested in..."
This is a strange movie. It's supposed to feature Will Smith as a superhero. It does seem to do that. The first hour leads you to believe that this is what the movie is all about. And then there is an one hundred and eighty degree turnaround where all of a sudden there is a romance with Charlize Theron who also has superpowers? But I'm not really spoiling anything here because it states this fact on the back of the rental case. (That's why I don't feel the need to say "SPOILER ALERT!") And it's really awkward in the movie, and you'll know why if you watch this.
I felt the need to fast-forward the last half and remain ignorant of the remaining plot. Because the movie was pretty much over after the first part, which was mildly entertaining. Hancock, the main character played by Will Smith, is wasted for most of the first twenty minutes and that's distressingly amusing. He can fly, has super strength and bullets bounce off of him like Superman. So, the first attempt at an African-American Superman character (please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd really like to be wrong) is an alcoholic from the first minutes of the film. That's really... nice.
This film is watchable if you can see it for free, which is what I was able to do. I wouldn't pay more than $3 for it, though. And maybe not even that. Oh, and it is genuinely PG-13, so anyone under that age (thirteen) probably shouldn't watch it. I think it may kill developing brain cells. But that's just my opinion.
And as for Will Smith? I really hope Seven Pounds (2008) is better. I really do like Will Smith. Charlize Theron, who won an Oscar for Monster (2003) should have simply known better. At least this is not as bad as Catwoman (2004). It might be up there with Uma Thurman's performance in My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006).
(DVD release date: 11/25/08)
Directed by Peter Berg, Rated PG-13, 1 hr., 32 minutes
Genre: Action/Sci-fi
Reviewer Rating: D
I really don't understand the production of this movie. It seems that there are two movies in this one. Did Will Smith sit down with his agent and say, "Hey, I'm fresh off of I Am Legend (2007) and The Pursuit of Happyness (2006), and I'd really like to make a film with elements of both," and the agent was like "well, I've got this superhero/romance??? film which has some awkward moments (actually it has a lot of them) that you may be interested in..."
This is a strange movie. It's supposed to feature Will Smith as a superhero. It does seem to do that. The first hour leads you to believe that this is what the movie is all about. And then there is an one hundred and eighty degree turnaround where all of a sudden there is a romance with Charlize Theron who also has superpowers? But I'm not really spoiling anything here because it states this fact on the back of the rental case. (That's why I don't feel the need to say "SPOILER ALERT!") And it's really awkward in the movie, and you'll know why if you watch this.
I felt the need to fast-forward the last half and remain ignorant of the remaining plot. Because the movie was pretty much over after the first part, which was mildly entertaining. Hancock, the main character played by Will Smith, is wasted for most of the first twenty minutes and that's distressingly amusing. He can fly, has super strength and bullets bounce off of him like Superman. So, the first attempt at an African-American Superman character (please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd really like to be wrong) is an alcoholic from the first minutes of the film. That's really... nice.
This film is watchable if you can see it for free, which is what I was able to do. I wouldn't pay more than $3 for it, though. And maybe not even that. Oh, and it is genuinely PG-13, so anyone under that age (thirteen) probably shouldn't watch it. I think it may kill developing brain cells. But that's just my opinion.
And as for Will Smith? I really hope Seven Pounds (2008) is better. I really do like Will Smith. Charlize Theron, who won an Oscar for Monster (2003) should have simply known better. At least this is not as bad as Catwoman (2004). It might be up there with Uma Thurman's performance in My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)