Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Number 23
I'm not really sure what to think about this film. It was a bit absurd, and the final "explanation" of the whole plot towards the end of the movie takes way too long. In the end, it is never very clear why 23 is actually such a powerful number...just a lot of coincidental occurrences and some creative number crunching.
Without spoiling the entire plot, it is way too implausible that Jim Carrey's character actually forgets an entire segment of his life, or even more implausible is how his wife of 13 years never questions this big gap in his history. I thought this would be a scary, creepy or suspenseful film. It's none of those. Just a bit irritating and highly disappointing. At least it wasn't too long. Also, maybe it's the fact that I have watched three movies today and am a bit weary (I am ill with some stomach ailment). Regardless, I don't think I would have liked the film even if I were feeling 100% and it wasn't nearly midnight...
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Ratatouille
It is pretty amazing what has been done with animation since I was a kid. First of all, back then (the early 80s or so) kids were lucky if a new animated film came out every 3 years or so. Now there are loads every year, so many that there is an entire Oscar category for animation. That also means that there are a lot of shit cartoons put out. However, Ratatouille is not one of them. Excellent animation, cute story. The computer-generated rats are so lifelike that they actually made me shudder at times, as I often do when I see those gross tails.
It was thus necessary to suspend disbelief when thinking about a rat becoming a 5-star chef in Paris, albeit surreptitiously. All in all, highly enjoyable and a must see.
Monday, January 7, 2008
No Country For Old Men
The first theater movie I have taken in this year, and I was not disappointed. Having wanted to see this film for at least 3 months now, I was psyched that I got to see while it was still out. Needless to say, I was blown away. Javier Bardem is terrifying as a murderer with arguably one of the oddest moral codes seen on screen in awhile. Josh Brolin also delivers as the fortuitous blue collar Texan who finds $2 million out in the West Texas scrub brush.
I guess you could say I'm a film buff, and I know my movie trivia fairly well, but I'm certainly not a fanatical fan of one director or actor or genre. I watch a lot of movies, I pick up on directors and whatnot, but I wouldn't last very long in one of those snobby conversations about how brilliant the Coen Bros are and how the plot nuances in Fargo clearly continue into their latter day work, blah, blah, blah...
That said, I have to say No Country for Old Men is my favorite Coen Bros offering since Lebowski. It certainly felt like one of their films as far as quirkiness and moments of dark humor go, but at other times it was something completely different than I have seen from them. Better storytelling, better plot flow, and really just an intensity that was present from the onset.
While I haven't seen too many of the other probable Oscar candidate flicks yet, it would take something extraordinary to knock this one off as my favorite thus far...
I guess you could say I'm a film buff, and I know my movie trivia fairly well, but I'm certainly not a fanatical fan of one director or actor or genre. I watch a lot of movies, I pick up on directors and whatnot, but I wouldn't last very long in one of those snobby conversations about how brilliant the Coen Bros are and how the plot nuances in Fargo clearly continue into their latter day work, blah, blah, blah...
That said, I have to say No Country for Old Men is my favorite Coen Bros offering since Lebowski. It certainly felt like one of their films as far as quirkiness and moments of dark humor go, but at other times it was something completely different than I have seen from them. Better storytelling, better plot flow, and really just an intensity that was present from the onset.
While I haven't seen too many of the other probable Oscar candidate flicks yet, it would take something extraordinary to knock this one off as my favorite thus far...
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Queen
The Royal Family doesn't really fascinate me that much, and I grew weary of Princess Di stuff long ago, but despite that, The Queen was a nice movie. It is easy to see why Helen Mirren won the Oscar for her performance. Completely convincing as Queen Elizabeth II. The story revolves around the aforementioned Royals during the week following Diana's death in 1997 (I remember it well; I was at Burning Man), and how the Queen deals with the public anguish over the event and the ensuing backlash at her apparent cold reaction. It is a very intimate and fresh perspective on the Royal Family's tenuous relationship with Diana (and with one another). I remember reviews of the film when it first came out described it as more of a TV movie than a theatrical release. That would perhaps be a fair assessment if not for Mirren's performance.
On a personal note, the same actor that plays the Queen's personal aide (Roger Allam - he looks a hell of a lot like Christopher Hitchens) also plays a crucial role in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. I will try and point out these small things I notice, not because I think I am being especially perceptive, but just to try and draw threads that can extend through my movie-watching. Hopefully I can make more connections.
On a personal note, the same actor that plays the Queen's personal aide (Roger Allam - he looks a hell of a lot like Christopher Hitchens) also plays a crucial role in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. I will try and point out these small things I notice, not because I think I am being especially perceptive, but just to try and draw threads that can extend through my movie-watching. Hopefully I can make more connections.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Hitcher
So far, so good...2 days in, 2 movies watched.
When you think of "scary" movies, or "horror" movies, what should realistic expectations be? There are so many of these put out these days, that the line sometimes becomes crossed from just thriller into horror. In my mind, there are various subcategories within the genre. First, the gory horror flick, like Hostel or Saw. Not necessarily scary frightening, just kind of disturbing and demented. Next are thriller types that are more psychological scary, like The Ring or anything in that Japanese horror category. These, to me, really stick with you and are much more haunting (if done correctly...there have been loads of crappy rip-offs of this genre as well). Then there are movies that try to be scary/thrilling/gory/suspenseful, but are too manic and end up being none of the above. The Hitcher falls into this category. Creepy roadside serial killer chases down two teens on Spring Break. Wow this sounds familiar...oh yeah, it's a remake of a 1986 version of the flick, duh.
Nevertheless, the suspense is never suspenseful. The plot is dull and as a viewer you just can't really commit to it. Even when it tries to go gory by basically drawing and quartering (truck stop-style) one of the main characters, it falls flat. Thank god it clocked in at under 90 minutes, making the pain minimal. I hate when horror moves aren't scary. I hate it worse when they aren't scary and suck on top of it. Not one of Sean Bean's best choices, but to his credit he was semi-convincing as a serial killer, just not really that scary. Sorry Boromir...
When you think of "scary" movies, or "horror" movies, what should realistic expectations be? There are so many of these put out these days, that the line sometimes becomes crossed from just thriller into horror. In my mind, there are various subcategories within the genre. First, the gory horror flick, like Hostel or Saw. Not necessarily scary frightening, just kind of disturbing and demented. Next are thriller types that are more psychological scary, like The Ring or anything in that Japanese horror category. These, to me, really stick with you and are much more haunting (if done correctly...there have been loads of crappy rip-offs of this genre as well). Then there are movies that try to be scary/thrilling/gory/suspenseful, but are too manic and end up being none of the above. The Hitcher falls into this category. Creepy roadside serial killer chases down two teens on Spring Break. Wow this sounds familiar...oh yeah, it's a remake of a 1986 version of the flick, duh.
Nevertheless, the suspense is never suspenseful. The plot is dull and as a viewer you just can't really commit to it. Even when it tries to go gory by basically drawing and quartering (truck stop-style) one of the main characters, it falls flat. Thank god it clocked in at under 90 minutes, making the pain minimal. I hate when horror moves aren't scary. I hate it worse when they aren't scary and suck on top of it. Not one of Sean Bean's best choices, but to his credit he was semi-convincing as a serial killer, just not really that scary. Sorry Boromir...
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Wind That Shakes the Barley
I am going to be absolutely diligent this year about this blog. I think the main mistake I made last year was approaching it as a way to review movies, instead of a way to actually chronicle how many films I saw. The result was I have no idea how many movies I saw in 2007 because I gave up on keeping track after not even a month. Then I made a lame attempt to try and compensate with those last few '07 posts, but that was really like shooting fish in a barrel. I easily saw over 100 movies last year if not more, only a fraction of which made it onto the blog. So, now I will write at least something about every movie I see. The posts may be long or short depending on how inspired I am to write about them. I will include all films, be they DVD/Blu-Ray, theater or cable. I will even throw in films I have already seen, just to keep the count straight.
Ok, so The Wind That Shakes the Barley was the first movie of the year on January 1st, 2008. Set in 1920, it tells of the Irish struggle for independence against Britain, which was desperately trying to keep the Empire together. From my history classes, the Brits were probably embroiled in the Boer Wars in South Africa around that same time, and were also dealing with Egypt and India to boot. Therefore, keeping Ireland in line was probably of utmost importance to the Crown, lest it risk losing the loyalties of its other imperial conquests.
Told from the Irish perspective, the film chronicles how two brothers struggle for Irish independence, but ultimately fall on different sides of the conflict when one accepts an truce with Britain while the other continues his armed resistance. Good film, visually pleasing to me at least with all the green Irish landscapes. The accents are a bit tough at times, especially when the actors occasionally venture into Gaelic (although this certainly adds an extra level of authenticity to the film). Overall, I really enjoyed it, but it probably won't appeal to a wide audience due its theme and art house feel. The cast is all Irish, with the only recognizable actor being Cillian Murphy of Batman Begins fame.
Ok, so The Wind That Shakes the Barley was the first movie of the year on January 1st, 2008. Set in 1920, it tells of the Irish struggle for independence against Britain, which was desperately trying to keep the Empire together. From my history classes, the Brits were probably embroiled in the Boer Wars in South Africa around that same time, and were also dealing with Egypt and India to boot. Therefore, keeping Ireland in line was probably of utmost importance to the Crown, lest it risk losing the loyalties of its other imperial conquests.
Told from the Irish perspective, the film chronicles how two brothers struggle for Irish independence, but ultimately fall on different sides of the conflict when one accepts an truce with Britain while the other continues his armed resistance. Good film, visually pleasing to me at least with all the green Irish landscapes. The accents are a bit tough at times, especially when the actors occasionally venture into Gaelic (although this certainly adds an extra level of authenticity to the film). Overall, I really enjoyed it, but it probably won't appeal to a wide audience due its theme and art house feel. The cast is all Irish, with the only recognizable actor being Cillian Murphy of Batman Begins fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)