K's reviews [Archive] - Movie Forums

KasperKristensen

03-04-09, 04:33 PM

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, 2005.

http://goateeandglasses.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/kiss_kiss_bang_bang.jpg

When I take the time to go to the local Bogart, pay to rent the movie, smalltalk with the chatty clerk and finally fire up the DVD player - Naturally, I expect to be entertained. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang did that for me.

Robert Downey Jr. plays the part of Harry Lockhart. He's a small-time thief who flees a toyshop when the police is alarmed. His partner gets shot and after barging into an audition where he has an emotional breakdown and gets the part, the story picks up speed. Lockhart gets involved in an investigation, along with Val Kilmer, who plays the part of a private detective. The rest of the movie is about Kilmer and Downey unraveling a complicated homicide case, due to the murder of Harmony's (Michelle Monoghan) sister.

Robert Downey Jr. is extremely good in the role of Harry Lockhart, as is Val Kilmer as Gay Perry. The relationship between Lockhart and Gay Perry is the spine of this movie and I'm happy to say that the chemistry between the two actors is outstanding. Downey's goofy comments who continuously get shot down and degraded by the cold and haughty comments of Kilmer is hilarious throughout the movie.

Downey plays that guy you feel sorry for, but laugh at, at the same time. His naive and obviously unintelligent comments such as; 'There's something wrong in Denver' and 'Perry I peed on the corpse, can't they get like ID from that?', are funny as they are, but even funnier when sarcastically degraded by a condescending Val Kilmer.

The story of this movie is complicated, however, and you might need to watch the movie a few times before you get it straight (I did), but luckily, you want to watch this movie again.
Another unfortunate thing in this movie, is the few times when the narrator (Downey Jr.) freezes the movie to spit out a joke, which don't seem that funny, since this a**hole paused your movie, just to deliver that joke. Other than that, Downey does a great job at narrating.

I love this flick. It's the kind of movie I put on when I feel like laughing. As a good comedy should, it does a great job at entertaining its audience.

4

christine

03-04-09, 05:31 PM

I liked it when I saw it at the cinema, it's fun but don't think it bears up to repeated viewings .
Nice to see you starting a review thread :)

honeykid

03-04-09, 09:54 PM

I really didn't get this film, I was disapointed. Everyone else seems to like it though and I'm glad you did too.

Thinking of it, I guess Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was 2005's In Bruges. Another film that I didn't see what the fuss was about and didn't find funny, whilst everyone else raves about it. The only difference being that I was weary of In Bruges from the start, whereas I was dying to see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

TheUsualSuspect

03-04-09, 09:59 PM

I really liked Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. I thought the comedic chemistry between Kilmer and Downey Jr was hilariously good.

Justin

03-04-09, 10:09 PM

I haven't seen it, but I'll check it out...

mark f

03-04-09, 10:12 PM

honeykid

03-04-09, 11:05 PM

:laugh:

Is that for both? Or just In Bruges?

Sedai

03-06-09, 11:48 AM

Good review. I loved the film, and watched it three times while I had my copy from Netflix. I adore RDJ, and I thought he ate this role up. Kilmer was adequate, but this was Downey's film. I do think they worked well together, though.

KasperKristensen

03-29-09, 07:57 AM

The Deer Hunter

http://psych.fullerton.edu/MBIRNBAUM/PSYCH466/adl/hobbies/deerhunter.jpg

I can’t believe I had been keeping myself from watching this movie, solely because of its age.
I was watching it with a group of friends, and even though that girl was sitting next to me, I had a hard time not watering up at some points and I was baffled that I could be this much affected by any movie.

I think you all know the story.
A group of friends, who work in the iron industry, enjoys hunting deer together. One of the guys is getting married while three other guys are going to fight in the Vietnam War. To mark these occasions they go on a deer hunt together. After the wedding (which maybe takes a bit too long in the movie) we are abruptly thrown into the action. The movie shifts to the war in Vietnam. Michael, Nicky and Steven are taken prisoners in a Viet Cong camp. After playing a deadly round of Russian roulette they escape the camp, where after the movie divides into two. We follow Michael’s return home, we see how he gets back on his feet and we see him hunt deer again. But we also see constant references to the horrors the guys experienced in the war.

Which brings us to Nicky. Nicky never returned home. He faded out from his earlier life and we follow his psychological descent. He visit prostitutes, drinks and upon stumbling into a bar where he puts a gun to his head he becomes involved in a Vietnamese ‘club’ where they play and bet on Russian roulette. The same game he and Michael were forced to play in the Viet Cong camp.
The story of Michael and the story of Nicky merge in such a heartbreaking manner, that I won’t reveal it for you, just in that unlikely case that some of you haven’t watched the movie.

This movie stars Robert de Niro and Christopher Walken. I single these two out because the other actors appear mediocre compared to them. This isn’t due to Walken and de Niro’s individual performances, but the acting between them. The chemistry is amazing – I dare say it’s the best I’ve seen. The Russian roulette scene in the camp made me feel uncomfortable. I felt sick. On the contrary to repulsing horror scenes this was a positive discomfort, since the feelings were triggered due to amazing acting instead of disgusting gore scenes.
Another memorable scene was when Nicky walked in on a game of Russian roulette. He takes the gun without hesitation and puts it to the contestant’s head and pulls the trigger, where after he immediately puts the gun to his own head – all done with a dead, indifferent look in his eyes.

These scenes were executed with amazing acting. However, the scenes wouldn’t be half as powerful, was it not for the great writing. The Russian roulette is an extremely powerful tool and the movie is plastered with brilliant symbols. One of the best is the scene with Michael and the deer. After a lengthily chase Michael finally catches up with the deer but he realizes that he can’t shoot it. The deer superiorly regards Michael, after which it slowly walks away without dignifying him another look.
Michael had just returned from the Vietnam War. He’s shot people and yet he couldn’t shoot a deer. The majestic and superior gaze of the deer seems as a symbol of the indifference and idiocy of mankind. The deer seems superior compared to Michael. It has no worries and it does not bring pain and suffering to itself. This same indifference is emphasized via Nicky, which seems to have given in to it and thrown his life away, and the green barrette who utters; “just f*ck it all’, in the beginning of the movie. The game of Russian roulette alone is filled with idiocy and meaninglessness and this game is equated with the Vietnam War itself. And war in general for that matter.

It’s been a long time since I’ve watched a movie that had this kind of emotional impact on me. I’ve always loved Walken due to his performances in ‘The Prophecy’ trilogy and his minor roles in movies such as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and even ‘Balls of Fury’ and ‘Man of the Year’. But his performance in this movie laid the basic to the man’s foundation of awesomeness. At least for me.
I’ve got nothing but love for this movie. One can argue that the story was a bit slow to start with, but, to me, that didn’t hurt the movie at all.

5

christine

03-29-09, 09:44 AM

KasperKristensen

03-29-09, 10:01 AM

Very nice review K, and thanks for watching a film that must seem ancient to you! I'm always really happy when I read of films that affect people so much, it means you're a good open person :)

Talking about loving Walken, have you seen The Dead Zone - I love him in that.

Thanks for reading. :)

I have not watched The Dead Zone. I'm on the hunt for great movies though and everything starring Walken deserves at least to be rented in my opinion. It's added to my list now. :up:

KasperKristensen

04-14-09, 04:12 PM

Cube, 1997
http://1416andcounting.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/cube.jpg

*This review contains a spoiler concerning part of the ending*
The movie sets out by killing a man in a rather grotesque manner. We see an anxious and sweaty man crawl through a door into one of the cubes. The man is clearly panicking and looks like he hasn’t eaten for days. As he places his feet on the floor of the cube a sharp cutting sound emerges, after which we see the man’s body fall apart in pieces. Then the metal net swings back in position. When you’ve seen this you pretty much know what the whole movie is about.

We follow five characters, which, from the beginning, are trapped in a cube. They soon discover that the cube is linked with other cubes on every side, thus giving the impression that they are trapped in a fairly large cube. The movie is basically about these five characters’ escape from this place.
Naturally the movie is very character based. Since the sets and visuals in this film are very alike (only differs with different colors) the excitement has to come from the characters and the traps. Now, these characters are as follows:
We have the cynical cop, Quentin,
the high school math prodigy, Leaven,
the indifferent, tired-of-living architect, Worth,
Holloway the doctor
and finally the autistic Kazan.
It’s interesting to see how the different characters react in this sort of situation. Not to mention the interaction between them. Watching people lose their minds and throw away their values and ethics are always good fun. When combined with creative death traps – doubly so. The characters’ psychological descents are a large part of this movie, and it’s executed with fairly good acting.

This is really what this movie does. It takes these characters, these archetypes, and place them in a life threatening situation where they’re absolutely helpless. They’re not evil or bad people - they’rehuman, like you and I. “They”, the anonymous people behind the cube, have decided that these five people should be put through this, and done so without no obvious reason. It’s utterly and completely pointless. They’re not some masked lunatic with reasons like the victims not enjoying life. They’re invisible throughout the movie, as are the reason for the cube itself. This builds heavy suspense, and I was genuinely frustrated that I wasn’t told what’s outside the damn cube.

This movie was good, but yet I felt like something was missing. Making a decent movie out of virtually one room and some special effects is an impressive achievement. However, the movie had a tendency to become too static, and the mathematical theory behind the cube wasn’t that exciting, to put it nicely.
The actors’ performances were good, though the actor playing Quentin had a little too much crazy eyes going to take him seriously sometimes. The characters lacked depth somehow and seemed shallow, to me. I say this due to the lack of background story, so the characters, as mentioned before, are archetypes and not individual characters with dept, so to speak.

Rent, don’t buy:
3.5

honeykid

04-14-09, 07:54 PM

Good review K. I've only seen Cube once, a year or so after it was released, but I really enjoyed it. Haven't bothered with the other two films though.

Godoggo

04-14-09, 11:25 PM

It’s been a long time since I’ve watched a movie that had this kind of emotional impact on me. I’ve always loved Walken due to his performances in ‘The Prophecy’ trilogy and his minor roles in movies such as ‘Pulp Fiction’ and even ‘Balls of Fury’ and ‘Man of the Year’.

I really liked reading your review; it reminded me a lot of how I felt after watching it. The Deer Hunter was even in my top 10 for quite awhile. Either this was my first introduction to Christopher Walken, or it's where I first became aware of him, but after that I was a fanatic and had to see everything he had done.

KasperKristensen

04-15-09, 12:32 PM

Good review K. I've only seen Cube once, a year or so after it was released, but I really enjoyed it. Haven't bothered with the other two films though.

Thanks. :)
Do you mean the other two films I've reviewed in this thread or the remaining two of the Cube triliogy?

honeykid

04-15-09, 09:24 PM

Thanks. :)
Do you mean the other two films I've reviewed in this thread or the remaining two of the Cube triliogy?

I mean the other two films in the Cube trilogy K. I've already said how I felt about KKBB a couple of posts after your review. I liked The Deer Hunter, but I haven't seen it for years.

Used Future

04-15-09, 09:39 PM

Don't bother with Cube 2: Hypercube and Cube Zero, they're pretty awful.:yup:

honeykid

04-15-09, 11:07 PM

Don't bother with Cube 2: Hypercube and Cube Zero, they're pretty awful.:yup:

Having seen the first one, I just couldn't see the point in any more of them. Much like The Matrix. Anyway, from what I've have heard about them, it appears you're right UF. :)

zedlen

04-16-09, 02:51 AM

Great reviews, keep it up

TheUsualSuspect

04-18-09, 06:51 PM

n3wt

04-18-09, 08:05 PM

K nice reviews indeed :yup:

I havent seen "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" but I am going to pick it up :up:

KasperKristensen

04-19-09, 06:09 AM

Glad you gave Cube a decent rating, I've given it a higher one because I really adore it.

The sequel takes the franchise into a more sci/fi direction and the third film (a prequel) goes wrong by trying to explain everything.

The sequel was more sci/fi, this is true. But it was too much. I liked the first one because the sci/fi wasn't overwhelming. I didn't understand the mathematical elements in it (besides the prime numbers), but that didn't matter because it wasn't the key element in the movie. The characters were. In the sequel though, the characters didn't have the same dept, since most of them were killed off fairly early.
The very complicated "theory" behind the hybercube might have been acceptable if the special effects weren't so awfull. When the story is messed up and the visuals don't make up for it, I feel like I'm wasting my time...
Well look at me, I'm reviewing even though I promised myself I wouldn't waste time on this movie.

Anyways, good morning. :)

KasperKristensen

04-22-09, 05:30 PM

American Psycho, Whenever

http://www.impawards.com/2000/posters/american_psycho_ver3.jpg

Several MoFos (you know who you are) rated this movie as one of their favorite Christian Bale performances. I expected it to be one of mine as well. The movie based on the legendary novel by Brett Easton Ellis, with Bale as the yuppie psychopath Patrick Bateman – I couldn’t wait. Especially after having experienced Bale as John Preston in Equilibrium, in which he did a great job as the emotionless-turned-enlightened government killer agent. The characters can hardly be compared but I was still impressed by Bale’s talent for playing psychotic roles. However, I was massively disappointed by Bale’s performance in this movie.
Now, I’ve only read one chapter of the book, in connection with an English class. However, it was enough to give me a good idea on how the character of Patrick Bateman was. The cold, superficial character appealed to me and I thought the character was extremely well written. After having watched Bale’s excessive and overacted interpretation of it, I felt like the original character had been raped.
When he put on the rain coat and killed the guy with the axe – the silly walk he made. Though it was comedic, I felt like he was trying to entertain a physical audience, within the movie.
The scene with the prostitutes, where he mixed his analysis of the music with perverted comments wasn’t very well done.
Through the entire movie I felt like he’d read the script and then performed the character with all the upper class superiority he could muster. It wasn’t very elegant and way too much for my taste. He was simply trying too hard, and the result was a serious case of overacting.
The voiceover – same thing.
Bale’s performance faded compared to Willem Dafoe’s. This became very clear in the scene where Dafoe was interrogating Bale. I felt like I was watching an experienced actor facing a rookie.
Then, out of the blue, Bale turns on a platter and throws out a fantastic performance, in the breakdown scene, which raises suspicion that Bale simply can’t play the upper class snob.
The chapter I’ve read was the one where Bateman tortured the homeless person. This was described in horrible detail in the book, and it was truly a disgusting read. However it was watered down in the movie. The whole situation in the book was described in a manner that was heartbreaking. In the movie it was just a couple of stabs and it was done.

I guess I just expected more from the movie based on the book, which was so violent that it was criticized of being utterly and completely pointless. And I certainly expected more from Bale.
This only sneaks up to this grade due to Bale’s performance in the breakdown scene.
2

TheUsualSuspect

04-26-09, 05:18 PM

I always thought American Psycho WAS a comedy.

Ramesh

04-27-09, 03:58 AM

Of the 3 movie you have reviewed, I have only seen KKBB. Robert Downey Jr is the petty thief turned Hollywood actor who becomes embroiled in a murder mystery with only gay detective Val Kilmer to help him. A raucous mix of black comedy and noir thriller from the writer of Lethal Weapon.

My comment - Ok

I m going to watch other two movies you have mentioned.

christine

04-27-09, 01:11 PM

.... He was simply trying too hard, and the result was a serious case of overacting.

I've said this before, but in almost every film I watch Christian Bale in I feel this way too. He never seems to be natural, I never get lost in his performances, he always ACTS. The only film where this isn't true is Empire of the Sun where his young and mannered performance was perfect. We spent the film exchanging looks of incredulity when we watched Harsh Times, along with sniggering. Truly bad.
My heart sank when I heard he was John Connor :mad:

KasperKristensen

04-27-09, 01:21 PM

I've said this before, but in almost every film I watch Christian Bale in I feel this way too. He never seems to be natural, I never get lost in his performances, he always ACTS. The only film where this isn't true is Empire of the Sun where his young and mannered performance was perfect. We spent the film exchanging looks of incredulity when we watched Harsh Times, along with sniggering. Truly bad.
My heart sank when I heard he was John Connor :mad:

Wauv. I thought people would really disagree with me on this one...

But I kinda agree with you.
Batman, no doubt your right in my opinion.
American Psycho - obviously.
The Machinist - Scary, but real imo.
Equilibrium - Best movie Bale has ever been in.

Ramesh:
Glad you decided to give Deer Hunter a go. If you have any taste in movies, you won't be disappointed, I promise.

The Prestige

04-27-09, 02:20 PM

Equilibrium - Best movie Bale has ever been in.

Seriously? What did you like about Equilibrium then???

KasperKristensen

04-27-09, 03:03 PM

Seriously? What did you like about Equilibrium then???

Equilibrium, 2002.
http://equilibriumfans.com/Equilibrium_Still0578md.jpg

This movie was placed on the bottom shelf in the comedy section in my local rental place. I walked by it. Then I noticed Bale's face on the cover, so I picked it up and read on the back. And I liked what I saw. Yet I got the feeling that this was totally underrated. I haven't heard of it before and the clerk had the nerve to misplace this Bale movie, which, to me, somehow gave me a bad first impression. So I rent it and watch it, and I wondered why I hadn't heard of this before and I shamed myself for being suspicious just because of my immediate, unreasonable thoughts of this movie.

This was great. The fictional dystopian society, which seems ideal on the surface but obviously isn't. The path John Preston takes to discover this and the obstacles he must overcome.
The fact that things had gotten so bad, that the people were unable to see all this beauty surrounding them, was brilliantly depicted in the movie via the scene where Partridge read the poem to Preston (brilliantly done by Sean Bean), who was evidently unaffected by it. But somehow it still left a mark, which lead to Preston's enlightenment, thus illustrating the point that no matter how cold, emotionless and psychopathic one gets, there's always going to be a small piece of humanity left, proving that this person is still human.
This was also brilliantly illustrated in the scene where Preston wakes up, and experiences a sunrise for the first time. Bale did a great job there. I would even say that I was so caught up in the movie, at that point, that Bale actually came on as believable.

People tend to focus on the fight/action scenes, instead of focusing on these aspects of the movie. Not that there was anything wrong with these scenes at all, they were very enjoyable, but it's a shame that they cause the audience to write this movie off as just another action flick.

Christian Bale was truly great in this movie. Think about it - how do you act without being allowed to show emotions? My point is, that even though Bale was playing an emotionless character, for a significant part of the movie, he was still a joy to watch. He made juice without oranges.
And since the original character was played brilliantly emotionless by Bale, the turned-enlightened character became that much more powerful, and had that much stronger of an impact - at least on me.

4

Prestige, I assume from your signature that you're quite the Nolans fan, and thus slightly insulted that I chose this movie over the Batmans (do correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not denying that they are great flicks but they just didn't work for me. I'm not elaborating, one random movie review is more than enough, for one day.

Sleezy

04-27-09, 04:05 PM

Read George Orwell's 1984.

KasperKristensen

04-27-09, 04:19 PM

Thanks Sleez, I'll add it to my list. :)

honeykid

04-27-09, 10:26 PM

Read George Orwell's 1984.

Or visit Britain. Same diff.

christine

04-28-09, 09:44 AM

or visit britain. Same diff.

lol

The Prestige

04-28-09, 01:50 PM

KasperKristensen

04-28-09, 02:02 PM

[quote=KasperKristensen;524887]Equilibrium, 2002.
http://equilibriumfans.com/Equilibrium_Still0578md.jpg

quote]

Well you certainly made the film sound a lot better than it actually is and I applaud you for taking the time to do an in depth review.

Well, I certainly didn't think I did. :)
And thanks.

The problem with playing an emotionless character is that you can only go so far with them. The character is, after all, emotionless.

But that was exactly my point.
To me, Bale did go as far as one can go with the emotionless part of the character. And I agree, the movie would be boring if the character was nothing but emotionless. But the character stopped taking the drugs and where able to feel again, which brought dept to the character.
I wouldn't have blamed Bale if he'd done a mediocre job with the emotionless character, but he didn't. He made it believable.

And i'm not insulted by your choice at all, mate. I was very surprised that you would say that, yeah. But not insulted at all. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Obviously the Nolanised Batman films won't be to every single living breathing person's taste and I can understand that.

Cool.

Performance wise, I reckon Bale was exceptional as Patrick Bateman.

I truly can't see that, and I strongly disagree. But different taste and all that...

In terms of being in his best film, it's The Dark Knight for me.

I can understand that. :)

KasperKristensen

05-06-09, 02:01 PM

Good Will Hunting, 1997

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Picture/8460/hunting2.gif
Will (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000354/) - Beethoven, okay. He looked at a piano, and it just made sense to him. He could just play.
Skylar (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000378/) - So what are you saying? You play the piano?
Will (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000354/) - No, not a lick. I mean, I look at a piano, I see a bunch of keys, three pedals, and a box of wood. But Beethoven, Mozart, they saw it, they could just play. I couldn't paint you a picture, I probably can't hit the ball out of Fenway, and I can't play the piano.
Skylar (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000378/) - But you can do my o-chem paper in under an hour.
Will (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000354/) - Right. Well, I mean when it came to stuff like that... I could always just play.

I'm very subjective when it comes to Good Will Hunting.
I remember seeing it for the first time with my aunt, when she was attending high school. After having watched it, I knew right then and there that I wanted to go to high school too. The movie had a huge impact on me, and even though I’m not a brilliant prodigy I related to the character of Will Hunting. The character fascinated me and, at that time, I could identify with Hunting’s anger and his feelings of being misunderstood.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3500000/GWH-Poster-good-will-hunting-3599205-360-240.jpg

This movie introduced me to Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Robin Williams, all at once. I honestly couldn’t have wished for a better introduction. The fact that Damon and Affleck wrote this film, starred in it, and won Oscars impressed me a great deal, and it only made the movie better.
Damon’s acting impressed me even more, and he became the ‘ideal actor’ to me, at that time (I hadn’t watched that many movies, other than cartoons). It was with Damon’s performance in mind that I began taking acting classes.
Robin Williams’ character, the psychologist who doesn’t care about materialistic possessions and prestige, but merely wants to help and influence people, became my ideal view of how a psychologist ought to be (this kind of character is what Williams does best – if you don’t believe me, you should watch Dead Poets Society and Patch Adams). Williams’ character spawned my thoughts of some day becoming a psychologist myself.

http://www.psu.com/media/Good-Will-Hunting-still-one.jpg

This ‘review’ hasn’t been like the other reviews I’ve made. I’ve left out commenting on all the technical elements, such as the composition, symbolism etc. But when it comes to this movie, they just aren’t important to me and they have nothing to do with this movie being in my top ten list. This is the only movie, which have influenced me to this degree. When I had finished primary school I had no clue what I wanted to do. Who knows what I would’ve done, and where I would’ve been today, if this movie had escaped my attention. Maybe I would've just sat around watching movies all day. Call me nostalgic. ;)

A rating would be pointless.

KasperKristensen

05-13-09, 05:03 PM

Jersey Girl, 2004.
http://www.jonathankuehlein.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jersey-girl.jpg

“My dad says that life can be split into two categories. New Jersey and New York”.

There are movies that completely shatter your expectations. Often these movies star actors, which usually do something completely different, or they are directed by directors, who normally make movies with very different themes. Reign Over Me was very serious and not something you would normally expect from Adam Sandler. Stranger Than Fiction and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are similar movies, starring actors, whose main occupation have formerly been comedies. Jersey Girl does the same thing.

Kevin Smith is the man behind movies such as Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Zack and Miri Make a Porno. These are all comedies, containing dialogue based humor, which mainly relates to a younger audience. Some find the so-called Viewaskewniverse hilarious, while some regard it as juvenile and immature. However, I would be surprised if both audiences couldn’t appreciate Jersey Girl.

The movie starts out similar to Spanglish. The main character’s daughter reads a school essay, which tells the story of her life with her father. Her mother died giving birth to her, leaving her father (Ben Affleck) to raise her alone. The father, Ollie, doesn’t want to face that his baby depends on him and he distances himself from her. This result in him having an angry outburst in front of reporters, which results in him being expelled from the music industry for good. He becomes a street sweeper, the same job as his father (George Carlin) posses. Ollie is very bitter that he’s lost his high profile job, which affects his relationship with his daughter. His father has to put him in his right place and Ollie finally realizes that he has to take responsibility and adapt to his new situation. The story escalates from there, until we finally realize that Ollie has been secretly bitter that the mother and his daughter have taken his ‘ideal life’ away from him. Eventually, Ollie comes to terms with his current situation and accepts his new role in life – a father.

I’m pleased to say that Jay and Silent Bob don’t make an appearance in this movie. Holden McNeil and Banky are also gone, which seems like a statement from Smith. This isn’t that kind of film. Like Reign Over Me this movie differs from its heritage by being serious. Unlike Clerks this movies actually has something to say. The sole purpose of this movie isn’t to entertain via humor, like Smith’s previous works, but to entertain via strong emotional scenes, good acting chemistry and a meaningful message. The former immature humor has been replaced with a more mature kind of humor.

Ben Affleck does a surprisingly good job as a loving father and the chemistry between him and Raquel Castro (the daughter) is amazing. I normally don’t think much of child actors, but Castro really impressed me. Besides, she was adorable.
George Carlin plays the role of the working-man-grandfather. Don’t expect to see any typical Carlin humor, though Carlin does have his moments.
Ollie’s girlfriend is played by Liv Tyler (Lord of the Rings). Her eccentric and slightly kooky character is very lovable and very well played at that.

This movie is properly sprinkled with very emotional, humoristic and heartbreaking scenes, which gives the movie a boost when needed, and maintains the viewer’s attention.

This movie is very unlike Smith. I was looking forward to watching a comedy you didn’t really need to commit too, but I ended up watching a descent movie with a nice message. Ollie spent the first eight years of his life with his daughter, longing for a life that was long gone. He wanted the high profile, glamorous, New Yorker life back, without realizing that everything he really needed and loved was right there – in New Jersey.

4

KasperKristensen

05-16-09, 07:08 PM

>>Casually bringing this up again to possibly get a minimum amount of feedback<<

KasperKristensen

05-28-09, 05:48 PM

Are these last two reviews bad? I'm not whining, I want to know. :) Constructive critisism is very welcome.

mark f

05-28-09, 06:57 PM

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with the reviews of the two Ben Affleck films, but I will make some comments. I realize that you like Kevin Smith, so it makes sense that you mention him while discussing Jersey Girl. However, since you like Good Will Hunting even more, I find it surprising that you never mentioned its director, Gus Van Sant, in your write-up. Both of your reviews are very personal, and I find that a good thing, but maybe you could personalize your comments even more. For example, how did Damon impress you so much that you took acting classes? What things did he do specifically which you related to so much?

As far as Jersey Girl goes, are you impressed with it because it's a Smith film which seems more mature than his others? What I'm trying to get at is would you have liked it as much if somebody else had directed it? Or perhaps, would you have even watched it if Smith hadn't directed it?

I agree with much of what you say in your reviews, but I'm not sure that the reviews totally put me inside your head, especially since you find both films significant, especially Good Will Hunting. I don't have to get inside your head to appreciate what you say and how you say it, but it will get my attention more if you cut me to the bone the same way the movie cuts you. :)

KasperKristensen

05-28-09, 07:03 PM

Thanks Mark, that was great. :)

nebbit

05-28-09, 07:04 PM

Nice reviews you little http://bestsmileys.com/ghost/1.gif

I saw The Deer Hunter at the movies when it came out :yup: I wasn't sure what to expect it blew me away :yup: Umm does that statement show my age :laugh:

KasperKristensen

05-28-09, 07:06 PM

Pretty much. You were 19 in my head. ;)
Thanks for all the rep Neb.

nebbit

05-28-09, 10:00 PM

Yes you are right :yup: well I wish you were :laugh:

KasperKristensen

07-19-09, 02:20 PM

Antichrist

http://www.thevine.com.au/resources/imgdetail/290409031826_antichrist-movie-dafoe.jpg

Director – Lars Von Trier.
Cast – Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg.

I heard a woman threw up at the movies while watching this. I was skeptic. Thought it was all a bunch of hype. I even told the women sitting next to me (who were covering their eyes all the time, even before there was any scary stuff) that this wasn’t a horror and they ought to calm down. I was wrong. Half an hour into the film I was the one doing all the covering and turning away.

This is by far the strangest, most disturbing, most horrifying and most graphic movie I have ever seen. I will never watch this movie again.

The plot is simple. It’s about a married couple whose baby son crawled out of a window and died, while they were making love. The husband is a psychiatrist and the mother has recently quit some sort of adult education. The woman suffers an emotional breakdown and the husband takes her as a patient and attempts to cure her throughout the movie. He takes her to the place she fears the most, the woods, in order to get rid of the fear. That specific part of the woods is called Eden. The woman eventually goes insane and, well, see for yourself.

Knowing a bit about Von Trier helps to understand this film. Von Trier has had to endure various, serious depressions and as a result, he views the world differently than most people, which is obvious in the film.
The beginning (prologue) and the end (epilogue) of the movie is shot in very similar styles. It’s black and white and the slow motion effects and background music makes it very beautiful. Everything in between is dark and horrible. Maybe this is a statement. Everything between birth and death is suffering and only in death, or non-existence, do we find peace.

The baby boy, who usually is a symbol of life, beginnings and joie de vivre, dies, or if you stretch it, commits suicide.

Various animals appear throughout the movie; a blood-covered fox, a deer which is in the middle of giving birth and an infant crow. The fox is in China believed to be a signal from the spirits of the deceased. At some point in the movie the fox looks into the camera and yells; Chaos reigns! Thus stating that there is no afterlife.

The deer giving birth is, like the baby boy, a symbol of life. However, the deer infant is dead and nothing about the miracle, that is birth, is beautiful.

The crow is commonly known as a symbol of negative omens. At one point, the husband attempts to kill a new born crow, because it’s giving away his hideout. However, the crow proves difficult to kill and it takes several blows with a rock before the bird falls silent.

Have a look at the movie poster. The tree is supposed to be the tree of life. However the tree is fertilized with dead bodies. And that is, in a nutshell, the message of this film. What if birth, life and death aren’t beautiful miracles, blessed by God? To Lars Von Trier they aren’t and this movie is a lens through which we are offered to view the world as he does.

I honestly wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone. Not because it isn’t a wonderfully executed piece of cinema but because I felt sick watching it. I very rarely have to look away and I never experienced that I couldn’t eat my popcorn. Until I watched this movie.

One Danish film critic said that one third of the audience would give this movie five stars. The second part would give it zero. And the last part would have no idea what they’ve just seen.

5

Yoda

07-19-09, 02:27 PM

This seems to be the way a lot of people are approaching Antichrist...talk about how disgusting and horrible it is, and then give it 5. :laugh:

I've read about some of the content, and I'm not sure I'll ever be seeing this. It does make me want to write something about what the goal of most cinema really is, and whether or not simply having an objective and achieving it is deserving of any kind of praise.

KasperKristensen

07-19-09, 02:30 PM

The "content" of the movie is disgusting and horrible. But the movie itself isn't. The symbolism is ingenious.

Yoda

07-19-09, 02:44 PM

Then I suppose the question becomes whether or not the content is at all necessary to symbolize these things. Obviously, I'm skeptical that it is. I think there's a temptation to excuse such content because there's art within it, but I tend to take the opposite approach: that it's all the less excusable, because the content overshadows and spoils whatever legitimate things the film might want to say. Because someone with genuine talent is capable of better, and should know better.

I realize, of course, that I'm discussing this in a very abstract way, because I haven't seen the film (and I won't), so forgive me if I'm pontificating a little. :)

Anyway, everything I hear about von Trier indicates that he's kind of a messed up guy with some pretty odd ideas about what movies ought to be.

KasperKristensen

07-19-09, 02:50 PM

Anyway, everything I hear about von Trier indicates that he's kind of a messed up guy with some pretty odd ideas about what movies ought to be.

Don't you think this could bring some different and interresting movies to the table though?

Yoda

07-19-09, 02:54 PM

Sure. I'm just not convinced that anything different has much value merely for being different. I could make a film that was nothing but high-pitched noises and screams, and it would be different, and to some I'm sure it would be interesting, but I don't know that it'd be, well, good.

I guess that's what it comes down to: is something good just because it's unusual? Or just because it creates feelings of disgust? Should we be concerned with how a movie makes us feel, or only that it makes us feel? I've been thinking about this a lot, and will probably write something formal about it at some point.

I'm totally hijacking your review thread at this point, though. :laugh: Sorry about that. I'm just very interested in this topic.

KasperKristensen

07-19-09, 02:57 PM

Sure. I'm just not convinced that anything different has much value merely for being different. I could make a film that was nothing but high-pitched noises and screams, and it would be different, and to some I'm sure it would be interesting, but I don't know that it'd be, well, good.

I guess that's what it comes down to: is something good just because it's unusual? Or just because it creates feelings of disgust? Should we be concerned with how a movie makes us feel, or only that it makes us feel? I've been thinking about this a lot, and will probably write something formal about it at some point.

Let's continue this discussion when you do. In a different thread.

Yoda

07-19-09, 03:02 PM

Will do. Thanks for indulging my babbling. :)

mark f

07-19-09, 04:41 PM

The way you describe von Trier's concerns about the world actually sound very similar to those of Werner Herzog, Ingmar Bergman and Woody Allen, to tell you the truth.

KasperKristensen

07-19-09, 04:43 PM

I had no idea.

KasperKristensen

09-21-09, 07:05 PM

Inglourious Basterds – An Interpretation

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2009/08/nazi-670x381.jpg

They sure kill a lot of Nazis. That’s probably the immediate description one would give of the film. Then one could go on describing specific scenes that were extraordinarily violent; like when The Bear Jew bashed the Nazi’s skull in with a bat, when Aldo Raines carved the Nazi cross into Hans Landa’s forehead or when one of the Basterds shot Hitler’s face off. But in the midst of this Nazi-killing massacre and extreme violence hides a strikingly brilliant film.

The Basterds is a group of Jew-American soldiers, whose sole purpose is to kill as many Nazis as they possibly can. Their means are those of extreme, inhumane violence and they have no mercy. This group is lead by lieutenant Aldo Raines, an American soldier from Tennessee, who Brad Pitt plays to near perfection. Like the rest of the Basterds, Aldo Raines has no mercy for the Nazis, since he believes that they’re such cruel and inhumane adversaries that they don’t deserve any form of forgiveness or justice.

In the film a fictional movie named Nation’s Pride is presented. In the end an assembly of high society Nazis is watching this movie in a theater. During that scene I got the distinct impression that the movie the Nazis were watching was very much like the movie I was watching. Nation’s Pride was about a German soldier who was killing off opponents of the Third Reich by the hundreds. In the movie he was carving the Nazi cross into the floor of the clock tower he was shooting from.
Inglourious Basterds is about a group of Jew-American soldiers who are killing Nazis by the hundreds, carving the Nazi cross into their foreheads. The resemblance of the two movies is apparent. On our side, in front of the screen, we’re watching an American, anti-Nazi, propaganda film. On the screen, the Germans are watching a German, anti-Jewish, propaganda film.
Both movies are, after all, just about people killing people, who they believe deserve to be killed. And in the sense that Inglourious Basterds is just about killing and violence it doesn’t have much to say. But given that it has so little to say, it says a whole lot. In essence, it becomes a modern parody of an old German propaganda flick.

5

mark f

09-21-09, 07:39 PM

That's an elegantly-simple explanantion which shows why some viewers love it more than others. I like it, a lot, and I'm sure that Tarantino wants to invest the film with that duality since it is all over the place if you think about it even more. I just think it could still be a lot better even if it was perhaps a bit shorter or the Landa character didn't sell out for one of QT's joke finales. But, as I said, I like it a lot, and although I haven't seen as many new films as usual this year, it's probably the best one I've seen so far.

KasperKristensen

09-21-09, 07:55 PM

Are you talking about the "that's a bingo!"-line?

mark f

09-21-09, 08:27 PM

No, I meant the actual final scene with the swastika. For some reason, it reminded me of the ending of Four Rooms, and I hate the Tarantino segment because the only good thing it had was a stolen joke finale. Remember, I still like/love Inglourious Basterds. :cool:

KasperKristensen

09-21-09, 08:31 PM

Well, to me that scene was the final jab aimed at the Nazis. Basically saying that even though you're prepared to give up your nazi beliefs for personal gain, we're still hating you and you're still a Nazi and we still kinda wanna cut you in your head. It was hilarious to me. :)

mark f

09-21-09, 08:55 PM

Oh yes, it was a much better ending than Four Rooms, but it was almost totally-predictable since Brad Pitt had already spelled it out verbally and shown it previously. I think I laughed too in the theatre because the "victim" would apparently have no way of knowing it, although he's supposed to be the expert on most everything. Of course, Aldo Ray (I mean, Raines) says that he doesn't feel he gets as much respect as he should from Landa. HA!

KasperKristensen

09-21-09, 09:29 PM

It was pretty predictable yeah. But not to Landa, which makes it funny. We know what he's got coming to him, but he doesn't, like you said :)
Four rooms was a wierd flick. The rooms didn't have much relation to each other which made it booring to watch for me. And what's with putting it in a Bruce Willis box set and then he's only in it for the last 15 minutes?

KasperKristensen

11-20-10, 01:56 PM

The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day

http://www.filmsnmovies.com/media/posts/000749.jpg

Ten years after the beloved, vigilante cult classic, The Boondock Saints, its sequel finally hit theaters. Not that anyone was expecting a continuation of what now looks like a potential series, since director Troy Duffy wasn’t in the best light with Hollywood financial types and since the first movie didn’t exactly sped towards a sequel. Its comedic release and a big chunk of the movies personality was killed off in the final act and the movie ended with a montage of opinions from the man on the street thus putting the movie to a visible, though not definitive, full stop.

Regardless, The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day sets out in the homeland of Ireland, where the MacManus brothers (Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus) have retired, along with their father Noah (Billy Connoly), and are now working on a sheep farm, leading simple, murder free lives of hard work and solitude. Tolkien wrote that tales of peace, though pleasant, are not all that interesting and the MacManus brothers are soon forced into action as the news of a murdered priest, “a good man”, reach them. The murder was staged to look like the work of the Saints, complete with two shots to the head, arms crossed and coins placed over the victims’ eyes.
“Someone’s trying to call them out. You kill a priest. In a church. And make it look like it was them. Bring them back with a vengeance. Someone thinks it’s really clever. Only one problem with this little plan... It worked.”

The brothers are off to Boston, where they are joined by a few additional characters but also a surprising amount of familiar faces. Amongst the former we find Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.), a feisty yet self-conscious Mexican and Special Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz), the prodigy of Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe). It is difficult to decide who of these actors have the biggest shoes to fill. Is it the replacement of the funniest character from the first movie or the replacement of, well, Willem Dafoe? Difficult as that may be it is almost depressingly easy to immediately deduce who nearly pulls it off and who decidedly falls short.
Clifton Collins Jr. brings his own energy as he teams up with the Saints, much like David Della Rocco did in the first installment. Diehard fans will miss Rocco’s unique comedy but still find small comfort and a fair number of laughs in Collin’s attempt.
However, people expecting the same kind of brilliance as Willem Dafoe’s will be immensely disappointed with Julie Benz’s performance. It is clear that director Troy Duffy wanted to bring the same kind of punch he did with Dafoe but a questionable (at best) and catastrophic (at worst) casting error resulted in a two dimensional character with an unconvincing, outright laughable southern accent slapped on top.

But why should one compare these characters? Because they are obvious replacements of their predecessors and attempt to fulfill the exact same roles. The same kind of thing occurs with various scenes in the movie. The prank scene, the black and white documentary like montage, the death of a dear friend scene, the scene that sets up the federal agent and the armory scene are all in this sequel as well. But since these are obviously copied from the first movie they don’t pack the same amount of punch anymore.
And herein lays the core problem with The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day; it desperately attempts to be the original, so much so that it comes off as formulaic, bland and even cowardice.

Until the last part of the movie.

One of the aforementioned familiar faces unexpectedly swoops in and with a well-written, well-acted rant that does the character justice and then some, launches the movie into welcomed, unfamiliar territory. With this rant Troy Duffy proves that he can do fan service the right way instead of just slightly editing scenes and characters from a movie that came out ten years ago, in essence plagiarizing his own work. Regardless the plot gains momentum from here on out with well paced action beats that climaxes nicely and fades out even better, leaving the audience with a highly intriguing plot for a third installment.

One wonders why the quality and originality of these last twenty minutes couldn’t have infused the rest of the film. One wonders why we have to gawk at unfortunate eye tuck jobs instead of having allowed the Saints to grow old and battle worn. One wonders why we have to sit through the same predictable plot for a sizeable portion of the movie, yawning and snickering at obvious, inferior replacements of previously well done characters.

All Saints Day is a mixed affaire. Performances are all over the map and the writing spans from original and funny to unoriginal and laughable, yet somehow it still manages to make any fan of the first film crave seeing a third.

2.5

Loner

11-20-10, 06:18 PM

Hey KK, have you seen the documentary Overnight? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390336/)

KasperKristensen

11-20-10, 07:03 PM

No but I've heard of it. Thanks for reminding me, I forgot I wanted to watch that. :up:

KasperKristensen

11-20-10, 07:05 PM

By the way - read the review, take the quiz (http://www.movieforums.com/community/quiz.php?quizid=44).

KasperKristensen

07-18-11, 02:31 PM

Here we go! It's been too long.

Rango Review

http://www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rango-movie-poster-02-550x361.jpg

Having spent the entirety of his life behind glass walls Lars is a bit strange. Having known no social contact either, except his inanimate friends (or “cast members”), he has developed a set of characters rather than an actual personality. But when the scenes end and the delusion shatter he is left in a horrible moment of clarity and sanity. Looking out at a world he can only observe a horrible question pops into his mind - Who am I?
And then the car crashes. He is thrown from the comfort of his self-made paradigm and lands on a road in the middle of the Mojave Desert. In the real world, where he’s the only lizard who can’t fade and the only one who doesn’t know to hide at the shadow of a Hawke. Where the animals have had millions of years to adapt to the harsh environment… but the lizard? He’s going to die, said the Mariachi.
Lars meets a semi flattened armadillo who guides him to the nearest town on a quest for water. The town of Dust is a place of great corruption, an even greater drought and home to a tough bunch of characters. And Lars the lizard doesn’t blend in, which becomes painfully clear the second he enters the local saloon. Until it occurs to him that he can be anyone he wants. And he becomes Rango.
Rango, who killed seven men with one bullet. Who’s from the far west, beyond the sunset, where they kill a man before breakfast just to work up an appetite. Lars, on the other hand, isn’t. But touched by either dumb luck or divine fate he convinces the townsfolk that he is in fact a living legend. He becomes the town sheriff and gets involved in an intricate investigation to find out what happened to the town’s water supply.

Rango is everything Lars thinks a legendary cowboy should be. Having the mind of an actor Lars creates a caricature in excess and assumes that role with matching confidence. But it’s always clear to the audience that Lars doesn’t know what he’s doing. He relies on false confidence and bravado while desperately praying not to get eaten or found out. Brilliantly voiced by Johnny Depp the character is convincing as both Lars and Rango.

Animated features and westerns don’t usually blend but Rango pulls it off in an interesting way. It doesn’t sacrifice the gritty realities of the old west or even the heavy accents (that are extremely well done) but opts to be honest without being too violent. People died in the old west and the film doesn’t try to conceal this fact but kills its characters off in less graphical ways, like drowning or, well, smushing.
The animations and characters are great but not something you would expect from Nickelodeon at all. One rabbit has got an arrow stuck in his eye and several lizard characters might be frightening to some kids, with their yellow eyes, pointy teeth and realistically scaled skin. But the characters that are supposed to be the good guys aren’t evil or immoral but rather eccentric and varied. They’re the kind of characters you would expect in a western, with a few silly ones thrown in the mix to keep it fun.

Animated movies have always tried to keep it interesting for the kids and their parents alike but some might say that Rango went overboard trying to please the parents. Rango is packed with grown-up jokes and references to movies like Fear and Loathing and Apocalypse Now. These are films kids shouldn’t be watching and you can easily assume that they’re not going to get it. The question then becomes whether these adult gags occur too often and too visibly to make the whole thing boring to a ten year old.
The film still tells a heroic story about sacrifice, friendship and that you can be anything you want to be. But beware that it does so tongue-in-cheek and honestly.

Rango’s themes are surprisingly mature and emits in part from an existential crisis, which might sound a bit too heavy for kids to enjoy. But the honest message stands true. Sometimes you gotta sack up and be a hero.

4

Yoda

07-18-11, 02:47 PM

KasperKristensen

07-18-11, 03:08 PM

Dig the review. :up: I like the observation you sort of touched on (intentionally?) that he doesn't blend in literally or figuratively.

And yeah, huge swaths of the film feel too heavy for children, but mainly in superficial ways. I tend to prefer family films that challenge kids philosophically, but some of the language and execution were iffy for younger moviegoers. I can see some of those scenes genuinely scaring some kids.

Thanks buddy! Aye that was intentional. It seemed a bit weird to ignore the irony.

I watched an interview with Depp and he said that it was great to be able to bring a bit of Hunter Thompson to the character, which is cool and all but not really suitable for this kind of movie.
It's not really the language that worries me. Sure it's controversial and all but another thing I left out is the film's tendency to break the fourth wall and otherwise reveal the wheels that turn during the writing process. "Victor you were right! I have been undefined. The hero cannot exist within a vacuum. What our story needs is an ironic, unexpected event that will propel the hero into conflict! And then the car crashes. Personally I love it when writers have the nerve to do this but it's something that would probably only confuse a young audience. Another thing was the huge eye that opened during the underground part of the movie. There's all sorts of stuff I could read into that but a child might sit there and wait for the giant to arrive during the rest of the movie.