One Movie A Day Remix

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've thought long and hard (insert joke) about this and want to give it another shot. The reasoning for the failure of the last one was that I had way too much work on my plate. With being in my final year of college and all, the film projects demanded way too much from me to be able to watch one film a day.

Well, that is over and done with. We had our films premiere and it was a success. I've only got 2 more weeks left of school, and then I apparently have to move on with this thing I call a life. Work? More Films? Girlfriend? All the above.

I still have the list of the films that were recommended last time and they will be watched this time around. And I am hoping to stay on track with the dates and not have an update from a month ago. It makes things more complicated than it has to be.

So, with more time to dedicate 2 some odd hours to a film, I am ready to give this another shot. That and I don't like to start something and not finish it.

By the time this is done, I hope to have a new a remastered top 100 list, which I will post. It's changed a bit and while I still have a lot of personal films on it, it shows more growth and taste as I got older. All lists still need to be personal though.

As always, more recommendations are welcomed. If I fall back a day, I expect someone to get my ass back in gear.

To make it worth your while, and mine, I won't review any film that I reviewed in my last attempt and as the months go on, there will be special genres (October - horror, December - Christmas/Family).

I know you all care :p and only some of you are rolling your eyes :eek: but this will begin May 1st, 2010. Like I said in the original thread, it would have to be in May. I've got a few films all ready to go and sitting beside the TV for the start. I currently have 34 films off to the side, all of them I have not seen. Some might surprise you. So for the first month or so, it will all be fresh new viewings. I'm trying to watch new films, but seeing a new film each day is even harder.

See you there,

Matt.

[n3wt]

Look forward to it mate :up:

[Yoda]

Should be tough, but I'm glad you're trying this again. :up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

With a more thorough plan and movies actually set aside for me to watch. I'm hoping I can get through on this one.

Plus, it gives me an excuse to watch the Hitchcock films I have yet to see.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 1: May 1st, 2010

Nightmare On Elm Street

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/00021993.jpg

An Hour & A Half Of Cheap By The Book Horror Scares

Yes, this is cheating a little bit but I wasn't going to let this one go to waste. So instead, I'm making it my first entry.

The children on Elm street are all having the same nightmare, a horribly burned man with a glove of knives on his hand trying to kill them. If you die in your sleep, you die in real life. This is the re-invention of the horror icon Freddy Krueger.

First it was Leatherface, then Jason and now Freddy. The Michael Bay produced horror vehicles are back in full swing with more teenagers to die, more blood to splatter and more CGI effects in place of actual special effects. It was only a matter of time before one of the most famous horror icons got his remake and here it is, with a new actor behind the hat and sweater. The original Nightmare on Elm Street has a special place in my heart. Watching it at 2 in the morning at a cottage in the middle of the woods really made for a frightening experience. His reappearance in later films made him more of a comical villain than someone to really be afraid of, but now those who are bringing him back want to take him, not only back to his horrific original self, but to dive even deeper and make him more frightening than ever before.

They succeed in making this version of Freddy more scary than his previous outings and more real with the make-up of being a burned victim, but in the end, this character just isn't as scary as he once was. Jackie Earle Haley does a magnificent job as Freddy, which is saying something because he's taking over the role of someone who's been doing it for 20 years and he's covered in make up for most of the film. Even though he does his Rorschach voice again, it's still well done and nice to hear. He stands out in an otherwise lame and lazy horror remake. You know the film is going to have problems when you see Freddy in full in the first 5 minutes.

To be fair, this isn't a total train wreck. There are worse horror remakes out there *cough* Prom Night *cough*. But this Nightmare is too serious for such a silly concept. We dive immediately into the problem, with a murder of one of the kids. We are then told that the kids have been seeing Freddy for sometime now. Which is lazy writing. We are already too late into the story. We should be with the characters when they are first encountering him, not keeping it a secret from others. We can't connect to these characters at all.

There are plenty moments of really bad CGI. The scary and famous scene in the original when Freddy leans out from the wallpaper watching the character sleeping was some pretty scary stuff. Here, it is an afterthought and it looks horribly fake. The film relies way too much on fake, cheap and useless scares. I thought we were getting past these stupid things. The film uses it so much that you expect it to happen and it loses all meaning. Thus, the film becomes formulaic. Character nods off, they are asleep without knowing it, see Freddy, cheap scare, they wake up. Repeat for every other character in the film and you begin to fill up the 95 minute time slot.

Now, for fans of the series, I can say this about the films. Every death in the nightmare films were creative. Puppeteering death? Awesome stuff. Here he slices people with his glove. Nothing spectacular. I guess since they tried to make him serious they wanted to take out all the fun and exciting deaths, instead they tried to keep it real. Well, Friday the 13th managed to keep it's fun and cheesy attitude, this nightmare doesn't and it falls flat. It was too serious for it's own good and has no terror, no thrills and no suspense.

Our lead, Nancy, Rooney Mara, is not memorable at all. She is no Langenkamp and the whole time I was watching her I kept thinking, "This is what Abigail Breslin will look like in 10 years". Clancy Brown is underused and instead of paying attention to Kyle Gallner, I kept trying to remember where I have seen him before. The answer is the equally lame horror film Jennifer's Body.

I can give this film praise where it is deserved. Freddy looks great and is more terrifying than what his previous installments had him be and the ending is clearly the highlight. I was cheering, which was a surprise to me. The sound design is really great as well. Freddy's voice is all over the place and at times I thought he was in the theatre. But in the end, this Nightmare remake is really a disappointment.

2

[thracian dawg]

One down, 364 left to go.

There's no way to you can keep up this pace. It made me tired just reading this.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Well, to be fair. If I see a theatrical film the review will be longer. Usually it will be a paragraph or two.

[thracian dawg]

A wise man! I'd even reduce it to a couple of sentences.

[The Prestige]

To misquote Jimmy McNulty, 'oh Freddy, I had such high ****in' hopes for us'.

Can't say im surprised by the negativity, but I was hoping it would somehow transcend itself. Oh well, at least it sounds like Haley's done a good job. I'm still going to see this at the cinema, mind. Just because im a fan of the original and I was always too young to see a Nightmare film in the cinema.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 2: May 2nd, 2010

Revolutionary Road

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/revolutionary-road-poster.jpg

The American Dream, Is Actually A Nightmare.

A young couple living in 1950's suburbia think they are different from all the other families living the American Dream. Although, they soon find out that not every dream comes true and they fall exactly into the situations they didn't want to be in. Their marriage is falling apart, they have trouble raising their children and they want out of this lifestyle.

Sam Mendes is a filmmaker who knows exactly what he wants, which is why he would want to work on this film. Revolutionary Road is probably his least interesting film, story wise. After-all, it's just about two people who try to cope with their lives. There is no motivational plot to it, but the thing about this film is that it doesn't need one. We are getting a glimpse into the lives of two people who had big dreams and realized that they had to sacrifice them in order to live their lives. It's sad, but it also rings true.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, as the married couple who constantly fight. Everyone called this film the "What If Jack and Rose Ended Up Together" movie. Yet it is so much more than that. They give powerful performances, which unfortunately were overlooked during the Oscar season. Another Titanic star, Kathy Bates, gives her support to the couple as the real estate agent who thinks the world of them. She has a son, who is mentally unstable and asks to bring him over for dinner one night. Michael Shannon plays the son and he steals both scenes he is in. For a guy who is deemed insane, he is the only one who speaks the truth.

I watched this flick because so many people told me how depressing it was. While it was depressing I didn't find it to be that bad. The most depressing aspect of the film is how relatable it is to real life. This story happens everywhere and that is the sad part.

The cinematography is great, the 1950's feel was spot on and really gave the film more of a cinematic sense of wonder to it. Roger Deakins seems to know exactly what is needed for every film he takes on. The look and feel of the film here is so simple, yet so beautiful at the same time.

Finally, I can see why people may not like this film. It's definitely an acquired taste. I was not in love with it by any means and for those involved it's not their best work. Instead it's a film to enjoy once. I wouldn't bother watching it again because the pace is long and I feel that I won't be as engaged a second time.

On a final note, why do guys from the 1950's only last about 15 seconds?

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 3: May 3rd, 2010

Extract

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/extract-teaser-poster.jpg

Is It Bad To Say I Wanted More Ben Affleck?

Mike Judge is back again with another comedy about an every day guy who owns an extract company. After a series of freak accidents one employee loses a testicle. Things go from bad to worse when Joel starts to have sexual feelings towards a new temp. He's not getting any at home so his friend tells him to get a gigalo to seduce his wife so he won't feel guilty about sleeping with the temp. Of course he's on drugs when he agrees to this, so the next day he realizes his mistake. Throw in someone stealing things from the employees, the selling of the company possibly going sour and an annoying neighbour and Joel is about to explode.

Pretty lengthy description of the film, I've left out some bits and pieces here and there, but I really couldn't care to tell you. We'll all move on. The film is another Mike Judge piece, so it will have it's fans. I'm not one of them. With Office Space, I found that I liked it more upon repeated viewings, I won't bother to watch this one again.

The cast tries their best with the material. Kristen Wig has nothing to do, Clifton Collins Jr. is forgotten throughout the film, David Koechner is dumbed down to one joke repeated throughout, J.K. Simmons looks like he wants to get the hell out of this movie, Mila Kunis has hardly any screen time to do anything worthwhile and Jason Bateman uses his old comedy routine he did in Arrested Development. He's a good guy trying to do things right, but gets caught in these weird and awkward situations.

Ben Affleck saves this film from total disaster, his supporting role as the best friend with the worst ideas is really great. I should have known, since he was the best thing in the trailers too. His look alone had me smiling.

I guess I'm just not that much a fan of Judge and his comedy. I was never into Beavis and Butthead and I hated King of the Hill. Extract is a comedy that will make you smirk a few times, but never laugh. It tries to be too adult and mature, which makes it lose it's sense of comedy. The story it was trying to tell is uninteresting, the characters are uninteresting and the comedy is uninteresting.

In the end Extract is a mess of a film, there were parts that were mildly entertaining, but it never went in the right direction. There could have been room for interesting plot twists, but instead it played it safe. Extract is completely forgettable and probably only worth your time if you're a big Mike Judge fan.

2

[Sexy Celebrity]

You can like Office Space after a few repeated viewings? I'll have to try that sometime.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 4: May 4th, 2010

How To Train Your Dragon

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/HowToTrainYourDragon.jpg

One Of Dreamworks Better Efforts

Hiccup is a viking, the only problem is he doesn't seem to fit in with everyone else. He's scrawny, scared and can't kill a dragon when given the opportunity. Instead, he makes a unique friendship with the one dragon that people never seem to see. He learns that everything he knew about dragons was wrong and he must stop his father and the other vikings from killing more of them.

How To Train Your Dragon seemed like another animated film that would come and go at the snap of a finger. Yet, it somehow managed to be the best review film of the year (so far) and rake in the cash. Word of mouth spread and along with the critical backing, the film has managed to stay in the top spot for awhile. So I decided to give it a chance. While the film is not as emotionally engaging as other animated films of recent years, it still manages to have fun and entertain.

The voice acting from all was really well done. I had fun spotting who was who and each one gives their character that unique little bit of spice. Jay Baruchel has whiny brat down to a tee, almost to the point of annoyance. With the exception of America Ferrera, I was able to point out every voice actor, yes even the guy from Cloverfield. Her character, Astrid, who isn't in the book, is the love interest of our lead. She is the tough one who is jealous of Hiccup when he starts to get the spotlight for knowing how to handle the dragons. This relationship is never the focus point and seemed rushed, but I can live with it.

The animation at times looks marvelous, the fur the vikings wear looks great. At other time it looks a bit weak, specifically the lead dragon. I don't know if it was the stylistic choice of making him look like a cat, but it looked like the weakest part of the animation to me. Which is funny, because the dragon was the best part of the film. Toothless, as he is called, was funny, cute and kick-ass. The scenes in which he is flying with Hiccup were really well done and added the sense of excitement and adventure the film needed.

It has laughs here and there, but never did I find it overly funny. Instead it plays out the family friendly adventure spin. The story itself is nothing new, young outcast needs to win the hearts of those around him. Finds an unfamiliar friendship and uses it to his advantage. The setting of dragons and vikings was the new angle the film gave us. The relationship between Hiccup and toothless is a nice addition to a spew of films in which the lead character makes friends with an animal.

While How To Train Your Dragon doesn't go leaps and bounds over anything else, it is one of the better films Dreamworks has managed to kick out recently. Both adults and kids will enjoy this film.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 5: May 5th, 2010

The Amateurs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/AmateursPoster2.jpg

If Only It Were That Easy...

Andy (Jeff Bridges) is a guy who doesn't do a whole lot with his life. He comes up with these extravagant ideas but none of them ever lead to anything. His wife leaves him because he can't go anywhere in life. Years later he comes up with the idea to make a porno film and he gets the townsfolk to help him.

For one thing, if only it were that easy to get women to agree to do pornography and for another, to make a film. The Amateurs, or The Moguls, whichever you want to call it, makes it seem like it is incredibly easy. Sure the characters have their problems on the sets, but in my experience it would never happen like that. Its all played up for comedic purposes I know, but it's just my one little nit pick.

The film has an all-star cast. Jeff Bridges leads this crazy cast of characters and it was really the characters that made the film work for me. Ted Danson is Moose, the gay guy who thinks he's straight. Tim Blake Nelson is Barney, a guy who's been in love with this one woman who always turns him down. Joe Pantoliano plays some idiot (that's his characters name) who gets made fun of a lot, but he wants to prove himself as a writer/director. William Fichtner is Otis, the guy who knows how to get things done and Patrick Fugit is the whiz kid who knows how to film everything. There are two other characters who are always together, they go by the names of Moe and Ron. Everyone calls them moron.

The Amateurs works on a few levels and comes just underneath on others. The cast is great and really help the film. The writing is fine, the comedy is there and some of it is funny. One scene in which two characters discuss the logistics of the size of a black man's penis is interesting. Unfortunately the film never feels like the comedy it should be. To compare it to another film in the same area would be Zack and Miri Make A Porno. Both involve porno films, both involve porno jokes and both seem like they could have been so much funnier.

Jeff Bridges narrates the film much like Robert Downey Jr. does in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. He knows this is a movie and he address the audience as such. His character Andy, tries to prove to himself he can make something of his life. He wants to be able to have a relationship with his son. His wife has remarried and the guy is stinking rich. We've seen that before. What this film does differently is that Andy doesn't seem to care about the new husband. He is never jealous and doesn't try to win back the heart of his ex-wife. It was interesting to see it play out like that because 90% of the time it would go the other way.

Lauren Graham and Jeanne Tripplehorn are both in the film and both are severely underused. Specifically Graham, I still do not know why she exists in this film. She is suppose to be the romantic interest of the lead character, but none of that happens until the last 5 minutes. She is completely useless. To sum up, the cast really makes the film better than what it actually is. There is a good movie here, but it just falls short in too many areas for me to be able to recommend it as a funny comedy, instead it's just a decent flick.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 6: May 6th, 2010

Dead Snow

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/dead-snow-poster1.jpg

The second half of this film is brilliant.

On a trip up to a cottage in the snowy mountain tops a group of friends encounter some mean nasty Nazi zombies. That's right Nazi zombies. Can they survive? Will we care? Why are we watching a film about Nazi zombies?

There was a lot of hype around this film, simply for those two words. Nazi Zombies. The only other film I remember having hype around it based on a few words was Snakes On A Plane. Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film that plays up the comedic aspect of actually having Nazi zombies in the film. The entire first half of this film is rubbish, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face once the sh*t hit the fan.

The film falters on many accounts. Let's see, the acting is atrocious, the characters are dumb and clichéd as hell, some aspects of the film scream low budget, the story is non- existent, some characters exists for expository dialogue, and don't even get me started on that outhouse scene. All of these things exist in campy, crappy horror films. This is a campy crappy horror film.

If there is one thing I hate about recent horror, it's when they reference older horror films, as if to say to the audience "Hey kids, we've seen these older films, so that means we know our stuff". It is so obvious and lame that I want to hurl. Evil Breed did it and Dead Snow does it. One character is a film buff and there are many obvious horror references, such as The Evil Dead and Friday the 13th. He wears Braindead t-shirts and tells the characters not to get bitten by zombies. Vomit.

All of the night attack scenes are boring and hard to actually see. Nothing new yet, it's not until it's actually daylight does the film begin to get where it needed to be 30 minutes ago. This is where the film is having fun and the audience can too. This isn't your typical zombie film, these guys run fast and they actually fight you. Like, throwing punches and dropping elbows.

The make-up work on the zombies is adequate as are the costumes. They really do look like Nazi Zombies. The story never tells us why they are zombies though, they either forgot or they want you to fill in that blank. There is a small bit about the soldiers stealing gold and jewelry while they were alive. It seems that if you take one they come after you, but this plot point is really inconsistent. There is a character who randomly shows up, tells us everything we need to know about the history of the Nazi zombies and then he leaves. Thank you very much for this riveting character.

The gore is great, even if a lot of the blood is obvious CGI. The moment I had the biggest smile on my face was when two characters arm themselves with a shed full of weapons. Yes, even the obligatory chainsaw. The comedy really hits its stride in the rising action of the film. Intestines flying everywhere, machine gun snow-mobiles, amputation, it goes on and on.

I can only recommend this film if you dig what it's selling. Nazi Zombies, if that sounds like fun, join in. If the thought of it makes you wonder why people bother with this trash, obviously skip it. It's not the best horror comedy, but it's something that will put a smile on your face.

Number of times the words Nazi Zombies is mentioned: 8.

The Film: 3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 7: May 7th, 2010

In The Loop

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/200907_in-the-loop-movie-poster-thu.jpg

Political Satire Done Right.

Simon Foster, the British Minister for International Development accidentally states that war is unforeseeable. This ignites people from both the United States and the U.K. to bring out their political strategies for pro/anti war projects.

That's the best I could come up with regarding this film. I had a hard time following who was responsible for what, how much power they had and what was actually being done. Despite this confusion, the film was still funny and very well written. This is a smart comedy, maybe it was too smart for me, but I was still able to get the jokes because they were at a certain level of just the right amount of crudeness.

The humour is mostly dry, the typical British stuff you would expect. The film doesn't really have any laugh out loud moments, but there is enough smirking and smiling that I was happy with it. To describe the film, I would have to say it felt like Dr. Strangelove mixed with The Office. In content, style and even humour. I can, to an extent, include This Is Spinal Tap. I read one reviewer saying that what This Is Spinal Tap did for heavy metal, In The Loop will do for politics. I completely agree with this statement.

Despite your political views, you will still be able to enjoy In The Loop, although some people always have to find something and complain. It's relatively fast paced and if you don't pay attention, you might get lost in the plot. I got the end game, but how they get there was a bit muddy for me. I don't really reflect this in the writing, but my grasp of politics in general.

The cast is great and work well off each other. It was nice seeing how hectic the British side of things were. From clueless at some points and downright belligerent at others. I really dug James Gandolfini square off against Peter Capald. The whole scene was a who has the bigger pair of you know what.

If your looking for a smart comedy that doesn't involve sex jokes, teens or poop humour, then In The Loop is the adult sophisticated comedy you should check out. It sure has it's crude moments, but it feels appropriate in a weird way. I liked it, I just wish I was able to grasp it more so I could love it.

3

[nebbit]

Thanks Sussy I have added a few to my must see list :yup:

[Powdered Water]

I laughed so hard during In the Loop I almost peed myself. I understand the TV show it is based from is also worth a look.

[Caitlyn]

zebo>



Sniff... wonder if that is post whore I smell.... :|

[Ðèstîñy]

Sniff... wonder if that is post whore I smell.... :|

Yeah, I deleted the rest. They were trying to get to ten post, so that they could post a link in the question thread. Both the question and link are legit, but the ten posts getting there were pathetic. It's not that hard getting to ten, while making them decent posts. Hell, go to the game section and play a bunch of title games. Lazy lazy, I say.
I'm also crankier these days. ;)

[Caitlyn]

Yeah, I deleted the rest. They were trying to get to ten post, so that they could post a link in the question thread. Both the question and link are legit, but the ten posts getting there were pathetic. It's not that hard getting to ten, while making them decent posts. Hell, go to the game section and play a bunch of title games. Lazy lazy, I say.
I'm also crankier these days. ;)

I deleted one of them but then decided to have a little fun... sadly, it left too soon... :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 8: May 8th, 2010

Barb Wire

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/BarbWire1996882_f.jpg

I Would Have Loved This When It First Came Out

A sort of remake of Casablanca set in the future and in a strip club? Pam Anderson is Barb Wire and she must help someone get on a plane to Canada, with contact lenses. Whatever else the plot is, do people really care?

This film was made, marketing and watched because of one thing and one thing only, Pamela Anderson. This was her naked sci/fi Hollywood film, the opening of the movie shows her stripping, showing her breasts and getting hit with water. Ooooh, so sexy. This was probably the one scene many kids watched over and over. The film itself is regarded as one of those, it's so bad it's good. I can totally see that and once I got pass Anderson's wooden acting, I actually enjoyed myself. Guilty as charged.

I said I would have loved this when it first came out. I say that because I was around 10 years old and a film like this, that is drenched in so called "sexiness" would have been imprinted on my mind. Seeing it for the first time in full when I'm 22, went to film school and have been on the internet since I was whatever age, the film doesn't strike me as sexy. Anderson does look good though and seeing her prance around in tight leather doesn't hurt either. Much better than what Halle Berry tried to do with Catwoman.

Anderson became famous for her breasts and that was the focus of the film. Every other shot is of her massive cleavage. Am I complaining? Not really. But we have porno for that, the catch is that Anderson is someone "somewhat" famous. There is a special feature on the DVD called SEXY OUTTAKES. This is ten minutes long and it is of her stripping with the water. Basically the entire opening, but for ten minutes.

Jango Fett from the Star Wars prequels is in this film, I found myself saying "Hey it's that guy" a lot every time a character came on screen. The film is campy, what else do I need to say? The acting is campy, the script is god-awful and taken from Casablanca, the nudity isn't even that good. I expected more, the film feels like a tease.

Barb Wire is like Showgirls. Made to appeal to the perverted crowd, only this one has explosions. I'm giving this one a high rating, for it's campiness feel. It's trash, but golden trash.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 9: May 9th, 2010

State of Play

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/state_of_play_movie_poster.jpg


Well Written & Acted, A Very Smart Thriller

A congressmen's mistress is murdered and his friend, who is also a reported, decides to investigate the crime. During the investigations, he and his team uncover a political conspiracy and their lives are now at stake.

State of Play is a smart adult thriller that is never boring, or exhausting. It can be compared to All The Presidents Men, but relevant for today's themes and issues. The film takes some sides in a political ground, but to me it never really harms the film. I was so caught up in the investigation and the characters that I didn't seem to care for what the film's themes and messages are.

Russell Crowe leads the film, in a role that really lets him shine. He manages to be sloppy, brilliant and comedic all in one. Rachel McAdams, who I have a crush on, continues to prove why she is a smart and talented actress. She won't fall from grace like her Mean Girls co-star Lohan. Ben Affleck is in another role that I can tolerate. It seems that when the guy is in a supporting role or behind the camera, he shines. His boyish looks and every guy attitude is gone, but he still has that young up and coming attitude that actually suits this role. Crowe really does stand out in this film, I've never been a huge fan of his, but this is definitely an under-appreciated role.

The film is easy to keep track of, despite it's many twists and turns while unravelling the mystery. There are even way too many characters, but we are still able to know who's who, who's responsible for what and why. The script is clear and concise and the direction suits that as well. Nothing fancy, just bare bones story telling and a director that wants to tell that story. The film is thrilling, despite lacking in any chase sequences. One scene in which our lead is stuck in a parking lot with another man and a gun is intense, even if we've seen all of it before.

State of Play is a mature film that audience seemed to skip. Which makes it even more of a gem to watch. It has strong performance and a story that doesn't feel cheap. There are subplots that do seem a bit out of place, just to add some more characterization to these people. But I can get past it. State of Play is easily recommended.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 10: May 10th, 2010

Six Shooter

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/six-shooter.jpg

McDonagh wins an Oscar for this Short Film

After a man's wife dies he takes a train back home. On that train he meets a young couple who are also grieving and a young man who doesn't seem to give a damn about other people's emotions.

This is the first short to appear on this list, it probably won't be the last. I'm not limiting myself to feature films.

The story is relatively simple, four people on a train, each one has something in common. Someone in their lives has just died, each one deals with it differently. The young kid doesn't seem to give a damn, the couple cry and try to isolate themselves and the man seems to be relatively at ease, clearly hiding his true pain. Gleeson is the man in this role and he is the one who seems to be observing all the emotions on this train. Rúaidhrí Conroy is the motor mouth kid who has a really thick Irish accent, it's almost hard to tell what he is saying. The film belongs to these two characters and they are vastly different from one another.

The scenery outside is beautiful and showcases Ireland's cottage, farmland area. It's definitely a place I want to visit one day in my life. The setting of the film is entirely on a train, save for the opening and closing scenes. Despite the film being almost all dialogue, the movement of the train actually kept some tension up. Who is this kid and why he is so psycho.

For a short that is 30 minutes, it does its job. Well written, well directed and acted. The film looks nice and is quite the dark comedy. The monologue about the cow is both random and hilarious. The director, McDonagh, went on to direct In Bruges, an even darker comedy. You can see the similarities in the characters and the themes. Both films are shot in the same style, with a soft focus and of course star Brendan Gleeson.

This short went on to win an Oscar, I haven't seen the other films nominated so I can't say that this film deserved the win, but it is well done. It does what most films can't do and that is tell a consistent story with interesting characters.

3

[nebbit]

Good stuff as usual ;D

[Brodinski]

Nice piece on State Of Play. I have this one in my DVD collection, just never got around to watching it yet. Will probably do that this week

[SoulInside]

Watched State of Play again on the weekend (fourth or fifth time). Also written a review about it, it`s such a great movie. I guess you are right about Affleck (Gone Baby Gone!) and Lohan (sweet, but not-so-clever).
Also great: Hellen Mirren (as usual) and Jason Bateman as pervert PR-guy.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm planning on checking out the source material, on honeykid's recommendation.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 11: May 11th, 2010

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassin's Ball

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Smoking-Aces-2-Assassins-Ball-2010.jpg

I Liked The First One, But This One Fails Terribly

Pretty much the same plot as the first one. Someone has put out a hit on another person and dozens of highly skilled assassins are called in to take him out. Bullets fly, bodies fall and the story doesn't seem all that it was suppose to be.

I'm one of a few people who really dug Smokin Aces. It had great quirky characters, good action when it was actually happening and it showed Ryan Reynolds can do more than just comedy. People seemed to complain that it was thin on story, needed more action, and deserved a better twist. Well, I am putting all those complaints to the second film, which is actually a prequel.

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins Ball is a cheap direct to DVD cashing in on the name, quick and dirty film. The production values are pretty low rent and the acting suits it. Vinnie Jones is the biggest name draw and he is hardly in the film. They plaster his face all over the poster and he honestly doesn't belong there. In fact, one of the main characters isn't even on the poster. He's not recognizable enough. Tom Berenger plays the character who has the contract out on him and a special team of agents must protect him. So they take him to a vault, highly protected and assure him no one can get in. Sure enough, dozens of crazy hit men show up and that's when things go from bad to worse.

The Tremor family makes a return, minus Captain Kirk and Martin Keamy (Star Trek and Lost fans can attest). They kept the least interesting brother, the one who obviously needed the money, and introduce three new Tremor characters. The crazy sister, the dumb bigger brother and the hillbilly father. None of these new tremor characters are as interesting as the two missing. The film tries to fill that void, but it fails. Instead the fans get a poor imitation of one of the better aspects of the first film.

The action is lame and never feels as frantic as it should. The cheap explosions are goofy and laughable. We never get a chance to connect to any of the characters. In the first film, I was picking my favourite hit men, this one I had none. None of them are as cool, or as memorable.

The twist is lame and makes little to no sense. The writing of the film was slacking and obviously written so quickly to get the film into production that people must have really not read it. The director P.J. Pesce, seems to specialize in direct to video films. It shows, since he has no theatrical vision and the film feels very confined to its obvious production costs.

If you hated the first film, thought it was decent or just liked it, I would advise you to skip this one. I only recommend it if you are truly a die hard fan. Even then, I say proceed with caution.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I expect to get into some older films that I haven't seen and been meaning to, also want to hit up some movies that were recommended last time but never got the chance to see.

Stay Tuned.

[honeykid]

I expect to get into some older films that I haven't seen and been meaning to, also want to hit up some movies that were recommended last time but never got the chance to see.

Stay Tuned.

When I read that bit, I thought it was the next film you were going to watch. :D

[TheUsualSuspect]

Ha, I think I need to get one or two more films out of the way before I get to what I really want to watch.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 12: May 12th, 2010

17 Again

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/17-again-poster.jpg

Matthew Perry Doesn't Belong Here.

A guy's life doesn't turn out the way he wanted it to and wishes he was 17 again. He gets his wish, well, sort of. Instead of going back in time to when he was 17, he turns 17 in the present. Also, Zac Efron will grow up to look like Matthew Perry.

How many times have we seen this? Both Big and 13 going on 30 did it, only in reverse. It's exactly like countless other films in which our main character switches back to their younger self with no explanation. Magic? Who knows. Why should you see it then? I don't know, it's got teen heartthrob Zac Efron. Is that good enough? I didn't think so.

As soon as the film tells you the conflict, you know the resolution. The question is do we care about how we get there, or about the characters we are about to spend the next hour and a half with. Matthew Perry in my mind was really miscast here, he doesn't feel like he belongs. The material isn't his style, Zac Efron on the other hand fits perfectly. I'm not saying the kid is a bad actor, I actually enjoyed him in this, but he fits this target demographic and style of writing.

17 Again is what you'd expect. Obvious plot details about the father learning more about his kids when he sees them from a different light. He tries to still be their father when he's a kid himself. He falls back in love with his wife, who is currently divorcing him. No one knows about him except his best friend. Who is one of the biggest geeks of all time. Thomas Lennon from Reno 911 and countless character roles in comedy films really has the best parts. How he gets his girl in the end is interesting and funny, even if it's unrealistic.

The kids are nothing special and Leslie Mann could have done a bit more with her role, but then again how much material is there for her? How many times have we seen the wife character be written sloppy, sidetracked and never cared about? Countless times, this is one of them. She has more screen time then I expected, but it doesn't amount to anything.

The film is enjoyable on a small scale, I didn't hate it by any means. I just found it to be forgettable and that it never tried hard enough to be a standout film. It felt like the director was satisfied in knowing that his main star vehicle would get the film noticed, regardless of the quality. It's too adequate with its place in the world. Recommended for people who dig this type of film.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 13: May 13th, 2010

The Lovely Bones

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/watch-the-lovely-bones.jpg

It's Not The Mess People Say It Is

Susie Salmon was 14 when she was raped and murdered. Instead of going to heaven, she is in the in-between. She is there to watch over her family through the grieving process and to somehow bring her killer to justice.

Let me say right off the bat that I have not read the book, but I understand that a lot of the hate towards this film is the fact that Peter Jackson didn't get the emotion right and he left the important stuff out to focus on the magical world that is the in-between. While I can't attest to this, I can sort of see their point, even without reading the novel. The story is easy to follow, but near the end becomes a bit cloudy with it's purpose and message. The film is far from perfect, but it is not the mess that people say it is.

Jackson loves his CGI and he uses it beautifully here, but it does seem to be overbearing. A lot of the in-between scenes are nice to look at, but they don't hold any emotional resonance with the viewer. We get that it's a wonderful place where you can do what you want, but we are shown this too many times. It took away from the more interesting story that was the family.

Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are the parents of Susie, normally I find Wahlberg to be too monotone and passive in his voice. I did not think he was going to be able to pull off the emotional requirements for this character. He didn't knock it out of the park, but he did surprise me. Weisz is the mother who cannot go on living in the house. Her husband is obsessed with the case and finding the murderer, her mother is an alcoholic and she needs room to come to terms with her daughter's death. The film doesn't explore the emotional weight enough for these two characters. We see they are upset, obviously, their daughter is dead, but I wanted them to dive deeper into their characters. It unfortunately wasn't the case here.

The film itself isn't sure what it wants to be, is it fantasy, is it a film about solving a murder case? It mixes both and yet doesn't feel like either. The obsession of the father is just one quick scene and we are to believe that he comes to a realization of certain events based on, I'm assuming, Susie willing him to. Far-fetched, but believable in some small ways. Stanley Tucci is the killer, this is no spoiler as it is all over the trailers. He is haunting in this role, his blue eyes are cold and steel like. His kind and warm hearted demeanor only adds to his tormented cruelty. Both Susan Sarandon and Stanley Tucci were excellent in their roles. Don't forget about Saoirse Ronan, after all if we don't like her why do we care? She was excellent and made the film better by her innocent and young portrayal of the victim.

There are certainly some suspenseful scenes, Jackson knows how to get an audience to hang on to the edge of their seats. Jackson uses his camera in unique ways to give and uneasy feeling at times. The shots looking through the doll house are great, as are the extreme close ups of random objects thrown on dutch angles.

The Lovely Bones isn't without it's problems. The film concludes with mixed messages and a lot of questions. Did she stay to see her killer brought to justice, or to kiss the guy? Does that girl live in that shack near the sink hole? Why did the film have random transformation possession scenes. None of it is really explained. She ends with film with some narration about the connections made in her death, yet I failed to see any.

In the end I did enjoy it though, it is shot beautifully and I was engaged in the story. The film is receiving a lot of heck, so I'll be in the minority and recommend it.

3

[nebbit]

I also haven't read the book :nope: and did like the film :yup: my friends who have read the book didn't like the movie at all :nope:

[honeykid]

I've not read the book or seen the film, but I think the problem is that they're very different tellings of the same story. This means that those who read the book went to see a very different film to the one Jackson wanted to make after reading the book. Imagine someone reading Psycho and thinking; "I could make a great farce out of this story."

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 14: May 14th, 2010

Planes, Trains & Automobiles

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/PlanesTrainsAuto-736615.jpg

Why Did It Take Me 22 Years To Watch This?

Trying to get back home to be with his family on Thanksgiving, a serious of unfortunate events prevents one tight ass salesman from doing so. Along the way he makes an unlikely friendship with another salesman, who always tries to look at the bright side of things, much to the annoyance of the other.

John Hughes is a great writer, talented director and had this special skill for comedy that has yet to be matched. The man nearly defined the 80's with his films about teens and this adult comedy starring the late John Candy and the funny man Steve Martin. I don't know why I haven't seen this film until now, I never had the urge to. After seeing it now I am slapping myself on the forehead for not seeing it earlier.

The comedy is great, it lies within the writing from John Hughes. Only to be brought to life perfectly and added upon by the two great leads. John Candy is both irritating and lovable. His scenes near the end are heartbreaking and his outlook on life is uplifting. Steve Martin is the everyday guy who tries to get back home to his family. Things are just not going his way. I'm sure every normal person would act the way he does in this film if these events were to happen to them. The pairing of these two comedians for this script was perfection.

I've seen bits and pieces, but never sat through the entire thing. So I've seen many of the funniest parts. The funny thing is, they were still funny when watching them. The film has classic lines like "Those aren't pillows" and many memorable scenes, like the swearing tirade and the going the wrong way home near death experience. The film has many more, which is why it is so great to watch.

This just might be my favourite John Hughes film, it's got heart, great comedic timing and is so well written that it makes my cry that he did his first draft in 3 days. As a wannabe writer, I'd kill to do that and have it be a fraction of what this is. Planes, Trains and Automobiles is a great comedy and the best Thanksgiving film. It's a shame I waited so long to see it, if you haven't, get it now.

4

[nebbit]

I :love: this movie :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

I do too, probably my favourite Hughes film.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 15: May 15th, 2010

The Taking Of Pelham 123

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/taking-pelham-1-2-3-poster.jpg

It Was A Nice Try...

Pelham 123 is taken over by John Travolta is his posse. Denzel Washington is the poor guy who's working the day this happens and he is stuck in the middle of it all. Travolta doesn't want to speak with the hostage negotiator, he wants to speak with Washington. Demands are made, people are killed and this remake lacks what I wanted from a hostage film. That would be suspense.

Travolta is the bad guy, I dig it. He's been bad before. In Face/Off he had a lot of fun impersonating Nic Cage, I had fun with him too. In Broken Arrow he is up against Christian Slater, this time Travolta plays it cool. Pulp Fiction, he gained his respect back as Vincent the hit-man. In this one he cut his hair short and crew out a goatee. He looks really ridiculous, but that's besides the point. He is not terrifying here and for some odd reason it sounded really awkward when he would start swearing. Like it was some kind of forced material, it did not flow like in his other films.

Washington is the good guy, he is the loser, not knowing what to do, yet gets it done. He doesn't go above and beyond, he plays it regular. His pairing with Tony Scott here is very ho- hum. He doesn't command the screen and he shouldn't because it's not that type of character. But then again, Travolta doesn't either, when he really should have.

The suspense is no where to be found. I appreciate the gratitude the film puts the hostages in. A lot of films are scared to kill off some hostages, this one isn't. Usually we would also get to know some of the hostages, maybe find interest in the characters. Not here, they are on the back burner. So we could care less about them living or dying.

There is a subplot involving Washington possibly taking a bribe or not, doesn't do much for me, or the story. The direction is as expected from Tony Scott. It gels with the same crowed as Domino, Man on Fire and Deja Vu. I do give it a little more respect than some of those I mentioned though because it doesn't have the same colour tinted editing that really got old fast. Domino and Man on Fire are guilty.

This remake is an okay way to spend 2 hours, it doesn't suck. But it doesn't really stay with you either, or turn up on your best of lists. What it boils down to is, this is mediocre and is full of characters that I just couldn't essentially care about. I haven't seen the original either, but that doesn't matter. Washington is more convincing than Travolta. Actually, when I look back and think about it, it wasn't all bad...until the last 20 or so minutes. Then it gets really out of hand.

2.5

[mark f]

I was really sure that this was going to suck but I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not really sure what you wanted or expected, but this film was way better than I wanted and expected, and I love the original. The point is that this isn't really a remake but it's a "reimagining' which is probably a lot closer to the source material than my beloved original. I give this and the original a whole popcorn box higher than you do, so, although I respect your opinion, I respect mine more in this case. (HA! :cool:) I thought both actors were quite good and I'm sorry you gave away a late plot twist which was not in the original movie. Robert Shaw was all icy business in the original, but Travolta gets all chummy here and turns the movie into something more personal between the two men even if the actual plot is quite similar to the earlier flick in most regards. I thouight there was plenty of suspense here, and I liked the additions of the Internet being involved in what's happening, but I did think that the scene on the bridge could have been handled a lot better. I wouldn't exactly call it getting "really out of hand" though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I hate the word "re-imagining", it's just a fancy word producers say so they don't have to say remake.

I did like Washington, but Travolta just seemed really off for me. I think that role could have been handled differently with another actor.

As for the plot twist, I re-worded it. But I don't think it really did anything to the story, or would even call it a plot twist. Just a shallow ploy to get a bit more backstory on the character.

As for out of hand, why would this guy risk his life to chase after these people? It doesn't make sense. He's a family man. His job was done, but he decided to run after them, totally inane. He didn't even know how to use a gun. He was able to go home to his wife, but he chose to go against that and put his life in danger for what? It wasn't his problem anymore. There were dozens of cops/swat guys out there to handled it.

Although, it wouldn't be much of a movie if Denzel didn't go after them himself.

[Caitlyn]

The Lovely Bones


I pretty much agree with everything you said other than the in-between place Susie was in seemed more lonely than wonderful to me... anyway... good review... thanks for sharing.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 16: May 16th, 2010

Alien: Resurrection

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/alien_resurrection_ver3.jpg

It Had Some Interesting Ideas

Ripley is cloned and brought back. She wasn't alone though, they also brought back the alien that was inside her. With a crew bringing some cargo on board the same ship these alien experiments go awry and the aliens escape. All that is left is Ripley and the crew of the Betty.

The reason why I think this film gets so much hate is because it seems to cheapen the ending to Alien 3, which was the best thing about that film. It ended her legacy and the story in the franchise and now comes a fourth film that many thought was a cash cow waiting to be milked. Alien: Resurrection has some interesting ideas, but the execution of the film as a whole just seems like a misfire.

The first had terror, the second had action the third had the ending, the only way to end the series. What does this one have? Again, the cash cow thing comes to mind. The producers thought if they got geek writer Joss Whedon and French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet, they could fool the audience. It would seem that two rights can't make a wrong. Joss Whedon's original script was obviously changed, but in interviews he said that his final draft is what is seen on the screen. So what's the problem? The execution apparently. While Whedon went for a tongue in cheek aspect, Jeunet went down the straight and narrow and made the film serious. So I guess two rights can make a wrong.

The characters are interesting and the actors portraying them I thought was the best thing about the film. Ron Perlman and Gary Dourdan are the two stand outs in my opinion. Weaver isn't the same Ripley we once knew and loved. She is different. Part alien, she acts like one in the film. Again, it was an interesting idea, but I found myself liking her less and less. Not as much as I hated Ryder though, she was irritating and boring.

The film is looked upon as the worst one. Or the one that could be tossed up between Alien 3 as the worst. It's no bag of dirt. It's watchable, a lot better than the last two alien films we got. The problem was there was no emotion, specifically for a character who was different than what we knew. The script was written one way and the direction went in another. Neither was right or wrong, but together it doesn't work that well. The underwater sequence is great though, definitely the stand out scene among a bunch of boring running down corridors bits.

Alien: Resurrection has no sense of danger or terror. All three previous films had this in abundance. The story tried it's best to bring back the character of Ripley, but we got a shallow clone. The human/alien hybrid wasn't scary, it looked like less of a threat than the normal aliens. The climax was non-existent and should have taken place on Earth, it would have added a bit more urgency. The film looks great though. Cheers.

2.5

*On a side note - I have seen this one before, the way the day worked out, I watched this film.

[honeykid]

I disagree about Ryder, she was the best thing about it. :randy:

[TheUsualSuspect]

:rolleyes:

[honeykid]

Hey, that was all that film had going for it, though I still enjoyed it more than Aliens.

[Pyro Tramp]

I liked Alien: Res. Maybe it's because i saw it before Alien 3 but liked the tone and thought it nailed some decent suspense and had a great supporting cast- Wincott, Dourif etc. Ryder didn't need to be an android though, that was a cheap twist. Surprised you didn't mention the awful hybrid alien design at the end though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

The human/alien hybrid wasn't scary, it looked like less of a threat than the normal aliens.

Ryder was a complete and utter bore. She made me want to poke my eyes out. I really hated her in this one. It might be the fact that I don't really like her as an actress, but out of all her roles this one is really one of my least favourites.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 17: May 17th, 2010

Angels and Demons

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/angels_and_demons2.jpg

It Was Better Than The Da Vinci Code

Robert Langdon is back in the sequel that is based on the first book. This time Langdon is brought on to a case in the Vatican, there has been a murder. Langdon must help solve a bunch of riddles and clues to make sure a terrorist plot does not ensue.

The Da Vinci code was met with unsatisfied reactions. Hank's hair was a big thing in the media and it overtook the film, since he was such a deadpan character in the first one. He fares a little better here, but it's still kind of ho-hum. The better book of the two is also the better film of the two. Angels and Demons has many problems and I almost forgot I even watched it today, which isn't a good sign. But it is tighter, has a better narrative and feels more suspenseful.

There are tons of stuff missing from the film, as expected. The plot revolves around the capture four cardinals, Langdon must find them all and save them before they are executed every hour. The Illuminati are behind it, who have hired an assassin to kill each one using one of the four elements, earth, water, fire, air. Each one has the word branded into their skin. The clues in this one seem to flow a little better than Da Vinci and gone are the stupid CGI lettering techniques.

The cast is weaker though, Ewan McGregor is a bore. Ayelet Zurer has no chemistry with Langdon and is weaker than Tautou. Stellan Skarsgård is really the only one who had my attention. He was more of an interesting character than the lead.

The plot is predictable, even for people who have not read the book and the actions that happen on the screen are laughable sometimes. Specifically the stuck in the book records scene and the parachute scene. Both had me giggling while I rolled eyes and the lunacy.

The production wasn't allowed to film in a lot of the Cathedrals, it is painfully obvious is a lot of the scenes. Sometimes I felt like I was watching a Star Wars movie it was so bad (the prequels, obviously). The assassin is nowhere as interesting as Silas, he was never given the chance to be. Important relationships are left out of the script and overall the film is really, like I said, forgettable.

Despite all this, the film's rating reflects the good aspects of it. It was certainly the better film of the two since they knew better the second time. Maybe these books just weren't made to be made for the screen? In any event, Angels and Demons is a mediocre film, with a decent rating from me.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 18: May 18th, 2010

Dead Girl

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/zombie-dead-girl-poster.jpg

Hey Kids, Who Wants To Watch A Movie About Raping Zombies?

Two high school friends ditch school to go drinking in this abandoned asylum. They get lost after an encounter with a dog and end up finding a body. The body is of a dead girl, naked and chained to a table. The twist is she is not dead, but the undead. What would the normal thing to do in this situation be? Well, one of the guys thinks it's to have sex with her and keep her as their sex slave. Things obviously get out of control.

Dead Girl was a little film that I heard about after reading a list of the Top Ten Most Disturbing Movies You'll Ever See. With that in mind, I went into Dead Girl expecting sick and twisted things. I got those, but not to the degree I was thinking of. Sure the scenario is sick and disturbing, but I find that if I went in not knowing anything about it, it would have had a more profound effect on me. Sexuality plays a big part in this film, the homosexual subtext between the two friends early on sets up some kind of weird relationship that isn't really explored till the end. These guys objectify women. They are virgins and want to loose their v-card, so seeing a naked girl chained up to a table unleashes these weird sexual urges in one of them. She tries to bite him and he beats her, breaks her neck as well.

Uh-Oh, she is not dead. They discover she can't die, the guy even shoots her to prove it. Yes, one character has a gun, and the scene is so poorly written that you can tell they needed a simply way of telling the audience this girl is dead. So we give a character a random gun that is used in this random scene and it is never seen again. The two friends immediately take opposing sides. One is in love with the idea and even invites others to join, while the other finds it sick and disturbing. The one in love with the idea becomes twisted and obsessed with his unorthodox relationship with this dead girl.

The analogy to boys growing up and exploring their sexuality is lost in this film, they resort to rape. I felt bad for the actress who had to lay there naked being used in such a horrific way. By the end of the film, it felt as if there was no real protagonist and everyone was evil. The comedy fell flat in some areas and seemed really random in others.

The subject matter is indeed interesting though and the filmmakers handled it in a mature way. It is not your average zombie film. You know that the climax of the film will involve her getting loose somehow. So there are no real surprises in the film. The twists and turns are really seen a mile away. Some people might find it hard to enjoy a film that is about necrophilia. I for one thought it started off well and then gradually had it's ups and downs. The inclusion of the other guys (Wheeler and two bullies) seemed to show the writers were a bit inept, the dialogue didn't help it either.

The subject matter is controversial and so is the film, to a degree. It's not the most horrifying film I've ever seen, nor does it really tip the ice berg. But then again, you are probably not like me. Constant images of a naked woman chained up, beaten to a pulp, bloody, raped and degraded might bother some people. The horror aspect is left until the end when it becomes more of a conventional horror film. It's the unsettling mood and themes this film has that make people uneasy with it. I can only recommend this to people who are actually interesting in this type of stuff. This is not for your every day movie goer.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 19: May 19th, 2010

The Collector

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the_collector_poster.jpg

Throw Plausibility Out The Door.

When a thief enters a house he was working construction at, he is under the impression he will be stealing a diamond. He has debts to pay off. When he enters he notices that there is someone else in the house too, an insane serial killer. He's known as The Collector. It becomes a cat and mouse game between the two.

Very interesting take on the genre. Two bad guys in a house, one more evil than the other of course, but interesting nonetheless. What would have made this film better for me is if they ditched the thief aspect and had the lead be another serial killer. Then we have two serial killers trying their hardest to best the other in their own sick and twisted ways. Alas, this is not that film. Though I give the film props for having a main character with some brains.

A lot of people are comparing the film to the SAW series, that's understandable. The killer sets each room up with it's own trap. Unique and interesting traps that make you wonder how the hell he could have done it all, some of them while the thief is still in there. To enjoy this film I had to throw plausibility out the door. You should too, otherwise you might be frustrated.

I think you can guess why they call him the Collector. No need to probe that area. But why does he collect? Not really explored. I wanted to get inside this guy's head. We are never given that chance. Our lead is interesting to some degree, he makes being a down on your luck loser guy likable. Once we get into the house, pretty much everything stops from a story telling stand point and it turns into a "how can we up ourselves in each room' scenario.

The film has a somewhat 80's feel to it, revamped for today's genre. When the film should have been able to stand out on it's own, it falls. It becomes a cookie cutter follower and never stands out of the shadow of the films before it. It's a dark and depressing film too, any sense of hope is squashed and you feel rotten after the credits roll. Good job on that.

Bottom line is that the real star of the film are the traps. They're are intriguing and if you can get pass the logistics of many of them, you'll enjoy the suspenseful ride.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

So far I'm doing better than last time, actually getting reviews written and posted on the day. :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 20: May 20th, 2010

Blood Simple.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/BloodSimplemovieposter1.jpg

A man hires a Private Investigator to follow his wife, whom he assumes is having an affair with one of his employees. He's right and he goes a little berserk. He wants the Private Investigator to kill them and will pay him $10,000. But nothing is that simple.

The Coen's first feature film is something to marvel at. They shot the trailer and used that to interest investors, claiming this is what the film will look like, only 90 minutes long. With the help of Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, they got what they wanted. Blood Simple. with a period after the title like it should be spelled, is a modern noir film that has that signature Coen style ending that gets the audience pondering it's meaning, even if it's just a joke from the directors.

Blood Simple starts off slow, really slow. I found myself having no interest in the film until the Private Investigator pulled his stunt on Marty. The film then took an interesting turn into a suspenseful film that actually got me excited for what would happen next. The events that happen after the slow, boring and uninteresting beginning make up for it. Maybe upon repeated viewings I'll like the opening scenes more, but I just found them long and drawn out.

M. Emmet Walsh stands out above the rest of the cast, he looks like he is having the most fun and it suits his character. Hedaya plays his usual prick self and there is a young Frances McDormand who plays his cheating wife. John Getz as Ray is sometimes frustrating, from the look of his career now, others find him lacking as well. He is not leading material.

Blood Simple is a well done directorial debut from the brothers who've become some of the best working directors today. As it stands in their filmography, it's obvious they've outdone Blood Simple. Yet it still has a place in their books, since it was their first effort and it is better than the likes of the more Hollywood budgeted films like The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty.

The Coen's have always been doing their own thing, you can tell from this film. They don't cater to the audience, instead they play on their expectations. Simply put, Blood Simple is good, but not great.

3

[Brodinski]

I like that you've watched Blood Simple! It's one of my favourite films and whenever anyone asks me to recommand them a film, I always name Blood Simple. Now, I'm just gonna discuss some of the things you mentioned in your review. This is not to criticise you in any way, just to point out the way I perceive things...

Blood Simple starts off slow, really slow.

I won't reveal much as to the plot because it's so wonderfully smart and one of the main reasons why I tremendously enjoy watching this film over and over. The plot is so in line with the movie's pace. Yes, it starts off very slow, because there is not a whole lot to tell. Bartender hires a private eye to follow his wife because he suspects she's cheating on him. His suspicion is confirmed, he gets angry and orders the private detective to kill them in exchange for 10k. Up to that point, everything is very simple and clear-cut. But then things get so complicated and the movie picks up the pace a little as the story develops into this convoluted maze of errors and mistakes made by all of the main characters. I wish I could reveal more, but I can't cause i'd ruin it for others.

The opening scenes you're complaining about are used to set the tone, they're deliberately slow. There's a lot of similarities with a little film you may have heard of, as it only won like a billion prizes: No Country For Old Men. That one also starts rather slow and then picks up the pace.

As it stands in their filmography, it's obvious they've outdone Blood Simple.

Hmm, this is naturally a personal preference, but I beg to differ. This film is so beautifully crafted in such a variety of ways. Every piece of the puzzle fits. The movie's style is hauntingly gorgeous, especially the night scenes. I admit that not everything is perfectly done camera-wise, but some of the scenes are great, especially the scene where Ray tries to dispose of Marty. Not to mention the cinematography in the movie's climax. And it's just so in tune with the movie's bleak story. Then there's the theme by Carter Burwell which is downright perfect for this movie. It's so gripping and mesmerizing, and fits so well with the dark plot, cinematography and camera work.

This was a true tour de force by the Coens. I dare say Blood Simple is up there with The Maltese Falcon and Night of the Hunter (and probably a few others that don't come to mind now) as one of the best directorial debuts ever.

@ everyone: watch this piece of early brilliance by the Coens. You will not be dissapointed.

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't know if anyone's noticed but there seemed to have been some days that have gone by with no reviews.

Well, I was up at a cottage for some much needed vacation time and forgot to post it here. No worries though, still going strong on the movie front.

Although, I did watch some flicks I have seen many times before.

We have this bet with a friend of ours in which he has to watch 20 films in one year. So we brought up some films for him to watch. Two of them I had already seen. The days there, every film we watched I have previously seen. No biggie though, it was going to be an entire year seeing new films.

I will have the reviews up tomorrow after work, for now I'm getting some more needed sleep.

Brodinski - I'm glad you took the time to give us your thoughts on Blood Simple. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, yet I just felt different about it. A slow movie can still hold my interest and I found myself struggling a bit with this one. It's not until the characters make those mistakes do things take an interesting turn. The set up is all there, but it's the confused pay-off scenes that I was more in tune with.

[honeykid]

Yep, I noticed. I was going to say that you'd done 20 on the trot and how well you were doing. :D Well, at least I don't feel like I jinxed you now.

So, what films did you watch? Are there going to be reviews?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 21: May 21st, 2010

The Thing

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/TheThingPoster.jpg

The Ultimate In Alien Terror? I'd Say So.

Yes, I know I said I would not review a film I did last time, but under the circumstances I'm letting this one slide. Not to mention this film is just too good to not really watch again.

The thing about The Thing, is that it is pure bad-ass male testosterone fueled alien sci/fi horror. Kurt Russel with a sombrero flying a helicopter? You can't ask for anything better than that.

The film is about an alien who can perfectly mimic/imitate the host it invades. We start off at an arctic ice station. Perfect for the alien to consume the prey, they have nowhere to go. Not knowing who to trust, the men must survive the arctic conditions and make it to the end, stopping this alien.

Paranoia is what makes this film stand out for me, aside from the great animatronic works that are still terrifying and horrifically grotesque today. I still forget who gets infected when and who to trust. I said last time that re-watching the film, it still held up. Well, I'm happy to say that upon another viewing I'm still in love with it.

Again, Kurt Russell and John Carpenter are a great team. I want a comeback film for both of them. They compliment each other very well. This is one of my favourite collaborations they've done.

I wouldn't have ended it any other way either.

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 22: May 22nd, 2010

Three Kings

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/three_kings.jpg

We Three Kings Be Stealing The Gold.

Here is yet another film I've seen. Three Kings. So I'll take some words from my last review.

My feelings on the film haven't changed, it's still one funny and entertaining war film. Despite what happened behind the scenes, the film is something they should be proud of.

Sure the director is crazy and Mark Walhberg can't act, but the film works so well. The bleach bypass process they used makes the film stand out, it has a unique look that sticks in your mind even after the film. It's just a tad bit different than what people are use to, not enough to be too drastic, but just enough to make it memorable.

The film handles both drama and comedy really well and never confuses the two. The style of the film is what makes the film so interesting. It is incredible funny at times, and of course violent when needs to be. Russell is a good director and this is his best film, to date.

The bullet traveling through the body sequence holds the viewer in awe, think of any CSI episode. The way Russell decides to depict the action sequences in some scenes is also interesting, specifically when they first leave with the gold. There is a shoot out, which is not your average shootout. It's instead played up with simple camera movement and audio. You see the shooter, pan over to the victim, and you hear the sound of the bullet hitting them. No flash or over the top style, simple and effective.

Clooney gets billed as a movie star and sex symbol, but rarely gets praise for his acting ability. Here he shows what he can do, along side Wahlberg, who usually annoys, and Ice Cube, who usually bores. Spike Jonze makes an appearance as the fourth tag along as well.

Watch this film, it's one of the best of the recent years. It was what Jughead wanted to be before Jughead was even around.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 23: May 23rd, 2010

The Story of Ricky

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Riki-Oh.jpg

Man Stabs Himself... Rips Out Guts... Strangles Other Man With Said Guts.

I figured I would re-post what I wrote in my review of the film 3 years ago, since I feel exactly the same about the film now, as I did then.

A man with the strength of 30 plus men is sent to a corrupt prison. While there he fights the inmates and the warden to right all the wrongs.

I wouldn't be surprised if no one here has ever heard of this film. I myself only heard of it through the word of friend, who hasn't even seen it himself. After much debate I decided to throw caution to the wind and buy it. I'm not disappointed I did, but not thrilled about it either. Does this film have a deep and thought provoking plot? Oscar worthy performances, or amazing special effects? Heck no, far from it. What does it have you ask? Well, plot holes left right and centre, camp and cheese in the performance and the effects and more over-the-top scenes than a McG flick.

Why would anyone want to watch a film like this? Well, I bought it for one reason...and one reason only. The Violent Gore. For the longest time Peter Jackson's 'Dead Alive' was notorious for being "The Goriest Film Of All Time". Well, after seeing this flick, I don't know if that statement can still hold true. Although the gore in this film, which earned it a category III rating in Hong Kong, the first ever for a film with violence and not sex (think XXX), is above and beyond, it falls into the same category as Dead-Alive, it's too cartoony to be taken seriously. In any review of a horror flick that claims to be gory, I compare it to the likes of Dead-Alive, Evil Dead Cannibal Holocaust. I can add this flick to that list as well.

Let's go over what happens in this flick shall we. We first get a glimpse of what we have in store for us when a guy has his nose sliced off from a wooden lathe, block of wood with nails goes through a man's hands to the face, someone gets punched through their stomach, a saw like sword get stuck half way through a man's face, a knife skins a man's face, a cane pokes an eyeball out of it's socket, punch through the face, a punch to a man's hand explodes it, someone gets a mouth full of razors and then bitch slapped, a man crushes another's head with bare hands....and much much more. I didn't even tell you the goriest part yet.

I mentioned plot holes earlier and they are everywhere here. Such as why are the prisoners able to go in and out of their cells at will? Why is the secret grow-op being done out in plain sight. Also, when the ceiling is crushing you, why aren't you running out the giant hole in the wall right next to you? There are many many more, but the list is too long. These things do not really distract from the film, but add to the whole campy cheese feel that is oozing in this flick.

If you thought that Blade II, Kill Bill or The Matrix were as close to anime as we can get for live-action...look no further then Story Of Ricky. It is without a doubt, the closest thing to anime I have seen today. Which speaks volumes, with all the gory scenes being done to obvious look alike dummies. Look for the inside of someone's hand being made of styrofoam. Here is a movie that is perfect for the internet based game "Things I've Learned From This Movie". You can go on and on with such things as I learned that destroying gravestones is okay when you're learning kung-fu.

See the film if any of this interests you, don't see it if you are seriously disturbed. But if you do watch it, watch it with a bunch of friends, it makes the comedy so much better.

2.5

[nebbit]

Not sure i want to see someone rip out guts to strangle someone with them :eek:

[SoulInside]

Three Kings is one of my favourite movies and Academy-Award-Winner Mark Wahlberg actually delievers a good performance here.

[honeykid]

Three Kings is one of my favourite movies and Academy-Award-Winner Mark Wahlberg actually delievers a good performance here.

Erm... Really? I missed that award. Care to name what he won for?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yeah, I missed that too. He sure was nominated, but never won.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 24: May 24th, 2010

Kung Fu Hustle

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/2005_kung_fu_hustle_poster_001.jpg

Crazy Cartoon Kung Fu Comedy Action

A young man and his friend try to join the notorious AXE GANG, but in doing so they need to do some pretty nasty things. Through a series of unfortunate events the axe gang stumble upon this place called pig stye alley and they cause chaos for the people who live there. This causes kung fu masters who live there to reveal themselves and begin a war. The young man, Sing, nearly dies during a battle and is reborn as a kung fu master, who must fight the evil one known as The Beast.

I saw Shaolin Soccer and was surprised by how much I loved that film. It had soccer, kung- fu, great comedy and hilarious off the wall moments that would never happen outside of the world created in the film. Chow has taken this concept to the next level with Kung Fu Hustle, a brilliantly funny and ass kicking kung fu film. The quotes about the film are true, it really is a Kill Bill Meets Looney Tunes flick.

Chow is Sing, the lead character, who wants to be really bad. He has trouble doing this because he is horrible at it. It all stemmed from a troubling childhood, in which he was sold some wacky looking kung fu manual, which made him think he knew kung fu. When he sees a young deaf mute girl being picked on, he tries to use his kung fu to help her. Oops, he gets his butt kicked and then he gets urinated on. How's that for humiliation. Now that he's older, he thinks the only way to get things in life is if you take them by force. So he joins the axe gang, but has a battle of conscience and is nearly killed. This unleashes his kung fu skills and then the poop hits the fan.

The film is off the wall wacky fun. The kung fu in the film is really well choreographed and with the added use of funny CGI, it takes the film to another level of entertainment. Chow uses numerous references in his film, from Kill Bill to The Matrix to The Shining. It's fun to spot them here and there. The film never feels like it's cheating or copying others, it's definitely it's own unique film. It just knows where its inspirations are.

I can't recommend this one enough, it has numerous re-watch capabilities. I find myself watching it every time it is on television. If you're a fan of Chow and Shaolin Soccer, Kung fu Hustle manages to outdo it's predecessor. It might take some people a moment or two to get use to the animated style used in the film, it is very Bugs Bunny/Road Runner. Go in with the right expectations and you will have fun.

5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 25: May 25th, 2010

Martyrs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/martyrs.jpg

Emotionally Draining, I Felt Dirty Afterwards

A young girl is abused, force fed slop and chained up. She escapes, but is haunted by a ghastly looking demon girl who continue to inflict harm on her. She is sent to an orphanage, where she makes friends with another girl. 15 years later, she seeks revenge on the people that did this to her. What she and her friend end up going through, is more haunting than they imagined.

I don't really know where to start with this review. Let me say that I consider myself desensitized to violence and horrors. I can sit through the Hollywood films of Saw and Hostel and laugh at the screen in the violent terror. I can sit through the shock and horror of Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit On Your Grave. I was not expecting anything from this film, and yet it hit me the hardest. No other film has really made me feel as emotionally drained as this. The images, the sounds and the emotions in this film are very disturbing and hard to watch.

Martyrs is not something I would recommend people watching, simply because of it's subject matter. I won't go into details but the second half of the film is some of the most heart wrenching images to watch, from a fictional film standpoint. The film almost has a grindhouse feel to it, as if you are watching two different films. The first half is a revenge tale with a bit of psychological horror thrown in, then the second half hits you and you don't know what to do.

The film has no hope for it's characters. I usually hate films like this because it makes the point of watching it almost mute. Why should I care about these characters when I know the journey they are going on will end in a horrible mess. For some odd reason though, this film felt a little different. I suppose this is why I don't throw it into the same torture porn horror field as the Hostels and Saw films in this world. The film is in French and it plays out with a sense of professionalism. It knows the point it wants to get across and it does so. I can completely understand that people can feel the total opposite though. This film walks a very fine line.

I felt dirty after the film, I felt horrible and helpless. I wanted the characters to do so many things to get them out of their situations, but it never happened and I knew it never would. The explanation at the end of it all is a bit out there in terms of believability. But the ending is left to the viewers imagination. My take on it is that the human mind cannot fathom the truth of what they seek. Which is why it ends the way it does.

Martyrs is a very tough film to sit through and I commend anyone who does so.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 26: May 26th, 2010

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/cloudy_with_a_chance_of_meatballs.jpg

Cloudy With A Chance Is A Great Fun Time.

Failure after failure after failure after failure, Flint decides to solve a certain sardine problem his town has, by converting water into food. He invents a machine, which then goes a bit haywire and launches itself into the sky. Fortunately for him, it worked, and food begins falling out of the sky. Unfortunately it eventually gets a mind of it's own and tries to destroy to town with over-sized food.

Look at the pretty colours. Those were the words from my girlfriend when we saw the trailer for this film, which we sadly did not see in the theatres. Yes, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is a great animated kids film with more than enough comedy for the older crowd. Although it wasn't the best animated film last year, it was the funniest in my opinion.

The animation fit the story perfectly and the food falling all over were great visuals. You can tell the animators had a lot of fun with this film. Sony Pictures Animation haven't really had a film in their roster to stand out and to me, this one is their golden ticket. It's a shame it wasn't recognized at the Oscars, as I think it deserved a place on the nomination list.

The kids learn valuable lessons about responsibility and being yourself, while getting to have fun with the images of ice cream snowball fights, a building made out of jello and a school covered by a giant pancake. The adults get the comedy of Bill Hader from SNL, recognizable voices of Mr. T, Neil Patrick Harris and the man, the myth, the legend himself, Bruce Campbell. Each role fit their voice actor perfectly. Usually Anna Faris annoys me, here she made me like her character more because of her unique voice. James Caan as the dad is the added cherry on the top of the cake. Gummi Bear Twilight Zone reference? Brilliant.

The film is really funny and hits every note it has to. The climax works perfectly and the vibrant colours will keep the kids watching the screen. The disaster film has been given the animated kids film treatment and it works wonderfully. I highly recommend Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs for the entire family.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

All caught up now HK.

[honeykid]

Well done, TUS. Good reviews.

[Brodinski]

I'd forgotten all about Kung Fu Hustle. Put it on my list of movies to watch when I read Ebert's review, but just kinda lost sight of it. Will rent it this weekend!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Let me know what you think of it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 27: May 27th, 2010

From Paris With Love

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/from-paris-with-love-poster.jpg

A Fun Way To Spend 90 Minutes.

Let me start this by saying, Shut your brain off as soon as the film starts.

A young spy who wants to get bigger and better jobs is partnered with an American hot head with a foul mouth and a love for violence. The mission is to stop some terrorists.

To say I was expecting crap would be an understatement. Travolta's goofy look, a tired clichéd pairing of straight man and crazy partner, senseless action that would try to cram a plot and story in at some point. Yet, after the credits rolled, I sat there with a smile on my face. As far as spy films go, this one takes a more action heavy side. There are some cool and interesting gadgets, but I didn't get any James Bond moment.

Travolta surprised me here too. His character was funny, bad ass at times and knew how to kick some ass. The only downside would be that I just couldn't imagine Travolta doing half of these things. He's a great character and fits perfectly with this film, but it seems a tad miscast for the action sequences. Travolta nails every other part of the role. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is the straight man to Travolta's crazy hero. This is nothing new and the film doesn't try to step around this issue. Instead it is upfront about it. It tells you exactly what you are in for when you are introduced to these characters. All it asks is for you, as a viewer, to enjoy the action and thrills this film wants to give you.

The action is non-stop. Of course we are privy to those scenes in between where we need to move the plot along, but the film has shootouts, car chases, foot chases, rocket launchers, etc. It's handled well and I was actually able to see the action on the screen. I was never lost in the film, I knew where I was the whole time and what was being depicted. Again, that one shortfall is that we know Travolta isn't doing these action sequences, it's clearly a stuntman.

With every spy film you know there will be some twist that someone is not who they seem to be. I was able to pick this one out right from the beginning. Again, the plot devices used in From Paris With Love are far from original, we have all seen this film before. So why bother watching it? For the chemistry between the two leads and the action sequences in a beautiful city. The city, we unfortunately, did not see enough of.

I went in with low expectations and came out happy with the end result. I would suggest you do the same.

3

[nebbit]

http://bestsmileys.com/thumbs/3.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 28: May 28th, 2010

The Black Dahlia

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/black_dahlia_ver4.jpg

All Style & No Substance

Two detectives are on the case of The Black Dahlia, which is taking a huge toll on their personal and professional lives.

The Black Dahlia is a mess of a film, but what a beautiful mess it is. De Palma for all accounts is at fault here for failing to make an interesting film on a topic that should have been essentially easy to do. Everyone likes a good detective story and trying to solve the Black Dahlia case is enough to get the audience invested in the history. This film didn't even make me want to look any of the actual accounts up, which tells you how unaccomplished the film is.

As I said earlier, it is beautiful to look at. Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond and Brian De Palma have the noir style down perfect in Dahlia and whenever I got bored, which was 90 percent of the film, I would try to get lost in the atmosphere this film creates. Everything is in the right place, yet only the look of the film manages to make me smile.

Josh Hartnett seems miscast in the lead role that required someone with more gravitas. He still has that boyish charm to him and the role required someone with a harder core shell. Someone along the lines of his partner, Aaron Eckhart. Hilary Swank plays Madeleine Linscott, she always seems to rub me the wrong way with her acting choices. This one is no different. How she has two Oscars is unknown to me. Scarlett Johansson is given nothing in this film to do and if she had something, I doubt she would have been able to pull it off.

This film has too many subplots involving the characters that the case itself seemed to play second fiddle. This shouldn't be the case when your film is called The Black Dahlia. It's hard to see that this film was directed by the guy who also gave us Scarface, The Untouchables and Snake Eyes...okay, maybe I'm alone on that one.

I would advise against watching this film as it fails to ignite any interest in the case or what the story should actually be about. Character relationships seem really odd and written by someone who has no real thoughts or intentions with them. The Black Dahlia should be having people look the murder up and discuss, much like Fincher's Zodiac. This film doesn't do any of that, it feels like it wants to be another film entirely. De Palma has always been hit and miss with me and this entry is showing me that he has lost a lot of what people thought was talent.

Not Recommended, especially for those wanting to know more about the case itself.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Hopefully I get back on track with viewing films I haven't seen and the old list.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 29: May 29th, 2010

Igor

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/igor_poster4_m.jpg

Igor Should Have Been A Success

...but the film fails to deliver on it's actually interesting premise.

Igor is the sidekick to an evil scientist, we always get the evil scientist story, but never the story of the sidekick. This is where this film comes in. Igor, even though he is a sidekick, wants to be an evil scientist himself. Insert some humour that most kids won't get and some dark material that will scare them away, then you are left with an animated film that seemed to have lost it's target audience. It's also completely obvious they are trying to target the Tim Burton crowd as well, but it feels really third rate in terms of anything in that department.

Igor is voiced by John Cusack, interesting choice. My problems with some animated films these days is that we no longer have voice actors in the lead roles, who are trained in this sort of thing, but any actor who is looking for a paycheck to just sit behind a microphone and speak the words from the script out loud. I found that Cusack is at fault here, despite everyone else in the film actually doing a decent job.

The animation is nothing special. If looked at in comparison to other films, it looks very basic and that it belonged to the year 1998, not 2008. The dark and brooding atmosphere is not brooding enough, and not childish enough. It feels very boring and bland. Almost as if no effort was put into it.

The writing is very bad and the script is below par. For a film that could have been filled with some funny jokes about the cliched parts of this genre, it had none that made me laugh. The supporting characters are good, for adults, but not children. I think some kids might be scared that there is a suicidal bunny....even more scared when they find out it is voiced by Steve Buscemi.

With so many good animated films out there, it's easy to close your eyes and blindly pick one up off the shelf that is better than Igor. It falls in the category of completely forgettable, with films like Valiant, Space Chimps, Fly Me To The Moon and others I can't even remember....because they are that forgettable.

I'm sure there are people who had no intention of seeing this. Consider this review as confirmation to those who were maybe a little interested, that you should just skip it.

1.5

[nebbit]

Thanks, will give this one a miss :yup:

[Classicqueen13]

Interesting stuff, Suspect! I like it :)

[honeykid]

This film has too many subplots involving the characters that the case itself seemed to play second fiddle. This shouldn't be the case when your film is called The Black Dahlia. It's hard to see that this film was directed by the guy who also gave us Scarface, The Untouchables and Snake Eyes...okay, maybe I'm alone on that one.

Nah, you're not alone, TUS. Lots of people like The Untouchables. I, of course, am not one of them. :D

If you like true crime though, do take a look at the Black Dahlia case. It's really interesting stuff. This film really should've felt something like L.A. Confidential.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Nah, you're not alone, TUS. Lots of people like The Untouchables. I, of course, am not one of them. :D

If you like true crime though, do take a look at the Black Dahlia case. It's really interesting stuff. This film really should've felt something like L.A. Confidential.

Ah, I meant more along the lines of Snake Eyes. :p

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 30: May 30th, 2010

Speed

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/speed.jpg

Pop Quiz Hot Shot!!!

In light of recent events, I decided to watch a film in Dennis Hopper's honour. I decided on Speed, because it has one of his more entertaining roles, he plays an over the top villain somewhere in between the likes of Frank Booth from Blue Velvet and the bald guy with an eye patch from Waterworld.

"I saw this movie about a bus that had to speed around a city, keeping its speed over fifty, and if its speed dropped, it would explode! I think it was called 'The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down'." - Homer Simpson

That pretty much sums up this film, but to go a bit more in depth...

A disgruntled ex cop takes his issues out on other people with the creative use of bombs. Keanu Reeves saves the day by stopping an elevator bombing scare. This pisses Dennis Hopper off so much that he devises a new plan of putting a bomb on a bus. If the bus goes below 50, the bomb will go off. Can Keanu save the day?

And will we ever see a movie like this again? There is something about this film that makes it special. The action blockbuster that ignited the careers of both Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves. The film does not require a strong leading man, just someone who is able to pull off these stunts. Reeves is able to make it look legit and even though people complain about his acting, he is in no way irritating. Bullock spends most of the film behind the wheel of the bus, so of course she falls in love with the guy. Wait, what? Ah, who cares, right? This kind of stuff always happened in the 90's. Girl falls in love with the good looking guy who saves the day. But those relationships never last (evidence in the lame sequel)

Dennis Hopper is one bad ass guy. He plays crazy so well, his role here is not Blue Velvet Frank Booth crazy, but cray nonetheless. He does the villain role so well that it's hard to imagine him as any other than that. The film is even more enjoyable due to the supporting cast of characters that are on the bus with the two stars. Jeff Daniels plays the buddy cop part, but due to the events in the opening of the film, has to stay at home for the exciting parts on the bus.

With the exception of the bus jumping the gap in the highway scene, which makes me roll my eyes every single time, the film is entertaining and will keep your interest. For a film to take place on a bus for 80% of the film, they did a really good job of not letting that annoy the audience. The film is the perfect formula for action junkies. It has a lot of those adrenaline rush scenes. For me it kind of looses it's steam when the film goes to the subway, but that doesn't ruin the overall excitement and feel of the film.

Speed is one of the best action films of the 90's. There, I said it. I can probably sit down and watch it and never really feel bored. Kudos for making the film watchable many times and still have that rush. A lot of action films on repeat viewings loose that.

R.I.P Dennis Hopper

4

[mark f]

Yesterday, I watched Easy Rider, Easy Rider: Shaking the Cage and Speed. I gave them each 4, so I agree with you. The only thing you didb't mention was Jeff Daniels who contributed plenty to the movie. I'm also starting to think that whether it was subliminal or not, Easy Rider may have influenced my outlook on life as much as any film ever made.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 31: May 31st, 2010

SpongeBob SquarePants

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/spongebob_squarepants_ver8.jpg

Views From Someone Who Never Watches Show

King Neptune's crown is stolen and it is up to Spongebob to get it back.

Before I go on with this review, which will probably be a short one, let me say this. I never got the appeal of the show. I didn't understand why so many kids loved this show nor did I ever watch an episode. It grew bigger and bigger and spawned a film. Going into the film not expecting much from a television animated show to a feature film, I can tell you this. I loved it. I never expected to laugh so much during this film, yet it struck all the right cords for me.

The comedy is hard to pin down because a lot of it makes kids laugh, yet there is so much engraved in this film that it will have the adults laughing too. I was in stitches when David Hasselhoff shows up in Baywatch gear in one of the most random cameos of all time. The two animated characters ride him across the water to get back home. Random? Weird? Hilarious? All three of those rolled into one. That is the style of humour, don't think it's funny? Skip this film.

The film has many recognizable actors supplying their voices, such as Alec Baldwin, Scarlett Johansson, ,Jeffrey Tambor and a favourite of mine who is also a regular cast members, Clancy Brown. The film is really goofy and the animation supports this. At times it changes a bit and you get a Ren and Stimpy style shot, no complaints, just random for a kids show.

I don't really know how to recommend this film. I for one never watched the show and loved the film. People who are fans of the show also seemed to enjoy the flick. I guess if you are into sophisticated humour, you'd have to skip this one. This is really a silly, goofy and immature movie...and I loved it.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm also starting to think that whether it was subliminal or not, Easy Rider may have influenced my outlook on life as much as any film ever made.

I've never seen the film, care to tell me why?

[mark f]

I tend to live my life to give myself as much freedom as possible and I always have. I've quit jobs which were very well paying because I didn't respect my bosses and couldn't respect myself if I continued to allow incompetent bureaucrats tell me how to do a job for which I'd already received commendations and bonuses. In the film, Jack Nichoson's character says that "It's hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace." I probably quote that line more than any other whether it involves a job, politics, ethics, sports, movies or life in general. That's also one reason why I've never become a "conservative" because I've somehow been able to get through life without playing "The Man's" game and becoming just another brick in the wall (or at least I like to believe that about myself).

I was too young to be a hippie, but I still believe in something as simple as "Make Love, Not War". Easy Rider showed that people could search for the "American Dream" but in the late '60s, the odds were that if you didn't fit in, you would never find it. The problem was that fitting in didn't seem to help fulfill anybody but it did breed contempt for others unlike you, and I find that to be the opposite of what I would hope would be American ideals.

I've posted these before around the site. They aren't spoilers, so they will show you what i'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHd6m_cirrU

Then again, I also find the sense of humor and general creativity of the film to be of a high order. This is a scene from the night before where Nicholson tries grass for the first time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73PnAymHAHk&feature=related

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 32: June 1st, 2010

The Game

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/game.jpg

The Ending Did Not Ruin The Film For Me.

Nicholas Van Orton is given a strange birthday gift from his brother. It's a card that tells him to go to this place called CRS, Consumer Recreation Services. They give Nicholas a chance to be a participant in a game. Things get a little too out of hand when the game itself becomes life threatening and Nicholas can't seem to stop it.

The Game is never really mentioned when talking about Fincher and his body of work, good or bad it gets left on the cutting room floor. I guess it's because the film is the middleman sort to speak. You have Se7en, and Fight Club, his two most popular and fan favourite films. Then you have Panic Room and Alien 3, considered lower calibre. Zodiac and Benjamin Button seem to be in a totally different class here, but The Game deserves to be mentioned because it is a well written, thought provoking thriller that manages to peel away at it's mysteries and never have the viewer bored. Even the film's ending, which many people seem to complain about, did not make me hate the film, or think the first 80 or so minutes were a waste.

The film looks and feels just like Fincher's others. It's cold, dark and unforgiving. He manages to craft his most suspenseful film to date and having Michael Douglass run around trying to solve the mystery helps the case. I'm a sucker for films full of mystery, that slowly but surely peel away at those mysteries to reveal the truth. A lot of crime films are like this, but The Game is something different. A bit more psychological, another reason why I liked it so much. Much like Memento, we are lost like the lead character. We know it's a game, he knows it's a game. But we, nor him, know exactly what the game is or what is happening next. We are trying to solve the same mysteries and Fincher makes us care about these things.

Complaints for the film are ones that would have me base the film is reality. To believe the stuff that happens in the film is for one to suspend a lot of belief. The film ends in a way that made me think whether I liked it or not. I would have preferred the first ending, as opposed to the second one, but the way they did it didn't ruin the film. I'm not sure how I will feel on repeated viewings, but as it stands, the thrills were still there and I still enjoyed them. I'm still left with some character motivation questions, some that I will not go into for the sake of spoiling things in the film.

Douglass, whom I usually hate, does a great job here. He is a jerk that slowly begins to unwind his sanity. His Gordon Gekko demeanor works here and yet we still root for his character. Sean Penn has a small role, one too small for me to really comment on and the supporting cast usually only have a scene or two to do anything. Deborah Kara Unger plays a good role in which we have to decide whether or not we trust her. She usually plays wackos.

The Game is something that might frustrate you with the ending, but that's what films are all about, getting some kind of emotional response. I'm not a fan of the last 3 or 4 minutes, to me it seemed to be tacked on by pressure of the studio and would not be something Fincher would normally do. But in the end, The Game is a worthy film if you are looking for a suspenseful thriller.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 33: June 2nd, 2010

I Love You Philip Morris.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/i-love-you-phillip-morris-poster.jpg

A Hard Movie To Sell To Jim Carrey Fans

Steven Russell was a gay man married to a woman. Once he decided to come out and leave her, he became a con artist, which eventually led to him getting caught and thrown in prison. This is where he met Philip Morris and they became lovers. What happened next involves dozens of escape attempts, multiple impersonations and a love story that is funny, depressing and real.

Jim Carrey has two film careers, the one where he makes his stupid faces and sings out of his butt and the other in which he goes the more dramatic route and gets recognized at the Golden Globes, but not the Oscars. With his latest film, he walks a very fine line of comedy and drama. I Love You Philip Morris, right from the start was going to be a hard sell to the movie going public. It openly featured gay men and gay relationships in the forefront. Jim Carrey's target audience isn't the same type who would probably go see Brokeback Mountain, another film that prominently featured two gay male leads.

After watching the film, I decided to look up how much of it was true, since the film opens with the words "This Really Happened...It Really Did" and to my surprise pretty much everything that Jim Carrey does in the film, the real Steven Russell pulled off. Steven Russell has received the nicknames of Houdini and King of Con. His outlandish attempts to get out of prison worked every time, no matter how bizarre they were.

Jim Carrey plays the role where he loses himself in the character. There are scenes that are truly dramatic and test his emotional depth, then there are scenes in which he has to throw himself down some stairs. As I said earlier, he walks a fine line of comedy and drama here. Ewan McGregor is Philip Morris, a shy, soft spoken blonde haired and blue eyed man who falls in love with Jim Carrey while in prison. He isn't given much to do until one emotional scene that requires McGregor to do some pretty intense stuff. He gives more emotion in one phone call in this film then he did in all three of the Star Wars prequels.

I Love You Philip Morris is tackled by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa. Two writers in the directing chair for the first time. They don't shy away from the homosexuality of the film. It's never shy to show you what it wants to show you, if that involves Jim Carrey having sex doggy style all sweaty with a Freddie Mercury wannabe, then so be it. The film plays out with a sense of danger and excitement. Seeing the ingenious ways of how he escaped each time is interesting and fun to watch. The film handles both comedy and drama in a weird way. But based on how the real story happened, it was the best way they could.

I Love You Philip Morris is a funny film, at times. It's never a laugh out loud riot. It has a story to tell and it's a love story. The relationship between the two leads is more real than any romantic comedy you'll find this year. The problem is that it might get lost in the style of the film. It felt odd at times, not knowing when to be funny or not. This is a role for Jim Carrey and it isn't. This is a romance film about love, not Jim Carrey having a funny good time.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 34: June 3rd, 2010

Get Low

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/get_low.jpg

A Great Performance To Bookend A Great Career.

Felix Bush is a hermit, he lives all alone in the backwoods and he likes it that way. He has a sign that reads 'no trespassing', when someone trespasses, he puts up another sign 'no damn trespassing'. One day a priest arrives to inform him of a death, someone he knows. He then gets the idea to have a funeral party for himself, while he is still alive.

If Robert Duvall were to stop acting now then he can be proud of his career. He surely will continue to act, because he's darn good at it, but with Get Low he manages to give a performance that is both emotional and real. The film is loosely based on real events and Duvall, along with the supporting cast are able to bring this dry period piece to a rather enjoyable close.

Get Low is something that many people will think is boring, and it is at parts. If it weren't for the performance from Duvall, then the film would be rated lower in my books. Bill Murray, Bill Cobbs and Lucas Black all share the screen time, but never do much to really hold a scene with Duvall. They are good, but Duvall simply outshines them all. One scene in particular comes to mind and it's the most interesting part of the film itself, near the end. Duvall gives a speech and it feels real, you feel the humanity in his performance and speech, as if someone's grandfather were telling them a story for the first time.

Lucas Black's role could have been played by anyone. Unfortunately for Black, he hasn't matured enough as an actor to make this role memorable or even important. I give him points for starring in a film like this, more attempts like this and he might be enjoyable. Bill Murray channels his Broken Flowers role here. He saunters along and throws in the occasional smart ass remark. Sissy Spacek plays an old friend of Felix, they have history together. Certain revelations are made in the film that put a heavy strain on their so called friendship.

The film at first is about this man who wants to throw a funeral party, but but the film's end, it seems as if it was never about that at all. The most important scene is indeed at his funeral party, but it's for reasons only revealed to the viewer at that particular moment. Felix has a secret, a reason he is all alone now. The film doesn't really try to get us to guess what it is or care about it until really late in the story.

Get Low looks great and is directed confidently. The film has a wooden golden glow to it. Very appropriate considering Felix is a carpenter of some sort. It plays well in the time line it's characters are in and never feels fake. There have been some talk about Oscars for this film. While I don't really think it has a chance in any department, the only one that wouldn't surprise me is Robert Duvall. His honest portrayal of a broken man that hates himself should be recognized. Get Low is something that not many film goers will appreciate, but those looking for good performances from veteran actors (Black being the exception) will find something to like in Get Low. I know I did.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 34: June 4th, 2010

Shark Tale

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Shark_Tale-montage_L-01.jpg

Big Name Stars Don't Make The Film Any Better.

A mafia film of sorts, set underwater and with fish. Will Smith is Oscar, a fish that lies about killing a shark. The shark was actually killed by a dropped anchor, yet Oscar was at the scene and is now known as the Sharkslayer. Mob Boss Robert DeNiro hears about his son's death and takes matters into his own hands, this doesn't bode well for Oscar.

Shark Tale at first glance seems to be a mere rip off of Finding Nemo. The Pixar film that had fish as their main characters was charming, funny and adventurous. It's not fair to compare the two, since this film lacks all of those ingredients. Shark Tale instead relies on pop-culture references to get the adults smirking and the bright colourful fish to get the kids wanting the toys. The story, the animation and the fun are all below the bar. With every film that is released by Dreamworks, the inevitable will happen. People will compare it to Pixar. Pixar is simply in another league, they seem to care about their stories and characters and not just having a bunch of people cash in on the current craze.

Shark Tale has an impressive cast, if this were a live action dramatic film, starring Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, Robert DeNiro and was directed by Scoresese, then we might have a masterpiece on our hands. Alas, the actors of this world think that just because they lend their voice to an animated character, that their job is half done for them. Jack Black works in this film, even DeNiro, who plays up on his past roles. Jolie, Zellweger and Smith do not. They have nothing to add to the film that some nameless actress/actor could have done.

There is no sense of adventure. We are trapped under the sea instead of exploring the depths of this world. It was interesting to see the fish life here, but I'm sure we've all seen creative takes on modern life in a film that has an odd setting, The Flinstones is famous for this.

I still hear people talking about Finding Nemo today, hell even older animated films like Toy Story, but Shark Tale seemed to have faded the next day after the release. It's not memorable to kids, nor will adults find any real charm or wit. The film tries to hard with a lot of the jokes and references that it becomes tiresome.

Shark Tale fails because it would rather have big name stars on the poster, than a tangible and interesting story. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, what matters most in a film is the story. Sure, it can be done before, but as long as the story teller and the story telling is good and has my interest, I'm game. Shark Tale did none of this and it felt lazy, much like the cast.

2

[Classicqueen13]

Thank you! Even as a kid, I didn't like Shark Tale and never got what there was to like about it

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 36: June 5th, 2010

The Breakfast Club

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/breakfast.jpg

The Ultimate Teen Flick?

A group of kids are sent to detention on a Saturday for various reasons. They are all different, from the nerd, the jock, the rebel, the princess and the weirdo. These kids manage to find out things about each other and themselves while serving detention.

Even though I was born in 1987, two years after the film was released, I can relate to it. That's what makes The Breakfast Club so damn good, kids generations later can still relate to the characters and their problems. John Hughes is the one person in the film industry who got what teenagers desired, were scared of and felt. The man was/is a legend and the 80's belonged to him. The Breakfast Club is one of my favourites from him. Planes, Trains and Automobiles still takes the top spot, but The Breakfast Club has more of an emotional connection to the viewer.

The cast, also known as the Brat Pack, do a wonderful job filling in their high school clichéd roles. Emilio Estevez , the mighty duck man I swear to god, plays the jock. He has an intense and emotional scene that felt like an anthem for millions of teens going through the same problems. The same goes for the other characters, all have problems in their lives that every other teenager can relate to. Whether it's Judd Nelson and his abusive father or Michael Anthony Hall and the pressure to do well in school.

Paul Gleason is wonderfully evil as the principal who seems to have a hate for these kids. His speeches are great to listen to and he nails the role. His performance is my favourite the in the film. Look out for that John Hughes cameo at the end as the kids are picked up from detention. That's a little something extra for you folks at home that dig that kind of stuff.

The music rocks, the theme is still played today and is immediately associated with the film. There are many memorable scenes, too many to mention and the overall feel of the film has numerous re-watch capabilities. When people think of John Hughes, the one film I think that they will immediately go to is The Breakfast Club. Not only was it the film the teenagers of the 80's could relate to, but it's a film that will live on and touch the hearts of many others. It's funny, depressing and emotionally challenges you. It doesn't treat you like an idiot, Hughes knew his audience and treated the kids with the intelligence he knew they had.

4

[mark f]

It's my second fave Hughes flick, after Ferris Bueller... , and those are the only two I give 4, at least of the films he directed.

[nebbit]

I am all caught up now :yup: I have watched the Breakfast Club twice this year :yup:

[Iroquois]

Now I'm reminded of the fan theory I read online a while back about how Bender actually comes from a good background with nice parents but pretends to be from an abusive household as an act of rebellion.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Now I'm reminded of the fan theory I read online a while back about how Bender actually comes from a good background with nice parents but pretends to be from an abusive household as an act of rebellion.

Interesting, that would make me ask the question: Where are his parents at the end?

If he came from a good family, surely they would know he had detention and pick him up right?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 37: June 6th, 2010

Forrest Gump

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/forrestgump.jpg


A Film Everyone Should Watch.

So my good friend Powdered Water recommended Forrest Gump for me in my last attempt at this, I didn't get a chance to get to it. Now I have and that's one more off the list. Sooner or later, every film that was recommended to me will be watched, as long as I can get a copy of it.

Forrest Gump tells the story of, well Forrest Gump. The man was born with some disabilities, but he has overcome them and somehow seems to be present at a lot of historical moments. He's in love with his childhood friend Jenny, who constantly eludes him.

The film that beat my favourite film of all time at the Oscars. I'm not hating it, I think that both films deserved the title. Forrest Gump is something else. It seems to have been one of those, right place at the right time flicks. Everything about it simply works, it's heartwarming, funny, intelligent and depressing.

Tom Hanks gave us an unforgettable performance that goes down in history as one of the greatest. He is lost in this character and Gump takes a life of it's own. Probably one of the most lovable characters in the history of cinema. Jenny, the woman of his affections is played by Robin Wright Penn, her performance is almost saddening. Her life is constantly spiraling out of control and you can do nothing to stop it. Gary Sinise is hilarious as Lt. Dan, the hard ass in the army who loses his legs. We love to hate it at the beginning, then we come around, much like his character.

Speaking of losing legs, despite the film not needing a heavy load of CGI, it uses it beautifully. Inserting Gump into old footage and giving Sinise the lack of legs among other things. These are small things compared to what people are doing today, but Zemeckis has always been one to push technology in films, here he does it very well and never does it encompass the film. The story is forefront, something that he needs to get back into.

Forrest Gump is an everyman film. Meaning the almost everyone will like it. Some political messages may turn people the other way, but the overall feel of the film is something that a lot of people share. Every once in a while there is one film that touches a lot of people, I think Forrest Gump is one of those films. Even though the film goes off in many different directions, it works. Forrest in the army in one segment, then running around the country in another? I love it.

4.5

[Iroquois]

Interesting, that would make me ask the question: Where are his parents at the end?

If he came from a good family, surely they would know he had detention and pick him up right?

You never know. They could always be those cold, distant parents that couldn't really care about what Bender gets up to, which would explain the fact that he's a troublemaker that's constantly getting Saturday detentions.

[honeykid]

You never know. They could always be those cold, distant parents that couldn't really care about what Bender gets up to, which would explain the fact that he's a troublemaker that's constantly getting Saturday detentions.

But then he wouldn't be from a 'good' family, would he?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 38: June 7th, 2010

The Rundown

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rundown.jpg

A Fun Film Showcasing The Rock's Talents.

Loosely based on Midnight Run, Beck is sent to retrieve Travis from the Amazon. One last job before he can quite and open up his restaurant. Along the way things don't go according to plan and the two of them have to fight for their lives.

After his brief cameo in The Mummy Returns and the lead role in the forgettable The Scorpion King, it seemed that The Rundown would be his first true chance at taking over the action franchise from the likes of Arnold, who coincidentally has a cameo in this film. The Rundown does just that, shows The Rock in a lighthearted, action oriented funny film that showcases his talent as an actor. He's not another Hulk Hogan making movies because he can, but he actually has some talent. The guy is fun to watch on the screen and his film career since then has proved so.

The Rock get physical in this film, all the fights scenes are stylized to the point of exaggeration. This doesn't detract from the film, it sets up the viewer for the way the film will play out. The fight scene that uses this stylized violence the most is when The Rock takes on the rebels and Keno from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Can a simple kick really throw him in the air like that, just to be kicked again mid air? I don't think so. If you can get pass this style of action, then the Rundown will be entertaining.

Sean William Scott manages to break out of his Stifler role, something he tried to do earlier with Bulletproof Monk. Here he has a better co-star to play his comedy off of. Since then he seems to have been hit or miss with his films and continues to star in films with The Rock. Here, Scott isn't irritating, so that is a plus, with the exception of one scene in which he reuses his Evolution joke of making a bird call.

Rosario Dawson and Christohper Walken are the supporting players, both plays their roles with no real memorable parts. Rosario Dawson is almost completely forgettable in a role that is underwritten and Walken just seems to be doing his own thing, which he always does in films. We let him get away with it because his Christopher Freakin Walken.

Peter Berg did well with this one, he manages to balance both comedy and action very well and the sequences are entertaining to watch. It helps that he has two stars that played well off each other and could pull off the physical stunts required from the roles. The Rundown isn't something to jump up and down about or rush out to see either. It's a film that you can sit down and watch randomly one day and not be upset about it afterwards.

3

[nebbit]

Must check The Rundown out :yup: Thanks :)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 39: June 8th, 2010

Funny Games

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/funnygames.jpg

Takes Hostel & Saw And Turns It Into An Art Form.

A family head up to their vacation home when they are interrupted by two young polite boys who want to play vicious and dangerous games with them. The games result in the cost of people lives, as the family is taken hostage.

This is of course the American remake of the same film from the same director. Not only is it a remake, but it takes the Gus Van Sant route and makes the film a shot for shot remake. The film stars reservoir dog Mr. Orange himself, Tom Roth. The blonde and beautiful Naomi Watts and the always memorable Michael Pitt. Funny Games manages to take the act of violence and make us want to turn our heads. We go see the films like Saw and Hostel wanting to see the disgusting depravity of it all and Michael Haneke uses this to his advantage and play off that notion in the film. We as the audience expect one thing and are given another.

Another film I recently reviewed was Martyrs, which showed us the lead characters and how they had no hope at all of ever surviving. I didn't like that and how it was represented in the film, I had a hard time trying to connect to the characters knowing they were stuck in such a horrible place. I gave the film kudos for making me squirm. Funny Games didn't make me squirm but it did have the same feel for the characters. The moment you know everything is going to end badly is when Paul (Michael Pitt) turns to the camera and talks directly to the audience. This is further proved when the odd yet fascinating scene in which he literally rewinds the film to change the outcome of some events. This tells us that these two characters are in control of everything. Everything they choose to do to the family and everything they choose to let us see. The last shot of the film is very striking.

Michael Haneke knew exactly what he wanted to do with the film and when he first released the original back in 1997 he was quoted as saying "if the film was a success, it would be because audiences had misunderstood the meaning behind it." I can see traces of that in the film. He knows we as a society are desensitized to violence, so he made the film come off as such. But instead of the film being violent, it's merely about violence itself. Every death takes place off screen and when we finally see the image of blood, it's more striking because of the restrain used earlier. Long still camera shots are used to let the audience sit uncomfortably, waiting to cut away to another shot. We are stuck with the images of the characters in their most humiliating moments.

The two antagonists, are young boys dressed in white. Another play on societies conventions of good versus evil, black versus white. They are extremely polite, instead of rude and abrasive. The small things these characters say have such a sinister feel to them, even if they are the most harmless words. Suddenly a line like "I'm sorry, I've been so clumsy, I do apologize" feels as if he is threatening and about to do harm. They are always calm, cool and collective.

Funny Games is something of an experiment and Haneke is the one who is either laughing or disappointed. He knew what he wanted and he got it, whether or not we know of it. I won't bother seeing the original, as reviews state they are identical aside from the obvious (Language and Actors). Funny Games as a film is directed with precision and acted strongly from the entire cast. Even the young boy surprised me. At times I was reminded of Mr. Orange screaming on the floor in agony because Roth uses that same high pitch voice. I know there are people out there who detest the film, which is why it works. If you love it, you're sick, if you hate it, you missed the message. If you think you got the message, you probably didn't. Me? I don't know exactly how I feel about it, I do know I didn't hate or love it. I guess I'm that anomaly in the equation.

3.5

[mark f]

Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a 2.5. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 40: June 9th, 2010

Hot Tub Time Machine

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/hot_tub_time_machine_poster1.jpg

Great White Buffalo...

3 friends and one of their nephews go to a ski resort to get away from their boring lives and to try help one that almost committed suicide by accident. The resort isn't what they remembered, it's almost in shambles. They do find a hot tub though and upon entering it get completely wasted and spill some foreign energy drink on the controls, sending them back in time to the 80's. Thinking they can't do anything to change the past or they will screw up the future. Thus, they try to recreate the events that happened back then and try to find a way home before it's too late.

The title alone is what I think got a lot of people interested in the film, it's totally ridiculous and perfect for this style of comedy. The film even plays a joke on the title when one of the lead characters looks right into the camera and says "It must be some kind of...Hot Tub Time Machine". With nudity, drugs, cursing and a lot of sexual and crude jokes, Hot Tub Time Machine manages to stay funny throughout, something I found very surprising. As much as I like the Judd Apatow comedy troupe and their films, it's always refreshing to see a different comedy actually be funny and work.

The cast is an odd one, John Cusack plays Adam, the straight laced guy who finally let's loose when he is stuck in the 80's. Craig Robinson is Nick, the married one from the group and Rob Corddry is Lou, the self proclaimed ******* of the group. Clark Duke is Jacob, Adams nephew. He tags along for the trip because he is staying at Adam's house while his mom lives with her new boyfriend, whom he hates. The young actor manages to keep up with the older gents and even though may seem out of place at first, fits in as the film rolls on. Speaking of being out of place, John Cusack doesn't seem like he would be in this type of film, it's nice to see him play against type, sort to speak. He plays his usual self, just not in his usual self film. If you know what I mean. Corddry and Robinson play their roles perfectly and are the two highlights of the film, sharing the funniest scene involving a bet gone wrong and a bathroom.

I won't go into the time travel properties of the film, it doesn't for one second try to explain or even attempt to have a serious thought about the state of time travel. This isn't Back To The Future, even though George McFly himself has a supporting role here. As long as you can get pass the implausibility of the plot, you'll be fine. You should be able to judge that yourself by the trailer...or even the film's title.

Some minor problems involving characters for me though. Why does the reporter take a liking to Adam? Why was Chevy Chase so cryptic and did he really exist? These things are minor gripes on my end and if you are going into this film just wanting to laugh and not give two craps about that sort of thing, then you'll be able to overlook these details. It's definitely a teen comedy with an R rating. Sometimes it's fun to laugh at immature things.

I can see the film having a cult following. It seems to stand in the shadow of last years The Hangover, but people shouldn't be comparing the two. The only thing the two share in common is a drunken aftermath of problems. See the flick with friends on a Friday night and you will enjoy yourself. If you like comedy that involves oral sex, foul language, a man crying while having sex, and Chevy Chase, you'll be fine. If not, just look to the future.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a 2.5. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.

I've only seen this film from him, but am looking out for Cache.

Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?

Questions my friend...questions.

[Iroquois]

But then he wouldn't be from a 'good' family, would he?

That's not the definition of "good" I had in mind. The film implies that Bender comes from a white trash household and has a father that's both physically and verbally abusive. By "good" I mean that he comes from a more affluent background similar to Andy's or Claire's, but his parents either don't care about him or don't know what to do with him. You could probably make a similar case for the other kids' parents as well.

[honeykid]

Thanks for the comments on the review though. It makes me wonder one thing. I got 7+ rep on Spongebob and I think that's my worst written review of the bunch, yet it's one of the more popular ones? Is it the review or is it the film?

Questions my friend...questions.
I usually (though not always) play it like this with + rep for reviews.

If I've seen the film and your opinion agrees with mine, obviously that's a +. If you don't, but you articulate what you saw/thought differently well, at least to my mind, that's a +. If I haven't seen the film and the review makes me want to see it (either because of the writing or just because the film sounds good) that's a + and if I'm not sure about a film and a review pushes me one way or the other (into seeing it or not) that's a +.

Hot Tub Time Machine is something I've toyed with seeing since its release. Some things look/sound good others not. Your review enforced both, but I've yet to make a decision and, after reading the review, I'm not moved any further either way. Therefore, I've not + repped it.

It may sound odd or harsh, but that's how I usually do it for all the reviews on this site.

That's not the definition of "good" I had in mind. The film implies that Bender comes from a white trash household and has a father that's both physically and verbally abusive. By "good" I mean that he comes from a more affluent background similar to Andy's or Claire's, but his parents either don't care about him or don't know what to do with him. You could probably make a similar case for the other kids' parents as well.
I see. Thanks for cleaning that up.

So this wasn't anything that was actually in the film, just something someone came up with. So, for instance, I could say that Andrew's father is gay and that he thinks that, by pushing his son to be the best (i.e. most macho) he's trying to ensure that his son isn't, as he blames his own father for his homosexuality. There's nothing in the film to suggest that's true, but I can theorize that it is.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 41: June 10th, 2010

Carriers

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/carnew.jpg

Carriers Is A Good Epidemic Film.

An unknown virus eliminates the better half of the country/world. It is highly contagious and if you have it, you're already dead. Four people, two brothers and two females travel across the countryside to find a place to settle, away from this horror. Along the way they come across moral dilemmas and even though they have a strict set of rules, end up breaking a few.

Those rules I spoke of are pretty simple. 1. Avoid populated areas at all costs. 2. If you come in contact with other people, assume they have it. 3. The virus can survive on surfaces up to 24 hours. Never touch something that is not disinfected. 4. The sick are already dead and they cannot be saved.

So it is safe to assume that in order to have an entertaining film and some high tension conflict, some of these characters need to break those rules. The so called leader of the group is Chris Pine, who plays Brian. He's the one who made up the rules and will kick you out of the car as soon as you become infected. He has no problem leaving people stranded and left to die in order to further his own survival. His brother Danny, played by Lou Taylor Pucci is a little more compassionate for others. He's not as tough. Bobby is Brian's girlfriend, played by Piper Perabo. She doesn't have too much to do in the film except play that girlfriend type. Finally we come to another underwritten character Kate, played by Emily VanCamp. Her thing is checking to see if pay phones still work so she can call her family, even though they are most likely dead.

As stated before, the two females in this film are underused and underwritten. They seem like background characters to add the missing feminine aspect of the film. Chris Pine is great as the older brother, his no nonsense and cocky attitude are also qualities seen in the recent Star Trek film. The most emotional character that I think people are going to be able to relate to is not even one of our four. Instead it's a minor character that we are introduced to early on, Frank, played by Christopher Meloni of Oz and Law & Order fame. He has the unfortunate task of looking after his infected daughter. He meets our leads and they take his car, striking a deal to bring him along to a hospital for a cure he thinks exists. A very heartfelt and depressing scene involves his daughter needing to go to the washroom. He asks her to be a big girl and go herself, so he can stay with the car, fearing they will abandon him and his daughter. Christopher Meloni is an underused actor who needs more work people.

The film never explains the virus or how global it really is. I'm assuming it's the entire world and not just the country. The unexplained events on how or why it happened leaves it all up to the viewer to decide. All that is known is that the virus is highly contagious and if you get it, you'll be dead soon. The characters make usual stops here and there for sleep and gas, at every stop they encounter some kind of problem. It becomes a bit predictable, but it never ceases to keep you interested. I found the film to be quite thrilling at times.

The thing that Carriers does well is leave you with questions to ask yourself. What would you do in this situation. Would you leave your loved ones to die because you don't want to get infected, or would you try to help them and work around this obstacle? The film shows those two choices put into action. Carriers is not a horror film, even though people seem to think so, nor is it an action filled thriller. There are some intense scenes, but to me it mostly played out like a drama. It is only 89 or so minutes, so it goes by fairly quickly, even though some people have been complaining about it's sluggish start. I think the setting of being in a desert added to the desolate and slow feel at times. In the end, Carriers is a good epidemic film. Not a lot happens in it, but the story and my personal thoughts on what I would do in this situation are enough for me to recommend it.

3

[Iroquois]

I see. Thanks for cleaning that up.

So this wasn't anything that was actually in the film, just something someone came up with. So, for instance, I could say that Andrew's father is gay and that he thinks that, by pushing his son to be the best (i.e. most macho) he's trying to ensure that his son isn't, as he blames his own father for his homosexuality. There's nothing in the film to suggest that's true, but I can theorize that it is.

Yeah, why not? Fan theories are always interesting at worst.

[honeykid]

No, they're usually stupid, like the one I made up.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 42: June 11th, 2010

P2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/poster_73489_P2_Black_2dAmry.jpg

More Violent & Bloody Than I Thought It Would Be.

A business woman has to work late on Christmas Eve, when she finally finishes and heads down to the parking garage, her car won't start. She asks the parking attendant to help her, but what she doesn't realize is that he is a deranged psychopath who has been watching her and wanting to be with her for quite some time now.

I had pretty low expectations for this film, after all it is set in a parking garage. Yet P2 surprised me, not only was it suspenseful, it had great performances and a pretty surprising amount of violence. With a lot of horror/thrillers these days they seem to skim out on the bloody violence, but P2 uses it very well here. It's not overly done, only used sparingly. When it is used, it's gruesome, which adds to the ick factor. P2 gets a thumbs up from me because of that.

Wes Bently plays the parking attendant and he plays crazy very well. His calm demeanour is even more sinister than what a loud lunatic would be. He wants to be Rachel Nichols' friend desperately, he is madly in love with her. In his sick and twisted way, they need/have to be together. He is there to help her realize this and is willing to kill those who either get in the way or mistreat her. This takes us into our first death and one of the most gruesome parts of the film. For those that are squeamish, they should look away because one characters gets beaten repeatedly and then some. I find myself liking Bently more and more with every film I see him in, with the exception of Ghost Rider...ew.

Rachel Nichols is the female lead, she is suppose to be the clichéd blonde bimbo in distress. P2 switches the tables around, no longer are we stuck with a stupid character who falls over when they are running away from the killer. We are given a smart and determined business woman, who is constantly showing off her cleavage. Yes, this movie for some reason has put our heroine in a white dress that was most likely done to please the male audience.

P2 isn't for everyone, I'm sure there are dozens of things wrong with it. Such as why doesn't she simply pull the fire alarm, just for starters. But the film did what it was suppose to do. Put a female in danger, have a strange and sadistic murderer follow her and the film becomes a cat and mouse game. In the endless list of films that do this, P2 is surprisingly well done. It's definitely underrated as many people seemed to have overlooked it. I wouldn't suggest you rush out and rent this today, but if you were ever interested even a little bit, check it out. That is, if you've ever heard of it.

3

[honeykid]

I was tempted by this when it was released, but decided against it. This is the second positive review I've read here in a week or so. I'll give it a look next time the opportunity presents itself.

[Iroquois]

No, they're usually stupid, like the one I made up.

Perhaps. I still find some of the stupid theories interesting if only because of the strange logic behind them all.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Sorry for the late reviews, went camping this weekend. It was intense (get it?)

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 43: June 12th, 2010

Hot Fuzz

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/hot-fuzz-poster-1.jpg

Forget it, Nick. It's Sandford.

Nick Angel is the top cop in London, with arrests that are 400% higher than anyone else in his department. This doesn't look so good for everyone else, so the decision to ship him off to a small village is made. Angel arrives and finds it difficult to cope with the lack of real crime and the lack of policing in the village. That is until bodies begin to pile high and Nick suspects something sinister is up and about and he goes an action rampage trying to solve this mystery.

If the names Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright sound vaguely familiar to you, then you've probably seen the insanely funny Shaun of the Dead. After the release of that film, it became an instant cult classic that ran a thin line between comedy, romance and horror. Or what people now call it, a Rom Zom Com. Now these guys are at it again, this time in the buddy cop action genre. It's safe to say they've knocked it out of the park, yet again. It's refreshing seeing talent delve into more than one specific genre.

Hot Fuzz does for action films what Shaun of the Dead did for horror. It brings a unique comedic style and touch to a genre that has been done to death and somehow manages to pull off a great film. Just like Shaun, Fuzz has the same actors making the appearances, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. There are a few cameos in the film, Steve Coogan, Bill Nighy, Martin Freeman to name a few. Much to my surprise there were two more cameos, I don't want to give them away, but look closely at the Santa Clause who stabs Nick and his masked girlfriend.

From the beginning of the film you can tell that Wright is behind the camera. The quick action cuts of every little thing (from taking your jacket off to putting your keys in the door) is done in such a fast paced way and so often, that it has somehow become his 'trademark'. In Shaun this was used a couple of times, but here it's in almost every scene, yet it somehow compliments the film. When you're homaging and parodying action films, everything should be exaggerated, tightly shot and quickly edited. Even the small things like doing paperwork.

For film buffs, it's neat to pick out the references to other films. There are dozens scattered throughout Fuzz. If it's not blatant and in your face like Point Break or Straw Dogs, it's subtle and only spoken. "Forget it Nick, It's Sandford". Obvious reference to Chinatown.

The townsfolk all play their parts well, with James Bond himself, Dalton, standing out as the devilish supermarket boss. Seeing these townsfolk being so ordinary and timid make for the climax of this film even more enjoyable. The climax itself is the entire third act of the film, which is where most of the laughs are, which is unfortunate. The film is a slow starter, but once it reaches that climax, it's no holds barred.

It's right to say that Wright and co. brought their horror specialties to Fuzz, as so many scenes seem like they could have been brought right out of a horror film. All of the deaths are bloody and really do belong in horror films. I did not expect it to be so graphic in this style of film.

In the end, Hot Fuzz indeed delivers the laughs and the action, which is all saved for the third act. It doesn't reach the greatness of Shaun, but it manages to separate itself from it and for that I can recommend it. I say that because I love horror and Shaun of the Dead came out of nowhere. So we didn't really know what to expect, with Hot Fuzz there was an already built in fan base. Hot Fuzz is the better made film, more polished and on a grander scale. Ah, what the hell, both films are great.

4

[meatwadsprite]

Nice review, but I'd say that both versions deserve a 2.5. I tend to find Haneke overrated in general and I hate to use the word overrated even more than you hate the word "reimagining'. He is interesting though.

I'm too interested to not check this out now. The director, directing a shot for shot remake of his own movie ... brilliant ?

Hot Fuzz is the better made film, more polished and on a grander scale.

:yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 44: June 13th, 2010

The A-Team

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/The-A-Team.jpg

"Ten years ago, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team."

That voice over was used for the show every episode. This film is the story that precursors the show, sort to speak. They are double crossed while doing a job and are sent to prison. They break out and look to clear their names. If this sounds really familiar, but you've never seen the show, it might be because a film that is almost identical to it was released earlier this year, The Losers. With almost every review, you'll most likely get comparisons to this film. I'll try to get it out of the way quickly. The A-Team is a better film, you'll have more fun with it.

I never followed the show, so I can't comment on how reliable the film is to the characters, but to me they pulled off their roles nicely. Cooper has the playboy handsome role down pat. Neeson, I am starting to like more and more. I usually find him a tad boring, but with Taken and now The A-Team, it seems he has found a calling in action films. Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson plays the famous role of B.A., originally played by Mr. T. He throws out some catchphrases here and there and is used as some comedic relief. The star of the film is without a doubt Sharlto Copley. I give the producers credit for giving such a role to someone who's only had one screen credit from the year prior. Copley pulls it off, yet again. Two roles that are outstanding.

When I first saw the trailer, it had the scene in which a tank is falling through the air and Cooper gets to the gun and shoots a plane down. It was over the top and ridiculous. This film is full of moments like this, so I knew going in that I had to be in the right mindset. I tend to forgive films for being over the top if they are in on the joke themselves. Wanted would be a nice example of this. The A-Team is full of next to impossible stunts that would never work in this world of physics and gravity. We go to films to escape and be entertained, The A-Team does this.

Joe Carnahan does a good job at keeping the action intense and the pace of the film at a brisk pace. We only settle down for a minute here and there to catch our breath and advance that thing we like to call a plot. The film is predictable and by the numbers, but you can expect that. People seem to be hating on Carnahan, just like they did with Smokin' Aces. I liked both films. The A-Team isn't a critic film, it's a movie for action junkies who can appreciate unique ways of upping the ante.

Jessica Biel and Patrick Wilson show up in supporting roles. Biel is Sossa, ex-girlfriend of Cooper and on their heels wherever they go trying to catch them after breaking out of prison. She looks great and does the job that is needed. Which is to look good with Cooper. Wilson plays Lynch, a CIA guy who first gives the job to them. He helps them break out of prison and wants them to continue on with the mission. For some odd reason his role did remind me of Jason Patrick's role in The Losers. Patrick also had that weird vibe about him and both roles were a little similar, minus the lame jokes Patrick used.

Some shoddy CGI bits at the climax of the film might take you out of the experience for a moment or two, but The A-Team works as a summer movie popcorn flick. I don't know what the critics were expecting, but movie does what it is suppose to: Have good looking women, comedic bits to have the audience laughing, explosions, shootouts, car chases, foot chases and actors who look to be actually enjoying themselves. Both The A-Team and The Losers are good films, one is better than the other. So if you were choosing between the two, I'd pick The A-Team. If you've seen The Losers and thought the story was ridiculous and didn't like it, you might want to skip this one. The comparisons, again, are inevitable.

Oh yeah...I Pity The Fool.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 45: June 14th, 2010

Crank: High Voltage

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/crank-2-high-voltage-poster.jpg

Crank 2 Is Off The Wall Insanity.

After surviving a fall from a helicopter, Chev Chelios is kidnapped directly from the spot he landed in and is taken to a place where they remove his heart. He is given an artificial one that requires an electrical charge to keep running, every hour or so. Now Chelios is on the run trying to find his old heart and to keep charged.

I had an appreciation for the first Crank, it was a live action Grand Theft Auto. Creating as much chaos as possible within the running time. It ended perfectly, with his death. Crank 2 comes around and ruins that. At least, for my own sanity, right from the beginning they have a telecaster look directly to the viewer and tell them how implausible all of this is. Could this be the writers and directors telling the audience that this was a studio decision?

Crank 2 doesn't hold any punches, it goes all out and doesn't stop. It somehow finds a way to be even more chaotic than the original, but it sacrifices any kind of logical straight forward story. The first, even though it was far fetched, seemed like it might possibly happen. Crank 2 doesn't seem to be based in any kind of reality. I do still like the city and world these characters live in. It's just like a video game/comic book come to life.

Statham once again shows us why he is the new face of the action genre. The Rock has moved on to Disney family films and Statham continues to be in films that he knows his fans will love. Crank 2 is violent and obscene. Just like it wants to be, Chelios is a despicable character, just like he wants to be. Statham plays the role with a bit of charm that makes him likable. Amy smart is here again, but she seems even more useless now than before. Was her purpose in this one just to re-enact the famous sex in public scene from original?

The Crank films are without a doubt a guys film. Crank 2 even more so. Sex, violence, harsh language and insane sequences like a shotgun shoved up a guy's ass or two characters transforming into Godzilla like creatures, it's something that requires a viewer to leave their brain not only at the door, but at the door of another house. The comedy is unique and in your face, it doesn't hold back with any subject matter. It's degrading to women and homosexuals and maybe even intellectuals. If you liked the first Crank, you'll like this one.

For what it is worth, I dug the craziness of the film. The style it was shot in was fast and dirty, that reflects the story and the characters in it. I can see a third film coming out, just wondering what they plan on doing with it makes my head hurt though.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 46: June 15th, 2010

Chopping Mall

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/ChoppingMall.jpg

At Least They Got The Mall Part Of The Title Right.

8 teenagers decide to spend some extra time in the mall after it closes. They party it up in one of the stores, drinking beer and having sex. What they don't know though, is that the mall has a new security team. A team of robots, which have coincidentally, had their mother computer struck by lightning and thus rewiring their system. They are set to kill. And kill they do...in lame and uninteresting ways.

Chopping Mall is one of the numerous horror films that I would see sitting on the shelf of a local video store when I was a kid and I would be intrigued by the great, at the time, VHS cover. A robot like hand holding a shopping bag with body parts in it. With the tag line"Where Shopping Can Cost You An Arm And A Leg". Unfortunately, Chopping Mall suffers from too many things to even make it a pleasurable B horror movie.

The killer robots, or killbots, looks pretty ancient. Even for the 80's. They look like a mix between Short Circuit, the Daleks and every other robot. Nothing too imaginative here. The deaths, with the exception of one awesome head explosion, are tame and lame. With a title like Chopping Mall, I was surprised too see not one chop. At least they got the mall part of the title right.

The acting is horror cheese, as expected. The special effects are horror cheese, also expected. The suspense, is nonexistent. The main problem this film has, are the villains. These robots are not threatening in the least. They look like toys. The film doesn't even feel like a horror film. Instead it plays out like an action sci/fi.

The continuity is appalling. In a film like The Evil Dead the continuity mistakes propel the film to a better level of awesomeness. It helped that they were trapped and going crazy from the evil demons. Here, it is too distracting. One hand holding a propane tank, cut to close up and both hands are on gun. Cut between the two shots 5 or 6 times and it is jarring.

Chopping Mall is a poor film, it's poor even by cult film standards. I can see myself giving this film two ratings. A film rating, and a trashy horror rating. One would be better than the other.

1.5


Trash Rating
3

[mark f]

WTF?

Where's Midnight Cowboy? Little Big Man? Cabaret? Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Casablanca? Raging Bull? Rear Window? Paths of Glory? Or even, God forbid, Elmer Gantry? :laugh:

[Iroquois]

Pfft, you don't expect him to watch old movies, do you?

[TheUsualSuspect]

I need to get my hands on them first.

I actually own Raging Bull, but have never seen it. Consider that one to come up soon now, thanks Mark.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 47: June 16th, 2010

Funny People

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/funny_people_ver2.jpg

Apatow Matures As A Filmmaker, But Forgot To Tell Us.

George Simmons is dying of a rare disease. Upon reflecting on his life, he becomes aware of all his past mistakes, choosing the money and fame over more important things. He tries to go back to his roots, stand up comedy. Be bombs on his set, but takes to the liking of Ira Wright, an up and coming comedian. He hires Ira to writes jokes for him and to become his assistant. When Simmons discovers that he might have beaten the disease, he decides to try and win back the love of his life, taking Ira on the trip with him.

That last part is not a spoiler of any kind, since every trailer states that he doesn't die and does indeed beat the disease. There are numerous things that misfire with Funny People and many things that it nails right on the head. The biggest problem is that people were not expecting it to be so dramatic. Apatow has matured as a director and writer, but he forgot to tell the audience, which resulted in a mediocre reception to an otherwise decent film.

The film stars the usual Apatow crew, Jonah Hill, Leslie Mann, Seth Rogen, but the main star is long time friend of Apatow, Adam Sandler. This role is a bit odd for Sandler, he is basically playing himself, but a more serious and dramatic side of himself. Simmons starts out in stand up comedy, makes it big with goofy films like being a Merman or having his adult head stuck on a child's body. The life mirrors Sandler's career, and the film acknowledges this with old tapes of Sandler in his younger days. Seeing Sandler that young doing his thing was what stood out the most to me. It was the most genuine moments in the film, an older man reflecting back on his career, the memories and the more funny times.

Funny People tries to be too many things and while some of it is really funny, the depressing subject matter of death and lost love is a bit too much for people going in expecting another Knocked Up or Virgin. The fact that the film plays out like two different movies doesn't help either. What at first looks to be a film about a man trying to accept his fate in life or death, quickly becomes a film about trying to win back your lost love. Is Funny People also a romantic comedy? The film is really long, there were so many parts that could have been cut out. This is coming from the guy who thought Virgin had the right running time. I think the switch in the narrative of the film attributes a lot to the film dragging out longer than it has to. Apatow needs to learn to cut stuff out of his films. Make them shorter, this isn't The Ten Commandments.

Funny People hosts a lot of great cameos from comedians though, many of which are really funny. Eric Bana has the funniest role out of everyone, which is surprising considering he's in a film with dozens of comedians. I guess it's true, seeing the straight laced guys do something fun is always the most entertaining part.. Sandler and Rogen both do well in their roles, even if at times I found their character traits to be a bit odd. Rogen specifically, I can't place my finger on it but he seems to be playing a more mature, drug free loser version of Ben Stone. His weight loss jokes were funny and a nice addition of humour from Apatow and crew.

Funny People is a good movie, marketed as something funnier than what it was. The film is a serious look at life, just from a comedians point of view. It's hard not know that most of the material is from both of their background in stand up and their lives, Sandler and Apatow. You can see the sense of history from comedians in this film and that is interesting. Funny People is funny, just not hysterical. It's depressing, just not cry worthy. It's good, just not great.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

I think the next set of films are more up Mark's alley.

[mark f]

Variety is the spice of life.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 48: June 17th, 2010

Shadow of a Doubt

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/shadow.jpg

Joseph Cotten Is Terrific In Hitchcock's Slow Burner.

The Newton family receives a telegram that their uncle Charlie is coming to town to spend some time with them. His niece, whom is named after him suspects that he is not all he claims to be, when two detectives start questioning them.

Rope, Saboteur and now Shadow of A Doubt. These are the only three films from the legendary Hitchcock that I have seen. Each one couldn't be more different. One is confined to one room, while another takes one character across America. Shadow of a Doubt tells the tale of family secrets and takes us to a small town. The film creates the tension needed to make one just uneasy enough to sit through the film. Shadow of a Doubt is considered one of Hitchcock's classic films and according to his daughter, his personal favourite. I found it to be rather brilliant at times, but testing at others. Joseph Cotten plays the character of uncle Charlie, who is downright frightening at times and made my enjoyment of the film more fulfilling.

I won't go into detail about the plot of the film, I went in knowing nothing about it and appreciate it more because of that. The film doesn't depend on star power or any glamour, just the story and characters. The uncle Charlie character is one creepy guy who is portrayed brilliantly by Joseph Cotten. In one brilliant scene he has a monologue that is pretty harsh, even by today's standards and one simple turn of the head makes the scene all the more intense and creepy.

The film doesn't reach the suspense levels of other films in his catalogue, I've seen bits and pieces of Rear Window, which was more suspenseful, but it does have the slow burner feel that builds up to something. You know some kind of confrontation is about to happen at the climax and your itching for it to happen the whole time. A few things did bother me though, even if they were intentional.

The sexual tension between uncle and niece is just a bit much. It seemed that in every scene they were itching to go at each other. The constant talking about how much they have in common and how they are so alike is fine, until they start to hold each other and get close. It's uncomfortable. Second, the detective declaring his love for Charlie, totally out of place. To me there was not enough room for the two to grow as a romantic couple. Does she feel the same way? No, which is what made me a little bit happier, had she had the same feelings as him, I would have been upset with this film.

Shadow of a Doubt is a well crafted thriller that doesn't mind taking it's time getting to where it wants to go. Subtle hints here and there adds to the mystery of what's going and is intriguing. It pulls the viewer into the web that is this story. It's not my favourite Hitchcock film, but rather one that I appreciate and respect the most, at least so far.

3.5

[WBadger]

One of my favorite Hitchcock films, great review.

[mark f]

Good review and all, but in all the ten times I've seen Shadow of a Doubt, I've never thought that there was anything sexual between the two Charlies. Love and a kind of storybook romance an older relative can show to a younger one, yes, but nothing sexual in the least.

[nebbit]

Not a big fan of Funny People :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Good review and all, but in all the ten times I've seen Shadow of a Doubt, I've never thought that there was anything sexual between the two Charlies. Love and a kind of storybook romance an older relative can show to a younger one, yes, but nothing sexual in the least.

Really? That was one of the first things I picked up on. Their first meeting is the most obvious to me, just the way they are talking to each other. Most of it is in the performance from Cotten.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 49: June 18th, 2010

Saboteur

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/2209921010A.jpg

Underrated Hitchcock.

After watching Shadow of a Doubt, I decided to give this film another try. It's still an odd one to me, it's not as memorable as his other films are, nor is it mentioned as one of his better films. Yet, I find that it should be. It has it's fair share of problems, but I really enjoyed it and think it is underrated. I guess when you have a resume as full and influential as Hitchcock, his other films that just seem to be good and not brilliant are left aside.

As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get me on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a missed opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.

The film doesn't feel like it should feel either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving. Yet, looking back at it all, I was still entertained and found that there are memorable scenes that pop into my head. I tend to like the film more in hindsight than I did while I was watching it.

The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.

In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. Again, he has too many 'classics' to choose from. If you want to go the road less traveled, this one is for you.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 50: June 19th, 2010

Toy Story 3

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/toy_story_three.jpg

So A Third Film In A Series Can Be Good?

Andy is going off to college and is given the option of putting his toys in the attic or throwing them out. Through a series of unfortunate events, the toys actually end up being donated to Sunnyside Daycare. Which at first, seems like a wonderful place to be, but the truth about the place is soon discovered by the toys and they try to escape.

In 1995 when Toy Story first hit the screens, I was around 7 or 8 years old. I am in disbelief at how young I was, 1995 doesn't seem that long ago, but it's been 15 years. I was still in elementary school when the second one came out too. I was young and was able to connect to both of the films, I saw a little of myself in Andy. I grew up playing with plastic army men, dinosaurs and cowboys. There is a special bond between a boy and his toys and Toy Story got it perfect. The original Toy Story introduced us to a few things. One was Pixar, a studio that would go on to create dozens of films that are entertaining and brilliant. Another was the first fully computer animated feature film. It changed the way animated films were made. Finally it gave us two of the most recognizable animated characters of all time, Woody and Buzz.

Flashforward 11 years after Toy Story 2. I have recently graduated college and don't play with my toys anymore. Andy is heading off to college and he doesn't play with his toys anymore. The big question I had was, can a third entry to a series that is more than a decade old, still hold true to the original and will I still be able to connect to it? The answer is yes, on both accounts. Toy Story 3 is magical, entertaining and heartfelt. It reminded me of my childhood and my toys, the biggest thing this film has going for it is nostalgia. I found it funny that more than half the people in the audience were not alive when the first film came out.

The constant fear of being discarded is present here, as it is in all three of the films. With this entry it is the forefront issue. The themes of loss, friendship and courage are all present in this third installment. Usually the third film in a franchise falls short of what the first two are, but this is not the case. Toy Story 3 is just as good as the first two. My minor complaint is that there is that one thing that is missing. It might be the 11 year gap between the films, but there is that little special thing that made me love the first two films that this one doesn't seem to have. Buzz seems a little underused as do the other toys, but this is a small issue that doesn't ruin a great film.

There are 3 scenes in the film that made me almost cry. Hey, I said ALMOST. The first one is pretty early on, when Woody calls for a meeting, something we are accustomed to in the previous installments. But this time we don't see dozens of toys coming out from under the bed, behind closets or out of bins. It's just these guys. All the other toys that we see in the background are gone. Even though they were never the main characters, or given a lot of screen time, there was something about each one that we seemed to love. This people were a family and that family is broken. Wheezy, Bo Peep, Etch, RC, Lenny the Binoculars, Mike the tape recorder, Rocky Gibraltar the gladiator. Dozens of lovable background characters that made us love that room so much more.

The other two scenes are near the end, one in which the toys join hands in fear of their ultimate doom. It's their realization of the end and their bonding together that got to me. The other is the final send off from Andy. The film builds on the previous adventures these characters had to tug on the heart strings. It never reaches the emotional depths of Up, but these are two totally different films. The way they chose to end the series, in my opinion was perfect and sad.

There are hundreds of new characters, all introduced at the Daycare. At first you would seem to think that you will be overwhelmed with all the additional characters, but it is never an issue. The two most prominent new characters are Lotso Hugs and Ken, who is voiced by Batman himself. Some of the more interesting new characters are never given a chance to shine, they belong to Bonnie in her room, mainly my new favourite Mr. Pricklepants.

The film mixes adventure, comedy and drama all perfectly. It's not as funny as the first two, but it is more adventurous. The animation doesn't call for anything fancy, these are toys after all, yet Pixar finds a way to still dazzle the eye. The climax of the film has a lot going on and it is edge of your seat entertainment.

To end this review, I'll simply say the last thing Andy said before leaving the toys..."Thanks Guys"

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 51: June 20th, 2010

Men of Honor

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/menofhonur.jpg

Another military film about training.

The inspirational and true tale of one black man who tries his hardest to become a deep sea military diver. Cuba Gooding Jr. is this man and the hard ass who is training him is none other than Robert De Niro.

Men of Honor seemed like another boring military film that focuses on one character who must overcome adversity while training to become a part of a special unit in the service. Then of course there will be the officer who trains them, he will be a hard ass who doesn't take any B.S. from anyone. The more he pushes you, the harder you become, the two usually hate each other at the beginning, but then come to terms and respect each other. In some cases they even end up liking each other. The third act of the film usually details the life of the character after he graduates the class. Men of Honor follows this criteria to a capital T.

With that being sad, I still found myself interested in the characters and the performance. This is an interesting film that pits two leading men who seem to have had bad luck with roles in this recent generation. Cuba Good Jr. can't seem to find his footing after winning an Oscar for Jerry Maguire, today the poor guy is in the direct to video market. In this performance he tackles it with true pride. His determination to provide the role with some credibility shines through. I usually find his work to be more or less with every film. Men Of Honor is one of his better performances. Robert De Niro has taken a big hit since his heyday. It seems that ever since the one role in Rocky and Bullwinkle, his script choices have been pretty dull. Some people refer to his roles post 2000 to be the sell out years. Men of Honor might be an exception, he brings his usual De Niro self to an otherwise thankless role. We don't know much about his character, other than he has a short temper and refuses a lot of orders.

The film has a one dimensional presentation and it hurts the plot and characterization. Despite this, it does hold together well for most of the running time. I always find that after the training sequences of the film are over, they tend to drag on afterwards. This film is no different. The most interesting part of the film is over and yet we are still sitting here watching events unfold that we have little interest in. The romance between Cuba and his gal is thin and Charlize Theron is given so little to do I wondered why she was even in the film.

Men Of Honor has everything that an inspirational film that is based on a true story should have. Our man character is black and has to overcome the racism of everyone around him. Nothing new, but knowing that it was based on a true story does lend to some moments where we respect that character for what he accomplished. Some scenes are really well done, specifically one where one character receives a medal of honor, which should have went to Cuba, but because he was black they gave it to the one guy who didn't deserve it.

The film is long and drags after the more entertaining parts are finished, but it's not a total loss. I can recommend it for people who are into the military film genre, this one has great performances that overcome a lazy script.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 52: June 21st, 2010

X-MEN

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/xmen_ver1.jpg

The comic book film that re-started this generation.

Mutants are feared and hated, they have special abilities that humans don't. Magneto is a mutant who believes a war is brewing between mutants and mankind, so he sets out to turn everyone into a mutant. Professor Xavier and his team of X-Men believe mankind is good and can live peacefully with mutants, they must stop him.

There have been many comic book films before X-Men, the most notable ones are Superman and Batman, yet there have even been lesser known comic book characters getting their big screen debut before the mutants. Tank Girl, Blade and The Crow all got their chance and they did pretty well (well, maybe not tank girl) but I think it was X-Men that kick started this wave of comic book films that we have today. 2 years later we got Spider-Man and then every other film coming out was based on a comic book. X-Men, ten years later, still remains to be one of the better adaptations.

The key role in the success of this film was the casting choices. Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier is not only a stroke of genius, but the most obvious choice. Newcomer Hugh Jackman gives us a dead on portrayal of Logan aka Wolverine and since this film has become a superstar in Hollywood, even getting his own film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Ian McKellen plays the villain Magneto and even though his physical appears make him appear fragile, his use of speech and demeanor make him terrifying in a unique way, you believe that he is as dangerous as they say.

Being a big fan of the comics, I was anticipating this film with a big smile on my face. I liked it then and as I mentioned earlier, it still holds up today. There are some shoddy special effects that jump out at you more now than ever, but as a whole, this comic book adaptation hits the right notes. Bryan Singer uses homosexuality as a comparing theme for mutants. Being a homosexual himself, he seemed to be able to portray the issues of separation and isolation that mutants feel. This is further explored in the sequel.

I can help but feel that by the film's conclusion, they could have gone a little bigger. The conflict between Sabretooth and Wolverine is not as engaging as a fan of the comics would want and the changing of Rogue into the Jubliee character from the animated series might rub some people the wrong way. Sabretooth is not as vicious as he could be and Rogue is an annoying teenage girl.

X-Men is a good film that is shy of being great. Everything that was mishandled here was made right in the sequel. X-Men proved that comic book films can be smart and not just for fans/geeks who collect comics.


3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 53: June 22nd, 2010

X-MEN 2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/x_men_2.jpg

A sequel that outshines the original.

An attempt on the Presidents life doesn't help the X-men's cause for peace between mutants and mankind. Magneto is still up to no good and a new enemy surfaces, Stryker, who seems to have a past with Wolverine. Wolverine tries to find answers to his past through this mysterious man who wants to kidnap mutants.

X2 opens with a bang and is one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy. We are introduced to a popular x-men character, who is visualized perfectly and is one of the best character adaptations the films have ever done and the sequence itself is entertaining. So much that it immediately grabs you and tells you that this film is a sequel that outshines the original and it does. Bryan Singer took the flaws of the original and fixed them here, he makes a sequel that is not only bigger, but better. Many times sequels fall under it's own need to do things on a grander scale, but here it works.

We are introduced to some new characters, such as Nightcrawler, Pyro and Lady Deathstrike. All three of these characters shine in this film and elevate it to making this sequel the best in the series. Deathstrike has a brutal and violent fight scene with Wolverine, it seems he has finally me his match this time around. Styker is played by Brian Cox, he is deliciously evil and a nice face to see against the x-men then just having it be Magneto again.

The action sequences are better here, more rough and tough. They are choreographed to make it not only more real, but more entertaining. They fit the comic book form a little more here than in the previous installment. The risk in this film seems a bit greater as well, the stakes are risen in the sequel and it makes us care more about the characters and the outcome then what one would initially think.

Halle Berry and her role as Storm is still one of the weakest parts of the series. Her lines fall flat and her sincerity doesn't seem genuine. Her bits with Nightcrawler seem forced and she somehow manages to take one of the coolest characters from the comics and make her quite lame here. James Marsden improves here as Cyclops, he has more emotional baggage to carry here than last time. It's always hard to act when your eyes are covered, I give him credit despite having less screen time.

This film is darker, not everyone makes it out alive. It sets up one of the best story lines the comics have ever introduced, the Dark Phoenix Saga. The script is tighter as is the acting. Rogue is still an annoying teen, but she has matured a bit since last time. The special effects are improved and the direction is more polished. If I were to point anyone into the direction of an x-men film, this is the one I'd tell them to watch.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 54: June 23rd, 2010

X-MEN: The Last Stand

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/x3.jpg

The weakest in the series, this includes X-men Origins.

A so called cure is found in the blood of a young mutant, which divides the world into two sections. Those who want it and those who don't. Magneto and his brotherhood seek to find this boy and capture him, while the X-men must stand together and stop him, once and for all.

With this film being the third in the series, the filmmakers decided to go big...really big. Let's go heavy on the eye popping action and forget to bring a decent script and competent director with it. X-Men: The Last Stand is a hot mess and seems to have destroyed the series. Seeing as they are already re-booting it.

Singer left to go to Superman Returns, say what you will about that film, but the true losers here were the fans of x-men. The Last Stand is what I originally feared the first film would be, a thrown together film with too many mutants to handle. Brett Ratner was in my opinion, the wrong man for the job. It seemed like the studio needed the film to be pumped out quickly and they got this man to do the job. Easy money, fans will still pay to see it right? After all, we got Beast in it now. The fact that this film has too many characters is a big problem, they have no idea what to do with them. Look at the poster I chose to post here, it has Angel on the cover, yet he has two scenes in the film, at the beginning and at the end. If this isn't a desperate attempt to grab at whatever lucrative moments they have, I don't know what is. X2 was juggling enough characters to start, there was no need to add this many more, especially when they do nothing.

It seems they disregarded the source material and went with whatever story they cooked up. Characters are different (Leech) and we are given a so called climax that barely makes me want to root for either side. The film is called The Last Stand, yet we get Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Beast and some kids. This is not The Last Stand fans want, nor is it good writing. Having Cyclops and Professor X out of the picture doesn't make things harder for us or make us think the x-men are in more danger. Instead it angers us at the pathetic attempt at trying to shake things up in the comic book world. Out of all the X-men story lines, the Dark Phoenix is probably the most recognizable. There is so much story, emotion and depth to the character and story line that it took around 4 episodes of the animated series to do it some sort of justice. This film makes it seem like an after thought. They already had a story line, The Dark Phoenix Saga was too big for one film, especially when you already had a plot for the film by itself.

The film might please the average movie goer, but it failed to hold up any kind of momentum the second sequel gave us. Sure Grammar is great as Beast and the special effects are great, but when the film is so confused by it's own direction and you end of feeling nothing for one of the greatest comic book story lines ever written, you know you have a problem. Magneto is no longer scary in this film and it desperately needed a new villain...and not Phoenix. The Last Stand is all style and no heart, but it's style is still very little.


2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

A little behind on my reviews, but still keeping up with the movie watching. Hopefully I'll be fully caught up tomorrow night, just been busy as of late.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 55: June 24th, 2010

The House Of The Devil

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/houseofthedevil_postera1.jpg

At Least They Got The 80's Feel Right.

Strapped for cash and needing to pay first and last months rent for a new place, Samantha sees an ad for a babysitter. She calls the place and takes the job. The house is in the middle of nowhere and the job isn't exactly what it seems.

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I was left scratching my head. Why does it look so old? Upon research I found out that they were going for that look. Not only did it take place in the 80's, but it was made to look like it was filmed in the 80's as well. Ti West does an excellent job of accomplishing this, the mood, the environment, the style of the film all scream 1980's horror.

This is my second Ti West film, the first being the horrible and clunky Cabin Fever 2. It's so bad that even he wants to distance himself from it. So going into The house of the devil, I had mediocre expectations. First of all, 80's horror has it's ups and downs. Sure the film can get the feel right, but will I like it? It takes the classic tale of a babysitter in trouble. Most of the film is unnerving and long set ups to the climax.

Those long and suspenseful set ups are what drive the film. We are in this house with Samantha and we know that the end result will not be good for her. We are eagerly awaiting something bad to happen to her the entire time, but West takes his time in building the tension. This works extremely well, but it doesn't pay off for the climax. I felt that the climax wasn't sufficient enough for all the anticipation we had.

Everyone does a good job filling their roles, Jocelin Donahue is great as Samantha and the real stand out here is Tom Noonan as Mr. Ulman, the one who hires her. His mannerisms and calm way of speaking send chills down your spine. How someone so calm, polite and relatively normal looking can be so horrific. It's no spoilers that the house she goes into is going to cause trouble and we know he is behind it, otherwise there would be no film. Her best friend Megan is played by Greta Gerwig and she has the most surprising scene in the whole film, probably my favourite scene.

The house of the devil is a throwback horror film. it's for those people who grew up watching horror in the 80's and want to relive that experience. Those expecting some horrifying grotesque things may be disappointed.

3

[nebbit]

Wow I am all up to date now :yup: thanks Sussy :)

[mark f]

Yes, I recommend The House of the Devil to everyone although my "legit" rating is 2.5. It's just that my cult rating (after less than a year) is 4, and I personally find it twice as good as Carpenter's Halloween, a "'70s horror film".

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 56: June 25th, 2010

Near Dark

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/near-dark-new.jpg

I'd rather see a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton, than a white face glittery Robert Pattinson.

I was actually suppose to watch The Wolfman, but lost to a vote and people wanted to watch Near Dark instead.

Well, a young good looking cowboy gets bitten by a vampire and he soon becomes a member of the psychotic gang of vamps. The problem is that he doesn't want to be a vampire and he tries to fight the seductive urges of the blood thirst.

The vampire trend is nothing new, it's just made a comeback for this certain phase. Twilight is raking in the cash in the theatres and true blood is reigning HBO. It's good to be a vampire right now. But back in the day, 1987 to be exact. Vampires were not all glittery and award winning, they were mean, cut throat and cruel.

The problem this film has, right from the gate, is two uninteresting leads. The male and the female are boring, wooden actors (before he became a Hero) and it's always hard to stay invested in a film where the leads make you cringe from time to time. Enter Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen, two characters that rise above what is needed and make the film entertaining and scary.

The two are a part of a vampire family. These characters are far more interesting than our cowboy here. I would much rather watch a film following them. Every little line of dialogue is interesting and their look is unmatched. Bill Paxton is a great psycho, he is off the wall nuts and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Three of the cast members also appeared in Aliens, directed by James Cameron, ex-husband of Bigelow, who directed Near Dark.

The shootout in the motel sequence is really neat and drives the film into high gear. the special effects are too shabby either. Sun can be deadly to these guys and it is quickly proven many times. The death scenes are gruesome and to me are what true vampire films are about.

I watched this on bluray and the one thing that annoyed me is the new cover. They are obviously going for that twilight crowd as they have the female appear to be human and the male be the vampire. Even the bloody make-up, which has no reference in this film. This is false advertising, give me a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton over that trash any day.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

I've got tomorrow afternoon to post my reviews. One week worth.

[Iroquois]

Damn, was about to rip into that cover art myself before I got to the last paragraph.

[honeykid]

That artwork is disgusting. Whoever gave it the green light should be shot. No, really, they should be.

Great film, though. I can't believe you wanted to watch The Wolfman over this, TUS. I hope you meant the old Wolfman film and not the new one.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Well I've seen Near Dark before and not The Wolfman.

[honeykid]

So you've seen Near Dark and know how great it is? That makes the choice even more baffling. :D

[mark f]

Show of Hands: Who here has watched the 2010 The Wolfman? I certainly haven't, but I will.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 57: June 26th, 2010

Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/harry_potter_half_blood_prince_post.jpg

Pacing issues aside, this film is an improvement.

Harry is in his sixth year at Hogwarts and discovers a book that belongs to someone who called themselves the Half Blood Prince. Dumbledore asks Harry to get closer to the new potions teacher, Slughorn, in order to unlock new mysteries about Voldemort.

To me it seems that the films that have come after The Goblet of Fire are just build up to the finale. The theme, story structure and style are all different and neither film (Order of the Phoenix or Half Blood Prince) seem to have a main antagonist or mission for the kids to do. Instead they are a build up of events that will lead to a destructive and emotional ending for our characters that hit the screen in 2001. Each film prior, in some way, can stand on their own. These films cannot. They rely on the previous material so heavily that people who watch it without prior knowledge of events will most certainly be lost in the vast amount of detail that goes on.

Half Blood Prince is the better film, compared to the boring and uninteresting Order of the Phoenix. This one gives us a little bit more mystery and one of the biggest 'oh my god' moments of the books. The film doesn't have as much emotional weight as the book does, this is due to a lot of the material missing. Specifically the big battle that was suppose to take place at the end. The filmmakers said they left it out because they didn't want to take away from the battle at the end of the next film. I call B.S. The Two Towers had an important battle that was grand, only to be outdone by the next film. Why can't this series do the same?

The film clocks in around 2 and a half hours. It's pretty long and a lot of the scenes drag on. We stay too long on the uninteresting moments and too few minutes are given to the ones that we care about. The filmmakers have a lot to juggle with this series and the decisions made earlier to exclude material might hurt them in the long run. The changes made to the films don't hurt it, only if you are a die hard fan that wants every word translated to the screen. Since the day of adaptations we've seen countless films leave material out. It's expected, so people need to get over it. It's one thing to leave out little details, but for me, it's another to totally ignore the battle sequence.

Harry and the other kids are getting better with every film. I absolutely hated both Harry and Ron in the earlier films. While they can still be irritating, they have improved greatly over the course of the films. The same cannot be said for another book to film adaptation that have teenage girls moist thinking about Vampires and Werewolves. The improvement comes from people who really care about the craft of film-making. Every cast member is British and when you are surrounded by people like Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, to name a few, the pressure to do well is more apparent. As the series goes on, regulars like Hagrid are dumbed down to cameo roles, unfortunate.

The film looks great and the special effects are still strong as is the ability to adapt such a large book. I would personally add more stuff and take away others. The importance of the Half Blood Prince and why/who he is, is left alone. The reveal is there but again, no reason for a why. Each additional character is great, last year we were given the love to hate Dolores Umbridge, this time we get the lovable Horace Slughorn. He has a few comedic scenes and a key moment in the film that helps Harry and Dumbledore with their cause.

The Half Blood Prince seems like a more put together film than Order of the Phoenix. The complaints I've heard are all regarding the material that is missing. Yes, while some of it was indeed needed in the film, it doesn't make it bad. I could do with less Quidditch after seeing it for 9 years, focus more on the emotions of the characters and the weight of their actions and less on the stuff we've seen before a hundred times. If you are going by the movies only, this one is one of the better ones. Despite the film's missed opportunity at the ending, it stands as one of the better additions to the series. Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favourite though.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 58: June 27th, 2010

Fright Night

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/fright.jpg

There are some very good reasons to be afraid of the dark.

After his new neighbour moves into town Charlie begins to suspect he is a vampire. He tries to get the help from famed tv star Peter Vincent, Vampire Hunter to help kill him. But does anyone believe him?

That is Fright Night in a nutshell and the film is great eighties horror camp. Along with the Lost Boys this vampire romp is something I can watch over and over and is another entry into a long list of vampire films that are

A: Better than Twilight
B: I would rather watch than Twilight.

I'm sorry for bringing Twilight into this review, but it's a teeny romance film disguised as a vampire flick, so every chance I get I will knock it.

Sarandon is Jerry the vampire, he has a certain sex appeal about him that vampires usually do. They are either lustful, or ugly as hell. Sarandon becomes both. His good looks and calm demeanor are great, he oozes cool in this film. Roddy McDowall is hilarious as Peter Vincent, Vampire Killer. My one complain lies in the casting of now gay porn star Evil Ed. His annoying laugh and horrible acting really drag the film down in the scenes he is in. I cheered when his death scene occurred, one of many highlights in the film.To some small degree, Charlie Brewster himself gets tiresome. He is clearly an idiot.

The special effects are pure eighties and still rock to this day. I'd rather watch this film than Twilight anyday for the effects....for story....for pretty much anything. Sorry, like a said, any chance I get. Hell, even the wolf transformation scene is better than the stupid one from American Werewolf in Paris. See, no film is spared here.

The film has a horror Rear Window vibe to it. Is he, or isn't he a vampire. Seeing something you're not suppose to from your house. Fright Night is getting a remake with Colin Farrell in the role of the Vampire. I don't see it reaches the heights of this film, but I will still give it a chance. Fright Night is cheesy b-horror movie entertainment. Characters do stupid things, there's craziest effects, pure eighties soundtrack, some nudity, and vampires. Good mix for a good film.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Twilight Sucks.

3.5

[nebbit]

Not a big Horror fan :nope: Thanks for the review anyway :)

[Iroquois]

Now I'm reminded of the time I was in a video store and ended up recommending Fright Night to a couple of girls. Wish I could find out what they thought of it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 59: June 28th, 2010

Rocky

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky.jpg

Meet the "Italian Stallion".

Rocky is a small time nobody who just wants the chance to prove his guts once, just once. This chance comes to fruition when Rocky gets the opportunity to fight the heavy weight champion.

The first Rocky is without a doubt the best film of the series, although that doesn't mean it's my favourite. The story of a guy who wants to opportunity to prove to himself he can do something like this has given others inspiration, no doubt. The films that have come after this one have gone down the road of campy and gimmicky.

Sly was a nobody at the time, his previous film credit was a porno film. He wrote and starred in this film and for some reason he was really good in it. What happened since then? He fell into the the action star persona. His roles since then haven't required much from him, acting wise, but now that he is older he seems to realize this. Better late than never, although I wouldn't wish that the films he was in to be gone. I got to have my Tango & Cash.

This film has that o-so memorable scene of Rocky running up the Philly stairs with the song "Gonna Fly Now" playing in the background. It's always hard to have a scene in your film that will be remembered years, decades later. This is that scene and one reason why the film itself is good.

He tries to impress the girl of his affections. She is shy and doesn't speak much in the film, he is dumb and admits this. Perfect match? Their relationship is an awkward one, specifically because of the lack of confidence in the Adrian character. This is one problem that glares for me, her performance in this film doesn't do it for me.

In the end, the film is about a guy who is given that one chance to prove what he's got and he gives it his all. It's something that many people want to happen to them and they associate themselves with that character, Rocky.

I'm not going to go into a debate as to which film deserved the Best Picture award that year, this or Taxi Driver. Both films are character driven stories that go in the opposite directions. I think that people needed the uplifting story at the time and Rocky had that.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 60: June 29th, 2010

Rocky II

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky2.jpg

Yo, Adrian! I DID IT!

It's those words and that closing scene alone that make me like this entry. The sequel to the successful Rocky is a bit hit and miss, much like the punches thrown in the ring. How do you follow a box office smash that took home Best Picture? While the sequel doesn't live up to the expectations, it does still hold some of that weight the first one had. The emotions are there, but the start of the campy decline is also here.

Rocky gets a rematch in this film and has to struggle supporting his family as well. The story of Rocky didn't need to continue, but it does, many times. Stallone wrote the script again and this time took the directing chair too. He went on to direct 3 other films in this series as well. Kudos to the man, he managed to make Rocky the success it is today.

The fight sequence in this film is more heightened than the last, all to make it more entertaining. It looses it's visceral and emotional weight that it desperately needed. You know Rocky is going to win, he can't lose twice in two films.

Those that expect another Rocky triumph might be a tad disappointed. The film is good enough for a recommendation though, it manages to continue the story well enough and give more insight into the character that is Rocky Balboa. He might look dumb and act dumb, but he has heart and that is what is needed to win over an audience.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 61: June 30th, 2010

Rocky III

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky3.jpg

Rocky defeats racism.

Third round, here we go. Rocky is defeated by Mr. T because he pities the fool. Mickey dies and Rocky cries. Apollo decides to retrain Rocky, get him back to tip top shape and reclaim his title. Oh yeah, Hulk Hogan makes an appearance.

The third film is a mish-mash of things. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it's awful. The death of Mickey, while emotional for all of us, felt forced in some ways. They needed to push the emotional envelope for the character, it works well in that he losses the fight and has to be trained by another boxer, but I can't shake that feeling that it was used to play with the audience emotions. Mickey, the guy who taught us to eat lightning and crap thunder was gone. His death was laughable, but the emotional baggage brought with it was an interesting aspect to the film.

Rocky fights two entertainment icons. One is the wrestler Hulk Hogan, the scene is suppose to be the two putting on a show, but one takes it more seriously than the other. The second is of course, Mr. T. This film shows Clubber Lang as a dangerous opponent. But also this film shows that it dives right into the campy material. It's freaking Mr. T.

We see the montage, we hear the Eye of the Tiger, all classic moments from the series. The fight scene is well choreographed, but fails to take place in reality. As with each passing film, the fights get less and less believable, all for the sake of entertainment. Each punch sounds like pure movie magic, nothing that would really happen when you punch a guy. The next film does this too. In fact, they all do.

Clubber Lang, cartoon likeness aside, is a great opponent, or villain as they say, for Rocky. Apollo Creed may be the best boxer, but Clubber Lang does the most damage to Rocky. Rocky III is a film that is watchable, with classic moments from the series. If you are a fan of Rocky, this one makes the list.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 62: July 1st, 2010

Rocky IV

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky4.jpg

Rocky defeats Communism.

Creed fights a big Russian dude and dies. Rocky cries because he lost yet another friend to boxing circumstance. Rocky agrees to fight this Russian, in Russia of all places and finds the determination and will to win.

This film is utterly ridiculous. Ivan Drago punches at a power level of 2150 psi. One punch to Rocky's head would kill the guy. Yet he keeps on coming like the energizer bunny. While in Russia the Russian fans cheer for the American boxer Rocky. This is the cold war people, I know Americans can be full of themselves sometimes but this is a bit ridiculous. Fans of the sport? Want to support the underdog (is he still considered an underdog now?) Cheer for him after the fight, not during. That damn robot.

With all that said, I love this film.

What? Did you read that right? You did.

It is all because of Ivan Drago, the absolute best thing in the entire series. I loved this guy, his stature is pure determination. The guy is the perfect fighter. Dolph Lundgren explodes onto the scene in a role that defines his career. It's his most memorable role and he barely speaks a word. I admire him and his roles, he has something about him that is likable. My favourite Rocky opponent is without a doubt Ivan Drago.

The rest of the film is ridiculous, but I let it slide. Bad move on my part? Doesn't make sense with everything else I've said about the other films? I don't care. This is my guilty pleasure film of the series. How 'bout that.

More montage of Rocky training, in Russia. His told school methods compared to the new technology that Drago is using. Paulie tells Rocky that is he could be anybody else in this world, it would be him. Touching, Paulie us usually used for bits of comedic relief. He was the guy that was just around. His in Rocky's corner now.

The film focuses less on the characters and their problems and more on the montages, muscles and fighting. I'm fine with that, it's nice to have a fun little break away film in the series. Creed's death isn't as emotional as Mickey's, but we still feel the heat. Drago straight up murders the man and walks away. Bad ass?

If it weren't for Drago, this film would be a lot lower on my rating scale. Take that as you will.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 63: July 2nd, 2010

Rocky V

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky5.jpg

Well, the good luck train had to end somewhere.

Without a doubt, the most hated film in the entire series. There is good reason for it too.

Rocky retires and goes bankrupt from some misfortune with his accountant. Retired, he decides to train a young boxer, Tommy Gunn. They go on to win a bunch of matches, but Gunn betrays Rocky and then they fight.

So, with the previous films Rocky fought man, beast, and machine. Creed, Lang and Drago. Here we fights Tommy Gunn. Now, we know he is a good boxer, we have seen that, but why is it that he has no charisma or is nearly as memorable as the other fighters? It's because he is a real boxer. It's easier to train an actor to box than it is a boxer to act. While the other fighters are deemed iconic in the series, Tommy Gunn is looked upon as a wimp, a nobody and a loser.

Gone is the ring, say hello to the streets. Rocky V tries to change things up a bit, but change is not always good. Gone is the excitement, gone is the tension and suspense, gone are all the thrills. This film doesn't feel at all like the rest and neither does Rocky himself. In my eyes, this could have been any other film and the last fight scene is by far the worst in the entire series.

Stallone interestingly did not direct this one, instead it was the guy who won the Oscar for Best Director on the first Rocky film. Where is the problem? Is it the script? Is it the director? It's everything, this film is mess and a horrible send off to Rocky Balboa.

His relationship with his kid tries to be interesting, but we don't care. We have lost our love for Rocky. Our admiration, our respect, is all gone. I'm more like Mr. T now, I pity the fool.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 64: July 3rd, 2010

Rocky Balboa

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rocky6.jpg

Manages to right some wrongs with the series and gives a proper goodbye.

Rocky Balboa owns a restaurant called Adrians, named after his wife who has passed away. Touching, the love interest in his life, whom I never really did care for is now out of the picture. He's old now and lives his life telling old boxing stories to his customers. His son has the unfortunate task of living in his shadow, as everywhere Rocky goes people want his autograph. A computer puts a match between Rocky and Mason, the current undefeated heavyweight champion. This match gets people talking and encourages Rocky to come out of retirement for one last time.

Rocky Balboa is a perfect ending to the series and for the Rocky character. The film takes us back to that era when people were chanting that name and running up those stairs. The film feels like your sitting down with a bunch of friends and recounting the fun times you've had and places you've went. We know and love the character and it's sad to see him where he is today, with all his glory in the past. Much like when we look at our own past, our own glory days.

Balboa feels more gritty and real then the previous films. The fight isn't as heightened as III or IV. A little too real if you ask me. The climatic fight scene is short and no where near as suspenseful as one would hope for. I get it though, rocky is pass his prime and the film feels more real, this is evident in the fight. Rocky doesn't take a beating and he doesn't give a beating either. The Rocky films were set in an obtuse reality. Watch the Rocky vs Drago fight to see what I'm talking about. So to see the series end like this, seems like a radical change, but a truthful one at the same time.

Balboa packs the most emotion since the original Rocky film. The film isn't really about boxing, or overcoming great odds, or avenging the death of a friend. It's more about Rocky's life after his success. The fifth film failed at this, miserably. People will like this movie because it has the exact same feeling as the original. Films 2 through 5 had Rocky at the height of his fame. He was in his prime, had the title shot and defended the belt. Now, much like the original where he was a nobody, Rocky is too old and is considered a joke in the eye of the media.

Fans of the series will not be disappointed, I wasn't. Much like the title character, its audience has also grown older. We are right there with Rocky remembering the good old days with Adrian. Stallone is indeed getting older and it is more evident here than ever before. Here he shows some of that talent we saw in the original. Where did it go? It took 5 more films to come back.

The films so called villain, Mason Dixon, is no where near any other opponent Rocky has faced. With the likes of Apollo Creed, Thunderlips, Clubber Lang, Ivan Drago. Gixon and Tommy Gunn are almost interchangeable. The character has no qualities about him that make him stand out at all. Again, this can only be counted for the "reality" that this film is set in. If you want to see a Rocky film with a Million Dollar Baby undertone, Rocky Balboa is the film you want to see. If you walk in expecting unrealistic fights, vibrant colours and over the top villains, Rocky Balboa will disappoint.

The series was getting tiring and was considered dead. Balboa is the perfect revival and send off to it. Balboa features the classic training scenes and theme song and will give you goose bumps like the old days. Rocky and Stallone have finally let that beast out from within. Stallone can now feel content that the series has a proper ending and if you're the kind of person with an emotional heart, you may even shed a tear. I recommend Balboa for those who want one last match with the 'Italian Stallion'.

3.5

[nebbit]

Wow I hope you didn't watch them one after another :eek:

[TheUsualSuspect]

One each day Nebs, one each day. ;)

[nebbit]

Oh ok ;D I did watch the whole 5 once on a very rainy day :eek:

[honeykid]

Damn, Nebs! Surely even in New Zealand there must've been something better to do than that? :D

[Iroquois]

I don't think she lives in New Zealand, dude.

[mark f]

Yeah. I'm sure she lives on "the West Island". :cool:

[honeykid]

Really? I'm sorry, Nebs. I always thought you were a Kiwi. I humbly apologise. :bashful:

[nebbit]

Damn, Nebs! Surely even in New Zealand there must've been something better to do than that? :D
There probably is in New Zealand :yup: but I an in Australia :laugh:

I don't feel insulted Honey :nope: i like people from the land of the long white cloud :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 65: July 4th, 2010

After Hours

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/after-hours-1985.jpg

What is the very worst night you ever had...?

If I had to pick one director that is my all time favourite, it would have to be Mr. Martin Scorsese.

An ordinary guy has the worst night of his life after he agrees to meet up with a girl he met at a coffee shop. Thing go from bad to worse as the night goes on.

Even though Scorsese is my favourite director, I have my doubts about some of his films. Not everyone is perfect. I had my doubts about this film, I wasn't sure I would like it. To be fair though, I had no idea what it was about. It was one of those, judge a book by its cover situations. So here is a life lesson for the young ones out there, I'm sure you've never heard this one before. "Never judge a book by it's cover".

When you have a film resume like Scorsese does, its easy for a film such as this to get lost in the mix. When you have films like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and his Oscar winning film The Departed, it's hard to stand out. So I take an appreciation to the little films he does that are in my opinion just as strong as his other work, but never seem to get the recognition. I really dig Bringing Out The Dead and After Hours is another film that surprised me quite a bit.

There is an old saying for writing a script. You want to take your character, make him climb a tree and while he is up there, throw rocks at him. Eventually you let him down. This is suppose to be like a story, the character sees a challenge, tries to overcome it, sees conflict and eventually the falling action is resolved. With After Hours, Scorsese keeps our character up in that tree and continues to throw rocks at him no matter what.

I really like the New York feel this film has, even if it is outdated today. The streets act as characters themselves. Settings in Scorsese films tend to do that, look at his latest flick Shutter Island. After Hours has our main character, who is kind of a jerk at times, suck in tough situations, that only get worse as the night goes on. I kept thinking to myself, what would I do in that situation.

For a film with no action, it is pretty suspenseful. The whole film is the reaction of characters to certain things. Most of it is negativity towards our character. Not only does this film stand as one of Scorsese's most underrated films, I'd say it's underrated in general. I never hear anyone talk about it and when I mention it to someone, they just seem to have a blank look on their face. After Hours should and needs to be seen by more people. It's an entertaining movie from a master filmmaker.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 66: July 5th, 2010

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/TCM1.jpg

Who will survive and what will be left of them?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre claims to be based on true events. The events, as far as I can tell, involve a man who would kill his victims, then wear their skin. Leatherface does this very well, his demented, mentally challenged terror strikes fear in the hearts of those who are in the film and sitting in the chairs at home. The first experience of him swinging the door open and slamming that mallet into the head of his victim is memorable for the sheer visceral nature of it all.

The film was directed by Tobe Hooper and made him a horror icon. More than 30 years later, people still talking about this film and it has spawned numerous sequels and a film franchise reboot for the newer generation. TCM is low budget horror as it should be, you either hate it or love it.

Now I'm going to contradict that last sentence and say I'm in the middle. While I love the style of the film, how it was shot, what it took to get it made and the cultural impact of it all, the film definitely rubs me the wrong way sometimes. For one it has one of the most annoying and hated characters in the history of film. I'm talking about Franklin, the big loud moth wheelchair sloth who bitches and complains about every little thing. I can honestly say that if he were not in the film, I would have enjoyed it immensely.

The gritty documentary feel, this film excels at it. The atmosphere is here, the house itself is terrifying, with the bones everywhere and the meathooks just waiting for a body to be thrown on. The leatherface character is one to be afraid of, he doesn't speed walk to kill his victims like Jason, Michael and the Fisherman from I Know What You Did Last Summer, he full on runs after you. Chainsaw blaring.

The film ends abruptly, which was perfect. You are thrown into this mayhem, then immediately taken out. It's a sudden jolt that you do not expect. While this film is not one of my favourite horror films of all time, I can say that I appreciate and respect it a hell of a lot.

3

[Iroquois]

Salleeeeeeeeeee! Saaaaaaaalleeeeeeee!

[TheUsualSuspect]

I will give you negative rep. :p

[Iroquois]

I'm sure you will.

On a related note, I've seen this in theatres twice. So...yeah.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 67: July 6th, 2010

Groundhog Day

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/groundhog-day.jpg

He's having the worst day of his life... over, and over...


There are tons of people who have that one movie that they can watch over and over again and never really get sick of it. I'm sure there are dozens here that have a few movies like that and I'm one of them. Groundhog Day fits into this category for me.

Bill Murray shines in the role of Phil, a man who hates everything and everyone around him (big stretch) but he falls into some kind of time loop while in Punxsutawney, PA covering the groundhog story. He is literally living this one day, which he hates, over and over again until he looks at his life from a different perspective.

The lack of reveal as to why this is happening is perfect, we don't need to know the whys or the hows, everything is just happening. Phil goes through the motions of slowly getting things as the same day happens again and again. It's hard to have something be so repetitive and yet still be fresh. Groundhog Day handles this problem with ease, making certain events either hilarious (him trying to pick up his new producer) or heartbreaking (he tries to save a homeless man from dying). Eventually Phil does snap out of his loner attitude and cheers everyone up that is around him.

It is never stated how long this time loop is for in the film, but a counting man will see there are 34 some odd depictions of a different day. If you were to listen to a certain director's commentary track you will learn it went on a lo longer than that.

The film is funny, fresh and original. Interesting to see that one of their best collaborations (Ramis & Murray) was their last, not including video games or yet to be released third incarnations of a ghostbusting series. They had a falling out over the tone of the film. One wanted a more philosophical approach, while the other wanted a comedic one. While I'm glad they settled on the comedic one, you can't help but see that there is a mixture of both.

Groundhog Dog is a great film, one of the best comedies ever and is great to watch, over...and over.....and over....

4

[thracian dawg]

It is never stated how long this time loop is for in the film, but a counting man will see there are 34 some odd depictions of a different day. If you were to listen to a certain director's commentary track you will learn it went on a bit longer than that.

Yeah, Ramis estimates he was trapped for about 10 years.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 68: July 7th, 2010

Panic Room

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/panic_room.jpg

It was supposed to be the safest room in the house.

Fincher is a director who knows what he wants and he will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. He is so detail oriented that it in some way reminds me a bit of Kubrick. I've loved everyone of his films in one way or another, I always found that each one had something to offer. Panic Room is no different, sure it is one of his weaker films, but not every director can have masterpiece after masterpiece.

Panic Room stars Jodie Foster, who moves into this new house with her teenage daughter, new comer Kristen Stewart. She discovers that the house comes with a panic room. A safe room wired with camera monitors, separate telephone and a thick steel door. No one can get into it. Sure enough they need to go into it because some bad guys want inside the house. What can the film be without a little bit of a twist? What they want is actually inside the panic room.

Kristen Stewart does a pretty good job here, she was roughly 11 years old when she acted in this film. I don't really know what happened to her acting ability, but this film shows that at some point in her life she did have some talent. Maybe given the right material she can work something out. It's even more impressive that she is able to hold up well against Jodie Foster. To be honest, I've never really been a big fan of her. I find her too cold in all her roles for me to be able to connect to her, even in this one. She does a decent enough job for the film as a thriller, but as a mother with her daughter, I needed more.

Fincher's usual style is here, brooding and dark. He uses the camera to gives us a unique view of things and blends it with the use of CGI to go through inanimate objects, like a chair or coffee pot handle. These small details are why Fincher is one of my favourite directors working today. He loves the craft of filmmaking and it shows in all his films. He doesn't make a film for the sake of it, he wants to tell a story and contribute some form of art to the history of cinema.

The three bad guys all do well and each have their own little conflicts with themselves. The thrills are here, but the final act of the film tends to fall apart. The cliches show up and the finale doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the film. Sledgehammer to the face, yet still have the ability to wrestle another human being down to the ground is a bit far fetched, specifically for a film so dead set on being based in reality. There are many little things littered throughout the film that frustrate me that lower the film in my opinion. Panic Room is mild entertainment, don't expect another Fincher film here. While it does have his style here and there, Panic Room lacks the originality and dedication of his other films. He does show care for it though, it just feels like the lonely kid in the corner that the other kids make fun of.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 69: July 8th, 2010

From Beyond

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/from-beyond-front.jpg

Humans are such easy prey.

Scientist create a device that stimulates the pineal gland, making it possible to see these abnormal creatures living among us and interact with them. These creatures are vicious and will most likely bite your head off, like Combs says in the film "like a gingerbread man."

This cheesy and campy flick was gross and surprisingly fun. The plot is ridiculous and the events that happen are even more so, yet you are there cheering it all on. Jeffery Combs, the creepiest bastard alive, is the lead scientist. He's famous for the role of Dr. Herbert West in another Gordon flick, Re-Animator.

The first experiment goes wrong, obviously and the boss unfortunately gets his head bitten off, Combs he is thrown in an institution. They think he is schizophrenic, but one woman wants to hear his case. She believes him and along with Ken Foree (shout out to my boy) go back to the house to confront this machine and the monsters it brings out.

Of course she gets sucked in by the perverse power of it all and flips the switch back on numerous times. Resulting in a scene in which she is almost raped by this half man half creature while Combs is in the basement getting eating alive, only to be saved by Foree. His head is in this creatures mouth and when he is saved, his hair is all gone. Okay, I'll roll with it.

As I mentioned earlier this is a Stuart Gordon film, his horror style is present here at all times. The perverse sexuality, the violence, the comedy, everything fits this film nicely. The special effects in this film take you back to the days before computer generated images. It feels real, looks fake and is 100% disgusting. Perfect for this type of film.

This film is not for everyone, it's a genre piece. Most Gordon films have a dedicated audience, you know you'll like it or not. It doesn't go out of it's way to explore this realm of reality that these creatures live in. It's a drawback because they could have gotten really creative with some of the images and story structure.

This is a horror film that doesn't have many jump scares that try and scare people. The film is more grotesque and in your face. It wants you to feel uncomfortable, not scared. It wants you reaching for the barf bag. Sometimes it works, sometimes it unfortunately doesn't. It does blend the genres of sci/fi and horror rather well and will most likely get you talking. The only problem is getting into a conversation with someone else who has seen it.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 70: July 9th, 2010

Year One

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/year_one_poster.jpg

Meet your ancestors

It seems odd to break up two Ramis films with the dry Panic Room and such a polarizing film like From Beyond, but that's what this is all about. Any movie, any day, any genre.

Here we have Year One, the pairing of Jack Black and Michael Cera. An odd choice for sure, but they do end up complimenting each other's comedy style. Once one of them gets banished from their tribe, the two of them go on a journey through our biblical history. Their journey involves rescuing the women they love and their tribe from the city of Sodom.

So the whole pitch behind this film was to have today's style of comedy, which is the dead-pan, let's point out the obvious, talk to ourselves, modern humour to an ancient historical film. It will be hilarious, someone thought. ?Having Jack Black run around, doing his physical funny stuff he does and someone else, someone who is currently hot and in with the popular crowd. That kid from Superbad, Michael Cera.

As a comedy film, the movie stinks. It's script tries for some pretty basic laughs and the only ones you'll get are from the two actors trying their best to save this deadweight material. The intrusion of these two into biblical history is funny once, but overdone later on. The relationship they seem to have with the women they love is typical they fall in love for no reason fare.

The laughs are few and far between and only from two people who try their hardest to get some humour from a humourless script. Ramis direction is sub-par and nothing stands out. It's hard to watch a film like groundhog day and love it so much, then see something like this from the same guy.

The cameos are expected and some are lame. We don't need to see McLovin'. His inclusion in this film is only because he was McLovin'. I thought Year One was funny the first time I saw the trailer. I should have stuck with that one trailer and skipped the film. Two comedians can only hold up a film for so long before it falls from underneath them. They need the material to further the comedy, this had nothing.

1.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 71: July 10th, 2010

Natural Born Killers

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/naturalbornkillers.jpg

The Media Made Them Superstars.

You can always make a bad movie from a great script and you can always make a good movie from a bad script. Both are hard to do, because...

A: If you have a really great and tightly written script, it should be hard for the director to screw it up.

B: If the script is wooden, full of plot holes and overall poorly written, you have no material to work with.

Natural Born Killers is somewhat of a conundrum to me, personally. I love the script and the idea that Stone wanted to accomplish. So the two should go hand in hand, but the final product is some kind of acid trip that a student filmmaker with a budget would produce. It's got no sense of direction, it weaves in and out of every possible direction and film stock.

Natural Born Killers is in your face and brutal with it's message. Mission accomplished Mr. Stone. Let me ask you this though, even though you've accomplished your goal, does it make it a good/successful film. Successful in your eyes, yes, because you've invoked some kind of emotion out of the viewer. Good? That's highly debatable. Natural Born Killers has the underlining of a good film, the overcoat is what is disturbing.

This film gives me headaches. This is surprisingly, the third time I've seen it. One was for school though, which ignited a hot debate. The class was virtually split down the middle of like/hate it. There was no one in the middle. I think NBK is a perfect example of one of those types of movies whether you love it or hate it. I wouldn't go as far as saying I hate it, but I'm definitely not fond of it.

Woods is great and Lewis has her trailer trash look down pat. Her performance is annoying, yet perfect for the character. The film itself starts off really well, sets a tone that I expected to be followed throughout. Stone enters into some dark comedy bits, cartoon animation, documentary/reality television/horror/everything. The film literally gave me a headache the first time I watched it because it is so disjointed. Yet here I am watching it again for a third time. Is Stone secretly a genius? Or am I a glutton for punishment?

The film is something to watch though, at least once. For anyone interested in film, listen to Stone's commentary on this film. Everything he did he had a reason behind it. There is a reason there is close to 18 different film formats present here. Take it as a quick film lesson, for what not to, or to do. Which ever way you look at it. His ideas are good, his presentation is there, but it's all a mess. He tries way too much for a film that doesn't really call for it.

2.5

[honeykid]

Good to see these additions to your thread, TUS. I thought nothing of Panic Room when I saw it. I have a copy somewhere around here, so maybe I'll take a look at it again someday.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 72: July 11th, 2010

The Fifth Element

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/the-fifth-element.jpg

It Mu5t Be Found

The Fifth Element is my second favourite Luc Besson film and one of his more ambitious projects. It deals with a taxi driver in the future, one day a package literally falls into the backseat of his cab. This package is a woman, a beautiful woman that he must protect because she is the fifth element. Oh, and the world is going to end.

This film is fun, plain and simple. It's a sci/fi outing that doesn't take itself seriously and has quite the impressive cast. Bruce Willis does his tough guy routine here with bits of comedic relief. Think John McClane in space, that might be how he was sold on the film. Supporting roles go to Ian Holm as Father Vito Cornelius, a man who knows a lot about the fifth element, but doesn't have the brawn to keep it protected. Chris Tucker as Ruby, a celebrity that likes to talk and talk and talk. Something that all Chris Tucker roles have in common is that he has a big mouth. Here, it's not irritating like in Rush Hour 3. Milla Jovovich is the fifth element, an orange haired female ass kicker who looks great while doing it. This role is where she got noticed.

The villain is played by non other than Gary Oldman himself. The guy is a great villain and his take on the evil Zorg is both humourous and sad. He doesn't really strike fear into your heart, but you know the man in dangerous. His outfit is ridiculous, as is almost everyone else's attire in this film, yet it doesn't distract from his evil doings.

The film is almost the complete opposite of what many sci/fi films are like, in terms of presentation and look. This future is bright and colourful, not the neon glows of Blade Runner, but the bright yellows of taxi cabs or the watery blues of opera singing aliens. This is one of the reasons why this film stands out for me, it's so vibrant and cheerful, even in it's violence.

I dig The Fifth Element and it's a great film it sit back and enjoy watching. It juggles both sci/fi and action very well and is quite funny at times. The visual effects, while not stunning by todays standards, fit perfectly well for this type of film. It's effects reflect well on the reality that is created for the film. Oh and one more thing I need to say about this flick...it also stars Luke Perry. :p

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 73: July 12th, 2010

Election

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/election-movie-poster.jpg

Reading, Writing, Revenge.

A high school teacher's life spirals out of control when he complicates things for one student by entering another into the presidential election. Ferris Bueller plays the teacher. The legally blonde Elle Woods is Tracy Flick, the overachieving girl running for president and Chris Klein is the one student tricked into running against her. Alexander Payne cleverly uses the high school setting and antics to poke fun at the political system that runs countries today.

Election has many things going for it. For one, it's incredibly funny. Everyone plays their roles seriously that it's hilarious. Witherspoon is Tracy Flick, without a doubt, my favourite role she has done and her best performance to date. Her goodie attitude is just a shell for her willingness to do anything to get ahead. Broderick is great as the teacher people seem to hate, yet I oddly found myself on his side a lot of times. Sure, he makes some horrible decisions, but you feel sorry for the character because things simply just don't go his way. Finally Klein, an actor I hate because he has no range, here is actually enjoyable. His out of the loop state of mind is fun and he becomes the enemy of Flick without even knowing it.

Election has smart writing and is well directed by Payne. I find no faults in the film from a technical stand point, it flows well, hits the right tones at the right times and I find myself wanting to watch it every time it's on. Election seems to be one of those films that not many people know about or simply think it's not good. But those who have seen it give it praise, well deserved praise. It might not seem like the type of flick you'll enjoy, but give it a chance and I'm sure it will impress.

Pick Flick.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 74: July 13th, 2010

Mystery Team

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/mystery-team-one-sheet.jpg

There's something fishy going on down at the sardine factory! I think it's fish!

Every so often you'd give a certain film an extra point here or there because you either love the people who do it, or respect the way they did it. Mystery Team gets some extra love from me on both of these accounts. Derrick Comedy is a crude sketch team that I find hilarious. One of them is better known for his role as Troy on Community. He also won an Emmy for writing on the hit show 30 Rock. Now he's taking that little bit of fame and helping to push this film get the recognition it deserves.

Mystery Team is a comedy that sends up those old detective film noir style films. It involves three guys who are still young at heart and in mind, solving mysteries. Like who took a bite out of old lady hummings pie, or who stole little lucy's bike. But when one girl comes by their booth and asks for their help, they find themselves way over their heads. She asks them to find out who killed her parents. A much shorter way of putting it would be a bunch of kids try to solve an adult mystery.

The material is well written, some jokes miss here and there, but a lot of it is funny. As I mentioned before, some of their stuff is crude, so expect it here. Having to fish out a ring out of a toilet full of chunky things I don't want to describe because a stripper peed it out in there....is just one scene that pops into mind. Most of the comedy comes from the dialogue interactions of the three main characters. Jason, Duncan and Charlie, all of them writer's of the film as well.

Shot on a low budget, the film looks pretty good for what it's worth. It's obviously no Hollywood fare, but it is professional enough for people to sit through it and not really notice. Again, all done on their own terms, so extra respect points there.

The script itself movies along nicely and if you're a fan of the genre, then you'll appreciate how this one unfolds. They poke fun at themselves numerous times so it is never to be taken seriously and yes, the film is a little predictable. Yet, for me it is forgivable, because they are poking fun at that genre and that genre always has those types of twists in the story.

Give this film a look, it might surprise you a little. If you don't like the trailer, or have no interest after watching it, then I would think the feature is not for you.

3.5

[nebbit]

Thanks :) just watched The trailer of Mystery Team not one for me :nope:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 75: July 14th, 2010

Big Trouble In Little China

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/big_trouble_in_little_china.jpg

Feel pretty good. I'm not, uh, I'm not scared at all. I just feel kind of... feel kind of invincible...

...and boy did Kurt Russell feel invincible during that scene. A quick listen to the commentary track on the dvd is a pleasant surprise.

Truck driver Jack Burton, played by long time friend and collaborator of Carpenter, Kurt Russell, arrives in Chinatown and agrees to help out an old friend. But his old friend's fiancee is kidnapped, and this leads the pair down a mythical and dangerous road.

This isn't my favourite John Carpenter film, nor is it my favourite John Carpenter/Kurt Russell collaboration. Yet, it is still one hell of a fun and entertaining film. The film moves at an incredible pace and is never short on action. John Carpenter is responsible for the better half of the cheesy 80's. Mostly in his horror genre, which I am a fan of. After all, he is the master of terror, right? Yet, Big Trouble In Little China is such an odd film for him to take on that it makes a perfect fit. Does that make sense? No? Oh well.

Russell and Carpenter are great together, you can feel the chemistry between the two, even though one is always behind the camera. Russell gives us his wise ass shtick as Burton and the dialogue is great for this character. Russell makes one bad ass character here to go along with his Snake Plissken, another character that involves Carpenter.

Big Trouble In Little China is funny, action packed and is a joy to watch. It's absurdity adds to the level of cheese and awesomeness. Iro threw this on my list to watch when I did this last time, better late than never right?

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 76: July 15th, 2010

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/eternalsunshine.jpg

Best film of 2004 and a personal favourite of mine.

Yes, I love this film. It grabbed me in such a way that I cannot really describe. For a film about love and loss, it had me from the start. The fact that it is unconventional makes me smile with glee. Eternal Sunshine is a beautiful and heartfelt film that is depressing as hell and a marvel to watch. I cannot heap enough praise on this film.

After a bad break up, Clementine decides to erase the memory of Joel, completely. This is possible at Lacuna, Inc. Joel finds this out, which is an uncommon thing for the company and he wants to same procedure. They agree to do so and we enter the surreal world of Joel's mind as he lives the good and bad memories of his time with Clementine.

Written by Charlie Kaufman and directed by Michel Gondry, this is a match made in heaven. The filming style of Gondry flows beautifully with the writing and the weird and quirky story here. Very few instances of the use of CGI, Gondry shows us the imagination and creativity are always a way to get things done. The film is an inspiration in ways to look outside the box and find solutions to problems. The indie way he made this film gives it a feel as if you are there with them. As I mentioned before, Kaufman wrote the script, it's a beautiful mess. Joel's memory is being erased, but he finds himself wanting to keep certain ones, the good ones. He fights for his chance to remember and this is where the film gets strange...-r.

Jim Carrey gives his best performance to date and Kate Winslet is on top of her game as the ever changing Clementine. For a film that is emotionally draining at times, I find myself wanting to watch it again as soon as it's over. Don't get me started on the music, it's serene and eerie. A beautifully constructed emotional piece to accompany a strong story and visuals. The film gets me thinking of what I would do if this technology existed, or what my girlfriend would do. I ask her and others exactly what the tagline does....Would you erase me?

5

[princecheck13]

This film was made, marketing and watched because of one thing and one thing only, Pamela Anderson. This was her naked sci/fi Hollywood film, the opening of the movie shows her stripping, showing her breasts and getting hit with water. Ooooh, so sexy. This was probably the one scene many kids watched over and over. The film itself is regarded as one of those, it's so bad it's good. I can totally see that and once I got pass Anderson's wooden acting, I actually enjoyed myself. Guilty as charged.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Have tomorrow off to post a week and a bit worth of reviews.

Need to catch up.

[nebbit]

Have tomorrow off to post a week and a bit worth of reviews.

Need to catch up.

Certainly do :yup:..............................................................:kiss:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 77: July 16th, 2010

Taxi Driver

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/taxi_driver_poster.jpg

On every street in every city, there's a nobody who dreams of being a somebody.

Scorsese has numerous films that I love and adore, Taxi Driver is one of them, not surprisingly. Is there any other lonely psychopathic character quite like Travis Bickle? I don't think so. It's easy to use words like brilliant, powerful and classic for this flick, so let's use those.

Taxi Driver is indeed a classic, it's hard hitting New York underbelly is dirty and raw. The film grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the explosive ending. No neat trick here, no special effects to heighten the tension, just like the city it is depicted in, the violence is raw and real. Travis Bickle unleashes terror in the climax and guess what, bullet don't fly off of him. He's not some lone gunman hero that is un-killable. He's no Terminator or Rambo. He's a man.

DeNiro, teaming up with Scorsese, is a powerhouse. This lonely and depressed man has dark thoughts, he is one person in a city of millions. The script paints the picture vividly, so well that Scorsese is easily able to paint that picture onto film. This movie needed to be filmed on film, if it were done today and were done with digital, it would never get the same feeling.

It is indeed an American classic and is still talked about to this day. It's Scorsese most depressing film. It also gave us that memorable line in the mirror that is parodied time and time again. Do yourself a favour, if you love film and want to experience it. Taxi Driver is a good place to start.

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 78: July 17th, 2010

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rockyhorror.jpg

Another Kind Of Rocky.

If you'd had said that I would love a film that involved song and dance numbers, a character who cross dresses and Susan Sarandon, I'd call you crazy. Yet here I am, reviewing the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The craziest film that gets you singing along. I had the great opportunity to see this in the theatre once for a midnight showing. It was a blast.

Brad (*******) and Janet (slut) have car trouble and take refuge in the Frankenstein Castle. While there, they run into some Transylvanians and a mad doctor, Dr. Frank-n-Futer. He is creating his masterpiece, Rocky. The film blends horror, sci/fi, comedy, musical, camp, and thrills in one unforgettable package. The moment those lips appeared on the screen singing the opening number, Science Fiction + Double Feature, I knew I would like this film.

I was wrong, I loved this film.

Riff Raff, my favourite character, is played by Richard O'Brien. Half of the creative team behind this piece. The most iconic character in musical films, in my opinion, is played by Tim Curry. In an unforgettable role as Frank-n-Futer. The film has catchy songs, every single number I seem to like. Of course I have my favourite, but there is not one song that I can't stand. A rare thing for me and musicals.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a hard film to sell to people. It might make them uncomfortable to watch, but I love it every time I see it. It's campy for sure and it knows it. People didn't get that back when it was released, but they did once it played to the midnight crowd. It holds the record for longest film release for theatres, because it's still going.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 79: July 18th, 2010

Unrivaled

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/unrivaledposter.jpg

The best fighter in the world works two jobs. The only problem... he doesn't know he's the best

Wait, what? That's the tagline?

If no one here has heard of this film, I don't blame you. It's a direct to dvd flick that scrapes the bottom of the barrel. There is not one shred of originality in this crap and it's sad. Why is it sad? Why did I watch it? These questions can be answered with these three words. I'm In It.

Oh sweet Matt, you're in this movie? Yes I am, but don't go out rushing to rent or buy this film. First of all, it's not worth the price tag and second, I'm only an extra in the background of the main fight. You see me when you see a cut away to the crowd. If you didn't know me, you wouldn't notice. If I were to point myself out to you, you'd see me in glimpses here and there because of my white shirt and sunglasses on my head.

I would honestly rather tell you about my time there then try to review this film. So I will. It was shot in my hometown, we got free pizza and a t-shirt that we were suppose to return and no, we did not get paid. I would honestly point you to view the trailer before I ever say see the film. I'm in the trailer too. In fact, if that is too much, I'll post a screen cap of it. Save everyone the headache.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/unrivaled.jpg

So I'm the guy in the light shirt on the far left side of the picture. My right arm in a slight, pumping of the fist motion. Brilliant right?

So the film, yeah, unrivaled. It's crap. The director's other film that I have seen Ham & Cheese, is barely watchable as well. That film only got noticed because of the comedians attached. This one has UFC fighters, who cannot act for the life of them. The lead male and the lead bad guy are the two stand outs who should stick to being beaten in the head rather than mugging for the camera.

Pointless nudity in the first 20 minutes, left right and centre. For what purpose? Who knows. He works at a strip club. The guy owes money to some dangerous guys, wow, original there. He can't pay and is threatened. Boom, time for opportunity to come up. The champ is giving an unknown fighter the chance to be discovered. Is it his time to rise up and silence all the nay-sayers? Can a nobody defeat a somebody? Have I seen this film before, but with boxing? Unrivaled is a poor mash-up of Rocky and The Wrestler.

The script is amateur, as is everything else that accompanies this film. The film looks like a music video, so it's not all cheap. There are some nice cinematography spots, but as a whole the film never leaps out at you. The best feature this film has going for it is the soundtrack, which is surprisingly good. Yet there is the problem, I don't go to movies to listen to music.

1 <-because I'm in it.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 80: July 19th, 2010

Who Framed Roger Rabbit

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit.jpg

It's the story of a man, a woman, and a rabbit in a triangle of trouble.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit mixes the world of animation and live action effortlessly, what makes it even more respectable is how well it holds up compared to recent flicks like Looney Tunes: Back in Action.

Zemeckis pushes the envelope and continues to today, or at least tries to. His films seem to lack the heart and soul of his earlier works. With Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Zemeckis blends old school film noir detective stories with a looney stylized world in which the character live.

Bob Hoskins is the alcoholic detective who must solve the case of....who framed roger rabbit. He does a wonderful job in the role and acts opposite an imaginary character with ease. Roger Rabbit himself is a zany character that is in love with Jessica Rabbit, a busty bombshell of a character with flowing red hair. She is of course the femme fatale. What's a film without a villain? Christopher Lloyd as Judge Doom is creepy and effective. Without a doubt he will give chills to your bones. His distaste for toons is about as villainous as you can get.

Their are numerous winks and nods to old school cartoon characters. What other film can you see Daffy and Donald duck battle each other? The toon world is a great way to show creativity and the crew make sure they use their opportunity to do so. This film is great for both kids and adults and is to this day, a classic.

I highly recommend Who Framed Roger Rabbit to anyone looking for a good story, interesting characters and great entertainment. The film is not only funny, but a great mystery waiting to be unraveled. Check it out.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 81: July 20th, 2010

Inception

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/inception_poster2.jpg

Your mind is the scene of the crime.

In trying not to give too many plot details away, I'll sum up the story of Inception with this. A team of people use a device to go into another person's dream. While there they can do things such as extract information, or even plant ideas. That's about as far as I will go; it's the basic plot of the film that most people already know. Much like District 9 and Avatar (at least for me) the less you know about the film, the better.

Christopher Nolan, with Inception, has created a masterpiece. It's hard for me to heap such praise on the guy who has a small film resume under his name, but he has, in my opinion, 3 films that will never be forgotten. Memento, The Dark Knight and now Inception are all films that I hold in high regard. It's funny, right after The Dark Knight, I heard Nolan was planning on making Inception, instead of a third Batman film, I was a little ticked off. I wanted another Batman film, not some side project. It's ironic that I enjoyed Inception more than The Dark Knight.

Inception is a multi-layered film that has so much going on that it might seem intimidating. Yet, you never lose sense of where you are. Nolan is able to pull off this feat remarkably. People go into multiple dreams and different levels and the viewer never loses a sense of where. Nolan shows nothing but confidence and creativity in this film. It's not afraid to challenge you a little bit. I'm not saying it dives into deep philosophical issues here, but it is enough juice to get people thinking.

Inception had me giddy and smiling all the way through. It's very hard for a film to do that. There was one scene in particular, where I was not only in amazement in how utterly and ridiculously awesome it was, but how simple it was to achieve. The scene is the hallway fight sequence in which gravity no loner seems to be an issue. The simplest form is used, moving and twisting the set, and Nolan makes it look ten times better than anything else we've seen in recent years.

Nolan creates films that people really need to wrap their heads around. He is the next big thing. Hell, he is the big thing. He is the hottest director right now that has yet misstep. Nolan and his brother have created an original piece of art here, a crime caper if you will, that involves going into the subconscious. The creativity is off limits, as seen by the section of the city overlapping itself. I loved how they have taken things that you feel and think about while dreaming and incorporated it in to the film. In order to wake up you need a kick, that feeling that you're falling. I've felt it and I love that they have incorporated things like that.

There is a lot to talk about with Inception, even the ending, which in my mind was Nolan having a little bit of fun. Obviously that question would pop up sometime in the film, but Nolan knows not to go that route. I think it's there simply to get people talking while he laughs at his own little joke. In any event, I'll through my two cents in by simply saying I'm an optimist.

I hear that people aren't that big a fan of Ellen Page. I think she did fine holding her own against DiCaprio, who shines yet again much like his tortured role in Shutter Island. My one complaint about her is that she was a bit intrusive of characters and their dreams. The film feels a little bit like a Batman reunion. Michael Cain has a small role, but Cillian Murphy and Ken Watanabe both have integral parts to the story. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who I couldn't stand on 3rd Rock From The Sun, is quickly becoming a favourite of mine. Marion Cotillard has an interesting role and her performance, other than DiCaprio, has the most emotional depth to it. Every single addition to the cast is a perfect mold for this world.

I really loved this film, for it's running time, it never drags. It's always interesting and engaging the viewer. It doesn't slow down to explain things, and doesn't really need to. It might seem confusing at first, but like Ellen Page's character, the viewer is a quick learner. Inception is the best film of this year and another achievement that Nolan can be extremely proud of. I like that it's an original idea and it seems to be doing well, we need more films like Inception.

4.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 82: July 21st, 2010

The Aviator

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/aviator_ver2.jpg

For some men, the sky was the limit. For him, it was just the beginning.

The Aviator is in one word "Fantastic". It details the life of Howard Hughes, his bizarre obsessions and his love for planes. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a great performances in one of his roles that told us how dedicated he was to his craft. It's when I really started to take notice of him and what he will be giving us in the future. The second film in which Scorsese has used him, and the most dedicated to the role.

Cate Blanchett earns herself a much deserved Academy Award for her performance and the rest of the supporting cast is fleshed out by the likes of John C. Reilly, Kate Beckinsale, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Jude Law and Ian Holm. Just to name a few. Scorsese directs the film with confidence and skill. The film is very ambitious and an interesting film to complete after Gang of New York, probably his most ambitious film to date.

The music, the cinematography, everything is on a grand scale. A very solid effort from everyone involved and Scorsese's attention to detail and his dedication to the craft is marvelous. The film is a little on the long side and seems to go through predictable stages in Hughes life, even for those unfamiliar with him. The Aviator is indeed a great film, but seems to be in the shadows of Scorsese's greater films.

4

[nebbit]

Nice reviews Sussy Thanks :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 83: July 22nd, 2010

Rear Window

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rearwindow.jpg

So Simple and Yet So Effective.

Bart Simpson breaks his leg when the family gets a new swimming pool. He is stuck in his room with a cast on his leg and he is bored out of his mind....oops wrong synopsis. Sub Jimmy Stewart for Bart Simpson and you have your story of Rear Window. L.B. 'Jeff' Jeffries suspects his neighbour has killed his own wife and tries to solve the mystery while stuck in his wheelchair. The premise is pretty simple, yet Hitchcock gives us something more with this film, he gives us exactly what our society craves voyeurism. Even to this day we can't go by without thinking or wanting or actually trying to peak into the lives of others.

Rear Window marks my fourth Hitchcock film I've seen, yet it sneaks into my favourite spot. Is it boring for someone to say that one of the more popular Hitchcock films is currently his favourite? I don't care, I know a good film when I see one and Rear Window is just that. More than 50 years later this film manages to still be relevant today and hold up successfully well in the suspense department. The recent Shia LaBeouf remake Distrubia, while a good thriller, suffers from the technology syndrome. Years from now the film will be dated with that ankle bracelet technology holding Shia in, just like the giant cell phone Zack Morris carries with him everywhere. Rear Window doesn't feel dated and this is credited to Hitchcock and his attention to detail.

I absolutely love, adore and cherish the art direction in this film. How beautiful is the set design? Knowing that they used the basement as part of the set design only heightens my enjoyment of it. The second floor of the apartments was actually the stage floor. Stunning in my opinion. The opening scene giving us a glimpse into the lives of the people who live in the apartments around Stewart is marvelous. We never go into their lives, we just see it from Stewarts (and our) viewpoint. We never leave his room, save for the ending and a scene that involves the death of a dog. Those close ups of the people listening to the lady yelling seem out of place because we immediately jump out of Stewart's room and into the open area. It's alarmingly jarring and seems out of place for no apparent reason.

Hitchcock ones again proves us that a good story (he most certainly had his hand in crafting the story) trumps everything else. How suspenseful can a film be when our hero never leaves his room, hell he never really leaves his wheelchair. Hitchcock manages to pull it off gracefully. It's nice to see where films today get their inspiration from. When the lights in the hallway go out at Stewart's apartment, I thought of No Country For Old Men. Hitchcock truly was the master of suspense.

Grace Kelly is absolutely stunning. I never really cared for the looks of the actresses of the old 50's or 60's. None of them caught my eye, Grace Kelly think is the first one to do so. I don't even think Marilyn Monroe did. Her introduction shot is graceful and most certainly memorable. I can't finish this review without mentioning Thelma Ritter. She was hilarious and everything she did felt so natural. I absolutely loved her character.

Rear Window is more suspenseful today than most thrillers that come to theatres. The little glimpses into the lives of the people around the setting is what really drew me in though, the song writer, Miss Torso, Miss Hearing Aid, and the balcony couple. These are nice little addition from the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock.

4

[mistique]

I wish I could give you ten points instead of just one for your review on Inception.

[planet news]

You only praise Rear Window and offer no criticisms. Yet you knocked off 2 points (on a 10 point scale). I can't go as low as an 8. That, as I see it, means that 20% of the film was bad. No. Absolutely not. I'd say maybe 5% of the film. Because it's definitely not as in depth as some other Hitchcock's I'd shave off an additional 5% for discretion. Can't believe you thought Inception was better.

[TheUsualSuspect]

When I rate films I don't rate them on a comparative scale to others. I rate them based on their own limitations.

For example: I find The 40 Year Old Virgin hilarious, one of the funniest movies I've seen and thus rate it highly. 4

This is the same ratings as Rear Window, but I would never in my life compare the two films simple because they have the same rating, or think one is essentially better than the other. I laughed my ass off in Virgin, so I felt more entertained by it, but Rear Window accomplishes what few films do, keep me on the edge of my seat. Are they both 4 films? Sure, but that doesn't mean that they are just as good as each other. Each rating I give is for that film and that film alone.

I take into account not only the story and entertainment value of the film, but the aesthetics and achievement of it as well. Star Wars was innovative and changed filmmaking, as was The Matrix. I rated 2001 A Space Odyssey a 3 and Club Dread a 4. I love Club Dread, people hate it. People love 2001, yet I find it overrated and nonsensical. Yet I do know that 2001 is the 'better' film. I had a 'better' time with Club Dread. Does any of that make some sense, or have I lost all credibility.

As for criticism, I did state how Hitchcock leaving the viewpoint of Stewart during the dead dog scene was unneeded and jarring to the viewer. It in some small way tells the viewer, "yes this is a movie you are watching" and not just be another character in the room with Stewart.

You also mention I knock off two points on a ten point scale. This isn't a ten point scale, it's a 5 point scale, so it is one point. What would be the point of rating something on a 5 point scale if you should be thinking like a ten point scale? For the record, I would rate it an 8.5 on a ten point scale. Depending on how strongly I feel about certain ratings, a 7.5 for me can turn into an 8 or kept as a 7 on an IMDB rating scale for my review.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 84: July 23rd, 2010

2012

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/2012-poster-2.jpg

We Were Warned.....About How Crappy This Movie Is.

2012 is a jumbled mess of a film. Roland Emmerich stated that for his last disaster flick he wanted to make it so that no other disaster flick could come after it. Well, mission accomplished because I don't want to see anymore. Upping the disaster scale to the entire world might do well for the special effects guys, buy not the paying viewer.

2012 has a very thin plot. People must survive. Is that a plot? It's more of a story. John Cusack is one of those people and he is with his ex-wife, his two kids and their step father, whom he hates. He gets the word that disaster is going to strike when a crazy old hippie guy, Woody Harrelson (big stretch) tells him about the world crumbling beneath our feet. This happens and the poop hits the fan. It seems that every single person in California dies, except for this one group. Why might you ask? Apparently Cusack, who is not only a writer, but a limo driver, has the skills and the vehicle power (a limo) to outrun global destruction.

Emmerich is not that bad of a director. He is often compared to Michael Bay for choosing big scale productions and not caring about story or characters. 2012 is the perfect example of this. In his earlier film, Independence Day, he gave us big explosions and aliens to shoot. Characters were lacking but the charisma of Will Smith, the character actor of Jeff Goldblum and Randy Frickin Quaid gave us something to smile at. John Cusack is wooden, Amanda Peet cries and a big Russian guy speaks with a thick accent. We are given zero, nadda, not even an inch of anything interesting to care about these characters. Why do I care if they live? Why do I want to spend the next 90 plus minutes with them. The answer is you don't. I wanted to spend my time with Woody I'm higher than a kite right now Harrelson.

The film is really just an excuse for the special effects guys to do their thing. Yet this is also a hit or miss. Sometimes it's actually entertaining and interesting to see the world fall beneath your feet. Other times it's painfully obvious how fake everything is. Check out the grocery store scene when the entire store literally splits in half. It's like the green screen was done in the 80's. The big event happens while Cusack and co and driving through the thick of it. They drive through buildings, jump obstacles, get covered in human feces. You read that right.

The children cry and are annoying. The older son doesn't seem to respect his dad, he calls him by his first name and not dad. Yet of course, because the world is about to end, he re- evaluates his outlook on his flawed hero of a father and calls him dad. He even risks his life to be with him. The daughter just tries to not wet her bed. The step father is a nice guy, yet for some reason who are told to hate him. The conclusion of his character is sad and a pathetic excuse to get the torn family back together. Am I really ruining anything for you?

Danny Glover is the president...remember the last time Hollywood had a black president, I think there was a giant asteroid heading towards the earth. Is Hollywood trying to tell us that we are doomed the day a black man becomes president. I wonder when that day will come...oops.

A side plot involving rich people being the ones who will be saved is tiresome. The film tries to villainize a rational man. 2012 tries to make you believe that it's a small world, all these people who meet at one point will meet again. This is suppose to be WORLD DESTRUCTION. There is another problem, too many characters to not care about. Are we really suppose to care about George Segal and the conflict with his son that lasts all about 3 minutes?

2012 is a blunder, a disaster of a disaster film. Bigger is not always better. It lacks the science, logic and intelligence it needs to be taken with any credibility. Universal Soldier, Stargate and Independence Day are all entertaining flicks in my mind. Everything since has been crap, let's just name those films off shall we? Godzilla? The Patriot? The Day After Tomorrow? 10,000 B.C. God, I forgot that film even existed. 2012 was a film to see in the theatres for the loud sound and big screen special effects. Now that the theatre time has passed, there is no point in seeing it.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 85: July 24th, 2010

The Score

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/score.jpg

There are no partners in crime.

DeNiro is a thief and a very good one at that. He gets jobs thrown his way from Marlon Brando, but he wants out. Isn't that always the case? Brando says he has one more job for him, DeNiro agrees to do one last job. Again, isn't that always the case? Ed Norton is also in on the plan, much to the dislike of DeNiro. They have to steal a scepter that is worth a lot of money. But can they trust each other?

The Score was an interesting film because it brought together 4 generations of actors. Brando, DeNiro and Norton. All three very talented and gifted actors in one film? Must be a recipe for success. Frank Oz, most famous for his business with the Muppets was directing. Now, the film isn't bad, but it isn't great either. The biggest problem is that the film doesn't try to be anything more than a simple crime caper flick.

Again, it has 3 great actors from different generations. All of them are pretty intense and serious about their craft, yet non of them are used to their full potential. Brando sits around and shows up to chat up with DeNiro here and there and DeNiro himself doesn't make a very believable thief. He has that no nonsense attitude down, but we've seen that before when he was on the run from Pacino in Heat. Norton is given a little bit to work with as he plays two roles, the other is one of a mentally challenged cover act who works the place they plan to steal the scepter from. Norton is the one out of the three given the most interesting character with the biggest struggle.

Frank Oz directs it with no special flare. It could have been anyone behind that lens and I wouldn't have cared. There was no stamp of originality or sense of ownership. It was pretty much like Deniro's character traits. Safe and simple. Nothing fancy, nothing risky. The scenes with suspense seem to be mildly interesting and you never feel the threat of danger. Oz was able to handle to 3 actors fine, but again, could have done so much more. I can't fault the script because that was the story going into it. He had the chance to make it special and beef it up, but chose not to.

The Score is decent and as far as heist films go, it was manageable. The film basically no violence in it whatsoever, which was interesting to see, specifically in this era. It tried to rely on character, performance and story to intrigue. It works to a certain point, but when you have so much going for you, it's hard to live up to that expectation. The Score fails to dazzle and it decides to work on a more moderate level.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 86: July 25th, 2010

Jurassic Park

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/jurassic_park_ver1.jpg

Classic Filmmaking And Entertainment.

What? Dinosaurs are cloned and are running amok in an amusement park? Well, that can't be good. Something must go wrong. Well, something does go wrong, thanks a lot Newman. Know the guests who are at the park before it opens to the public are fresh meat for the so called extinct species.

Spielberg in his hey day, cranking out a film that defined a generation and changed the way special effects are used in films. Jurassic Park is a nail biting, amazement that dazzles and makes you smile with glee. If Superman made you believe a man can fly, then Jurassic Park made you believe we can re-create dinosaurs. Never before have dinosaurs looked so life like and realistic on the screen. Say whatever you want about the special effects today, I still like them, in 1993 it gave audiences and Hollywood something to gawk at.

Three doctors are invited to the preview tour of the park. Sam Neil, Laura Dern and of course the one guy you want to play a doctor/scientist, Jeff Glodblum. While on the tour, a major storm hits and the power goes down. It doesn't help that Wayne Knight is trying to steal the embryos to make some ca-ching. Well, those dinosaurs who eat meat eventually escape and we are in for a thrilling ride. Our first introduction to the T-REX stands as one of the best introductions and visual film achievements to this day.

The cast do well together and the kids aren't AS ANNOYING as they use to be. They still make me grind my teeth though. As a kid, this film was all about the raptor chase sequence. Others seemed to like everything with the T-REX. Either or, every scene that has a dinosaurs is indeed spectacular. A giant leap forward in filmmaking, from a technical standpoint.

A great theme song to tie things up and we have ourself a blockbuster film that doesn't disappoint on repeat viewings. It is still today, as good as it was back in the day. It might seem a bit dated when our little heroine decides to use the computer and we see how freaking basic everything is, but Jurassic Park is a flick that should be seen by everyone looking for a good time at the movies.

4

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 87: July 26th, 2010

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/lost_world_jurassic_park_ver2.jpg

Something has survived.

Think we saw the last of those pesky dinosaurs from the original Jurassic Park? Think again. This time around we are going to another island, called Site B. It's here where the dinosaurs actually run free, no cages. Which means that the filmmakers have up the ante a bit. Our humans are stuck on this island while another group of humans decide to go hunting. For some strange reason the film finishes with the T-REX running around San Diego.

How can a film live up to the original? The first was such a huge moment in blockbuster history. Well we are giving no Sam Neil and more Jeff Goldblum. The sequel, is a little too ambitious that it loses itself in all of its grandeur. How could they raise the stakes in this film? Well, for one they thrown the characters into a world that they have absolutely no control over. No cages, no wires or buildings. This is a natural and free environment, this is the dino-environment. Second, we have a freaking T-REX run around San Diego. Yup, to raise the stakes they needed to bring one of those guys back. In a way it feels like a failed King Kong experiment.

The Lost World gives fans what they wanted, more raptors. Yet these raptors are different, more deadly apparently. Velociraptors, yippie, yet they can be taken out by a little girl because she is also a gymnast. Yes, people still moan about that scene and there is a good reason for it. It is utterly ridiculous. I can forgive a character being scared of a snake and getting killed by the Rex, but not that damn gymnastic scene.

Vince Vaughn is in this flick and I think after this and Psycho, he decided that comedy was his one and only place to be. Sure he tried again with The Cell and Domestic Disturbance, but both films failed. He's not bad here, but he also seems out of his element. I wouldn't mind seeing him in another film like this though, give him another chance, but his strong elements are clearly comedy.

Lost World is not as great as the original, but it's also not the travesty people make it out to be. There are many parts in the film that don't live up to the expectations it sets out for itself. The San Diego sequence is insane and you either love it or hate it. I remember seeing this film in the theatres when I was a kid, my opinion of it has lessened since then. I was 10 then, I'm 22 now. It almost feels like the Temple of Doom of the series. It's something kids love but adults seem to roll their eyes at. But that would have to make Jurassic Park III good, when it's just like this one, mediocre.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 88: July 27th, 2010

Jurassic Park III

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/jurassic_park_iii_ver1.jpg

Evolve or Die.

Jurassic Park 3 is the one in the series that is not directed by Spielberg. It gets a lot of flack and deservedly so, the film is a poor excuse to get another film in the theatres to make money. Let's look at the reason they go back to the island. A couple trick the poor Dr. Grant into going back to the island. He thinks they are flying over it, when in reality they land on the island to look for their son who has disappeared on it. Start the dino attacks.

This film is famous for two things, one is the Spinosaurus, the so called new king of the jungle. We are given a small useless fight scene between the Spinosaurus and the T-Rex to prove this point. Ram it down out throats, we get it a new dinosaur that is more dangerous. The second would be the Pterodons stuck in their bird cage. An exciting sequence yes, but something small that is stuck in a ridiculous film.

Given that the point of this film is really useless, I like to look at it as a simple popcorn flick that serves no purpose other than to give the viewer a decent time at the theatre. The first two were at least based on books. The film does give decent chase sequences but we don't care for the characters other than Grant, from the first one. How the kid survived is a brain teaser. He'd be dead in reality, also how the boat they were parasailing on was destroyed and the crew killed is a plot hole to me. There are theories, but to me it's just lazy writing.

Jurassic Park 3 is a short film too, they basically arrive on the island, find the kid, then leave. The sense of adventure is lessened in this one than the previous two. The stakes aren't as high and the new dinosaur is pretty much a yawn. This is the obvious weakest entry in the series which I guess makes me appreciate even the weaker Spielberg films even more.

2

[honeykid]

How the kid survived is a brain teaser. He'd be dead in reality, also how the boat they were parasailing on was destroyed and the crew killed is a plot hole to me. There are theories, but to me it's just lazy writing.

True, but then this is an film about dinosaurs living on an island that was going to be opened as a theme park. I think we left reality behind a long, long time ago. :yup:

Pleased to see you posting these again though, TUS. :up:

[nebbit]

Pleased to see you posting these again though, TUS. :up:
Me too :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 89: July 28th, 2010

Apocalypse Now Redux

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/apocalypse.jpg

Stick with the original, Redux Bores.

I decided to give the Redux another try and yet I still find myself being bored to death every single time everything he added in comes in. The French Plantation sequence is what puts me to sleep because the film comes to a stalling pace of death. I would strongly suggest to stick to the original version over the Redux.

It's no secret that the tiresome road to get this film made is that of cinema legends. I applaud Coppola to no end, this film is without a doubt an achievement. Yet I still find myself not loving it as much as I probably should. There are moments of greatness yes, but the overall effect is not one that makes me want to talk about it to other people.

It is a flawed film that with the added scenes makes it even more flawed, severely with it's pacing. The redux doesn't ruin a classic film it simply makes it longer and boring. The cast all work well, even to the small roles given to Brando and Ford. Hopper stands out as the photojournalist is genius and is one of his more memorable roles in a list of eccentric characters.

Coppola is far from a favourite director of mine. I find his films overly long and tedious. He is talented, no doubt about that and deserves his place in the legends of filmmakers, but to me he should have left Apocalypse Now alone and not George Lucas it up. Pretentious or not, you decide.

3

original: 4

[planet news]

Totally unnecessary, I agree. It completely ruins the relatively fast pacing of the film and lacks the visual spectacle that otherwise accompanies almost every scene.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 90: July 29th, 2010

Insomnia

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Insomniaposter1.jpg

Days never end. Nightmares are real. No one is innocent.

Well, I've seen every Nolan film (even his student film) with the exception of The Prestige (expect to see that one pop up sometime on this list) and until now this one. Insomnia a remake with Pacino, Swank and Robbins. Most people view it as that other movie where Robin Williams is serious. Of course the other film is One Hour Photo. Here Robin Williams is not a creepy guy like his character in Photo, he's a normal joe.

Anyways, there is a murder in Alaska and two L.A. detectives are brought in to find the killer, in a town where the sun never goes down. Hence the title, our lead character gets insomnia. Pacino in his older years doesn't really need to look too tired, that's his natural essence now. He plays this role with a little less extravagance as we have seen before. He's suppose to be tired after all.

Nolan does a good job at keeping us interested in the case and the pace of the film works for this mystery thriller. The twist here is that the killer and Pacino have more things in common then they think. The film has to deal with more than one murder and the audience has to look at the cover up of one and the solution of the other.

While Insomnia is not one of his better known films it is still a well written and directed mystery. It doesn't necessarily pull you into the story that well nor do we get involved with the town folk. Insomnia has it's problems, but it still works on a level that most films don't. It was also made more Hollywood friendly compared to the Norwegian original.

3

[honeykid]

I've only seen the Redux version once, but I have to say that I prefered it.

[planet news]

I like HK because I never know what he's going to say. Like Hildy.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 91: July 30th, 2010

Antitrust

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/Antitrust.jpg

Truth can be dangerous... Trust can be deadly.

This was one of those random 90's flick that no one ever saw (well I did) and there was a reason for it. It's not that great. The film stars a bunch of good looking people who are computer nerds (yeah right). Ryan Phillippe leads this tech savvy flick that tried to capitalize on the fast rising usage of computers and the internet and so on.

Phillippe plays a computer programmer and he gets his dream job at a successful Portland-based firm. It turns into a nightmare when he discovers his boss (Tim Robbins in his Bill Gates outfit) has a secret and deadly way of dealing with competition or anti-trust problems.

Rachel Leigh Cook and the beautiful Claire Forlani, it's her eyes, also star. The film has a few suspenseful set pieces, but the overall product is a forgettable thriller that tries to capitalize on technology that most of it's audience would not understand. Robbins doesn't do much in the villain role, he plays nice when he's really naughty.

Antitrust has a lot of neat ideas, but it doesn't all come together in the end. It's kind of a mess. I wish I could like it more, but it is honestly a forgettable film. It killed Rachel Leigh Cook and Claire Forlani's career and almost took out Phillipe's. In my opinion of course.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 92: July 31st, 2010

Deep Rising

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/deep.jpg

If the cash is there, then we do not care. What kinda philosophy is that?

When I decided to do this little thing again I did it to broaden my film watching experience. To watch movies I haven't seen like Raging Bull (it's coming) and Rear Window (I loved it). Yet every so often you find yourself watching crap, crap can be bad crap or guilty crap. Deep Rising is somewhere confusingly in the middle. I know it's crap, I know it's bad bad bad crap, yet I can find the humour in it. Intentional or not.

It stars Treat "I'm a badass" Williams in the lead role with Famke Janssen as the female we all like to oogle over. A military unit hires Williams to take them to a location, what is at that location? A giant cruise ship, but he doesn't know that. On that cruise ship are a bunch of wealthy people having a fun time. Cue monster attack, dead bodies, blood and some murky CGI. The crew arrives, everyone is dead and now they are fighting for their lives.

The director of this little gem is Stephen Sommers, of The Mummy and G.I. Joe fame. So you know it's loud and makes no sense what so ever. All the subplots involving the owner wanting to sink the ship to collect the insurance is laughable. Character actions are bizarre and the action sequences are off and on. I only really watched it because I remember watching it as a kid. I tend to do that to see if what I remember is actually true to the film and to see if it still holds up.

The monster is a mutation of some sorts. It's tentacles have their own mouths and sensory. Think an Octopus/Doc Ock/Anaconda/ Predator hybrid. How these tentacles can move around the ship at such ease is beyond me, especially since we see the full creature at the end of the film.

Kevin J. O'Connor is the comedic sidekick. He seems to be in every Sommer's film now. He gets a few laughs at his own expense. What made this film memorable was not the spoiler ending on the cover, but the final few minutes in which they arrive on an island and have to face off with another giant mutation creature. Is it King Kong? Is it the Black Smoke Monster from Lost? Who knows. I still want a sequel. Ha.

2.5

[Harry Lime]

Good stuff from a fellow Canadian. Trying to catch up, eh?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Yeah, I don't want to get too far behind like last time.

That's it for tonight. I'll post 3 or so more each day hopefully to catch up.

[mark f]

I like HK because I never know what he's going to say. Like Hildy.

That's because Hildy is supposed to be a guy.

Apocalypse Now is a majorly-flawed film but I would never tell anyone not to watch it. I feel the entire third act with Brando is complete horsesh!t but nowadays it's considered the cherry on top. Nowadays is often not the greatest place to live. Brando made up his own lines, Coppola shot him in shadows to try to prove that he weighed less than I do, and then the whole thing just collapses under its own weight. Apocalypse Now is spectacular and often intense. It's also one of the those films which had to piece itself together completely separately from the original script. It makes no sense for me to talk about it now, I guess, but back then, both the studio and Coppola were pretty sure they had a disaster on their hands after about five years worth of hard work. Watch it and be occasionally amazed (especially by Robert Duvall), but don't be too hypnotized by all the smoke and mirrors.

[Brodinski]

Watch it and be occasionally amazed (especially by Robert Duvall), but don't be too hypnotized by all the smoke and mirrors.

Too late.

[honeykid]

I agree with mark for the main, especially about Brando the last third. One of the better things about Redux was that, if I remember correctly, there was more Robert Duvall. :up:

[mark f]

In Redux the crew steals Col. Kilgore's (Duvall's) surfboard, so we see a patrol boat coming after them and hear Kilgore's voice saying that if they just return the board, he won't retaliate against them. That made me laugh out loud.

[planet news]

I disagree. Maybe 5% of the film was flawed. Maybe. I was born just after nowadays, so sorry if I'm a snot-nosed fanboy of the final third, but I don't get how improvisation is a flaw.

[honeykid]

If improv is bad, it's a flaw the same as a poor script. Otherwise, you'd just improv the entire thing and make a 'brilliant' film.

It's been a long time since I saw it, but I'm there until the last third. Once Willard reaches his destination, I'm done with it.

[planet news]

I can't see how it was bad. The man was psychotic. He had reverted to savagery. The monologue was vivid and haunting as those things should be. Most of all, it was believable. Utter success that was. And so what if he was fat? I can't see how that has anything to do with it. Strange criticism of a scene to bring up something that doesn't show up on film. I guess the lighting was a success then?

Unless of course you criticize anything extemporaneous, as if even someone as meticulous as Kubrick didn't stumble upon serendipitous successes.

Some would even call serendipity the root of all original ideas.

But my god, how can you be "done" right at the part where the film really pays off?

What does it mean to be done with a film? I can't believe yall would criticize the last third when it is shot, scripted, scored, and edited better than 95% of films ever made. And yet, yall are "done" with that. I could watch the last third alone and love it.

[mark f]

I'm not turning rufnek now, but go ahead and watch the last third over and over. I've watched the flick at least ten times. I've basically gotten over my disappointment of the ending not living up to the set-up, but I still honestly feel it's deeply flawed. I agree that it has some of the most-spectacular and cinematic scenes ever filmed, but I personally don't think it adds up. Just saying that he's psychotic doesn't make me feel any happier with the final act. I knew he was psychotic before we ever saw him. Besides that, there are plenty of characters in the movie who are psycho. They just all seem more interesting to me than Kurtz.

[planet news]

rufnek scares me, mark. Please don't.

But what did you want? The final boss on the last level of a videogame? I know what you mean now about Kurtz being "disappointing", but just because he was subdued and his environment subdued, doesn't mean that the scene was not still the most intense and clearly climactic of the entire film. The key here is the populace and the celebration in opposition to the "sane" army celebration with the Playboy girls. Totally opposing color palette and central figure of worship. Visually, without sound, the ending clearly stands out with its warm, rainbow hues and ultra-contrast. I don't know if you wanted Kurtz himself to come out of the shadows more or for his death to be more akin to falling down an infinite metal shaft with force lightening sparking around him, but the music, lighting, and editing more than made up for whatever kind of letdown Kurtz's limited physical presence may have been.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 93: August 1st, 2010

XII

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/xii.jpg

Interesting premise is ruined by filmmakers cutting corners.

A man gets out of prison and goes on a killing rampage of those who were on the jury. 12 jury members, 12 people to kill.

I was really intrigued by the premise of this film. I think if done right, it would make for a very good thriller/horror film. A killer killing off those who put him away. Those 12 jury members. I'm sure it was probably done before since the idea isn't original, but I haven't seen any films based on that idea. So when I saw XII was about just that, I thought why not, let's give it a chance. It's a shame though because this film lacks anything that would make it interesting or entertaining.

The killer is in prison for apparently having sexual relations with a minor. There is only one bit of dialogue that supports this. Other than that, we have no idea who this guy is, why he went to prison or anything else. The film doesn't really set events up well, the opening credit sequence is horribly shot and edited that you don't really know what you're watching until the 5 years later text pops up.

All of the cast are bland and boring with the exception of Mercedes McNab of Buffy The Vampire Slayer fame. She played Harmony. She seems like the only one who knows that she is in a horror film. She plays the blonde bitchy type friend of the supposed heroine well enough to make this not an entire travesty.

The kills are non existent. The film starts off with a kill near Vegas where one guy gets his head blown off with a shot gun. Then it is all downhill from there. The killer rips the skin off of his victims face, sometimes while they are still alive. This should make for some gruesome scenes but non of it scares, excites or interests the viewer. The killer is a lame Ed Gein wannabe who wears the skin of his victims as well.

Low rent horror this is, but not even the good kind. I can't help but feel what I could have done with this story and budget. Or anyone else for that matter. The guy who directed this played Jim Morrison in Wayne's World 2. Yeah...you read that correctly.

Oh, and it is only an hour and fifteen minutes long.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 94: August 2nd, 2010

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/phantom.jpg

The Saga Begins....Again.

The most anticipated film of our generation? Before the release of what is now considered the worst film out of all six Star Wars films, everyone was going mad over Star Wars. I was in elementary school, grade 5 or 6 when this came out and even I knew that after watching it in the theatres that I could have directed a better Episode I. Why is it that so many people hated this film when it first came out, then came to simply dislike it years later? Well, this one reviewer goes into great detail about it all, as he did with Avatar, Star Trek and other Star Wars films.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

Well, even though it is long, it pin points obvious flaws in the film that not only fans of the series, but average movie goers will have with it.

The biggest problem I have with this film is that it's too complicated for it's own good. What the original had was a plot that was easy to follow, good guys versus bad guys. The Phantom Menace has Trade Federations, Tax Talk and they inexcusably try to explain the force.

When I was a kid I loved the pod racing scene, now it bores me to death. George Lucas seems to have forfeited any sense of a good story with characters we like and try to create a film that would be marketable for toys and kids. The Phantom Menace out of all three films is the most kid friendly one, despite the plot that would normally go over their heads.

Darth Maul is one of my favourite characters in the series and it was disappointing to see him die at the end of this film. Other than Palpatine, this film needed a more central villain. Darth Maul should have filled this role. His light saber duel with Obi-Wan is one of the best in the series, it's fast paced and well choreographed. How many people had a smile on their face when the double edged light saber came out? I did. That's when the film became entertaining, the Duel of Fates. The rest of it is a jumbled mess of ideas that go nowhere.

Han Solo, that is what this film and all three prequels needed. Not that character, but a Han Solo type. Instead we got Qui Gon Jinn, who is more boring than a plank of wood. Jake Lloyd is just as annoying, if not more, than Jar Jar Binks. A character that created such controversy that he was excessively trimmed down for the two films to follow. Darth Vader is this little kid? No, it's not a harrowing story of a child deluded and brought to the dark side, it's a sad pathetic attempt to give more humanity to one of the greatest villain ever. He got that in Jedi, here he is annoying. As far as I'm concerned, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are not related in anyway what so ever.

The Phantom Menace is more fancy than fun, more colourful than bright and boring than entertaining. It's a weak and slow start to some prequels that (to some) ruined a great trilogy.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 95: August 3rd, 2010

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/attack.jpg

A Jedi Shall Not Know Anger. Nor Hatred. Nor Love.

Can Mr. Lucas redeem himself from the horrid attempt at re-starting a trilogy that should have been left alone? The answer is awkwardly yes and no. Attack of the Clones is better than The Phantom Menace, but it has some of the worst written dialogue I have ever heard, even for a Star Wars film.

Attack of the Clones first suffers from a lame title and it hypes itself up to be the big battle film. Well, the battle sequence are really on the gentle side and never really engage the viewer in any sense of danger for the characters. We see more jedi use their weapon of choice and it's exciting at first, but it quickly fades away.

Anakin has transformed from an annoying Jake Lloyd, to a wooden Hayden Christensen. He of course looks totally different, but Portman of course appears the same. smile gripe but one I always had. Ewan McGregor seems more confident in his role, it helps that he is no longer the Padawan and instead has taken Anakin under his wing. The troubled dynamic between the two of them isn't that troubled. Anakin just acts like a whiney little brat.

The apparent love between Anakin and Padme is totally forced. Lucas tries to take his time in exploring the relationship that is forbidden, but it strains the viewer in useless scenes of wanting to kiss but not. The biggest problem with this film is the poorly written complicated relationship between Anakin and Padme.

Dooku versus Yoda was something that many people wanted to see. Yoda finally in a fight scene? That's awesome and it pleased the dreams of many fans. I still dig it to this day as I did in the theatre. AOTC has few highlights and many detractors. It gave some people hopes that the series could get better, but crushed others as their favourite little film series was slowly dying.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 96: August 4th, 2010

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/revenge_of_the_sith_final.jpg

The saga is complete.

The final Star Wars film to hit theatres (or at least we thought). The one that showed us the fall of the Jedi, the rise of the Empire and the creation of Darth Vader. It had a lot to deliver, people had high expectations, even after two lackluster and disappointing films before it. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the prequels, but just how much does that say about the films in general?

Revenge of the Sith has the best visual effects, the best story and the best acting of the three films. It has the most emotion, the more impressive fight sequences and a lot more connection with the original trilogy than the others. That's not to say that the film has some pretty cringe worthy moments. The introduction of the useless character General Grievous was a waste of time. His four lightsaber dual was not exciting in the least. Vader's Frankenstein like scream and movements after hearing the about the death of Padme is more humourous than anything.

Anakin and Obi-Wan's final fight is impressive and the most emotionally fueled battle any of the prequels have, it lived up to the expectations of those waiting to see the two duke it out. It's interesting to see Episode I play delightfully to the kids and then have Episode III be so dark and brooding.

Sith has it's problems, it far from perfect. Yet finally it's assets outweigh the problems. Christensen is still wooden, but this time he shows that he has some bit of emotion in him. The role called for something he couldn't really deliver, but here he tries more than ever. Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith delivers to the fans.

3.5

[nebbit]

:up:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 97: August 5th, 2010

The Glass House

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/glass.jpg

Be Careful Who You Trust.

A house made out of glass...ooooo, so scary. Actually, the only thing scary about the film is the fact that it was made into a movie. The Glass House is devoid of any tension, something that thrillers are apparently suppose to have. Instead we are stuck with two kids we couldn't give two craps about and a climactic scene that doesn't even involve our protagonists. Pretty lame.

So Leelee Sobieski and her little brother are orphaned when their parents car drives off a cliff. It was an accident. In their will it is stated that the kids be taken care of by their friends, Terry and Erin Glass, who just so happen to live in a glass house. But things suddenly go bad when the two taking care of them become a little less than helpful.

Basically they are bad people looking to get a lot of money out of this whole ordeal. Oh, and it wasn't an accident, but I guess you could already tell that. The Glass family is played by Dian Lane and Stellan Skarsgård. Obviously these two actors have more talent than anyone else in this film and are the only saving grace for a film that is a complete bore.

Leelee Sobieski is annoying, she mopes around and is a bitch all the time. It's hard to connect to someone like this. It doesn't help that she can't really carry the film, we look to the two antagonists for anything remotely good to see on screen. Her little brother has too little screen time to really mention anything about him.

The Glass House is a completely forgettable 'thriller'. I put that word in quotations because it's anything but. Skip it and watch something else, anything else really.

1

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 98: August 6th, 2010

She's Out Of My League

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/outofleague.jpg

How can a 10 go for a 5?

Kirk works at an airport and is a 5. Molly is boarding a plane and she is a 10. She accidentally leaves her cell phone back in the terminal and he picks it up. As a thank you, she asks him out, sparks fly. But how can a 10 go for a 5?

Well, I wouldn't call Jay Baruchel a 5 nor would I call Alice Eve a 10, but the characters in the film do, so let's go with it. She's Out Of My League is a date movie, not a raunchy comedy that some people expect. Except, there are two out of the ordinary scenes that seem to actually belong in a raunchy comedy film. Our lead ejaculates in his pants and a dog licks it, second he decides to shave his testicles, but gets a friend to do it. These bits seem straight out of an American Pie film and while they are funny, seem out of place here.

Kirk's own insecurities are his downfall and that is what the antagonist is. Not the guy who tries to win her back, which is the way the film is advertised. This character is almost useless, he should have been more of a wedge between the two characters and create more conflict than what he did. The film suffers from no real conflict. The disputes they have in the film are easily fixable and seem way too minimal to really be used as a conflict in the relationship.

The writing is funny at times, it mostly plays things safe. Which is why those two scenes still stick out like a sore thumb. Of course there is something that splits them up and then they have to race against time to get back together. He works at an airport, so I'll give you one guess as to what they are racing for.

T.J. Miller, an unknown until that little film called Cloverfield came along, is the funniest part of this film. The guy has been in so many things since then and he really does have nice timing for comedy. He plays the friend of Kirk, one of three. The other two have smaller roles, but use their spotlighted time efficiently.

She's Out Of My League is a mediocrely funny film. I didn't love it, nor did I really hate it. It's the kind of film that you have a good time while watching it, then almost forget about it the next day.

2.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 99: August 7th, 2010

Leon: The Professional

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/professional_ver3.jpg

If you want a job done well hire a professional.

Now, I've seen Leon a dozen times before, so why does it make it on this list? Well, it was the director's cut, which I have never seen before. Something like 20 minutes was added to the film which dives deeper into the creepy relationship between Leon and Mathilda.

The problem is that the film seriously halts to a drag during these scenes. It was interesting to see what I hadn't before and to see him take her on some 'practice' missions, but it all was seriously not really needed. The relationship between the two of them plays out nicely in the theatrical film, her getting drunk and professing her love to him was apparently too much for American audiences and it was cut. No real loss, you still feel uneasy about the relationship when she calls him her lover to the hotel manager. The other scenes are a little too much for this film and puts a driving stall in the narrative pace.

Oldman is fantastic as the antagonist, his over the top performance really lends itself to the evil that is his corrupted character. Reno is still as bad ass today as he was when I first saw the film. Leon is truly a professional who takes on a fatherly role to a kid who has no family. His love for her is merely that of a father looking after his daughter, even if there was no blood relation. Her love for him is pure crush. She has a strong man in her life now, one that invokes positive messages to her, even though he does evil things.

Besson directs the film nicely, he moves the story at a good pace. The added scenes in this directors cut were nice to see, but I would rather watch the theatrical film. Usually I do prefer director's cuts over the theatrical one, but here I find that is just slows everything down too much. It adds nothing really new, we know he teaches her, we know she loves him. It's just more of the same.

Highly recommend this film, the theatrical one of course. It's story of love is unusual of course, but it works because the child doesn't really know what she wants in life. The action is great, specifically the final stand off and the performances are better than most action oriented films. The Professional is a winner.

Director's Cut 3
Theatrical Cut 4

[nebbit]

Thanks :) will give the Glass House a miss :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 100: August 8th, 2010

Gangs of New York

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/gangs_of_new_york_ver4.jpg

America was born in the streets.

Martin Scorsese is probably my favourite director, he has the utmost respect for the art behind film, it's history and its future. He loves it to death and the man makes damn fine cinema. Not every picture he does is great, but every Scorsese film has something to say. The problem with filmmakers today, is they have nothing to say.

Gangs of New York was Scorsese's dream project and the film is grand, the set designs, the costumes, everything is detailed to the last drop. Scorsese's dream has come to life in this period piece that brings a legend out of the shadows and begins a director - actor relationship with another.

The film is full of great performances lead by DiCaprio but it's Day Lewis who steals the show as the scene chewing over the top performance of Bill the Butcher. He does the role with a delicious side of crazy and respect. The man is insane with violent rage. DiCaprio has moments of trouble where he loses sight of the role and is just Leonardo DiCaprio on screen, but for the most part he goes a formidable job playing against Lewis. Diaz does an alright job of not becoming annoying or dopey, which she usually does.

The violence is raw and restrained. We are thrown into a bloodshed in the opening act and the film plays out leading up to a bloody revenge. The climax is actually anti-climactic. Scorsese did this on purpose and it frustrated me when I first saw the film. I wanted the big grand fight. This viewing it didn't bother me too much and it made the cat and mouse style fight more heightened.

Gangs of New York went home empty handed on Oscar night, which is a disappointment because the set design is beautiful. Scorsese has a great film here that many people seem to dismiss. It's length is something to endure, but the revenge story could have been a huge disaster, if it weren't for that man behind the camera.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 101: August 9th, 2010

Eight Legged Freaks

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/eight_legged_freaks.jpg

Giant spiders eating people? It has to be fun right?

Eight Legged Freaks, how I wanted to like you so much more than I did. I wanted to have a good fun b-horror movie time, yet I was left with a film that doesn't really know what it wants to be. You have a poor lead actor and comedic scenes that fall flat. I thought an attack from giant spiders would be more entertaining than this.

For a movie down right that involves a town overrun by some kind of monster see Slither. It was funny, well directed and had Nathan Fillion. David Arquette needs to stick to supporting roles. He doesn't have the comedic timing, nor the charisma to lead a film like this. The supporting characters need to be more characteristic. The town sheriff was as close as this film got.

I suppose if you go into this film simply wanting people to get attacked by spiders then you'll like it. I don't really know what I wanted out of it, I just know that I didn't really get anything from it. It had some elements rights, but the whole package left me feeling empty inside. I was never cheering, never laughing or seeming to care about what happens to people.

2

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 102: August 10th, 2010

John Q

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/john_q.jpg

Give a father no options and you leave him no choice.

Being a Canadian, I can't really relate to the problem at the centre of this film. Affording health care is not a problem for me, but John Q somehow struck a cord with me. I'm not surprised that many people pick on this film, but I will strongly defend it. It's a good film, there I said it.

Let's look at the cast, Denzel Washington, James Woods, Anne Heche, Kevin Connolly, Ethan Suplee, Eddie Griffin, Robert Duvall, Ray Liotta. Sure some of these names mean nothing, but I'm surprised at the well rounded cast here. Denzel gives a strong personal and heartfelt performance as John Q. He's back into a corner regarding the life of his son and he's out of his league here. How far would a father go to save the life of his child. People criticize the film because everyone has problems and he has no right to endanger the lives of others, blah, blah. It's a father's love for his son. The greatest fear of parents is to outlive their children.

One scene that gave me goosebumps is when John is willing to kill himself to give his kid a heart. The moment he puts that gun in his mouth, a great scene. Cassavetes is quite the interesting person. Acting in Face/Off directing this and The Notebook and even Alpha Dog. He seems to have such a dangerous side, as well as being a big softy.

John Q is not ground breaking, but it's a film that spoke to me. Most of the film is unrealistic and narrow minded in it's message, but I dig it enough to recommend it to people. Hopefully people will put political views aside and watch a film about a father and his love for his dying son.

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 103: August 11th, 2010

Identity

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/identity.jpg

Identity is a secret. Identity is a mystery. Identity is a killer.

A whodunnit mystery that revolves around a group of people who are stranded at a motel after a storm hits. Identity is a strong film that just when you think you know everything, it throws another curveball. The film is surprising in it's predictability. Does that make sense? As the film progresses, it's obvious what the spin will be, yet it takes it a step further.

The film is wet and dark, it adds to the creep factor that is already there because it's set at a motel. Thank you Psycho. The film has Hitchcock and Agatha Christie written all over it. Ten Little Indians meets Psycho would be a good way to pitch the film.

Liotta plays his hot tempered role again and Cusack gives us the everyman who must take control of the situation. The chemistry between everyone is great and the mystery adds to the tension and uneasy tension that everyone has. Can they trust each other? Is everyone who they say they are? Why are they all here and what do they have in common?

Identity is a good addition to this genre of films and it serves it purpose. It gets things right and gives you a twist that's actually worth talking about. Recommended.

3.5

[mark f]

Some of the ratings seem a little high but not enough for me to off on a rant... :cool:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 104: August 12th, 2010

Precious

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/precious-poster.jpg

Life is hard. Life is short. Life is painful. Life is rich. Life is....Precious.

This is a film that might make some people a little uneasy. It deals with family abuse in the form of rape, physical and verbal violence. The one character it follows is Precious, an overweight illiterate teenage girl who is pregnant with her second child from her biological father. She is kicked out of her school because of her pregnancy and is enrolled in another educational institution called each one teach one. She wants to do better things, but doesn't have the will or motivation because of the constant abuse at the hands of her mother. She day dreams about being a big star and getting out of the hellish life she lives.

The film is raw with the material and doesn't really hold any punches. Lee Daniels second feature film shows vast improvement over the messy Shadowboxer starring Cuba good Jr. His grasp of the material and dedication to have the story be told is evident in his attention to translate the novel to screen. Daniels has put together a cast that care about the subject matter and the story as much as he does and is surrounded by the talent that is needed to pull it off.

Gabourey Sidibe is Precious, the troubled teen wanting more out of life. She shines in her first starring role and it's no walk in the park for her. The role demanded talent and Sidibe delivers what is needed. Of course the one who stands out the most is Mo'Nique earning herself a much deserved Oscar for her role as the abusive and sloth ridden mother. Her confrontation with her daughter after the birth of the second child is intense and will have you holding your breath in fear for the safety of the child.

Precious is a film that is driven by a strong story and an emotional cast that cares about the work they are doing. It's a glimmer of hope that keeps the story moving in a world that is hard edged and usually leads nowhere. It's not a relatively long film, but I did find myself checking my watch every now and then and some bits in the film happen without much clarification. Where did that one white boy come from in her Each One Teach One class? In any event, the final product is a good film with a message about hope and Tyler Perry finally has his name attached to something good in his career (Star Trek not included).

3.5

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 105: August 13th, 2010

Rope

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rope.jpg

Sometimes those who have nothing find each other.

Rope, no not the classic Alfredy Hitchcock film, but a short about a man who must make a life changing decision with a piece of rope, is a mere 4 minutes long. Is that enough time to engage the audience, tell a good story and let the viewer be absorbed in the filmmaking aspect of it?

Rope is done very well for a film shot, directed and written by the same man, Ian Clay. The film has a rough and tough vibe to it that in some strange way connects with the character who is at a crossroad in his life. It's dark subject matter and the film doesn't look clean and pretty. It works for it rather than against it.

Great music that heightens the tension and pulls the viewer in. You can have a crappy looking film and people will still enjoy it, but if it sounds like crap, people will hate it. The music does it's job of creating a sense of emotion in the viewer as well as hide some obvious dodgy voice over recordings. The voice over is done in a room, it's obvious and should have been hidden better.

The dialogue is repetitive, some of it works some of it doesn't. It's hard to tell a story in under 5 minutes, Clay does it in 4. We get the basic idea of what is going on and why within the dialogue of this guy's head. His constant rambling is nonsensical and at times might make irritate you, but the overall message and theme are all present.

The film is not nicely tight up in a bow, it is left ambiguous. The question you must ask yourself at the end of the film is if you care whether or not this man decides to take his own life or not. If you don't care, the film has failed. If you do care, then it is a success. If you even make a conscience choice of whether or not he dies makes the film a success. When watching the film, you assume it will be left open ended and it is.

For a film on such a small budget and super small crew, I can't really fault it for anything that doesn't look great. The film actually does look good. The writing is good despite some lazy/nonsensical parts and the film is only 4 minutes, so give it a watch. You can spare 4 minutes of your time.

3

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 106: August 14th, 2010

The Other Guys

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/The-Other-guys-poster.jpg


Meet The Other Guys

This comedy film puts Will Ferrell back in the right direction. He still has some ways to go before becoming actually funny again, but with the help of his long time collaborator and new comer Marky Mark Wahlberg, we have a slightly funnier comedy than one would expect.

The Other Guys is in the vein of Hot Fuzz, only with less jazz and more stupid Ferrell humour. It takes the buddy cop action film genre and parodies it. Sam 'The Man' Jackson & Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are two egocentric big time cops who will do more than millions of dollars in damages to the city just to bust some people running dope. Tango & Cash on steroids. Their untimely exit (you knew it happened, come on) gives the others guys a chance to shine. The other guys are of course Ferrell and Wahlberg. Two polar opposites that when together make for some laughs.

Wahlberg plays up on his bad boy rep as he berates Ferrell every chance he gets. This is a fish out of water style of film for Wahlberg who finally just seems to have found his footing in comedy. Specifically this style of comedy. Ferrell tones it down a notch, but does his typical long winded comedic bits at others. His backstory involving hoes and pimps was a huge misfire in my opinion.

Eva Mendes is the sexy wife who gets nothing to do but be the good looking woman of the film. Her role is minute and her talents are kind of wasted, she does the best she can with the material. I really dug Michael Keaton as the Captain. With this film and Toy Story 3, I hope he has the comeback his so deserves.

The comedy is really hit and miss. I expected it to be a lot worse. As far as McKay and Ferrell comedies go, it's pretty light. It's more grounded than their previous efforts and actually has a bit of plot to give the viewer. The Other Guys is a rental.

2.5

[nebbit]

Day 104: August 12th, 2010

Precious

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/precious-poster.jpg

Life is hard. Life is short. Life is painful. Life is rich. Life is....Precious.

3.5
This movie for me is a must for all social welfare students, my friend who is a social welfare teacher has shown this to her students as she felt they needed to know the worst they may encounter when they get out into the field :eek:
for me the most powerful part was when the mother was talking to the social worker about how Precious had taken her man, and the Social worker just walked out of the room.
Thanks for your great review :yup:

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 107: August 15th, 2010

Captivity

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/captivity_ver2.jpg?t=1284517864


I'll give credit where credit is due. I like the poster.

Captivity is the story and I use that term loosely, about a young female model who is abducted and tortured. She finds out she is not the only one being tortured and along with her new friend, try to escape. In a nutshell, it's a poor imitation of a Saw film.

Captivity suffers from many things, one being a lack of interest. Nothing interesting happens in this film. We are introduced to a character who seems to care about no one but herself and her little princess dog. She is abducted before we even really get a chance to see what kind of person she is. We are thrown into this situation too quickly and the gimmick runs short pretty quick. The repetitiveness of this film is ridiculous. Scene after scene is one torture/game after another. Thus the film becomes predictable before it should be.

Enter the second character who is captured. We never see his capture, so really, we can't trust him. As soon as we see this character I had my suspicions about him. Will the film surprise me in anyway? Of course not, it follows the predictable path it lays out from the beginning. The twists and turns are so obvious a blind man can see it coming from a mile away. Oh and the reasoning behind the torture is beyond pathetic. If you even call what they give us a reason.

This is worse than Hostel, and I didn't like that film at all. At least Eli Roth knows the genre he is playing with and his love of it helps create the much needed atmosphere. This film is devoid of everything it should have. No thrills, or suspense, no moment of giving up or breaking down. Captivity is nothing more than a film that you pass on a shelf and shouldn't think twice of looking at.

1

[mark f]

Captivity

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/captivity_ver2.jpg?t=1284517864


I'll give credit where credit is due. I like the poster.

Captivity is nothing more than a film that you pass on a shelf and shouldn't think twice of looking at.

1

So why in the hell did you not "pass" on it? Something about the poster...? :cool:

[honeykid]

This sounded crap and it 'starred' Elisha Cuthbert (who appears to be famous because she's... Well... Pert?) so I didn't even give it the cursory glance on the shelf. Sorry you had to do more.

[TheUsualSuspect]

So why in the hell did you not "pass" on it? Something about the poster...? :cool:

I dig the genre and wanted to see the film that had to ban some of the advertising posters.

Plus, I didn't know it was the type of film you pass by without giving it a second glance until AFTER I saw it. :p

[honeykid]

Plus, I didn't know it was the type of film you pass by without giving it a second glance until AFTER I saw it. :p

Naturally. TUS isn't me, y'know mark. ;)

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't have these instincts. :(

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 108: August 16th, 2010

VAMP

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/vamp-horror-movie-poster.jpg

The first kiss could be your last.

Vamp, unfortunately doesn't get interesting or good until the second half of the film. As a horror film, it doesn't scare and as a comedy it gets no laughs. I found Vamp to be oddly trying to balance both and not succeeding very well. The overall feel of the film is off, but the last half or so is some neat stuff.

The entire town is overrun by vampires and we gradually see this as the night goes on and the characters become more desperate. The story is about two fraternity pledges who try to find a stripper to entertain their college friends. Things go awry when, of course, they are vampire strippers. If this sounds like From Dusk Till Dawn, then congratulations. From Dusk Till Dawn obviously borrowed many elements from this film.

As far as vampire films go, I'd stick with Fright Night and the Lost Boys, but wouldn't necessarily count Vamp out just yet. It's got all the essentials to be a good movie, the 80's cheese is pouring through here. I just didn't dig it as much as I would have expected. It might have been the production values, or again, that oddly balanced humour that fails. Putting aside the lame parts with people popping up that should be dead and other nonsense, the film is entertaining in parts. The pinks and greens that illuminate the street add to the surreal world these characters find themselves in.

To wrap things up, Vamp is a mediocre film. Not much else to say, if you're a lover of 80's horror then I would say this is right up your alley.

2.5

[honeykid]

I don't think there's any need to see a film with Grace Jones in it. *Sorry, SC*

[linespalsy]

I'd watch a movie with Grace Jones in it. However the movie is I like that poster, particularly the title logo.

[TheUsualSuspect]

UPDATES TOMORROW.

I hope to finish off the month of August for crying out loud.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Day 109: August 17th, 2010

Sherlock Holmes

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v118/layden/Posters/rachel-mcadams-sherlock-holmes-poster.jpg?t=1285105538

Nothing Escapes Him.

For those wondering why I chose this poster, it's because she is drop dead gorgeous.

Sherlock Holmes makes it to the big screen with the help of Guy Ritchie with his first real Hollywood film. Robert Downey Jr. is the titled character, this time playing up more of the bad boy attitude. This role is similar to the recent Iron Man films, as both Holmes and Stark are egotistical geniuses with a substance abuse problem. Does life imitate art?

Robert Downey Jr brings that same quick wit and attitude that we loved him for in Iron Man to Holmes and he plays of really well with Jude Law. The two have better chemistry than the supposed romantic relationship. The bromance between the two is one of the highlights in the film. Law, as Watson, brings his comedic skills to light as he tries to be the level headed one of the group. Rachel McAdams is the Irene Adler, the only person to get the best of Holmes. She is likable, as always and even though the relationship doesn't match what the boys have, it's still good enough to get a pass by me.

The film is more action oriented than what one would think a Sherlock Holmes film would be. But to my surprise, Holmes in the books did know martial arts. So in a weird way, it fits. I don't know how I feel about the slow motion sequences, but that's just a few technical nit picks here and there that don't really affect the overall story of the film.

Blackwood, the villain, played by the guy who seems to love the evil roles, Mark Strong. He uses black magic to try and get what he wants, something that Holmes doesn't believe in and this truly tests his theories and beliefs. Blackwood is caught at the beginning of the film and sentence to hang, but mysteriously rises from the grave days later. He is out to kill again and Holmes must stop him.

It's popcorn entertainment and exactly the type of performance one would expect from Robert Downey Jr. Ritchie handles the Hollywood budget well and gives us one of his better films as of late. I'm just happy he's not trying to recapture the Lock Stock and Snatch glory days anymore.

3.5