Zotis' Film Watching Diary

Thanks for the very nice compliment edarsenal.

Indeed some very nice reviews in here, I enjoy reading them even though I haven't seen too many of them. But the good thing is it makes me interested in watching some of them.

Keep up the good work, Zotis.

Okay, so I actually saw this opening weekend, but I haven't gotten around to writing about it until now. One of the first things I noticed was the production quality. I got the feeling they spared no expense. Visually it's quite impressive, and in terms of acting/cinematography/directing as far as I can tell it's all top notch. IMDB labels it a crime/action/drama, but I think thriller is more fitting because while it contains all of those elements it's the constant rush and atmosphere of tension that really sets the tone. Del Torro plays a familiar type of character, quiet, mysterious, and deadly. Brolin also plays a familiar character type, and that's the lazy, overconfident slacker that doesn't really have to even try in order to accomplish what he's so very good at. Blunt plays the up and coming rookie noticed by the higher ups and given an opportunity to be a part of something big. I liked it a lot and I want to watch it again because I did have to go to the bathroom twice thanks to the beer I was drinking, so I missed a couple scenes.


Prochnow and Sander delivered extremely memorable performances in this for me. Perhaps I should have mentioned a couple more noteworthy actors in important roles, but these two are the only two that I'm familiar with. Sander didn't have a leading role, but played an extremely important character, and in one scene his nerves crack and it's just one of the best performances of cracking nerves that I've ever seen. Prochnow was the leading role as the captain of the submarine, and it was definitely his performance that carried the bulk of the film's acting weight. Everyone performed extremely well though right down to the insignificant extras, so Peterson must have done a great job getting those performances out of his actors. I'm told that Das Boot was originally a TV mini-series running 8 hours long. I'd like to see that. Unfortunately I only have the three hour Director's Cut, but at least it's longer than the standard. I could notice several cuts that felt like something significant was missing. My source also informed me that a lot of the long quiet parts with nothing going on were cut out because people would find it boring. So there were quite a few scenes where officers (especially the Captain) were telling people to be quiet, but they all just kept making lots of noise. I got the feeling that there actually were segments of quiet in there that got cut. Anyway, besides all that it was a very impressive movie and it made me regret putting watching it off for so long. I'm just not a fan of submarines, or other submarine movies (like The Hunt for Red October), but Das Boot makes other submarine movies look like trash in comparison. You can tell a lot of genuine war experience and understanding of life went into this film, and no doubt a huge portion of that came from it's original source material, the book it was based on.

I think the mini series is just under six hours long, as it's six fifty minute episodes.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

The back of the case describes this film as, "One of the rarest and least well-known works of master filmmaker Okamoto Kihachi." Well I have never heard of Kihachi, but that certainly peeked my interest, and so I bought it. The case gave me good vibes, and I was not disappointed. While I would not say it's cinematic techniques are as impressive as a Godard film from the same era, it's nevertheless a very interesting and potent little gem. Sentaro, the pivotal character, goes on quite the adventure as a young nineteen-year-old man seeking excitement during the Boshin War (1868-69). He's a bit of a fool, but a lovable character all the same. The back of the case also compared the film to Red Lion, which I've also seen and up until this very moment didn't even actually realise is by the same director... lol. Well... okay I'd better IMDB this director before I make more of a fool of myself.

A few moments later...

Well I feel stupid. Samurai Assassin, The Sword of Doom, Kill!, and Sanshiro Sugata are all films of his that I've already seen. Man this guy is actually a beast of a director. I wasn't really a huge fan of Red Lion, it was okay, but his other films are great. I would say anyone who's seen and liked any of the films I've mentioned will probably appreciate Battle Cry too. It's content is not quite as awesome as The Sword of Doom, but in terms of filmmaking it's a great movie with a very interesting story.

Why on Earth Tarantino decided to make a tribute to this aweful piece of cheese is beyond me (and the same could be said about Django). It's a comedy that isn't very funny made with techniques far below par for the era. If you like John Wane westerns though, and no amount of cheese puts you off of having a good time, then you will probably actually enjoy it. I on the otherhand need a comedy to actually be funny in order to enjoy it. The story is about a group of American soldiers who for one reason or another (theft/murder/going AWOL/etc...) are being carted off by the MP's. Their little convoy is attacked by the Germans, and only a handful of them survive the encounter. They then decide to set off for Switzerland, and along the way have some pretty wacky encounters. It's slapstick humor all along the way, but not as over the top as Airplane. I found myself almost chuckling, but mostly just bored.

The closest thing to 'the greatest movie of all time' since The Passion of Joan of Arc. The length of shots containing the highest caliber of acting I've ever seen is absolutely astonishing. It's rare to see someone cry on screen without a cut to add teardrops, but to add more length to the shot then most great films would even ever have, and then on top of that to add the most compelling portrayals of suffering and anguish... I have never seen anything like it. The use of color is artistic genius. Everything about this movie is artistic genius. The content deals with the deepest most insightful journeys into the nature of death and love I've ever seen displayed in any media ever. I actually really do want to give this movie five stars. In terms of technique, artistic merit, and meaningful content it's hard to imagine that what's in this film has actually been achieved by mere mortals. The only thing giving me reservation is my own personal interest in the story and content. While the content of death, love, the relationships and that stuff is right up my alley, some elements of the lavish lifestyle of the wealthy and exactly what they chose to focus on and how they portrayed it were slightly boring. If it was exactly the same but in a cyberpunk setting I'd probably give it five stars without a second thought. As it stands I think I need to watch it a few more times and let it grow on me for a few years before I will fully appreciate it. So for now I'll give it four and a half stars, but I think down the road I will bump it up to five. I think I also noticed a few glimpses of overacting, but that really just feels so insignificant in light of what this film actually achieves for the art of cinema. I'm so glad to actually have this film in my possession.

In addition to the movie itself is an incredible interview with Bergman in which he opens up and talks in great length about his career, himself, the movie, and other insights alongside actor Erland Josephson. I hear that Bergman was notorious for not giving interviews and not really talking about such things, so it's quite remarkable. Anyone who appreciates art films must see this. Most people would probably find this boring though. I think this is the third Bergman film I've seen, and wow... he has really outdone himself here. This film actually tops everything I've seen by Godard, Ozu, and well... everyone else except Dreyer. This is actually the second best film I've ever seen. I guess one more reason why I can't quite give it that fifth star, at least not yet, is because when I finished watching The Passion of Joan of Arc I actually felt like I had wasted my entire life and I needed to completely change my life. This film didn't have that kind of an impact on me, but it has certainly raised the bar for excellence.

Okay, so I saw the movie in theaters because I enjoyed the first movie, but I saw it two more times in theaters because of Rosa Salazar who played Brenda (the woman on the right in the picture above). Unfortunately this wasn't one of those movies that gets better the more you watch it. It actually got worse. The first watch I was enthralled and excited. I enjoyed it very much the same way that I enjoyed The Hunger Games. It had that edge of your seat tension. However, I did notice a few flaws even the first time, and by the third watch it took all my efforts to enjoy the movie despite noticing more flaws than I could count. The only acting performance that actually stood out to me as impressive was Salazar's. If it wasn't for her I don't think I actually would have enjoyed the film even the first time. I certainly wouldn't have re-watched it in theaters. The Maze Runner was considerably better than it's sequel, and I'm not even going to advocate that the first movie was anything more then a half-decent Hollywood blockbuster that actually managed to be entertaining to someone who hates Marvel movies. I have no doubt that everyone involved in making both Maze Runner movies had a blast. They all look like they were having tremendous fun, and they all talked about their experiences as being incredible and exciting. You know, just like everyone who worked on the Lord of the Rings movies. But that doesn't mean they were good movies, sorry to say. Sorry fans of the LotR's movies. The good news is if you like those kind of epic Hollywood movies you'll probably love The Scorch Trials.


I could tell that many of the actors involved were actually talented actors. O'Brien looked like he gave everything he had to his performance. Sadly it came across mostly as overacting, and for that I blame the director. Brodie-Sangster also seems like a talented young actor, but he didn't really have a big enough role to impact the movie very much overall. I also noticed that in every scene the cut on his face was slightly different. Come on Wes Ball, could you seriously not notice that the angle of the cut changed, or that it kept switching from a scab at various levels of healing to a fresh cut? Esposito, a newcomer to the series, also seemed to be giving a good effort as a respectable actor. Most of them actually were noticeably giving it their all. The only acting that I really noticed was actually terrible came from Clarkson and Gillen. Both of them portrayed way to much of exactly the same as other roles they've played. Gillen made all the same facial gestures in all the same sly and deceitful schemes that he did in Game of Thrones. I could tell instantly that he was a villain, and I don't think that qualifies as a spoiler because you'd have to be pretty daft not to notice the moment he appears on the screen (which is like the first scene).

The worst shortcomings came from those involved in directing and writing. The script was a bit weak, and the plot was utterly terrible, but the attention to detail was non-existent. The story I felt had a lot of potential, and that did redeem it a bit, but oh my goodness the plot reminded me of something a teenager would write in the roleplaying section of Lucasforums. Nearly 1/3 of the movie's runtime consisted of people running for their lives. Running from security forces, running from zombies, and running from... a lightning storm... yeah that's right, they got chased by a storm. It was even stupider than it sounds. They slept in the middle of the open desert without so much as a tarp, got woken up by the sounds of thunder and flashes of lightning, and saw the destination they were heading to in the first place within a five minute sprint... why'd they stop to sleep five minutes away from their destination? So they woke up to a thunderstorm in the distance, and in a matter of seconds it was so close that lightning strikes were threatening their lives, and they actually ran away from the approaching lightning which soon began exploding all around them nearly killing them all... ugh, it's so retarded... I actually had a nightmare in which Dylan O'Brien was panicking with every fiber of his being yelling, "Go! Hurry! Run! It's Coming! Get out of here!" And waving his arms motioning me away from danger even though absolutely nothing dangerous or threatening was happening. Okay that's a lie, but I feel like this movie could give someone that nightmare. Why didn't these people know that clouds needed wind to move them, and the speed of the wind needed to reflect the speed of the clouds? You can't have fast moving storm clouds without strong winds. They were moving at hurricane speeds. It was as if they were mutant storm clouds that could move on their own. There were plenty of equally horrible plot points that made me wonder when the www.howitshouldhaveended.com video is coming out in which everyone dies multiple times over.

Chalk full of typical Hollywood action/thriller tropes, awkwardly visible lipstick on male characters, industry standard visual perfections like making sure every strand of hair was in an attractive place, and events only transpiring for dramatic effect. Ugh... these people either had no idea how reality worked, or they were thinking to themselves that it didn't matter because movies are just entertainment. Well it was one of those movies. It was just entertainment, nothing more, maybe less if you don't actually find that kind of thing entertaining.


Well enough bashing. The movie was extremely flawed. Now let me talk about the movie's one redeemable quality, Rosa Salazar. Even if you hate typical Hollywood blockbusters, this movie is worth watching for her performance alone. She was the one person who didn't overact in intense situations, but who's acting actually did what acting is supposed to do. It pulled me into the movie and made me believe for just a moment that I wasn't watching a movie; I was actually there and what was happening was actually real. The way she reacted to what other people said, expressed emotion, and conveyed vocal fluctuation and body language were all spot on. What impressed me the most was that she managed to do that with the same director that all of these other skilled actors couldn't. This girl has a gift. She alone bumped the movie up from being a perfectly average movie to something that I actually enjoyed. Also... I think I'm in love with her.

Inglorious Bastards isn't a comedy. It's warsploitation. I can't understand why any film which isn't deadly serious all the time gets called comedy these days? You people with your labels.

honeykid is the worst comedy I ever saw.

Maybe more like Drewsploitation, which is even worse.

It's because everyone else has a better sense of humor than you, HK. Lol, no but actuall there was one part that made me laugh. When one guy asks the officer what time it is because he knows another roughneck stole the guy's watch. The officer gets mad and yells, "Alright, who stole my watch!?" Then the guy who stole it drops it, and the first guy crushes it under his boot and then hands the officer the broken watch.

I am starting to think maybe it's something of a generational thing. I saw Jaws at the cinema a couple of weeks ago and I was surprised at how much laughter there was. Not that Jaws isn't an amusing film with a couple of funny moments to break/set up the tension, but I thought there was a lot.

Well, most people nowadays think of movies from the 70's as being ancient. So they probably found the special effects, acting, and cinematography cheesy. But I don't really know.

Takeshi (Ichikawa Raizo) resigns his military commission to succeed his recently murdered father as boss of the Nanjo family. Takeshi is an extraordinarily honorable Yakuza inspiring loyalty from his followers and helping those in need. It's quite a charming film. Although I wouldn't consider it a masterpiece by any means, it's still a very decent film for the period, especially in terms of acting and cinematography.

I wrote reviews for 82 movies this year. That wasn't all of the movies I watched, just the ones that I took the time to write something about. So in total I know I watched at least a hundred movies so far, and there's still a month to go. I think this was a pretty good year for me in terms of volume. For about three years I didn't watch very many movies, but I think most years of my adult life I've watched a bit less, but there's probably a couple of years that I watched more. So in total I think that gives me an estimated 2,000-2,500 movies that I've watched in my life. That's a bit less than I had previously estimated, but I think this is a more realistic estimation.

That often is the case, but it's also often the case that those name(s) being attached are the only way the film gets made in the first place. Especially if one of those names find the script themselves. In those cases it seems to be the only reason that film gets made. I've no idea what the case was with this film but, sometimes, it's a good thing.

Yeah, Foster and Quaid both said they loved the script so much they wanted to be a part of it. And if they didn't get some big names I doubt they could have secured the budget they needed. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is an industry after all.

I wouldn't exactly say that Love and Death is the best Allen movie I've seen, but I thought it was the funniest.

Didn't think much of Pandorum.