One Movie A Day Remix

Day 88: July 27th, 2010

Jurassic Park III



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.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

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.

Pleased to see you posting these again though, TUS.

Me too

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Day 89: July 28th, 2010

Apocalypse Now Redux



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.



original:

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.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Day 90: July 29th, 2010

Insomnia



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.

I've only seen the Redux version once, but I have to say that I prefered it.

I like HK because I never know what he's going to say. Like Hildy.

Day 91: July 30th, 2010

Antitrust



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.

Day 92: July 31st, 2010

Deep Rising



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.

Good stuff from a fellow Canadian. Trying to catch up, eh?

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

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.

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.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Too late.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.