Viddy's Views

Death Proof (2007, Quentin Tarantino)



I must say I was surprised by the ending and somewhat irked by it. Kurt Russell is given a role in this film as the bad guy who uses his stunt/muscle car to setup vehicular homicide crashes with his victims typically being young up-and-coming girls in show business. The story is divided into two sections, but of which deal with different "victims"/targets of Stuntman Mike (Russell). I enjoyed the premise, basically an amped up slasher flick with a few quirks thrown in. I enjoyed the slow pace of the film and the work of the esemble cast. A showcase for some young actresses.
As usual Tarantino lets his vices/fetish's get in the way and it does pull me out of the story at times. For instance when Zoe Bell is having a discussion in a cafe about Vanishing Point, it takes me out of the action because I know these are not the characters speaking, but rather Tarantino himself. A few other distractions are thrown in... the cheerleading outfit (for what purpose?), Quentin's foot fetish (in all his movies annoyingly), failed attempts at recreating previous genres/styles of films he watched in his youth. The best example of that in Death Proof would be the imposed digital scratches to make the film look old. Some will like, others such as myself will see it as gimicky. Death Proof is the lesser of the two films in Tarantino's/Rodriguez's Grindhouse, with Planet Terror being a superior film.

Grade: B-

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Erm... What now? Just to clear it up for me, is that a complaint?





Is that not the purpose?

Swing Vote (2008, Joshua Michael Stern)



Calling the movie Swing Vote Capraesque is too damn easy. I call it garbage. Capra's films had a few good moments. Kevin Costner is God-awful in this thing as the dead-beat white trash low-life father to his all too intelligent daughter. His daughter convinces Costner's character, Bud Johnson to go out and vote. He doesn't vote, but rather gets drunk instead and his daughter sneaks in to vote for him. The trouble is, the plug gets pulled before his vote can be cast, and as the election is a dead heat, Bud Johnson is the tie-breaking vote. That's the setup for the film, ridiculous as it is. I can't figure out if the film is meant to be some lame feel good thing about how your vote counts or a brilliant and subtle slam against the electoral college. Eh.
This film is beyond manipulative and it caters to the lowest denominator in our country, people who believe in this patriotic trite and are easily persauded that one villain politician is better than another. People like... say Bud Johnson. Now there's an American name!
I could write pages and rant on for hours about how horrible this movie is, but I'll just mention a few complaints. The shameless promotion of Bass Pro Shop brand with Bud's baseball cap. How American! The pathetic real-life cameo's attempting to place the film into the real contemporary world: cameos such as Richard Petty (looking more like Skeletor), Bill Mahr, Willie Nelson, Chris Mathews, Larry King, and so forth. Does this ******** really make audiences think more highly of these types of films? Does Larry King getting a paycheck for a minute's work make this film more credible as a quality product?
If the "your vote counts" and the stupid cameos weren't enough to make me hate this film then what I really abhor is the light hearted humor that's made out of a worthless father. I really dislike how the film makes a joke out of Costner losing his job, but that's OK because like a real slacker American, he'd rather drink a beer and go fishing, YEES SAARR! Yeehaw, I'm sure the beer guts in the audience can relate to that. I hated how the daugther seemed responsible in light of this worthless father, because these things rarely happen. I teach school with many parents that are as worthless as the Bud Johnson character and the apple does not fall far from the tree. I dislike how irresponsibility and people who should have jerked off instead of having kids, are made into light Frank Capra-corn humor.
This film is beyond reproach. It's remarkable that the idea didn't get laughed out of existance. It's suprising that anyone would even want to attach themselves to this project. Swing Vote now ranks up there with The Terminal as one of the most insulting films I've ever seen.

Grade: F

Presumed Innocent (1990, Alan J. Pakula)



As most courtroom dramas go there must be a surprise ending. We, the audience want answers to the questions posed. And as filmmakers know that the audience will be piecing together the evidence in similar regard as the characters playing the lawyers, this task may be difficult. "Who dun its," are always fun films. I enjoy courtroom dramas that aren't always preachy where there isn't a clear villain. Presumed Innocent, where Harrison Ford plays a prosecuting attorny being accused of murder, is very reminescent of the best film of this sub genre, Anatomy of a Murder. By the end of Presumed Innocent we discover if Harrison Ford's character is guilty of killing his fellow colleague and bedmate, played beautifully in flashback by Greta Scacchi. I was surprised that I didn't get the surprise I expected at the end, which is a compliment to the film.
Throughout the movie we are introduced to a labyrinth of evidence and relationships between legal workers, cops, judges, and everyone in-between. The fact that this film contains so much information for the viewer to take in, but can be held together, as to prevent the plot from becoming confusing is a credit to Alan J. Pakula as director and Frank Pierson as the adapting screen writer.
Here is a wonderful cast lead by Harrison Ford, Raul Julia, and Brian Dennehy. Bonnie Bedelia has one of the more difficult parts I'm sure, playing a woman who must stand by her man as she knows he was cheating on her. I've seen her face before, but I couldn't recognize it until my memory was jogged by IMDB as having played the wife of Bruce Willis in Die Hard. Nice to see her in another role.
Presumed Innocent takes a bit to get rolling, the first 20-minutes are fairly standard and boring, but once the affair between Harrison Ford and Greta Scacchi's characters is introduced, the tension keeps the viewer in its grip.

Grade: A-

Note: There does seem to be some descrepancy with the setting. Several skyline shots clearly indicate Detroit, however dialogue of North and South side indicate Chicago, as does one view out the window of an office where Navy Pier and The John Hancock Tower as clearly observed. Opps.

Interesting review. I disagree with a lot of what you say. You state that the digital scratches on the film is gimmicky as if it's a bad thing. We must remember that this is supposed to be a shameless homage on all those crap films Tarantino saw as a youth, so of course it's a gimmick and i'm sure he'd be the first one to tell you it's a gimmick.

As for the cheerleading outfit, lol, it's just supposed to be random **** that isn't supposed to make sense. It's a random, episodic movie that prides itself on being such a thing, hence the reason it can get away with unexplained plot holes and weird character attributes and stuff.

I'm not sure what your point was about the cafe scene, either. You said you didn't like it because it didn't feel like Zoe Bell talking but Tarantino himself? Well, they are his characters and I can't speak for every writer, but don't most scripters project some of their own personalities onto their creations?

Otherwise i give you a rep for at least reviewing the film

Well I'm not always big on gimmicks. That's a personal preference I reckon.

Also the cheerleading outfit seemed too much. Like QT was going for some kind of cheerleading outfit fetish. Not saying it's overly bad, it was just something else that didn't work for me.

And Tarantino's films always have shallow characters, because he's not very good at creating them by going beyond himself.

It's one of my main problems with Pulp Fiction. Jules and Vincent are supossedly great hitmen, but what hitmen stand outside of the door of a man they are to kill, talking for hours about feet?

Again these are not good characters, but rather variations of QT's own funky persona. I doubt the real Zoe Bell was inspired by Vanishing Point, but by her sense of daredevilishness. QT on the other hand was inspired by Vanishing Point.

I don't think Quentin Tarantino can ever truely write a great film, because he cannot transcend himself for his script.

I know many people praise the man to no end about what a great writer he is. How many of them have actually sat down to take the time to read a script of his? Not a whole lot I imagine.

One of my favorite films is Natural Born Killers. I've actually read the QT script, which is pretty bland. Oliver Stone fixed it up and rewrote it into a great film. Tarantino basically disowned it. Again I don't think he can write a character who is not himself.


Just one of my major gripes against his writing and dialogue style.


anywho. That's that.

King Corn (2007, Aaron Woolf)



After watching this wonderful documentary about corn, I quickly went to my pantry to discover the thesis of the movie is entirely correct. We are what we eat, and largely we as Americans eat corn. It's right there on the nutritional facts. Most everything I had either contained corn fed meat, corn products, or corn syrup. Even my lovely children, my three cats, are largely made of corn as their Science Diet and Purina contains ground yellow corn. King Corn presents the thesis that one of the reasons Americans are so fat is because of the high sugar/sweet and caloree content in corn which is used in almost all of the food we eat.
The documentary begins as lifelong friends Ian Cheney and Curtis Ellis of Boston visit the doctor and discover that traces of corn can be found even in the makeup of their hair. Very perplexed by this, they get an idea for a documentary where they will plant an acre of corn in an Iowa farm and trace the corn from the farm to their hair in Boston.
The principal behind the documentary is a fascinating one and certainly the two filmmakers did their homework well. It was interesting to watch the two Boston kids go from not even knowing what a grain elevator is, to full fledge subsidized farmers. A few things work: mainly the interviews with farmers, cattlemen, an upty corn syrup company rep, and even Nixon's secretary of Ag, Earl Butz. Something that didn't vibe for me is the side bit about the boston kids tracing their roots to Iowa, though I reckon it is in step with the theme of something originating in Iowa and being transplanted through the world.
The first fourty minutes or so of the documentary is joyous as the two proud filmmakers watch their acre of corn grow, but as they discover what happens to that corn the documentary takes a turn for the frightening side as corn is responsible for a large part of what is wrong with America: obseity.
For example corn fed beef is much fattier and less healthy than beef 50 years ago which was largely grass and hay fed. Now meat is actually fat disguised as meat. It was shocking to know that these corn fed cattle would die if not butchered and therefore must be put on antibiotics. The government paying large industrial farmers money to grow huge crops is also a bit scary, but it's all in the name of cheap food. In a way I thought of Wal-Mart while watching this film. Basically the Wal-Mart effect but on agriculture.
King corn is a polemic call to arms against the corn industry, but it never seems too preachy. I enjoyed watching the repatriere between the two friends as they investigated king corn. The documentary suceeds with its goal and though I've never been proud to be from Iowa, this documentary doesn't do anything to help me change my direction.

Grade: A-

I Am A Sex Addict (2005, Caveh Zahedi)



I get the feeling that Caveh Zahedi is a man who is pissed off that he was only nine years old during Woodstock and watched the whole hippie movement come and go before his first boner. I've never heard of Caveh Zahedi before, probably because he's only made small films and minor works. I am perplexed by the film because I admire it to a certain degree, while I'm also disgusted by it and the impish bugged-eyed director/subject.
I Am A Sex Addict is about the most narcissistic subject I've probably ever seen. Caveh Zahedi directs this autobiographical documentary about his relationships and their failures due to his addiction to sex, more specifically sex with prostitutes. Normally this would not be a glamorous thing for someone to admit, but that's where Caveh's craft and love for himself come in. The film plays like a comedy through minimal archival footage, but largely through reinactments. It's somehow fitting that his main actress is porn star Rebecca Lord who plays his first wife. Caveh constantly breaks the fourth wall as the narrator and speaks to his audience in an intelligent manner. He must speak to us in an intelligent manner because he feels himself a worthy subject.
The documentary starts with Caveh stating his purpose, talking into the camera only minutes before his third wedding. It's ironic that he's in church about to be wed, while disgusing blows jobs, masturbation in confessionals, using drugs with his drunken girlfriend and so forth.
Caveh begins his story in the early 1980's and works his way up until present day, only going back momentarily to show what a sleeze ball father he had. The apple doesn't fall very far. Caveh is articulate and very thorough in his dialogue and explanations, but we get the sense that the reason he had an addiction to prostitutes was because he was addicted to himself. I really felt for anyone who had the misfortune to meet this man in their life, and while he's a physical skeleton he does have a sleezebag charm about him. And as they say women usually will fall for the ********. Caveh is all trump in that department.
While his life and insights into to himself are interesting, they aren't ground breaking and he seems naive to the idea that he's addicted to himself. Constantly he's telling his significant others that he wants to be honest with them. This kind of honest originates not from a need to be kind to another human being, but rather to make himself feel like a good person. A selfish "good deed" if you will.
I enjoyed the film but as it goes on it gets old as he does the same routines, the same music plays in the same way, and ... it becomes a broken record. Caveh is just an ordinary film school pseudo intellectual who has average talent, but will never be great because it's doubtful he will be able to film any subject besides himself with a grain of passion or insightfulness.
Watching this film was like watching someone masturbate, it might be a curiosity at first and even minorly entertaining in a perverted kind of way, but who wants to see that sort of thing for very long?

Grade: C-

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Nicholas Meyer)



The second Star Trek film seems to be a response against the negative reception of the first film. I enjoy the first film slightly more with it's connection to historical space exploration, the Voyager probe. The enemy was too abstract, the dialogue was too dense, and the ideas were a bit too much for mainstream audiences. After having watched the entirety of the first season of "Star Trek" this summer, it is clear to see the first movie is much more in tone with the series.
The Wrath of Khan takes place 15 years after "Space Seed" where Khan is released after 200 years from his cryogenic freezing chamber. After he attempts to take over the Enterprise, Kirk maroons him on a planet. Enter 15 years later where the film takes over. In the film Khan manages to take hostage the USS Reliant and plans on getting revenge on Kirk. There is also a scientific pursuit called "Project Genesis" which can terraform barren planets in a matter of minutes. Khan plans to use this as a weapon. It's also one of those side plots that gets brushed over too quickly.
I think the film is a good, but not my favorite of the Trek films, that title goes to The Undiscovered Country. I do like the idea of an easily understandable and traditional villain, but I thought the film could have gone much further with the Chess game between the two. Quite simply this movie feels slightly rushed and sparse. It's a hint of great things, but the film could have been spectacular if more of the subtext had been explored. I'm guessing this is a reaction to the long running time of the first film. As a side note, and it's already been mentioned, but Ricardo Montalban is amazing as Khan and was in great physical shape. It's a shame they didn't do more with this excellent character.

Grade: B

Welcome to Macintosh (2008, Robert Baca and Josh Rizzo)



I've owned IBM products for as long as I can remember, but in the fall of 2007 I finally broke down and purchased one of those iPod thingies. I was in love at first sync. Two years later I now own a PowerMac laptop and though it's not going to do any impressive gaming (that's why I have an Xbox 360) it's very portable, sleek, runs well, and efficient. I get the appeal of Apple products and I guess I'm a sucker just like anyone.
What I don't necessarily enjoy is a 90-minute infomercial going through the history of the company. That is what this film/documentary boils down to. Welcome to Macintosh is a company piece of film making that serves to glorify it's subject, rather than look at it objectively as I had hoped. There are interviews with the likes of Mac VIPs, including; Jim Reekes, Richard Halsey, Wayne Bibbens and others. This is fine, but there is no thesis to this documentary. What is the point? To tell the viewer how loyal Mac fans are? I guess this works when the audience is taken through a man's house who has owned thousands of Mac products over the year. Certainly Mac users do tend to stick with Macs and don't cross the border into IBM. Ultimately this documentary is boring and serves little purpose other than to chronicle the history of various Mac products and interview people who have worked for and/or are loyal to the company. I guess I was hoping for something more indepth that adressed the issue of the Mac cult.

Grade: D+

So no mention of IBM's involvement with the Nazis and the holocaust then?

Hancock (2008, Peter Berg)



In order to care about a character based film, the audience must care about the character. In order to care about a character the audience must relate to them in some way. In the case of Hancock, the title character is an alcoholic superhero with little regard for property or politeness, but he has a kind heart. What does this say about audiences when we need our super heroes to be jackasses downing the liquor? It's ironic that the super hero is the person who needs saving the most. I get and even appreciate the push toward gritty realism with these movies ala The Incredibles, but it doesn't work in this film. If the writers of the film really wanted to have a despicable superhero they should have written him as a pedophile. Like anyone watching the film really gives a **** if he destroys a building in the process of saving an innocent life.
Will Smith plays Will Smith, again, which means the viewer can expect the typical tough remarks, grimaces, gnarling, and smirks at the camera. It's difficult to take the material of Hancock seriously, but even more so when you have Will Smith in the lead. But Will Smith is one of the only black A-list actors you can have play a character without it being specifically written as a black character.
Hancock is a film which annoyed me. Hancock is a film which runs out of steam 30 minutes in and requires a silly genre turn into a prison movie and then runs out of steam again and requires a plot twist revolving around Charlize Theron's character. This is a nothing film with a nothing plot.
Ultimately this film is a bore that insults my intelligence and masqurades as something it really is not: a fresh take on an old genre. Hancock is nothing new, it's just plain insulting. But hey at least Will Smith's character is cool enough to recognize that super hero outfits are homo looking. I'm guessing the only reason Will Smith didn't call them ******s is to keep the PG-13 rating. That's right, kids under 13 should not be saying ******.

Grade: D-

I read your review with interest viddy and, as I read, it sounded more and more like the film I thought it'd be when I first saw the trailers and buzz around its release. The problem is, now I'm thinking that I might have to take a look at it sometime. Not really sure why, but your review, of what I thought was, in all probability a poor film,

Good. It's well worth a look. Sure, it's incomplete, unfinished, predictable, commercial ("DA!"), etc., but one does get credit for trying. This film at least tries. Just looking at the cast proves it's closer to a B- than a D-, but hey, I go on auto-pilot sometimes too. You do realize that if you believe that filmmakers go on auto-pilot, that you may also go on auto-pilot sometimes in a review? But I'll leave, because these are viddy's views and not marky's malevolent MoFoisms.

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

The Big Lebowski (1998, Joel and Ethan Coen)



Cases of mistaken identity are always a nice plot to work a film around. This prized gem in the Coen's filmography centers around Lebowski, AKA "The Dude" and his attempt to get his rug replaced. One thing leads to the next and he's involved in a kidnapping, a bunch of wierd German nihlists, and an eccentric millionaire. The story is complicated, but I read online that it's deeply influenced by The Big Sleep. Well if it is, I would say in plot only.
Jeff Bridges is a great actor, but he doesn't really seem to belong in a Coen film. Usually their characters are overplayed and the human elements take second seat to their flamboyancy and eccentric quirks. Meaning they play more like brilliantly drawn cartoon characters than real human beings. This works for awhile, but The Big Lebowski lost steam for me after about an hour. Julianne Moore and Sam Elliot are thrown into the story, for what reasons I can't be certain. John Goodman is great, as he is in all Coen films, but this is really Jeff Bridge's show.
I only wish I could have got more involved in the story, because essentially that's what Coen films are... storytelling in a bizarre style. As such The Big Lebowski has one of the worst stories of any of the Coen brother's films I've seen. Certainly it's a stretch. Watching the film move on is like seeing a string of loosely connected vignettes. Sure it's entertaining, though ultimately shallow.

Grade: C+

Does this mean a movie with a strong cast can bump up its quality by just having a rogues gallery of actors show up for a hefty paycheck? By that logic The Towering Inferno is probably the best film of the 70's.

My comments weren't meant to be logical, but they did get an emotional reaction from somebody who claims a superhero movie "insults my intelligence". You knew just about what you were going to give it before you saw it, so don't act like the movie fooled you by somehow promising something serious it didn't deliver. You, yourself, even say that "it's difficult to take seriously... when you have Will Smith in the lead".

If comments aren't meant to be logical, why do we comment? All comments are also emotional, but not all comments are based solely on emotion. Your claim that I decide whether I like a film before I even see it does seem based on emotion. Of course people go into a film with a certain bit of knowledge and will have biases. Doesn't that make us human?

If you read my review you'll see my reasons for disliking the film, none of which were decided before I watched it. My comment on Will Smith refers to him being cast in a part that seems to necessitate a more gritty actor. Thus it is difficult for me to take the material seriously.

But this idea was done earlier and much better in The Incredibles, which I have voiced my love for. Why not focus on what we agree on instead of disagreeing on? And disagreeing on a film is not a personal attack on you mark.

I don't mean to say that you make up your mind in advance about every film. I just thought that Hancock was a weird film for you to watch, let alone go out of your way to watch. Yes, we love The Incredibles, so that's cool. I'm not trying to make any personal attacks, but it's kinda fun to interract again after so long, so forgive me if it seems like I'm being an ass instead of making interesting or pertinent comments. I'm pretty sure you do want comments though, don't you?

How's the weather in Iowa? I'm serious. How's the job?

The weather was nice, but it seems like we skipped fall. It went from 70's to the 40's in just a week with not much between. So summer and then winter. We already had our first snow.

The job is going well, though busy since I'm coaching debate and speech now and I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing with both.

Hancock is not a movie I'd normally go out of my way to watch, but with Netflix streaming over my 360 it makes it very easy. And I try to watch all kinds of films, indie, classic, or mainstream.

One film I love which may come as a surprise is Step Brothers.