One Movie A Day Remix

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! ) 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.

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

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.

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

Suspect's Reviews

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.

__________________

Day 16: May 16th, 2010

Alien: Resurrection



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.



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

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

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

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.

__________________

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.

Day 17: May 17th, 2010

Angels and Demons



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.

Day 18: May 18th, 2010

Dead Girl



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.

Day 19: May 19th, 2010

The Collector



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.

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

Day 20: May 20th, 2010

Blood Simple.



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.

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...

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.

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 . 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.

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.

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

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

Day 21: May 21st, 2010

The Thing



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.

Day 22: May 22nd, 2010

Three Kings



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.

Day 23: May 23rd, 2010

The Story of Ricky



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.