One Movie A Day Remix

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

__________________

Day 8: May 8th, 2010

Barb Wire



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.

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

Suspect's Reviews

Day 9: May 9th, 2010

State of Play




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.

Day 10: May 10th, 2010

Six Shooter



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.

Good stuff as usual

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

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

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.

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

Day 11: May 11th, 2010

Smokin' Aces 2: Assassin's Ball



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.

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.

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.

Day 12: May 12th, 2010

17 Again



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.

Day 13: May 13th, 2010

The Lovely Bones



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.

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

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."

Day 14: May 14th, 2010

Planes, Trains & Automobiles



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.

I this movie

I do too, probably my favourite Hughes film.

Day 15: May 15th, 2010

The Taking Of Pelham 123



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.