November is done. Boy was it underwhelming as far as movies are concerned. Let's see what we have this week.
1) Sleeping Beauty: A college student finds a new job and it's one that will forever change her.
The Good: There is nothing good about this.
The Bad: From what I read, this is a movie about sex workers and this woman getting repeatedly raped. Why don't you tell me what is good about this?
Final Thoughts: Don't. Stay away from this. Anyone with a human soul can't possibly be interested in sexual torture.
2) Shame: A man with sex addiction has his little sister move in. And this awakens all the pain of his childhood.
The Good: I normally like psychological thrillers.
The Bad: There's nothing here that grips me. Just another movie trying to exploit sex to hide a bad script.
Final Thoughts: If I want porn, I can watch porn. I don't need to sit through your movie for spank material.
3) Outrage: The life of a Yakusa gangster.
The Good: Gangland violence in a take-no-prisoners winner-takes-all type of lifestyle.
The Bad: I don't think this will be released in the US.
Final Thoughts: It's less of a story and more of a period piece. It's more about the Yakusa in general and how they are in different aspects of life. It's about immorality in a society that praises pride. I'd see it.
4) A Warrior's Heart: After his father dies, a youth becomes self-destructive but finds purpose in Lacross and his girlfriend.
The Good: blah blah blah
The Bad: How is this in any way original?
Final Thoughts: I'd be interested if I hadn't already watched The Mighty Ducks, Spiderman, The Sandlot, etc. All of them are great movies. Check them out instead.
5) Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy: It's spy vs spy with the backdrop of the cold war when a disgraced secret agent is hired to find a double agent in MI-6.
The Good: Gary Oldman and Colin Firth. These guys in an action movie is bound to be good.
The Bad: Might fall into the same trap as The Debt and have too much story and not enough time.
Final Thoughts: This might be the must see movie this week. Check it out.
See you at the movies!
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Coming Soon: 11/23/11
New week, new movies, let's go!
1) The Muppets: The Muppet Theater is in jeopardy of being tore down because oil was discovered under it. The Muppets and friends must hold a telethon to save the theater.
The Good: How can you not like the muppets?
The Bad: How can you like Jack Black as an actor?
Final Thoughts: I expect a great movie. But if anyone can bring down a good idea, it's Jack Black. I'm tired of that guy.
2) Hugo: A street rat finds a machine, a girl, and an old man which takes him on a magical journey.
The Good: Martin Scorsese doesn't do bad movies.
The Bad: Martin Scorsese doesn't do kids movies.
Final Thoughts: This is a movie for kids coming out a month before Christmas. It's going to be good. Scorsese is more famous for doing violent action movies, but he is one of the best directors to ever live so be sure to check this one out.
3) Arthur Christmas: A boy has a mission to complete before Christmas is finished.
The Good: It's a classic Christmas story. Who doesn't want more of these? Especially for the kids?
The Bad: I'm not going to riff on a Christmas movie! I want to see it.
Final Thoughts: It's Christmas. It's a Christmas Movie. Have a heart and have a good time.
4) My Week With Marilyn: The true story about a week an intern got to spend with Marilyn Monroe away from all the headaches of Hollywood.
The Good: True stories are always intriguing and so is Marilyn Monroe.
The Bad: What is so interesting that could happen on a week's vacation in England?
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. It sounds interesting and I want to know more about America's most famous actress of all time.
5) A Dangerous Method: Two psychologists become intrigued by a beautiful patient.
The Good: A psychological drama. I love movies like this.
The Bad: Very little star power. I'm not a fan of Keira Knightly.
Final Thoughts: David Cronenburg is famous for making movies like this. Some are good, some are not. I think this one will be good.
6) Rampart: A dirty cop with a horrible personal life is embroiled in the Rampart Corruption Scandal.
The Good: Great cast with Woody Harrelson doing what he does best. Playing flawed but likeable characters.
The Bad: Nothing new here. Watch the Shield sometime.
Final Thoughts: I think it'll be good. It will be worth seeing just for Sigorney Weaver and Ned Beatty.
See you at the movies!
1) The Muppets: The Muppet Theater is in jeopardy of being tore down because oil was discovered under it. The Muppets and friends must hold a telethon to save the theater.
The Good: How can you not like the muppets?
The Bad: How can you like Jack Black as an actor?
Final Thoughts: I expect a great movie. But if anyone can bring down a good idea, it's Jack Black. I'm tired of that guy.
2) Hugo: A street rat finds a machine, a girl, and an old man which takes him on a magical journey.
The Good: Martin Scorsese doesn't do bad movies.
The Bad: Martin Scorsese doesn't do kids movies.
Final Thoughts: This is a movie for kids coming out a month before Christmas. It's going to be good. Scorsese is more famous for doing violent action movies, but he is one of the best directors to ever live so be sure to check this one out.
3) Arthur Christmas: A boy has a mission to complete before Christmas is finished.
The Good: It's a classic Christmas story. Who doesn't want more of these? Especially for the kids?
The Bad: I'm not going to riff on a Christmas movie! I want to see it.
Final Thoughts: It's Christmas. It's a Christmas Movie. Have a heart and have a good time.
4) My Week With Marilyn: The true story about a week an intern got to spend with Marilyn Monroe away from all the headaches of Hollywood.
The Good: True stories are always intriguing and so is Marilyn Monroe.
The Bad: What is so interesting that could happen on a week's vacation in England?
Final Thoughts: I want to see it. It sounds interesting and I want to know more about America's most famous actress of all time.
5) A Dangerous Method: Two psychologists become intrigued by a beautiful patient.
The Good: A psychological drama. I love movies like this.
The Bad: Very little star power. I'm not a fan of Keira Knightly.
Final Thoughts: David Cronenburg is famous for making movies like this. Some are good, some are not. I think this one will be good.
6) Rampart: A dirty cop with a horrible personal life is embroiled in the Rampart Corruption Scandal.
The Good: Great cast with Woody Harrelson doing what he does best. Playing flawed but likeable characters.
The Bad: Nothing new here. Watch the Shield sometime.
Final Thoughts: I think it'll be good. It will be worth seeing just for Sigorney Weaver and Ned Beatty.
See you at the movies!
Horrible Bosses review: Would you work for Yosemite Sam?
Again I feel like an old man for saying this: There's too much sex in comedy. I'm nto kidding, the first joke of the movie was a masturbation joke. I don't mind sexual humor but can we tone it down a little?
Overall, I thought this was an average movie. Yes, there were some funy parts, but again so much of the movie was not needed if there was even a little bit of logic thrown in. Yes, it can still be a farsical comedy with logic. I can't go into much detail without spoiling the movie, but yes if I were writing this movie, I could've cut off the last half hour of the movie.
I can share this one example: They made a reference to Strangers On a Train. An Alfred Hitchcock movie where two people meet on a train one day and agree to kill each other's wife. That way the police couldn't connect the murders. HERE'S THE PROBLEM! These three guys are friends already. They didn't just meet in a bar one day. It's clear they've been friends for years. It's not the same.
Another problem was just how cartoonish the bosses were. I know they were supposed to be. They were supposed to be the most one dimentional evil people possible. We aren't supposed to get to know them or like them in any way. But that's why I don't have any emotional investment in the movie. The villians are way too evil. There's nothing good about any of them. But these three guys are the only ones plotting murder? The other employees aren't complaining? They don't organize some sort of strike? Just saying. Jumping straight to murder is a bit harsh. I felt a few steps were missing.
As usual, Kevin Spacey is amazing. Jennifer Aniston however was insufferable. Her performance was painful. When did she have time to clean teeth if she was such a raging whore? All she ever talked about was sex. It's clear she was only hired for the movie because of how she looked. Everything was sexual. Every time she was on screen it was sexual. This is what I mean by one note characters. The same stuff on a different scene gets boring unless you have an amazing actor like Kevin Spacey.
It's a good watch. I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped but it's funny. That's all anyone can really expect from a comedy. Go see it.
Overall, I thought this was an average movie. Yes, there were some funy parts, but again so much of the movie was not needed if there was even a little bit of logic thrown in. Yes, it can still be a farsical comedy with logic. I can't go into much detail without spoiling the movie, but yes if I were writing this movie, I could've cut off the last half hour of the movie.
I can share this one example: They made a reference to Strangers On a Train. An Alfred Hitchcock movie where two people meet on a train one day and agree to kill each other's wife. That way the police couldn't connect the murders. HERE'S THE PROBLEM! These three guys are friends already. They didn't just meet in a bar one day. It's clear they've been friends for years. It's not the same.
Another problem was just how cartoonish the bosses were. I know they were supposed to be. They were supposed to be the most one dimentional evil people possible. We aren't supposed to get to know them or like them in any way. But that's why I don't have any emotional investment in the movie. The villians are way too evil. There's nothing good about any of them. But these three guys are the only ones plotting murder? The other employees aren't complaining? They don't organize some sort of strike? Just saying. Jumping straight to murder is a bit harsh. I felt a few steps were missing.
As usual, Kevin Spacey is amazing. Jennifer Aniston however was insufferable. Her performance was painful. When did she have time to clean teeth if she was such a raging whore? All she ever talked about was sex. It's clear she was only hired for the movie because of how she looked. Everything was sexual. Every time she was on screen it was sexual. This is what I mean by one note characters. The same stuff on a different scene gets boring unless you have an amazing actor like Kevin Spacey.
It's a good watch. I didn't enjoy it as much as I hoped but it's funny. That's all anyone can really expect from a comedy. Go see it.
Tower Heist review: Ocean's Eleven B team
I named this one of the movies I wanted to see for the month of November. Mostly to see Alan Alda and Ben Stiller play off each other. In a movie loaded to the teeth with great comedians, it failed to live up to the wit and charm of Ocean's Eleven.
Comparisons to Ocean's Eleven are unavoidable. It's basically the same movie. Instead of a casino owned by the guy dating Ocean's wife, it's instead about a group of employees who were ripped off by a rich invester. Both movies fit the definition of "action-comedy" so I feel comparing them is not only unavoidable, but appropriate.
It's strange because Ocean's Eleven had a more light-hearted story, but portrayed serious. Tower Heist had a serious story and played light-hearted. Both movies had an array of talent that most directors would kill to have, but while Tower Heist relied on Eddy Murphy, Ben Stiller, and Alan Alda, Ocean's Eleven had a stronger, more diverse cast with well-known "actors" and not just "comedians." The lack of wit detracted from Tower Heist.
Ben Stiller was used well. A more toned down performance than what he gave in Night at the Museum. Eddy Murphy again playing a fast-talking stereotype. My biggest disappointment came from what amonted to a cameo from Judd Hirsh. A very funny man but not give an opportunity. Same with Alan Alda. Alda plays the villian but his wit is legendary. Why not let him be more charming and funny before the heel turn? Tia Leoni again played a strong female love interest. Nothing new.
Overall, a good show but it took no chances. It's a formulaic Ben Stiller movie. It's just not memorable.
Comparisons to Ocean's Eleven are unavoidable. It's basically the same movie. Instead of a casino owned by the guy dating Ocean's wife, it's instead about a group of employees who were ripped off by a rich invester. Both movies fit the definition of "action-comedy" so I feel comparing them is not only unavoidable, but appropriate.
It's strange because Ocean's Eleven had a more light-hearted story, but portrayed serious. Tower Heist had a serious story and played light-hearted. Both movies had an array of talent that most directors would kill to have, but while Tower Heist relied on Eddy Murphy, Ben Stiller, and Alan Alda, Ocean's Eleven had a stronger, more diverse cast with well-known "actors" and not just "comedians." The lack of wit detracted from Tower Heist.
Ben Stiller was used well. A more toned down performance than what he gave in Night at the Museum. Eddy Murphy again playing a fast-talking stereotype. My biggest disappointment came from what amonted to a cameo from Judd Hirsh. A very funny man but not give an opportunity. Same with Alan Alda. Alda plays the villian but his wit is legendary. Why not let him be more charming and funny before the heel turn? Tia Leoni again played a strong female love interest. Nothing new.
Overall, a good show but it took no chances. It's a formulaic Ben Stiller movie. It's just not memorable.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Moneyball review: It's hard not to be romantic about baseball
I admit that I'm not trying to be impartial. I sometimes wonder why people writing reviews try to be impartial. The whole idea of doing a review is stating your opinion and explaining why. So I have no problem stating my bias from the very beginning. This was a baseball movie. Therefore I am going to like it. Why? Because I love baseball. Every American kid played baseball at some point in thier lives. If not, then they should pick up a glove and get out in the sun. But baseball is more than that. Baseball is romantic. It's about childhood, teamwork, family, tradition, and culture. It's about having summer break and getting out in the sun to have some fun. The smell of the grass, the heat of the sun, the crack of the bat... these things are not lost on me. I love baseball.
Moneyball is not so much about baseball, but about Billy Beane the man. I'm not sure about the accuracy between the movie and the man, but if Billy Beane is anything like the man in the movie, I don't think I'd want to be in the same room as him. Every scene he is hunched over in utter pain. He's throwing things, he's smashing stereos with a baseball bat.... he looks like baseball tortures him.
But let's talk about the elephant in the room. The whole point of playing "moneyball" was that the A's were a small market team and couldn't afford to pay guys 10 to 20 million dollars a year for top tier talent. In baseball there aren't any salary caps. If you have the money, spend it. Which of course gives teams in cities like New York a very big advantage. The theory was that instead of looking at homeruns, strikeouts, or whatever; take those numbers and condense it down to how many wins he would in theory give to the team. And then putting a price on the number of wins that player would provide.
When Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen, and Johnny Damon left, most people wrote off the Oakland A's because the big stars were gone. I dispute the movie's interpretation of that. Because returning were guys like Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson. A starting rotation of pitchers that at the time was just scary. But yes. The fix was in. Most people saw small market teams as a farm league for the bigger teams. Once a player proved himself in Oakland or Minnesota, Boston or New York would quickly out bid (sometimes radically out bid) for that player. For example Alex Rodriguez. (I'm a Mariners fan so yes I have to bring this up.) Alex Rodriguez played for Seattle from 1994-2000. After the 2000 season he signed with the Texas Rangers for 10 years 252 million dollars. He was the highest paid player in history. How many championchips did he win in Texas? none. Texas never finished out of last place with him on the team. While the Seattle Mariners in 2001 went on to win a historic 116 games that season.
Overall, this is a great movie. It has very little to do with baseball itself and more about what this one guy went through in this one year. My only complaint about the movie was the ending. No, I'm not complaining about the historical facts of what happened that year. I'm saying the ending scene where Beane is in Boston talking to the Red Sox owner about him possibly coming to work there. They spelled out the message of the movie. I mean word-for-word. The entire thesis of the movie was layed right out at the audience's feet: Money doesn't make champions. There's so many different ways that could've been done and it just added about 20 minutes to the movie. Seriously, the movie could've ended after "the streak". They went to black screen at the end of the movie anyway! Why not do a quick sum up? Sports movies do that all the time. I hated that Boston scene. It should've been cut.
Anyway, It's a great movie. Watch it.
Moneyball is not so much about baseball, but about Billy Beane the man. I'm not sure about the accuracy between the movie and the man, but if Billy Beane is anything like the man in the movie, I don't think I'd want to be in the same room as him. Every scene he is hunched over in utter pain. He's throwing things, he's smashing stereos with a baseball bat.... he looks like baseball tortures him.
But let's talk about the elephant in the room. The whole point of playing "moneyball" was that the A's were a small market team and couldn't afford to pay guys 10 to 20 million dollars a year for top tier talent. In baseball there aren't any salary caps. If you have the money, spend it. Which of course gives teams in cities like New York a very big advantage. The theory was that instead of looking at homeruns, strikeouts, or whatever; take those numbers and condense it down to how many wins he would in theory give to the team. And then putting a price on the number of wins that player would provide.
When Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen, and Johnny Damon left, most people wrote off the Oakland A's because the big stars were gone. I dispute the movie's interpretation of that. Because returning were guys like Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson. A starting rotation of pitchers that at the time was just scary. But yes. The fix was in. Most people saw small market teams as a farm league for the bigger teams. Once a player proved himself in Oakland or Minnesota, Boston or New York would quickly out bid (sometimes radically out bid) for that player. For example Alex Rodriguez. (I'm a Mariners fan so yes I have to bring this up.) Alex Rodriguez played for Seattle from 1994-2000. After the 2000 season he signed with the Texas Rangers for 10 years 252 million dollars. He was the highest paid player in history. How many championchips did he win in Texas? none. Texas never finished out of last place with him on the team. While the Seattle Mariners in 2001 went on to win a historic 116 games that season.
Overall, this is a great movie. It has very little to do with baseball itself and more about what this one guy went through in this one year. My only complaint about the movie was the ending. No, I'm not complaining about the historical facts of what happened that year. I'm saying the ending scene where Beane is in Boston talking to the Red Sox owner about him possibly coming to work there. They spelled out the message of the movie. I mean word-for-word. The entire thesis of the movie was layed right out at the audience's feet: Money doesn't make champions. There's so many different ways that could've been done and it just added about 20 minutes to the movie. Seriously, the movie could've ended after "the streak". They went to black screen at the end of the movie anyway! Why not do a quick sum up? Sports movies do that all the time. I hated that Boston scene. It should've been cut.
Anyway, It's a great movie. Watch it.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Coming Soon: 11/18/11
Last Week was a bad week for movies. There were a lot of contenders for Razzies. Let's see what we have this week.
1) The Descendants: Deadbeat Dad loses his wife and not has to raise his two girls alone.
The Good: George Cloony knows how to do drama.
The Bad: it's blatent Oscar bait. You have been warned.
Final Thoughts: My guess is that it'll be a very dramatic movie, but there's nothing new here. George Cloony will probably carry the movie so, yeah. Watch it.
2) Tomboy: A little girl with short hair is mistaken for a boy and she goes along with that so she can be one of the boys.
The Good: It's a movie about relationships and how children treat each other.
The Bad: This movie was already made back in the early '80s. (Just One of the Guys [1985])
Final Thoughts: I liked Just One of the Guys. This one is slightly different since it's 10 year olds and less of a comedy. Should be interesting.
3) Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 Bella and Edward get married and have a baby.
The Good: I have no words. I'm in aw that Twilight has such a rabid following.
The Bad: The romance is a joke, the acting is terrible, and the story is embarrassing.
Final Thoughts: Why should I care when a sociopath marries a monster? Think God it's almost over.
4) Happy Feet 2: Mumble's son Erik is afraid to dance. And then Erik comes to aadmire a penguin who can fly.
The Good: It's a cute idea. I'm glad the series is having some fon with itself.
The Bad: It's for kids. Adults without kids are not going to enjoy it that much.
Final Thoughts: Please take your kids to see it. They'll love it.
5) Tyrannosaur: A hopeless drunk meets a good Christian woman who helps him change his ways and he helps her get away from her abusive husband.
The Good: It sounds like a good heart-warming drama.
The Bad: Why is this movie called Tyrannosaur if there arent' any dinosaurs? Or anything even remotely involving dinosaurs?
Final Thoughts: It's a simple story told well. Much like Gran Turino, it's a dramatic story of redemption and helping out our fellow human beings. Just don't expect any dinosaurs.
See you at the movies.
1) The Descendants: Deadbeat Dad loses his wife and not has to raise his two girls alone.
The Good: George Cloony knows how to do drama.
The Bad: it's blatent Oscar bait. You have been warned.
Final Thoughts: My guess is that it'll be a very dramatic movie, but there's nothing new here. George Cloony will probably carry the movie so, yeah. Watch it.
2) Tomboy: A little girl with short hair is mistaken for a boy and she goes along with that so she can be one of the boys.
The Good: It's a movie about relationships and how children treat each other.
The Bad: This movie was already made back in the early '80s. (Just One of the Guys [1985])
Final Thoughts: I liked Just One of the Guys. This one is slightly different since it's 10 year olds and less of a comedy. Should be interesting.
3) Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 Bella and Edward get married and have a baby.
The Good: I have no words. I'm in aw that Twilight has such a rabid following.
The Bad: The romance is a joke, the acting is terrible, and the story is embarrassing.
Final Thoughts: Why should I care when a sociopath marries a monster? Think God it's almost over.
4) Happy Feet 2: Mumble's son Erik is afraid to dance. And then Erik comes to aadmire a penguin who can fly.
The Good: It's a cute idea. I'm glad the series is having some fon with itself.
The Bad: It's for kids. Adults without kids are not going to enjoy it that much.
Final Thoughts: Please take your kids to see it. They'll love it.
5) Tyrannosaur: A hopeless drunk meets a good Christian woman who helps him change his ways and he helps her get away from her abusive husband.
The Good: It sounds like a good heart-warming drama.
The Bad: Why is this movie called Tyrannosaur if there arent' any dinosaurs? Or anything even remotely involving dinosaurs?
Final Thoughts: It's a simple story told well. Much like Gran Turino, it's a dramatic story of redemption and helping out our fellow human beings. Just don't expect any dinosaurs.
See you at the movies.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Immortals Review: I need to release the Kraken
I admit I wasn't all that enthusiastic to see Immortals. The trailers made it look like something that belongs in the same category as 300 or the Clash of the Titans remake and after watching the movie, I haven't seen anything to change that opinion. It's flashy, over-the-top, and not all that memorable. Since comparisons are unavoidable I shall do that, but first I need to look at this by its own merits.
*special note: for my VERY angry rant, skip to the bottom of this article.
I didn't see the movie in 3D but really most of the movie was clearly NOT meant for 3D. Only three scenes were specifically meant to be seen in 3D. Unfortunately for me, one of those scenes was by far my favorite of the movie. And seeing it in 2D made it look like s***.
My favorite scene is when Aries comes down from Olympus and kills an entire battalian of troops. He's moving at God-like speed while everyone else is standing around getting their heads bashed in by his hammer. Easily one of the most badass scenes of the movie.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point to Mickey Rourke who single-handedly made King Hyperion somewhat human. The dialogue in the movie sucked and King Hyperion is this souless sadist. No redeeming qualities at all. But thanks to Rourke we do see some humanity. We see his resentment of the Gods and that is key. We need that motivation because it is the whole point of the movie. Hyperion resents that his family died, he blames the Gods for not getting involved, and he wants to be immortal himself by becoming like Abraham in the bible. (the father of an entire race)
Also much applause to Henry Cavill (Theseus), Frieda Pinto (Phaedra) and her backside. There was a full moon rising! The Aries fight scene and Pinto's bare butt front and center might be enough to justify the 3D ticket price. It's a perfect derierre.
What's wrong with the movie? First, the gore level was turned up to 8. Any higher and we'd be in Human Centipede or Saw territory. For those unfamiliar with Tarsem Singh's directing style (and why wouldn't you? He's done almost nothing other than The Cell) he likes to blend really disturbing images with over-the-top visuals. His directing talent is very good. These were some of the best fight scenes I've seen in quite a while. I was impressed. But for every great scene it's offset by two grotesque ones. I'm talking about shattering a guys nuts with a war hammer or cooking three women inside a giant metal cow. I'm talking about the blatent old testament images and the heavy handed politics.
In terms of script there's nothing memorable. There's no great one-liners like "THIS IS SPARTA!" or "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!" Visually, it's more restrained than 300 and is more like Clash of the Titans. Here's what bothered me though. They tried to ground it in reality. Theseus is most famous of course for the labrynth and the Minotaur. Instead of having that legendary monster, it's a soldier in a s&m style helmet. It's a cow's head made of poisoned barbed wire. If you are going to do a fantastical story where the Gods come down from Olympus to do battle, why doesn't it go all the way? Why not have mythical beasts?
Also, just like Clash of the Titans, why is the hero an athiest that finds religion just in time to save the day? In a universe where it's so obvious that the Gods exist, why is this guy an athiest? I know it's all part of the political message they are trying to get across. But still, it's really contrived. Not as bad as Clash of the Titans however.
Roger Ebert said it best, "It's the best looking awful movie you will ever see."
*and now for something completely different. Unbridled hostility in 3.... 2.... 1....
THEY CHANGED THE STORY!!!!!! Just like Clash of the Titans they changed the story. Instead of being a king he's now a bastard peasant and son of a disgraced woman who dared to be raped. That no good whore. No, he can't be a demi-god like in the original story. Screw that. He has to be an every man. He's a blue collar, semper fi, jar head of a soldier. Otherwise, who'd want to see it? It's just a story THAT HAS LITERALLY PASSED THE TEST OF TIME! Is classical literature just not good enough for your stupid little movie?
Oh that's right. You d***whistlers are in love with the old testament. It wasn't obvious enough that Hyperion wanted to be Abraham but the hero of the movie had to be F***ing David too. THESEUS WAS A F***ING ARGONAUT! HIS FATHER IS POSEIDON AND YOU MAKE HIM AN ATHEIST! Eat my fudge monkeys!
And what about Helen? Was the Trojan War just not a good enough story for you? And let's not forget about him having a son with Hippolyta, the queen of the Amazons. Let's just skip that and bonk the virgin oracle. That has more symbolism.
Theseus has nothing to do with the titans. PERIOD! It's all about your precious symbolism of a war with the devine and then literally killing God. F*** YOU!
Oh I didn't forget your lovely little sermon throughout the movie. Oh no sir. "For Man to believe in God, God must believe in Man." You know what, I have a better one for you. "God is God and he doesn't have to justify himself!"
I need a drink.
*special note: for my VERY angry rant, skip to the bottom of this article.
I didn't see the movie in 3D but really most of the movie was clearly NOT meant for 3D. Only three scenes were specifically meant to be seen in 3D. Unfortunately for me, one of those scenes was by far my favorite of the movie. And seeing it in 2D made it look like s***.
My favorite scene is when Aries comes down from Olympus and kills an entire battalian of troops. He's moving at God-like speed while everyone else is standing around getting their heads bashed in by his hammer. Easily one of the most badass scenes of the movie.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point to Mickey Rourke who single-handedly made King Hyperion somewhat human. The dialogue in the movie sucked and King Hyperion is this souless sadist. No redeeming qualities at all. But thanks to Rourke we do see some humanity. We see his resentment of the Gods and that is key. We need that motivation because it is the whole point of the movie. Hyperion resents that his family died, he blames the Gods for not getting involved, and he wants to be immortal himself by becoming like Abraham in the bible. (the father of an entire race)
Also much applause to Henry Cavill (Theseus), Frieda Pinto (Phaedra) and her backside. There was a full moon rising! The Aries fight scene and Pinto's bare butt front and center might be enough to justify the 3D ticket price. It's a perfect derierre.
What's wrong with the movie? First, the gore level was turned up to 8. Any higher and we'd be in Human Centipede or Saw territory. For those unfamiliar with Tarsem Singh's directing style (and why wouldn't you? He's done almost nothing other than The Cell) he likes to blend really disturbing images with over-the-top visuals. His directing talent is very good. These were some of the best fight scenes I've seen in quite a while. I was impressed. But for every great scene it's offset by two grotesque ones. I'm talking about shattering a guys nuts with a war hammer or cooking three women inside a giant metal cow. I'm talking about the blatent old testament images and the heavy handed politics.
In terms of script there's nothing memorable. There's no great one-liners like "THIS IS SPARTA!" or "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!" Visually, it's more restrained than 300 and is more like Clash of the Titans. Here's what bothered me though. They tried to ground it in reality. Theseus is most famous of course for the labrynth and the Minotaur. Instead of having that legendary monster, it's a soldier in a s&m style helmet. It's a cow's head made of poisoned barbed wire. If you are going to do a fantastical story where the Gods come down from Olympus to do battle, why doesn't it go all the way? Why not have mythical beasts?
Also, just like Clash of the Titans, why is the hero an athiest that finds religion just in time to save the day? In a universe where it's so obvious that the Gods exist, why is this guy an athiest? I know it's all part of the political message they are trying to get across. But still, it's really contrived. Not as bad as Clash of the Titans however.
Roger Ebert said it best, "It's the best looking awful movie you will ever see."
*and now for something completely different. Unbridled hostility in 3.... 2.... 1....
THEY CHANGED THE STORY!!!!!! Just like Clash of the Titans they changed the story. Instead of being a king he's now a bastard peasant and son of a disgraced woman who dared to be raped. That no good whore. No, he can't be a demi-god like in the original story. Screw that. He has to be an every man. He's a blue collar, semper fi, jar head of a soldier. Otherwise, who'd want to see it? It's just a story THAT HAS LITERALLY PASSED THE TEST OF TIME! Is classical literature just not good enough for your stupid little movie?
Oh that's right. You d***whistlers are in love with the old testament. It wasn't obvious enough that Hyperion wanted to be Abraham but the hero of the movie had to be F***ing David too. THESEUS WAS A F***ING ARGONAUT! HIS FATHER IS POSEIDON AND YOU MAKE HIM AN ATHEIST! Eat my fudge monkeys!
And what about Helen? Was the Trojan War just not a good enough story for you? And let's not forget about him having a son with Hippolyta, the queen of the Amazons. Let's just skip that and bonk the virgin oracle. That has more symbolism.
Theseus has nothing to do with the titans. PERIOD! It's all about your precious symbolism of a war with the devine and then literally killing God. F*** YOU!
Oh I didn't forget your lovely little sermon throughout the movie. Oh no sir. "For Man to believe in God, God must believe in Man." You know what, I have a better one for you. "God is God and he doesn't have to justify himself!"
I need a drink.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Coming Soon: 11/11/11
First, let me just comment on how awesome that date is. There. Done. Let's look at some movies.
1) J. Edgar: The story of J. Edgar Hoover. One of the most controversial people in American history.
The Good: Directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leo DiCaprio. It's going to be awesome.
The Bad: Early reviews are mixed between really awesome and straight up boring. So, who knows?
Final Thoughts: I'm a history guy. I love Clint Eastwood behind the camera, and Leo DiCaprio has really grown on me as an actor over since he's no longer doing Titanic and butchering Romeo and Juliet. I'm watching it. How about you?
2) Immortals: The story of Theseus from Greek mythology
The Good: Imagine 300 but instead of a stylized real event, we have a mythic tale where a lot of the goofyness from 300 will work much better.
The Bad: It's rookie writers with a rookie director. I'm not sure Mickey Rourke, Frieda Pinto, and Steven Dorff are enough to carry the movie.
Final Thoughts: I'm not perticularly excited to go and see it, but I probably will. It couldn't be a worse idea than the Clash of the Titans remake.... or the sequel coming next year. *shudder*
3) Jack and Jill: Jack's annoying twin sister comes over for Thanksgiving.
The Good: AL PACINO!
The Bad: Adam Sandler's movies are all the same lately. It's just getting sad now.
Final Thoughts: It's another Adam Sandler comedy about an affluent Adam Sandler character in a goofy situation. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Do yourself a favor and just watch Happy Gilmore again.
4) Melancholia: People are having a party but then the planet Melancholia is heading towards Earth and everyone goes nuts.
The Good: I love psychological thrillers and here we have an exellent cast. Kristen Dunst isn't Mary Jane Watson anymore.
The Bad: Good luck making any kind of sense out of anything.
Final Thoughts: I want to see it because movies like this are intellectually challenging. It expands our minds much like doing a puzzle. If you don't like crazy stuff happening, don't watch. It's all distilled insanity.
5) Elite Squad: The Enemy Within: A crime/political drama about an eager police officer wanting to clean up Rio De Janiero. But only makes things worse once the drug gangs are passified.
The Good: It's an awesome premise. I'm loving this story. Political and police corruption, an Eliot Ness and the Untouchables element trying to do the right thing.
The Bad: Nothing. It's going to be good. Must see this movie.
Final Thoughts: Not sure if it will be in theaters or not, but find a way to see it.
See you at the movies.
1) J. Edgar: The story of J. Edgar Hoover. One of the most controversial people in American history.
The Good: Directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leo DiCaprio. It's going to be awesome.
The Bad: Early reviews are mixed between really awesome and straight up boring. So, who knows?
Final Thoughts: I'm a history guy. I love Clint Eastwood behind the camera, and Leo DiCaprio has really grown on me as an actor over since he's no longer doing Titanic and butchering Romeo and Juliet. I'm watching it. How about you?
2) Immortals: The story of Theseus from Greek mythology
The Good: Imagine 300 but instead of a stylized real event, we have a mythic tale where a lot of the goofyness from 300 will work much better.
The Bad: It's rookie writers with a rookie director. I'm not sure Mickey Rourke, Frieda Pinto, and Steven Dorff are enough to carry the movie.
Final Thoughts: I'm not perticularly excited to go and see it, but I probably will. It couldn't be a worse idea than the Clash of the Titans remake.... or the sequel coming next year. *shudder*
3) Jack and Jill: Jack's annoying twin sister comes over for Thanksgiving.
The Good: AL PACINO!
The Bad: Adam Sandler's movies are all the same lately. It's just getting sad now.
Final Thoughts: It's another Adam Sandler comedy about an affluent Adam Sandler character in a goofy situation. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Do yourself a favor and just watch Happy Gilmore again.
4) Melancholia: People are having a party but then the planet Melancholia is heading towards Earth and everyone goes nuts.
The Good: I love psychological thrillers and here we have an exellent cast. Kristen Dunst isn't Mary Jane Watson anymore.
The Bad: Good luck making any kind of sense out of anything.
Final Thoughts: I want to see it because movies like this are intellectually challenging. It expands our minds much like doing a puzzle. If you don't like crazy stuff happening, don't watch. It's all distilled insanity.
5) Elite Squad: The Enemy Within: A crime/political drama about an eager police officer wanting to clean up Rio De Janiero. But only makes things worse once the drug gangs are passified.
The Good: It's an awesome premise. I'm loving this story. Political and police corruption, an Eliot Ness and the Untouchables element trying to do the right thing.
The Bad: Nothing. It's going to be good. Must see this movie.
Final Thoughts: Not sure if it will be in theaters or not, but find a way to see it.
See you at the movies.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Warrior Review: Kurt Angle but no Hulk Hogan?
I planned to make some Ultimate Warrior jokes for this review. If for no other reason that the title is Warrior, the guy says insane things, and Kurt Angle (a pro wrestler) is in the movie. But I have too much to say so I'll just have to skip it. Ok. One joke. THIS MOVIE HAS DESTRUCITY HULK HOGAN!
Ok. I have to explain where I'm coming from in this review. Because if not, then I'm just going to get comments about how I don't like anything. And unfortunately I do need to get into spoilers in order to explain myself, so if you haven't seen the movie, here's my short review: It's good but VERY predictable.
SPOILERS
Here's the first problem. Warrior has two competing plots and a lot of subplots. One is the story of this messed up family trying to fit itself back together and the other is the MMA tournament. The movie chooses to focus on the family drama. And it should. There's some great performances by Nick Nolte (Paddy Conlin), Joel Edgerton (Brendon Conlin) and Tom Hardy (Tommy Conlin). The problem is that the tournament becomes secondary. We already know who wins. We know the brothers are going to meet in the finals. That's how movies like this play out. So, all the drama of the other matches drops nearly to zero.
One of the subplots of the movie is between Tommy and another fighter named Mad Dog (Erik Apple). Tommy gets into this high stakes tournament by knocking Mad Dog out in his own gym. This builds a grudge match between the two. They meet in the second round... and Tommy knocks him out with one punch. So much for that waste of time. I'm being unfair. Tommy knocked out all his opponents in about one punch. This of course to establish two things: 1) he's a dangerous fighter and 2) he's our anti-hero. More on the anti-hero stuff later.
Another subplot involved a Russian fighter named Koba (Kurt Angle). Again this plays into what I said before. These matches are pointless. They are used only to establish character. This time with Brendan that he's tenacious and willing to sacrifice his body. It does that well but it subtracts from the action I'm watching. Instead of being sucked into the fight, I'm waiting for the movie to catch up.
Subplot #3 is that Tommy is an ex-marine. He went AWOL when his platoon was killed by friendly fire. While AWOL he rescued another soldier from drowning in a tank. This makes him both a wanted man and a war hero. He wants the prize money to give to his friend's widow.
Subplot #4 the economy sucks and Brendon is about to lose his house to the bank. He needs the money so his family can have a better life. He all but lost his job as a physics teacher because he was having pickup fights for extra money. His wife Adrian... I mean Tess (Jennifer Morrison) isn't pleased because the last time he had a fight, he ended up in the hospital.
All of this is happening while the brothers are trying to get back in touch with each other. Tommy is too haunted by the past, Brendon is too concerned with the present and the father is trying his hardest to forget the past, be in the present, and build a better future.
The second problem is from a technical standpoint. I HATE SHAKING CAMERAS! I get why they did that. The actors can't fight. They taught them a few moves to do in the movie but overall they are not trained fighters. Going close-up, zooming in and out, and shaking the camera like it owes you money does give the feeling of impact. The sound effects help too. But when I did get a clear view of what's happening, the moves were done with little to know impact. Nobody was selling the hits very well. They needed actors with actual mixed martial arts experience.
The final problem I had was the ending. I hated the ending. They dragged it out so they could play the sappy music, have Brendon say he loves his brother, make Tommy tap out, and see the father cry. The final match went 5 rounds but Brendon won it in the 3rd. How did he win a match that stretched out 5 rounds when he won it in the 3rd? HE BROKE TOMMY'S ARM!!! Okay. "Dislocated his shoulder." Whatever. He had the guy in a hammerlock and pulled back until it snapped. For the next 2 rounds Tommy had only one usable arm. And it went about as well as you would expect. HERE'S THE PROBLEM! We know Brendon was going to win. He's the virtuous brother. He's even wearing white trunks just to spell it out for everyone. Tommy is in black. He's the anti-hero. He's the gritty guy with a troubled past. He's the guy we sympathize with but still hate. But Brendon already won the fight! It's called doctor stoppage! I've seen fights end because the fighter was bleeding too badly. Imagine what they would do with a guy having a very noticably bad arm? They end the fight! He can't continue! Fight's over! Tommy loses! Instead Brendon's trainer tells him not to call it off. Why? Your guy won! It's because we had to have the contrived, sappy ending. Brothers hugging it out and old father crying.
I liked the movie but there was too much going on, the movie was predictable, and the fights were really underwhelming. If you like MMA, this isn't your movie. However, the acting is wonderful, the drama is moving, and the characters are fleshed out and memorable. It's worth watching as a great drama.
Ok. I have to explain where I'm coming from in this review. Because if not, then I'm just going to get comments about how I don't like anything. And unfortunately I do need to get into spoilers in order to explain myself, so if you haven't seen the movie, here's my short review: It's good but VERY predictable.
SPOILERS
Here's the first problem. Warrior has two competing plots and a lot of subplots. One is the story of this messed up family trying to fit itself back together and the other is the MMA tournament. The movie chooses to focus on the family drama. And it should. There's some great performances by Nick Nolte (Paddy Conlin), Joel Edgerton (Brendon Conlin) and Tom Hardy (Tommy Conlin). The problem is that the tournament becomes secondary. We already know who wins. We know the brothers are going to meet in the finals. That's how movies like this play out. So, all the drama of the other matches drops nearly to zero.
One of the subplots of the movie is between Tommy and another fighter named Mad Dog (Erik Apple). Tommy gets into this high stakes tournament by knocking Mad Dog out in his own gym. This builds a grudge match between the two. They meet in the second round... and Tommy knocks him out with one punch. So much for that waste of time. I'm being unfair. Tommy knocked out all his opponents in about one punch. This of course to establish two things: 1) he's a dangerous fighter and 2) he's our anti-hero. More on the anti-hero stuff later.
Another subplot involved a Russian fighter named Koba (Kurt Angle). Again this plays into what I said before. These matches are pointless. They are used only to establish character. This time with Brendan that he's tenacious and willing to sacrifice his body. It does that well but it subtracts from the action I'm watching. Instead of being sucked into the fight, I'm waiting for the movie to catch up.
Subplot #3 is that Tommy is an ex-marine. He went AWOL when his platoon was killed by friendly fire. While AWOL he rescued another soldier from drowning in a tank. This makes him both a wanted man and a war hero. He wants the prize money to give to his friend's widow.
Subplot #4 the economy sucks and Brendon is about to lose his house to the bank. He needs the money so his family can have a better life. He all but lost his job as a physics teacher because he was having pickup fights for extra money. His wife Adrian... I mean Tess (Jennifer Morrison) isn't pleased because the last time he had a fight, he ended up in the hospital.
All of this is happening while the brothers are trying to get back in touch with each other. Tommy is too haunted by the past, Brendon is too concerned with the present and the father is trying his hardest to forget the past, be in the present, and build a better future.
The second problem is from a technical standpoint. I HATE SHAKING CAMERAS! I get why they did that. The actors can't fight. They taught them a few moves to do in the movie but overall they are not trained fighters. Going close-up, zooming in and out, and shaking the camera like it owes you money does give the feeling of impact. The sound effects help too. But when I did get a clear view of what's happening, the moves were done with little to know impact. Nobody was selling the hits very well. They needed actors with actual mixed martial arts experience.
The final problem I had was the ending. I hated the ending. They dragged it out so they could play the sappy music, have Brendon say he loves his brother, make Tommy tap out, and see the father cry. The final match went 5 rounds but Brendon won it in the 3rd. How did he win a match that stretched out 5 rounds when he won it in the 3rd? HE BROKE TOMMY'S ARM!!! Okay. "Dislocated his shoulder." Whatever. He had the guy in a hammerlock and pulled back until it snapped. For the next 2 rounds Tommy had only one usable arm. And it went about as well as you would expect. HERE'S THE PROBLEM! We know Brendon was going to win. He's the virtuous brother. He's even wearing white trunks just to spell it out for everyone. Tommy is in black. He's the anti-hero. He's the gritty guy with a troubled past. He's the guy we sympathize with but still hate. But Brendon already won the fight! It's called doctor stoppage! I've seen fights end because the fighter was bleeding too badly. Imagine what they would do with a guy having a very noticably bad arm? They end the fight! He can't continue! Fight's over! Tommy loses! Instead Brendon's trainer tells him not to call it off. Why? Your guy won! It's because we had to have the contrived, sappy ending. Brothers hugging it out and old father crying.
I liked the movie but there was too much going on, the movie was predictable, and the fights were really underwhelming. If you like MMA, this isn't your movie. However, the acting is wonderful, the drama is moving, and the characters are fleshed out and memorable. It's worth watching as a great drama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)