Change Your Image
ObsessiveViewer
Podcasts:
The Obsessive Viewer - A weekly movie/TV podcast that covers a specific topic (be it genre, trope, movie, or show) every episode.
Anthology - A podcast exploring science fiction anthology storytelling in TV's golden age starting with The Twilight Zone.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
6.0/10 - Buy Digitally: Worth owning but doesn't necessarily need to take up space on your shelf or garner a trip to your favorite DVD/Blu-Ray retailer.
This review was originally published on 12/21/2014 at ObsessiveViewer.com.
The Battle of the Five Armies is more enjoyable and better paced than The Desolation of Smaug. I will give it that credit right off the bat. However, this conclusion to the trilogy is not without its orc's share of faults. It's a definitive end to The Hobbit story but it stumbles along the way as Jackson and his team attempt to satisfy a wide range of audiences while sacrificing cohesion and engaging storytelling.
The movie picks up after Desolation's cliffhanger and resolves the second movie's storyline in its prologue. Given how Desolation ended, this was a given going into Five Armies. Yet, I was left genuinely wondering why the sequence I just watched wasn't used to end the second movie. This peculiar feeling of disjointed storytelling and ill-fitting story lines never left me as the movie pressed on.
Thorin (Richard Armitage) spends much of the movie corrupted with Dragon Sickness by the gold he now has as the King under the Mountain. His greed becomes unquenchable and he becomes unhinged. Armitage performs the role well. The problem I had was that even though I've followed him through two movies before this, I just couldn't connect to the character. His dark turn in this installment felt forced and precipitated by plot necessity rather than organic characterization. I haven't read The Hobbit, so I don't know how this plot development reads or if it's even in the book. But the way it's depicted in the movie is completely unearned and feels like filler.
Thorin's bout with Dragon Sickness is but one narrative detour the film takes along its rocky and inconsistent storytelling. Gandalf's (Sir Ian McKellan) side quest run-in with Sauron is incongruous with the rest of the movie and irrelevant to every other storyline in The Hobbit movies. The way it plays out on screen reeks of a misguided attempt to connect The Hobbit movies with LOTR. The result is a mess in a movie that was already well on its way toward besmirching the saga.
The most egregiously ill-fitting storyline in the movie was the love story with Evangeline Lilly's elf character Tauriel and her star-crossed dwarf love interest Kili (Aidan Turner). Like in Desolation, it relegated Legolas (Orlando Bloom) to a third wheel role in the love triangle. This alone is bothersome since the audience has more emotional investment in the Legolas character than Tauriel and Kili, yet Orlando Bloom is barely a featured player in the story.
Worse than Legolas' status in this movie is the feeling that the Tauriel and Kili storyline simply doesn't fit into the narrative. I don't know what the motivation for including the storyline in the franchise was, but it feels overwhelmingly like someone in the production interfered. It felt like the storyline was written at the eleventh hour in order to make the movies more marketable to a broader demographic and fill out the runtime to fit a hastily decided 3-movie structure.
That's how a lot of the movie feels, actually. Ryan Gage's Alfrid was the defacto source of comic relief throughout the movie. The cowardly character was written to bring levity to the violence and fighting that takes up a good portion of Five Armies' runtime. It works in that Alfrid is good for some laughs, but a severe script problem arises when you realize that it is his sole purpose for being in the movie. The comic relief felt shoehorned in and juxtaposing it with the fighting made it stick out in a bad way.
Of course, being that the title is "The Battle of the Five Armies", the movie's most redeeming quality is that it is rife with jaw-dropping action set pieces. A considerable chunk of the movie is devoted to all out war. The violence is very stylish and the choreography is some of the best in Peter Jackson's movies. However, there are a handful of blemishes in the visual effects throughout that can cause a bit of distraction. Close-ups of the dwarf army's leader in particular, veers into uncanny valley territory while Legolas running as a makeshift bridge collapses is awkward at best.
Aside from the battle sequences, this movie deserves a little more credit than I've been giving it throughout this review. The resolution of Thorin's arc (and, by extension, Bilbo's) is touching. Martin Freeman is so absolutely terrific as Bilbo that it made me wish there was more of him in this already somewhat bloated movie. The climactic fight between Thorin and Azog is handled really well and pays off their conflict in a satisfying manner.
The Battle of the Five Armies somehow manages to be paced well enough despite its shortcomings in the storytelling. I wasn't bored during it thanks to what felt like most of the movie taking place in the midst of the massive titular battle. The action was exciting but it came at a price as the movie failed to develop key characters and included a halfhearted attempt to connect with The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
At the end of the day, The Hobbit proved to be too different from The Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, Five Armies makes it clear that the discrepancy isn't just one of tone, but overall quality alike.
Le peuple migrateur (2001)
Beautiful Documentary With Short and Captivating Look Into The Relationship of Birds and Humans...
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
I went into Winged Migration knowing only three things about it. That it was nominated for best documentary at the 2003 Academy Awards, it was about birds migrating, and had almost no narration. Winged Migration tracks several different types of birds as they migrate to different parts of the world. I had a preconceived idea that it would be boring, because it seemed that little could be done to make an hour and a half of birds flying exciting. However, I immediately brushed that idea aside during the opening credits and watched it with an open mind.
I was surprised at how much this film grabbed my attention. I am uncertain whether it was the beautiful cinematography or the creation of the documentary that held my attention the most, but it was captivating and refreshing. I was not nearly as interested in the birds' epic journey as I was the breathtaking view of the planet. Spanning throughout the globe, the birds show the audience how beautiful the planet really is without the corruption that us humans have contributed. It is a magnificent sight that is enhanced greatly by the music that goes along with it.
The film reminded me, somewhat, of the first 20 minutes of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The documentary replaces monkeys learning with birds traveling fascinating distances. The impression I had of it was that it is the type of film that can only truly be appreciated while being viewed on a big screen.
Winged Migration's way of showing the different sides of humanity's relationship with animals was fantastic. Seeing the kind person feed them injects happiness into the viewer. Realizing that some birds do not make it to their destination, be it caused by hunters or oil, makes the audience feel sorrow with the bird. It is a unique emotion to have experienced having not committed myself to the birds' migration, but instead spending the duration of the film in awe of the visuals.
The cinematography is enough to include the film in my dvd collection. There were very little negative sides to the documentary, although it stands the chance of becoming boring on repeat viewings. You can only be awestruck by the visuals of a film so much before it starts to get repetitive, although it will be a fairly long time before that happens. I give Winged Migration ***, because the journey of the birds was (in some ways) overshadowed by the spectacular cinematography and soundtrack.
The Village (2004)
M. Night Shyamalan Does It AGAIN!!
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
M. Night Shyamalan has built his career on a simple formula. First, set up the main plot and suspense. Second, have an event that changes the tone of the film and sets it in a new direction. Third, end with a twist that forces the audience to rethink everything they had just seen. This formula has been applied to Shyamalan's past three films and is the foundation of his storytelling. Of course, The Village is no different. The film follows the formula to a tee and is at the same time astounding and original.
The Village is about a small community in 1860's Pennsylvania whose citizens live in constant fear of mystical creatures that live in the woods surrounding them. The townspeople have a simple and longlasting agreement with the creatures 'do not to come to our village, we will not come to your woods.' However, when Lucius Hunt takes it upon himself to explore the village's boundaries the creatures decide to explore their own boundaries. The end result is a film that is hardly frightening but all the more shocking. Night adds more twists than in his previous work and even manages to blow all his other films out of the water.
As I said before, Night's formula consists of three parts. The second part of his formula, in which there is a shocking moment at the halfway point that changes the tone of the rest of the film, is more present in The Village than ever. The Sixth Sense had the famous, "I see dead people" scene. Unbreakable had the weight lifting sequence, and Signs had the Brazilian home video sequence. The moment in The Village that changed the direction of the film was brilliant. I won't elaborate for fear of saying too much but that particular moment had me in a state of shock for a good ten to fifteen minutes. The rest of the film is just as gripping and Shyamalan's signature twist is not quite as genius as The Sixth Sense but is still mind blowing.
Signs used the story of an alien invasion as a backdrop to tell the tale of a man regaining his faith in God. The Village is somewhat of a love story at heart, although the love story is not nearly as "in your face" as the faith story from Signs. Instead, the love story acts more like a subplot that drives the character's actions. This made the film much more enjoyable than the massively entertaining Signs.
Overall, The Village is the fourth consecutive reason why M. Night Shyamalan is one of the the most talented filmmakers around. Night has proved himself as a genius storyteller and I am looking forward to whatever he brings us next. I give it ***** as The Village is the very definition of a "blind buy". Undoubtedly, many people will hate it. It is, like his previous works, a love it or hate it kind of film and I happen to be one that loved it.
Signs (2002)
M. Night Shyamalan is a genius!
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
M. Night Shyamalan is a genius storyteller and filmmaker. It is as simply put as that. His third commercial film is his greatest acheivement since Unbreakable. Signs is not an alien invasion movie. It is the story of a man who, after a tragic event, loses his faith in God and, following a worldwide event, regains it. Signs is the type of film that is scary the first time around and fun to watch the second and third. It's fun to see how Night set us up for the climax of the film by including a lot of exposition throughout the rest of it.
Shyamalan brings back the atmospheric creepiness from The Sixth Sense and adds quite a bit of comic relief that was absent in his previous work. Mel Gibson's work as Graham Hess, a widowed former reverend and father of two young children, is fantastic. Joaquin Phoenix is very impressive as Graham's younger brother, and former minor league baseball player, Merrill. Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin are Bo and Morgan Hess in the film. Both children are terrific and, along with Phoenix, provide most of the comic relief.
Night's trademark slow pacing is still present in this film although not as much as in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. The pacing fits the story to a tee and helps create and build the tension towards the true nature of the crop circles in the film. James Newton Howard provides another brilliant score and enhances the experience considerably. His music is not as explosive as it was for me in Unbreakable but it was brilliant nonetheless.
Overall this is M. Night Shyamalan's strongest film. I do not consider it the masterpiece that I felt The Sixth Sense was, I was just more drawn to the story this time around. If you are a fan of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, then you will not be disappointed by Signs. It is surely a ***** film and is highly recommended.
Unbreakable (2000)
Brilliant...
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Unbreakable is M. Night Shyamalan's unique take on superheroes. Liked by few and hailed by what may seem like only a handful, Unbreakable tells the story of two men. David Dunn (played by Bruce Willis) is a security guard that emerges as the sole survivor of a horrific train wreck unscathed. Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson) is a man who has a rare disease that limits the density of his bones, making him "breakable." Elijah approaches David with an idea that, initially, David finds to be ridiculous. Elijah believes that comic book heroes are real and everyday people. Futhermore, he believes that David is one of these people. What follows is one man's journey of self-discovery.
I am one of the handful of people who feel that Unbreakable is a magnificent film that does not deserve the harsh treatment it has received. Shyamalan's slow pacing and attention to detail that was so evident in The Sixth Sense is back and staples itself as Night's style. The pacing works differently in Unbreakable than it did in The Sixth Sense. In The Sixth Sense, Shyamalan utilized his now trademark pacing to create tension and make the film more creepy and atmospheric. This time around the pacing is used to show the inner struggles of David. The film moves slowly as David ponders Elijah's theory and ultimately discovers his destiny. While the twist at the end of the film was quite a revelation, I felt that it did not weigh heavily on my feelings on the rest of it. Not to say it wasn't shocking, it just did not reinforce my feelings for the movie.
Shyamalan brought back Bruce Willis from The Sixth Sense for the role of David Dunn. I can't imagine anyone more suitable for this role. Willis' mere presence is remarkable considering the tone of the story. Samuel L. Jackson does not disappoint. He is equally as impressive as Bruce. The delivery of his lines, especially when the character is discussing comic books, shows you how passionate Elijah is towards what he is talking about. Of course, Jackson could be talking about lint rollers and still hold my interest for an extended period of time.
James Newton Howard reteams with Shyamalan to deliver another astounding score that matches the brilliance of Night's direction. The music in the train station sequence is very engrossing, as is the rest of the film's score. Howard's music, coupled with Shyamalan's brilliant direction and writing make up for a truly incredible spin on the comic book hero subgenre.
I think the reason this wasn't as successful as it should have been was because everyone got hung up on the fact that is "from the writer and director of The Sixth Sense." While I do believe it is on the same level as The Sixth Sense and (dare I say) even better than it, I think the majority of people who disliked this film was not expecting a realistic comic book film. It took a few repeat viewings for me to enjoy it as much as I do now. However, to compare it to The Sixth Sense is somewhat the same as comparing apples and oranges. Both are incredible films but for vastly different reasons. This deserves a ***** rating and should definitely be given a second chance by people who immediately wrote it off. It is a talent filled and realistic portrayal of comic book heroes and is the reason I am as big a fan of M. Night Shyamalan as I am today.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Will Go Down In Cinema History As A Brilliant Hitchcockian Classic
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
The Sixth Sense was M. Night Shyamalan's first masterpiece. For the two people who have yet to see this film I will clue you in on what it is about. The Sixth Sense is a supernatural thriller about a child psychologist named Malcolm Crowe (played by Bruce Willis) who discovers that he made a mistake with a former patient named Vincent. Enter Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a troubled young boy with remarkable similarities to Vincent. Malcome makes it a personal mission to help Cole so that he can feel better about his former patient. By the way, Cole's problem is that he can see dead people.
There are very few ways that this film could have been better. However, one way to make it better has nothing to do with the film itself. If the promos for the film hadn't shown Haley Joel Osment saying the famous phrase, "I see dead people" over and over again than the film would have been much more surprising. Image the surprise in learning that the reason that Cole is so messed up is because he is haunted by ghosts. Not that it needed to be anymore surprising. The big twist at the end has been regarded as both brilliant and ridiculous for the past five years. I am one of the many who believe it to be brilliant. After seeing it for the first time you will be blown away. The ending is not the only reason to see the film.
Bruce Willis strayed away from his traditional action hero roles when he starred in this film. It was all around a different character for him and he nailed it. Willis makes Malcome Crowe come alive and conveys his emotions easily in the film. Haley Joel Osment was great as Cole Sear. I am not quite sure if he was good enough to merit a nomination for best supporting actor though. His constant whispering got slightly annoying but was necessary considering the plot.
M. Night Shyamalan's screenwriting and direction in The Sixth Sense is nothing short of incredible. The pacing was slow and it added to the tension Night so brilliantly created. A lot of people find Night's style boring and difficult to watch (especially in his later films). I love the slow development of the story and characters and increased "creepiness." James Newton Howard was the film's composer. His music fits the film perfectly and makes it even more suspenseful. M. Night Shyamalan gave himself a name with The Sixth Sense and raised the bar for all future supernatural thrillers. The Sixth Sense is a ***** film and, I say this a lot, but if I believed in organizing a list of my favorite films than needless to say this would be pretty high up.
The Butterfly Effect (2004)
Director's Cut = Predictable Ending and Funny Moments Meant To Be Taken Seriously
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
"The Butterfly Effect (Director's Cut)" takes a unique concept and seems to take every step to ensure that the finished product is terrible. The movie is about Evan Treborn, a 20 year old college student who shared a troubled childhood with his friends. The first half hour is used to set up his childhood while leaving certain holes to be filled in later for shock value. Evan suffered from black outs as a child and in the hopes of recovering his lost memories he kept journals. These journals, years later, opened up his ability to travel back in time to change his childhood. What follows is the butterfly effect at work in which every little change alters reality in unpredictable ways.
The script is the first to blame for this film's downfall. I found myself laughing out loud at many of the scenes that were meant to show us Evan's troubled childhood. That was only the beginning. When Evan first goes back to change his past he goes to one particular memory involving Kayleigh's father. Evan prevents the incident by yelling and threatening the man. At the time of the incident Evan was 7 years old. Kayleigh's father was suddenly intimidated by the young Evan when he began talking back to him. I found this ridiculous as the man so easily went from commanding the children to being terrified of Evan. Most of the exposition in the first half hour of the film got the same response from me.
I will admit that the film did get slightly better once the characters grew up and the actual time traveling began. However, it was only a small step up. The acting improved quite a bit from the childhood sequence, but the film was marred by the complete lack of chemistry between Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. Ashton Kutcher surpassed my expectations of his acting ability in the movie, if only slightly. His acting was still bad but it wasn't terrible like I expected it to be. He delivered his lines with little to no emotion throughout most of the film which eventually got distracting.
I watched the director's cut of the film which included a different ending than the theatrical version. I have read about the theatrical ending and was happy I saw the director's cut. Even though neither ending is fantastic I prefer the one I saw, no matter how predictable it was, as it matched the dark tones that were present throughout the rest of the film. I give "The Butterfly Effect" a * rating. Despite the overwhelming word of mouth this movie has received I would advise everyone to stay away from it atleast until it is available conveniently on television.
The Terminal (2004)
Life is Waiting
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
"The Terminal" is the third collaboration between director Steven Spielberg and actor Tom Hanks. It tells the story of Viktor Navorski, an immigrant from the fictional country of Krakozhia. Upon arriving at JFK airport in New York City he finds himself in a bit of a pickle. Before his plane landed, there was a military coup in his country that resulted in a change of government. This makes his passport void and forces him to wait in the airport until the situation gets sorted out. The premise sounds far fetched and the fact that the idea came from an actual man's experience of having to live in an airport was interesting.
I loved this movie. When the tv spots for the film exclaimed that Tom Hanks' performance was his "best since Forrest Gump" it was not lying. Hanks was incredible in his role and easily made us love the character. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Amelia Warren, the flight attendant that Viktor falls in love with. She has trouble with relationships and fails to find the right men; enter Viktor. Stanley Tucci is the antagonist of the film. He is Frank Dixon whose constant attempts to release Viktor to New York City backfire in rather comical fashions. He is a great character and Tucci's performance gives us another reason to root for Viktor.
This would be a five star film in my mind if the ending didn't leave me with the thought of, "that's it?" Perhaps I am too brainwashed by Hollywood but this film had a semi-unconventional ending. The ending was not formulaic like many other romantic comedies and still left me satisfied but not to the extent that I thought the film merited. Maybe it is just me but I was just a little disappointed with one minor event in the third act. Overall, close to everything in the film is perfect. I would love to give "The Terminal" ***** and I would if it weren't for my initial reaction to the ending. So I feel I have to give this fantastic romantic comedy a ****1/2 rating, and I am not too big a fan of romantic comedies.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Will Ferrell was funny in "Old School." In "Anchorman" he is HILARIOUS!!
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Will Ferrell. That is the only thing that needs to be said about "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy." The movie tells the story of Ron Burgundy (played by Ferrell) who is a newscaster in 1970's San Diego. He is the king of the news world and suddenly finds himself competing with his new female co-anchor Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate).
The first half of the film is filled with hilarious moments by Ferrell and company. Will Ferrell does a fantastic job and I am eagerly awaiting the day that he turns his sights to dramatic portrayals a la Tom Hanks or Jim Carrey. Ferrell was funny in "Old School," but in "Anchorman" he is hilarious. There are so many moments that I couldn't control myself. As far as Christina Applegate is concerned, she was alright. She was funny but couldn't seem to keep up with Will Ferrell.
Ron Burgundy is the leader of a newscast team. The other members are Brian Fanatana (Paul Rudd), Brick Tamland (Steve Carell), and Champ Kind (David Koechner). Their antics are all pretty much hit or miss. Steve Carell, however, hit the most. He had quite a few hilarious moments and really seemed to enjoy the character. Paul Rudd and David Koechner, unfortunately, were forgettable.
After the first half, the film kind of drifts off into a series of fairly ridiculous sequences that I found to be too over-the-top. There are a few surprising cameos that I will not spoil for you. If you can get past the brand of humor employed in the second half then you will be sure to find the charm that graced the first half. Overall I give this movie ***. It is Will Ferrell at his best and his fans will not be disappointed.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The Best Comic Book Movie I Have Ever Seen...Until 2006 Comes Around
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
In the year 2000 Bryan Singer brought us "X-Men." A great movie that was upstaged just two years later with Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man." Just last year "X2: X-Men United" became the best comic book movie I had ever seen, until now. "Spider-Man 2" can be summed up in one word...huge. Picking up two years after the events of the first film, "Spider-Man 2" continues telling the story of Peter Parker. Peter is, like every other college student, juggling the responsibilities of school, work, and also protecting New York City with spider-like superpowers. This time around Spidey does battle with Doctor Octopus, who is working at getting, "the power of the sun in the palm of his hand."
I was in awe by the opening credits. Alex Ross provided drawings to recap the events of the first film during the opening credits. The pictures are breathtaking and very detailed. Little things from the first film that irritated me, like Spider-Man's corny one-liners while he was fighting the Green Goblin, were no where to be found in the sequel. The special effects were greatly improved and the shots of Spider-Man swinging around the city were much more realistic. The script was a lot wittier this time around as well. There is a scene in particular with Spider-Man riding the elevator that was hysterical as well as Bruce Campbell's cameo.
Tobey Maguire was, once again, great as the troubled Peter Parker. If the franchise goes the same way as Batman and the Bond films by changing the cast every few films, then it will be difficult to find a suitable replacement for Maguire. Kirsten Dunst's performance was a step up from the original but she still could have been a little better. James Franco played Harry Osborn very well, however it was a much different Harry than the one we knew in the first film. Over the last two years Harry became a high-level executive at his father's company and still hates Spider-Man after the events of the original movie. This plays in very well with the story and gives James Franco the chance to really shine in his role. J.K. Simmons had a bigger role in the film and provided comic relief with expert timing.
The "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" movies are the two biggest comic book franchises today. With "X-Men 3" set to come out in 2006 and "Spider-Man 3" slated for release a year later it will make for an interesting couple of years. I don't see how Bryan Singer could possible top Sam Raimi's work this time around as "Spider-Man 2" is now the greatest comic book movie I have ever seen. I give it *****. It is definitely worthy of a blind buy, especially if you are a fan of the first film.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
3 Stars Out Of 5
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Seeing "The Day After Tomorrow" got me thinking about how important it is to keep our environment clean and to be cautious about the affects of global warming. To be completely honest with you, global warming was the last thing on my mind while watching the latest big budget disaster flick from Roland Emmerich. I was more focused on trying to figure out why so many heroes in movies are named Jack. I was a little too busy suspending my disbelief and trying to ignore cliché after cliché. Once I successfully ignored the terrible script and horrid predictability of the movie I found myself enjoying the eye candy.
The movie's plot is pretty straight forward. Mother nature is p***ed at us, I guess for that hole in the ozone layer and decides to unleash all hell and start the next ice age. There are major weather disasters all over the world spanning from tornados to hail, tidal waves and freezing hurricanes. In the midst of all this disaster, a family is torn apart. The main story focuses on the relationship, or lack thereof, between paleoclimatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) and his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal). Sam is a genius who is on some academic team, which he joined because he is in love with a girl who takes the team seriously. The team is in New York City for a competition and you can pretty much guess what happens after that.
The acting was better than I expected. Granted, I wasn't expecting much. There are a few light hearted jokes planted here and there throughout the movie for comic relief. It works. I admit I was laughing whenever Jason, the young scientist protege of Jack, was hitting on Tamlyn Tomita's character. Jack's wife's storyline is insignificant and hard to care about. Lucy Hall was overall a pointless character and had no real purpose. However, if the plot line involving her had been dropped it would not have improved the story at all. The special effects are breathtaking, as expected. There are a few instances where they are a little much but they were few and far between.
Overall the only reason to see "The Day After Tomorrow" is the special effects. Even though a few sequences are clearly CGI, they are still good enough to merit this movie ***. It will go down as a guilty pleasure of mine and I will more than likely add it to my DVD collection. But I won't be in a hurry to buy it and I will only watch it when I am bored and don't feel like thinking.
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Too Low Budget and Too Outdated
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
George A. Romero is a name synonomous with zombie-horror. He created the immensely popular "Dead Trilogy" and after hearing how great his films are I finally got around to seeing the original "Night of the Living Dead." The film paints the picture of a world facing an epidemic of cannibalistic zombies. It focuses on a group of people who are holed up in a farmhouse trying to fight off the zombies over the course of a night. The characters, as they fight for their lives, deal with their own conflicting ideas of how to survive.
I was disappointed in this film. While it is a classic of the horror genre and the pioneer of the zombie subgenre, I was not impressed. It's outdatedness and virtual lack of a budget proved to be too great of a distraction for me. I will never write off an entire movie because it lacked an adequate monetary resource in it's production. I know that great things can be done in film with little money and I understand that many people see greatness in "Night of the Living Dead," however I did not see it.
The slow moving zombies of the film were meant to creat a creepy atmosphere but I almost found the zombies comedic. After having seen so many horror movie cliches recently it was interesting to see them back when they were not cliches yet. Situations where the victim falls while being pursued or can't get a car started are now only used for comedic effect and in "Night of the Living Dead" it was hard to see them as "terror-inducing."
The acting talent was overall mediocre. I thought Judith O'Dea's performance was just annoying and a little too much. While she was terrified at the beginning of the film she almost seemed to be holding her breath to create the feeling. She tried too hard and came up as unbelievable. The rest of the cast was fine, with special mention towards to Karl Hardman as the hot headed know-it-all. The film's saving grace was Duane Jones. From the minute he appears onscreen he takes charge, becoming the leader of the group. His performance was the only thing that held my interest.
The ending of the film would have been incredible had I not seen a certain movie recently that stole it's own ending from "Night of the Living Dead." Unfortunately for Romero, I hated the movie that took his ending. Overall I would rate this movie at **. I am happy I saw it because it is such a classic and so respected but I will not buy it because it comes off as too cheesy for my tastes.
Kumonosu-jô (1957)
Throne of Blood
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
I cannot recall the last time I viewed so many films by one filmmaker in such short of a time period and still craving more of the man's work. "Throne of Blood" is the seventh Akira Kurosawa film I have viewed in around two months. It is an adaptation of William Sheakespeare's "Macbeth" told with a feudal Japan setting. Washizu and Miki are two warriors who are returning to their emperor's castle to receive praise on their achievements in battle. They become lost as a storm rains down on them. They encounter a mysterious old woman who predicts great things in both of their futures. When they finally arrive at the castle the prophecy begins to come true as they are both promoted accordingly. Washizu, at the encouragement of his wife, quickly decides to fulfill the prophecy himself and thus begins his bloodied ascent to power.
The story is told with the Kurosawa's classic style of filmmaking. He uses a thick fog that is present throughout the film to add to the murkiness of the story. The scenes with the evil spirit in the fortress who predicts the men's destinies are incredible. The fog combined with the the spirit's eerie presence is very effective at getting underneath your skin. Washizu's rise to power is swift and engrossing as is his tragic downfall.
Toshiro Mifune never ceases to impress me with his vast range in his various roles under the direction of Kurosawa. Having just seen "Stray Dog" yesterday I can clearly see the growth in his acting between the two films. In "Stray Dog" he was fairly young and new, however still magnificent. In "Throne of Blood" he is more experienced but does not let it show. His performance is as commanding and transfixing as Kurosawa's direction. The film makes me want to see more of their collaborating as well as their individual work. I am curious to see how the two men work without eachother. Overall, "Throne of Blood" is another Akira Kurosawa masterpiece to add to my personal list of favorites. It makes me wonder if the man was ever capable of directing mediocre films. I am eagerly awaiting my next Kurosawa movie-watching experience.
I give this movie *****
Nora inu (1949)
Akira Kurosawa...That is all that needs to be said.
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used/On Sale ****-Buy it New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Until early May of 2004 I was, for lack of a better label, an Akira Kurosawa virgin. I had never had the privilege of watching one of his masterpieces and every time I had the opportunity something got in the way. In May I found myself with a hundred dollars (a small fortune to a high school student with no job) and staring at Kurosawa's Four Samurai Classics dvd collection at Best Buy. The box set included the Criterion editions of Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, and Sanjuro priced at $82.99. I saw this as a bargain since Criterion edition dvds usually run around $40 a pop, so I bought it without hesitation. After viewing all four films over a weekend I craved more Kurosawa and spent what money I had left on Rashomon, thus beginning my foray into Kurosawa's art.
I have been extremely satisfied with the five Kurosawa films I have seen and was pleased to receive Stray Dog in the mail today from Netflix. I began watching it within about 20 minutes of getting it and from the beginning I was hooked. The film stars Toshiro Mifune as rookie detective Murakami in 1940's Tokyo. Murakami's pistol has been stolen from him while riding a crowded bus on a hot day. Disgraced at himself for having lost such an important item he sets out to find the culprit and enlists the help of veteran detective Sato (played by Takashi Shimura). Together the two detectives hunt down the man responsible. However, things get worse and their investigation intensifies as they learn that the weapon is used in an armed robbery. Sato becomes a mentor to Murakami and takes him under his wing as they get closer and closer to their perpetrator.
Toshiro Mifune's performance is magnificent. He is not the over confident Kikuchiyo from Seven Samurai, or the calm and cool ronin from both Yojimbo and Sanjuro; instead he is a rookie detective in 1940's Tokyo. Mifune portrays a Murakami filled with tension and self-loathing. As his gun is used in more acts of violence, Murakami sinks deeper and deeper emotionally by placing the blame entirely on himself. Takashi Shimura is equally impressive as the veteran Sato. These two actors play very well off of eachother. Their chemistry alone is enough to make you want to see the film, luckily it is not the only reason. Akira Kurosawa tells the story with amazing pacing that seems slow but never boring. The use of forshadowing had little to do with subtilty and added to the tension of the film as the detectives closed in on their suspect until the tense climax, which I will not spoil for you.
All in all Stray Dog was two hours of intelligent storytelling combined by skillful acting. I would be tempted to give it a ***** rating solely because it is Kurosawa, however he gave me enough reasons to do so in the film itself.
Per un pugno di dollari (1964)
4 stars out of 5; Yojimbo Preferred But This Is Still Terrific
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy Used/On Sale ****-Buy New/Top Dollar *****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Before A Fistful of Dollars I had never seen a Sergio Leone film. I now know the error of my ways and it has become quite clear what I have been missing out on. A Fistful of Dollars is the tale of a mysterious man who wanders into a small town governed between two rival families of bandits. He sets out to rid the town of the families by pitting them against one another. The film is the first in Leone's "Man With No Name Trilogy" and a remake of Akira Kurosawa's samurai classic Yojimbo. I loved Yojimbo and was greatly entertained by A Fistful of Dollars. Sergio Leone managed to take the masterpiece that was Yojimbo and create a spectacular classic that is in the same league as it's Japanese counterpart. The film can both stand apart from Yojimbo and at the same time stand along side it as an equally amazing cinematic experience.
Clint Eastwood seems to have some fun with his role as the man with no name, simply referred to as Joe. He stays calm in the face of danger and carries an intense coolness throughout the film that makes him all the more entertaining to watch. While I found myself a bit annoyed at the score for the film, I found the pacing to be just right. The amount of action in it was enough to not get in the way of telling the story of a man bringing piece back to a deserving town. Joe is compassionate for the townspeople and alludes to his mysterious past while not giving too much away about himself. Sergio Leone's direction is everything I had hoped for after hearing so much about this legend.
A Fistful of Dollars was a great movie-watching experience. It never let up and was just an overall cool movie. However, I would have to say that I prefer Yojimbo by a very slight margin. While Clint Eastwood was amazing in his role he cannot compare to Toshiro Mifune's performance in Yojimbo. This film deserves a rating of **** out of 5 and I am now eager to see more of Sergio Leone's work and as soon as I possibly can.
The Last Picture Show (1971)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy It Used ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
The Last Picture Show has been somewhat unattainable to me in the past year. I had heard about it through IMDB and was interested in seeing it. However, due to the fact that my local Family Video did not carry the film it drifted into the back of my mind. I joined Netflix last week and seized the opportunity to see this film. The Last Picture Show is a film about a small town in Texas in the 1950's. Anarene, Texas is desolate and on the verge of becoming a ghost town. The teenagers in the town only have movies to keep them entertained. However, since the theatre is closing there seems to be a lot less to do. Timothy Bottoms is Sonny Crawford, the innocent teenager who is given the town's poolhall and finds himself becoming a lifelong citizen of Anarene. Jeff Bridges is Duane Jackson, captain of the football team and dating the prettiest girl in town. Duane and Sonny are best friends and are both sick of the small town. Cybill Shepard makes her career debut as the beautiful Jacy Farrow. Jacy is the popular homecoming queen who is changing into the woman her mother has become.
All the performances are great and really get the point across. This is a very character driven film and the lives of the characters are handled with care. As the story progresses through football and basketball seasons and then towards graduation the characters change. They make choices that effect their futures. Sonny is the main focus of the film as he goes through losing a mentor, having an affair with his coach's wife, and nearly distroying his friendship with Duane. You feel sorrow for Sonny as he ends one chapter of his life to begin another in the same place he was before. He is trapped in the town with no clear way of escaping. The script was adapted by Larry McMurtry and Peter Bogdanovich from a novel by the former. Bogdanovich also directed it. The direction in this film is as engrossing and interesting to watch as the story being told. All the shots, save for one, were filmed at eye-level which I think makes the film more personal and small.
Overall, I enjoyed the film. It was a well made character study that portrays the loneliness and boredom that surround the characters as they are confined to the small town. I rate it *** because it feels real in it's portrayal of small town life in the 50's.
Cidade de Deus (2002)
GREAT FILM!!! ****
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Right off the bat I am going to give this film ****. I had been waiting to see City of God for a while and now that I finally have I really enjoyed it. This film was well made on so many levels. It is definitely worthy of a blind buy and in the following review I am going to do my best to let you all know why.
City of God is about life in a slum called (you guessed it) the City of God in Rio De Jeniero, Brazil. It tells the history of gang presence in the slum with amazing pace. What is most notable about this film is that the story is told by probably the only neutral character in the slum. Rocket is an aspiring photographer who is the only innocent person we really meet in the City of God. He tells the story of Lil Ze's rise to the rank of boss of the slum while taking the time to familiarize himself with the audience. While in some ways Lil Ze's monopolization of the City of God has a positive effect on the slum's impoverished residents, it eventually leads the slum from bad to worse.
There are a few subplots that stray away from Lil Ze's struggle to gain power. Some of the subplots involve Rocket as he works to become a photographer, his brief and comical brush with crime, and his neverending struggle to lose his virginity. All of these tie in nicely with the story and the audience never feels that they do not belong in the film.
City of God has a very documentary feel to it which makes it seem authentic. Actually, if I am not mistaken, the film was based on true events, which is a frightening thought. The film is quite violent too. However, it is not the violence that stays with you after watching it. It is the fact that many of the people shooting at and killing others are just kids. In the film, there are small children who, as one put it, "smoke, snort, kill, and rob." This makes them feel like men. This is quite disturbing as the children look as if they are no where near their tenth birthday, and many of them will never see theirs. City of God utilizes this to leave a profound effect on the audience long after the movie is overwith, which is why I felt compelled to give this film ****. I was prepared to buy it without seeing it and am now going to make it the next film to grace my dvd collection.
Thirteen (2003)
***
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy it Used ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
Thirteen is the story of thirteen year old Tracey who makes friends with the "hottest girl in school," Evie. What follows is an hour and a half of drinking, drugs, stealing and sex. The influence Evie has on Tracey alienates her from her mother, Melanie. This movie is not just about Tracey's transformation from a nice innocent little girl to the emotional mess she eventually becomes. It is also about Melanie and how she has overcome problems of her own only to stand by and watch her daughter make the same mistakes. By the time Melanie realizes what is going on it is already too late for her to stop it. This makes for a very good finish to this tremendous film.
Melanie has a boyfriend in the film named Brady, played with intensity by Jeremy Sisto, who has also overcome problems with drugs himself and is a good part of Melanie's life. What I found interested is that we see Brady through the eyes of Tracey. Through Tracey's point of view we see him for what he used to be, a drug addict. Tracey hates him and hates that her mom is with him and, initially, the audience feels the same way. It wasn't until later in the film that I realized that he was actually clean and a positive part of Melanie's life.
Evan Rachel Wood portrays Tracey in a believable manner that makes you scared for the character's future. As the film progresses we learn more about Evie and her homelife. We learn that her guardian does not care for her the way a parent figure should and we learn furthermore that she has never had a real parent in her life. This is what made her turn to such a troubled life. Nikki Reed, who wrote the script with the director, plays Evie with talent. The script is based on certain events that happened while she was thirteen years old and was written, with quality, in just six days. Catherine Hardwicke co-wrote the script and directed the film. As Tracey falls into this lifestyle the film gains a greenish tint. I see this as being in contrast to Tracey's actions, the worse her actions get the darker the film gets up until the climax.
Thirteen was a unique experience and seeing as how I am not and have never been a thirteen year old girl I could not relate to many of the things that happened. Nonetheless this film should be seen by parents most of all. It addresses what I feel is a growing problem with youth today. The thought that some of this film was based on actual things is enough to scare any parent into taking a closer look at their child. I will give this film ***. It will be joining my dvd collection but I don't think it is for everyone.
Elephant (2003)
Very Chilling
*-Catch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy It Used ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
I was at my local video rental store today, hoping to get City of God, when I came across "Elephant". I had only heard that it was very well received so I read the back of the box. Reading that it was the story of a day at a typical high school that ends tragically and told through several different perspectives I was intrigued. Reading that it won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003 sealed the deal.
I rented it and immediately watched it. The first half of the film was very realistic in portraying several different students from different social circles interacting with the people around them. I really enjoyed the Pulp Fiction feel to the narration and felt that it told the story very well. The mood changed about midway through the film when John, the first character we are introduced to, is exiting the school and sees two classmates dressed in camos, carrying bags into the school. The rest of film has the feeling of impending danger. I was nervous throughout the last half of the film and when it was over I found myself speechless. As a high school student myself I found this film to be very creepy and disturbing in a powerful way.
There isn't much to say about the acting. I read that the film's cast were mostly non-actors and that a lot of the film was improvised. This made it even more realistic. The one downside to "Elephant" was the character Benny. He is introduced with around 15 minutes to go in the film and has no lines. The audience has no idea who this is as he wanders around the school. I am sure that I just did not catch the point of this character and, while his presence isn't enough to completely condemn the movie, it is a bit of a distraction. The last scene of the film is very chilling and it leaves you frozen while the credits roll. Overall, the reason for Elephant's success at Cannes is completely obvious as it is a masterpiece of storytelling. Gus Van Sant's directing is nothing short of brilliant and I will undoubtedly be recommending this to mostly everyone I come into contact to in the following weeks. ***1/2! By the way, my local video store was all out of City of God.
Monster (2003)
Where is Charlize Theron?
*-Watch it on TV **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy Used DVD ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
I want to make one thing perfectly clear about the film Monster. Charlize Theron is not in it! Seeing her become Aileen Wuornos was breathtaking. I am not sure that I agree with Roger Ebert's assessment that it is the greatest performance in the history of cinema (or something to that effect) simply because I have not seen every performance in the history of cinema. I can say that Theron's performance is one of the most transforming and magnificent performances I have ever seen. Not that it should completely overshadow Christina Ricci's performance, it shouldn't. Ricci gave an extremely convincing performance of the sad, lonely lesbian who falls for Aileen.
There is a scene where Aileen is telling Selby her plans of getting a job and providing for her. You really feel hopeful for her as she struggles to get a job and leave her prostitution days behind her. Of course you know what is eventually going to happy and (atleast I) couldn't help feeling sorry for her. I was very satisfied with this film. Patty Jenkins did a tremendous job of bringing this amazing true story to the screen. The way she tells the story makes you feel almost sorry for Aileen in her situation as she tries to provide for Selby. But at the same time you despise her for being the title character. I give this film ****. I will definitely be buying this soon and I feel that it is absolutely worthy of a blind buy.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
This was nominated for Best Picture?
Before I begin I want to let everyone know how I rate movies.
*-Watch it on Tv **-Worth a Rental ***-Buy Used DVD ****-Worthy of a Blind Buy
With that being said, I would like to share my thoughts on the 2003 Peter Weir film Master and Commander: The Far Side of The World. Like Matchstick Men, I didn't find myself interested by the trailer for this film. I rented it because of it's Best Picture nomination and after seeing it I do not know why it was nominated. I was not impressed by this movie and did not see what I assume many others saw. I found myself disinterested throughout the first hour of it and after a few events in the film I gained a slight bit more interested. However, I was still not impressed.
The action was surprisingly minimal. There are, I think, a total of 3 battle scenes and I found myself a little bored by them. The performances were all very good, Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany were both in top form. The scenes with Crowe and Bettany were the high point of the film. These two actors play well off of eachother, as they did in A Beautiful Mind. You really get the feeling while watching this that the two characters are good friends.
I admit, I have not read any of Patrick O'Brian's novels so therefore I cannot compare the movie to it's source. Overall I was disappointed. As I said before, I do not see why it was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I do not believe it was worthy enough for a nomination, however it certainly earned it's oscar for Best Cinematography. I would have to give Master and Commander **. It is worth a rental but will not be joining the rest of my collection of DVDs.
Matchstick Men (2003)
Dave Poole's Thoughts on Matchstick Men!
Matchstick Men has been out for a while now and, until it was recommended to me by a friend, I had no interest in seeing it. I finally got around to renting it and by about the halfway point I found myself liking it a lot.
Nic Cage and Sam Rockwell were great as the two con artist partners as was Alison Lohman who was a very convincing 14 year old (although she really is around 24 years old)! The way I gauge how much I like movies is by the movies "buyability." If I like it well enough to buy it then of course it is a good movie. At the halfway point I thought it was good enough to buy, maybe previously viewed for around 10 bucks. My opinion changed from buying it used to buying it ASAP when I saw the ending. The ending was unexpected and made me rethink what I had just seen.
When I first saw the trailer for this I saw that Ridley Scott was the director. The first thing I thought of when I heard Ridley Scott was Gladiator and then Black Hawk Down, I was pretty surprised to see him directing something like this. Scott did a tremendous job with this movie. Seeing some scenes through the eyes of Cage's character as things and people around him were sped up frequently was pretty cool and the final 20 minutes were just as impressive. I would definitely recommend this to anyone and everyone.