Open Season (2006)
I can't really say too much about this. We watched it w/ our son and I was probably more interested in watching him than the movie. It definitely had some cute/funny parts, but over all I didn't think the story was that great... though I was distracted.
I was surprised to see (before it started) that it's rated PG. I think it deserved it b/c of the theme of hunting and all.
Anyway, it's decent, but there's better out there.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Just Like Heaven (2005) - 2/5
Just Like Heaven (2005)
Cute, but unoriginal, cliché, predictable, sappy, cheesy w/ sub-par acting, imo.
I get no joy in saying those things about it... kinda like watching the movie itself. :)
I thought this was "Far From Heaven" when I added it to my queue.
Cute, but unoriginal, cliché, predictable, sappy, cheesy w/ sub-par acting, imo.
I get no joy in saying those things about it... kinda like watching the movie itself. :)
I thought this was "Far From Heaven" when I added it to my queue.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Jésus de Montréal (1989) - 4.5/5
Jésus de Montréal (1989)
Great film. Only slightly dated too.
The premise is an actor is hired to put on a Passion play for a Catholic church. The priest has little faith himself and gives the actor free reign to hire who he wants and make any necessary changes to bring the play up to date.
The actors eventually feel the work is very significant and important.
Warning: one small scene of nudity - you'll know when.
SPOILERS:
The priest is admittedly a "bad" priest, but believes "a bad priest is still a priest" and won't give up his position despite his failings and discontentment. He believes a person "should live happily as long as possible." His only conviction seems to be that the Church serves the emotional needs of people who can't afford psychoanalysis or drugs elsewhere.
He is the modern Pharisee for the most part.
The "Jesus" character first gathers his followers starting w/ a single mother serving in a soup kitchen. She agrees to follow/support him and gives him a place to stay since "the son of man has no place to lie his head." We find out she's the priests mistress (adulterer) too.
Next he gathers other followers who are a group of misfits for various reasons resembling Jesus' followers.
The play is quite liberal and questions many of the claims of Jesus' life. The priest is worried about what his superiors will think and ultimately they try to shut down the play though the audiences/critics love it.
The actors all finally feel they are working on something meaningful and are more passionate about their "church" of acting. This includes a scene w/ one follower trying out for a "beer" commercial (which cdn't have been more blatant talking about how society "worships" beer and physical beauty, etc., but still great, that was the point).
Their insistance that she take her clothes off is such an insult in the Jesus character's "temple" that he has to over turn the tables and cleanse the house including whipping the "officials" w/ a whip of cords.
They go on w/ the play, but it is disrupted by security during the crucifixtion and thru an accident, the cross is knocked over and "Jesus" is hurt and taken to the hospital. His believers are somewhat scattered and there's little help amoung "His people" (St. Mark's hospital).
He begins to feel better and leaves though he starts his descent into the lower realms and darkness mentioning being forsaken by his father. He preaches to those standing idle underground being watched over by their master (and popular actor on a dard billboard for perfume).
He collapses and again those around him all scatter except for the two women. This time he's taken by Jews (the Jewish hospital) who care for his dead body. Ultimately, thru his death, others around the world are given life: a heart to an American, eyes to an Italian, etc.
This description may make the movie sound heavy handed and obvious, but I think they make it work well. The characters are good and their transformation is passionate. Early in the movie their attitude is literally "que sera sera" and by the end they are determined to continue w/ the work, establish an institution in their leader's memory and keep it free from defilment and compromise (though it is led by a clearly superficial lawyer - so great).
There are so many good scenes and shots in this movie that I think I'd have to watch it a few times to pick up on even more. Like a scene where they are all eating on the mountain and try to feed the guard who comes up. Just a part of a larger scene, but the details are great: the movement in the scenes (going up and down especially: stairs, escalators, buildings, etc.).
Great film. Only slightly dated too.
The premise is an actor is hired to put on a Passion play for a Catholic church. The priest has little faith himself and gives the actor free reign to hire who he wants and make any necessary changes to bring the play up to date.
The actors eventually feel the work is very significant and important.
Warning: one small scene of nudity - you'll know when.
SPOILERS:
The priest is admittedly a "bad" priest, but believes "a bad priest is still a priest" and won't give up his position despite his failings and discontentment. He believes a person "should live happily as long as possible." His only conviction seems to be that the Church serves the emotional needs of people who can't afford psychoanalysis or drugs elsewhere.
He is the modern Pharisee for the most part.
The "Jesus" character first gathers his followers starting w/ a single mother serving in a soup kitchen. She agrees to follow/support him and gives him a place to stay since "the son of man has no place to lie his head." We find out she's the priests mistress (adulterer) too.
Next he gathers other followers who are a group of misfits for various reasons resembling Jesus' followers.
The play is quite liberal and questions many of the claims of Jesus' life. The priest is worried about what his superiors will think and ultimately they try to shut down the play though the audiences/critics love it.
The actors all finally feel they are working on something meaningful and are more passionate about their "church" of acting. This includes a scene w/ one follower trying out for a "beer" commercial (which cdn't have been more blatant talking about how society "worships" beer and physical beauty, etc., but still great, that was the point).
Their insistance that she take her clothes off is such an insult in the Jesus character's "temple" that he has to over turn the tables and cleanse the house including whipping the "officials" w/ a whip of cords.
They go on w/ the play, but it is disrupted by security during the crucifixtion and thru an accident, the cross is knocked over and "Jesus" is hurt and taken to the hospital. His believers are somewhat scattered and there's little help amoung "His people" (St. Mark's hospital).
He begins to feel better and leaves though he starts his descent into the lower realms and darkness mentioning being forsaken by his father. He preaches to those standing idle underground being watched over by their master (and popular actor on a dard billboard for perfume).
He collapses and again those around him all scatter except for the two women. This time he's taken by Jews (the Jewish hospital) who care for his dead body. Ultimately, thru his death, others around the world are given life: a heart to an American, eyes to an Italian, etc.
This description may make the movie sound heavy handed and obvious, but I think they make it work well. The characters are good and their transformation is passionate. Early in the movie their attitude is literally "que sera sera" and by the end they are determined to continue w/ the work, establish an institution in their leader's memory and keep it free from defilment and compromise (though it is led by a clearly superficial lawyer - so great).
There are so many good scenes and shots in this movie that I think I'd have to watch it a few times to pick up on even more. Like a scene where they are all eating on the mountain and try to feed the guard who comes up. Just a part of a larger scene, but the details are great: the movement in the scenes (going up and down especially: stairs, escalators, buildings, etc.).
The Station Agent (2003) - 4/5
The Station Agent (2003)
Some semi-spoilers mixed in...
There's a lot of imagery in this movie especially revolving around trains which is an easy tie in. Fin is very much like a train: he dresses 'old fashion' and in black, he smokes, walks train tracks, doesn't speak hardly at all, very isolated, alone, no emotion or desire for interaction, etc.
He's content to live in solitude and even desires it. However, Joe, by his nature, insists on becoming his friend. His life is marked by service and human contact: he works a hot dog/ice cream/coffee stand and does that to serve his father (he's serving to serve). He forces his way into Fin's life and forces Olivia to come along to.
Olivia creates and nurtures but her life is a (train) wreck. She wants to help and it seems to provide for Fin in a way she can't for her son who died a couple years before. She sees Fin as someone to fill this role in her life as her son.
Joe's excitement and Olivia's motherliness eventually brings Fin out of his shell and converts him from a 'train watcher' to a 'people watcher.' He starts wearing clothes w/ some color, being interested in others and eventually smiles and cracks a joke.
He opens up only to find he gets hurt like he always feared. The resolution is not overwhelming or overly sappy, but well done and simple.
The acting is spot-on and the characters come thru instantly even if you don't know it at the time.
Some semi-spoilers mixed in...
There's a lot of imagery in this movie especially revolving around trains which is an easy tie in. Fin is very much like a train: he dresses 'old fashion' and in black, he smokes, walks train tracks, doesn't speak hardly at all, very isolated, alone, no emotion or desire for interaction, etc.
He's content to live in solitude and even desires it. However, Joe, by his nature, insists on becoming his friend. His life is marked by service and human contact: he works a hot dog/ice cream/coffee stand and does that to serve his father (he's serving to serve). He forces his way into Fin's life and forces Olivia to come along to.
Olivia creates and nurtures but her life is a (train) wreck. She wants to help and it seems to provide for Fin in a way she can't for her son who died a couple years before. She sees Fin as someone to fill this role in her life as her son.
Joe's excitement and Olivia's motherliness eventually brings Fin out of his shell and converts him from a 'train watcher' to a 'people watcher.' He starts wearing clothes w/ some color, being interested in others and eventually smiles and cracks a joke.
He opens up only to find he gets hurt like he always feared. The resolution is not overwhelming or overly sappy, but well done and simple.
The acting is spot-on and the characters come thru instantly even if you don't know it at the time.
Night at the Museum (2006) - 3/5
Night at the Museum (2006)
A good, light, fun movie that doesn't try to be too much. Owen Wilson stands out in a relatively small role. Robin Williams is pretty good too.
I think this movieis cute and wd probably be especially fun for kids, but I liked it too.
A good, light, fun movie that doesn't try to be too much. Owen Wilson stands out in a relatively small role. Robin Williams is pretty good too.
I think this movieis cute and wd probably be especially fun for kids, but I liked it too.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Unknown (2006) - 2/5
Unknown (2006)
I wanted to like this movie b/c it has so many things that appeal to me: I hadn't heard of it, good actors that I like, independent, low budget (at least that look'n'feel) and you are lost w/ the characters and learn as they do.
While I think the acting was good, I didn't think the characters were fleshed out. It seemed like they tried, but I didn't buy it. Maybe b/c I cdn't rely on anything b/c their memories and development were questionable (more in spoilers).
The people in the warehouse seemed to be 'going thru the motions' and not really getting anywhere and the character development wasn't effective.
The outside plot was unclear and also felt like fluff or 'killing time' until they cd get to the end and resolve things.
There's a lot going for this,but ultimately I think it lacked heart and soul required for this kinda thing. Maybe it was the result of a quick shooting schedule since it is an indie type thing.
SPOILERS
By the end, there were too many twists piled up on top of each other in rapid succession that it kinda lost the effect. He's a good guy, no a bad guy, no an undercover cop, no a bad undercover cop, w/ a plot w/ the other guy's wife, no ultimate a good guy, huh?
I wanted to like this movie b/c it has so many things that appeal to me: I hadn't heard of it, good actors that I like, independent, low budget (at least that look'n'feel) and you are lost w/ the characters and learn as they do.
While I think the acting was good, I didn't think the characters were fleshed out. It seemed like they tried, but I didn't buy it. Maybe b/c I cdn't rely on anything b/c their memories and development were questionable (more in spoilers).
The people in the warehouse seemed to be 'going thru the motions' and not really getting anywhere and the character development wasn't effective.
The outside plot was unclear and also felt like fluff or 'killing time' until they cd get to the end and resolve things.
There's a lot going for this,but ultimately I think it lacked heart and soul required for this kinda thing. Maybe it was the result of a quick shooting schedule since it is an indie type thing.
SPOILERS
By the end, there were too many twists piled up on top of each other in rapid succession that it kinda lost the effect. He's a good guy, no a bad guy, no an undercover cop, no a bad undercover cop, w/ a plot w/ the other guy's wife, no ultimate a good guy, huh?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Elizabethtown (2005) - 3/5
Elizabethtown (2005)
I heard this movie compared to "Garden State" and while I can see that, I think "Garden State" is considerably better. I think the tone is more consistent in "GS" and the acting is better also.
Orlando Bloom doesn't pull it off. I don't think he can 'do' emotion: the scenes requiring any type of bigger emotions from him fell pretty flat and akward.
It didn't seem like this movie cd decide if it wanted to be serious, funny, introspective, etc. In the end, that means it's none more often than not.
Kirsten Dunst was particularly good to me. I normally don't think too much of her, but she did a good job.
SPOILERS:
The best part of this movie was the last ~30 mins where he's driving across country w/ his dad's urn. The tone completely changes IMO and for the better. Invoking images of him w/ his dad and their love (which is missed for the rest of the movie not knowing what kind of relationship they had...which may be the point???) and the beauty of the time alone despite the death of one of them. :)
The 'fiasco' of the shoe isn't believable. No company wd put so much behind one person's creation who is just a guy w/a cubby hole of a desk. If they did, they wdn't have made it that far. Also, they wd have done test marketing, etc. It just distracted that it was so unbelievable.
Also, the mom's 'conversion' near the end from high-strung widow to practially stand-up comic was awkward.
I heard this movie compared to "Garden State" and while I can see that, I think "Garden State" is considerably better. I think the tone is more consistent in "GS" and the acting is better also.
Orlando Bloom doesn't pull it off. I don't think he can 'do' emotion: the scenes requiring any type of bigger emotions from him fell pretty flat and akward.
It didn't seem like this movie cd decide if it wanted to be serious, funny, introspective, etc. In the end, that means it's none more often than not.
Kirsten Dunst was particularly good to me. I normally don't think too much of her, but she did a good job.
SPOILERS:
The best part of this movie was the last ~30 mins where he's driving across country w/ his dad's urn. The tone completely changes IMO and for the better. Invoking images of him w/ his dad and their love (which is missed for the rest of the movie not knowing what kind of relationship they had...which may be the point???) and the beauty of the time alone despite the death of one of them. :)
The 'fiasco' of the shoe isn't believable. No company wd put so much behind one person's creation who is just a guy w/a cubby hole of a desk. If they did, they wdn't have made it that far. Also, they wd have done test marketing, etc. It just distracted that it was so unbelievable.
Also, the mom's 'conversion' near the end from high-strung widow to practially stand-up comic was awkward.
The Aviator (2004) - 4/5
The Aviator (2004)
Great acting. Blanchett, Alda and DiCaprio are at their best in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to see DiCaprio as anything other than a babyface, but he came close and everything else was very impressive: his expressions, stance and mannerisms, voice (though maybe a little thin), etc. He was as good as he cd be and much better than most.
I loved the way Scorsese modeled the filming of the periods as they wd have looked during those years. Some scenes have the 'off' coloring as it wd have been filmed back then. Great device.
I wdn't say this movie is very 'informative' or gives a lot of answers yet it isn't close to a documentary either. It's a great blend of truth and artistic interpretation/storytelling as a biopic probably sd be.
I'm intrigued by Hughes so I enjoyed it on that level too.
And while I'd love to learn more about what happened after the movies timeline, I've seen enough on it to know that we don't really know it all clearly. So I'm glad they didn't even get into it.
Great acting. Blanchett, Alda and DiCaprio are at their best in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to see DiCaprio as anything other than a babyface, but he came close and everything else was very impressive: his expressions, stance and mannerisms, voice (though maybe a little thin), etc. He was as good as he cd be and much better than most.
I loved the way Scorsese modeled the filming of the periods as they wd have looked during those years. Some scenes have the 'off' coloring as it wd have been filmed back then. Great device.
I wdn't say this movie is very 'informative' or gives a lot of answers yet it isn't close to a documentary either. It's a great blend of truth and artistic interpretation/storytelling as a biopic probably sd be.
I'm intrigued by Hughes so I enjoyed it on that level too.
And while I'd love to learn more about what happened after the movies timeline, I've seen enough on it to know that we don't really know it all clearly. So I'm glad they didn't even get into it.
The Devil Wears Prada (2006) - 3/5
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Meryl Streep was great. Undeniable.
The story was fair and somewhat cliche and/or predictable though not done poorly.
The characters were good, but Streep really made the movie as good as it was going to be.
Meryl Streep was great. Undeniable.
The story was fair and somewhat cliche and/or predictable though not done poorly.
The characters were good, but Streep really made the movie as good as it was going to be.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Crash (2004/I) - 3/5
Crash (2004/I)
I think my expectations were too high for this. So many people said it was great.
I think I see what they're doing here, but maybe it's my cynacism getting in the way. It seems like they are saying "good people can do bad things (Ryan Phillipe and others) and bad people can do good things (Matt Dillon and others)... and everyone's racist."
I'm not sure if that's the message or if there's a bigger message. I'm not saying I disagree w/ the message as it is, but I'm not blown away by it.
It was well done and compelling. It's a good film as a film. But as far as what I got out of it: 3.
I think my expectations were too high for this. So many people said it was great.
I think I see what they're doing here, but maybe it's my cynacism getting in the way. It seems like they are saying "good people can do bad things (Ryan Phillipe and others) and bad people can do good things (Matt Dillon and others)... and everyone's racist."
I'm not sure if that's the message or if there's a bigger message. I'm not saying I disagree w/ the message as it is, but I'm not blown away by it.
It was well done and compelling. It's a good film as a film. But as far as what I got out of it: 3.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Rocky II (1979) - 3/5
Rocky II (1979)
I have to say this movie was better in my memory than on DVD. :)
The story was thin and transparent. The acting was hard to watch in many parts b/c it was cliche though it might only seem that way now. The motivation, for me, wasn't really there.
They tried to establish that Rocky 'is a fighter' and that's what he does. But he wasn't into it w/o Adrian's backing. Seems like a contradiction a little. I know what they were doing, but still.
The fight was good, but not great. Nothing significant happened it seemed: no swelling, ribs cracking, etc. Just worn out and Rocky's heart pulled him up at the end (oops, spoiler).
I just didn't buy into the heart of the story which is ashame b/c I remembered really liking this one in the past. Probably b/c he wins (oops, spoiler).
I still liked it, but not as much as I remembered. I guess I sdn't watch 3 and 4 and don't have interested in 5.
I have to say this movie was better in my memory than on DVD. :)
The story was thin and transparent. The acting was hard to watch in many parts b/c it was cliche though it might only seem that way now. The motivation, for me, wasn't really there.
They tried to establish that Rocky 'is a fighter' and that's what he does. But he wasn't into it w/o Adrian's backing. Seems like a contradiction a little. I know what they were doing, but still.
The fight was good, but not great. Nothing significant happened it seemed: no swelling, ribs cracking, etc. Just worn out and Rocky's heart pulled him up at the end (oops, spoiler).
I just didn't buy into the heart of the story which is ashame b/c I remembered really liking this one in the past. Probably b/c he wins (oops, spoiler).
I still liked it, but not as much as I remembered. I guess I sdn't watch 3 and 4 and don't have interested in 5.
Derailed (2005/I) - 3.5/5
Derailed (2005/I)
Good tension and characters. Just about everyone in this movie makes you feel uneasy/uncomfortable. Even the sick daughter just makes you feel uneasy.
It's nice that they didn't glamorize adultery. :)
SPOILERS:
Unfortunately, NGG (No Good Guys). Charles is the main character, but it's hard to sypathize w/him b/c he's trying to have an affair and lying to his family, etc.
Good tension and characters. Just about everyone in this movie makes you feel uneasy/uncomfortable. Even the sick daughter just makes you feel uneasy.
It's nice that they didn't glamorize adultery. :)
SPOILERS:
Unfortunately, NGG (No Good Guys). Charles is the main character, but it's hard to sypathize w/him b/c he's trying to have an affair and lying to his family, etc.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Serenity (2005) - 4/5
Serenity (2005)
I really liked the series (last post) and enjoyed the movie too. I think the movie was a great extension of the series: similar, but bigger, answers, but not too much 'ending.' I hope there's more movies, but I don't feel there necessarily has to be... but it wd be nice.
I'm watching the commentary by writer/director Joss Whedon now which tells me that I'm really enjoying the story behind the story. There's a lot here for a sci-fi fan and just someone who enjoys a good success based on a long-shot story.
SPOILERS
I really don't try hard to find faults in this movie, but when Mal first shoots the Operative, he sd have done more to get rid of him. They don't say this, but I have to wonder if he didn't want him dead for some reason. The second time he has a chance at him, he doesn't take it again. I was disappointed in that, but I think he wanted him to follow so that he wd see the video.
They don't explain that and I'm not sure if I'm right or not. If I'm right, they're probably giving the audience too much credit to figure that out. I'm surprised I did - I'm sure I wdn't have if I didn't try since I was bothered by Mal leaving him basically unharmed. So much of this story has been well done that I assumed this was too so that's my explination.
I really liked the series (last post) and enjoyed the movie too. I think the movie was a great extension of the series: similar, but bigger, answers, but not too much 'ending.' I hope there's more movies, but I don't feel there necessarily has to be... but it wd be nice.
I'm watching the commentary by writer/director Joss Whedon now which tells me that I'm really enjoying the story behind the story. There's a lot here for a sci-fi fan and just someone who enjoys a good success based on a long-shot story.
SPOILERS
I really don't try hard to find faults in this movie, but when Mal first shoots the Operative, he sd have done more to get rid of him. They don't say this, but I have to wonder if he didn't want him dead for some reason. The second time he has a chance at him, he doesn't take it again. I was disappointed in that, but I think he wanted him to follow so that he wd see the video.
They don't explain that and I'm not sure if I'm right or not. If I'm right, they're probably giving the audience too much credit to figure that out. I'm surprised I did - I'm sure I wdn't have if I didn't try since I was bothered by Mal leaving him basically unharmed. So much of this story has been well done that I assumed this was too so that's my explination.
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Firefly" (2002) (TV) - 4.5/5
"Firefly" (2002)
I really enjoyed this series and though I'm bummed it was cancelled a) it's nice to be able to see it all and have it contained and b) I probably wdn't have watched it otherwise.
I so like the idea of an underground series that had a loyal following and was made into a feature after being cancelled.
The characters and writing are very good and quite clever though not just for the sake of being clever. The bigger story is also good and I didn't get the feeling that they were just answering questions w/ more questions. Not that they had all the answers, but that the big questions weren't the main thing: the relationships, characters, individual episodes, etc. were just as important and the big picture.
So again, since my rating is based on how much I 'like' something, I gave it a high rating. Part of the reason I like it so much is b/c of the specifics: low budget, grassroots growth, underdog story, etc.
I also watched "Serenity" right after watching the series. Next post.
I really enjoyed this series and though I'm bummed it was cancelled a) it's nice to be able to see it all and have it contained and b) I probably wdn't have watched it otherwise.
I so like the idea of an underground series that had a loyal following and was made into a feature after being cancelled.
The characters and writing are very good and quite clever though not just for the sake of being clever. The bigger story is also good and I didn't get the feeling that they were just answering questions w/ more questions. Not that they had all the answers, but that the big questions weren't the main thing: the relationships, characters, individual episodes, etc. were just as important and the big picture.
So again, since my rating is based on how much I 'like' something, I gave it a high rating. Part of the reason I like it so much is b/c of the specifics: low budget, grassroots growth, underdog story, etc.
I also watched "Serenity" right after watching the series. Next post.
JFK (1991) - 3/5
JFK (1991)
This is a good film, but sdn't be taken as the truth or even close to it. This is the kinda thing Michael Moore sd be (and really is) doing: it's fiction based on and mixed with truth.
It makes for good drama and film, but dangerous if taken too literally.
Soon after watching this, we saw The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy which I felt dispelled a lot of the conspiracy aspects from JFK. Who knows what is true, but I think the two compliment each other in a sense. I just think JFK is somewhat dangerous. I've always thought this about Oliver Stone.
This is a good film, but sdn't be taken as the truth or even close to it. This is the kinda thing Michael Moore sd be (and really is) doing: it's fiction based on and mixed with truth.
It makes for good drama and film, but dangerous if taken too literally.
Soon after watching this, we saw The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy which I felt dispelled a lot of the conspiracy aspects from JFK. Who knows what is true, but I think the two compliment each other in a sense. I just think JFK is somewhat dangerous. I've always thought this about Oliver Stone.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Narc (2002) - 3.5/5
Narc (2002)
Very powerful performances and story. Quite intense. I really enjoyed the 'ride' thru this and trying to figure out who is who and what and everything else. Quite confusing, but very satisfying too.
Very powerful performances and story. Quite intense. I really enjoyed the 'ride' thru this and trying to figure out who is who and what and everything else. Quite confusing, but very satisfying too.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006) - 4/5
My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006)
A 4 may seem high for this movie. Especially since it seems to get such poor reviews/ratings other places. Maybe my expectations were low, but I really liked it.
It was clever, original, cute, funny and very fun! It was like they had an idea (what if a super hero was more like a normal person... or better yet, not that great of a person in some ways, but is still a super hero) and they made that movie. Moreover, they didn't stray from it and make that person learn a big lesson, save the world, become a better citizen, etc. Nope.
It was a bit predictable, but who cares? And most elements of the movie were sorta sub-par, but those things just aren't that important to this type of movie. They did a great job of focusing on the characters and the premise and all.
Mostly I'm proud of them for sticking to the premise and playing that out.
A 4 may seem high for this movie. Especially since it seems to get such poor reviews/ratings other places. Maybe my expectations were low, but I really liked it.
It was clever, original, cute, funny and very fun! It was like they had an idea (what if a super hero was more like a normal person... or better yet, not that great of a person in some ways, but is still a super hero) and they made that movie. Moreover, they didn't stray from it and make that person learn a big lesson, save the world, become a better citizen, etc. Nope.
It was a bit predictable, but who cares? And most elements of the movie were sorta sub-par, but those things just aren't that important to this type of movie. They did a great job of focusing on the characters and the premise and all.
Mostly I'm proud of them for sticking to the premise and playing that out.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The Sentinel (2006) - 2.5/5
The Sentinel (2006)
Again a forgotten post... I don't remember it well and probably wdn't recommend it so it gets a 2.5 b/c I remember liking it ok, but nothing more than that.
Again a forgotten post... I don't remember it well and probably wdn't recommend it so it gets a 2.5 b/c I remember liking it ok, but nothing more than that.
Thank You for Smoking (2005) - 2/5
Thank You for Smoking (2005)
Unfortunately I accidentally posted a draft for this post on a different blog and just now realized it. I saw it several weeks ago and don't remember too much about it which makes me think "It must not have been that great and I probably wdn't recommend it." So I gave it a 2.
I remember thinking it was pretty clever, but also I'm no fan of propaganda in movies.
Unfortunately I accidentally posted a draft for this post on a different blog and just now realized it. I saw it several weeks ago and don't remember too much about it which makes me think "It must not have been that great and I probably wdn't recommend it." So I gave it a 2.
I remember thinking it was pretty clever, but also I'm no fan of propaganda in movies.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Primer (2004) - 4.5/5
Primer (2004)
I really liked this movie.
(UPDATE: I went back and up'ed my rating of this movie so the next couple of sentences were made when I had it lower)
I wanted to give it a 4/5 or higher, but it's tough to rationalize w/ the many problems...
Given the circumstances around making the movie, it sd get a 5/5 or something.
The film focuses too much on the science of the situation and leaves too little to the meat of the story. I felt confused by the story, not the science. What happened? Why?
UPDATE:
The reason I up'ed the rating was b/c after thinking about it and I want my ratings to be how much I "like" the movie. Not just technically or artistically or whatever, but what I think about it and all that that entails: fun, clever, etc. How much it appeals to me. I've been thinking and talking about this movie ever since I saw it. I immediately started the director's commentary after watching the movie and immediately started the cast/crew commentary after that (though I didn't finish it).
SPOILERS
What happened to Thomas Granger? The just left that.
UPDATE:
Later in the director commentary he explains they don't know. Their present selves don't know how he found out about the box and what he did exactly, etc. So we don't either.
Why was Aaron leaving?
UPDATE:
Too many doubles and complications. The wiki page explains a lot, but it took me a while to agree w/the whole 'doubles' part.
Wikipedia.org has a great page on it here. I'm not sure I cd get all that from the movie???
I really liked this movie.
(UPDATE: I went back and up'ed my rating of this movie so the next couple of sentences were made when I had it lower)
I wanted to give it a 4/5 or higher, but it's tough to rationalize w/ the many problems...
Given the circumstances around making the movie, it sd get a 5/5 or something.
The film focuses too much on the science of the situation and leaves too little to the meat of the story. I felt confused by the story, not the science. What happened? Why?
UPDATE:
The reason I up'ed the rating was b/c after thinking about it and I want my ratings to be how much I "like" the movie. Not just technically or artistically or whatever, but what I think about it and all that that entails: fun, clever, etc. How much it appeals to me. I've been thinking and talking about this movie ever since I saw it. I immediately started the director's commentary after watching the movie and immediately started the cast/crew commentary after that (though I didn't finish it).
SPOILERS
What happened to Thomas Granger? The just left that.
UPDATE:
Later in the director commentary he explains they don't know. Their present selves don't know how he found out about the box and what he did exactly, etc. So we don't either.
Why was Aaron leaving?
UPDATE:
Too many doubles and complications. The wiki page explains a lot, but it took me a while to agree w/the whole 'doubles' part.
Wikipedia.org has a great page on it here. I'm not sure I cd get all that from the movie???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
