Monday, September 13, 2004
I just saw "Collateral" and all I can say is "freakin' amazing".
I'm not a huge action movie fan because I hate the cliches and bad scripts. This movie is so good, it actually deserves a better genre. "Collateral" has been hyped because of Tom Cruise playing a bad guy, but I think the real star is Jaimie Foxx. He was real and amazing. His character arc was an empty man who has alienated himself in LA, nurturing dreams that he has no intention of fulfilling. He meets a hired killer who is also empty and alienated, but is a successful hired killer. The intensity is spot on. It was taut and sharp. Visually "Collateral" is a cinematic masterpiece. The scenery is a character all by itself, setting the tone and giving us a dark and violent view of sunny LA. Also, Foxx and Cruise are both actors who know how to communicate as much with their bodies as they do with their dialogue. Cruise in particular is most menacing when his icy cool eyes turn Foxx's way and his stiff shoulders and rigid neck betray a rage that isn't in his face.
The only flaw in this film was the ending. It just came to quickly and left me feeling slightly unsatisfied. The story concluded, but left too many questions. Another 10 minutes and this movie would have been a 10 out of 10.
For those who saw "Training Day" the story is very similar. One crazy sociopath, one nice guy, one day/night in the gritty city. While "Training Day" was a great movie, it lacked the gritty dirty depth of "Collateral". Its as much about the men as it is about the action. This movie can be seen for the violence (which is graphic), the action, the story, the acting, or the depth. Its a well rounded movie.
I've often felt Cruise is a much overrated actor, but this was probably one of his best roles ever. Because he's Tom Cruise, I'm sure he'll get the hurrahs for this movie and I have a feeling Foxx will be overlooked in the kudos department and thats a shame. He was quiet and subtle and played a human being worth rooting for.
Has anyone seen it?
Friday, August 20, 2004
11:46PM - New Here
I love movies. Especially quirky humor. Proving that I am a movie nerd, I usually watch a film and then write down my observations, then look up the movie on Rotten Tomatoes to see if other people felt how I felt. NERRRRD.
I just saw the movie "Dummy" with Adrian Brody. I loved it. It was a little dark and strange, but Milla Jojovich was stunningly tacky and vulgar and Adrien Brody was the king of the losers, and yet somehow, still slightly charming. The premise is razor thin, the ending is complete crap and the I couldn't stand the love interest and her squealy little daughter. Despite all that, I still found it a funny, interesting film. It could've been better most certainly, but I'm glad it was just bad enough to be engaging and completely bizarre at the same time.
Anyone else seen it?
(Grammatically, that sentence doesn't seem right, but I'm too exhausted to figure out the right way to word it. You KNOW what I mean.)
Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Two Reviews today:
I've been pretty slow at getting around to seeing Kevin Smith's repertoire, I still havent seen Mallrats or Chasing Amy all the way through. But I have enjoyed what I have seen of him, maybe its that whole 'geeks unite' thing, but I love watching movies where their discussing the semantics of star wars, and I find myself debating the same situations in my own head. Clerks is every definition of a persons first flick. I always thought that it was shot in black and white in a quasi-artsy move, i never realized it was because color film was too expensive on this no-budget flick. And throughout the entire movie, it looks like a high schooler did the editting, as there are a good 5 scenes i could point out where the actors clearly mess up or stumble their lines, and yet the takes were still used. But the good news is, the gold is there. The script is solid as a rock, and it showed what a quick wit Kevin Smith has with wordplay, many of the exchanges between Dante and Randal are downright hilarious simply in the wording of it all. the actors are adequate, though not much more. Jay And Silent Bob's humor has come along way since this movie, where they are nowhere near the hilarious caricatures of themselves that they became in his later flicks. Randall, Dante, Veronica, and Caitlyn are all played fairly simply. There is nothing special there, and none of them particularl stand out, but none of them are a detriment to the show either. The plot itself is simplistically great. I am a stickler for plots that centralize around such a simplistic thing like a day at a convenience store, and suddenly become an outlandlishly funny run of excitement. All in all, the movie, as i stated earlier, has the obvious signs of being a person's first flicks, and is pretty rough around the edges, but the potential in the humor, direction, and screenplay was all there.
Rating: 2.7564545 outta 5
I must admit i came into this movie with a bias. Jude Law never struck me as anything special, Renee Zelwegger gets on my nerves very easily, and I was honestly expecting another "Far And Away' type of movie, which is not a bad type, just overdone. Well, I was definitely put in my place. First off, Jude Law does a commendable job in the role of Inman, I felt for his character in his determiniation. Renee Zelweger pulls off my favorite roll of hers to this date with her performance as Ruby. she well-deserved that Oscar, as her part is a very funny well-drawn out character, with a lot of heart involved that you feel for. Nicole Kidman is usually a sure-bet with me, She never usually steals the show for me, but has never really let me down before either. In this movie she follows that pattern with a great performance as well. Probably one of my favored one's of hers. What sold this movie for me though was really the supporting cast. they are amazing. Every new introduced supporting character hit their mark amazingly, whether big or small. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone, Jack White, Giovanni Ribisi, Donald Sutherland, natalie portman, the two men from 28 Days Laters whose names escape me, etc. They kept the run of the movie fresh and exciting. At first i was quick to judge that the romance nad chemsitry between Law and Kidman was not very well-done in the movie. But at a second thought, i realized that was really the point of it, is that there really was nothing of fruition in their first meeting, and thats what amazed everyone, including them, was the bond they held onto regardless of the lack of actual love existant between them. The Civil War depiction as a whole is a job welldone. The ruthlessness of both sides, the dire situations with treachery and desertion, were all fairly represented in the harsh realities of that war. The movie really gave me a surprise, i was expecting a mildly entertaining war movie, and i got a very personal and connective story.
Tuesday, August 3, 2004
It's always been difficult for me to formulate a list of my favorite movies. It seems so confining to have to squeeze all of the movies you love into a list of 10 or so. But I'm going to give it a try anyway. Also, I'd like to see your top 10 list of your favorite films. Here's mine.
(In no specific order)
1. Pulp Fiction
2. Reservoir Dogs
3. The Exorcist
4. The Professional
5. Full Metal Jacket
6. A Clockwork Orange
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
9. The Shining
10. Taxi Driver
Freaks (1932) B&W
Dir: Tod Browning
Starring: A bunch of freaks =/
After reading about this movie in Entertainment Weekly's Top 50 Cult Classics about a year and a half ago, I knew that I needed to see it. It centers around the lives of physically deformed circus performers, and all of the bizarre things they encounter. It's a bit of a drama/love story too, strangely enough. I'll admit, I was sort of disturbed by the entire thing, but it also made me feel unexpectedly empathetic towards a few of the characters. Like I wanted to hug them, or adopt them. I'm glad I ended up seeing it (thanks Suprnova for having it), because it's truly shocking and innovative, having been made in 1932. It's really quite short (64 minutes), though, which I don't really mind, because I don't think it could have held my attention for much longer.
Monday, August 2, 2004
Dir: Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Starring: Sherilyn Fenn, Julian Sands
Ehhhhh. I had very high expectations for this movie, but those expectations certainly weren't reached. I'm a huge fan of David Lynch (of Twin Peaks, Eraserhead, Dune, etc. fame), and I figured that any child of his could produce a work of pure genius. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. With the exception of the beautiful Ms. Sherilyn Fenn, just about every role was grossly miscast. Horrible acting ability plagued every actor on the set. The overall premise of the movie was insanely outlandish, and was carried out sloppily, and seemed quite misguided. I was also disturbed at the sight of innocent Audrey Horne's breasts. Oh dang.
Overall : 1/5
Sometimes movies just dont have to hit you. sometimes they dont have to get under your skin and affect you and startle you and amaze you. This would happen to be one of those kinds of movies. Its one of those movies that isnt a gross-out comedy where its boring for 20 minutes and then some random farce makes you burst out in laughter for a few seconds, and then go back to being bored again. This is a movie that basically has you steadily chuckling through the entire thing. Much of it is good old nerdy stuck in the 80s humor, while much of the other humor is more for laughs out of pity in a great way. I could most closely compare it to Rushmore in most of the humor coming at the expense of the caricature-style people we grow to meet within the flick. The more i thought about the character of Napolean, the more i realized a somewhat sad thing that the reason his nerd part is so lovably good is that i think he most likely is that bad in real life, and was merely playing himself. Oh yes, and a nod goes to the girl i havent seen in a movie since Waterworld! woo!
Saturday, July 31, 2004
finally saw this 'classic' flick last night. I must say that it met my expectations, and of course all the lovely scenes of puking, masturbation with crucifixes, and spinning heads were all fully entertaining. Frankly, the exposition was pretty slow-moving, and up until about 20 minutes into the movie when Reagan the daughter first shows signs of possesion, i was bored shitless. But the rest of the story is a good one, its a very dark movie, its not just your run of the mill slasher flick, there really is some sadistic shit there, and it didnt surprise me to find out it was banned in Europe. So overall, for classic status, it fulfilled its duties, its earned every bit of its cult status for it being utterly startling when it was first release, and still scary to us this day. But as a progressing movie, it could've gone by a lot faster.
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Well I wasnt sure how to really begin this, so post any suggestions as to what i should change to make this somewhat cool.
I'll start it off with a simple question:
rank P.T. Anderson's three hit films (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love) In order from your favorite to least favorite, and an explanation why if you feel like it.
1) Magnolia - just an amazing work. the screenplay's writing and idea really kick you in the ass, practically every character demands your personal attachment and sympathy to them, and it is perfectly and technically sound.
2) Punch-Drunk Love - beautiful in both its simplicity and complexity. Every time i see it it has me thinking how simply and straight-forwardly great it is, and then baffled with how complexly layered and puzzling it is. A movie full of those 'little things' that make re-watching cinema so fun.
3) Boogie Nights- containing as much technical clever merit as the other two movies, but lacking in the serious emotional pull as the other two. its almost not fair to compare as it is in a much different genre as the other two were personal drama/romances, while this is an entire tongue-in-cheek movie.