I’m going to be adding to this post as I see ‘em, so check back if you’re interested
first viewing unless otherwise stated, - seen on video, / internet viewing
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44
-Oceans 12 (Steven Soderbergh, 2004): 87, lets say sixth viewing
-Shaolin Soccer (Stephen Chow, 2001): 56
-Cellular (David R. Ellis, 20004): 48
PFFR (PFFR, various): ?
-M*A*S*H (Robert Altman, 1970): 84, third viewing
-McCabe & Mrs. Miller (Robert Altman, 1971): 61
-Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975): 57
-California Split (Robert Altman, 1974): 81
-The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman, 1973): 73
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53
/Sutro (Jeanne Liotta)
-Speed Racer (Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, 2008): 73; second viewing, first since release
Moon (Duncan Jones): 67
$9.99 (Tatia Rosenthal): 68
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Michael Bay): 30
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Back Log, I'm Finally Caught Up!
Up (Peter Docter and Bob Peterson): 71, (Saw this in 2-D) Pretty much everything you heard about this film is true, both good and bad; it’s completely enjoyable, funny, visually superb (better than Monsters vs. Aliens), however there is simplistic characterization, and the the opening montage does belong in a better film. Lets be honest, the is lesser Pixar. Still, hopefully there’s an entire generation of kids out there that will grow up cherishing, be influenced by, and make bonds over these Pixar films the same way I did with older, hand drawn Disney films.
Drag Me To Hell (Sam Raimi): 67, It’s interesting that Raimi’s past films let him get away with gags and gore that would get anyone else laughed out of the theater. Decent film but nothing to get exited over, this is B-Horror after all (which I can see the argument that that’s exactly where it belongs). If you want to see horror that is really trying to scare you check out last years The Strangers (Bertino).
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44, Starts off good with the brothers first con which is well thought out and funny, touching on issues of children’s social services, class issues/struggles, trust and betrayal, and ends with not necessary a twist but a side plan that emerges from the background reveling the ‘true’ con. So…you would think this would act as a microcosm of the rest of the film but, like me, you would be wrong. It just gets bogged down in woe-is-me angst is my life real or all a fake and I can barely stand that. Also suffers from both quirky girl syndrome (a la Garden State) and the fact that the film doesn’t live up to its own hype. Bloom talks about how his brothers plans are like a Russian novel with attention to detail, embedded symbolism, and whatever else but really everything just enfolds by luck or chance. The characters talk about behavior traits and actions that never materialize in the film. About half way in I was bored, waiting for it to be over. Willing to chalk this up to sophomore slump, Brick was good, what happened?
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41, I want to see the film Zach Galifianakis thought he was in, that one looks funny as hell. This one not only mines the same jokes more than once (Zach’s ass shot, baby jerkin it, the tiger) but is under the impression that if dialogue is spoken funny (Chinese guy, wedding chapel guy, Mike Tyson) that it automatically makes it funny. Also takes forever to get going, literally starting over twice. At least some of the sight gags were never explained like the chicken or the smoking chair, and the piano part was cool if only for its unexpectedness.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53, Tony Scott’s films are all the same so review goes like this, not as good as Déjà Vu (by a long shot) or Man on Fire but better than Domino (which is a pretty low bar, but whatever). If anything he’s showing restraint which is an improvement. Still not sure what John Travolta’s character was all about, Simple revenge? Just in it for the money? Going to see if I can get my hands on the original.
Coraline (Henry Selick): 70, (Again, 2-D) Up there with Monster House as a film that I’m not sure was meant for kids, (there were two little girls that were actively crying during the screening I went to asking their Moms if they can go home, they all ended up leaving). I thought the stop motion and CGI complimented each other well, neither technique made the other seem out of place. Film itself exactly what you would expect, but unlike Corpse Bride wears a little thin and kind of gets watered down making Coraline complete video game like task, the whole part about going back to the different ‘worlds’ and finding the eyes could have been completely cut out adding only unnecessary length. Oh, by the way, Selick and Focus Features, this is a hand animated stop-motion film, you’re already special!!! You didn’t need to get caught up in this view it 3-D shit.
Fighting (Dito Montiel): 64, Would have totally blown this one off if I didn’t figure out who the director was (if you haven’t, check out A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints). There’s definitely a strong film inside here and I wished we could have spent longer with Harvey and Shawn, the moments where they are together easily strongest parts in the film. Both not only down on their luck characters but carry streaks of never had any and self destructive tendencies respectively. Actual fighting scenes are saved by being blunt, unorganized, and brief. Dialogue is great with everyone talking at once* and constantly, desperately trying to convince others they have a good idea or plan.
*Probably because it’s fresh in my mind, by this film might actually be reminiscent of Altman at his best, but I’m going to need a second viewing to be sure.
[Second Viewing] Ok the Altman line was being extra generous, it does exhibit this semi-improvised/characters that are making it up as they go, but in flashes not in overall tone. Everything else still applys.
Drag Me To Hell (Sam Raimi): 67, It’s interesting that Raimi’s past films let him get away with gags and gore that would get anyone else laughed out of the theater. Decent film but nothing to get exited over, this is B-Horror after all (which I can see the argument that that’s exactly where it belongs). If you want to see horror that is really trying to scare you check out last years The Strangers (Bertino).
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44, Starts off good with the brothers first con which is well thought out and funny, touching on issues of children’s social services, class issues/struggles, trust and betrayal, and ends with not necessary a twist but a side plan that emerges from the background reveling the ‘true’ con. So…you would think this would act as a microcosm of the rest of the film but, like me, you would be wrong. It just gets bogged down in woe-is-me angst is my life real or all a fake and I can barely stand that. Also suffers from both quirky girl syndrome (a la Garden State) and the fact that the film doesn’t live up to its own hype. Bloom talks about how his brothers plans are like a Russian novel with attention to detail, embedded symbolism, and whatever else but really everything just enfolds by luck or chance. The characters talk about behavior traits and actions that never materialize in the film. About half way in I was bored, waiting for it to be over. Willing to chalk this up to sophomore slump, Brick was good, what happened?
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41, I want to see the film Zach Galifianakis thought he was in, that one looks funny as hell. This one not only mines the same jokes more than once (Zach’s ass shot, baby jerkin it, the tiger) but is under the impression that if dialogue is spoken funny (Chinese guy, wedding chapel guy, Mike Tyson) that it automatically makes it funny. Also takes forever to get going, literally starting over twice. At least some of the sight gags were never explained like the chicken or the smoking chair, and the piano part was cool if only for its unexpectedness.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53, Tony Scott’s films are all the same so review goes like this, not as good as Déjà Vu (by a long shot) or Man on Fire but better than Domino (which is a pretty low bar, but whatever). If anything he’s showing restraint which is an improvement. Still not sure what John Travolta’s character was all about, Simple revenge? Just in it for the money? Going to see if I can get my hands on the original.
Coraline (Henry Selick): 70, (Again, 2-D) Up there with Monster House as a film that I’m not sure was meant for kids, (there were two little girls that were actively crying during the screening I went to asking their Moms if they can go home, they all ended up leaving). I thought the stop motion and CGI complimented each other well, neither technique made the other seem out of place. Film itself exactly what you would expect, but unlike Corpse Bride wears a little thin and kind of gets watered down making Coraline complete video game like task, the whole part about going back to the different ‘worlds’ and finding the eyes could have been completely cut out adding only unnecessary length. Oh, by the way, Selick and Focus Features, this is a hand animated stop-motion film, you’re already special!!! You didn’t need to get caught up in this view it 3-D shit.
Fighting (Dito Montiel): 64, Would have totally blown this one off if I didn’t figure out who the director was (if you haven’t, check out A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints). There’s definitely a strong film inside here and I wished we could have spent longer with Harvey and Shawn, the moments where they are together easily strongest parts in the film. Both not only down on their luck characters but carry streaks of never had any and self destructive tendencies respectively. Actual fighting scenes are saved by being blunt, unorganized, and brief. Dialogue is great with everyone talking at once* and constantly, desperately trying to convince others they have a good idea or plan.
*Probably because it’s fresh in my mind, by this film might actually be reminiscent of Altman at his best, but I’m going to need a second viewing to be sure.
[Second Viewing] Ok the Altman line was being extra generous, it does exhibit this semi-improvised/characters that are making it up as they go, but in flashes not in overall tone. Everything else still applys.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Barely Worth Commenting On, But…
Taken (Pierre Morel): 35, Good luck girls, hope your ex-CIA Daddy comes for you too!
Notorious (George Tillman Jr.): 32, Maybe I had overly high expectations for this one, expecting a more in-depth look of the man touching on areas such as lack of opportunity, class struggles, image vs. reality, and carving out a personal identity in the entertainment industry. As it stands the film is really proud of its casting and glosses over everything else. Also, what’s with the high contrast, desaturated look of the streets of Brooklyn? What was wrong with regular film stock?
Fanboys (Kyle Newman): 9, There’s this one scene where our Star Wars fans run into a group of Star Trek fans. Now this could have gone one of two ways; the first way would be to ‘out trivia’ each other using lesser known facts and ultra specific details of each series until one group is ‘proven wrong’ or left speechless, winners taunt the losers relentlessly and so on and so on. The second way, and actual scene in the film, plays like this,
“Vader sucks!”
“Oh yeah, Captain Kirk sucks!”
“No, you suck!”
“You want to fight!”
“Bring it!”,
sloppy fighting ensues, clumsy get away and so on and so on. This entire film goes the second way.
I Love You, Man (John Hamburg): 23, I’m not sure the characters within this film resemble real people. The only reason this is in the low twenties is because of Fevreau.
Notorious (George Tillman Jr.): 32, Maybe I had overly high expectations for this one, expecting a more in-depth look of the man touching on areas such as lack of opportunity, class struggles, image vs. reality, and carving out a personal identity in the entertainment industry. As it stands the film is really proud of its casting and glosses over everything else. Also, what’s with the high contrast, desaturated look of the streets of Brooklyn? What was wrong with regular film stock?
Fanboys (Kyle Newman): 9, There’s this one scene where our Star Wars fans run into a group of Star Trek fans. Now this could have gone one of two ways; the first way would be to ‘out trivia’ each other using lesser known facts and ultra specific details of each series until one group is ‘proven wrong’ or left speechless, winners taunt the losers relentlessly and so on and so on. The second way, and actual scene in the film, plays like this,
“Vader sucks!”
“Oh yeah, Captain Kirk sucks!”
“No, you suck!”
“You want to fight!”
“Bring it!”,
sloppy fighting ensues, clumsy get away and so on and so on. This entire film goes the second way.
I Love You, Man (John Hamburg): 23, I’m not sure the characters within this film resemble real people. The only reason this is in the low twenties is because of Fevreau.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
