Welcome back readers. It hasn't even been a week since my last blog (I know, I'm just as surprised/impressed with myself as you are) but I figured it was time for a new one. That and Netflix is clearing out a bunch of movies for the new year so I'm watching my way through my queue and figured I'd write about the first one I watched. So settle in, hopefully this will be entertaining to read, cause I have a feeling it's going to be entertaining to write...
For this blog, I'm writing on a movie I just watched entitled "The Lost Boys". This is a vampire film from 1987 directed by Joel Schumacher and written by three people whose first name begins with "J" and that I don't want to take the time to write out (although, it probably took me longer to write that sentence than their names). This film has gotten a lot of hype and popularity and has been recommended to me several times by various people. I enjoy a good vampire flick, and this has some pretty interesting actors; Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, and the two Coreys!! (Haim and Feldman for those of you who are way out of the cool kid loop). So I figured I'd give it a go and actually learned several very important lessons.
1.) Contrary to popular belief, two Coreys doth not a hit ensure...
2.) While late 80's movies give most people an air of latent homosexuality, they couldn't have made Sam (played by Corey Haim) more gay if they tried. For further reference, see his clothes, musical stylings, and the poster in his room of Rob Lowe undressing and rubbing himself. I wish I was kidding about that last statement.
3.) If this movie is an accurate representation of vampire films in the late 80's and where the genre was heading, then I'm glad Stephanie Meyer "revamped" the idea of a vampire. That's right, I said it. I'll take that glittery and charismatic group of vampires over the chuckleheads in this film any day.
4.) "The Lost Boys" is the worst vampire film I've ever seen (yeah, worse than Buffy the Vampire Slayer which came out shortly after and featured the much better Sutherland actor).
But let's not get ahead of ourselves here... First, a quick rundown of the movie. The film takes place in a city called Santa Clara, CA. A woman and her two sons have just moved there to live with her father after a rough divorce. Enter the (grand)father, aka, the creepiest guy in the entire movie (and he's NOT a vampire...). His house looks like a Jason Vorhees nightmare but for some reason, the family fits in like it's the most normal thing in the world. While out exploring the town, the oldest boy, Michael, sees a girl that he apparently falls head over heels for but who ditches him for her rough and tumble gang of bikers. So, the only logical thing to do is to spend the next day trying to change everything about himself (appearance, attitude, etc) to catch the girls eye. And whaddya know, it works! Until her "boyfriend" and leader of the group comes along and invites Michael to join in with them in their misadventures. They go off on a wild night and visit the group's secret underground hangout place (hint) full of all sorts of creepy and bizarre items that make the place look like a tomb (hint hint). They give Michael some "wine" to drink that he initially thinks is blood (because they tell him it is) and the next thing you know, POOF. Michael trips out and wakes up in his own bed and is sensitive to sunlight (if you don't get the hints by now, you should just stop watching cause guess what, he's gonna start doing some more vampirey things). All this time the younger brother Sam meets two teenagers in a comic book store who deem him a worthy being (because he knows about comics, which is apparently the true characteristic of any worthy being) and warn him that the town is full of vampires and to call if he needs help. Sure enough...through an incredibly awkward bath scene and being saved by his pooch, Sam learns his brother is a vampire. After his initial (and solid) first idea to run away screaming, he decides to help his brother out. Through the help of the Frog brothers (Feldman and some other guy) they learn that if you kill the head vampire, all the other "half" vampires go back to normal (a huge cop out in my opinion but whatever). They have a list of people who it might be (including their mom's new boyfriend and Kiefer Sutherland) and set out to destroy the head vampire (and any others who get in their way) and save the girl (also a vampire but apparently just your classic Damsel in Distress) and the day. They have a few ups and downs but like most horror movies, the ending is happy and all is returned to normal...OR IS IT?!?!
As I stated above, this movie flat out bombed. Just terrible. I saw very little good points in this film at all. But, I am always one to give credit where credit is due. They did a good job with the scenery and backgrounds by showing both the safe and friendly side of the town in contrast to the dark and dreary part (guess who lives in which one). The gang's secret hideout was done well and sadly, had the most back story of any other part of the movie (go figure). Albeit, I'm not sure what a giant Jim Morrison painting has to do with the undead, but different strokes for different folks I guess. Along with the setting, the movie did a really cool job with the make-up. The vampires looked pretty impressive and believable (and not just for an 80's film) and the costume and make-up concepts for the deaths were pretty well done.
And yet...that's about it. This movie failed in almost every other major category necessary for a film. Want a solid and easy to follow plot? Strike one. The movie had almost no continuity and even the scenes that went together didn't have enough significance or appeal to keep you really interested. OK then, how about some cool lighting or music to set the tone? Strike two. This vampire movie had more sunlight and brightness (even underground) then I've ever seen before. And playing a song that just repeats various Commandments to a rock backing without addressing any sort of religious aspect is literally the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Well how about cool costumes? Foul. It's an 80's movie...need I say more? This movie tarnished the reputation of suave and sophisticated vampires the world around and made them look like they would've fit in "The Warriors" or any other lame rocker/badass wannabes. Well there's got to be some strong character development then right? Swing and a miss. Almost no background or buildup was given for ANY of the characters; there were so many random and unnecessary characters that it almost got hard to keep up with them. And even the ones who were presented as significant, ended up having so little significance, it would've made more sense to not include them. The actors did, at the ABSOLUTE best, a mediocre job and were just not believable nor was their dialogue. Especially the girl love interest... Her name is Star (::sighs::) and she's a cool girl vampire in a little group of vampires, but somehow is the only one who doesn't feed or change appearance throughout the entire movie...? um....lost me.
Overall? This movie blew. And not just compared to vampire movies as a whole, cause it blew to proportions of blowyness that I can't even comprehend when compared to the greats. But as a movie in general, it was pretty sucky. There was nothing to make you stay interested, the characters were all annoying and seemingly pointless, it wasn't even scary in any way shape or form. "What's that? The wind is blowing really unnecessarily loud and there's the mixed sound of bats and motorcycles? Dude, it's totally those vampire A-holes..." (not quite verbatim but they could have saved trouble and just through that line in there; at least the dialogue would've been better). I saw nothing to like about it, let alone warrant 2 sequels (no, that's not a typo). I'll give this movie a 2 out of 10, solely for the make-up job and the best looking and best acting characters in the film (and if you ask me, the true stars and heroes of the film). I'm referring of course, to the dogs. Because in the end, when you're in a new town and within 2 days you realize you're surrounded by vampires and even your own brother is a vampire, who else can you rely on but man's best friend (and a vampire's worst nightmare). Killer kill yo!!! Until next time, happy viewing.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Not just a cool name for a soccer team...
Welcome back readers. I could start by apologizing for my lack of writing recently, or even make another claim that I promise to do better. But in all honesty, I'm just a procrastinator and put this off. In realizing this, I want to get back to doing more of these, and that will probably make me more than any thing else. So, let's just jump back into it (and pretend it hasn't been forever since I last did one).
Today, I watched what is considered an iconic classic film, worthy of the American Film Institute's list of Top 100 movies of all time. It won multiple awards and even a few Oscars. Sadly Shanna, I am not talking about the Emperor's New Groove (I'm working on it, promise). Instead, I am talking about Midnight Cowboy, starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight. This film was made in 1969, directed by John Schlesinger, and written by Waldo Salt (screenplay) and James Leo Herlihy (novel). It has been deemed one of the best movies of all time, and for those of you who don't know, one of my life goals is to watch all the films from the AFI Top 100 list so I figured I'd give it a shot.
.....and was sincerely disappointed.
Seriously? This movie? I've had some questions about other iconic films (Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time? My ass...) But I've normally been able to legitimize some of the claims, (Citizen Kane did change almost everything we know and incorporate in the film world today). Other films like The Deer Hunter, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and Easy Rider will never be considered "quality films" in my book, but for the most part, the list is pretty solid. However, I'm gonna add this one to the "not a good representation of awesome" list.
This film focuses on the life of Joe Buck played by Voight, a self proclaimed "hustler" (and by hustler, we mean gigolo) who decides that he's got enough swagger (am I using that term correctly?) to be able to take his "talents" to the Big Apple and make a name for himself among the ladies. He is convinced that once he leaves his podunk town in Texas, the women will be lining up for a night with him (because women are all sex addicts who will pay for it and all the men are "Tutti Frutti's). So he takes all his money and heads east on a bus. He is presented as a friendly and courteous Texas gentleman, but is uber cocky (no pun intended) and full of himself. He arrives in New York City, full of hope and wonder. He tries to establish himself as a quality hustler and ends up struggling to do so (he actually ends up paying his first customer). Luckily, he meets Enrico Rizzo or Ratso played by Hoffman who "sets him up" with a manager. When this is revealed a scam, Ratzo decides to take Buck under his wing. There is just one problem... Rizzo is a broke and sickly cripple who squats in a condemned building and since he has less money than Buck, resorts to stealing and checking pay phones for money. Ok, so maybe that's more than one problem, but you know what I meant.
What happens next is a series of discombobulated and random scenes similar to what I imagine one's memory would be like after a night of binge drinking or dropping acid. There are random shots involving Buck's old life (bizarre relationship to his grandmother, his first girlfriend, sexual encounters...etc, etc, etc) but none of them really make any sense and definitely don't have much to do with the rest of the movie. They go to a party that just confuses the hell out of you, until they spend 5 non-developed and random minutes in a graveyard and then you're really confused. These scenes continue throughout the rest of the movie with no real tie ins or significance until the movie gets back on track. Ratso gets increasingly sicker and Joe decides to fulfill Ratso's life long dream and takes him to Florida after robbing a "John" and through a series of unfortunate events, this "film" comes to a conclusion.
Seriously, I don't get what the rave is all about. The camera shooting styles are childish and hokey, the music score is just awful (how many times can you listen to "Everybody's Talkin' in a row before it loses the little to no sense it made in the first place? watch this movie and find out), the plot is jumpy and not enjoyable to even try to follow. Very little was worthwhile in this movie. That being said, the setting was pretty sweet. They did an excellent job of showing the squalor side of NYC but also the glitzy side. Throw in a memorable acting performance by Dustin Hoffman (really, he did an excellent and convincing job) and you have a couple of legitimate factors. Then turn back to the terrible acting by everyone else (no one was a genuine or believable character) and the lacking story line and were back to a lower end film again.
However, I did enjoy one particular aspect of this film; even though it probably wasn't what was supposed to be enjoyed and this is probably just the cynical me coming out. Most movies have a sense of hope, positive forces, or "everything will all work out in the end" attitude. And I LOVED that this movie didn't. This movie showed some realistic nature in this aspect in that, you know what, things DON'T always work out in the end and life isn't all rainbows and sprinkles. There is a dirty and grimy underbelly to society and the world we live in and it get's ignored all too often. Both of the main characters had a dream that they clung to throughout the movie and in the end, they just had to accept that dreams don't always come true. While this is contradictory to what Disney and rom-coms has taught us in films, I think this is a very important lesson. They say "reach for the moon and even if you fail you might land on a star" (or some cheesy cliche like that) but whatever happened to just being happy with what you've got? I'm not saying not to follow your dreams, but sometimes you gotta know when to cut one loose and just accept that your life may not be ideal, but it's the one you got so why not make the most of it. Why reach for the moon when the world is right out your front door? Joe learned this the hard way and did everything against his nature to try and live his dream (including having gay sex and selling his most prized possession for $5 bucks in pawn shop). Bad things happen to bad and good people alike and the world is far from a perfect place. But in watching this movie, it helped remind me that this fact is not a sad one, but almost a hopeful one. Because a life without disappointment, failure, and misery is a world that I just don't think would be worth living in. If you're never satisfied and always reaching for more, how can you appreciate the things you do have? And I like to think that Joe Buck and Ratso would agree with me on this...
Overall, I'm gonna give this movie a 3 out of 10. I didn't like it almost entirely, save for Dustin Hoffman and the weird message I got out of it. But then again, maybe I'm overly critical or lack the scope and perspective of the brilliant minds of critics in the world. But hey, that's what I started this for in the first place; they can't ALL be right... So, while I'm proud to have been a Midnight Cowboy, the relation to the film is just as disappointing as the film itself. C'est la vie... Until next time folks, happy viewing.
Today, I watched what is considered an iconic classic film, worthy of the American Film Institute's list of Top 100 movies of all time. It won multiple awards and even a few Oscars. Sadly Shanna, I am not talking about the Emperor's New Groove (I'm working on it, promise). Instead, I am talking about Midnight Cowboy, starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight. This film was made in 1969, directed by John Schlesinger, and written by Waldo Salt (screenplay) and James Leo Herlihy (novel). It has been deemed one of the best movies of all time, and for those of you who don't know, one of my life goals is to watch all the films from the AFI Top 100 list so I figured I'd give it a shot.
.....and was sincerely disappointed.
Seriously? This movie? I've had some questions about other iconic films (Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time? My ass...) But I've normally been able to legitimize some of the claims, (Citizen Kane did change almost everything we know and incorporate in the film world today). Other films like The Deer Hunter, Yankee Doodle Dandy, and Easy Rider will never be considered "quality films" in my book, but for the most part, the list is pretty solid. However, I'm gonna add this one to the "not a good representation of awesome" list.
This film focuses on the life of Joe Buck played by Voight, a self proclaimed "hustler" (and by hustler, we mean gigolo) who decides that he's got enough swagger (am I using that term correctly?) to be able to take his "talents" to the Big Apple and make a name for himself among the ladies. He is convinced that once he leaves his podunk town in Texas, the women will be lining up for a night with him (because women are all sex addicts who will pay for it and all the men are "Tutti Frutti's). So he takes all his money and heads east on a bus. He is presented as a friendly and courteous Texas gentleman, but is uber cocky (no pun intended) and full of himself. He arrives in New York City, full of hope and wonder. He tries to establish himself as a quality hustler and ends up struggling to do so (he actually ends up paying his first customer). Luckily, he meets Enrico Rizzo or Ratso played by Hoffman who "sets him up" with a manager. When this is revealed a scam, Ratzo decides to take Buck under his wing. There is just one problem... Rizzo is a broke and sickly cripple who squats in a condemned building and since he has less money than Buck, resorts to stealing and checking pay phones for money. Ok, so maybe that's more than one problem, but you know what I meant.
What happens next is a series of discombobulated and random scenes similar to what I imagine one's memory would be like after a night of binge drinking or dropping acid. There are random shots involving Buck's old life (bizarre relationship to his grandmother, his first girlfriend, sexual encounters...etc, etc, etc) but none of them really make any sense and definitely don't have much to do with the rest of the movie. They go to a party that just confuses the hell out of you, until they spend 5 non-developed and random minutes in a graveyard and then you're really confused. These scenes continue throughout the rest of the movie with no real tie ins or significance until the movie gets back on track. Ratso gets increasingly sicker and Joe decides to fulfill Ratso's life long dream and takes him to Florida after robbing a "John" and through a series of unfortunate events, this "film" comes to a conclusion.
Seriously, I don't get what the rave is all about. The camera shooting styles are childish and hokey, the music score is just awful (how many times can you listen to "Everybody's Talkin' in a row before it loses the little to no sense it made in the first place? watch this movie and find out), the plot is jumpy and not enjoyable to even try to follow. Very little was worthwhile in this movie. That being said, the setting was pretty sweet. They did an excellent job of showing the squalor side of NYC but also the glitzy side. Throw in a memorable acting performance by Dustin Hoffman (really, he did an excellent and convincing job) and you have a couple of legitimate factors. Then turn back to the terrible acting by everyone else (no one was a genuine or believable character) and the lacking story line and were back to a lower end film again.
However, I did enjoy one particular aspect of this film; even though it probably wasn't what was supposed to be enjoyed and this is probably just the cynical me coming out. Most movies have a sense of hope, positive forces, or "everything will all work out in the end" attitude. And I LOVED that this movie didn't. This movie showed some realistic nature in this aspect in that, you know what, things DON'T always work out in the end and life isn't all rainbows and sprinkles. There is a dirty and grimy underbelly to society and the world we live in and it get's ignored all too often. Both of the main characters had a dream that they clung to throughout the movie and in the end, they just had to accept that dreams don't always come true. While this is contradictory to what Disney and rom-coms has taught us in films, I think this is a very important lesson. They say "reach for the moon and even if you fail you might land on a star" (or some cheesy cliche like that) but whatever happened to just being happy with what you've got? I'm not saying not to follow your dreams, but sometimes you gotta know when to cut one loose and just accept that your life may not be ideal, but it's the one you got so why not make the most of it. Why reach for the moon when the world is right out your front door? Joe learned this the hard way and did everything against his nature to try and live his dream (including having gay sex and selling his most prized possession for $5 bucks in pawn shop). Bad things happen to bad and good people alike and the world is far from a perfect place. But in watching this movie, it helped remind me that this fact is not a sad one, but almost a hopeful one. Because a life without disappointment, failure, and misery is a world that I just don't think would be worth living in. If you're never satisfied and always reaching for more, how can you appreciate the things you do have? And I like to think that Joe Buck and Ratso would agree with me on this...
Overall, I'm gonna give this movie a 3 out of 10. I didn't like it almost entirely, save for Dustin Hoffman and the weird message I got out of it. But then again, maybe I'm overly critical or lack the scope and perspective of the brilliant minds of critics in the world. But hey, that's what I started this for in the first place; they can't ALL be right... So, while I'm proud to have been a Midnight Cowboy, the relation to the film is just as disappointing as the film itself. C'est la vie... Until next time folks, happy viewing.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Zombies!!! in the snow!!!!
Welcome back readers. First, an apology for my apparent slackerocity kicking in and me not keeping up on this like I intended. I'll do my best to get back into the swing of things. And to start things off, I'm going with a movie recommended to me by my favorite muppet and in one of my favorite genres, horror. I've always said that horror movies make the best comedies, and if you take the time to watch this film, you'll get where I'm coming from.
This time, I watched "Dead Snow", a Swedish film (don't run yet just cause it's foreign) directed by Tommy Wirkola. This film is your basic horror/zombie experience. A group of students go off on vacation by themselves into the wilderness. They shack up in a cabin in the mountains and start having their vacation debauchery; drinking, sex, etc. Stop me if you've heard this before.... (but don't really). One of the characters sees someone place a box full of gold into the shack and then disappears. He fears that his girlfriend, who hasn't shown up yet, is in danger and goes off to find her. And this dear readers, is where the fun (and some more of the predictability) starts. This film has almost everything you'd expect from your classic horror film; girls go off into the unknown by themselves to examine strange noises, people saying "I'll be right back", even the creepy old local who arrives randomly and who's only point in the movie is to explain the frightening history of the area before getting killed off. In fact, the only thing it leaves out is the gratuitous nudity. In this way, the movie makes you wonder if you've just settled in for another knock off of every other zombie movie. And then BAM! Nazis.
Wait, what? That's right, I said it. What's scarier than a zombie movie? Nazi zombies. Throw in being stranded in a remote mountain location and we've got a horror film folks. What the crazy local reveals is that the area they are in was actually near a village where, during WW II, Nazis holed up and tortured the locals until being driven into the mountains. Just a creepy old guys tale... until one of them falls through a hole and into a tunnel system full of Nazi paraphernalia. That and all the dead guys in soldier uniforms going around killing folks. You can pretty much guess how the movie plays out from here; people running around screaming and fending for themselves, zombie attacks every 3 minutes, no way out. Classic. Not so classic? The graphic and gruesome nature. Seriously, you expect blood and guts, but this movie puts emphasis on blood and guts. You haven't lived until you've seen Nazis zombies literally rip a guy into pieces, or a man rappelling down a cliff side while holding on to a zombie's intestines. That's just good, quality writing right there.
This movie also does some nice throwbacks/tributes to other zombie movies. Several scenes are shot in the cut away fashion of "Shaun of the Dead" and "Evil Dead 2" (both quality films, Evil Dead 2 being one of the best horror movies ever). And apparently Tommy thought so too because he added more throw backs to the film; the raiding of a shed for weapons and finding a chainsaw while maintaining the quick cutaway shots, even a guy amputating his own arm after being bitten.
The film did a back and forth job with both the lighting and the music. Throughout a lot of the movie, a dark and ominous tone was set by the use of shadows and dim colors. This was followed by a cheesy sort of look with all the brightness and whiteness that I didn't much care for (side note, frozen blood in snow looks awesome). Also, the music did a great job in several parts with some eerie tunes, but then followed up with random rock songs. A bit of opinion here... : I hate that horror movies have shied away from the solid idea that 'less is more'. In the classics, the music is pretty much just tones and notes by instruments and this provides an incredibly creepy feel to the movie (think Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc.) I don't know when horror movies decided to try and scare you with whatever loud popular rock music is available, but it ain't workin.
This movie had a lot of pros, but some pretty glaring and annoying cons. The only sex scene in the movie involved WAY too much poop (a sentence I never thought I'd write). There are a lot of mistakes made by the hikers that are just silly (ie: miss-throwing a Maltov cocktail and burning down your own shelter). People appear and disappear at random places in random times. They initially state that there's no cell phone service (duh), but then brilliant hiker #3 decides to try anyways and gets a hold of some emergency line in the last 20 minutes only to have his phone die. Lame. And then the the main character rolls up on his snowmobile in which he magically found and attached a machine gun to? Lamer. Most annoyingly is the guy who is built up throughout the movie as this lame med student who faints at the sight of blood (and they address this multiple times). He apparently forgets all this, even when bucket upon bucket of blood is dumped on him and just keeps on truckin and killin. I thought it'd be funny to bring that back and was disappointed it wasn't.
But don't get me wrong. This movie excelled in a lot of areas. They got very creative with their techniques for killing zombies. The overall campy feel mixed just right with a contrast of scenes that actually made you jump. Even the ending left me satisfied with everything I had wanted (a rare occurrence). For this reason, I'm giving this movie a 7 out of 10. It's not the best zombie movie I've ever seen, but it's a hell of a lot better than a lot of the ones I have. Maybe I'm biased cause I enjoy kitschy horror, but as I hope to have proved with this film, so should you.
So watch, enjoy, laugh, or be scared. But check out this movie. Cause in the end, the moral is that birds ruin everything, and snot saves the day! Special thanks to my pal Chase. Happy viewing. Auf Wiedersehen!
This time, I watched "Dead Snow", a Swedish film (don't run yet just cause it's foreign) directed by Tommy Wirkola. This film is your basic horror/zombie experience. A group of students go off on vacation by themselves into the wilderness. They shack up in a cabin in the mountains and start having their vacation debauchery; drinking, sex, etc. Stop me if you've heard this before.... (but don't really). One of the characters sees someone place a box full of gold into the shack and then disappears. He fears that his girlfriend, who hasn't shown up yet, is in danger and goes off to find her. And this dear readers, is where the fun (and some more of the predictability) starts. This film has almost everything you'd expect from your classic horror film; girls go off into the unknown by themselves to examine strange noises, people saying "I'll be right back", even the creepy old local who arrives randomly and who's only point in the movie is to explain the frightening history of the area before getting killed off. In fact, the only thing it leaves out is the gratuitous nudity. In this way, the movie makes you wonder if you've just settled in for another knock off of every other zombie movie. And then BAM! Nazis.
Wait, what? That's right, I said it. What's scarier than a zombie movie? Nazi zombies. Throw in being stranded in a remote mountain location and we've got a horror film folks. What the crazy local reveals is that the area they are in was actually near a village where, during WW II, Nazis holed up and tortured the locals until being driven into the mountains. Just a creepy old guys tale... until one of them falls through a hole and into a tunnel system full of Nazi paraphernalia. That and all the dead guys in soldier uniforms going around killing folks. You can pretty much guess how the movie plays out from here; people running around screaming and fending for themselves, zombie attacks every 3 minutes, no way out. Classic. Not so classic? The graphic and gruesome nature. Seriously, you expect blood and guts, but this movie puts emphasis on blood and guts. You haven't lived until you've seen Nazis zombies literally rip a guy into pieces, or a man rappelling down a cliff side while holding on to a zombie's intestines. That's just good, quality writing right there.
This movie also does some nice throwbacks/tributes to other zombie movies. Several scenes are shot in the cut away fashion of "Shaun of the Dead" and "Evil Dead 2" (both quality films, Evil Dead 2 being one of the best horror movies ever). And apparently Tommy thought so too because he added more throw backs to the film; the raiding of a shed for weapons and finding a chainsaw while maintaining the quick cutaway shots, even a guy amputating his own arm after being bitten.
The film did a back and forth job with both the lighting and the music. Throughout a lot of the movie, a dark and ominous tone was set by the use of shadows and dim colors. This was followed by a cheesy sort of look with all the brightness and whiteness that I didn't much care for (side note, frozen blood in snow looks awesome). Also, the music did a great job in several parts with some eerie tunes, but then followed up with random rock songs. A bit of opinion here... : I hate that horror movies have shied away from the solid idea that 'less is more'. In the classics, the music is pretty much just tones and notes by instruments and this provides an incredibly creepy feel to the movie (think Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc.) I don't know when horror movies decided to try and scare you with whatever loud popular rock music is available, but it ain't workin.
This movie had a lot of pros, but some pretty glaring and annoying cons. The only sex scene in the movie involved WAY too much poop (a sentence I never thought I'd write). There are a lot of mistakes made by the hikers that are just silly (ie: miss-throwing a Maltov cocktail and burning down your own shelter). People appear and disappear at random places in random times. They initially state that there's no cell phone service (duh), but then brilliant hiker #3 decides to try anyways and gets a hold of some emergency line in the last 20 minutes only to have his phone die. Lame. And then the the main character rolls up on his snowmobile in which he magically found and attached a machine gun to? Lamer. Most annoyingly is the guy who is built up throughout the movie as this lame med student who faints at the sight of blood (and they address this multiple times). He apparently forgets all this, even when bucket upon bucket of blood is dumped on him and just keeps on truckin and killin. I thought it'd be funny to bring that back and was disappointed it wasn't.
But don't get me wrong. This movie excelled in a lot of areas. They got very creative with their techniques for killing zombies. The overall campy feel mixed just right with a contrast of scenes that actually made you jump. Even the ending left me satisfied with everything I had wanted (a rare occurrence). For this reason, I'm giving this movie a 7 out of 10. It's not the best zombie movie I've ever seen, but it's a hell of a lot better than a lot of the ones I have. Maybe I'm biased cause I enjoy kitschy horror, but as I hope to have proved with this film, so should you.
So watch, enjoy, laugh, or be scared. But check out this movie. Cause in the end, the moral is that birds ruin everything, and snot saves the day! Special thanks to my pal Chase. Happy viewing. Auf Wiedersehen!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Passion (or lack thereof) Play
Welcome back readers. Sadly, our next venture into the realm of cinema is not as exciting as hoped.... For my next review, I watched "Passion Play", a film written and directed by Mitch Glazer in 2010 and starring Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, and Bill Murray (a seemingly interesting cast within itself).
This movie tells the story of down-and-out trumpet player Nate Poole (Rourke) who gets himself in trouble with Happy Shannon (Murray) who is a ruthless, unemotional gangster type. When Happy orders Nate to be killed, Nate, by pure freakin luck in the weirdest way possible, manages to not get executed. He stumbles through the desert where he comes across a travelling freak show and meets Lily Luster (Fox), an ostensible angel of sorts who has giant bird wings (in one of the worst CGI effects I've seen since the 80's). She decides to run away with him (after knowing him for a whopping 5 minutes and trying to throw him out for 3 of those) and he makes a deal with Happy; his life for hers. He ends up regretting the decision (shocker, I know) and sets out to win back the girl of his dreams.
This movie is, from start to finish, one big discombobulated mess. There is no explanation of the setting (you think Mexico, but no one speaks Spanish) or of the time (you're left to assume present day but who really knows). The movie jumps from scene to scene without explaining the current (or previous) one before moving on. Random characters are introduced along the way, but they have no real relevance and often times don't even have names. As previously stated, I often end up disliking endings, but this one was just terrible. It looped back to the original scene, but made no sense in any way and struck me as a desperate attempt to add a little extra pizzazz, but there was nothing exciting to build off of. I won't tell you the ending, but don't hope for much....
Every movie I've seen has a love interest. Literally. Every one. It doesn't always have to be between people; sometimes animals, creatures or things are the object of one's affection (think "The Red Balloon" or "Citizen Kane" or "Monsters Inc." However, they always exist in one form or another. Sadly, sometimes that flame of... let's say Passion...isn't always that great. This movie lacked in chemistry between the characters to a new level of lackosity. The only REAL romantic chemistry in the film takes place in the last 10 minutes or so, and even then, is just viewed as a desperate attempt. That is unless you count the incredibly awkward sex scene in the middle of the film. And trust me, I don't. The idea of Megan Fox and Mickey Rourke having sex is just unappealing, but then you add in her wings and the eroticism they try to play into that, and you my friend have just put me (and the viewers) at a new stage of awkward uncomfortableness.
Two things a movie needs in order to be successful; a solid plot and strong character development. Again, this film flopped on both accounts. As stated above, it jumps from scene to scene without much explanation and random events happen that seemingly have no place nor justification for happening. When Nate sells his trumpet for some money and drugs, you think, "WTF mate?" and then he keeps the mouth piece and you see him play a trumpet later on and you just give up. As for character development.... I got nothing. You get about 13 seconds of background for the two main characters (Nate and Lily) and then almost a whole 2 minutes of Happy explaining the origin of his nickname (Whoopee!). Seriously, you couldn't be less connected to the characters in this movie if you watched it on mute... And none of the characters are acted out well (when Megan Fox has the most on-screen presence, you know you're doomed). Happy Shannon comes across as a really interesting character (Bill Murray as a gangster? C'mon people, that's just good old fashioned entertainment there) except there's a problem; he's borderline insignificant throughout the film, which disappoints to say the least.
Overall, I'm gonna rate this movie a 2.5 out of 10. There were some interesting parts, but really, unless you're bored and have seen everything else available, don't waste your time... The whole movie is a befuddling piece from start to finish with little bits of enjoyment here and there. When Nate (Rourke) says in the film, "Since when does normal win a goddamned prize?", I loved the line. But in actuality, a little bit of normalcy would've saved this film...
Until next time, happy viewing.
This movie tells the story of down-and-out trumpet player Nate Poole (Rourke) who gets himself in trouble with Happy Shannon (Murray) who is a ruthless, unemotional gangster type. When Happy orders Nate to be killed, Nate, by pure freakin luck in the weirdest way possible, manages to not get executed. He stumbles through the desert where he comes across a travelling freak show and meets Lily Luster (Fox), an ostensible angel of sorts who has giant bird wings (in one of the worst CGI effects I've seen since the 80's). She decides to run away with him (after knowing him for a whopping 5 minutes and trying to throw him out for 3 of those) and he makes a deal with Happy; his life for hers. He ends up regretting the decision (shocker, I know) and sets out to win back the girl of his dreams.
This movie is, from start to finish, one big discombobulated mess. There is no explanation of the setting (you think Mexico, but no one speaks Spanish) or of the time (you're left to assume present day but who really knows). The movie jumps from scene to scene without explaining the current (or previous) one before moving on. Random characters are introduced along the way, but they have no real relevance and often times don't even have names. As previously stated, I often end up disliking endings, but this one was just terrible. It looped back to the original scene, but made no sense in any way and struck me as a desperate attempt to add a little extra pizzazz, but there was nothing exciting to build off of. I won't tell you the ending, but don't hope for much....
Every movie I've seen has a love interest. Literally. Every one. It doesn't always have to be between people; sometimes animals, creatures or things are the object of one's affection (think "The Red Balloon" or "Citizen Kane" or "Monsters Inc." However, they always exist in one form or another. Sadly, sometimes that flame of... let's say Passion...isn't always that great. This movie lacked in chemistry between the characters to a new level of lackosity. The only REAL romantic chemistry in the film takes place in the last 10 minutes or so, and even then, is just viewed as a desperate attempt. That is unless you count the incredibly awkward sex scene in the middle of the film. And trust me, I don't. The idea of Megan Fox and Mickey Rourke having sex is just unappealing, but then you add in her wings and the eroticism they try to play into that, and you my friend have just put me (and the viewers) at a new stage of awkward uncomfortableness.
Two things a movie needs in order to be successful; a solid plot and strong character development. Again, this film flopped on both accounts. As stated above, it jumps from scene to scene without much explanation and random events happen that seemingly have no place nor justification for happening. When Nate sells his trumpet for some money and drugs, you think, "WTF mate?" and then he keeps the mouth piece and you see him play a trumpet later on and you just give up. As for character development.... I got nothing. You get about 13 seconds of background for the two main characters (Nate and Lily) and then almost a whole 2 minutes of Happy explaining the origin of his nickname (Whoopee!). Seriously, you couldn't be less connected to the characters in this movie if you watched it on mute... And none of the characters are acted out well (when Megan Fox has the most on-screen presence, you know you're doomed). Happy Shannon comes across as a really interesting character (Bill Murray as a gangster? C'mon people, that's just good old fashioned entertainment there) except there's a problem; he's borderline insignificant throughout the film, which disappoints to say the least.
Overall, I'm gonna rate this movie a 2.5 out of 10. There were some interesting parts, but really, unless you're bored and have seen everything else available, don't waste your time... The whole movie is a befuddling piece from start to finish with little bits of enjoyment here and there. When Nate (Rourke) says in the film, "Since when does normal win a goddamned prize?", I loved the line. But in actuality, a little bit of normalcy would've saved this film...
Until next time, happy viewing.
Friday, August 26, 2011
First movie blog
Well it took me a while, but I finally sat down and took the time to write one of these out. It took me a long time to decide where to start for my first official blog; should I do a movie I've seen countless times or a new flick? In the end, I chose a movie that I have seen, but only once before. I've said it before (and I'll say it again) a movie is always better the second time around. And we all gotta start somewhere so here we go...
First, let me start by reminding you that this blog is simply my opinion on a particular film. I'm gonna take a movie I watched, break it down by describing the movie and pointing out specific topics that I feel helped make the movie. Now, I will be providing information about the movie but I will do my best to keep it from ruining the film for you (Zeus knows I hate a spoiler) because in actuality, my goal is to convince you to watch this film and tell me what you think of it and my review so why ruin it before you get the chance to tell me I'm a genius or a moron? So, here goes...
I started with a recent film that was made in 2009 and is entitled "Mary and Max". This is a claymation film (something I'm not typically a giant fan of) "made" in Australia and is written, designed, and directed by Adam Elliot. It tells the story (that is based on a true story) of a young girl and the friendship she develops with a middle aged man. Mary Dinkle is a 8 year old girl who lives in Australia and is a classic example of sad girl. She has no friends, her peers make fun of her, she has no self esteem, and her parents are alcoholics who have no time for her (and tell her she's an accident). While at the post office with her mother she goes through a U.S. phone book and decides to write someone to ask them where babies come from (because babies in Australia are found in the bottom of the daddy's beer glass) and to hopefully make a new friend. Enter Max Horovitz, who is the least likely of pen pals imaginable. Max is a incredibly obese 44 year old atheist who lives in New York City and suffers from mental illness (Asperger's disease) and whose life revolves around eating chocolate hot dogs and attending his Overeaters Anonymous group. He also is friendless, save for Mr. Ravioli who is imaginary and does nothing but read self help books. While these two may seem to be completely opposite, their friendship begins with an interest and shared enjoyment of a TV show but ends up spanning a 20 year timeline and develops into an incredible friendship. All the while they help each other with everything from life's big questions ("How do I stop people teasing me?" or "Do you have suggestions on losing weight?") to life's other big questions ("Have you ever been attacked by birds?", "What are your favorite sounding words" and "Do sheeps shrink in the rain"). They have some rocky starts and ups and downs through the relationship due to Max being triggered by Mary's letters and suffering anxiety attacks. And later, when Mary decides to go to the University to study "disorders of the mind" in an attempt to cure her friend, he feels used and betrayed and the friendship almost ends completely. However, this film is a true demonstration of friendship and that while personal differences and time zones may separate us, few things in this world are greater than understanding and true friendship.
Several things make this movie what it is, a solid movie all around. Although this movie is almost entirely narrated (in fact the only speaking by the main characters is when they are reading their letters as they write them) the characters still take form and have a way of keeping you interested in wanting to relate to them; something I feel really speaks for them since they rarely talk. As a viewer, you are able to get a really good understanding of the characters and it's primarily done through letters. The same is done for the side characters (Mary's mother, father, and neighbor and Max's neighbor and therapist). Character development is one of the BIGGEST things in creating a quality film and "Mary and Max" does not disappoint in that department.
Aside from the characters, the biggest thing that overwhelms you as a viewer (although you may not take the time to notice it) is the lighting/color and sound techniques used. Lighting and color are integral parts of film used to show the mood and place emphasis on certain parts, and sound/music does the same thing. This entire movie is dull, neutral colors (with the exception of certain objects portrayed in bright red) and this is done with purpose. Mary, who is depressed, has no self esteem, and has little enjoyment in the world, lives in a world where everything is shades of brown. Max, who lives in a physical world that he feels is dirty and a mental world where everything is simple and rigid, sees the entire world in shades of black and greys. Even when the two imagine meeting, their worlds do not collide and are separated clearly by color. I feel this is pure genius in regards to setting and maintaining a tone throughout the movie, because while there are parts of humor intertwined, don't forget that this is a dark and depressing film. The settings for both characters are run down and dreary (albeit in their respective colors). Sound is used in the same manner for this film. Their is very little music that is played throughout and almost none of it has words, but they still do a great job in setting the scene and allowing you to have a greater grasp on the range of emotions that each character feels at that specific time.
All the technical aspects aside, this movie does something that not everyone is expecting or is prepared to absorb; it teaches you as you go along. Asperger's disease is not something that is quite common to the layman but this movie does a phenomenal job in providing an example but through entertainment and not dictating scientific mumbo jumbo like a pretentious bastard. This movie teaches and provides an accurate portrayal of the disease through Max and his way of thinking. He even takes time in the movie to give his definition of the disease as he explains it to young Mary. He explains that his way of thinking is very literal and logical and he struggles to understand the habits of other people and their facial expressions, and then switches right back to "Have you ever been hang gliding?" and questions like it without skipping a beat. Adam Elliot does a cool thing in this, in that while he kind of throws a bit of dirt in the face of mental health (Max is treated with shock therapy and bottles upon bottles of pills), but he brings to light a topic that is near an dear to some but overlooked by the majority. And he does it in a subtle and entertaining way.
Overall, I have very little complaints about the movie. If you continue to read these posts, you'll learn that I struggle to find an ending I like (seriously, almost all movies have terrible endings....come on people, you know I'm right on this one) but I enjoyed the ending in this movie. The movie itself is entertaining and educational, makes you laugh and makes you cry (Seriously, be prepared. This movie, especially the end, is depressing as all hell), but also leaves you satisfied.
I'm gonna do a rating on a 10 point/star/whatever basis and I feel happy that I picked a movie to start with that I'm going to rate as an 8.5. This movie has everything that people want in a movie, but still has areas where it could be improved. There is no perfect movie everyone (it's a sad fact to admit) but this is closer than most ever achieve. If you have the time and money (Or Netflix, it's on watch instantly), go for it. You won't be disappointed.
First, let me start by reminding you that this blog is simply my opinion on a particular film. I'm gonna take a movie I watched, break it down by describing the movie and pointing out specific topics that I feel helped make the movie. Now, I will be providing information about the movie but I will do my best to keep it from ruining the film for you (Zeus knows I hate a spoiler) because in actuality, my goal is to convince you to watch this film and tell me what you think of it and my review so why ruin it before you get the chance to tell me I'm a genius or a moron? So, here goes...
I started with a recent film that was made in 2009 and is entitled "Mary and Max". This is a claymation film (something I'm not typically a giant fan of) "made" in Australia and is written, designed, and directed by Adam Elliot. It tells the story (that is based on a true story) of a young girl and the friendship she develops with a middle aged man. Mary Dinkle is a 8 year old girl who lives in Australia and is a classic example of sad girl. She has no friends, her peers make fun of her, she has no self esteem, and her parents are alcoholics who have no time for her (and tell her she's an accident). While at the post office with her mother she goes through a U.S. phone book and decides to write someone to ask them where babies come from (because babies in Australia are found in the bottom of the daddy's beer glass) and to hopefully make a new friend. Enter Max Horovitz, who is the least likely of pen pals imaginable. Max is a incredibly obese 44 year old atheist who lives in New York City and suffers from mental illness (Asperger's disease) and whose life revolves around eating chocolate hot dogs and attending his Overeaters Anonymous group. He also is friendless, save for Mr. Ravioli who is imaginary and does nothing but read self help books. While these two may seem to be completely opposite, their friendship begins with an interest and shared enjoyment of a TV show but ends up spanning a 20 year timeline and develops into an incredible friendship. All the while they help each other with everything from life's big questions ("How do I stop people teasing me?" or "Do you have suggestions on losing weight?") to life's other big questions ("Have you ever been attacked by birds?", "What are your favorite sounding words" and "Do sheeps shrink in the rain"). They have some rocky starts and ups and downs through the relationship due to Max being triggered by Mary's letters and suffering anxiety attacks. And later, when Mary decides to go to the University to study "disorders of the mind" in an attempt to cure her friend, he feels used and betrayed and the friendship almost ends completely. However, this film is a true demonstration of friendship and that while personal differences and time zones may separate us, few things in this world are greater than understanding and true friendship.
Several things make this movie what it is, a solid movie all around. Although this movie is almost entirely narrated (in fact the only speaking by the main characters is when they are reading their letters as they write them) the characters still take form and have a way of keeping you interested in wanting to relate to them; something I feel really speaks for them since they rarely talk. As a viewer, you are able to get a really good understanding of the characters and it's primarily done through letters. The same is done for the side characters (Mary's mother, father, and neighbor and Max's neighbor and therapist). Character development is one of the BIGGEST things in creating a quality film and "Mary and Max" does not disappoint in that department.
Aside from the characters, the biggest thing that overwhelms you as a viewer (although you may not take the time to notice it) is the lighting/color and sound techniques used. Lighting and color are integral parts of film used to show the mood and place emphasis on certain parts, and sound/music does the same thing. This entire movie is dull, neutral colors (with the exception of certain objects portrayed in bright red) and this is done with purpose. Mary, who is depressed, has no self esteem, and has little enjoyment in the world, lives in a world where everything is shades of brown. Max, who lives in a physical world that he feels is dirty and a mental world where everything is simple and rigid, sees the entire world in shades of black and greys. Even when the two imagine meeting, their worlds do not collide and are separated clearly by color. I feel this is pure genius in regards to setting and maintaining a tone throughout the movie, because while there are parts of humor intertwined, don't forget that this is a dark and depressing film. The settings for both characters are run down and dreary (albeit in their respective colors). Sound is used in the same manner for this film. Their is very little music that is played throughout and almost none of it has words, but they still do a great job in setting the scene and allowing you to have a greater grasp on the range of emotions that each character feels at that specific time.
All the technical aspects aside, this movie does something that not everyone is expecting or is prepared to absorb; it teaches you as you go along. Asperger's disease is not something that is quite common to the layman but this movie does a phenomenal job in providing an example but through entertainment and not dictating scientific mumbo jumbo like a pretentious bastard. This movie teaches and provides an accurate portrayal of the disease through Max and his way of thinking. He even takes time in the movie to give his definition of the disease as he explains it to young Mary. He explains that his way of thinking is very literal and logical and he struggles to understand the habits of other people and their facial expressions, and then switches right back to "Have you ever been hang gliding?" and questions like it without skipping a beat. Adam Elliot does a cool thing in this, in that while he kind of throws a bit of dirt in the face of mental health (Max is treated with shock therapy and bottles upon bottles of pills), but he brings to light a topic that is near an dear to some but overlooked by the majority. And he does it in a subtle and entertaining way.
Overall, I have very little complaints about the movie. If you continue to read these posts, you'll learn that I struggle to find an ending I like (seriously, almost all movies have terrible endings....come on people, you know I'm right on this one) but I enjoyed the ending in this movie. The movie itself is entertaining and educational, makes you laugh and makes you cry (Seriously, be prepared. This movie, especially the end, is depressing as all hell), but also leaves you satisfied.
I'm gonna do a rating on a 10 point/star/whatever basis and I feel happy that I picked a movie to start with that I'm going to rate as an 8.5. This movie has everything that people want in a movie, but still has areas where it could be improved. There is no perfect movie everyone (it's a sad fact to admit) but this is closer than most ever achieve. If you have the time and money (Or Netflix, it's on watch instantly), go for it. You won't be disappointed.
Monday, August 22, 2011
My "premiere" post
Hello fellow movie viewers,
I'm a guy who likes to watch movies. And lots of them. I've been watching movies ever since I had a memory and haven't stopped since: from kids classics and Disney films with my family to developing my own tastes; from "Movie Fests" in my basement to raiding the cheap movie bins in video stores. I like to watch any and all types of films; there's nothing I haven't been willing to give the old college try. I've taken film studies classes in college and it only further spurred my enjoyment of the cinematic experience. I've spent a lot of time trying to share my love of movies with those around me; giving recommendations to anyone who wanted them (and some who didn't) and debating what makes a movie good with anyone who listened (and some who tried not to).
It is as a result of all of these people (the willing listeners and those I annoyed) that I decided to create a blog and share my opinions with the world around me. My hope is that not only will I be able to express my views on a film, but also that others will feel free to express theirs as well. I want an open debate and welcome all (appropriate) comments.
Now, I'm not a "Top 10" list kind of guy, nor am I gonna ram my opinions down your gullet. I'm simply gonna watch a movie, try to break it down, and express my views on it with the hopes of hearing others as well. I have several things that I feel make a solid movie, and will discuss everything from acting and characters to lighting and filming techniques. If you want to agree with me, awesome and I'll consider my ego stroked. If you want to tell me I'm a moron and don't know a blockbuster hit from your crazy uncle's home video, feel free. But reader beware (and warn your mothers) because I'll watch all types of movies and I calls em' like I sees em'. If you have any movies you want my opinion on, feel free to request. If I've seen it, I'll critique it and if not, I'll watch it.
Movies are my passion and my primary source of entertainment. I'm gonna take this seriously so I hope you will too. Let's make the most out of this; I'll try and teach you something, and hopefully I'll learn a little in the process as well.
Now ladies and gentlemen, without further adieu, I'd like to present to you..... Payton's POV. (that's me)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)