People like myself have been waiting for this movie since before The Fellowship of the Ring came out. It has been more than 10 years since they first announced they were going to make the trilogy, and everyone questioned if they would make its predecessor as well.
It took awhile but they did.
The Hobbit, for those of you that don't know, tells the story of Bilbo Baggins adventure while he tries to help a band of dwarves to reclaim their mountain from a Dragon named Smaug. This film, much like The Lord of the Rings is long. But unlike other reviewers, I don't believe it to be unnecessary "fluff". I feel as though each scene adds something to the movie story and moves it forward.
The acting, writing, and directing are all what you would expect from a Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson film. And it will leave you on the edge of your seat without making you depressed like the end of The Fellowship of the Rings. It's much more light hearted, in a good way.
While not as ground breaking or amazing as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit is a great beginning to three part prequel to the series, and leaves me excited for the next one. To bad I have to wait a year... I hope the Mayans are wrong.
My Grade: A-
ATTENTION! I WILL BE RELEASING THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE MIKEY AWARDS JANUARY 10th COINCIDING WITH THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS! I WILL POST THE WINNER ON FEBRUARY 24 DURING THE OSCARS!
It is no secret to my friends that Alfred Hitchcock is in my top 3 favorite people of all time. So I was especially excited for this movie when I first heard about it from my Friend Kevin Bridge. At least I think it was him.
So when I found out it was playing in Philly, which is a good 50 minute drive from my house, I didn't think twice before I made a day out of it with my friends. Funnily enough, it came out in the theatre 2 miles from my house 5 days later.
Either way, Hitchcock did not disappoint.
Anthony Hopkins, in a very convincing fat suit, portrays the infamous mastermind behind Rear Window, Rope, The Birds, Vertigo, North By Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Strangers on a Train, and of course Psycho. Hitchcock tells the behind-the-scenes story of the making of Psycho and the strain it put on his marriage to Alma Reville, played by Helen Mirren.
It delves deep into his psyche as he struggle with his obsession of not fading into irrelevance. As well as his jealousy towards his wife and her writing partner and his fantasy with his "Hitchcock Blondes".
Through all of this, he must independently finance and film his movie having 100% absolute creative control.
Some movies that I love, I can understand why someone else wouldn't like it. But not this. I don't normally say this about other peoples opinions, but on Rotten Tomatoes, this film has a 66%. The 34% that didn't like this movie need to be slapped in the face with a 2x4 with a nail in it. This movie, being nothing more than drama, had suspense that would make the Master of Suspense himself proud.
The acting, writing and directing (By the director of documentaries, no less) all prove to be in the top tier of 2012. With a perfect mixture of drama, suspense and comedy, Hitchcock proves to be one of the best movies of the year. Anyone who disagrees is just plain silly!
My Grade: A+
ATTENTION! I WILL BE RELEASING THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE MIKEY AWARDS JANUARY 10th COINCIDING WITH THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS! I WILL POST THE WINNER ON FEBRUARY 24 DURING THE OSCARS!
WARNING: Being from the Philadelphia Area, I have a small sense of obligation to like anything that has anything to do with Philly. So I may be a bit biased to this movie.
That being said, Silver Linings Playbook is a FANTASTIC movie.
Having just been released from a Mental institution, where he spent some time after an episode where he found his wife cheating on him, Pat (Bradley Cooper, Philly Native, you're welcome) finds himself back at his parents house trying to win the heart of his estranged wife back. He tries to better himself by working out and controlling his temper. Doing so, he meets a woman who also has had some issues since the death of her husband. The two agree to help each other out. She will give a note to his wife, who has a restraining order against him and he will be her partner in a dance competition.
Taking place in 2008, a rare great time for Philly sports, (Phillies 2008 World Series Champions!) Pat also bonds with his family over Philadelphia Eagles games. And the mention stuff about Philadelphia and such. And Cheesesteaks... did I mention Philadelphia? Sorry, it's rare that movies not by M. Night Shyamalan even mention Philly.
In all seriousness, Silve Lining Playbook is a warm hearted comedy that points out the humor in the flaws that make us all human. And really hits on the importance of family and friends, which everyone could appreciate. It is backed up by superb acting by all, including the greatly missed Chris Tucker! I missed him!
The only thing that would have made this movie better is if they mention the Philadelphia Flyers... This NHL lockout is driving me crazy! I NEED MY FIX! ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PHILLIES SUCKED THIS SEASON AND THE EAGLES SUCK RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
Ahem....
My Grade: A-
ATTENTION! I WILL BE RELEASING THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE MIKEY AWARDS JANUARY 10th COINCIDING WITH THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS! I WILL POST THE WINNER ON FEBRUARY 24 DURING THE OSCARS!
I had such high hopes going into this movie. Brad Pitt starring and Andrew Dominik directing. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is my favorite movie and has been since I saw it in 2007. (If that seems random, Brad Pitt Starred in that and Andrew Dominik directed). But this movie just didn't meet my expectations.
With undertones of the Recession being shoved in your face at every scene and nothing really quite flowing, Killing Them Softly is about greed and the effect the recession has on Mob bosses and their employees. Interesting concept, but it comes off as everyone just being a whiny little bitch (excuse my French).
When three nobodies rob a mob controlled game and frame one of the card sharks for it, The mob bosses bring in an enforcer, played by Brad Pitt, to control the situation. And he does. But the entire time, everyone is just complaining about the recession and how it has affected times. But they're mob bosses in a non-Martin Scorsese gangster movie, so you don't care about them.
This is another case of a movie trying to be something that it's not. It couldn't decide what it wanted to be. It wanted to be a gangster movie but also have a deeper meaning, while also pointing out how bad President Bush was (We get it. He's the reason your life sucks, now move on!).
If this film had just been a gangster movie about a hit man hired to take out the idiots that knocked over the card game, it could have been great! But that wasn't enough.
This movie wasn't completely bad, though. It had great acting by everyone involved, and very good cinematography. Although, the writing and story left something to be desired.
My Grade: C
But, as always, form your own opinion. You may enjoy this movie more than I did.
ATTENTION! I WILL BE RELEASING THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE MIKEY AWARDS JANUARY 10th COINCIDING WITH THE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS! I WILL POST THE WINNER ON FEBRUARY 24 DURING THE OSCARS!
Tom Hanks had it easy in Cast Away. He just had to open coconuts with an ice skate and fish with a hand made spear. Pi had to share a life boat with a tiger.
Life of Pi is the story of a man who is shipwrecked in the middle of the Pacific and loses his entire family. He finds himself on a life boat with a tiger.
Funny thing about tigers. They like to eat. A lot.
Pi must learn to survive with the tiger, rationing his food while also feeding the tiger which is the connection he still has with his dead family. Through the struggles of living on a 12 foot boat with a tiger, Pi finds that behind the instinct to kill for food, predators as well as all other animals have souls.
This movie is hard for me to write about. While I did enjoy it, nothing really stood out to me. Suraj Sharma was pretty good in his silver-screen debut, but not incredible. The special effects were good, but not great. The writing was solid, but not outstanding.
The story, however, is compelling and moving enough to keep you watching and keep you from staring at your phone. Which is the main goal of any movie.
Irrfan Khan, however, surprised me in his relatively small role. His role was more emotional from the other characters I have seen him portray. He usually plays a man in a suit. At least in the English films he's been in. I haven't seen any of his Indian films.
I'm not a fan of the Bond series. I don't dislike them, but I don't claim to be a fan. So I don't know if Skyfall is a good Bond movie. But it is a damn good movie by itself.
After a mission goes awry that leave M and the rest of MI6 believing Bond is dead, and the names of several agents in the hands of a cyber terrorist, 007 must come back from his retirement to help MI6 find the man responsible. Bond-esque chaos ensues.
Directed by Sam Mendes, who has directed everything but action movies, Skyfall has one of the best villains of not just any Bond film, but of any film. Javier Bardem steals the spot light, in my opinion, as the flamboyant and eccentric villain out for vengeance against M.
Playing a completely different kind of evil from his evil character in No Country For Old Men for which he won the Oscar, I believe his performance will bring the first Oscar consideration for acting in a Bond Film. And along with that, I believe Daniel Craig might receive some consideration as well, although I think it is less likely.
Skyfall is a fun, action packed movie with great cinematography thanks to the GREAT AND POWERFUL ROGER DEAKINS.
Steven Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, John Hawkes, James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, Jarred Harris, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Music by John Williams.
Do I need to give you any other reason to see this damn movie?
Depicting Lincoln and his cabinet and the House of Representatives in January 1865 as they proposed, discussed and voted on whether or not they should adopt the 13th Amendment. The writing in this film is so eloquent that it makes me hate hippies and whoever invented rap music, television, MTV Cribs and the internet for dumbing down the English Language. Seriously, listen to any speech given by FDR, Churchill or Eisenhower during World War II and then compare it to a speech by Obama, Clinton or either Bush and you'll realize how much art the English language has lost.
I personally blame 16 and Pregnant, but I digress.
Everything in Lincoln is up to par with Spielberg's reputation. I am slightly biased, seeing as how President Lincoln is my historical hero, but I believe this movie is Spielberg's best to date. Better than Jaws. Better than Saving Private Ryan. Better than Jurassic Park. Not only does it tell a great story, but it is also humorous for those who don't care for the historical aspect of it.
As per the usual, Daniel Day-Lewis gives an Oscar worthy performance and is damn near unrecognizable as America's 16th President. When the trailer was released for this movie only but a short 3 months ago, all other Best-Actor hopefuls groan in disbelief.
As of now, I believe this is the best movie of the year. Can any of the releases in the next month change that? Or could I possibly see a better movie released sometime this year that has fallen through my radar?
There are some roles that I can imagine are very difficult to portray for actors. Roles that require the character to be mentally or physically disabled are among them. For mentally impaired characters, you don't want to, pardon the reference to Tropic Thunder, go "full retard". If the actor does not have a mental disability, then doing so could seem comedic to some. Playing a blind character, you have to pretty much turn your eyes off and playing a character with any other physical disability, you have to not use the limbs that are affected.
In The Sessions, John Hawkes transforms himself into a man with a severe case of polio that has deteriorated the muscles throughout his body, taking away expressions through body language.
Based on a true story, John Hawkes plays Mark O'Brien, a writer who is confined to a guerny. Mark us asked to write a column on the sex lives of people with physical disabilities. Never having experienced sex himself, Mark hires a sex therapist to whom he loses his virginity. But, being a poet, Mark finds it difficult to separate romance from the sessions with his therapist and finds himself falling in love with her.
John Hawkes gives the performance of his career thus far in this heart warming and inspiring movie about a man wanting nothing but a sense of normalcy. Although I doubt it will get much publicity this coming award season, I feel it deserves many nods for its superb acting.
This is my favorite time of year for movies. From the months of September to the end of December is THE best time for movies. That's not opinion either. That is a statistical fact. And there are a few reasons for that.
To begin, let me tell you about how studios decide when to release a movie. These are patterns that I noticed after spending the past 7 years working for a movie theatre. And if you look back at recent years and see what was released on any given weekend, you'll notice the pattern as well.
January:
January is an interesting month. The quality of the movie could go either way here. For one, the cut-off date to be a contender for the Oscars is December 31st. But many Studios find a loop hole by only releasing their films in LA or New York to test the waters so they can more accurately predict how well it will do nationwide. And what a bunch of bastards they are for doing it. I can't tell you how many movies I've wanted to see that I put their "release" date on my calendar only to find out I have to drive an hour or more just to go see it, because I'm impatient.... and a tad bit crazy.
But I digress. In January, you will often see the wide-release of several Oscar contenders, just trying to refresh the Academy's memory of how good they are. Take last years Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Musical Score and Best Costume Design winner, The Artist. It was "released" in the New York Film Festival on October 14th, 2011, and then in the Austin Film Festival on October 25th, 2011. It was finally released to a limited audience on November 23rd, 2011 (Which by the way is the same day this year that Hitchcock will be released.... hopefully wide released). In this case, limited "release" means it was released on 4 screens. As a comparison, my theatre played Twilight on four screens at one time with one reel. And also had it playing on 6 other screens. At that was one theatre.
"Released" In January
January is also notorious (Notorious, the movie about Biggie was released on January 16th, 2009), for releasing action movies that weren't expected to do well competing with the summer blockbusters. Movies like The Green Hornet (2011), Contraband (2012), Legion (2010), and The Book of Eli (2010) would not have fared well with their summertime counter parts. Some barely broke even with no competition. And it's not their fault. January is Oscar time. The time where non-movie buffs see what all of the buzz is about.
February:
February is where movies go to die. Unless your a romantic movie released on Valentines day, or a horrible remake of an old 80s horror movie, you will be lost and forgotten. Studios usually book their unimpressive movies for this month. The reason being that people just don't go see movies in February, except on Valentines Dates. It's right smack dab in the middle of Winter and Spring breaks for all students. Everyone is two busy to see movies in February.
The only exceptional movie I have ever seen in February was Shutter Island (2010). That movie should have been released between September and December and should have contended for the Oscars. But for some reason, the studio did not see it fit to be released in another month. Who knows.
March:
The first or second week (depending on the date the Friday lands on) in March usually houses the years first potential blockbuster. For instance, John Carter (2012), Battle Los Angeles (2011), Alice In Wonderland (2010), and Watchmen (2009) were all released within the first two weeks of March. Despite what other people think, John Carter wasn't the bomb that everyone thought it was. Yes it took a long time to make back it's $250,000,000 budget, but it's world gross as of August 2012 was $282,778,100. So at the very least they made their money back and got some pocket change.
April:
In April, the heat kind of dies down again. Theaters aren't as dead as they are in February, but have varying attendance's from week to week. The excitement of going crazy and getting drunk enough during spring break to spend $11 on a movie ticket has since past, and ordinary life has kicked in. Movies released in this month make decent money, but not the crazy money of Summer blockbusters. April is kind of the Wild Card of Movie Theaters.
May:
If you look at the released for may, it usually is the release date for Marvel Superhero movies. Ever since the first Spiderman. Spider-Man, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3, Ironman, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Ironman 2, Thor, Marvel's The Avengers all were released in May. X-Men wasn't because that was before they tested out the month of May. Sam Raimi did some drugs and released Spider-Man 3 in June, only to be disappointed with a measly $783,766,341. And Captain America: The First Avenger was released in July, probably to coincide with patriotism... or not compete with their own Thor, which is more probable. The hot weekend for May are the first and last weekends of the month.
Pixar also released many of its films in May until they decided June was cooler, for some reason. All four of the Shrek movies were released in May as well as the entire Star Wars Saga.
June and July:
I think everybody knows this one. Blockbusters come out in June and July. How could you not know that? It makes perfect sense. The kiddies are out of school and everyone is taking a vacation at some point during these months. You'd be stupid not to release your best action-packed mindless movies during these months. Transformers, The Dark Knight, some of the Harry Potter series. Movies that were designed to put butts in seats.
August:
The blockbusters bastard children are released in August. But, like April, it can be a bit unpredictable. Movies like G.I. Joe, Total Recall(2012), Spy Kids: All the Time in the World, and what have you can also be released alongside such greats as District 9, The Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Help, and Lawless. It's gotta me something about the letter 'A'... or it's just a coincidence. I'm no doctor.
Now we come to my favorite time of the year. The time where the Oscar contention starts to heat up. From September up through December, great movie after great movie is released. At least the ones I see are great, but I know my taste very well. If you've been reading my blog at all, you might notice that with the exception of one movie, none of them have been given a low grade. The Master, Dredd (Not going to win an Oscar but still very entertaining), Ruby Sparks, Looper, Argo, Seven Psychopaths, The Perks of Being a Wall Flower, Cloud Atlas, Flight and Wreck-it Ralph were all fantastic. Not one of them left me disappointed.
Before the month is over, I want to see Skyfall, Lincoln, Anna Karenina, Hitchcock, Life of Pi, Rise of the Guardians, and Killing Them Softly. And that's just in two weeks! We still have the entire month of December left, and thats when they REALLY start pumping in the good movies.
Oscar season is the best season of them all. Unless you're really silly or don't do much research, it's hard to go see a movie and not enjoy it even a little bit. And then, in February when all the movies make me want to throw up, I can consult the Oscar nominations and see those movies.
Oscars > The Superbowl... and I burn less Queso Dip while watching the Oscars.
Below is the List of movies I want to see for the rest of the year. If you've seen any of these, please tell me what you thought. Everyone is a critic, and that's a good thing. Make your own opinions.
I won't lie to you. Unless it is the old 2D animation, or Pixar is involved, I am skeptical about all animated Disney movies. I don't have any reason to be. the only movie of theirs I though was terrible was Bolt. The rest have been decent. But even with the highly anticipated Wreck-It Ralph, I wasn't anxious to see it. I had little expectations for it.
But there is no greater feeling than when you are proven wrong about a movie you expect to be bad. Arguably, it's even better than a movie you're excited for meeting your expectations.
Essentially telling the fictional untold story of Donkey Kong, Wreck-It Ralph tells the story of Ralph, voiced ever so fittingly by John C. Reilly, an arcade game villain who has been the bad guy for 30 years and ignored by his peers. He is tired of living in the shadows of his "nemesis" Fix-It Felix, voiced Jack McBrayer and wants to be accepted by the other characters in his game. To do so, he "game jumps" in an attempt to win a metal. But this puts his game in jeopardy of being unplugged. So Felix must find Ralph, or Ralph must get his metal before it's to late.
I'm not a huge gamer, but this movie had a bunch of references to games that you don't have to play video games to understand. It is an interesting take on the old adage "the villain is the hero in his own story".
Robert Zemeckis is a great director. He's made such great films as the Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, and Cast Away. So the fact that his past three movies were mediocre to terrible motion capture animations just baffled me. Why would someone who has made such great movies want to make crap? The technology was great, yes. But it was not necessary to make three entire films that way, in my mind. One was enough.
And Beowulf's sound design was terrible. But, Mr. Zemeckis has emerged from the darkness.
In his first live-action film since 2000s Cast Away starring Tom Hanks, Robert Zemeckis explores the world of addiction to the extreme. Flight tells the story of a Commercial Airline pilot by the name of Whip Whitaker, played by Denzel Washington, who is under National scrutiny for having alcohol in his system during a plane crash in which 6 people died on board.
The trailer makes the pilot look much more innocent than he actually is. In the opening scene, not only is Mr. Washington partaking in adult beverages, but he also snorts a line of cocaine. And if that wasn't bad enough, while piloting the aircraft, he makes a mixed beverage of Orange Juice and Vodka. As I said, this film explores addiction to the extreme.
This film is up to par with the rest of Zemeckis' works. It is a great "comeback" that is filled with suspense and comedic relief as well as some truly touching moments. However, for the majority of the movie, I found it extremely hard to feel sympathy for Whip Whitaker. The majority of the time, he is selfish, obnoxious, stubborn and of course, drunk. But that is the point of the movie. You can love anyone's outer personality, but what you really have to get to to get to know a person is get to their inner, darker personality. And that is what will make you love or hate a person. But some people will surprise you even after you think you know them.
I had a teacher in film school (not that it makes he or I experts on the subject) that said you should never star in your directorial debut. Ben Affleck didn't. Robert Redford didn't. Ben Stiller didn't.The list goes on. And there is a good reason for that. Directing takes so much focus that you shouldn't let anything else distract you until you get into the flow of things. Granted, there are a few film gods that are able to handle it, such as Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin and Mel Gibson (Say what you want about his racism and sexism and other -isms, but that man can make a great movie). But mere mortal's usually can't handle it. RZA, of Wu-Tang Clan fame, is no exception to the rule.
The Quentin Tarantino backed movie, The Man With The Iron Fists tells the story of a crime riddled village in China, called Jungle Village. Therein resides a a blacksmith. A freed slave who fled to China and became a buddhist. He does not partake in the crimes of the several surrounding gangs. He does, however, create weapons for them, in order to save enough money to get him and his girlfriend out of Jungle Village. Soon, a gang war wages over the Emperors gold, causing a very Battle Royale-esque situation (Or so I'm told. I have yet to see Battle Royale).
While this movie has everything that I expected it to (sex, violence and bad acting), I still thought that perhaps it would be more. Honestly, this is one of the few situations where if they just said "to hell with it!" and tossed any form of story out the window, it would have been better. But because they tried to make it into something it shouldn't have been, it felt... empty, for lack of a better word.
What it should have been was an hour and a half of nothing but violence. And lot's of it, with some laughs in between. But they tried to add meaning where there wasn't any. There were these two characters in it, called the Gemini's. They were a kung-fu fighting couple. And they had some awesome fights. But they kept throwing in the yin-yang symbol, but the characters did not fit yin and yang. Other than their wardrobe, there was no difference. (For those who don't know, yin-yang is the idea that polar opposites interconnected. Without one, the other cannot exist) Their personalities were the same (at least within the short time they were on screen speaking).
Also, the writing was awkward and felt forced. Some scenes didn't seem to fit and back stories felt forced. And for the exception of Russell Crowe, Byron Mann and one scene with RZA, the acting was terrible. Even Lucy Liu, unfortunately.
Had this movie just been a hip-hop kung-fu movie with extreme violence and some humor, I feel this movie could have been a lot better. Or at least a lot more enjoyable. But, once again, a movie trying to be something it's not (or at least seeming like it) has failed at being anything but a sub par movie.
As always, form your own opinions. Everyone has different taste in movies. Neither I, nor Ben Mankiewicz know better than you.
Reincarnation is a concept that I will never quite understand. I may be missing something, but if you die and are reborn into someone or something else, but have no recollection of who or what you were, and having to completely rebuild your mind and create new memories, then how is that possibly considered being the same being? To be the same being would mean there would have to be some connection with memory, personality or genetics. Right? I'm no Buddha, though, I've been told our bellies share some similarities.
Cloud Atlas is a film by the Wachowski Siblings (Once Brothers) of The Matrix fame, and the director of Run, Lola, Run, Tom Tykwer. Now, if I tried to explain the plot, I would end up sounding like even more of an idiot than I already am, and confuse you to the extent that you would be immediately admitted into a Psych Ward. And since I'm sure Evan Woss will be the only person to read this (If I'm wrong let me know who you are so I feel further encouraged to write these), I think you've been to the hospital enough this year. So here is the synopsis as written on imdb.com.
An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.
Wow, that is so much better than anything I could have written.
The film follows several stories set in several different time periods and each one is connected to the next. One of the great things about this film is the use of the principal actors in more than one character. Tom Hanks plays 6 different characters, as does Halle Berry. And Hugh Grant as a futuristic Cannibal was awesomely terrifying! They all play characters of different races, and some even genders. And although the film takes place in several different times with several different settings, the transitions are flawless. Technologically and visually, this film was fantastic. The settings and special effects were sound. But story wise, I can't help but feel there could have been more.
I must admit, I was a little disappointed with the movie, but that is my own fault. I expected hyped myself up far too much. I'm also still trying to fully comprehend everything. This film is definitely one you will be thinking about for a long while after you see it. Who knows. Maybe a month from now, it will dawn on me. Maybe I just need to see it a few more times to understand everything and make the connections.
We'll see.
My Grade: B
On a slightly related note: James D'Arcy is going to be a great Anthony Perkins! Look it up!
This movie follows a freshman named Charlie, played by Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, The Three Musketeers), starting on his first day of high school. Having just lost his best friend to his suicide, and trying to overcome mental instability, Charlie finds himself with no friends in a new school. He overcomes his shyness to try to make friends, and opens up to Patrick and Sam, a pair of eccentrics who are step-brother and sister. They let Charlie join their circle of friends and welcome him with open arms. They heel him, in away, from his past demons. But as all high schoolers do, they go through some rough times.
Written and Directed by the author of the novel it's based on, this movie is a great story about the troubles of adolescence. And although some parts of the script seemed forced and slightly cheesy at times, most of the film is filled with surprisingly great acting, heartwarming as well as some heartbreaking moments.
Logan Lerman, mostly known for his teenage action roles, is superb in this movie. He overshadows the rest of the more widely known cast including Emma Watson, Paul Rudd, Joan Cusack, Dylan McDermott, and several other. His portrayal of the guy who puts everyone before himself is spot. His performance in this movie is his best by further than I could even explain.
This movie was a pleasant surprise that I am very glad I went to see, despite my initial objections to it. I was so wrong about it in the beginning.
My Grade: A-
What a great couple of weeks for movie-going. I love the fall movie line-ups.
Everyone loves movies about psychopaths. They make for great stories. Psycho, American Psycho, Se7en, every horror movie in the 70s. Martin McDonagh made a movie about Seven of them.
Seven Psychopaths is a dark comedy by filmmaker Martin McDonagh of In Bruges... fame isn't the right word. Underrated...ness. Unfortunately, that great film didn't do as well as it deserved, but it is a fantastic movie. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and do.
Seven Psychopaths is a dark comedy about a screenwriter (played by Colin Farrell) and his two dog-knapping friends (Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken). They find themselves in a pickle when the dog-knappers dog-knap a Shih Tzu of Charlie, a gang boss who is more or less obsessed with his dog.
If there is one thing I believe Martin McDonagh does better than any other writer/director, it's adding intense drama in the middle of a comedy without making it feel like a different film. He did it with In Bruges and he has done it again with this film. He makes you love the characters with their hilarious tendencies which strengthens the emotional connection you feel for them when they are hurting. I've never seen another director do it quite like he does. It's amazing.
Seven Psychopaths is a great movie, but I don't expect everyone to love it. The reason I love it is the roller coaster of emotion that it is, which I could see being extremely annoying to some. But, if I feel anyway about any and all movies, it's that you should always see it to make your own opinion. Don't listen to me or another critic that actually gets paid to write and does it a lot better than me. See it for yourself. Even if you wait until its at Red Box. I mean, if anything see it for Tom Waits with a Bunny. The movies you hate strengthen your appreciation for the movies you love. There is no such thing as time wasted on a movie.
Except Tree of Life.
My Grade (For Seven Psychopaths, not Tree of Life): A
It's been awhile since I've written a review. I've seen some movies since my last post, but haven't had time to write them. These past two weeks I was blessed with seeing 3 great films I would love to tell you about. The first is by sub-par actor turned fantastic director, Ben Affleck. He followed his first two movies (Gone Baby Gone, The Town) with a film that is sure to receive some Oscar nods this coming January. Ladies and Gentlemen... Argo.
Argo takes place in 1979 when Iranian revolutionists invaded the American embassy in Iran, taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. During the revolution, 6 Americans managed to escape the embassy and take refuge in the Canadian Ambassadors house during that time. The CIA soon follows with a plan to evacuate the six with a plan to have them fly out as a Canadian Film crew that has been there on a location scout.
Sounds crazy, but it's all true.
They even created a fake Studio, had a full script, story boards, everything to cover their tracks and get the Diplomats out safely.
In my opinion, one of the hardest things to do is to add suspense to a story most people already know from history. You have to keep people on the edge of their seats when they already know what happens in the end. Ben Affleck, along with a great editor, accomplished that.
This movie will keep your heart beating and muscles tense for nearly the entire first and final act. In the beginning, the seamlessly splice in actual archive footage of the events and match them with their reenactments, and it's almost impossible to tell and creates a feel as if you're watching it on the news for the first time.
I neither hated, nor loved Ben Affleck as an actor. He wasn't good or bad enough to really form an opinion. He was just kind of there. But his first three films as a director are better than most. And each one is better than the last. If this film isn't nominated for at least a Golden Globe, then I don't know how they choose their nominations.
How funny would it be if Joseph Gordon-Levitt was nominated for an Oscar for playing a young Bruce Willis before Bruce Willis got nominated for an Oscar at all?
Granted, I'm sure Bruce Willis doesn't care about Oscars. After all, he is John McClane.
Looper, starring the above mentioned, takes place in the not-so-distant future where time travel has not been invented yet. However, there are hit-men called Loopers, who are employed by people in the future where time travel has been invented, but outlawed. They use the time machines to send people they want dead back into the past to be killed and disposed of. But when a new criminal is running the futuristic world, he starts sending Loopers back and having them killed by their younger selves.
One day a Looper named Joe comes face-to-face with his older self, and hesitates allowing... uh...his older self to.... get away from... his younger self.
Younger Joe's bosses start hunting him to fix the mess, but Joe hides from them while older Joe looks for the new boss who killed his wife and sent him back to kill him as a child.
I have no idea how the hell Rian Johnson, the writer and director of this movie, pitched this or summarized the script. He's a genius for doing so, because I feel stupid just trying to explain it. But this is also why he is a big-time director and I am a guy writing a blog... I'm a failure.
Some of you may remember Rian Johnson from his first feature Brick, also starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. His writing style is unique and with enough chances could become as iconic as any other writer/director. And if you haven't seen Brick yet, do yourself a favor and do.
Anyways, this movie was not anything that I expected. I thought it would be more about the older and younger Bruce Willis characters fighting each other, but it had more to that. That was only a small part of this story. There was also a lot more to the characters than I thought there would be.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt was unrecognizable as a younger Joe. He has Bruce Willis' mannerisms down so well that it wasn't hard to forget who he was and let myself be engulfed in the story.
I should note that Paul Dano, who plays Joe's friend Seth, though he played a small part, was fantastic. Not many actors can take a small part and make it memorable, but that's exactly what Dano did.
Looper is a great sci-fi movie that I'm sure will be remembered for quite some time.
Everyone wants a girlfriend (or boyfriend) that they can control completely. Who could complain about having the girl/boy of your dreams doing anything and everything you desire simply by thinking it?
What if you could do that? How would you use it? I'm sure I don't want to know the details of all your perverted minds. But Ruby Sparks tells the story of a man who can do that, simply by typing it.
Ruby Sparks, directed by the directors of Little Miss Sunshine,tells the story of a writer, Calvin, played by Paul Dano, who found fame when he was 19-years-old, but is now struggling to produce his next book. He is frustrated and alone virtually with no friends other than his older brother.
Calvin starts having dreams where he meets a beautiful girl. He falls in love with his own dream and decides to write about her. The words begin flowing through him as he finishes page after page after page. Until one day he wakes up and fines that the fictitious girl he dreamt of and created has become real. And everything he dreamed about her has come true. But Calvin soon realizes you can't have everything the way you want, even if you created it.
Despite writing exactly what he wants, Ruby, played by Zoe Kazan (who also wrote the screenplay), slowly becomes her own woman. Fearing he is losing her, Calvin attempts to control her even more.
Action movies are kind of a grey area for me. If they take themselves to seriously, I don't tend to like them. When they take themselves to seriously, it feels like they are trying to be something more than the are. Mindless action movies should be just that. Mindless. Which is more fun.
You can turn your brain off for Dredd and still have fun.
In a nuclear radiated future where nearly all land is uninhabitable, there is a Mega-city the stretched from Boston to Washington D.C. In this city, there is chaos. Gangs run the streets. The only justice there is are Judges. They are Judge, Jury and Executioner. Judge Dredd is one of the best. He is given the task of training a Rookie Judge who has psychic abilities.
When they go to investigate a triple homicide at the Peach Trees tower, they are met by a new gang. The Ma-Ma Gang. This gang makes and distributes SLO-MO. A drug that makes the brain feel as though time is traveling at 1% it's normal speed. Mama, the leader of the gang, holds the entire tower hostage promising not to open the 12 steel walls and doors until someone brings the two Judges to her, dead. Judge Dredd and the rookie must fight off the entire block.
This is a remake of the 1995 movie Judge Dredd, starring Sylvester Stallone. I haven't seen that one, but I can't imagine it being better than this. That's right, it is possible for a remake to be better than the original.
This movie is a fun movie, filled with violence and bad one-liners. But the thing that makes this movie good is that it feels like the filmmakers had fun making it. They didn't take themselves to seriously and they didn't want the audience to take it to seriously. How could you take it seriously when the main character has the biggest frown in the world on? I didn't even know it was possible to frown like this!
Dredd will have you smiling through the whole movie. It is great entertainment.
I would like to start off by apologizing for my unannounced hiatus of movie reviews. The past few months I have been extremely busy.
I would like to specifically apologize to my good friend Evan Woss, who has been lost in the world of movies without my opinions published on a blog. Please, forgive me, my dear friend.
I started off this rebirth of my blog going to see a movie I had long anticipated. A film that had captivated me from it's first teaser trailer about 4 or 5 months ago. It was also the return of, in my opinion, a very underrated actor after his "retirement" from acting, which subsequently was confirmed by the actor as a hoax for his film, I'm Still Here. That film was written and directed by the Great filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson. The Master.
The Master follows the post-war life of Naval veteran Freddie Quell, played by Joaquin Phoenix, in his attempt to restart a normal life after seeing the tragedies of war. Along the way, the often inebriated Freddie stumbles onto the ship of Lancaster Dodd, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Lancaster Dodd is the leader (or the Master) of the cult called "The Cause", and he makes it his mission to "cure" Freddie of his life-style and "wake him up" from the lie of life.
Freddie embraces the ideas forced upon him by the Master despite being spoken to as if he were a dog or a child, and becomes an active member in the cult. but soon he begins to question the validity of everything his Master is saying.
I'm not going to lie, I'm not one to act like I understood something that I in fact did not. I won't try to make up some false deeper meaning of a film if I didn't come to realize this on my own or at least learn about it and believe it from someone else. I didn't fully grasp everything going on in this film. Perhaps I had to much on my mind, or perhaps I'm too stupid. But what I can tell you is that I liked this movie a lot!
Complete understanding of this film aside, I thought the acting on everyones part was superb. There were times where I completely forgot that Joaquin Phoenix was Joaquin Phoenix. He submersed himself in his character and let Freddie Quell take over. I loved him. I hate him. I loved him. I pitied him. He abused himself in such a way that I felt his pain. He didn't hold back at all. I would be shocked if he didn't at least get an Oscar nomination for his role, let alone win it.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a perfect opposition to Phoenix. His character was completely in control. He controlled every part of his life. Anytime someone questioned his lies, he made it seem as if he were the victim.
Paul Thomas Anderson, once again, has made a great film. He knows how to tell a story without any dialogue. The first twenty minutes of There Will Be Blood proved that. Lancaster Dodd's whole life is told in one shot because of Anderson's brilliance, just with the subtlety of having his seat in-between his daughter and son-in-law at their wedding showed how self-centered he was. That one shot explained to the audience who he was, and that he only truly cared about himself.
One thing I did notice was the relationship between the two main characters was completely different than that of the main characters in Anderson's last movie, There Will Be Blood. In that film, they hated each other but were civilized with each other (with the exception of a few moments). And it all ended in chaos.
In The Master, both Quell and Dodd loved each other. Or at least it seemed that way. Their relationship was chaos with a few moments of them being civil. And it ends with the civility of the two.
END OF SPOILER
Despite not completely understanding it. Despite being to dense to fully grasp what was going on, The Master proved to be a great film that I enjoyed and would love to watch again to better understand it.
I would say that Wes Anderson films are the hardest to write about for me. They're all brilliant, but they're also so similar in their style and humor that the only thing I could really ever comment on is the story. So this may be a short one. But I will try my best.
Moonrise Kingdom tells the story of a loaner "khaki scout" (boy scout) who flees his troops base camp in order to meet up with the girl he loves and run away with her. Of course, the small island they reside on goes into panic mode and puts all of their resources into finding the two kids. Wes-Anderson-esque-hilarity ensues.
As usual with Wes Anderson films, the way this film plays out is perfect for the story. The straight on, perfectly framed shots, the dry, unemotional humor. The quick and witty dialogue. It can only be done by a few people. Mostly, just Mr. Anderson.
The story is wonderful, the Actors are fantastic and the Cinematography is superb. And unfortunately, thats all I can really say about this film. Usually, words can not describe Wes Anderson films. One can only trust me that it is great and go see it.
On a different note, here is my favorite commercial ever. Oh, would you look at that! It features Wes Anderson himself!
Let me just say, if I am around for the end of the world, I hope it's as fun as this.
Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World... is a long title. But a great one. There is no doubt what the movies about if you are walking up to the box office without any idea of what it's about. It even sounds like a comedy, which is exactly what it is. In case you can't tell by the title, or even the trailer above, I got your back.
This movie is about two people that don't meet until the end of the world is imminent. Dodge, played by Steve Carell (40 Year Old Virgin), has his wife leave him the second after they both know the world is going to end. He goes on about his normal routine as chaos ensues around him.
He then meets another tenant of his apartment building, Penny, played by Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean). They soon make a pact that if Penny can get Dodge to his old ex-girlfriend, Dodge would provide a plane for her to flyer to England to spend her last days with her family. And, of course, they bond as they push forward on their journey.
I have never seen a movie about the apocalypse that has made me smile and laugh as much as this one did. It is refreshing to see a movie where people aren't panicking about the end of the world, and just accepting their fate and enjoying their last days on Earth. It really highlights the small moments in your life and helps you appreciate them more.
The two protagonists are a great combination. Dodge went about life following all the rules and Penny was a free spirit. They make for two very different and interesting views of every situation they encounter.
I can see this movie being a hit and miss. For some reason, people don't like to laugh at tragedy. Even when it's fictitious and hilarious. But all comedy is derived from tragedy, so I don't see how these people can differentiate from the two. Even then, this movie is not about death. (Cue cheesy music) It is about life, and enjoying the little things. And how happiness can come from where you least expect it.
Even if you are a high-stung-have-no-fun kind of person, as always, you should see it for yourself and form your own opinion.
That is the theme ofthe book Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. But that theme is lost in its translation to screen. I still really enjoyed it. It was just different. But I realized something after pondering on the movie for a few minutes after I saw it.
The book is far to deep and filled with character development (I know, hard to believe, but it is) for the average movie goer, and to completely ridiculous for the philosophical thinkers of the movie world. So it puts itself in a pickle. And justifiably so, it goes for the easier target, the action-seeking-summer-movie-goers.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is exactly what it sounds like. It is a retelling of history in which the great 16th President is, in fact, a vampire hunter. The vampires or the nation, who mainly live in the south, use slaves to feed off of. Abraham finds himself in a pickle when he seeks revenge on the man who killed his mother when he was 8 (historically accurate... just in case you care).
He soon finds himself under attack from the man he thought he just killed via a bullet in the eye, however, this man is a vampire. He is saved by a man who followed him from the bar named Henry Sturgess. The man trains him to hunt vampires and Mr. Lincoln uses his talent while gaining political popularity and becoming the great man we all know and love!
Now, the book is so different, I find it hard to compare the two. The are both great in their own ways. The book is more historically accurate and has a deeper undertone than its theatrical counter part. But, as I said, the book is to deep for some and to ridiculous for others and just right for a few insane people such as myself. When it comes down to the wire, you gotta make your money back and then some. So, they changed it.
The changes made it a fun, adventurous movie that I feel, those who don't care for history (also known as fools) will still enjoy it. There is a specific antagonist in the film, which is not in the book. Rufus Sewell (The Illusionist) plays a very sinister leader of the vampires known as Adam. Which leads me to believe he was the first vampire. Adding this character made the on screen transition more smooth, since most people don't like films in which there isn't an obvious villain.
I guess, within all of this rambling, I am trying to say the differences made for this movie were necessary. That is what many people do not realize. Not everything is about pleasing the fans of the book (although I was pleased with the movie). The fans of books are just a small percentage of who the studios are trying to target. They are trying to open people up to the movie who have never heard of it before.
I loved the book and really enjoyed the movie. Can't we all just get along? I'm talking to you book purists! It's ok if the movie isn't exactly like the book!
I haven't written anything in awhile because I just moved back home from Florida where I went to school. But I am back now, not that anyone noticed I was gone since no one follows this, but just in case.
This weekend I saw 3 new releases, so brace yourselves. For a storm of movie critic proportions is coming!
There is a debate among filmmakers and film fans alike. Is Prometheus a prequel to Alien or not?
The answer is both yes and no.
Prometheus tells the story of several scientists, from different fields, traveling to the moon of a distant planet where they believe the creators of man kind to live. Led by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace (the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), the team finds that the creators of the human race had an outbreak of a virus they were going to use as a weapon. But are they all gone?
The debate among the audience is a ridiculous one, as are most other debates. For one, Ridley Scott, the director, stated that it wouldn't be, but acknowledged the fact that it would take place in the same universe as the Alien movies.
This is the filmmaker we are talking about. I feel he would know more than anyone.
"But, Mike! The ship they find in the Alien is the same ship in the trailer!"
May I point you to a dictionary?
pre·quel
[pree-kwuhl]
noun
aliterary,dramatic,orfilmicworkthatprefiguresalaterwork,asbyportrayingTHE SAME CHARACTERS AT A YOUNGER AGE
The characters in Prometheus are not the same characters in Alien. However, the event in Prometheus lead up to the events in Alien. Therefore, it is and isn't a prequel at the same time. NOW STOP ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
I digress.
Prometheus is a great movie that stands out from it's alleged sequels. It has a completely different feel and has more story behind. It has been a while since I've seen the Alien movies, but I don't remember much back story for the characters in it. Prometheus reveals much backstory for certain characters.
There are some great characters in this film as well. David, played by Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class, Inglourious Basterds). David is a robot, created by the financier of the mission. He follows the agenda of "his father" which at times can seem sinister. Michael Fassbender was great. He really sold the fact that he was a robot. The little things he did to portray the character made the character complete.
Overall Prometheus is a fantastic movie that separates itself from its counter parts.
