Chariots of Fire- 1981. I would venture a guess to say that the score is more famous than the film and as time goes by less and less people will be able to appreciate a movie like this. I've had plenty of conversations with KImaster on how he can seriously enjoy the numerous old films that he watches and reviews. To me all those movies from the 1950's are full of overacting and have that same strange feel. The characters never interrupt each other and the dialogue seems a tad forced at times, I can appreciate the classics as anyone can but I can't say I truly enjoy the films that came from that time period. In the same thought Chariots of Fire has an excellent story. It follows to young European men as they work at becoming Olympic sprinters. It does a good job of capturing the 1920's with the settings, dress as well as the general attitude of the characters. However countless times I found myself snickering at yet another ridiculous pompous British actor with a large underbite, an eyeglass, and a incredibly thick accent saying things like "I say Nigel I think the chap old chap has pulled through, pip,pip cheerio. I found it very distracting. It does offer a great look at a character whose resolve, integrity and principal is tested beyond all measure. Spoiler I was a little upset they didn't have Abrams race the Scott again, and wondered if Abrams disappointment at the end was not a result of knowing he was not the best in the World. The film never had a real climax and ended a little abruptly. You are waiting for a particular event to repeat itself and it never happens. The film won Best Picture twenty nine years ago and I doubt it will become popular again or ever really be known as a true classic in modern culture. I'm sure film students will use it for years to come but the population in general will struggle to stay awake for it. 5/10
Zoolander- God I hate this fucking movie. Ben Stiller trying *really* hard to be funny with jokes that have been told before with better timing. It's got a few moments, mainly from the supporting cast, but it's an overall mess. I can appreciate comedies that aren't my style, Super Troopers for instance, but the desperation this movie expels in trying to be funny is painful to watch. Stiller needs to stay away from characters, and focus on being the typical loser that fits him better. 3/10
Up in the Air /2009 I thought this film was excellent. Not to sound a gay but it is a perfect date movie, simply because both sexes actually enjoy the movie as opposed to agreeing to see something for your mate. George Clooney is superb, I don't think I have seen him do anything bad in years. He is just tailor made for characters like this, A man whose job it is to travel around the world and fire people. He spends the majority of his life on Airplanes and in hotels, leading to an attitude to avoid commitment at any cost. The movie was brilliantly written I'm thirty five years old and I have known, seen, and currently have working for me at least three young women like Anna Kendrick. The way they capture the mind of a twenty three year old is brilliant, there are always exceptions of course but many, many young people out of college find themselves in a situation that they had not counted on. The movie is paced really well, it jumps from one city to another practically from one storyline to another but it is still smooth and easy to watch. The picture is superbly acted with great supporting roles (Jason Batemen) and to a lesser degree a few of the people Clooney is forced to fire, all were very good and very realistic. The only complaint I had would be the scoring of the film. I have had enough of the "Shins-like" bands that keep popping up in the middle of every movie. I'm not sure if they are trying to set a mood or get an indie type feel to the picture but I'm tired of it and find it distracting. Good movie, excellent writing, flawless acting and a unique and original story (that Clooney seems to have a knack for finding) make it not only a movie I recommend but a DVD that I will buy. 8.0 /10
Just finished watching this movie with the GF a couple minutes ago. This is a fantastic review of the movie that doesn't give anything important away. The only thing I would change is that I would call it an 8.5 or 9.0, it was extremely well done. And though I agree with Mike Ness's hatred for the music in general, I really think it fit well with the movie. A must see at bare minimum.
Clash of the Titans The new one. The only person that could have possibly liked this film was Harry Hamilin, because he could smile and walk away knowing that the original was ten times better. I was looking forward to this because I figured they would take the original story and beef it up with amazing special affects. Instead they completely changed the story and tried to cover that fact with special effects. Instead of overcoming great obstacles Perseus was just saved by strange weird random monsters, taught to fight in three minuets and taught to fight Medusa in two. Anything they couldn't explain they summed up by saying "he's a demi-god." What a complete and total waste of Ralf Fiennes and Liam Neeson. Honestly for the younger board members out there the original film is much, much better simply because it has a well put togther, well paced story that actually stuck to original Greek mythology. This jumps around so much you don't even know what's happening where they are going or why. This movie is absolutely horrendous and a travesty to the original. 1.25/10
I thought "Up in the Air" was very good, but it also left me slightly disappointed. They could have potentially made a GREAT film, but they screwed it up with a few things. Here is what I wrote a few months ago; "Good, not great. Amazing performance by Clooney, excellent character and acting by Vera Farmiga, and an all-around original story. Solid ending, too. My problems were twofold; the character of Natalie, who was an awful, disingenuous cliche in a movie full of authentic characters, and the shallow exploration of the movie's central theme." Focus- I found myself trapped in a hotel the past few days. So, I decided to watch two films. The first was a plucky indie film that garnered rave reviews and was the cult, sleeper hit of 2009. The other was a studio, big budget, massive 2001 flop that was universally hated. Of course, the latter ended up being much better; 500 Days of Summer (2009)- Two hipsters in their early 20s, Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) and Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel), go through the ups and downs of a romantic relationship. The film has some "big ideas", and tries to subvert the standard romantic comedy formula. Problem is, the movie itself is mired in the same cliches! Tom is the wussy, insecure, weak-willed guy. Summer is the beautiful, enigmatic, suave and confident female. There is an unlikely source of sage advice, in this case, irritatingly enough, Tom's 10 year old younger sister. Now, if it were simply a parody, that would be okay. However, 500 Days of Summer is nowhere NEAR funny enough for that. If it was meant to be something deeper and more significant, not only does its crutch on cliches hurt, but so does the lack of any type of serious message. "True love" doesn't exist beyond coincidence? That's the only wisdom you can muster? That would be okay, but the film has two other giant problems. First of all, it is frequently boring and poorly paced. It's a mere 90 minutes long, and yet, while I was watching it in my hotel room, I checked my watch no fewer than half a dozen times. There is literally ONLY 40-50 minutes of real content to the entire movie! So many scenes are pointless repetition, and do nothing to advance the story of Tom and Summer's relationship. Finally, Summer, whether through poor acting or poor writing, is quite literally no one at all. Instead, she's a Frankenstein created from a patchwork of different, contradictory ideas and sources. Part "ideal woman", part "aloof pretty girl", part "Hollywood's idea of a jaded, realistic 20-something", she ends up being more boring than any of them, and even less relatable. You know where you can find examples of truly interesting, quirky, and fucking awesome girlfriends? Go read a Haruki Murakami novel, and choose ANY female he describes in depth. That's exactly the type of woman the director and writers were going for...and totally failed. Listen, the film has its good points; Joseph Gordon Levitt, while I'm not enamored with him, gives a competent, decent performance. The love/hate montage of the same features of Summer was absolutely hilarious. The song and dance number was inspired and funny. Unfortunately, creative editing will only get you so far, especially when there is so little real content, and the core is so weak. 50/100
Battle Royale I love this movie. In the future the government is nuts and makes a high school class engage in Battle Royale where they have to kill each other. They are given survival packs with a random weapon and have to remain within a boundary or their collar blows up. If no one wins in 72 hours, all the collars blow up. The concept is simple but it's done so well. The whole movie is incredibly nerve wracking and very suspenseful, although you can see the ending coming from a mile away. All in all, it's great and I really hope there is NOT going to be an American remake. 8/10
I love the movie too. I think it's an absolute masterpiece, incredibly well done, and one of my top 50-60 films ever. However, both the comic and especially the novel versions of "Battle Royale" put the movie to shame. The thing about the picture is that it doesn't go into particular detail into any of the characters (it can't; there isn't enough time), when that's half the awesomeness of the story. Many of the flashbacks and histories are more incredible than anything in that entire film, and the characters of Shogo Kawada, Shinji Mimura, and Taka Chigusa are among the best, most memorable I have read in any book from the last 30 years. The villains are way more demented, fucked-up, and violent, the protagonists are cooler, and all of them deeper and more interesting. Also, the main adult villain in the movie is a sympathetic teacher played by Japanese megastar Takeshi Kitano. I guess he just didn't want to look bad, because the villain in the other two versions is an insanely cruel maniac working for the government who commits some harrowing deeds.
That seems to be the general consensus when I talk to people about Battle Royale. I hear quite often that the movie doesnt do the book justice and it severely lacks in certain areas compared to the book. Im definitely going to have to pick that up and check it out. Infernal Affairs I have a long standing debate with a friend of mine about this movie versus the American version, The Departed. I liked the Departed a lot, but its tough to compare it to this movie because they are done in very different styles. Like the Departed, Infernal Affairs is about a cop who is really a gangster and a gangster who is really a cop. Unlike the Departed however, the story plays out over a much longer period of time and deals more with the development of the characters than dialogue and action. One big thing that took me about this movie was that Noir theme. Its one of my favorite film genres, and this movie does it very well. If it would be compared to anything American, its more comparable to Heat than the Departed in terms of style. The acting and suspense are fantastic and it one of the best crime thrillers I have ever seen, period. There are 3 movies total, the second one being a prequel and the 3rd being a sequel, both are great and tie the saga together perfectly. Its safe to say I severely underestimated this film, and its easily one of my new favorites. 10/10
Vote me in, too. It's Japanese schlock gore done extremely well. The sequel, however, sucks dead donkey balls. I was extremely disappointed, even by normal sequel standards.
A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) Before the endless half-baked wisecracks and overly-flashy murder scenes this series started with a lean, mean first chapter. The film barely cost over $1 million to make but you wouldn't know it- it marked the start of Wes Craven's typecast plot setting: Horror in a Norman Rockwell-esque setting. I remember seeing it terrified as a kid and though the film shows its age nowadays it has some memorable set pieces: the "Revolving Room" sequence where Tina is pulled up the wall and killed, Freddy's extending arms, the quicksand stairs, the tongue in the phone, Nancy's booby-trapped house battle with Freddy but most of all Johnny Depp's unforgettable murder (it was his movie debut) when he is pulled into the bed and an ocean of blood errupts out of the mattress into his room. Many people who don't know movies well often regard it as the scariest/best horror film of all. That statement of course if WAY the fuck off since the original premise is given such a typically routine treatment by Craven, the epitome of flashy Hollywood horror directors. It still remains thoroughly watchable, despite the endless sequels, spin-offs and commercialism it spawned. 6/10
SNEAKERS (1992) I'll start off by saying that I fucking LOVE this movie. Sure, the high-tech "crypto-key" hocus pocus that is the main technical focus of the movie is complete and utter crap, but other than that, I don't think you could ask for a more diverse and enjoyable all-star cast having some fun in a fun dramatic comedy with a few hints of action. Sydney motherfucking Poitier, Robert Redford, Dan Akroyd, and River "I still don't get the big deal" Phoenix. It can all be summed up with a simple "cow mutiliations are on the rise." A solid 8.7/10 in my books.
Half the people who watch this don't understand the big deal, and think it's just another forgettable swords and sandals film. The other half, myself included, consider it one of the greatest, most epic masterpieces ever made. Let me try to explain why; Conan the Barbarian (1982) After his village is burned, his parents murdered, and he himself is enslaved, a young Cimmerian warrior named Conan goes through life fighting and killing, eventually seeking revenge upon the snake overlord Thulsa Doom. Amusingly enough, this was co-written by John Milius (who also directed) and Oliver Stone, two guys who couldn't possibly be more different. Stone, still a few years away from his major successes with "Platoon" and "Wall Street", was an extremely liberal, anti-Reagan, anti-capitalist. Milius, whose previous script was merely Coppola's "Apocalypse Now", was a fierce conservative whose political beliefs largely black-listed him from Hollywood, despite his extraordinary talents. I would love to know how the fuck they worked together. Despite having watched this film no fewer than 80 times during the course of my life, it was only very recently that I understand what Milius was going for. "Conan the Barbarian" is no more and no less than an homage, a love letter to Sergio Leone and his spaghetti Westerns! The beautiful, desolate, rolling landscapes stretching as far as the eye can see. The extreme, constant facial close-ups. The larger-than-life, incredible heroes and villains. A bitter, desperate tale of revenge. The outstanding performances perfectly suited to the characters. (Arnold as Conan, and James Earl Jones as the merciless Thulsa Doom) While Milius channeled Leone, composer Basil Poledouris produced a soundtrack as good as anything Ennio Morricone ever made. When I think of the movie, I instantly start humming the tune to The Anvil of Crom. The orchestral score is in every scene, wonderfully reflecting the gorgeous, epic setting, or the bloody, vicious fighting. But while Milius was making his own version of a Leone Western, he managed to surpass anything the Italian master himself ever did! There are two reasons for this. Firstly, while Leone was good at writing dialogue, Milius was GREAT. Remember all those terrific quotes from "Apocalypse Now", like "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"? Well, Milius does just as good of a job here. Without ever being over the top or cheesy, the quotes convey the mystery and excitement of an entire fantasy world. Conan's father's story about the Riddle of Steel or Conan's prayer to his God Crom are among the best speeches I have heard in any film, let alone one in the action/adventure genre. Secondly, there is a pervasive sense of sadness throughout the film. As the narrator constantly mentions; "...once, but long ago..." Everywhere Conan goes, there is death and decay, and he himself is a lonely, often pitiful figure. His parents are murdered. His kinsmen are all dead. When Conan visits a tomb, he sees the bones of fierce warriors, once no different than himself, now nothing but creaking, dusty bones forgotten by time. Finally, when Conan is captured by a king, a once-proud, noble, and feared ruler, he encounters an old, heartbroken man who cares nothing for all his jewels, wealth, or power, but only a stupid, treacherous daughter, now under the control of Thulsa Doom. Even the ending doesn't provide a respite; Conan eventually becomes a king, but wears the crown under a "troubled brow". And yet, despite the inescapable undercurrent of sorrow, it's an epic tale of one man's personal quest. In the end, he DOES achieve something meaningful, something great that will be remembered by generations of later men. A shining masterpiece. 91/100
Audition (2000) Audition spends 60 minutes creeping up behind you then snaps your neck like Nico from Above The Law. Takeshi Miike takes the viewer on a tragic romantic voyage that builds at a very slow pace, with scenes of true love and happiness. Then, in a blaze of serious hubris he annihilates the film's entire plot with the horrifying "rolling sack" scene that takes its place as one of the scariest single scenes of all time. Then, it descends into gruelling tortune porn (keep in mind it was before it was mainstream in horror) which ends in a surprise flash. I don't dare give much away of the core of this film, because it's a necessity to see this film. Audition is brilliantly creepy and intense, and should not be missed.
Unthinkable- Well my brother has started downloading the highest downloaded movies from any given torrent sight. Which lead us to watching this shitacular straight to DVD film starring Samuel L. MOTHAFUCKIN Jackson and the chick who played Trinity in The Matrix. Jackson plays M a rogue torture specialist that is highly protected by shadowy figures running the US military. Trinity plays a Harvard educated (according to the film graduating with a degree in global terrorism, a major I didn't know Harvard specialized in) counter terrorism agent in the FBI. A turn coat American born spy decides he loves Allah and plants three nuclear bombs across the US. What follows is some of the worst dialog and script writing Ive ever seen concocted to serve such a biased political purpose. They pretend to play devils advocate with agent M delivering counter arguments that are completely drowned out by the shitty writing. Most of the film revolves around Trinity's stead fastness to the Constitution/Geneva Convention/Miranda Rights while allowing M to torture the captured terrorist. There are a few tense scenes that are directed and acted well. Other than that it is just a bubble gum thriller with some torture porn thrown in for good measure.
It was time to watch another classic from Sidney Lumet, my favorite director; Serpico (1973)- Based on the real life story of New York cop Frank Serpico, Al Pacino plays an idealistic officer who grows sick of the lax attitude and corruption he finds within the police department, and finally decides to become a whistle blower for the pay-outs the cops in his precinct accept. Not surprisingly, he is not a popular member of the force because of this. Meanwhile, Serpico's relationships and his once cheerful nature erode, as this quest consumes his life. I loved the characterization of evil in this film; not as an aggressive, ambitious force, but a passive, reserved one. Just look the other way, whether Frank is about to get shot, a rape is occurring in a borderline street, or criminals are paying the right people. Pacino vividly brings Serpico to life, including his intense mania for justice and growing cynicism, as he continually gets fed BS. The portrayal of Frank's relationships, romantic and with other cops, was superb. Some of the film might feel overly dramatized, or even a bit "cheesy" at times...except then you look up the official accounts of what happened to the real Frank Serpico, and realize that not only is the movie amazingly faithful to them, but that it actually toned down certain events the man lived through. A great, tremendous film. 84/100
Good Will Hunting 1997 Absolutely brilliant and near flawless* film starring Matt, Ben and Robin Williams. Everyone knows that Damon and Affleck seem to do quite well in films taking place in Boston ( The Departed, Gone baby Gone, The Town) and it was this one that began the set. Matt Damon plays an incredibly intelligent orphan growing up in south Boston. He's a troublemaker, a drinker and a typical rebellious young man except that he can do math equations that baffle professors at MIT. It's a unique kind of rags to riches film that has amazing acting in almost every role. The film just does a great job at all fronts the pacing, the story, the score and the screenplay are amazing. There is a part towards the end with Affleck and Damon that you will find yourself going "oh my god Ben Affleck can act. Of course the character that will blow your socks off was the therapist played by Robin Williams, he had a combination of sensitivity and "southie grit" that was absolutely perfect. It earned him a best supporting actor oscar and the Boston boys won one for writing. It's a feel good drama that is enjoyable for both sexes and almost all ages, I highly recommend it. If you haven't heard of it welcome to the United States if you have not watched it buy it or rent it don't watch the edited version on TBS. * Minnie Driver is a co-star 9/10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) This film is the drive-in movie era's par excellance. Tobe Hooper almost free-formed the film on the fly and in turned out brilliantly, directing it loose on a budget as low as a film can get. It's also incredibly harrowing and claustrophobic, and despite what many will have you believe hardly a drop of blood is spilled on screen. The horror comes from sick sound effects, ingenius white trash art decoration, insanely manic camera work and "boo" scares, which it especially delivers in spades (I think the forest scene when Marilyn Burns pushing her brother in the wheelchair is one of the scariest movie scenes of all time). Scary killers don't need to be fancy. No bladed fingers or hell-driven chains. A chainsaw and a sledgehammer is much more palatably realistic and terrifying. It's no surprise that this film often tops "All time Scary Movie" lists. Usually with the Drive-In Era 99% of the time you get gory, shlocky horseshit. However, on the other hand you get this film which will top any exploitation film any day of the week. A must see for horror film (or any film) fans. 8/10 edit: avoid the remake(s) and ALL sequels at ALL COSTS. I am not fucking kidding, every (and I mean every) single one of them suck herpes-festooned cock.
I expected this film to be crappy and overrated. I was half correct. Rain Man (1988)- After the death of his brother, an LA businessman finds out he has an autistic brother who is set to receive $3 million of the inheritance. In an effort to get half the money from the doctor, he lures the brother to go with him. On the bright side, it does a very good job showing the difficulty and exasperation of dealing with a loved one with autism. You really see how it drains the hell out of Tom Cruise's character Charlie Babbitt, and the confusion of not knowing whether the next moment will bring out a freak-out or not. Also, the film was more subtle than I gave it credit for; they stayed away from any major epiphanies by Charlie about his love for his brother, and there were no reversals in mental health for Raymond. At the end, he is still a man stricken with severe autism. I also give them credit for resisting the temptation to make the doctor a villain. Instead, he is a decent intelligent man who also cares for Raymond. There are some entertaining scenes, and Hoffman and even Ratboy Cruise are very good in their roles. It could have been a really good film. Could have. Instead, they fucking ruined it. They just HAD to give Raymond completely random, self-contradictory superpowers, which are a perfect memory, being able to do arithmetic really fast, and to individually count really quickly. (Nevermind that these are all quite distinct, and in real life, someone good at one of those would be completely average at the other two) Thing is, it just doesn't have any place in an otherwise serious, realistic film that avoided so many other cliches and stupidities. But worst of all, it completely poisons the central point of the work, that of Charlie's love and acceptance of his brother Raymond. Notice that it's only after Raymond wins $86k in Vegas, saving his brother from bankruptcy and ruin, that Charlie finally appreciates his brother. So was it all a sham? All bullshit? Nothing more than simple gratitude at being saved by a filthy dog? Thanks to the ridiculous Hollywood superpowers Ray's character was imbued with, either interpretation is valid. Really could have been something special. 69/100
Ghostbusters (1984) Ghostbusters is just a movie that nobody can hate. It's irresistable charm, endlessly classic one-liners (probably more than any other movie in memory), timeless characters and Richard Edlund's knocked-out-of-the-park special effects combine for PERFECT entertainment, young and old. After setting up with the incredibly jolting "boo" scare with the library stack ghost (I nearly wet 'em in the theatre the first time I saw that scene), the film takes off running and never slows down. This is Bill Murray's most appreciated role, his smarmy Pete Venkmen taylor-made for him. Dan Akroyd's gift fore the fast-talking intellectual is just right for his Ray Stanz character, Harold Ramis is perfect as mad scientist in-the-making Egon Spengler. However, the character's don't stop there. Sigourney Weaver makes a good doubting romantic female lead, Ernie Hudson avoids the "Token Black Guy" pigeon hole with a suave, laid-back performance adding in some wonderful one-liners and especially Rick Moranis is hysterical as the King Of The Dweebs, Louis. Ditto for Annie Potts as their cynical jewish secretary. Of course, there's two minor faults: Will Atherton's all-too-typical "heavy" Walter Peck, and that stupid fucking SONG. Aside from that, Rochard Edlund cuts loose with some of the best visual effects in cinema history. It's exciting, hilarious, and utterly charismatic. A classic to say the least, and I'll never tire of it. I'm going to watch it right now. The sequel's good too (but not AS good). Ghostbusters 3 in 2012. It's official, people!!!! ZUUUUUUUUUL!!!!! 9/10