Skyfall I managed to see this on Thanksgiving, and I have to say, I enjoyed. Not the best Bond film by any measure. And one that definitely has its share of flaws, but still a solid addition. I'd have to say the biggest weakness was trying to have two "A" stories happening simultaneously. M's "dark past" coming back to haunt her and Bond's potential disillusionment and burnout from the job. On their own, I think, they would have made for amazing movies, but mashed together I didn't think they both got the best resolution they could have potentially gotten, even with a two and a half hour runtime. Overall, though, I like what I saw. I always preferred the more quiet, subdued, spy thriller type stories to the over the top Roger Moore-esque type Bond films. And this definitely fell on the more subdued side, I think. The under reliance on wacky gadgets, the brief but effective fight scenes, the "Waste of good scotch" borderline sociopathy that makes Bond a fascinating character. I'm just excited now that they've apparently finished doing this three movie origin story that we can get back to a more Sean Connery like Bond formula that worked so well before and seeing what they can really do with the character. Mostly, I'm just hoping that the producers are able to resolve this shit. Because I'd love to see the potential for some reworked SPECTRE/Blofeld stories. Side note - Hey Roxanne, I think you have an airtight costume idea for next Halloween. Spoiler
Or permanent sex slave tattoo. Or temporary, washable sex slave tattoo. You know, I don't want to tell anyone how to live their life
Bond was still an active agent in NSNA. I'm thinking Connery/Bond today, 25-30 years out of the spy game. Another would be a (and I shudder to use the word) prequel. What happened to his parents and how he became a 00 agent. I saw Skyfall this weekend and I enjoyed it. I really liked the new Q character and also thought Ralph Fiennes was well cast and Javier was simply outstanding. Kudos to Albert Finney as well. Didn't feel like 2.5 hours at all.
The Hobbit I saw the movie last night at a midnight showing. Overall, I think the movie is better than 90% of the shit put out this year, but it is by no means on par with the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. There are minor spoilers in my review, but nothing someone wouldn’t know from watching the trailers and seeing the original trilogy. What Worked: - The structure of the movie is similar to Fellowship and works well for this portion of the story. It starts with a history sequence giving background information, then we spend time in the Shire getting to know Bilbo before his adventure begins. Rivendell marks the halfway point and then we have more scenes reminiscent of the Pass of Caradras and Moria. - The opening sequence with Smaug, the Arkenstone, and the history of Erebor is amazing and as good as anything in the original movies. In Fellowship of the Ring we saw the ruined dwarven city of Moria. It was impressive, but the shots of the functioning dwarf capital of Erebor are breathtaking. - Martin Freeman (Bilbo), Gandalf, and Thorin are all perfectly cast. - Howard Shore’s score is perfect except for one instance: Spoiler For some reason the Nazgul theme from “A Knife in the Dark” plays during the final battle between Thorin and Azog. No Nazgul are involved and it feels really out of place. It’s almost as if Peter Jackson was like “we need some really epic choral music to play for this fight but we don’t have time to record new shit so we’ll just reuse this track from Fellowship.” Even if you don’t pay attention to music normally, it’s jarring and you’ll notice how strange it sounds to hear music for the Ringwraiths when they are not on screen. - The “Riddles in the Dark” scene is amazing. The new CGI for Gollum looks gorgeous and he is batshit fucking insane. The shot of him paddling in his creepy ass little boat made me shiver. Andy Serkis should get some sort of Academy recognition for his performance, even though Gollum is on screen for less than 10 minutes. What Didn’t Work: - The movie feels bloated. The subplot between Azog and Thorin and the rock giant battle are unnecessary and do nothing to advance the overall plot. I feel like they were placed in the movie to pad the running time and give the movie a big “boss fight” at the end. The movie could have been 45 minutes shorter and without losing anything important. - The action scenes also ran a bit long. Combined with crappy CGI sets, the entire goblin cave action sequence was so long it got fucking boring. It felt like a setup for a theme park ride, not Lord of the Rings. - Peter Jackson overuses CGI in this film. The original trilogy looked amazing because they relied on real sets and miniatures for most of the special effects, only using CGI as a last resort. This film uses CGI for almost everything, even when it’s not needed. Instead of having guys in amazing costumes like the first movies, all the orcs look like awful video game monsters. Even places like Rivendell - which were physical sets in Fellowship - are obvious green screen sets now. The elven city went from being a gorgeous miniature to a blurry CGI mess. - The character development and screenplay are lazy. With the exception of Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin, everyone else in the movie is one-dimensional. I’ve read the books and I still couldn’t tell which dwarf was which besides “oh that’s the fat fuck dwarf” and “that’s the old sage dwarf” and so on. In Fellowship, we learn about each character through their interactions with each other and the decisions they make. This doesn’t happen in the Hobbit so we never develop any emotional investment in them (or the story). - The side-plot with Radagast the Brown and the Necromancer is mediocre at best. It feels like a rushed afterthought. It could have been done much, much better - so much so that it would be more interesting than Thorin’s quest. This speculative piece from early November offers a much more interesting (and well thought out) alternative to the current side story. It’s too bad this wasn’t what actually occurred. Conclusion The movie is good, but could have been so much better. I feel like many of the problems that plagued the Star Wars prequels are present in this film, but not to the same extent. That said, I am optimistic that these issues won’t be as important in the next two films. 6.5/10
I thought that the Hobbit was amazing. I think it was far better than the other lotr's movies.the storyline was engaging, stuck to the books, and everything was beautiful. I think breaking it up into parts was appropriate. They covered a lot of ground and I think 3 parts will better do it justice. I'd give it 8.5-9/10 stars.
Lincoln- Since it seems no one else has seen it might as well share my thoughts. Solid movie, great performances, not a classic. I'll say this upfront and I think it's the most shocking thing I came away with from the movie, Tommy Lee Jones outdid Daniel Day Lewis' acting. It's true Day Lewis beasted the role and will no doubt be nominated for best actor. His story was fun and decently compelling but Tommy Lee Jones's character and portrayal was just a notch or two above in my mind. Somehow even though the main focus and drama were laid on Lincoln, Jone's character just stood out more. Jones played a state representative that was in a radical anti-slavery wing of the Republican party and had to make tough choices to vote for an amendment that he thought didn't go far enough. Sally Fields also did a great job with the character she was given. Unfortunately outside a few great scenes her over all story kind of lacks. They try and tie in her mental instability with a B/C story involving Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon Levitt) which is done with the worn out "young son wants to drop out of school to join the military lest he be thought less of a man." It was the weakest part of the entire movie. She also has a black servant that is in a whole lot of scenes but nothing substantial is really done with her which is another weak point of the movie. For a movie about passing an amendment to abolish slavery, there is hardly a strong voice represented at all from the entire race they are trying to keep free. The score is beautiful and so is the cinematography. Spielberg must have been trying to replicated the feel of old school books on the civil war because you notice a lot of shots are reproductions of ones you'd find in them. The casting was phenomenal as well, Boardwalk Empire fans will notice Arnold Rothstein as a weak kneed Republican among other strong character actors. One miscue I think though was casting the British Actor that plays Pryce on Mad Men as Ulysses S Grant. Maybe having only heard him use his thick British accent in that show it really sounded like he was forcing to try an American accent. 8/10
Les Miserables I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on Les Miserables. I went into the theater not expecting much despite the hype. It was amazing. possibly the best rendition of the story since the Broadway musical. While I'll admit the cast doesnt sing as well as the Brodway cast (Except for Samantha Barks and Anne Hathaway) They were great nonetheless. The story grabs you from the beginning and keeps you in your seat. There are only about 25 spoken words in the entire movie but the story is told exceptionally well through song. This was the best movie I have seen in a long time. 9.5/10
Not really recent, but if anyone can help me remember the name of a movie, I'd love them forever. It's driving me nuts that I can't remember the name of a movie, or any one actor in it. It reminds me a lot of The Green Zone (with Matt Damon). It starts off in an open market in (I think) Baghdad, and a teenager is strapped up with a bomb to try and kill a local general. The movie unfolds and you find out that the local general has a young daughter. She wants to date a boy but her father won't let her. They run away together, and the boy eventually joins the terrorist sect that winds up sending him in to be a suicide bomber. Her father frantically comes looking for her, bursts into the apartment and it's then that you realize the time sequence is off - her dad (the general, or head of the police, or whatever he was) was never "hot on her trail," she and her boyfriend had died at the beginning of the movie when the bomb went off in an attempt to kill him. The whole time he was looking for his daughter, she was already dead. I want to say the movie came out in '06 or '07, but that might be off. Any ideas what the hell the movie is?
This is going to drive me nuts too. I remember watching it. There was a CIA agent or something like that working with the general, and they were near the blast or looking into what went on?
A little google-fu makes it look like y'all are talking about Rendition. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_(film" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_(film</a>)
A Good Day To Die Hard- I'll preface this by saying that it IS better than the last film and always will be just by the simple fact that it didn't use Justin Long as a stuttering moron as comic fodder. There will be spoilers but you shouldn't give a fuck because you should see them coming a mile away and you really shouldn't want to see this movie in the first place. So John McClain is back for his 5th adventure and I am wondering why people always say how hard writing a screen play can be. It seems who ever wrote this didn't bother actually typing anything up since there is nothing there, anywhere. John Mclain's has to rescue his son Jack from Moscow after he supposedly tries to assassinate a powerful politician and is going to be put on trial so he can implicate someone innocent. What John plans to do when he gets there is not very clear, somehow break his son out of court? Testify for him? In any case somebody else decides to blow up the courthouse and lets John find his son. But what's this? Jack is actually a CIA agent trying to save the man he was trying to implicate and John really doesn't have a point to be there in the first place? Well at least John realizes this and spends the rest of the film complaining he's "just on vacation." Jack has some CIA buddies at a command center somewhere and the only scene that features them looks like it was ripped from an episode of 24. I guess it was a left over scene from the supposed cross over between 24 and Die Hard they originally planned. Complete with the shaky cam that zooms in right at the tensest moment. Jack's partner is killed after delivering his two lines so you don't see or hear from the CIA anymore. It's John and Jack versus some Russians at Chernobyl. The rest of the film is paper thin. I actually laughed out loud when Jack explains that the meltdown at Chernobyl was because the two main protagonist were actually enriching weapons grade uranium to sell on the black market. The last film set the precedent that John Mclain is not just a common man but an injury impervious superhero. This time he's upgraded to being resistant to radiation as well. Which helps when fighting haz mat suited enemies at the world's worst nuclear accident. But I guess since the bad guys sprayed some colorless gas in a single room him and his son are in the clear. But like every other review states. Zero character development, zero plot development, etc, etc. 3/10
McClain? McClain??? McCLAIN!!!!!!???? You make me sick, sir. No but seriously, what he said. It's painful to watch.
It was definitely disappointing. It lacked any air of actual tension and McClain-bad guy back and forth dynamics. The fourth movie, which I like a lot more than people here seem to, is better.
Seriously, are you guys fucking with me? it's McClane. That's on par with saying "President Rowsveldt". I'm pretty sure it's an act of treason.
Identity Thief I guess I had better hopes for this, this movie's director shot Horrible Bosses previsouly, which was a pretty good comedy, this one is scattershot at best-- stooping to slapstick too often and too few laughs far and between. Credit where it's due: Jason Bateman has had great success in a difficult actor category: playing the Straight Man in comedies while still being funny. His serious, sober reactions mixed with some decent zingers always works for him, here he's no different. Melissa McCarthy is a lot less funny that you would expect, but she actually gives an excellent acting performance by managing to draw sympathy towards a scumbag of society. I think more interesting/funny supporting characters and better dialogue would make this one work, but's a typical potboiler at best, tired Todd Phillips-type dreck that follows the formula (double crosses, cop-out action climax, everyone learns in the end, etc.). Don't pay to see it. 4.5/10
Warm Bodies I saw this on The Girlfriend's urging, and I've sat through worse. Hoult (or however you spell his name) does a pretty decent job as a zombie, including a hilarious Venture Brothers style run. Rob Corddry delivers the best one-liner I've heard in years, zombie voice and all. John Malkovich as a crazy, zombie survival dictator looks better than it was. The girl (whatever her name is) was cute and not completely retarded. The action was just enough to not be bored. I can't say I recommend it as a zombie flick, but for a teenage date movie, I have few complaints. Also, they do a metric shit-ton of Easter eggs and homages to other movies, so it was kind of fun to see the hidden tributes.
This might be straying a little into the political realm, but I just saw The Waiting Room, and it was a really powerful documentary. It takes place entirely in the emergency department of Highland Hospital, a public medical center in Oakland, CA, and follows a number of patients as they struggle to get medical care without insurance. It tells the patient's stories, but also gives you a portrait of the staff and what they do to try and take care of people who really have nowhere else to go. And I'm pretty sure that the triage nurse is the #1 Best Human Being in the world. There wasn't any narration, no talking heads, and the camera doesn't seem to interfere, which is something I really appreciate in a documentary. It came out last year but it still showing in a few places. Bring tissues.
After being bombarded with press for Room 237, I finally decided to sit down and watch it. The concept was very appealing to me, but I was concerned that the execution would be a bit boring, so I thought I might just have it playing in the background while I was doing other stuff, but I got totally absorbed by it right away. For anyone who doesn't know, Room 237 is a documentary about the theories about the explanation and hidden meanings for The Shining. It covers everything from discussing how it's an allegory for the slaughter of Native Americans or The Holocaust, to how it's Kubrick's admission and apology for helping fake the footage of the moon landing, to what happens if you play it forwards and backwards at the same time. If you like film theory/analysis/criticism or conspiracy theory stuff, you'd probably get a kick out of it. The Shining was the perfect movie to pick - there really is something about that movie. Every time I watch it, I'll think about how I don't really like it that much as I'm watching it, but as soon as it finishes I rush to the internet to see what everyone else has to say about it to try and figure it out, and it sticks with me until the next time I watch it and remember that I'm not really its biggest fan. The documentary does a good job of figuring out what exactly it is about the movie that gets under your skin beyond just the straight up horror factor. The trailer is pretty useless, but here it is anyway: I don't know how wide the release is, but if you're interested I can send you a link to where to watch it online.
Jurassic Park: 3D Im slightly biased because I love JP. The movie is truly a classic and has all the great elements of a really enjoyable film and its Spielberg's magnum opus (other than Jaws). I saw the original when I was a kid at a drive-in with my parents in a thunderstorm and it scared the shit out of me, but loved it since. The 3D is implemented very, very well. Ive seen a good share of older movies with 3D conversions, and this is probably the best one yet. It immerses you into the story so much its almost a completely different experience than if you were to just pop in the DVD or even just in the theater. Its been a while since Ive gone to the theater and this was completely worth the trip. 10/10