This story goes back a few nights. It begins one night when I came home, kinda late, and found Phil and a friend of his watching "Consternate". I, of course, had to kick back and watch some of it with them. Like always, it got me thinking about how much fun that time of my life was.
The past two nights, I've had the pleasure of spending my evenings with Zach and Jenny Proctor. And last night, I asked Zach if he missed the times when we used to make films. And he claimed that he did. I told him I had been thinking about it a lot recently.
That brings us to tonight. Around 11pm, I was trying to watch the end of the Celtics game and I ended up falling asleep. When I woke up to the news, I decided it was time to call it a night. Obviously, I worked a little too hard today, and all those hours of playing Wii must have worn me out. I came upstairs, I turned on the DVD player - hit Play on "Cheers" and laid down for the night.
About 20 minutes later the phone rang. A Mister Jason L. Maier was calling to talk while he was driving home. We talked for a good 30 minutes or so, and I found myself wide awake. So, I decided to go downstairs and pop in one of my Netflix films.
Tonight's flick was "Show Business: The Road to Broadway". It was a Documentary that I read about on another blog, so I added it to my Netflix Queue, and since I've been in a documentary mood recently, I moved it up to the top. Jason and I also talked about the flick, while we were on the phone - which is partially what put the idea to watch it into my head. I asked him if he had seen it, and he told me he does own it, and has attempted to watch it once, but was interrupted and has never finished it.
For the most part, I enjoyed the documentary. It covered two shows that I was aware of - thanks to Jason - and two shows that I knew nothing about. I think I would have rather seen some more of the actual behind-the-scenes production than what was included, but overall it covered the shows and their writers/directors/producers pretty well. Sadly, it was NOT anywhere near as good as "No Day But Today: The Story of Rent", but it did have more material to cover, and attempt to tie together for a cohesive storyline. It did do an amazing job of showing the time, love, and determination that goes into producing Broadway productions.
And it reminded me, once again, how much I miss being a part of a large collective group of people, attempting to create a beautiful piece of art...
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
"Redbelt" Review
After I took Amanda home, I was up in Noblesville and Phil mentioned that we was thinking about watching "Speed Racer" last night. So, I called him to see if he was still going to, and he told me that the earliest we could watch it was 11:35pm, but if I wanted to - he would run the print. So, I told him I would come up and hang out with him until then (since I was already all the way up in Noblesville anyways...). So, I get to Phil's theatre, we hang out a little bit and then I realize that his theatre is playing "Redbelt". It's a film I was really interested in watching, and thought I was going to have to find the time to go to Landmark to watch it. As fate would have it, "Redbelt" started two minutes after I arrived, and it got over at 11:40pm. Phil said he'd have "Speed Racer" ready when I was done - so I was off to a second movie.
"Redbelt" is a David Mamet film, and I think it's better to let people know that before they go into the film. I'm the ONLY person I know who liked the film "Spartan". Although, I know a number of people who enjoyed "State and Main". The film I consider him most appealing was "Glengarry Glen Ross", which he only wrote. Although, I suppose more people are probably familiar with "Ronin", yet another good film he wrote.
The biggest complaint about Mamet films are the lack of diversity in his characters. Many of them use the same types of language and idioms, and almost all sound like clones of one another. Some might say that its due to the fact that Mamet attempts to give us one small niche, and not a broad picture. In his small niches of characters, they are people who all do talk and act the same, because they have grown up together in the same neighborhood and spent the lives working together. I can buy that, and that's good - because many of the characters in "Redbelt" seem to talk and act like they've all lived on the same block for 30 years, even the Hollywood Actor.
I'm a big fan of Chiwetel Ejiofor, basically the first time I remember seeing him was "Love Actually". Then he popped up in "Four Brothers" and "Serenity". Especially after "Serenity", I decided I wanted to keep an eye on this dude, because of his wide variety of character portrayals. I liked him in "Inside Man", but missed him in "American Gangster" - Note to self: Add that to your NetFlix. I do have "Dirty Pretty Things" in my NetFlix, which I hear is a GREAT flick, I should probably move it up...
Now, back to Chewie. He's amazing in this film as Mike Terry, the protagonist who teaches Jujitsu. His attitude and demeanor are perfect, and he plays a man who knows all the angles to everything. "There is no situation that you can not escape from" is the mantra he preaches throughout the film. And his character does an amazing job of sticking to his beliefs, all the way to the end - no matter how hard things get for him.
Much like "Spartan", the film just throws us into the action, without very much set up. We are introduced to Mike Terry teaching his class, and following his class we introduced to what seems to be a completely random woman, who would later become very pivotal in many of the events to come.
Through a series of events, Mike finds himself at the same bar as an Actor, Chet Frank - played by Tim Allen - and when Allen's character is attached Mike rescues him. This begins a "friendship" between the two men. A "friendship" that is not at all as it seems.
As the film progress, and Mike gets involved as a producer on Chet's current film, Mike meets more and more people and believes he is networking with them, only to be cold-shouldered and learn that everything he was helping with on the film has been stolen from him, and in turn used to create a new style of Mixed-Martial Arts fighting.
Every character in the film does an amazing job of two-facing themselves. The actors were perfect. And the as the plot continues to unfold, you get to see - as Mike does - the evil nature of people, as they all continue to stab him in the back. And when it's all said and done, and Mike's got nowhere left to turn, and it looks like he has lost everything, his character makes a choice the goes against his entire teaching philosophy, and he is forced to fight in the MMA Event. It's an amazing character struggle, and watching Mike constantly hope and believe that he can make things better is amazing to watch. He's struggling with so many different things, and everything continues to snowball down on top of him, and he is finally forced to make move that he considers defaming to his character, but it is the only move he has to "escape".
About the only complaint I have about the film is this: I like ambiguous endings, but this one might have been a little too much, even for me. I like how it ended, but I didn't like the number of questions that are still left unanswered when the credits begin to roll. Too many things are brought up during the climax - and then there is basically zero falling action or resolution. I'm not saying it ruined the film, but it's the only thing I didn't really like about it.
Overall, I think its one of the best concepts I've seen recently - I'm TIRED of sequels and remakes!!! And I think all of the acting is top-notch quality. I highly recommend the flick, I think its a good example of original and intriguing filmmaking.
"Redbelt" is a David Mamet film, and I think it's better to let people know that before they go into the film. I'm the ONLY person I know who liked the film "Spartan". Although, I know a number of people who enjoyed "State and Main". The film I consider him most appealing was "Glengarry Glen Ross", which he only wrote. Although, I suppose more people are probably familiar with "Ronin", yet another good film he wrote.
The biggest complaint about Mamet films are the lack of diversity in his characters. Many of them use the same types of language and idioms, and almost all sound like clones of one another. Some might say that its due to the fact that Mamet attempts to give us one small niche, and not a broad picture. In his small niches of characters, they are people who all do talk and act the same, because they have grown up together in the same neighborhood and spent the lives working together. I can buy that, and that's good - because many of the characters in "Redbelt" seem to talk and act like they've all lived on the same block for 30 years, even the Hollywood Actor.
I'm a big fan of Chiwetel Ejiofor, basically the first time I remember seeing him was "Love Actually". Then he popped up in "Four Brothers" and "Serenity". Especially after "Serenity", I decided I wanted to keep an eye on this dude, because of his wide variety of character portrayals. I liked him in "Inside Man", but missed him in "American Gangster" - Note to self: Add that to your NetFlix. I do have "Dirty Pretty Things" in my NetFlix, which I hear is a GREAT flick, I should probably move it up...
Now, back to Chewie. He's amazing in this film as Mike Terry, the protagonist who teaches Jujitsu. His attitude and demeanor are perfect, and he plays a man who knows all the angles to everything. "There is no situation that you can not escape from" is the mantra he preaches throughout the film. And his character does an amazing job of sticking to his beliefs, all the way to the end - no matter how hard things get for him.
Much like "Spartan", the film just throws us into the action, without very much set up. We are introduced to Mike Terry teaching his class, and following his class we introduced to what seems to be a completely random woman, who would later become very pivotal in many of the events to come.
Through a series of events, Mike finds himself at the same bar as an Actor, Chet Frank - played by Tim Allen - and when Allen's character is attached Mike rescues him. This begins a "friendship" between the two men. A "friendship" that is not at all as it seems.
As the film progress, and Mike gets involved as a producer on Chet's current film, Mike meets more and more people and believes he is networking with them, only to be cold-shouldered and learn that everything he was helping with on the film has been stolen from him, and in turn used to create a new style of Mixed-Martial Arts fighting.
Every character in the film does an amazing job of two-facing themselves. The actors were perfect. And the as the plot continues to unfold, you get to see - as Mike does - the evil nature of people, as they all continue to stab him in the back. And when it's all said and done, and Mike's got nowhere left to turn, and it looks like he has lost everything, his character makes a choice the goes against his entire teaching philosophy, and he is forced to fight in the MMA Event. It's an amazing character struggle, and watching Mike constantly hope and believe that he can make things better is amazing to watch. He's struggling with so many different things, and everything continues to snowball down on top of him, and he is finally forced to make move that he considers defaming to his character, but it is the only move he has to "escape".
About the only complaint I have about the film is this: I like ambiguous endings, but this one might have been a little too much, even for me. I like how it ended, but I didn't like the number of questions that are still left unanswered when the credits begin to roll. Too many things are brought up during the climax - and then there is basically zero falling action or resolution. I'm not saying it ruined the film, but it's the only thing I didn't really like about it.
Overall, I think its one of the best concepts I've seen recently - I'm TIRED of sequels and remakes!!! And I think all of the acting is top-notch quality. I highly recommend the flick, I think its a good example of original and intriguing filmmaking.
"What Happens in Vegas" Review
I'll be honest, I had absolutely no desire to see "What Happens in Vegas" at all. The preview really didn't look very good, and I wasn't going to waste my time.
Then, I was hanging out with my friend Amanda last night, and it was the last time I'll get to see her for a while - because right now she's waiting in Charlotte to catch a plane to Athens and then she'll be in Jordan for three weeks after that. We decided to hang out last night and I decided to let her pick the movie we were going to watch. So, I ended up seeing a movie I didn't have any intention of seeing.
Now, the good part was this: My intentions were so low, and I was expecting such a horrible film - that I actually enjoyed it for the most part. The storyline was nothing new or mind-bending. From the preview, you knew exactly what you were getting into, and you knew that even when things were looking good - they were going to turn bad, but then they would somehow all work out in the end. No big surprises, but that was fine.
The emotions that are tackled in this flick are actually pretty interesting. After the drunken "marriage" in Vegas - and the winning of $3 Million - Kuthcer and Diaz's characters have A LOT of baggage that ends up being addressed throughout the film. From the emotions of being dumped by someone, to the hope of reconciliation, to not living up to your parent's expectations, it was a lot to handle, and I felt like they handled it well.
I laughed a lot during the movie, I laughed A LOT more than I thought I was going to. Some running gags, some witty comments, it was a lot better than I thought. Although, I do ask myself this question: "Would I have laughed so much, if I was just watching it with a small group of people?" See, we went and watched the film in an almost sold-out auditorium at Castleton - and it's been a long-standing theory of mine, that when I see films in larger groups, I laugh more than when I just screen the films with small groups of friends. I'm going to continue to allow myself to believe that I did just enjoy the film for what it was: Entertainment, and nothing more. I don't think it was anything special cinematically, and I don't think it's the smartest thing ever written. But, for last night, it was what we were looking for. So, I'll just keep telling myself that I enjoyed it, despite the fact that I didn't want to.
Then, I was hanging out with my friend Amanda last night, and it was the last time I'll get to see her for a while - because right now she's waiting in Charlotte to catch a plane to Athens and then she'll be in Jordan for three weeks after that. We decided to hang out last night and I decided to let her pick the movie we were going to watch. So, I ended up seeing a movie I didn't have any intention of seeing.
Now, the good part was this: My intentions were so low, and I was expecting such a horrible film - that I actually enjoyed it for the most part. The storyline was nothing new or mind-bending. From the preview, you knew exactly what you were getting into, and you knew that even when things were looking good - they were going to turn bad, but then they would somehow all work out in the end. No big surprises, but that was fine.
The emotions that are tackled in this flick are actually pretty interesting. After the drunken "marriage" in Vegas - and the winning of $3 Million - Kuthcer and Diaz's characters have A LOT of baggage that ends up being addressed throughout the film. From the emotions of being dumped by someone, to the hope of reconciliation, to not living up to your parent's expectations, it was a lot to handle, and I felt like they handled it well.
I laughed a lot during the movie, I laughed A LOT more than I thought I was going to. Some running gags, some witty comments, it was a lot better than I thought. Although, I do ask myself this question: "Would I have laughed so much, if I was just watching it with a small group of people?" See, we went and watched the film in an almost sold-out auditorium at Castleton - and it's been a long-standing theory of mine, that when I see films in larger groups, I laugh more than when I just screen the films with small groups of friends. I'm going to continue to allow myself to believe that I did just enjoy the film for what it was: Entertainment, and nothing more. I don't think it was anything special cinematically, and I don't think it's the smartest thing ever written. But, for last night, it was what we were looking for. So, I'll just keep telling myself that I enjoyed it, despite the fact that I didn't want to.
Monday, April 21, 2008
"What Love Is" Review
This was the poster for the film when I was supposed to see it last March in Boston:
This is the DVD Cover for the film, when I finally got to see it on Friday:
"What Love Is" is the third film from Mars Callahan, who I began to admire when Zach and I went to Chicago to see his film "Poolhall Junkies" in February of 2002.
"What Love Is" is basically the epitome of a Guy's Break Up Movie. The entire film occurs in one night, and it just happens to be Valentine's Day. Tom - Cuba Gooding, Jr. finally in a good film - plays the main character, who comes home to find out that his girlfriend of 3 years has packed her bags and is moving out. She leaves him a letter, and the conveniently calls him after he reads it. She tells him that she's on her way to pick up her last bags. The bad news for Tom is that he's invited all of his friends over to hang out and celebrate Valentine's Day with them.
This begins a parade of characters entering Tom's townhouse - where the majority of the film takes place. It begins with one of my favorite actors, Matthew Lillard from "Scream" fame. Lillard plays Sal, who is a womanizing-fast-talking idealist, who has stern beliefs on a number of topics, and later in the film when he goes on an anti-gay tirade, it's some of the best handled dialogue I've ever heard. At first, I couldn't believe that GLAAD allowed this kind of dialogue, however throughout the scene, I think they allowed it because of the amazing retort by the gay friend, Wayne. Lillard does an amazing job, and I really like his charisma throughout the film. He's got an ego and an attitude, and he does a pretty amazing job with both of them.
Next up is the man himself: Mars Callahan who plays Ken, the married man, who sneaks out at night (he lives above Tom) to hang out with his friends. I kid you not: The dialogue between Sal and Ken is almost verbatim dialogue that Jason and I have had together. I believe that their dialogue is much more anger-filled than any time Jason and I have ever had it - but it is a very serious discussing about how truly successful married men will always pick their wives over their friends, and how they don't see that as a burden, but as an blessing. Seriously, my jaw dropped during the scene, thinking that Callahan had somehow been hiding in the back seat of Jason's car a year ago when I remember having the conversation while driving back to Boston from New York City. Ken is a really good character, who often plays devil's advocate to Sal's outrageously wild philosophies.
As I mentioned before, there is a gay character named Wayne, who came over to announce to everyone that he is running off to Hawaii with his new man to get married - and he wants Tom to come be his best man. Wayne is a very strong character, and doesn't allow Sal's belittling to effect him, instead he attacks Sal's lifestyle right back, and has some wonderful dialogue himself.
The final male character is played by Sean Astin, who really just serves as another voice to interject more opinions and points of view on various topics.
About halfway through the film, it shifts to a woman's perspective as a group of women, that Sal met at the bar, show up to party with the guys. The film temporarily shifts into the bathroom, as the women "freshen up". Honestly, I'm going to say that the dialogue is written as what men THINK women say in the bathroom. I'd like to believe that they act this way, and talk this way, and maybe some do, but I don't think the female dialogue is the most realistic. I have to believe its just a stereotypical male writing of females talking. The dialogue is quirky and interesting, and well delivered by the actresses, but I don't know if I can completely consider it realistic.
Then, the two group merge and play out the rest of film, as various men and women interact and openly discuss a variety of relationship and sexual topics.
I enjoyed the film, because it's written in a way that you know is not real. NO ONE talks the way these characters do. We all WISH we talked this way, we all WISHED we had these amazingly well-thought out discussions with our friends, when we don't. With the ranting and playful argumentative nature of the dialogue, we all wish we talked this way. It's the same thing with "Clerks", "Mallrats", "Chasing Amy", etc... NO ONE talks like the characters in a Kevin Smith movie, but we all wish that we did.
I don't think there's a middle ground to this film. Either you're going to love it, or you're going to hate it. I believe it's an acquired taste, much like many independently financed and produced films, and much like "Poolhall Junkies". If you don't care about pool, you're more than likely not going to be interested in a film about a fast-talking pool hustler., no matter how good the dialogue and story are: you're not going to care. I believe many of my friends would enjoy the flick, and those are the people I care about the most. Because those are the people that I associate with the film, and the people that I believe I talk to like the characters in the film.
I originally got the film via NetFlix, just in case it sucked. But, after I watched it - I went out and bought it the same day. I thought it was that enjoyable.
This is the DVD Cover for the film, when I finally got to see it on Friday:"What Love Is" is the third film from Mars Callahan, who I began to admire when Zach and I went to Chicago to see his film "Poolhall Junkies" in February of 2002."What Love Is" is basically the epitome of a Guy's Break Up Movie. The entire film occurs in one night, and it just happens to be Valentine's Day. Tom - Cuba Gooding, Jr. finally in a good film - plays the main character, who comes home to find out that his girlfriend of 3 years has packed her bags and is moving out. She leaves him a letter, and the conveniently calls him after he reads it. She tells him that she's on her way to pick up her last bags. The bad news for Tom is that he's invited all of his friends over to hang out and celebrate Valentine's Day with them.
This begins a parade of characters entering Tom's townhouse - where the majority of the film takes place. It begins with one of my favorite actors, Matthew Lillard from "Scream" fame. Lillard plays Sal, who is a womanizing-fast-talking idealist, who has stern beliefs on a number of topics, and later in the film when he goes on an anti-gay tirade, it's some of the best handled dialogue I've ever heard. At first, I couldn't believe that GLAAD allowed this kind of dialogue, however throughout the scene, I think they allowed it because of the amazing retort by the gay friend, Wayne. Lillard does an amazing job, and I really like his charisma throughout the film. He's got an ego and an attitude, and he does a pretty amazing job with both of them.
Next up is the man himself: Mars Callahan who plays Ken, the married man, who sneaks out at night (he lives above Tom) to hang out with his friends. I kid you not: The dialogue between Sal and Ken is almost verbatim dialogue that Jason and I have had together. I believe that their dialogue is much more anger-filled than any time Jason and I have ever had it - but it is a very serious discussing about how truly successful married men will always pick their wives over their friends, and how they don't see that as a burden, but as an blessing. Seriously, my jaw dropped during the scene, thinking that Callahan had somehow been hiding in the back seat of Jason's car a year ago when I remember having the conversation while driving back to Boston from New York City. Ken is a really good character, who often plays devil's advocate to Sal's outrageously wild philosophies.
As I mentioned before, there is a gay character named Wayne, who came over to announce to everyone that he is running off to Hawaii with his new man to get married - and he wants Tom to come be his best man. Wayne is a very strong character, and doesn't allow Sal's belittling to effect him, instead he attacks Sal's lifestyle right back, and has some wonderful dialogue himself.
The final male character is played by Sean Astin, who really just serves as another voice to interject more opinions and points of view on various topics.
About halfway through the film, it shifts to a woman's perspective as a group of women, that Sal met at the bar, show up to party with the guys. The film temporarily shifts into the bathroom, as the women "freshen up". Honestly, I'm going to say that the dialogue is written as what men THINK women say in the bathroom. I'd like to believe that they act this way, and talk this way, and maybe some do, but I don't think the female dialogue is the most realistic. I have to believe its just a stereotypical male writing of females talking. The dialogue is quirky and interesting, and well delivered by the actresses, but I don't know if I can completely consider it realistic.
Then, the two group merge and play out the rest of film, as various men and women interact and openly discuss a variety of relationship and sexual topics.
I enjoyed the film, because it's written in a way that you know is not real. NO ONE talks the way these characters do. We all WISH we talked this way, we all WISHED we had these amazingly well-thought out discussions with our friends, when we don't. With the ranting and playful argumentative nature of the dialogue, we all wish we talked this way. It's the same thing with "Clerks", "Mallrats", "Chasing Amy", etc... NO ONE talks like the characters in a Kevin Smith movie, but we all wish that we did.
I don't think there's a middle ground to this film. Either you're going to love it, or you're going to hate it. I believe it's an acquired taste, much like many independently financed and produced films, and much like "Poolhall Junkies". If you don't care about pool, you're more than likely not going to be interested in a film about a fast-talking pool hustler., no matter how good the dialogue and story are: you're not going to care. I believe many of my friends would enjoy the flick, and those are the people I care about the most. Because those are the people that I associate with the film, and the people that I believe I talk to like the characters in the film.
I originally got the film via NetFlix, just in case it sucked. But, after I watched it - I went out and bought it the same day. I thought it was that enjoyable.
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" Review
I saw the flick on Thursday night, and meant to write a review before now - but I didn't make the time this weekend. Then, I went and saw the flick again last night, so I decided that it did deserve my time to finally write the review.
First up, after watching the film - I do not understand the marketing campaign for the flick. "You Suck Sarah Marshall" and "I Hate You Sarah Marshall" just DO NOT go well with the film. While they do make for a funny marketing campaign, at no point in the film does the main character have this kind of attitude at all. Instead, Jason Segel as Peter spends the majority of the movie lamenting over his break-up, not reacting with anger towards Sarah Marshall. Before the film, the marketing campaign built my expectations up in one direction, while the film went in almost the polar opposite of where I thought it was going to go.
Just like last summer's "Superbad", this Apatow-produced film, written and starring Jason Segal of "Freaks and Geeks" does a great job of bringing REAL life attitudes and emotions to the screen. Much like previous Apatow-produced comedies "40-Year Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up", it's a romantic comedy from the male perspective - which is probably the exact reason who I enjoy it so much. Things don't have to turn out perfectly and every scene isn't a woman complaining about men, and our habits. Instead, it shows how we address emotions and relationships, and how we react. Granted, this is a much more comedic-than-reality kind of way, but that's what makes the films so enjoyable.
Now, you've got to be honest with yourself when you see this movie: It would NEVER happen this way. First, the completely random chance that these two characters would end up at the same resort in Hawaii after breaking up: Not likely. Second, the way Peter ends up acquiring his hotel room - wouldn't ever happen. Finally, the fact that one of the two of them wouldn't move to a different resort...? Come on. But, once you suspend the reality of the situations, which are required for the continuation of the plot - it's a pretty enjoyable film. It's a film about discovering who you are, once your heart has been shattered into a million pieces. It's about really people, making (mostly) real decisions, observing other people's relationships, and doing their best to move on in life. It's also about re-discovering yourself, after you've spent so much time in a relationship.
The flick has plenty of Laugh-Out-Loud moments. The dialogue is witty and smart. The story was well constructed, and from some of the articles I've read - Jason Segel used a number of real-life experiences to construct the storyline for this film. If you've liked the previously aforementioned films, I don't see any way you won't enjoy this one too.
And like a typical Apatow-produced flick, it features a number of "regulars". Starting with the star Segel, it also includes Jonah Hill ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), Bill Hader ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), and Paul Rudd ("Knocked Up"). Just another reason (as I've previously blogged about) that I really enjoy all of these films. Friends making movies with friends - it ROCKS!
First up, after watching the film - I do not understand the marketing campaign for the flick. "You Suck Sarah Marshall" and "I Hate You Sarah Marshall" just DO NOT go well with the film. While they do make for a funny marketing campaign, at no point in the film does the main character have this kind of attitude at all. Instead, Jason Segel as Peter spends the majority of the movie lamenting over his break-up, not reacting with anger towards Sarah Marshall. Before the film, the marketing campaign built my expectations up in one direction, while the film went in almost the polar opposite of where I thought it was going to go.
Just like last summer's "Superbad", this Apatow-produced film, written and starring Jason Segal of "Freaks and Geeks" does a great job of bringing REAL life attitudes and emotions to the screen. Much like previous Apatow-produced comedies "40-Year Old Virgin" and "Knocked Up", it's a romantic comedy from the male perspective - which is probably the exact reason who I enjoy it so much. Things don't have to turn out perfectly and every scene isn't a woman complaining about men, and our habits. Instead, it shows how we address emotions and relationships, and how we react. Granted, this is a much more comedic-than-reality kind of way, but that's what makes the films so enjoyable.
Now, you've got to be honest with yourself when you see this movie: It would NEVER happen this way. First, the completely random chance that these two characters would end up at the same resort in Hawaii after breaking up: Not likely. Second, the way Peter ends up acquiring his hotel room - wouldn't ever happen. Finally, the fact that one of the two of them wouldn't move to a different resort...? Come on. But, once you suspend the reality of the situations, which are required for the continuation of the plot - it's a pretty enjoyable film. It's a film about discovering who you are, once your heart has been shattered into a million pieces. It's about really people, making (mostly) real decisions, observing other people's relationships, and doing their best to move on in life. It's also about re-discovering yourself, after you've spent so much time in a relationship.
The flick has plenty of Laugh-Out-Loud moments. The dialogue is witty and smart. The story was well constructed, and from some of the articles I've read - Jason Segel used a number of real-life experiences to construct the storyline for this film. If you've liked the previously aforementioned films, I don't see any way you won't enjoy this one too.
And like a typical Apatow-produced flick, it features a number of "regulars". Starting with the star Segel, it also includes Jonah Hill ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), Bill Hader ("Superbad"/"Knocked Up"), and Paul Rudd ("Knocked Up"). Just another reason (as I've previously blogged about) that I really enjoy all of these films. Friends making movies with friends - it ROCKS!
"Summer of Fear" Review
It's been #1 in my NetFlix queue for about three weeks - with the message "Very Long Wait". But finally, on Friday, the film "Summer of Fear" showed up in the mailbox.
In 7th Grade English, we read the book "Summer of Fear" by Lois Duncan. She's the same author who is responsible for "I Know What You Did Last Summer" - although the film is NOTHING like the book. That's not true with "Summer of Fear". The film is a REALLY good adaptation of the book. Oddly, I didn't even know this film existed until about 3 years ago. I was perusing the DVD Section of Borders around Halloween, and they had a larger number of Horror films available, and I noticed the title. So, I picked up the DVD and looked more closely and saw that it was directed by Wes Craven. I wanted it, but for whatever reason, I didn't purchase it that day. Over these past three years, I gradually noticed the DVD more and more often, I think Best Buy in Castleton carries the flick now. But, I never purchased it. And on one level, I'm glad I never did.The flick showed up Friday around 1pm, and I instantly popped it into the DVD Player, so I could watch it before I had to go to work. As I previously stated, the flick was a REALLY good adaptation of the book. Even after I read it for school, I probably read the book another 4 or 5 times, because I really liked it. My brother eventually read it and enjoyed it also. Sadly, the film just feels long, slow, and drawn out. Now, I attempt to take into account that the film was made in 1978, and that it was Made For Television. But, I still think they could have done more with the film. Honestly, while I was watching it - I was thinking that I wish this film would get re-made. I know I'm usually anti-remakes, but I think this one could be done a little bit better. Lee Purcell, who plays the cousin who loses her parents in a car accident, just looks too old for her character. I'm pretty sure that in the book the two main female leads were both teenagers. In this film, they have Julia (the cousin) looking and acting like she's in her early 20s, and not a high schooler. But, perhaps that's the way teenagers behaved in the late 70s, but I don't think so, since it's nothing like the teenagers in "Halloween". Again, just another reason why I believe this film could be re-made and actually improved on. The tension and drama were done pretty well, and the characters were well written to build the tension between the characters as the story advanced.
I don't know if its the genre that's changed, or if it's Wes Craven's directing style, but I'm learning that I'm not a huge fan of the directing in his early works. I really like "Last House on the Left" for its story and for its shocking ending, but the last time I watched the film, I really realized that it's not that good "looking" of a film. It's a little boring and a little simple in its artistic style. The same goes for "The Serpent and the Rainbow" a film that I hunted down the VHS tape in 1999 to watch - and was very disappointed in how much anti-climactic drama there was in the film.
I'm glad that I've seen the film. But, I'm more glad that I waited to get it via NetFlix, and not paid for the DVD, that I probably would only consider watching around Halloween every year, and only if I was hanging out with someone else who was interested in watching it. I think it's worth one viewing just because it is a pretty interesting story. But, rent it - don't buy it!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
"This Film is Not Yet Rated" Review
Phenomenal. This documentary is so well done, and is very interesting to watch. It kept my attention the entire time.
There are really two different levels to this film.
1. Is the exposure of the MPAA and their hypocritical and often questioned motives for rating various films. It interviews a number of directors, and they explain what they were told (at various stages of their careers) that needed to be done, in order to lower their rating to an "R" from an "NC-17".
2. The film is also an investigative piece, where it hires a private investigator to help them uncover the identities of those people who actually watch and rate the films. During this investigation, it unearths various lies and deceits that the MPAA gives the general public and filmmakers, in regards to the members of the reviewing board. Through their investigative efforts, the filmmakers track down and identify the reviewers, and flat-out shows how they DO NOT fit the guidelines for reviewers that are told to the public/filmmakers.
Then, once the filmmaker has exposed all of these aspects - he submits his film to the MPAA to be reviewed. What follows, in the third act, is the stonewall of attempts to appeal the "NC-17" that his film received. It's really eye-opening and seriously shows what a "secret society" is all about.
The only thing that I wanted more, were more stories from filmmakers about their second submissions and their appeals. It touches on some some of these aspects, but not some of the more famous ones that I was previously aware of. It interviews Kevin Smith, but focuses on "Jersey Girl" and not the issues they faced with the original "Clerks". It does do a good job of covering "Team America" and what Matt Stone did to the MPAA on that film.
I think this is an amazing documentary, and really does a wonderful job of keeping the story interesting, and making it enjoyable to watch. The interviews are pretty good, and the facts that they give are interesting. It's definitely something that I recommend to anyone who is interested in filmmaking, or anyone who just enjoys documentaries.
There are really two different levels to this film.
1. Is the exposure of the MPAA and their hypocritical and often questioned motives for rating various films. It interviews a number of directors, and they explain what they were told (at various stages of their careers) that needed to be done, in order to lower their rating to an "R" from an "NC-17".
2. The film is also an investigative piece, where it hires a private investigator to help them uncover the identities of those people who actually watch and rate the films. During this investigation, it unearths various lies and deceits that the MPAA gives the general public and filmmakers, in regards to the members of the reviewing board. Through their investigative efforts, the filmmakers track down and identify the reviewers, and flat-out shows how they DO NOT fit the guidelines for reviewers that are told to the public/filmmakers.
Then, once the filmmaker has exposed all of these aspects - he submits his film to the MPAA to be reviewed. What follows, in the third act, is the stonewall of attempts to appeal the "NC-17" that his film received. It's really eye-opening and seriously shows what a "secret society" is all about.
The only thing that I wanted more, were more stories from filmmakers about their second submissions and their appeals. It touches on some some of these aspects, but not some of the more famous ones that I was previously aware of. It interviews Kevin Smith, but focuses on "Jersey Girl" and not the issues they faced with the original "Clerks". It does do a good job of covering "Team America" and what Matt Stone did to the MPAA on that film.
I think this is an amazing documentary, and really does a wonderful job of keeping the story interesting, and making it enjoyable to watch. The interviews are pretty good, and the facts that they give are interesting. It's definitely something that I recommend to anyone who is interested in filmmaking, or anyone who just enjoys documentaries.
Monday, April 14, 2008
"Smart People" Review
Sadly, the preview for "Smart People" was a lot better than the film turned out to be.
The worst thing in indie films is when there is no real character development. And, to make it even worse is when there is a small, tiny amount of character development that comes at the very end of film and it is forced. The character doesn't really learn anything about themselves, instead they just force themselves to "evolve" into a different person, without any real motivation.
I thought I was going to like the film. I laughed a number of times in the preview. And those times were when I laughed in the film. There's hardly any family development, or explanation as to why certain events happened. The do elude to a number of circumstances surrounding the events that have made Dennis Quaid act the was he does in the film. He's a very eccentric and aggravating character, who seems to live in his own world, and doesn't connect well to anyone, even those who are attempting to help him, after a seizure.
Thomas Haden Church is amazing. I really enjoyed his acting, despite how much I didn't really care for his wayward laxidazical attitude. His interactions with Ellen Page (yeah, she's shown up like 4 times in my life in the past week...?) are odd and caused me some serious discomfort while watching.
Page's character did provide a number of numerous wit, although it was almost all delivered in the same tone as she did in "Juno". Which comes out tomorrow on DVD - Yippy! What a good flick!
Sadly, I can't really say I enjoyed the film, for the simple fact that nothing significant happens, and like I previously stated: The only character development that happens in the entire film comes in the last five minutes and it forced. And that sucks. The entire time I was watching, I was waiting for the moment when something would happen, but it never did.
The worst thing in indie films is when there is no real character development. And, to make it even worse is when there is a small, tiny amount of character development that comes at the very end of film and it is forced. The character doesn't really learn anything about themselves, instead they just force themselves to "evolve" into a different person, without any real motivation.
I thought I was going to like the film. I laughed a number of times in the preview. And those times were when I laughed in the film. There's hardly any family development, or explanation as to why certain events happened. The do elude to a number of circumstances surrounding the events that have made Dennis Quaid act the was he does in the film. He's a very eccentric and aggravating character, who seems to live in his own world, and doesn't connect well to anyone, even those who are attempting to help him, after a seizure.
Thomas Haden Church is amazing. I really enjoyed his acting, despite how much I didn't really care for his wayward laxidazical attitude. His interactions with Ellen Page (yeah, she's shown up like 4 times in my life in the past week...?) are odd and caused me some serious discomfort while watching.
Page's character did provide a number of numerous wit, although it was almost all delivered in the same tone as she did in "Juno". Which comes out tomorrow on DVD - Yippy! What a good flick!
Sadly, I can't really say I enjoyed the film, for the simple fact that nothing significant happens, and like I previously stated: The only character development that happens in the entire film comes in the last five minutes and it forced. And that sucks. The entire time I was watching, I was waiting for the moment when something would happen, but it never did.
"Hard Candy" Review
I actually watched "Hard Candy" last Thursday, I just haven't found the time, until now, to type up my review of the flick.
Much like "Funny Games", this film is a slow and psychological film. It has a very small cast, and is very dialogue heavy. There is some occasional violence, however it is usually quick and brief.
See, I'm afraid to type too much. The trailer is so perfectly cut together that it truly doesn't reveal too much of the film, and I don't want to give away too much.
I do recommend the film, I do think it's something interesting to watch and it has some very serious character development that is actually relevant and eludes to many of the overall themes that are addressed by the end of the film. And it does a pretty good job of keeping you guessing about what is really going on.
And, it's fairly short, however due to the large amount of dialogue, it does sometimes seem sluggish at first, however the second half of the film does a pretty good job of keeping the pace moving at a fairly quick speed.
It's a pretty smart thriller that doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. I enjoyed it, despite the scenes that disturbed me. Ellen Page does an amazing job, and as some seriously freaky moments in the film.
Much like "Funny Games", this film is a slow and psychological film. It has a very small cast, and is very dialogue heavy. There is some occasional violence, however it is usually quick and brief.
See, I'm afraid to type too much. The trailer is so perfectly cut together that it truly doesn't reveal too much of the film, and I don't want to give away too much.
I do recommend the film, I do think it's something interesting to watch and it has some very serious character development that is actually relevant and eludes to many of the overall themes that are addressed by the end of the film. And it does a pretty good job of keeping you guessing about what is really going on.
And, it's fairly short, however due to the large amount of dialogue, it does sometimes seem sluggish at first, however the second half of the film does a pretty good job of keeping the pace moving at a fairly quick speed.
It's a pretty smart thriller that doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of idiots. I enjoyed it, despite the scenes that disturbed me. Ellen Page does an amazing job, and as some seriously freaky moments in the film.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Boston Recap with Pictures
So, my Boston Trip is over. Sadly, it was short, but still a lot of fun.
Jason picked me up at the airport, and we hit Fire + Ice for lunch. We played some video games at Dave & Buster's, before heading back to Quincy. We hung out with Kaylee and played with her outside. We also played a bunch of Wii Sports Tennis. Dave, Sam, and Drew showed up at Jason and Letha's place and we headed over to meet Jen at Chili's. We had a good dinner, and it was fun to hang out with Dave's Family.
Wednesday, Jason and I hung out. We took Kaylee to the Dog Park. We played some more Wii Sports Tennis, and got Jason up to a Pro. We picked up Erin, Jason's former roommate. We headed into Boston and picked up Letha and then headed to Fire + Ice for dinner. Yep, twice in one trip! But, the food is amazing, so I didn't care! I wish they would build one here closer to Indy. Then, it was off to The Garden.
TD Banknorth Garden, from the outside.
Flip Murray carries the ball across half-court.
There are A LOT of Celtics Banners hanging in The Garden.
There's a few Boston Bruins Banners hanging too.
Jason and Letha, at The Garden.
Me (not looking happy) at The Garden.
Letha bought me this AWESOME Charlie Brown that fits inside of an egg, for Easter!!! Another piece to add to my collection - THANK YOU LETHA!
Finally, when I got home from Boston - my NikeID Shox were waiting for me!!! I LOVE THEM!
The trip was awesome. Despite being short, it's always fun hanging out with Jason and Letha. After we got home from the game last night, we just hung out in the living room and talked a lot. It was a really good conversation, one of those 'put your life into perspective' conversations. I also got to look through an awesome book of pictures from their wedding - that Letha had made at Kodak.com. It was really cool. We tried to watch some "How I Met Your Mother" off of my iPod, but Apple obviously didn't want you to be able to watch anything - without THEIR CABLE, which I had sadly left at home. I wish I could have stayed longer, but I am happy for the time I had there. I'm happy I have friends who are willing to let me crash on their couch, and require their time and attention. I look forward to seeing them in May, when they are in town.
I decided to lay low tonight, and just chill at home. I grabbed Quizno's on the way way home from the airport, and then watched five episodes of "Freaks and Geeks". Then I turned on the L.A. Galaxy/San Jose Earthquakes soccer game, while I've been surfing the internet, editing my blog a little, and making this post.
I'm working quite a bit this weekend, before I head to Chicago on Sunday, for my brother's birthday. I'm going to get to see a number of other family members that day, so it should be a lot of fun.
Jason picked me up at the airport, and we hit Fire + Ice for lunch. We played some video games at Dave & Buster's, before heading back to Quincy. We hung out with Kaylee and played with her outside. We also played a bunch of Wii Sports Tennis. Dave, Sam, and Drew showed up at Jason and Letha's place and we headed over to meet Jen at Chili's. We had a good dinner, and it was fun to hang out with Dave's Family.
Wednesday, Jason and I hung out. We took Kaylee to the Dog Park. We played some more Wii Sports Tennis, and got Jason up to a Pro. We picked up Erin, Jason's former roommate. We headed into Boston and picked up Letha and then headed to Fire + Ice for dinner. Yep, twice in one trip! But, the food is amazing, so I didn't care! I wish they would build one here closer to Indy. Then, it was off to The Garden.
TD Banknorth Garden, from the outside.
Flip Murray carries the ball across half-court.
There are A LOT of Celtics Banners hanging in The Garden.
There's a few Boston Bruins Banners hanging too.
Jason and Letha, at The Garden.
Me (not looking happy) at The Garden.
Letha bought me this AWESOME Charlie Brown that fits inside of an egg, for Easter!!! Another piece to add to my collection - THANK YOU LETHA!
Finally, when I got home from Boston - my NikeID Shox were waiting for me!!! I LOVE THEM!The trip was awesome. Despite being short, it's always fun hanging out with Jason and Letha. After we got home from the game last night, we just hung out in the living room and talked a lot. It was a really good conversation, one of those 'put your life into perspective' conversations. I also got to look through an awesome book of pictures from their wedding - that Letha had made at Kodak.com. It was really cool. We tried to watch some "How I Met Your Mother" off of my iPod, but Apple obviously didn't want you to be able to watch anything - without THEIR CABLE, which I had sadly left at home. I wish I could have stayed longer, but I am happy for the time I had there. I'm happy I have friends who are willing to let me crash on their couch, and require their time and attention. I look forward to seeing them in May, when they are in town.
I decided to lay low tonight, and just chill at home. I grabbed Quizno's on the way way home from the airport, and then watched five episodes of "Freaks and Geeks". Then I turned on the L.A. Galaxy/San Jose Earthquakes soccer game, while I've been surfing the internet, editing my blog a little, and making this post.
I'm working quite a bit this weekend, before I head to Chicago on Sunday, for my brother's birthday. I'm going to get to see a number of other family members that day, so it should be a lot of fun.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
At the Garden
Let's pray for a miracle win.
It has been VERY interesting being "the enemy". Lots of talking by
their fans... I don't remember them talking like this last year.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Worst Book Adaptation
Forget "Jurassic Park", this IS the worst adaptation of a book to a movie.
I know a lot of Stephen King fans are disappointed with most of his books-to-movies.
Let me assure you: THIS IS WORSE!
Now, I am going to get picky. IF the credits said "Inspired by the Book..." I would be more okay with the film. But, NO - it says "Based on the Book..." WHICH IS A LIE!!! There's almost nothing based on the book in the film. Wait, that's a lie. There's college kids from MIT and there is Card Counting and Blackjack. I guess that's enough to qualify as "Based". PLEASE note the sarcasm.
I'm annoyed.
Honestly, the film AS A FILM is not bad. However, it is a horrible adaptation of one of the best books I've ever read. It removed so many interesting and tense moments of the real events. Instead, the film replaces them with lots of character development of ONE character (yep, just the main character gets any attention and/or motivation). Side characters are just their for story purposes, and we never really learn much. They did make Lawrence Fishbourne's character pretty mean and ruthless, but the Poker Chip Incident was left out. The changed a lot of the hand signals. BUT, they left in the Code Words, which was something I assumed they were going to neglect. So, I enjoyed that.
It's a fluff film. Someone (I believe Kevin Spacey) was smart enough to realize that the MIT Blackjack Team (one of the many...) was a good story, and worthy of a film being made about them. Then, someone else (one of numerous people, probably) were so STUPID that they allowed this hollow story of a script to be transformed into a film. So much potential, so little return on the investment (your time in the theatre).
Okay, all "drama" aside: If you don't know anything about the MIT Blackjack team, you'll probably somewhat enjoy the film, but you'll still probably have a hollow sense in your mind once the film is over. If you have read the book, or even seen the documentary: YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED.
Bummer.
I know a lot of Stephen King fans are disappointed with most of his books-to-movies.
Let me assure you: THIS IS WORSE!
Now, I am going to get picky. IF the credits said "Inspired by the Book..." I would be more okay with the film. But, NO - it says "Based on the Book..." WHICH IS A LIE!!! There's almost nothing based on the book in the film. Wait, that's a lie. There's college kids from MIT and there is Card Counting and Blackjack. I guess that's enough to qualify as "Based". PLEASE note the sarcasm.
I'm annoyed.
Honestly, the film AS A FILM is not bad. However, it is a horrible adaptation of one of the best books I've ever read. It removed so many interesting and tense moments of the real events. Instead, the film replaces them with lots of character development of ONE character (yep, just the main character gets any attention and/or motivation). Side characters are just their for story purposes, and we never really learn much. They did make Lawrence Fishbourne's character pretty mean and ruthless, but the Poker Chip Incident was left out. The changed a lot of the hand signals. BUT, they left in the Code Words, which was something I assumed they were going to neglect. So, I enjoyed that.
It's a fluff film. Someone (I believe Kevin Spacey) was smart enough to realize that the MIT Blackjack Team (one of the many...) was a good story, and worthy of a film being made about them. Then, someone else (one of numerous people, probably) were so STUPID that they allowed this hollow story of a script to be transformed into a film. So much potential, so little return on the investment (your time in the theatre).
Okay, all "drama" aside: If you don't know anything about the MIT Blackjack team, you'll probably somewhat enjoy the film, but you'll still probably have a hollow sense in your mind once the film is over. If you have read the book, or even seen the documentary: YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED.
Bummer.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Passport Approved!
Best News this week!
I came home today, and had my new passport waiting for me in the mail.
So, now its official, I have nothing to worry about, I will be traveling to Europe with no problems in September. After my initial denial, I was starting to get worried - spending so much money on my plane ticket before I knew for sure that the government was going to allow me permission to leave the country.
But, it's all resolved. And, I must say that these new Passports are A LOT more advanced than the one I had when I was younger. It's pretty cool. Kind of like our ever-evolving money. (Seen the new Fives, yet? They're pretty wicked!)
So, this weekend I'll probably buy my London Pass and my Chunnel Ticket!!! Everything is coming together, ROCK ON!!!
I came home today, and had my new passport waiting for me in the mail.
So, now its official, I have nothing to worry about, I will be traveling to Europe with no problems in September. After my initial denial, I was starting to get worried - spending so much money on my plane ticket before I knew for sure that the government was going to allow me permission to leave the country.
But, it's all resolved. And, I must say that these new Passports are A LOT more advanced than the one I had when I was younger. It's pretty cool. Kind of like our ever-evolving money. (Seen the new Fives, yet? They're pretty wicked!)
So, this weekend I'll probably buy my London Pass and my Chunnel Ticket!!! Everything is coming together, ROCK ON!!!
Monday, March 24, 2008
"Southland Tales" Review
Since before October of 2006, I have wanted to see "Southland Tales".
It received a horrible One Star Review at Cannes, and it only gets Two Stars (out of five) from Shane.
I constantly blogged about how upset I was with the studios for wanting to cut down Richard Kelly's film into a 100 minute film. Well, via Netflix, I got the 144 minute version of the film. IMDB lists that the Cannes version of the film was 160 minutes long - so it seems I got the in-between version of the film. Not as short as the producers wanted it, but not as long as Kelly intended it.
First, the film is nowhere near as good as "Donnie Darko". Not even close.
It's pointless to even attempt to explain - in any intelligent manner - the storylines present in the film. It's such a mish-mash hodge-podge of uninteresting activities. It attempts to incorporate a mystery into the storyline, while never directly addressing the mystery. It also constantly references a character's amnesia, while that character never appears confused about his whereabouts or his actions.
In an attempt to explain: Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne Johnson - aka The Rock) returns to Los Angeles with amnesia. But, somehow he hooks up with Krysta Now, a porn star played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. They write a script about a man who discovers how the world is going to end. Throw in a sub-plot about a group of Marxists who are attempting to over-throw the government using a police officer and his twin brother as pawns, and add in the Senator who becomes their target, and the crazy scientist who developing alternative fuel sources (since we can't import oil anymore) and you've got a multi-layered insane mass of stories to be told, which all gets narrated by Justin Timberlake (who actually was pretty good in this film).
The film opens with a scene that is supposed to explain how World World 3 starts, and how the government basically shuts down the country, including the Internet. "Big Brother" pretty much takes over any and all forms of communication. The majority of the film comes off more as a Political Statement than anything else. It's sort of an anti-war and anti-government piece. It seems to pull fears that Kelly has about how the future will be, if we continue giving so much power to politicians and the government. Perhaps this is similar to some of the thoughts and feelings felt by Terry Gilliam as he worked on "Brazil"???
In the last 20 minutes of the film, Kelly attempts to throw in a Science-Fiction twist, that is supposed to attempt to partial explain certain elements of the film, and it just comes off as a poorly conceived idea that was thrown in, due to a lack of intelligent story composition.
So, I was honestly a lot more disappointed with the film last night when I just got done watching it - than I am now. Thinking back, it really was a very though-out piece of "art". But, there's so much exposition that isn't required, so many layers of story-telling that it makes it difficult to follow, and still the overall sense that Kelly didn't really know where he was going, or what he was doing. Granted, it's not as ill-conceived as Lynch's attempt at "Inland Empire" - but it's still a film that feels like it tried to do too much, while over-stimulated the viewer to the point of un-interest in the characters.
More than likely, I'm going to have to find time to watch the film again. Now that I now what to expect, perhaps I will be better equipped to enjoy certain aspects of the film - or pick on pieces that I originally missed. All I know, is that after almost two years of waiting - I was greatly disappointed with the product given to me.
It received a horrible One Star Review at Cannes, and it only gets Two Stars (out of five) from Shane.
I constantly blogged about how upset I was with the studios for wanting to cut down Richard Kelly's film into a 100 minute film. Well, via Netflix, I got the 144 minute version of the film. IMDB lists that the Cannes version of the film was 160 minutes long - so it seems I got the in-between version of the film. Not as short as the producers wanted it, but not as long as Kelly intended it.
First, the film is nowhere near as good as "Donnie Darko". Not even close.
It's pointless to even attempt to explain - in any intelligent manner - the storylines present in the film. It's such a mish-mash hodge-podge of uninteresting activities. It attempts to incorporate a mystery into the storyline, while never directly addressing the mystery. It also constantly references a character's amnesia, while that character never appears confused about his whereabouts or his actions.
In an attempt to explain: Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne Johnson - aka The Rock) returns to Los Angeles with amnesia. But, somehow he hooks up with Krysta Now, a porn star played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. They write a script about a man who discovers how the world is going to end. Throw in a sub-plot about a group of Marxists who are attempting to over-throw the government using a police officer and his twin brother as pawns, and add in the Senator who becomes their target, and the crazy scientist who developing alternative fuel sources (since we can't import oil anymore) and you've got a multi-layered insane mass of stories to be told, which all gets narrated by Justin Timberlake (who actually was pretty good in this film).
The film opens with a scene that is supposed to explain how World World 3 starts, and how the government basically shuts down the country, including the Internet. "Big Brother" pretty much takes over any and all forms of communication. The majority of the film comes off more as a Political Statement than anything else. It's sort of an anti-war and anti-government piece. It seems to pull fears that Kelly has about how the future will be, if we continue giving so much power to politicians and the government. Perhaps this is similar to some of the thoughts and feelings felt by Terry Gilliam as he worked on "Brazil"???
In the last 20 minutes of the film, Kelly attempts to throw in a Science-Fiction twist, that is supposed to attempt to partial explain certain elements of the film, and it just comes off as a poorly conceived idea that was thrown in, due to a lack of intelligent story composition.
So, I was honestly a lot more disappointed with the film last night when I just got done watching it - than I am now. Thinking back, it really was a very though-out piece of "art". But, there's so much exposition that isn't required, so many layers of story-telling that it makes it difficult to follow, and still the overall sense that Kelly didn't really know where he was going, or what he was doing. Granted, it's not as ill-conceived as Lynch's attempt at "Inland Empire" - but it's still a film that feels like it tried to do too much, while over-stimulated the viewer to the point of un-interest in the characters.
More than likely, I'm going to have to find time to watch the film again. Now that I now what to expect, perhaps I will be better equipped to enjoy certain aspects of the film - or pick on pieces that I originally missed. All I know, is that after almost two years of waiting - I was greatly disappointed with the product given to me.
"The Lookout" Review
I'm a little behind in some of my Netflix reviews, so I'm going to catch up on the last two.
"The Lookout" was a film I had wanted to see for a while, but I think it was pretty limited in Indy, and I never made the time to go out of my way to see it. I often saw the DVD, but never got around to buying it.
Like "Brick", the film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he does another wonderful performance. The film spends a good amount of time on character development. Developing the mundane and sorrowful life that Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt) is forced to live, 4 years after a car accident in which he killed two of his friends, and suffered some life-threatening injuries. The film builds up his personal relationship with Lewis (played by Jeff Daniels) and their co-existing friendship as roommates, placed together by the rehabilitation center.
Matthew Goode ("Match Point") does an amazing job, playing Gary, a bad guy who befriends Chris and uses his powers of manipulation to convince Chris to help them rob the bank the Chris works at, as an overnight janitor.
Then, there is the vixen used to tempt Chris, played by Isla Fisher - who I am falling in love with!
All of the actors are amazing. And I loved seeing Bruce McGill get some more work (Jack Dalton from "MacGyver") playing Chris' Father. The interaction between Chris and Gary and the other members of Gary's group are well played. They make Chris feel like he is a part of their group, before they let him know what their plan is. I'd say the first 50 minutes of the film are dedicated to developing all of the characters and their relationships - before the bank heist actually gets in motion.
Sadly, the worst part of the movie is this: There comes a point when Chris could do something - something that I believe any normal, sane person would consider the right thing to do. And if Chris would make this choice - the film would be over. Instead, Chris makes decisions that I consider irrational and idiotic. This drags out the film for the final 25 minutes, and simply drags out the story more. I suppose it's required for the redemption of Chris' character, after getting involved with the robbers - but I don't believe it's the most intelligent decision for a person.
Overall, I give the flick 3 Stars out of 5. It's worth renting, but I don't believe its worth buying. There is some nice cinematography in the film, and with the snow-covered terrain, it makes for some nice contrasting shots. Like I said, the acting is GREAT and I would watch the flick again just for that.
"The Lookout" was a film I had wanted to see for a while, but I think it was pretty limited in Indy, and I never made the time to go out of my way to see it. I often saw the DVD, but never got around to buying it.
Like "Brick", the film stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and he does another wonderful performance. The film spends a good amount of time on character development. Developing the mundane and sorrowful life that Chris Pratt (Gordon-Levitt) is forced to live, 4 years after a car accident in which he killed two of his friends, and suffered some life-threatening injuries. The film builds up his personal relationship with Lewis (played by Jeff Daniels) and their co-existing friendship as roommates, placed together by the rehabilitation center.
Matthew Goode ("Match Point") does an amazing job, playing Gary, a bad guy who befriends Chris and uses his powers of manipulation to convince Chris to help them rob the bank the Chris works at, as an overnight janitor.
Then, there is the vixen used to tempt Chris, played by Isla Fisher - who I am falling in love with!
All of the actors are amazing. And I loved seeing Bruce McGill get some more work (Jack Dalton from "MacGyver") playing Chris' Father. The interaction between Chris and Gary and the other members of Gary's group are well played. They make Chris feel like he is a part of their group, before they let him know what their plan is. I'd say the first 50 minutes of the film are dedicated to developing all of the characters and their relationships - before the bank heist actually gets in motion.
Sadly, the worst part of the movie is this: There comes a point when Chris could do something - something that I believe any normal, sane person would consider the right thing to do. And if Chris would make this choice - the film would be over. Instead, Chris makes decisions that I consider irrational and idiotic. This drags out the film for the final 25 minutes, and simply drags out the story more. I suppose it's required for the redemption of Chris' character, after getting involved with the robbers - but I don't believe it's the most intelligent decision for a person.
Overall, I give the flick 3 Stars out of 5. It's worth renting, but I don't believe its worth buying. There is some nice cinematography in the film, and with the snow-covered terrain, it makes for some nice contrasting shots. Like I said, the acting is GREAT and I would watch the flick again just for that.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Once" Review
Once is probably the best way to describe how many times I'll ever watch this film.
The film is not bad. I actually enjoyed it. I don't regret watching it.
The only thing I regret is starting the film at 12:45am, and having to drink two Mt. Dews and do jumping jacks in the living to to keep myself awake long enough to finish the 85 minute film.
It's an art film. Plain and simple.
Here's the best thing about the film: In contrast to typical films, this one reminds us that sometimes a film is just a slice of life. It's a glimpse of characters, during a specific period of their lives, for a specific reason. And sometimes, it shows us that things don't always work out like we want them to, and eventually we have to go back to what originally worked for us. It shows us how people can impact our lives, in big ways in a short period of time.
The film is a musical. And not a musical like "Rent" where people are talking about their lives and their problems. No, in this film, the musical part of the film is the songs that the characters are writing and rehearsing. They don't just randomly break out into song in the middle of the street, while people walk by without paying attention. Instead, if they are sitting on the bus, and he's strumming his guitar and then starts singing - it makes sense. And when The Man raises his voice at a specific part, and the old lady looks at him - you realize that their actions are not limited to themselves, they are still interacting with the real world. I can only imagine that some people I know, who are true musicians, would probably find this film extremely enjoyable.
However, There is no dramatic story arch.
Honestly, I would consider this to be "This is Spinal Tap" WITHOUT the comedy and satire.
It would be like "Almost Famous" without the storyline, or maybe better "Music and Lyrics" without a storyline. There's no dramatic tension, there's no issues, there's no real problems.
The film follows a street musician, who one day talks to a woman in the street. They get to know each other, and she learns he fixes Hoovers. Ironically, she has one that is in need of repair. They go back and forth flirting with each other, however they each also seem to keep their distance from one another. As they get to know each other, The Man puts some of his music onto CDs for The Woman. Shortly after watching her play the piano, he asks her to write some lyrics for some of his music.
The rest of the film follows them as they write music, acquire additional musician's help, and get studio time to record his songs, before he plans to leave to go to London. Throughout this time, we learn a lot about each of their personal lives, and some of the mental struggles they are currently going through. As they are developing their music, they inadvertently help each figure out where they need to go with their lives.
One of the best scenes in the film comes when The Man sits in the dining room with his father, and plays him a tape of one of his songs. His father's reaction, and what he says, is so awesome. It's probably my favorite scene in the film.
It's not the best film I've seen, but for what it was it was enjoyable. I would advise people to be prepared for what they are getting into. Those you loathe Hollywood Cinema, and long for more artistic films, I believe they will enjoy this film. Anyone who is seriously interested in being a musician, and enjoys the process one goes through to record some songs - they should really enjoy this film too. It's a nice look at a week, in the lives of two people who love creating music.
Monday, March 17, 2008
"Funny Games" Review
Okay, if you read Michael Maier's Blog, you already know how much he hated "Funny Games".
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***
Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.
In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.
It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.
I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.
I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.
The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.
Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.
During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.
It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.
And he's allowed to have his opinion. He didn't like it, and that's too bad.
You're going to find a completely different review here.
***Michael, you don't need to post a comment telling me I'm an idiot for liking the film, I already read it on your blog. And if anyone wants to know how you feel about the film, they can GO HERE. You don't need to repeat yourself on here, cool?***
Shane's Review:
I give "Funny Games" 3 1/2 Stars our of 5.
In case you're not familiar with the film, here's the short of the story: Two harmless looking young men make their way into a rich family's home. Throughout the night the play numerous mental games with them, terrorizing them.
It's a psychological film. It's a slow film. It's not an action movie, and it's not a gore-fest film. It's a psychological film, done in a minor Hitchcockian way.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once said, "Where there is no imagination there is no horror". I believe this is a perfect way to explain the film. Like I previously said, this is not a gore-fest like the typical horror films on the 21st Century, where they try to gross-out the audience by showing heads exploding, and objects being inserted into the skin, causing massive amount of blood and amazing pain. EVERY violent moment in this film (and there are only three, that I remember) are all seen off-screen. This forces your imagination to think about what it looked like, and let's be honest - your imagination can run wild. You probably make it a lot worse than it really is.
I believe the director, Michael Haneke, has created a somewhat anti-American film. It's a satire of the society of America. Those people who HATE this movie, hate it because it's not the spoon-feed garbage of gore that American Audiences have come to beg for (Michael, I don't mean this at you, I know you're not a typical movie-goer - this was a general statement). "Give us more gore!" Why are there so many CRAPPY horror films coming out? The multiple amounts of "Saw" films, that keep trying to raise the bar. The UNWATCHABLE film "Hostel" and I've heard its sequel goes even farther than the original - I refused to watch it. In America, everyone has become so obsessed with seeing every little bit of violence on screen, that they lust for it. This film denies them that. It refuses to show it to them, and instead forces intelligent people to put together in their own minds what happened. I respect that. I respect his (probable) intention of creating an anti-gore film. In another anti-horror/slasher/gore film move, the "bad guys" aren't rude and evil terrorists. They are two overly kind and polite young men, who are freakishly polite, even while they are demanding things from you. And if you don't do as you ask, you get a glimpse of what they might become, but they are very quick to apologize for their outbursts, and go back to being overly friendly. It's hard to hate a character who always says "please" and "thank you", even when they are threatening the lives of people.
I'm not going to lie, at one point in the film I really felt CHEATED. REALLY CHEATED. I felt like the director was doing something horribly wrong with the film. However, in retrospect - I think I understand it more. I think it goes back to "giving the audience what they want". The audience WANTS to see the bad guys win, they want to see the bad guys torturing people. So, when this event happens - due to the graphic nature of the event, what happens makes sense: in the attempts to keep this as anti-gore as possible. Despite it's implausibility in reality, in context of a film knowing its a film - by breaking the fourth wall - it was doing what "...it thought the audience wanted..." by preserving something the audience was invested in.
The fourth wall is broken a number of time in this film, and I believe that goes to further my assumption of Haneke's intentions. The "bad guys" are often making references to "the audience" and "we have to give the audience what they want..." And when they actually turn to the camera and completely BREAK the Fourth Wall, it's eerily creepy. I got chills the first time it happened. While there is not a lot of constant tension, during the middle of the film there is a sequence that literally had my heart beating faster and faster. I was nervous and scared at the same time. This sequence seriously invoked the emotion of fear in me - and that makes it successful to me.
Now, as you are watching the film you should consider asking yourself this question: "Who are the real protagonists of this film?" You might be foolish to consider The Family the true protagonists of the film, and not The Boys. However, since the storyline always follows the family, and doesn't follow the boys - I could be foolish for considering them the protagonists.
During our conversation post-film, Phil pointed out a specific sequence of dialogue, which I had forgotten, that really seems to kind of set the mood for the actual context of the film. When/If you watch the flick, make sure you pay attention to the conversation Tim Roth's character has with his son on the boat near the beginning of the film. It really kinda of sets up the reality of the world this film takes place. Then, take into consideration my arguments for the purpose of the film, and you might actually enjoy it more than Michael did.
It's a thinking movie. It's not just mindless entertainment, so don't expect that. I also thought the acting was top-notch. Very good emotional performances by Roth and Watts, and even the kid who plays their son. Pitt and Corbet are freakishly impressive in their roles. While many moments of the film seemed slow and drug on, it was still for the previously mentioned purpose of forcing the audience to use their minds, and not be force-feed everything. The film is purposely ambiguous in that fashion, and it makes an interesting piece of art.
Friday, March 14, 2008
"Unknown" Review
"August Rush" was on backorder yesterday, so I got "Once" and "Unknown" in the mail today. Although, I did get an email today telling me that I would get "August Rush" tomorrow.
So, after I got done watching "Lost" and basketball tonight - I decided I wasn't tired, and I wanted to pop in a movie. "Unknown" was the shorter of the two, so I decided to put it in.
It's a move that I've been wanting to see for a while, and I've actually picked it up and carried it around at Best Buy, only to put it down and claim I'm going to buy it another time. I'm really glad I never paid full price for the film on DVD, because I doubt its something I'll ever be in the mood to watch again.
It's a pretty good film. I did enjoy watching it, and trying to figure everything out. But, now that I know everything, I just don't think I'll ever have the desire to watch it again. Unless I'm going to be watching it with someone who hasn't seen it. That's about it. The film is in the same vein as "Reservoir Dogs", in the fact that its a group of men in one central location, who all don't trust each other. Granted, the dialogue and events of this film pale in comparison to those of "Reservoir Dogs".
It opens with Jim Caviezel waking up in the middle of a storage room, he looks around and sees other men, all passed out. There's lots of blood and weapons lying around. Over time, all of the men wake up, and everyone has amnesia, due to a container of some gas which has busted open. The film follows the men, as they all begin to regain their memories and piece together what happened to bring them all together. Some are good, some are bad, and we (as the audience) go along with the characters as they remember things.
Honestly, I believe the storyline would have been better served as a one hour television script for some crime drama. Because, while we watch the men in the warehouse - we also follow the cops who are working with the wife of one of the men, who pays the ransom for her husband. We see from their angle, as they pursue the criminals and attempt to track them down. But, there's a lot of things in the film that probably could have been scaled back or removed to make the pace a lot quicker. The film takes a while to get you involved. Probably ten minutes, or so - it's basically the polar opposite of "Brick". Once the film gets going, it is pretty well paced, despite the things that I feel could be cut.
I'd probably rank it a 6/10.
I'm taking "Once" to work with me tomorrow. And tomorrow night, after I get home from the Big Ten Tourney, I will probably put in "August Rush". Netflix is really turning out to be the most amazing thing ever. I love the ability to get any of these films that I've been wanting to see, but too lazy to purchase - and then, after I watch them, I realize that there's no reason to waste my money on the DVD. I think this is going to save me a lot of money in the long run. And, I'm just about ready to start selling off my DVD collection. Aside from the TV Shows I really care about, and maybe 50 films - the rest are going to be taken to a place that buys Used DVDs. Time to get rid of this massive collection of films that I never watch.
So, after I got done watching "Lost" and basketball tonight - I decided I wasn't tired, and I wanted to pop in a movie. "Unknown" was the shorter of the two, so I decided to put it in.
It's a move that I've been wanting to see for a while, and I've actually picked it up and carried it around at Best Buy, only to put it down and claim I'm going to buy it another time. I'm really glad I never paid full price for the film on DVD, because I doubt its something I'll ever be in the mood to watch again.
It's a pretty good film. I did enjoy watching it, and trying to figure everything out. But, now that I know everything, I just don't think I'll ever have the desire to watch it again. Unless I'm going to be watching it with someone who hasn't seen it. That's about it. The film is in the same vein as "Reservoir Dogs", in the fact that its a group of men in one central location, who all don't trust each other. Granted, the dialogue and events of this film pale in comparison to those of "Reservoir Dogs".
It opens with Jim Caviezel waking up in the middle of a storage room, he looks around and sees other men, all passed out. There's lots of blood and weapons lying around. Over time, all of the men wake up, and everyone has amnesia, due to a container of some gas which has busted open. The film follows the men, as they all begin to regain their memories and piece together what happened to bring them all together. Some are good, some are bad, and we (as the audience) go along with the characters as they remember things.
Honestly, I believe the storyline would have been better served as a one hour television script for some crime drama. Because, while we watch the men in the warehouse - we also follow the cops who are working with the wife of one of the men, who pays the ransom for her husband. We see from their angle, as they pursue the criminals and attempt to track them down. But, there's a lot of things in the film that probably could have been scaled back or removed to make the pace a lot quicker. The film takes a while to get you involved. Probably ten minutes, or so - it's basically the polar opposite of "Brick". Once the film gets going, it is pretty well paced, despite the things that I feel could be cut.
I'd probably rank it a 6/10.
I'm taking "Once" to work with me tomorrow. And tomorrow night, after I get home from the Big Ten Tourney, I will probably put in "August Rush". Netflix is really turning out to be the most amazing thing ever. I love the ability to get any of these films that I've been wanting to see, but too lazy to purchase - and then, after I watch them, I realize that there's no reason to waste my money on the DVD. I think this is going to save me a lot of money in the long run. And, I'm just about ready to start selling off my DVD collection. Aside from the TV Shows I really care about, and maybe 50 films - the rest are going to be taken to a place that buys Used DVDs. Time to get rid of this massive collection of films that I never watch.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
"Brick" Review
I bought the film back in August of 2006.
And I took it to work with me tonight, and after I watched it, I asked myself one question:
WHY did it take me SO long to watch this film?
The film is enjoyable because people talk in ways that "real" people don't talk. The dialogue is written very differently from how normal people talk, and that just adds to the appeal. When Humphrey Bogart talks in "The Maltese Falcon" - it's not typical, he's got this vibe about him, and his vernacular reflects it. Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" is another perfect example. It's the way they carry themselves, that adds so much tot he character, and the way they talk is just anther reflection of their attitude and demeanor. Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is another one of those characters, he just happens to live in the modern day. And his "film noir" style dialogue is converted into hip modern dialogue, that is spoken with pure and true film noir diaglogue. It's very well done.
Wow, wow, wow. What a good film. I was hooked after the first ten minutes. It's not a typical indie film, that requires 30 minutes of set-up and explanation of characters and situations you don't care about. After the first minute, you're involved in the story and you're following the journey that Brendan is going on. You learn as he learns, you evaluate people as he does. You try to connect the dots, and when you think you know what's going on, you've got no real idea.
The cinematography is amazing, the shots are so well put together and composed. I loved the look of the film. It had a really grainy feel to it, and I loved how it felt to watch. I also enjoyed the use of color in this film. One group is specifically defined by the color white, while another group of people is specificaly designated to the black color. Then, we have Brendan, who is commonly wears grey throughout the film. A perfect metaphorical representation of how Brendan constantly walks the thin line between good and bad in the film, all in the name of love. Brendan is trying to solve the murder of a the girl he loves, and not only does he learn a lot about her, and the people she fell involved with - he also learns his own personal limits.
And just like typical drama-detective films, it's not over when you think its over, and Brendan has an amazing final scene - with the "true" killer - where you get the sense that he's smarter than we have ever thought. Which, thinking back, I shouldn't have underestimated him. He figures out a good amount of things throughout the film, and I should have seen him putting everything together.
Like I said, the most appealing part of the film is the fact that people talk in ways that are so atypical that it draws you into the film, from the first sequence. I highly recommend it, and I hope you don't wait as long as I did to watch it. Like "The Maltese Falcon" and "Chinatown", "Brick" is not a film I could watch regularly, but I imagine that every year, or two, I will break it out and want to watch it. It's definitely a film that I would watch with anyone who hasn't seen it, just to watch them and see their reactions.
And I took it to work with me tonight, and after I watched it, I asked myself one question:
WHY did it take me SO long to watch this film?
The film is enjoyable because people talk in ways that "real" people don't talk. The dialogue is written very differently from how normal people talk, and that just adds to the appeal. When Humphrey Bogart talks in "The Maltese Falcon" - it's not typical, he's got this vibe about him, and his vernacular reflects it. Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" is another perfect example. It's the way they carry themselves, that adds so much tot he character, and the way they talk is just anther reflection of their attitude and demeanor. Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is another one of those characters, he just happens to live in the modern day. And his "film noir" style dialogue is converted into hip modern dialogue, that is spoken with pure and true film noir diaglogue. It's very well done.
Wow, wow, wow. What a good film. I was hooked after the first ten minutes. It's not a typical indie film, that requires 30 minutes of set-up and explanation of characters and situations you don't care about. After the first minute, you're involved in the story and you're following the journey that Brendan is going on. You learn as he learns, you evaluate people as he does. You try to connect the dots, and when you think you know what's going on, you've got no real idea.
The cinematography is amazing, the shots are so well put together and composed. I loved the look of the film. It had a really grainy feel to it, and I loved how it felt to watch. I also enjoyed the use of color in this film. One group is specifically defined by the color white, while another group of people is specificaly designated to the black color. Then, we have Brendan, who is commonly wears grey throughout the film. A perfect metaphorical representation of how Brendan constantly walks the thin line between good and bad in the film, all in the name of love. Brendan is trying to solve the murder of a the girl he loves, and not only does he learn a lot about her, and the people she fell involved with - he also learns his own personal limits.
And just like typical drama-detective films, it's not over when you think its over, and Brendan has an amazing final scene - with the "true" killer - where you get the sense that he's smarter than we have ever thought. Which, thinking back, I shouldn't have underestimated him. He figures out a good amount of things throughout the film, and I should have seen him putting everything together.
Like I said, the most appealing part of the film is the fact that people talk in ways that are so atypical that it draws you into the film, from the first sequence. I highly recommend it, and I hope you don't wait as long as I did to watch it. Like "The Maltese Falcon" and "Chinatown", "Brick" is not a film I could watch regularly, but I imagine that every year, or two, I will break it out and want to watch it. It's definitely a film that I would watch with anyone who hasn't seen it, just to watch them and see their reactions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)