tháng 11 2009 ~ The Larsen Film Review

Gomorrah (2008)

There are some bold claims made by the marketing team for this film. "The Greatest Mafia Movie Ever Made" at the top of the movie poster. Other posters claim it to be a "Modern Classic" and the "Best Since City of God." It wasn't that I saw these claims before watching this and expected more, I actually didn't see this until I was looking for a picture to add to the blog.

The film gives no background, no location, no date, no explaination, it just starts... not a bad thing... but 3-4 minutes later you are now following a different main character, and every 3-4 minutes you jump around, again and again. After an hour I was able to figure out we were following five different storylines, and it wasn't until I paused and looked online that I found out what country we were actually in [Italy if you were curious].

So I've been here before, Pulp Fiction & Amores perros are some great examples of films that jump around and put the pieces together in the end. The key difference is that these films draw you in, you stop caring about how it will come together and enjoy the acting and the film itself. When it comes together it is great! However, when a film jumps around and you are constantly asking "what is the point of this?" and "where is this going?" and "who was this guy again?" You really stop caring if it will come together and just hope it will end.

So in the end does it make sense, well, not really, that is why you should avoid this one... yuck...

Vote: 2/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

If I would have watched this film first than I would have rated The Public Enemy even lower. Both of these came out in 1931 and this is by far the better film. If you want to see an old fashioned gangster film with matching lingo, this is a easy watch and pretty short an only 1 hour and 18 minutes.

It follows the rise and fall of gangster Rico a.k.a. Little Caesar (Edward G. Robinson). The quickfire script and fast storyline make this a more enjoyable watch than The Public Enemy. Robinson must have been an inspiration to Al Pacino in Scarface in his fearless [and careless] rise to the top.

The American Film Institute voted this the #9 American Gangster Film of All-Time. I have yet to see Scarface (Shame of a Nation - 1932), but I would easily recommend this at a great gangster classic.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021079/

Starring Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde) and Julie Christie (Don't Look Now), this film was voted by the American Film Institute as the #8 American Western of all-time. The story is about the growth of a small mining town which centers around the dichotomy of the brothel and the church.

McCabe strolls into town and with the help of Mrs. Miller they start a brothel, meanwhile the town is building a church, McCabe with no moral standards even intices those working on the church to come to the brothel. The mining corperation catches wind of the brothel and tries to buy McCabe out. The true battle between corperation and little business man is at the forefront, but I truly think the director was trying to project that the real battle here was between the morality of the town. This can't but fully understood or explained without me ruining the movie, if you watch this film ask yourself who really won in the end and was there a hero in the collective of the townspeople.

Mrs. Miller is a much more boring character than I expected, how Christie got an Oscar nomination is beyond me, and the real star of the film is only McCabe. The book was originially titled just "McCabe" so I think the director/producer wanted to add the Mrs. Miller for marketing reasons. I'm very split on recommending this film because they are so many other westerns that are just better. The best part of the film, however, was the soundtrack. It gave it an epic film feeling while being while also being very unique, much like one of my favorite soundtracks from Gangs of New York.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067411/

Wow! I loved this movie. I watched it for the first time this summer and watched it again after a trip to Blockbuster with the family.

The plot is simple, his daughter has been kidnapped and he has to get her back before it is too late. Pierre Morel does a great job directing this film with non-stop action, I will be sure and catch his next film From Paris with Love next year with John Travolta.

Liam Neeson plays the bad ass dad out to get his daughter back. Maggie Grace (Shannon from "Lost") plays the very minor role of Kim the daughter who is kidnapped. If you watched Lost you know she plays a spoiled girl pretty well.

There is not much more to say than, "watch this film". You have enough of the storyline, and you should like Neeson already. I just wish the Bond series would hire Morel.

Vote: 10/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/

I expect this will be on next years Golden Globe nomination list. Meryl Streep plays Julia Child, and Amy Adams plays Julie Powell in a story intertwining the life of Julia Child and the project of Julie Powell.

Julia Child and her husband Paul Child, played by Stanley Tucci (you would recognize him from a slew of very minor roles through the years, this is most significant supporting role and by far his best thanks to working alongside Strepp), they live in France and Paul works from the US Government. Julia learns to cook and eventually starts writing a cookbook.

Flashforward 50 years and Julie Powell with the encouragement of her husband decide to start a blog, "The Julie/Jula Project" (http://blogs.salon.com/0001399/) and she sets out to cook all 500+ recipes in Julia Child's book in one year, while blogging about each one.

As a new blog writer I completely share her excitement when you get new followers, people post comments, and your site gets more hits. It is easy to feel that you are writing to yourself, and confirmation that someone cares means a lot.

There are a few parts of the story I felt they left out, for instance I don't know if the two women ever met. Overall it was a fun movie, for a potential awards movie it was good, not too long, and had some strong supporting actor/actress roles. This is worth watching.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135503/

As a kid christmas was easy, the entire family came to our house, all I had to do was to the church and be patient for the present openings. There was very little travel, usually just a 20 minute drive across town every other year. Now that I live 5 hours from my family and my parents are divorced I personally have three christmases. Mine aren't nearly as colorful as the stars of this film, but it definitely gives me a perspective on their travels.

So the storyline is that Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon have been avoiding travelling to visit their families for three straight years. This year they have to visit the families, both of them have divorced parents so they have four stops to make in one day.

With parents played by members played by Robert Duvall (Apocalypse Now), Sissy Spacek (Carrie), Jon Voight (Varsity Blues), and Mary Steenburgen (The Proposal).
Other family members include Dwight Yoakam, Tim McGraw, and Kristin Chenoweth.

This was a very fun slapstick comedy about dealing with families during the holidays, and worth watching as you plan your next holiday trip. Expect the same character from Vaugh you are used to and he will find a way to wear a hawaiian shirt at some point also.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369436/

The #10 American Western as listed by the American Film Institute on last years 10Top10 list. This is the type of western movie that as a kid made me ask, "why does anybody like westerns?" There is a barn dance, over-the-top bad acting, silly fights and some awful country singing during the jingles that narrate and tie all the scenes together.

The star of the film is Jane Fonda, in one of her earlier roles, who plays the role of Catherine 'Cat' Ballou. I have managed to avoid just about any film or television show with Fonda, and not exactly by coincidence. Her roles in Monster-in-Law alongside Jennifer Lopez and Wanda Sykes is just one of those I've avoided. However, I had no idea how beautiful she was when she was younger. She is definitely the only reason to watch this film.

One of the more significant supporting actor roles comes from Lee Marvin as a gun-slinger hired by Cat. This is the first of his films I've seen as well, but I do however have more than a few of his on my list The Dirty Dozen, The Professionals, and Hell in the Pacific.

With this slapstick storyline, and a pretty entertaining cast this is a western that probably earned a PG rating, personally I'll stick with the shoot'em up westerns like The Wild Bunch and anything with Clint Eastwood.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059017/

One of the first James Cagney gangster films and voted the #8 American Gangster film by the American Film Institute in 2008, and based on the novel Beer and Blood by John Bright, this gangster film in prohibition era Chicago features the famous grapefruit scene in the pre-Hays Code era.

The movie follows the rise of Tom Powers (Cagney) and Matt Doyle (Edward Woods) from kids in Chicago do small jobs like pickpocketting to becoming bootlegging gangsters. Jean Harlow plays the sexy girlfriend Cagney picks up on the street after smashing a grapefruit in his soon-to-be ex-girlfriends face at the dinner table.

Being a 1930's film they are very clearly on a set throughout the film. Many of the props are visually fake, and the supporting actors are very fake and scripted as well. I think the AFI was struggling to come up with 10 good gangster films. They should have pushed Scarface up, added American Gangster, and dropped this film.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022286/

The foreign film Oscar winner from 2003, this is a film about the final days of a dying father. The father is in an over populated hospital in Canada with four people to a room and people lining the walls in the hall, meanwhile the floor below is empty. The son is a millionaire who has made it rich off of oil money and who does not get along with his very socialist professor father; through bribery he is able to secure his father a freshly furnished room on the empty floor and all of the necessary cancer testing.

He finds out his cancer is terminal and the son scores him some heroin to ease the pain. He then manages to gather up all of his fathers friends to see him through his final days. The film has a very light mood considering the plot. The gathered friends talk about life, love, and everything they miss from being young. The scoring heroin and assisted suicide at the end are all treated very lightly, which I found very shocking [and I don't feel telling you this ruins the film since we find out the cancer is terminal in the first 10 minutes]

I don't think this is a timeless classic by any means. I expect it will slowly slip out of the minds of those that put it on their "top" lists and motivated me to watch this in the first place. Just an average film.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338135/

This film takes place in Sweden in the early 1900's and follows the life of Maria Larsson, a working class woman with a large family and abusive husband. With advice from her parents to not get divorced after being beaten the first time she toughens up, finds a hobby [photography], and cares deeply for her kids. Her husband Sigfrid goes through worker strikes, World War I, and prison following one of his attacks on Maria. We also get some glimpses of the life of the children growing up in this time.

The films main focus though is the "Everlasting Moments" that come from taking pictures. The fascination with the ability to take pictures and the advent of the cinema. There are some heartwarming scenes, but overall this is an average film that does not compare to some similar American made films in recent history. It might be too slow from some, couple that with the subtitles and this made for a very average film.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961066/

Some may question why I struggle through the entire Golden Globe and Oscar lists when there are some films I postpone or regret having to sit through. The film I expect to be the worst annually has become the winner of the Costume Design category. These films are nominated not for substance, but purely on the attire of the cast. The previous two winners were Elizabeth: The Golden Age and Marie Antoinette which have been standouts in a negative way...

So to complete this years ballot all I had to do was finish this Keira Knightley film. Low and behold this category finally delivered a decent film. With good performances by Hayley Atwell (as Lady Bess) and Ralph Fiennes (as the Duke, you might remember him from In Bruges, The Constant Gardener, or The English Patient). Fiennes also was nominated for a Supporting Actor Golden Globe for his role as a bored, dull, and sometimes cruel man. Atwell had her first major film performance and acted the part well, I'm not going to say she was amazing, but she fit the part well.

This film is a history piece following the life of Georgiana a girl not even 18 years old when she becomes the Duchess of Devonshire. Taking place in England in the late 18th century and spanning about 15 years of her life, and the roles of a Duchess. This is a very feminist film, it portrays [justly] women as having very limited rights, and has a few appalling scenes. You can't leave this film without thinking "thank goodness I wasn't a women in this day and age." The most ironic part of the film was that it won for costume design, and I couldn't get over the fake mole Knightly had at one of the parties. Whether it was normal to do this 250 years ago at parties or not, it was very funny to me that this "costume" was so fake and ridiculous.

With a good story, decent acting jobs all around, and some fantastic costumes this definitely brought new life to the category. Maybe I won't avoid next years front runners Bright Star and The Young Victoria until November.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0864761/

The sleeper movie of the summer in 2009. This film starring Zooey Deschanel (Elf, Failure to Launch, and Yes Man) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Tommy from "3rd Rock from the Sun") is what some consider a modern Woody Allen love story.

Summer is the main character, the typical free spirit character than Deschanel always plays. While, Gorden-Levitt proved to me that he is more than just "the kid from 3rd Rock," he has really proven that he can act. I thought he reminded me of a young Heath Ledger and found that some share this opinion. Hopefully he can find some better roles than G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra in the future.

This story is about the heart aches of love, the fact that one person might be more committed to the relationship than the other. It is not a romantic comedy where you know everything is going to work out in the end. There are elements of reality and struggles as the characters lives progress. Getting over someone can make people develop into better people, and realizing it was never meant to be can be hard.

With cheesy moments and indie moments (comparing musical taste in a record store), I can see how this film is trying to market itself, it is a very long shot at a Comedic Golden Globe.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1022603/

With a title taken from the song "Il y a longtemps que je t'aime," this film title misleads you to think it is a sappy love story. In fact the "Loved You So Long" refers to the love one sister has when the other is jailed for 15 years.

Nominated for a Golden Globe as France's submission to Best Foreign Language film, and also for Kristin Scott Thomas performance as the leading actress. It won for neither and was subsequently lacking in Oscar nominations, what some call a snub, and what I call good taste by the Academy.

This film was slow, boring, and most importantly unrealistic. To go in-depth into the lack of reality would ruin the film, the reason for her incarceration, and the reason her family all but disowning her.

It pains me that the Golden Globe Committee and the Academy Award committee do not see eye-to-eye on the best foreign films more often. It means I have to watch more than five films to get through basically one category each year, but I am also glad the Oscars did not buy into any hype that may have surrounded this film.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068649/

I do expect to get some criticism for the rating I gave this film. It is very difficult to keep all genres of film on the same rating system. A good horror movie, by right, should be able to get a 10/10 and a good comedy should be able to do the same. When Escape from L.A. gets a 5/10 that is basing it against other Action films.

The Proposal has hints of the typical Romantic Comedy, just as an Action film has a chase scene or a horror film has a killer. The difference is that it exceeded in many aspects. Sandra Bullock, in her best film since Crash and Miss Congeniality, did an excellent job playing a role of a mean boss forced to lighten up. Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder) seems to be finding a niche in Romantic Comedies (Definitely, Maybe, Just Friends), and with supporting roles played by Mary Steenburgen (the mom in Step Brothers, Elf, and Four Christmases), Craig T. Nelson ("Coach"), Betty White ("The Golden Girls"), and Oscar Nuñez (Oscar from "The Office") this is a pretty good comedy cast.

Reynolds plays Bullock's assistant and they attempt to scam the government when Bullock's Visa gets denied. Betty White taking Bullock around town and the many roles of Oscar Nuñez keep the laughs coming. This is definitely the best Romantic Comedy I have seen in some time.

Vote: 9/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1041829/

There is a certain segment of movies that came out when I was a young teenager that were a little old for me at the time. Ones that would have commercials during my favorite shows, or interviews on late night when I stayed up late on weekends. They all of course looked awesome, but I wasn't much of a movie watcher back then anyways, and with time were forgotten. When I come across one of these gems from time to time I instantly go, "Oh yeah, I wanted to see that!!!" This was one of those films. Little did I know this was a sequel to Escape from New York (1981), nor did I realize that Kurt Russell could act worse than Chuck Norris.... in a good way of course.

From the DOS computer game quality navigation in vehicles, to the holograms and giant cell phones this film delivers on cheese. Lets not forget the awesome soundtrack featuring Tool and White Zombie; Throw in some Stabbing Westward, Gravity Kills, and Deftones and you have a soundtrack of music I grew up to.... whether that belongs in the background of a movie or not...probably not.

This movie does have everything, eye patches, gliders with visible guide cables, surfing on waves created by earthquakes, shoot or die basketball. Wow... Fun fact is that Russell actually made all of his shots in the basketball scene, so we know at least one element of this movie is real, it is almost comical to think he spent time practicing is shot as much as rehearsing his lines. Lets not forget Steve Buscemi playing one of his slimiest characters and Pam Grier with a man's voice.

Easily one of the [Best] Worst Movies of the 90's... if you take the time to watch this focus on the extras... they are hilarious.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/

The dreaded Oscar foreign film winner... almost always a World War II film or just very long and slow. Departures completely suprised me, it is unlike any Oscar foreign film I've seen in the last four years, why? Because it balances comedy so well with drama, the story was eventful, and the characters were developed well.

The story is about a cello musician who takes a job preparing the dead for funerals. Granted, the plot line just sounds awful but Masahiro Motoki does an incredible job in the lead role. There are hints of comedy as he learns his new job and parts with being a Cello artist, and his new boss has a dry and sometimes dark sense of humor.

This isn't just my favorite foreign film from last years Oscars, it is one of my favorite overall. The beauty of this film is that you have no idea where it is taking you from start to finish. It does not get boring because it was not predictible, you are drawn into the characters and interested in the story. If you can find this one it is worth your time.

Vote: 8/10

IMBD Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1069238/

Starring Emma Thompson (Sense and Sensibility, Love Actually, Stranger Than Fiction) and Dustin Hoffman (also Stranger Than Fiction, e.g. where these two met), this is a film about second chances.

Harvey's (Dustin Hoffman) job is on the line and so is his relationship with his daughter (as we learn in the opening credits), and also isn't until their "second chance" that Harvey meets Kate (Emma Thompson).

This was a suprisingly short film, and I am definitely not the target audience. A good romantic flick but I can see how this got overlooked for the Oscars. The Globes tend to jump on films with big names early hoping they will pan out, but the lack of a buzz yielded no awards and no Oscar Nominations.

I do not regret watching this film, but I don't want to watch it again.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046947/

Easily the most overrated film on the Oscar and Golden Globe ballot this year. This is one of those British films that you need English subtitles for. If you can make it through the first 15 minutes you will find a few funny moments scattered throughout the film as the eccentric Sally Hawkins runs around the screen without a care in the world. As an alchoholic school teacher who still can't drive at the age of 30, she spends the film visiting family, taking driving lessons from the insane "Scott" (Eddie Marsan), and starting a relationship with a male social worker.

I'm not sure how some other films got overlooked last year, but I now know why between winning the Golden Globe and the Oscars no one was talking about this movie.

Vote: 5/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045670/

This film won the Oscar for Documentary Feature in 2005. It is a story about the lives of a dozen kids from Calcutta's Red Light District. Considered one of the worst slums in India; filmmaker Zana Briski spent several years documenting the lives of the women in the red light district. With many being camera shy and with difficulty getting footage she ended up speaking with the children. She fell in love with the kids and started teaching them how to take pictures. She then spends the rest of the film taking them on field trips and trying to give them a chance in life. She tries to get them into boarding schools and is able to use their pictures to raise money for their own educations.

A heartwarming film, I was sad to see that her efforts were exclusively with this handful of kids. It would be nice to see if there have been continued efforts with the kids in Calcutta. For someone that is not a social worker she made a tremendous effort in helping these children.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388789/

It was very difficult to make a final vote on this film. There were aspects that were really very good and ones that I could have done without.

Revanche is an Austrian film, one that must somehow translate into irony in English. The film is about a stripper and her boyfriend who decide to run away. The boyfriend decides to rob a bank to finance their escape, but like all bank robberies something goes wrong. When the stripper is accidently shot in the getaway car he is left wondering if he should blame the police officer or himself for taking her along during the robbery.

Loaded with ironic details the plausible goes out the window, and with an abrupt ending none of the questions are answered. With a better ending I could have been happy with this film. Instead I would pass on watching it ever again.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1173745/

This film is the perfect example of why I sit through the long list of Oscar Nominees. More than a few are quite difficult to sit through, but there are a few gems that you never would have thought to watch if not for their nomination.

There are some actors out there than you have seen over-and-over again and only consider them as a supporting actor. When they get their chance at a starting role it is always questionable how they will handle it. Personally Philip Seymour Hoffman is my perfect example of a supporting actor turned lead role. He was in more than 10 quality films before I knew who he was, and when he got his chance at a starting role is hit a homerun (e.g. Capote).

Richard Jenkins is that example here. A TV star for over 20 years and getting into movies with small roles in the 90's: There's Something About Mary, Me, Myself & Irene, Changing Lanes, Intolerable Cruelty, and many others. Most recently was his hit performance in Burn After Reading but this truly is his first starring role.

Jenkins plays a college professor in Connecticut who clearly has lost interest in his work. There is a scene where he is whiting out the "7" from 2007 to change it to 2008 so that he can recycle his tests... something I frequently saw happening with my college professors. He is basically forced to go to a conference in New York City by what I can only assume was the head of his department (it could have been a dean). He has an apartment in New York that he had been living in with his wife who has passed. When he arrives he discovers that a couple has been staying there while he was gone.

The change in character and relationships that are built from this point where very enjoyable to watch. The story that unfolds is something I will save for those that want to watch the film. Some might accuse it of being slow, instead I found it to have strong acting performances.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Rating: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857191/

It is slightly ironic that I wanted to know if it was possible to have a film capable of entering the foreign, animated, and documentary categories at the Oscars. This film is the first that I have encountered that has all of these attributes. Winner of the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language film and coming up short for the Oscar in the same category I really had high hopes for this film.

An Israeli veterans of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 attempts to reconstruct his memories 20 years later by interviewing his friends. The stories are told in a documentary style as these men recount the horrors of war.

Strange enough to took me over a year to get around to viewing it. The pace of the film is hindered by the documentary style, and as expected from a film trying to fit into too many nitches there really wasn't a single stand out quality. I only enjoyed the animation some of the time, the documentary aspect came up lacking in places, and the almost musical scenes mixing comedy with the horrors of war were disturbing. Granted disturbing was a goal.

The R rating is very generous, there is a lot of sexual and violent content, some that could or should have been avoided. Definitely not as good as I was hoping for.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185616/

The fifth and final documentary from the 81st Oscar list. Every year there is an outstanding episode of PBS's "Point of View" documentary series that gets, as I consider, a token nomination.

The background of the story is that the United States trained a secret army in Laos to fight the North Vietnamese. When the United States pulled out of Vietnam they left this secret army with no protection and the families of the men in this army were forced to flee Laos.

The narrator was the eldest son of a family forced to leave the country, his family fled to America and their sponsors put them up in a two-bedroom slum in New York City shared by over a dozen other people. Gang warfare threatened the family and with no education, work, or ability to speak English they have been struggling for the last 13 years.

Filmed over 23 years this could have been a very powerful film. I felt that the story was lacking and a lot was covered up. What do I mean? Well we know that several of the kids were involved in gangs, a few ran away from home, and we were never really filled in on how they actually did survive. They made it out to be the American's fault for all of their problems, yet they do not blame the father who had a 2nd family, took over 13 years to find them, and was part of the secret army that didn't think about the repercussions of the Americans eventually leaving. They had to know this was a possibility.

They were given the opportunity to come to our country and start over fresh, learn the language, take a minimum wage job, get a small apartment out of the slums... there are so many success stories in this country, they were on welfare and collecting food stamps and still couldn't find the means to get a start. Most losers in a war don't get to safely leave the country.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1157685/

This was definitely a breakthrough performance for both Bradley Cooper (He's Just Not That Into You) as Phil and Zach Galifianakis (Out Cold) as Alan. It also features Ed Helms ("The Office"), Heather Graham (Boogie Nights), and Mike Tyson in solid performances.

This was my second time to watch this film, and it was just as good as the first. A group of friends go to Las Vegas for a Bachelor party and get in a lot of trouble. The best thing about this film is that as soon as the party gets started you are flashed forward to the next morning. The groom is missing and they can't remember anything that happened the night before. They spend the majority of the movie retracing their steps. Which turns out to be more entertaining to watch, than if we would have actually watched the events in a straight forward fashion.

This was a very funny film, and if the Academy had any sense the writers Jon Lucas & Scott Moore would get some screenplay recognition, and Galifianakis would get a Golden Globe nomination for his comedic performance.

Crude but worth your time.

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119646/

The latest romantic comedy with a mindless plot starring Katherine Heigl (Knocked Up) and Gerard Butler (300). This film is just as predictable as you would expect, bad guy is really a good guy deep down. Super successful girl has no luck with men. They butt heads and fall in love at the end, meanwhile a guy that seemed good for most of the film turns out to be a really bad person.

Why is it that the bad guy turns out to be good, and the good guy turns out to be bad in every chick flick? Is it because women want to think they can change their man, and that if he is a good guy it must be too good to be true.

I really felt for the doctor in this movie, he really worked hard to win her over, then the director had to come up with some unrealistic lines to write him out.

Exactly what I expected going into this film.

Vote: 5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142988/

This film follows the formation of the terrorist group known as the Red Army Faction (RAF) in Germany in the last 60's. The film stars Martina Gedeck (The Good Shepherd), Moritz Bleibtreu (Munich ), and Bruno Ganz (Der Untergang: Downfall).

The film focuses on the violence and incarceration of the leaders of the terrorist group more than the actual history and stance the group took. It definitely depicted the group as if they did not have a clear message, organization, or leadership skills. The most ironic part for me was that Ganz, who played Hitler in Downfall, was cast as a police officer. I'm not sure if they used him to exemplify the police force as Nazi-like, or not.

I was not impressed by the acting and the police standoffs, murders, and bombings do not excite me as much as learning what their fight was for, or about. I left the film feeling like I learned nothing, maybe this is what the director was trying to show, maybe not. All I know is that I didn't like it and was bored throughout.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765432/

This film proves that the first film in the series was a fluke for Director Michael Bay. With freedom to use explosions at will Bay put together a film devoid of genuine acting. Thank goodness Shia LaBeouf (Eagle Eye, Disturbia, and I, Robot) knows how to act his way through an action film, he was the only redeeming quality in this film.

The flick clocks in at two and a half hours, and don't be suprised if Bay releases an extended cut with extra explosions. There is a significant amount of content that was unnecessary and would have been better if left out. For example, Judy Witwicky (Julie White) is Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and plays a slapstick, over-the-top mother who can't cope with him leaving for college. There are scenes of her eating Brownies made with pot, crying holding baby booties, and spiting food out at a nice restaurant, all of which we could have done without.

This film was accused of being all about Megan Fox, but honestly I didn't understand this. Yes, I agree that they took choice shots of her running around in next to nothing, and liberally kept her in scenes where she plays no role or had no lines.

However, the biggest problem I had with this film though was the camera work not the overuse of a main character. It is a clear sign that the production staff is unsecure about their films content if they have to change camera angles more than 3 times in 5 seconds, couple this with a camera that never stops moving. This film in 3-D would be enough to make anyone lose their lunch on a big screen. Take for instance a scene were Fox and LaBeouf embrace before he leaves for college, the camera does 3 full circles around them... why!?! This is completely unnecessary, because this wasn't at a climax after a dramatic event, this is merely to keep the audience from taking their eyes off the screen. The sound editing was rough also, with the volume up the explosions and robots are very loud, but good luck hearing the dialog mixed in without waking up the neighbors.

To end on a positive note, Tyrese Gibson (Waist Deep) and Josh Duhamel played their military roles well and I will keep an eye on their films in the future.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055369/

This early 80's film brings together a young group of actors on the rise, Patrick Swayze pre-Dirty Dancing, Lea Thompson pre-Back to the Future (as Lorainne McFly), and Charlie Sheen in his feature film debut.

It also reunites some of the cast of the previous years hit The Outsiders, including C. Thomas Howell (Randy), Patrick Swayze (Darrel), Darren Dalton (Daryl), and William Smith (Store Clerk).

I assumed from the movie poster this was some sort of fighter plane Top Gun-like film, but was suprised to find it was about a group of high school friends becoming guerilla fighters after the Soviets & Cubans invade the United States sparking World War III.

The plausibility of this events occuring are somewhat far-fetched but did make for a fairly entertaining film. The best scene by far is when three Russians are standing in front of a forest sign stating that President Roosevelt dedicated a 45,000 acre forest for some purpose and they translated it as "45,000 people died in the greatest American battle lead by imperialist leader Roosevelt over the Native Americans." For a war film there were very few scenes that challenged the groups character and little was done to develop the individual characters throughout. The scene dealing with treatment of prisoners was the only challenge of the group leaders character and there is debate on if they handled this correctly. This is considered one of Patrick Swayze's best films alongside Dirty Dancing and Road House, and is a must watch for Swayze or Charlie Sheen fans.

Look for the remake coming out in 2010, it will be Dan Bradley's directorial debut. He was the Stunt Coordinator in the Bourne and Spider-man series, and with a screenplay done by Carl Ellsworth (Disturbia and Red Eye). This could be an interesting flick next November.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

I'm suprised that this is the first Katrina related documentary to be nominated for an Oscar, coming almost three years after the fact. Seeing that I have no experience in directing or producing this might be right on time for all I know. This film was very interesting to me, I actually was in New Orleans a year after Katrina and I was pretty shocked to see how much had not been accomplished.

The film has a lot of homemade footage of a family that was unable to find the means to leave the city. It shows the different stages of the storm and the family's migration to the attic, then across the street to a taller home thanks to a kind neighbor. It then follows them trying to find shelter after three days in an attic, and the inability to get any kind of government assistance with transportation or FEMA relief.

I had a fraternity brother that went down to New Orleans as part of the National Guard, his view on the plight of these people was sickening to me and exemplified by the troops very well in this movie. To think this film is bias is nieve, the government did not care about these people then, and honestly they still don't. It really brings in questions of faith and responsibility as a Christian when people dismiss the main characters as drug dealers, crackheads, and self-promoting rappers as justification for lack of assistance, because their life is just as valuable as ours. The fact that the government left hospital patients stranded and prisons without food while pointing guns at people trying to find shelter in an abandoned base makes me wonder how this story could not be portrayed in a bias fashion.

With a fairly short runtime of about an hour and a half there is some filler I could have done without. Some may find it easy to dismiss the credibility of this film over the Mrs. Roberts rapping accusing it of being self promoting; however, this is not the first documentary that has a montage sung by the narrator and the music does fit the ethnos.

Vote: 7/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149405/

I had negative feelings about this film going into it, and for the first 30 minutes of the film I didn't know if I could finish it. With slapstick comedic moments, mixed with drama, romance, and adventure, this film lacked direction completely. Then after a waste of an hour and 15 minutes it turned into an emotional epic which it should have been in the first place.

Director Baz Luhrmann is an Australian, and this was his first feature film since Moulin Rouge! (2001). So now he is a Musical Director crossing over into everything else at once? Nicole Kidman has another failure in my eyes, she has been unable to succeed in anything but children's movies since Cold Mountain in 2003. I'd rather not take the time to comment on those said failures such as The Stepford Wives , Birth, and The Interpreter. Hugh Jackman's best performance last year was as the host of the Oscars, and being Australian himself I completely forgive him for being in this awful movie. He was one of the only redeeming qualities in this very long directionless film.

Save yourself two and a half hours and watch something else.

Vote: 4/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455824/

Man on Wire is a colorful documentary about Philippe Petit a tightrope walker with a dream to perform a high-wire routine between the World Trade Centers.

The documentary follows Petit from the moment he decides he will attempt this feat, which was actually before the towers were built, through the entire event.

The film did very well winning or being nominated for numerous awards at film festivals across the world. It won the British Academy Film Awards for Outstanding British Film distancing it from the competition at last years Oscars, where it took home Best Documentary Feature.

The footage is stunning, and like his friends it was only before and after the stunts that I sensed he was in danger. During the performance it is very mesmerizing, and the fact that they are interviewing him you already know he will be safe.

Throughout the film I had questions, how did they get away with this? How did they set it up? How much trouble did he get in? These are all logical questions and I felt that the director did a wonderful job identifying the questions the audience would have, no matter how obvious, and clearly answering them.

This was a very enjoyable film, having seen 4 of the 5 Oscar nominees it was up against I felt this definitely deserved the win and would gladly watch it again some day.

Vote: 9/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155592/

A documentary about a trip to Antarctica, the use of the word "Encounters" both applies to the encounters with the various people in the city and the encounters with the sealife and wildlife.

There is a lot about this film which makes it seem like a long television show on the Discovery channel. There are many beautiful images when they are under the ice or at the volcanos, but this is what I look for when I watch National Geographic. The content I look for in a documentary, direction and purpose, was not developed enough.

The encounters with the people proved to be very interesting. The explaination of some of the people and how they came to find themselves in the middle of nowhere is interesting. I do not think you will find a church of any kind in this town, most of these scientists have all but abandoned humanity, are ultra-treehuggers, or sure the earth is doomed as we know it. I don't think I'm over speculating here, my best examples would be that the scientists spend their free time watching 1950's Sci-Fi movies about the earth being invaded or destroyed. Also, the shrine deep below the actual pole for aliens or future lifeforms to find the history of humans as we know them. This coupled with a complete lack of faith in humanity and constant talk about what the world will be like when humans are gone. This all makes me think you have to either be crazy to go here, or that going here makes you crazy.

The mix of National Geographic and Character studies kept this somewhat interesting, but I can't say I would recommend this film.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/

Ebert Link (Note: this film was dedicated to Rober Ebert):
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/REVIEWS/807100305/1023

I watched this Golden Globe Nominee with very low expectations. Most of the time when a film is only nominated for a single song and not even for an Oscar for that song the movie is pretty weak. Like usual I couldn't identify the nominated song either.

The main character in the film is Leonard Chess, the founder of Chess Records in the 1950s, played by Adrien Brody. Adrien has not put out a movie I liked since The Jacket in 2005 which was another reason for low expectations.

The real starts of the film were Jeffrey Wright as Muddy Waters and Gabrielle Union. You might recognize Wright from the latest James Bond films and Union from Bring It On. Wright played the part very well along with a very good supporting cast, but the Supporting Role of Union should have yielded an Oscar Nomination. The Academy could have easily replaced Taraji P. Henson from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with her.

Beyoncé Knowles and Mos Def played their roles well, and the film overall was a pleasant suprise. Since I plan on recommending this to a relative I will have to give it:

Vote: 8/10

IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1042877/

The latest Pixar film has really "flown" under the radar this year. This to me is usually a sign that it was not very good, because when WALL·E and Ratatouille came out these past two years there was a lot of buzz around them. This one has been about as popular as Cars, the last Pixar film that did NOT win the Oscar and may prove that they are not a lock every year.

The film starts with the main character as a child and fast forwards to him as an old man. There is quite a bit of adult themes running at the beginning and off the bad I thought this might be a more mature Pixar film than what I consider the least mature film Cars. The film quickly loses all plausibility when the house takes flight. Now I know from the previews that this is fantasy and so I bite my tongue and ignore this completely, however it seems like the director felt that this gave him free range to not close any continuity throughout the rest of the film. Much like Wall-E it takes an immature turn and although there are some funny lines and cute scenes this is not even close to the calibre of Pixar film I expected.

I will be very curious to see if The Princess and the Frog can give this film a run for the money in the Golden Globe and Oscar race this season.

Vote: 6/10

IMDB Rating: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049413/

Rip blogspot

Nổi Bật

Labels

Blog Archive