So I finally told myself I should sit down and watch this film that so many people have badmouthed, yet had gotten so much attention last May. I read the book about a year and a half ago, and I remember most of what happened, so that obviously took an influence in my thoughts on the film.
In essence, the film is like flat cola, it seems sweet and that it has potential, but it really has no buzz going on. I admit I couldn't even get through the whole thing. I got to 1.5/2.5 hours, and decided that the film really wasn't going to change in pace or do anything quite interesting that I haven't read before, so I decided not to waste another hour of my time ( I have valuable other things to watch, haha).
The film is really a paint-by-number depiction. The cinematography is too damn dark, and moody lighty, that just makes it confusing to see what's going on. The direction is also non-existent. I say save your time and don't watch it.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Kicking and Screaming (1995)
I thought this movie was alright. The story is about a group of friends who have just graduated college, and how they spend that first year of independence from school.
I thought it was very well written with subtle, but decent acting for the cast. Honestly going into the film I was hoping for a more archaic narrative. When I first heard about Kicking and Screaming, I hoped that it would have the same feel as Linklater's Slacker from 1990. Instead Kicking and Screaming is a lot more accessible than Slacker. I have to say though that K&S is the middle of the pendulum swing with Slacker on the art house extreme, and Reality Bites on the mainstream extreme. Essentially K&S should be the ideal candidate for apathetic post-college individuals. I think this film would have got more attention, but it doesn't seem to want to toot it's own horn.
This is the first feature film by Noah Baumbach, and I feel like it should get some attention, since he's been doing well for himself lately (ie. The Squid and the Whale, a must see). On the other hand, my theory is that K&S isn't getting much nostalgic attention, the way Slacker did, because it was just recently put on the Criterion Collection. Baumbach is a writer/director worth keeping tabs on.
I thought it was very well written with subtle, but decent acting for the cast. Honestly going into the film I was hoping for a more archaic narrative. When I first heard about Kicking and Screaming, I hoped that it would have the same feel as Linklater's Slacker from 1990. Instead Kicking and Screaming is a lot more accessible than Slacker. I have to say though that K&S is the middle of the pendulum swing with Slacker on the art house extreme, and Reality Bites on the mainstream extreme. Essentially K&S should be the ideal candidate for apathetic post-college individuals. I think this film would have got more attention, but it doesn't seem to want to toot it's own horn.
This is the first feature film by Noah Baumbach, and I feel like it should get some attention, since he's been doing well for himself lately (ie. The Squid and the Whale, a must see). On the other hand, my theory is that K&S isn't getting much nostalgic attention, the way Slacker did, because it was just recently put on the Criterion Collection. Baumbach is a writer/director worth keeping tabs on.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Smokin' Aces (2006)
I'm just rolling out the bad review today. I watched Smokin Aces two days ago, and I just didn't see the point of it. I know they were trying to create a slick heist/caper film, but it just was a flash of bling and posse.
When I first saw the trailer for this film I really thought it had potential. It had a decent cast, the premise looked interesting, and the cinematography seemed tight. Granted while watching it I was chatting on msn, but still I didn't miss anything by looking away.
I think the main thing that makes this a poor film is that they spend a confusing amount of time on the sub-plots. Because there are so many people looking to kill Buddy Israel, they spend time with each of the hitmen. Maybe in theory this sounded like a good idea, see how there are so many different people looking out to score from the murder, but at the same time, it's just confusing because it keeps jumping back and forth between the stories, but never having the characters crosspaths, which would be an interesting plot development.
When I first saw the trailer for this film I really thought it had potential. It had a decent cast, the premise looked interesting, and the cinematography seemed tight. Granted while watching it I was chatting on msn, but still I didn't miss anything by looking away.
I think the main thing that makes this a poor film is that they spend a confusing amount of time on the sub-plots. Because there are so many people looking to kill Buddy Israel, they spend time with each of the hitmen. Maybe in theory this sounded like a good idea, see how there are so many different people looking out to score from the murder, but at the same time, it's just confusing because it keeps jumping back and forth between the stories, but never having the characters crosspaths, which would be an interesting plot development.
Knocked Up (2007)
I thought this movie was alright, but it wasn't really what I was expecting. I was hoping for a film that was more like 40 Year Old Virgin, which is a very funny movie, one of my favourites. The reason why I heavily juxtaposed these two films is because they're both directed by Judd Apatow, who is known for his wise-crack humour mixed in with lovable slapstick (both genre pretty difficult to master).
What Knocked Up had that I found weakened the film is drama and poor improv. I read in an interview with Seth Rogen (the protagonist) that Judd let him do a lot of improv. While this approach may be creative, it actually led to the characters mostly swearing, and not being witty. Seth also brought in tid-bits of autobiographical info, ie. where he grew up, and some other random Canadiana references. The autobio study was just whatever, but for me, if there's an abundance of profane language in a film, without a balance of wit, then the film has the quality of a typical college home movie (seriously!).
I was also pretty disappointed by the ending. Yeah it was cutesy and all that jazz, but still was pretty unrealisitic.
What Knocked Up had that I found weakened the film is drama and poor improv. I read in an interview with Seth Rogen (the protagonist) that Judd let him do a lot of improv. While this approach may be creative, it actually led to the characters mostly swearing, and not being witty. Seth also brought in tid-bits of autobiographical info, ie. where he grew up, and some other random Canadiana references. The autobio study was just whatever, but for me, if there's an abundance of profane language in a film, without a balance of wit, then the film has the quality of a typical college home movie (seriously!).
I was also pretty disappointed by the ending. Yeah it was cutesy and all that jazz, but still was pretty unrealisitic.
Alpha Dog (2006)
I thought this was an interesting case study on how messed up the people are in America. Cinematically, however, I thought this was a weak film. The script was lacking originality (most of it was swearing), the composition was stark, and the actors looked like they were uninspired.
The interesting part of the film, the premise, I think deserves attention though. A kid is kidnapped because his brother owes money to a drug dealer. After a couple of hours the kid decides he'd like to stay with his kidnappers because he feels smothered in his homelife. Most of the film revolves around the conflict of whether the kid should be taken back to his parents, or if he should be allowed to stay and hang out with his kidnappers. The guys he stays with are very nice to him, and they become friends, so it's complicated to say whether he was being held against his will.
In the end (spoiler) the kid is killed because his captors would rather he die than go to prison for kidnapping (which happens anyway).
Now what's interesting in this whole drama is that it illustrated that the tragedy occurred because pretty much everyone was behaving selfishly. The brother who owed the money got his brother in that situation because he couldn't get his act together. The kid remained "kidnapped" because his parents wouldn't let him have a life. The drug dealer loses everything that he had because he didn't treat anyone with respect. And the kidnapped kid gets killed because he milked his shortlived freedom, when he should have returned sooner to his parents.
I think this is a good study on the american way of life. Everyone is looking out for their own back, but by not stepping up to help anyone else, they're screwing themselves over.
I found this interpretation took me some time to come up with because they film doesn't do much for the imagination, it is what it is. It felt very expository, rather than reflexive (I prefer the latter) so you really have to engage yourself in the characters actions to get a sense of why they are doing what they are doing.
The interesting part of the film, the premise, I think deserves attention though. A kid is kidnapped because his brother owes money to a drug dealer. After a couple of hours the kid decides he'd like to stay with his kidnappers because he feels smothered in his homelife. Most of the film revolves around the conflict of whether the kid should be taken back to his parents, or if he should be allowed to stay and hang out with his kidnappers. The guys he stays with are very nice to him, and they become friends, so it's complicated to say whether he was being held against his will.
In the end (spoiler) the kid is killed because his captors would rather he die than go to prison for kidnapping (which happens anyway).
Now what's interesting in this whole drama is that it illustrated that the tragedy occurred because pretty much everyone was behaving selfishly. The brother who owed the money got his brother in that situation because he couldn't get his act together. The kid remained "kidnapped" because his parents wouldn't let him have a life. The drug dealer loses everything that he had because he didn't treat anyone with respect. And the kidnapped kid gets killed because he milked his shortlived freedom, when he should have returned sooner to his parents.
I think this is a good study on the american way of life. Everyone is looking out for their own back, but by not stepping up to help anyone else, they're screwing themselves over.
I found this interpretation took me some time to come up with because they film doesn't do much for the imagination, it is what it is. It felt very expository, rather than reflexive (I prefer the latter) so you really have to engage yourself in the characters actions to get a sense of why they are doing what they are doing.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006)
I thought this was a really smartly made film. It shows how sometimes authority will really go to any length to crush revolutionaries.
The film started out lacking, unfortunately, it seemed like it was hastily put together, to show a general view of the feelings at that time. But after 15 minutes or so it got a lot better.
I really enjoyed the footage that they put together of the various demonstrations and media interviews that John was a part of. It really gave a strong sense that he was a committed person to the peace movements.
I liked how the testimonials didn't take up too much of the film, and rather was a lot of archival footage and photos.
I thought it was interesting that John's son, Sean, had no involvement with the film. Was it because he entered John's life so late, and after most of his protest years, or did he not want to put himself in the situation where he had to recount his memories with his father?
Overall, I think this movie is worth checking out. It's completely partial to John Lennon's case, but why would they take the other side, that'd just be ridiculous.
The film started out lacking, unfortunately, it seemed like it was hastily put together, to show a general view of the feelings at that time. But after 15 minutes or so it got a lot better.
I really enjoyed the footage that they put together of the various demonstrations and media interviews that John was a part of. It really gave a strong sense that he was a committed person to the peace movements.
I liked how the testimonials didn't take up too much of the film, and rather was a lot of archival footage and photos.
I thought it was interesting that John's son, Sean, had no involvement with the film. Was it because he entered John's life so late, and after most of his protest years, or did he not want to put himself in the situation where he had to recount his memories with his father?
Overall, I think this movie is worth checking out. It's completely partial to John Lennon's case, but why would they take the other side, that'd just be ridiculous.
Monday, June 04, 2007
A Night at the Museum (2006)
I thought this movie was pretty weak, but that's not to say I think no would enjoy this film. Both my mom and sister said they enjoyed the film quite a bit, and I can respect from afar their enjoyment. The thing about this film is that it's too easy and self-explanatory for me. Not to sound elitist, but I've seen this formula many times before so there's nothing new for me to see. If you are interested in said formula, this is my interpretation of it: any-robin-william's-movie-involving-a-family. There is usually an inept father, who's trying desperately to connect with his family. The kid feels like the world is out to get him because he has trouble respecting his father. But then it all ends up happy with the father and kids rejoining when after they go through a series of hijinks (often making use of fantasy devices, see how this is kid-friendly).
This film stars Ben Stiller, who I've enjoyed over the years, but his performance in this film is like week old pizza, you think it's going to be delish, but it tastes dried up, and tried. He plays the same character here as in most of his other films. I think the last film I enjoyed with him is Dodgeball, which was pretty funny.
I think what turned me off of this film, is that it's pure Disney. While I can see how it's good for kids, from afar, I cringe at the thought of having to sit through a +90 minute fare.
The one positive note, I did really enjoy the brief scenes between Ricky Gervais and Stiller, along with Dick van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Stiller. Gervais is hilarious, and should have been given more screen time; Dyke and Rooney are asstacular in the scene where they brawl Stiller.
This film stars Ben Stiller, who I've enjoyed over the years, but his performance in this film is like week old pizza, you think it's going to be delish, but it tastes dried up, and tried. He plays the same character here as in most of his other films. I think the last film I enjoyed with him is Dodgeball, which was pretty funny.
I think what turned me off of this film, is that it's pure Disney. While I can see how it's good for kids, from afar, I cringe at the thought of having to sit through a +90 minute fare.
The one positive note, I did really enjoy the brief scenes between Ricky Gervais and Stiller, along with Dick van Dyke, Mickey Rooney and Stiller. Gervais is hilarious, and should have been given more screen time; Dyke and Rooney are asstacular in the scene where they brawl Stiller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
