Posts filed under 'Movies'
I like Tim Burton movies, I’ll admit it. Usually, you’ll find that most people either like all of his movies or hate them all, because his movies are all very unique in style and taste. I think that’s why I like them - they are original, imaginative, and entertaining. But, Ed Wood, which most critics claim as Burton’s best work ever, I could have stood to never have seen. The movie is based on the true story of the cross-dressing Hollywood director, who is known to have made some of the worst movies of all time.
The acting in the movie was SUPERB, which I’m sure was due mostly to the direction of Burton. Martin Landou played Bella Lugosi and deserved the best supporting actor Oscar hands down. Johnny Depp played Ed Wood and also did a great acting job since he plays a character that seems to be so far removed from his true persona. There were more great actors in the movie, but it has to be noted that Vincent D’Onofrio had a short part as Orson Wells, and he was a dead ringer. Great acting aside, I just did not like the story at all and thought it was pretty boring. The only thing that kept me watching was the acting and wondering how Ed was going to finish his movie. I just hope Burton impresses me with Corpse Bride this year.
March 2nd, 2005
Saw was a great screenplay and original movie idea, had just the right amount of gore for a horror movie, but had some serious acting issues. The premise is basically that a serial killer has chained up two men in a large bathroom and tells them that in order to survive, they have to figure out a way to kill the other by a certain time. In the mean time, the police are trying to figure out who the killer is before their time is up.
I really liked this movie, but after seeing that it was shot on a tight budget in only 18 days, I appreciate it even more. The content of the movie is pretty dark, so check your stomach at the door before popping this one in your movie player of choice. I thought the writer, Leigh Whannell did a decent acting job as one of the men in the bathroom. However, Cary Elwes (who played the other man) did a relatively horrible job acting. I recognized him as Westley, my favorite swashbuckling hero from The Princess Bride, but he just didn’t cut the mustard on this flick. Aside from that, this was just a good old-fashioned horror movie with a twist at the end to make room for a sequel.
March 2nd, 2005
If you like romantic, sappy, sad movies, then The Notebook is for you. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but if you don’t like those kind of movies, then you should steer clear of this movie. The Notebook is a story about an old man (James Garner) that reads a love story out of a notebook to an old woman (Gena Rowlands) in a nursing home. The story he reads her is about the enduring love between a boy named Noah (Ryan Gosling) and girl named Allie (Rachel McAdams).
This movie was really good and definitely tugs at the heart strings - especially at the end. I thought the chemistry between Gosling and McAdams was really good, but wasn’t that impressed by McAdams acting. The story and idea of the way the movie unfolded was ambitious, but very well executed. I also thought the script had some dialogue that didn’t fit for the period that Noah and Allie’s story was set in. I was really impressed with Gosling in this movie and also recently saw him in Murder by Numbers. He seems to be a good change of pace for leading male roles, so I’ll be interested to see how he does in future films.
March 2nd, 2005
I haven’t posted in a while because I have been super busy with being in Sharepoint training last week and making lots of phone calls to buy a new Nissan Quest. Training was good and I’m very happy with my purchase, so I’ll try to blog about both of those later. In the mean time, I’m going to do a quick post about the Oscar results and then I’ll do posts for the last 3 movies I saw. I also saw Are We There Yet? with my nieces and nephew on Saturday, and I’ll spare you all with that review since that movie truly stunk.
Anyway, I had to drive home from San Antonio on Sunday afternoon, so I only caught about the last hour and a half of the Academy Awards. I really thought that The Aviator was going to take home most of the Oscars, but after seeing the Golden Globe and BAFTA results, I figured that Million Dollar Baby was going to take home the big awards. I really didn’t get that many of my predictions correct, except for best original and adapted screenplays, best animated film, and visual effects. But here’s my question: when is Scorsese going to get recognition for his talent in directing? Is he really not that good and just happens to be involved in really good movies? What gives? So, I hope to see both The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby soon to judge for myself.
February 28th, 2005
Ray, starring Jamie Foxx, is a biopic about Ray Charles and his rise to music fame, despite the struggles and obstacles he faced. I really liked the movie, but I didn’t love it and I don’t think it deserves Best Picture at the Oscars, even though I haven’t seen all the nominees yet. I think the nomination is warranted, but I have a feeling that the other nominees are much better movies. However, I think Jamie Foxx will probably win Best Actor for his role as Ray Charles, but only by a hair over Leonardo DiCaprio. Foxx just blew me away in this movie - I had no idea he had it in him.
As far as a review of the movie, I have to give props to the writers and producers of the film for not pulling any punches in telling Ray Charles’ story. They could have made him out to be a victim of drugs, or fluffed over that whole aspect of his life, but they didn’t. I would almost go so far as to say that they painted Charles’ character in a bad light, until the very end of the movie. The acting was done very well by the whole cast - even the folks with little screen time. I was also suprised to see Curtis Armstrong (played Booger in Revenge of the Nerds) in a high profile movie like this. And of course, the music and soundtrack in the movie is awesome. There were a few times where they dubbed Charles voice over Foxx’s, but Foxx did appear to be singing for most of the time, and he did a good job. One way I could tell I liked the movie is that I wanted to see more at the end - and this is a 2.5 movie!
February 16th, 2005
The Manchurian Candidate is a remake of a movie of the same title starring Frank Sinatra in 1962. I meant to see it before the 2004 version, but I’ve read the synopsis, and it sounds pretty much the same except not as sci-fi. The premise of both is that the son of a US political figure is brainwashed by a group that wishes to control him for their politcal gain. The plan is hatched by taking the entire army squad the son is in and brainwashing them all to believe that the son saved them from a perilous ambush. For this, the commanding officer of the group nominates him for the medal of honor. Years later, the commanding officer starts having nightmares about being brainwashed and goes on a dangerous journey when he starts to investigate.
The 2004 version was watchable and entertaining, although Denzel Washington (played the officer) didn’t really bring anything new to the table and Liev Schreiber was miscast as the son, in my opinion. Meryl Streep played the mother, and did a very good job. She was in a scene that made me very uncomfortable to watch, but I think helped to confirm her insanity and corruption. The screenplay was decent, but predictable at times. Positive things to note about the movie are the sci-fi technology, and the way the movie just makes you feel uncomfortable. I know that sounds like something you don’t want, but it enhances the movie because we are supposed to be uncomfortable with the thought that something like this (as remote as it may seem) could happen.
February 12th, 2005
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a 1930’s style sci-fi adventure about a mad scientist using robots to try to take over the world. It stars Jude Law as Sky Captain, the hero, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Polly Perkins, the daring reporter covering the story and playing Law’s love interest. Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie have supporting roles as well.
This movie is incredible to watch, or rather, to see. Not because it is an engrossing story or has tremendous acting (which it doesn’t), but because the moving pictures are stunning to watch. I can best compare it to watching a movie through a blurred sepia digital camera filter, which gives it the old 1930’s look. Add to that the old-style comic book sci-fi imagery, like giant metal robots, and you have this movie. The story is good, but you have to appreciate the dialogue for the attempt at making everyone sound like the movies from the 30’s, or you’ll just think it’s cheesey. Despite that, Paltrow still manages to do a sub-par acting job, with hardly any emotion at all.
I think what most amazed me after seeing the movie and researching it, was that it was Kerry Conran’s first writing and directing job on a major motion picture. Sky Captain is the first thing listed on his IMDB page, and not much else! After much research, I can’t figure out how this movie got major Hollywood actors and into large scale distribution by Paramount. I read that it started as a short film and Paltrow signed up immediately after watching 6 minutes of it. I’m sure there is a story behind the making of this somewhere.
February 9th, 2005
The Forgotten is about a woman, Telly, (Julianne Moore) that is told by her husband and psychiatrist that she’s made up 9 years of memories of a son that she miscarried. But, she finds clues that she might not have made it up and searches for her son. I was really looking forward to seeing The Forgotten just for the scenes I saw from the trailer where you see some guy get sucked out of a house along with the roof and into the night sky. Unfortunately, those were the only really the only cool parts to the movie. It’s not a bad movie, because I think it is told in a way that convinces you that something like this could really happen. But, when you start analyzing it at the end of the movie and after it’s over, you really start to see how silly the story, and the way they support it, is. Moore does a really good acting job, as usual, and so did the man that played Ash, Dominic West. I was glad to see Gary Sinise, but his character wasn’t very prominent in the movie, so he didn’t really act all that much. Maybe I give him too much credit after seeing Forrest Gump. One thing that really irked me in the movie was the scene when Telly and Ash go to a cabin in the woods. Maybe I missed it, but how in the heck did they get in that place? Ash tells her that they need to get out of the city, and then all of a sudden, they are in this cabin in the woods. Anyway, I gave it 3 stars on Netflix because I was entertained by the film and I can’t get enough sci-fi movies.
February 7th, 2005
Shaun of the Dead was a great change of pace in the genre of horror movies. It’s obviously a satire of Dawn of the Dead, but the effects were pretty well done and there were actually elements of suspense throughout the movie. As far as the plot goes, the movie is about an almost-30 slacker, Shaun (Simon Pegg), that overcomes his slackerness to save his group of friends and mother from the flesh-eating zombies of London. His best friend and super-slacker room mate, Ed (Nick Frost), is hilarious and makes for most of the comedy in the film.
The reasons the movie got points knocked off were 1) since it’s British, I couldn’t understand them sometimes, and 2) the movie started actually getting serious towards the end. I know the first is unavoidable, but the second isn’t. There may actually be value in making the story more serious towards the end since things start to look pretty grim, and it is also a way to captivate the viewer and hold them to the end. But, the first 3/4 of the movie isn’t and that’s what made it so funny! The part when they first find the zombies and are trying to figure out how to kill them is unforgettable. Other notables are the writing, the acting, and especially the camera work. The film had just the right amount of shake during the suspensful parts and worked really nice. And if you really like it, the DVD has some good extras, which I also enjoyed.
January 31st, 2005
King Arthur, starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightley, was an attempt at a realistic depiction of how the legend came to be. So, depending on how you viewed the legend before seeing this movie will most likely affect your opinion of it. In this story, Arthur is raised from a child to be the steward of a distant outpost of the Roman Empire in England. But, to help him protect this outpost, native boys are handpicked by the Romans to serve Arthur for 15 years. After we are given this information, you are brought 15 years later to the day before their release and Arthur’s exit to Rome. However, the bishop sent to England to give them their deeds sends them on one final quest, which will determine their fate.
Clive Owen does a pretty good job as Arthur, and Knightley does almost as good of a job as Guinevere but the rest of the cast, including Stellan Skarsgard, only do OK. I think that has mostly to do with the fact that there isn’t enough time, even in this 2.5 hour movie, to develop their supporting character roles. My favorite character was Bors (played by Ray Winstone), who is Arthur’s most bloodthirsty knight. The effects and battle sequences were pretty good, especially at the end. I had the director’s cut DVD, and I heard that the battle sequences in the theatre weren’t near as gorey. I have to give the writers credit for handling a very complex legend with lots of characters and putting it into a short timeframe. The end was wrapped up well, wasn’t hokey, and tried to stay realistic. The reason I’m not giving this a very high rating is just for the fact that King Arthur isn’t supposed to be realistic and there were parts in the movie that just drug on a little too much. I prefer to watch a long movie without noticing the time and this one had me watching the clock.
January 26th, 2005
Next Posts
Previous Posts