Set in 2003, in the months following the American invasion of Iraq, Army Chief Roy Miller (Matt Damon), in charge of the unit sent to search so-called WMD sites, keeps coming up empty handed. Miller starts to question the integrity of the intelligence information, and begins to uncover something much worse than faulty intelligence. He soon discovers the gravity of the situation and the danger when those involved will do anything to keep their secrets hidden. With the help of the CIA's Middle East expert and a local Iraqi called Freddie, Miller goes rogue to expose the truth behind WMD's (or the lack thereof) in Iraq. Chief Miller takes on the former Iraqi Army, the Pentagon, and US Special forces in an action packed, intellectual thriller.
Matt Damon was great. You're not watching Jason Bourne, Edward Wilson, or Colin Sullivan, you're watching Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller. Damon's ability to get into character is phenomenal. The character of Freddie, a local Iraqi, was complicated, but played very well. The other characters were also well written, and well executed.
The movie had good balance. There was enough action for those who love action, and enough plot for those who love a good story. The opening sequence will get your heart pumping; indeed all the action sequences will put you right into the heart of Bagdad. None of the action seemed unnecessary or cheesy, always pertinent to the story - which was gripping.
Some critics said that the movie is "too" political. Obviously a movie about the Iraq war and the lack of WMD's is going to be political, but it wasn't over the top. It was not a propaganda film with a political agenda. It doesn't portray conspiracy as much as conflicting agendas and conflicting methods for success in Iraq, and different ideas about what "success in Iraq" means. The movie is simply telling a story, not selling a story. And its worth seeing.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
Don't call it a sequel.
I don't want to say too much to say about it, other than I liked it. Its worth seeing.
The whole film was very Tim Burton-esque, as I expected, although it seems Disney did put a restrictor plate on the Tim Burton throttle. It is a family film after all. We now see Alice as a 19-year-old returning to her fantasy world, although she remembers it only as a recurring nightmare from her childhood. (Apparently, she shares the same nightmare as most of us. As a child, the 1985 adaptation haunted me for years). We see many of the same characters, only less frightening than I remember. Johnny Depp did well as the Mad Hatter, and Helena Bonham Carter was captivating as the red queen. I didn't particularly care for the character of the White Queen though, played by Anne Hathaway. The CGI characters were stunning, as was all of the animation. The mixture of live action and animation was seamless, and even many of the live actors were digitally enhanced, allowing them to fit perfectly into the world that Burton creates for us. I hear that the 3D version is awesome, however I can't speak to that fact, as I saw the regular version. I don't much care for 3D movies, and thought the "old-fashioned" 2D version was plenty stunning visually.
Because of the nature of the film (beloved classic, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Disney, CGI dreamworld, 3D) there are many varied opinions about it. My advice is to ignore all reviews and just go see it. Whether or not you're amazed, it's worth seeing.
I don't want to say too much to say about it, other than I liked it. Its worth seeing.
The whole film was very Tim Burton-esque, as I expected, although it seems Disney did put a restrictor plate on the Tim Burton throttle. It is a family film after all. We now see Alice as a 19-year-old returning to her fantasy world, although she remembers it only as a recurring nightmare from her childhood. (Apparently, she shares the same nightmare as most of us. As a child, the 1985 adaptation haunted me for years). We see many of the same characters, only less frightening than I remember. Johnny Depp did well as the Mad Hatter, and Helena Bonham Carter was captivating as the red queen. I didn't particularly care for the character of the White Queen though, played by Anne Hathaway. The CGI characters were stunning, as was all of the animation. The mixture of live action and animation was seamless, and even many of the live actors were digitally enhanced, allowing them to fit perfectly into the world that Burton creates for us. I hear that the 3D version is awesome, however I can't speak to that fact, as I saw the regular version. I don't much care for 3D movies, and thought the "old-fashioned" 2D version was plenty stunning visually.
Because of the nature of the film (beloved classic, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Disney, CGI dreamworld, 3D) there are many varied opinions about it. My advice is to ignore all reviews and just go see it. Whether or not you're amazed, it's worth seeing.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The 82nd Academy Awards
I was mostly pleased with the Oscars this year. Although I did watch hours of the Red Carpet specials leading up to the show, I'll save my fashion comments for a different venue. However, I will say I pleasantly enjoyed watching Woody Harrelson deny Ryan Seacrest an interview. Woody just went up one more notch in my book. And even though I hate SJP, her dress was pretty awesome.
The Ceremony
I liked the fresh new format they used for some of the categories. I like how each film nominated for Best Picture was individually featured throughout the course of the show. I'm not sure about having 10 nominees, but it didn't seem to be a negative. I also thought it was nice how each nominee for Best Actor/Actress in a Leading Role was personally introduced by a fellow actor close to them. Being nominated for having the best performance of the year is a big deal, and this mode of introduction made it a little more special for the nominees, and helped the audience connect.
I wasn't impressed with the Neal Patrick Harris introduction song and dance, and thought it lacked class. Maybe at the Globes or MTV awards, but this is the Oscars - a higher class ceremony. And although the dancing was cool during the introductions for Best Original Score, I didn't really think it fit with the nature of the ceremony either.
Overall I thought the Awards Ceremony was well done and enjoyable, even though it ran a little long. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were splendid hosts.
Awards Highlights
Best Picture - The Hurt Locker
This award really made my night. It's no secret that I have a deep appreciation for real film-making. I saw this film many times before the Oscars, and loved it. It was through-and-through a 'real' film. It may not have been as visually stunning as another movie (ahem, Avatar), but the plot, the directing, the acting - indeed all aspects of the film - put me right into the streets of Iraq, almost a member of the team myself. The thing I loved the most about this film was the depth of characters - incredible. This is the type of film-making that deserves to be awarded Best Picture. It also deserves all of the other awards it won (Directing, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Original Screenplay).
Actress in a Leading Role - Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Although Sandra Bullock was stunning in her role, and certainly deserved the Oscar, a few of the other women were very close. Except Meryl Streep. I don't much care for her, and her role in Julie and Julia wasn't very groundbreaking.
Actor in a Leading Role - Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
I respect the other actors nominated in this category, but it seems as though Jeff Bridges ran away with this one, and deservedly so. I smiled at his acceptance speech, on the verge of being braggy, but still classy and graceful. I liked Jeremy Renner for this award as well - his character was very deep and complicated and he played the part beautifully. However, Bridges was superb.
Actor in a Supporting Role - Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Bastards)
I cheered out loud when Christoph won! His role as Col. Hans Landa of the Nazi SS was phenomenally entertaining. He was brilliant in the movie. The other actors in the category gave worthy performances, but nothing came close to the performance of Christoph as Col. Landa. Kudos to Tarantino for casting him in the role (he originally wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the role, but decided to go with the German actor). A well deserved award.
Visual Effects, Art Direction, Cinematography - Avatar
Although I'm not a huge fan of effects-driven films, or the fantasy genre in general, Avatar deserved these awards. However, I thought Inglourious Bastards could have won the Cinematography award as well.
After all was said and done, I agreed with most of the awards. The Academy continues to honor those who deserve it. An enjoyable evening.
The Ceremony
I liked the fresh new format they used for some of the categories. I like how each film nominated for Best Picture was individually featured throughout the course of the show. I'm not sure about having 10 nominees, but it didn't seem to be a negative. I also thought it was nice how each nominee for Best Actor/Actress in a Leading Role was personally introduced by a fellow actor close to them. Being nominated for having the best performance of the year is a big deal, and this mode of introduction made it a little more special for the nominees, and helped the audience connect.
I wasn't impressed with the Neal Patrick Harris introduction song and dance, and thought it lacked class. Maybe at the Globes or MTV awards, but this is the Oscars - a higher class ceremony. And although the dancing was cool during the introductions for Best Original Score, I didn't really think it fit with the nature of the ceremony either.
Overall I thought the Awards Ceremony was well done and enjoyable, even though it ran a little long. Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were splendid hosts.
Awards Highlights
Best Picture - The Hurt Locker
This award really made my night. It's no secret that I have a deep appreciation for real film-making. I saw this film many times before the Oscars, and loved it. It was through-and-through a 'real' film. It may not have been as visually stunning as another movie (ahem, Avatar), but the plot, the directing, the acting - indeed all aspects of the film - put me right into the streets of Iraq, almost a member of the team myself. The thing I loved the most about this film was the depth of characters - incredible. This is the type of film-making that deserves to be awarded Best Picture. It also deserves all of the other awards it won (Directing, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Original Screenplay).
Actress in a Leading Role - Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Although Sandra Bullock was stunning in her role, and certainly deserved the Oscar, a few of the other women were very close. Except Meryl Streep. I don't much care for her, and her role in Julie and Julia wasn't very groundbreaking.
Actor in a Leading Role - Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
I respect the other actors nominated in this category, but it seems as though Jeff Bridges ran away with this one, and deservedly so. I smiled at his acceptance speech, on the verge of being braggy, but still classy and graceful. I liked Jeremy Renner for this award as well - his character was very deep and complicated and he played the part beautifully. However, Bridges was superb.
Actor in a Supporting Role - Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Bastards)
I cheered out loud when Christoph won! His role as Col. Hans Landa of the Nazi SS was phenomenally entertaining. He was brilliant in the movie. The other actors in the category gave worthy performances, but nothing came close to the performance of Christoph as Col. Landa. Kudos to Tarantino for casting him in the role (he originally wanted Leonardo DiCaprio for the role, but decided to go with the German actor). A well deserved award.
Visual Effects, Art Direction, Cinematography - Avatar
Although I'm not a huge fan of effects-driven films, or the fantasy genre in general, Avatar deserved these awards. However, I thought Inglourious Bastards could have won the Cinematography award as well.
After all was said and done, I agreed with most of the awards. The Academy continues to honor those who deserve it. An enjoyable evening.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Book of Eli
Denzel certainly does not disappoint.
Although the previews spun it as an action movie, I wouldn't categorize it as such. Still, it did have some great action scenes. If you belong to the plague of modern movie goers who only want to be entertained by visual effects and cheap thrills, you may not enjoy this film. But, if you truly appreciate plot and character development and have a keen eye for great directing and great acting, you'll recognize it as the theatrical gem that it is.
Denzel Washington plays the role of Eli, a wanderer in the post-apocalyptic world. Eli is the guardian and possessor of the last remaining copy of an important book (I won't reveal it, but I was pleasantly surprised) that has the power to save humanity. Set in the desolate, burned up corpse of the American West, some 30 years after the "final war" and the "flash," all that's left is lawless wasteland. The small remaining population's only purpose is to survive - which they do by scouring the remnants of the "old world" or by preying on the weak. Eli, traveling alone for 30 years, is determined to carry the sacred book west. His path takes him through a "village" that has a crude sense of society, run by a man, Carnegie, who is searching for the book to exert power over more people. Mila Kunis plays the role of a Solara, a girl born and raised in this barren world. She is intrigued by Eli, one of the few people who survived from the old world, and very curious about the book. Eli, though religious and peaceful, will do anything (and does) to protect the book and finish his journey.
Two men. Two motives. One book. And a girl in the middle to complicate it. How will it end? With a twist.
The Book of Eli has a different feel than the Apocalypse films of late. The cause of the Apocalypse is never completely explained, and it is up to the audience to piece it together. The central theme of the movie is actually rather religious, but never preachy. The story was slow to develop at times, which lost some of the audience, but the initially slow story development was substituted by phenomenal character development. Eli is a deep and intriguing character and it takes the entire movie to completely reveal him. The variety of supporting characters are also done well. Hats off to the Hughes brothers for the directing. If I had one complaint, it was that the action scenes were a little too choreographed. Albeit this didn't bother me too much, because they were also extremely awesome.
All in all, this film was very well done. I recommend it. I will probably see it again in the theater. Enjoy.
Although the previews spun it as an action movie, I wouldn't categorize it as such. Still, it did have some great action scenes. If you belong to the plague of modern movie goers who only want to be entertained by visual effects and cheap thrills, you may not enjoy this film. But, if you truly appreciate plot and character development and have a keen eye for great directing and great acting, you'll recognize it as the theatrical gem that it is.
Denzel Washington plays the role of Eli, a wanderer in the post-apocalyptic world. Eli is the guardian and possessor of the last remaining copy of an important book (I won't reveal it, but I was pleasantly surprised) that has the power to save humanity. Set in the desolate, burned up corpse of the American West, some 30 years after the "final war" and the "flash," all that's left is lawless wasteland. The small remaining population's only purpose is to survive - which they do by scouring the remnants of the "old world" or by preying on the weak. Eli, traveling alone for 30 years, is determined to carry the sacred book west. His path takes him through a "village" that has a crude sense of society, run by a man, Carnegie, who is searching for the book to exert power over more people. Mila Kunis plays the role of a Solara, a girl born and raised in this barren world. She is intrigued by Eli, one of the few people who survived from the old world, and very curious about the book. Eli, though religious and peaceful, will do anything (and does) to protect the book and finish his journey.
Two men. Two motives. One book. And a girl in the middle to complicate it. How will it end? With a twist.
The Book of Eli has a different feel than the Apocalypse films of late. The cause of the Apocalypse is never completely explained, and it is up to the audience to piece it together. The central theme of the movie is actually rather religious, but never preachy. The story was slow to develop at times, which lost some of the audience, but the initially slow story development was substituted by phenomenal character development. Eli is a deep and intriguing character and it takes the entire movie to completely reveal him. The variety of supporting characters are also done well. Hats off to the Hughes brothers for the directing. If I had one complaint, it was that the action scenes were a little too choreographed. Albeit this didn't bother me too much, because they were also extremely awesome.
All in all, this film was very well done. I recommend it. I will probably see it again in the theater. Enjoy.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Twilight
For the record - I will never watch Twilight or New Moon, or any other 'Twilight Saga' movie. Ever. I refuse to feed the fad, its poorly written, and I just can't stand to watch Kristen Steward bite her lip for 2 hours. I have made a moral stand against crappy, fad driven entertainment enterprises, and will never fold.
2012 - Sony Pictures
Why DON'T I want to see 2012?
Because its crap…and because Adam Lambert sang the theme song. I don't have anything against him as a person (a very gay person) or against his voice. I think he has a great voice, and deserves most of the credit he receives. However, sooner or later, he's got to stop singing every set of crappy cliche lyrics that come across his desk, and raise his standards. With a voice as good as his, he should only sing the lyrics that deserve a voice like his. The theme song for the motion picture (I won't dignify it as a movie) 2012, was so painfully cliche and elementary that I wanted to die. The lyrics seem to have been the results of an amateur songwriting contest. Please, just because it rhymes doesn't mean its good. Have a little more self respect when you write something that that many people will hear. And I just can't talk about the musical mud without crying. A clever sort of modern symphonic take on the rock power ballad as it was, it just reeks of a bunch of nobody musicians sitting in a room saying "okay, this song has to be totally epic, or we're all fired." So in pulling out the stops, they wrote a score that is so overdone with every musical cliche that it is overly apparent just how hard they tried to make an "epic song." Its garbage, total crap.
Anyway, back to the movie. I have not seen it yet, and have really tried to avoid any conversation pertaining to it. It is a perfect specimen of the shallow Hollywood garbage prevalent these days. However, after some meditation and breathing exercises, I have decided to go suffer through it, just so I can come back here and totally dissect every trashy minute of it. I am doing this for the reader, and hope that my weeks of rehab afterwards will go well. I'm gonna have to watch so many Kevin Spacey movies to make up for it. Perhaps I'll just...
[I lost my train of thought, because my cerebral stage has been hijacked by annoyingly catchy Adam Lambert lyrics - "baby its time for miracles" - ugh, as if trendy pop lyrics are a dictatorship forcing rational thought from my mind under the claim of eminent domain.]
Plot - Unintelligible
Alright, so the world is ending because the Mayans said so. Oh, and also because "neutrinos from a massive solar flare have penetrated the Earth." Apparently, neutrinos are bad. Who knew? Well, evidently, the government knew, and it was the main topic at the G8 summit next year. So, like all government agencies do, they start a secret program to secure the survival of the species. Their plan - build a bunch of arks in the Himalayas and charge 1 billion Euros for admission (unless you're part of the 400,000 'chosen ones' that get to ride for free).
So the single father (and part-time limo driver for Russian billionaire) who still loves his kids and wife that left him for a doctor (gag me), will do everything in his power blah blah blah you know the rest. He takes the kids camping in Yellowstone (emotional tear) where they meet the token conspiracy theorist that just so happens to have a secret map of where the arks are hidden in the Himalayas. When they get back to LA, it falls into the ocean. So knowing that the arks are in China, they fly to Las Vegas (who the hell knows why??) and meet up with said Russian billionaire who later betrays and deserts them in China. Its a good thing a Buddhist monk was there to help them sneak onto an ark through the hydraulics system.
At this point, too many things happen to keep track of. Lots of people meet a tragic death, and I'm sure there's lots of sound effects as the tsunami arrives to sweep everybody away. Will they board the ark in time and save humanity?!?!? Not if fate's large electrical power-drill has its way!
I won't ruin the ending…because the writers already did. So, you'll just have to go see it. Or don't. I'll post an update after I watch it, so you don't have to.
One final ridiculous note: Danny Glover is the President…HA!!
Introducing...
...the Tourettic Rhetoric of a Critic.
I'm tired of people making crappy movies, crappy music, or anything else that is crappy. It also pains me to see good quality material go unnoticed. So I will review movies, music, etc. and analyze why they are so crappy. Additionally, I will introduce you to music and films which in my opinion (the only one that matters) are of a higher quality. Mixed in, of course, will be my Tourettic rants, sarcasm, and humor.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
