Whoa. What the hell did I just watch? I thought I had a good grasp of the sixties based on film and media througout the ages until I watched this film. This is just all over the place. Maybe I am old now, maybe I am frustrated that even in this day and age dirty hippies are irritating with their delusional concepts of how the world should be run, but this film was just, "Not cool, man."
I get it. I didn't live through the sixties. But many themes addressed in this film are easily relevant today. Themes of intolerance versus overindulgence, oppression and desire for personal meaning. These are timeless. But seriously though, what happened to narrative structure? The story is loosely about two men who smuggled some drugs in from mexico and are making a cross continent trip to get paid. Throughout the ordeal they explore/encounter free love, drugs, oppresive mid-west america afraid of change, more drugs and such.
I understand there were drugs in the 60s. there are drugs now. The lifestyle doesn't appeal to me, but a lot of great film has had elements of counterculture, so I try to remain objective when it comes to material delving into such areas. Hell I knew the words to Rocky Horror Picture Show's Sweet Transvestite long before any of my peers "discovered" RHPS in University, but I digress.
I guess I just didn't understand the film. This is a film so jaded by America that both polar extremes (the uber hippies of the commune vs the uber intolerant middle america who can kill hippies with nary a concern) are frightening. If that is all that there is, should we all just embrace the nihilism of drugs, numb ourselves to death and let the world implode? I disconcur.
Still this film has gone on to become one of cinema's landmark filks ever. Crazy.
The good: A young restrained Jack Nicholson. The soundtrack alone is worth enduring the film.
The bad: Life as the world of the film suggests. Lame. Total buzkill man.
Final Thoughts: Not entirely sure why it is a classic, but it is. I guess I am just more optimisticthan I thought.
Add to the vault? Nope. I will likely not watch it again ever unless I have to.
Interesting movie. I appreciate Ryan Reynolds as an actor, not just for his abs. I also appreciate that despite some hits and misses film-wise, he seems to be constantly trying to expand his talents. This is a film that definitely tests his acting chops, which is a feat unto its own as he is essentially the only actor.
Buried is a feature film length narrative that explores the confines of a box buried in the earth and the man contained therein. You would wonder if a movie that is 90 min plus can be captivating when essentially you as the audience are trapped in the box as well. And rightfully so; the narrative is essentially divided into 3 chunks or segments marked by blackouts. The first segment finds our protagonist waking into his nightmarish confines. The second chunk deals with the essence of hope and frustration. The third is realization and despair. That's all without spoiling anything. There are many more themes explored and you will keep wondering to the end if our hapless hero will escape. Sounds titillating right?
Well yes and no. The film is engrossing and Ryan Reynolds holds his own under the weight ofit all. My problem is that for such a simplistic premise, there are a few too many narrative threads introduced. Some were just a little too ridiculous and if anything detracted from the overall tone. The premise of a man trapped in a coffin is sufficient enough to be claustrophobic and tense, that tangents about insurance coverage, infidelity are not necessary. If anything it is confusing. Are we supposed to be morally conflicted about this character, think he deserves his fate? To what end does that serve? You have a man confined in a box, the intrigue between conversations with his captors, efforts to reach loved ones, andhoping against hope to be found before air runs out (or worse) are more than enough to hold hus captive.
The good: Ryan Reynolds. Those who are naysayers about him should definitely watch this. The film for about 80% was great. The ending as well, is commendable but only 50/50 on great or excessive.
The bad: the agency rep conversation, the snake, the potentially contrived way of getting to the end. Mark White.
Final thoughts: Great little film to really showcase the fact you don't need elaborate sets and narratives to have a thriller. That being said it still is best ranked as a must-see once and not warranting repetition.
Add to the vault: Nah. I may watch it again in the future, but I don't feel the need to own it. Definitely check it out though.
This movie had been sitting on the PVR for a while now. It's marketing didn't seem terribly original, and the plot synopsis didn't either. Quick breakdown: a sleazy(ish) but irrefutably charming defense lawyer gets a high profile case that threatens his life and loved ones... yadda yadda yadda.
The film isn't terribly original but it is enjoyable to watch. It isn't the "pulse pounding thrill ride" that some reviews suggest it is but it is okay. Ryan Phillippe has never done anything worthwhile in regard to film, and is just not terribly threatening. Matthew McConaughey is convincing enough as a sleaze, but in what is essentially a cat and mouse plot, he never really delves into any areas of vulnerability. It's hard to believe that there is really any risk, when he seems a little too in control of things. William H Macy, Marissa Tomei, Bryan Cranston, Josh Lucas and John Leguizamo are all sufficient but ultimately underutilized.
The thrill ride is ultimately predictable, and you would expect a few more twists in the plot, but instead it is a relatively straight forward narrative. There isn't even any red herrings to try and lure the audience into other directions of thought.
The novelty of being a lawyer who operates from the back seat of his Lincoln Town Car is ultimately a neither here nor there concept except for a unique title. If anything the casual acquaintances and assistants the guy has are a little tough to keep track of at times.
The good: As far as lawyer thrillers, this is an okay film. Not great but not terrible either. Seeing the actor who played Lord Nikon from Hackers was good though. Also seeing a bunch of bikers beat the crap out of a deserving schmuck was sorta gratifying.
The bad: Ryan Phillippe, guy has the acting chops of a 2x4.
Final Thoughts: If you are looking for a good ol fashioned lawyer thriller, this will be good for a one shot. If all you are looking for is ol Matthew McConaughey shirtless, you will be disappointed.
Bunraku first and foremost is form of Japanese puppet theatre. Puppetry by nature requires audiences to suspend disbelief, use imagination and have open minds to appreciate the story that is to be told to them.
This film is that as well. The story is largely archetypical. Mysterious stranger on the hunt for revenge, dishonoured swordmaster looking to reclaim family honour, etc. The story while familiar is anything but ordinary, as the journey this film takes you on is unlike anything you have ever seen before. Just trying to describe it is tough. It is like a stage play meets spaghetti western meets japanese bushido epic meets swing kids meets Kill Bill meets Scott Pilgrim vs the World.
Succinct enough? This film was beautiful. I didn't even want to like it. IT was marketed very poorly, and the commercials made it look ridiculous. However, the story is wonderful. It simultaneosly manages to feel like an old bedtime story and yet refreshingly new and unique.
I don't even know where to begin. It was just an epic story. This was a film that explored the full scope of the film medium. This blurred the lines of video games, puppetry, stage, comic books and dance, all while maintaining status as a stunning martial arts epic. There really is too much and yet too little to review adequately. Other than dramatic hyperbolic descriptions this film would best be witnessed and then discussed and then re-watched again.
Josh Hartnett who some dislike, I have enjoyed thoroughly since Lucky Number Slevin is decent as The mysterious Drifter. Gackt (a japanese actor) is sufficiently deadly. Woody Harrelson is great in his role as mentor in a dystopian future (better than Hunger Games for certain), and the allegories throughout the film warrant repeat value alone. One major major standout was Kevin McKidd as Killer No. 2. Brilliant job, which shows that his talents are being wasted in the abyssmal Grey's Anatomy.
The Good: Everything described above and then some. This film is both a tribute to great films and stories past, as well as a visionary new way ahead for artistic expression.
The bad: Ron Perlman is not bad per se, just overused in general right now, and I wish it went to someone who could exude a bit more quiet menace and depth. Demi Moore is a wate of space and I don't understand how she was remotely important to have given the role she played.
Final Thoughts: Brilliant Film. Loved it.
Add to the Vault? Yes. those looking for a quick and likely cheaper birthday/christmas present ever, feel free to get this movie in glorious HD for me.
Definitely not what I ever thought I would review, but with baby glubglub on the way, the missus was smitten with the ads and I will admit even i chuckled once or twice. So being the open minded chap that I am... we went to go see the movie. Which given the opening weekend numbers, means we were definitely in the minority.
However, long story short, it was actually not that bad. "But Adam," you ask (whomever you are), "how did they create a narrative from a non-fiction book?" Who knows, who cares, the fact is they did and it wasn't as bad as one would imagine given the source material. Now that being said, is it going to appeal to teeny bopper girls, emo/hipster twenty-somethings, or the majority of youth out there? Not at all. This is a movie that has a very specific target audience. Namely expectant parents, or those who can find humour in pregnancy and childbirth but 'Knocked Up' this is not.
It is from the creators of Bridesmaids, and a lot of familiar faces show up in this film. The story itself, is broken up between a bunch of smaller stories. You have Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone as the couple who have been trying forever to get knocked up, you have Jennifer Lopez and Rodrigo Santoro who cannot concieve and trying to adopt, you have Cameron Diaz and Matthew Morrison who are a pseudo-celebrity couple with a surprise pregnancy, and Chase Crawford and Anna Kendrick who are a young couple who face their own surprises.
There are other peripheral characters (eg: the dad's club, the father and trophy wife, etc) and the stories intertwine periodically, but that's the gist of it. The better stories in my opinion are Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone's as well as the story with Chase Crawford and Anna Kendrick. The movie surprisingly acknowledges a lot of issues which explains the connection to the source material, and while overly sentimental at times, it does have a lot of humour. Unsurprisingly, is that all the stories end more or less how you expect them to, and everything gets neatly wrapped up like a wonderful new bundle of joy by the end. All in all, it isn't as terrible as the majority of reviews out there suggest it is, so long as you are the target audience.
The Good: A lot of the dad humour, but maybe I am biased. Alcide (for True Blood enthusiasts) is a particularly humerous addition. Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone were the real stars in my opinion as their story was the most complex. Anna Kendrick who many would recognize but few would actually know by name, is definitely going to be star in Hollywood methinks.
The Bad: The "easy" pregnancy and childbirth for Brooklyn Decker was a little ridiculous, Cameron Diaz and Mathew Morrision didn't really add anything to the overall story of the film either.
Final Thoughts: This is a very specific film, for a very specific audience. While humerous to appreciate as a one off, I don't think it is a classic in the making.
Add to the Vault? No. But it did make me appreciative that I am going to be a father soon, and look forward to all the trials and tribulations therein.
What a refreshing film. No seriously. That isn't some subtle attempt at pot humour. Though this film was advertised as stoner comedy meets Camelot, this film has a lot going for it. Yes there is T&A, yes there is stoner humour, and yes there is crude humour. But for all that, it actually is a pretty fun film.
The film stars Danny McBride (Eastbound and Down, The Foot Fist Way, countless other movies), James Franco (who I really don't like despite liking a lot of his films), Zooey Deschanel (the latest "it" girl despite the fact she is rarely ever funny, and her quirkiness is more irritating than not) and Natalie Portman (interesting choice for a followup to Black Swan).
Franco is the heir to the throne in this magical kingdom, and McBride in turn is the second son who just can't hold up against how fantastic his brother is. McBride's turn as the brother, is a slacker stoner type, who can't be bothered to make an effort in life, and is essentially shunned by the world over and is really quite hapless. Meanwhile, his elder brother and heir-to-the-throne is rescuing maidens, vanquishing monsters and completing quests. Not that it is terribly spoilerish, but Franco's rescued maiden (Deschanel) gets kidnapped by an evil wizard on their wedding day, and long story short, Franco and McBride hit the road to rescue her, meeting other characters along the way.
Sounds familiar right? No real new ground broken. That is probably what works so well for the story to be honest. It is familiar territory. We know the conventions, we know how the world is supposed to work, and despite the "modern" humour the reality offered is accepted right away and we don't have to establish superfluous exposition. And further to that, the reality shown on screen is actually quite beautiful. This could have been a quite visually entertaining movie played serious and not suffered at all. The makers wanted to clearly show their love of fantasy and despite low-brow humour, still take us, the audience, on a wild adventure.
You know the story, you know how it is going to end, but if you watch this film, just rememberit is meant to be fun. The stoner humour is thankfully kept mostly to a minimum, and while there are crude moments, there will definitely be times you find yourself laughing inspite of yourself.
The good: McBride is great as non-conventional everyman. He is probably more indicative of most geeks in the world than the archetype of some acne covered basement dweller. He's boastful, self-involved, a little overweight, and at the core a dreamer but just can't escape his slacker nature. Franco is sufficient, and if anything a little sympathetic as the naive innocent older brother, who despite being the worldly adventurer, doesn't quite see the world for what it is. Again, the real standout moments are the world itself. The snake creature is genius, the minotaur hilarious (ashamed to admit that), and at the end of the flick you'd be hardpressed not to find yourself rooting for the heroes.
The bad: Zooey Deschanel. I just don't understand her appeal and her stupid bangs. Her only remotely good turn was in Elf. In a weird way she and Natalie Portman are "eye-candy" in this film, which is odd unto itself.
Final Thoughts: There is no denying that for as dumb as this movie was it was fun. A shame it didn't reahc a broader audience but I blame the marketing. It was too stoner-centric. You should definitely give it a gander if you are sure you have a sense of humour that doesn't take itself too seriously. The makers of the film clearly had fun, enjoy the ride.
Add to the vault? You know what, I have felt like I have been a bit of a negative nancy lately. If I were to be gifted this film in hard copy, I would be honoured to add it to my collection. There is repeat value for sure.
Wow, what a film that had so much more potential then what the final product was. I think I went into this wanting more of a drama with a romantic angle, than a romantic comedy with some dramatic elements; so it may be more fault of my own than the film's for not living up to expectations.
Don't get me wrong, it was still a reasonably enjoyable film, just some really disjointed moments that I feel detracted from the film rather than add to it.
So what's it about? Well, it is a pseudo-ensemble film about a loveless marriage between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore, their kids, Ryan Gosling's terrible life as a playboy bachelor who just wants a hug, and the peripheral characters loosely connected to one another; somewhere in all that is also Emma Stone. I am avoiding spoilers obviously, but that is the gist of it. Ryan Gosling's character Jacob, essentially serves as foil to Steve Carell's cuckolded Cal Weaver. Oh and pretty much every reason to have Ryan Gosling nude or shirtless is explored.
The film does explore the complex emotions of separation and divorce between a middle aged couple, but skimps on the complex relationships of how separation really affects family.
Instead the film falls into familiar romantic comedy territory, making leaps of logic for the sake of situational irony and comedy. All the drama goes out the window in favour of grandiose scenes of eye-rolling farce.
But I still grudgeonly chuckled, so I guess it wasn't too bad.
The good: First and second acts, where you thought you may have a Love Actually, type Dramedy - Romance. Baby goose will undoubtedly be worth the price of admission alone for majority of people out there (male and female I am sure). Steve Carell's everyman schtick is finely honed and his brief stint with debauchery is sufficiently cathartic for all the pent up frustration he undoubtedly has in his character.
The bad: Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon are wasted here. The flimsy "plot twists" were painful at times, and I am sorry, but the antics of Cal Weaver's son, requires an impossible degree of suspension of disbelief, as there is just no way any remotely normal teenager would do the things he does for "love".
Final thoughts: Watch the film with the expectation of a romantic comedy in similar ilk to any classic Meg Ryan movie, and you may be pleasantly surprised. Go into it with expectations of a smart dramatic Love Actually type flick, and well... just enjoy Ryan's abs.
Add to the Vault? Man I am harsh on movies or what? Unless you are so enamoured by Ryan Gosling that you must own the film, I would say this is suffice as a one off.
You've all heard about it, but have any of you actually seen it? Well, in order to rattle things upa bit around this blog, I figured I would actually sit through it and see what all the fuss was about.
And.. believe it or not, I was pleasantly surprised. Was it disgusting as all hell? Sure. Was it as bad as your imagination is? No, not even close. For all the hype I expected a much much worse film. Something in similar ilk as as the Hostel or Saw movies, and their torture porn spin-offs.
What the film actually was, was a graphic throwback to a sub-set of horror, that hasn't really been explored in mainstream film for many many years. This film has more in common with the Island of Dr. Moreau than it does with Hostel. In the genre that has come to be known colloquially as "torture porn" films try to out-do deaths of hapless forgettable protagonists, and that in and of itself is the primary draw for audiences that seek to watch those films. I will go on record that I am not those audiences. I liked the first Saw for breaking the trend in horror and trying to mix things up a bit for what was essentially a independent film. The sequels and the hundreds of crap movies to follow, dropped substance of narrative for gore.
This film, reminds me of the classic horror movies, right up there with Frankenstein, or The Fly, and the aforementioned sub-genre of "mad scientist" horror. Instead of a diabolical borderline omnipotent manipulating bad guy, the mad scientist genre is driven by a genius reclusive type. Horrible, evil? Sure, but also fallible and disctinctly human. The elaborate scenario driving the plot of the film is accepted if the "mad scientist" falls within the established conventions. Was not the first visual depiction of Frankenstein's monster throwing the little girl in the lake "shocking"? Or our first time seeing the Brundlefly close to vomit inducing? Well those same experiences are evoked here as well, if only by the sheer audacity of the project this "mad scientist" (Dr. Heiter) is seeking to accomplish.
The premise (for the handful of you who really might not know) is that Dr. Heiter, a former brilliant surgeon, top in his field for surgically separating conjoined twins, seeks to create a conjoined set of 3 people, surgically rendering them co-dependent by way of derriere-to-bouche stitching.
Yep.
Does he do this for fame? Fortune? Because he is evil? Nope. He does it because it is research, and the only thing that could keep a former brilliant surgeon occupied post-retirement. Me? I'd probably choose golf, but C'est la vie.
So you have the gist of the project, what about the protagonists? Well, I will say that as actors, aspiring or otherwise, this was an incredibly brave venture to undertake. The film is easily an S&M fetishists ideal horror movie. The horror the protagonists are subjected to is more cerebral than you'd ever think for a movie like this. The humuliation, the grim realisation that there is no hope, it is tough to watch at times. It isn't graphic violence. It is just circumstantial. That being said, do we care for the protagonists? Yes and no. They are forgettable as individuals, and even trope-centric in how they find themselves in their unfortunate situation, but the fact that they are brought together, is why we care about them. They have next to no lines (for the females) and the japanese male, is sad by feeling completely alone, not knowing english or german.
The good:
Dr. Heiter is a sufficiently good vilian, a true homage to the forgotten mad scientist genre. The audacity of the project should be commended as well. Any aspiring filmmaker essentially wants their work to be known, and well... people have heard of the The Human Centipede. The ending is actually pretty dark even for a horror film like this. Too easy would it be to dismiss this film outright based on the ridiculous premise, but the fact that there is a lot going on below the surface puts points in its favor. The fact the film didn't make it about sexual exploitation either, is commendable. More than can be said for the sequel.
I also enjoyed the reality the film established. Dr. Heiter's place was sterile like a hospital, not dungeon like, or crude torture devices lying around. The lack of gore and lack of visual depictions of what you "expect" to see, also do more for the film than you'd expect.
The bad: The lead up to the Dr. Heiter. Standard horror film cliches. You'd think Germany is nothing but creepy pervs based on the lead up. I briefly tried to watch the sequel, but everything that was good about the first was absent, and it was standard torture porn fetishistic crap.
Final thoughts: Don't judge a book by it's cover. That being said, the sequel sucks. Do keep in mind though that this is a horror movie, and people are surgically joined to one another. Don't come crying to me if you watch it and lose your lunch.
Add to the vault? No, it is more of a one off. A test of endurance and a notch in your belt as a film buff. Something to talk about at parties and watch as people cringe.
Some films are made for audiences to escape. Some try and tell an engaging story. Some are mindless. Some are meant to affect, and some are something all together different. Which film was this, you ask? I feel this is a film Terrence Malick NEEDED to tell, but I don't believe it was meant for anyone but himself.
Allow me to explain. Tree of Life is a 2+ hour "story" told through fragmented glimpses into the past, present, and future, of both the universe, life and the protagonist Jack. The loose way of describing it would be to say it chronicles the impact of Jack's "daddy issues", grief over his deceased brother, existential crisis, all undercut by symphonic (at times operatic) and borderline preachy themes of religion.
Does that do the film justice? No, not by a long shot, but it is the gist of the "plot" of what is essentially a film that needs to be experienced in order to remotely understand it.
So how is it meant for Terrence Malick? Given the history of the film (several years to film, petproject, no real commercial release, etc) this was a labour of love for Terrence. One need to only look at his wikipedia page to know he is drawing upon his own personal experience as the basis for the film. I believe that he needed to find catharsis in this film from the experiences he had unresolved still affecting him. Including deeper philosophical issues, his perception of the cosmos and the afterlife. Is it happy? Is it sad? Is it dark or is it light? In a word, no. As personal as this was for him, it is ambiguous (albeit poetic and frustratingly at times pretentious and self indulgent) enough for each to derive their own meaning.
In another sense it is clever and cruel, because it is impossible to review, as no two audience members (who sit through the whole thing) would ever have the same opinion about what transpired on screen.
So for a film, not meant for the movie going public, or for myself, how did I feel about it? Well, as you may have seen it alluded to above, it isn't positive. To do this though I will have to break it up into a few different categories.
Visually/Audibly: In this sense, the film is beautiful. For roughly half the film, we are treated to wondrous musical scores (each carefully selected and poignant I am sure) and beautiful scenes of the cosmos, nature and more. Each would make for amazing screen savers. Truly a great film to enjoy in HD.
Narratively: Narratively terrible. I am fine with fragmented narratives, I don't need a direct line from point A to point B, but this was way to indulgent on menial elements that I know serve to encapsulate the quiet moments of Terrence's past (sorry I mean Jack) and the raucous. But like any home movie you watched of someone else's family, you can't really care as they are not YOUR exeriences. Was it dramatic? Oh yes. Was it engaging though? Not terribly. Not to undermine terrible losses such as suicide in a family, but without directly tackling those issues, and starting the film off with glimpses into the grief process BEFORE fleshing out the characters, you lose interest in them. So much are we in Jack's version of his life and thoughts, that the characters around him become two dimensional. Even the pivotal character of Brad Pitt as the over bearing hypocritical father, felt dangerously close to just being a caricature. The mother is too idolized and innocent that she never feels real, and the brothers (one of whom's death is supposed to affect us so) just feel like shadows in the background to Jack. Wait, Jack is the one we are supposed to care about right, you ask again? True, but this is where the narrative really falls apart. At no actor's fault, the character of Jack as the elder brother is just not a person I could care about. His troubles, his cries for attention as a youth, his daddy issues and frustration at life, all just made me think of him as an unsympathetic whiney momma's boy. Hate to break it to you Terrence but the issues you put forth on screen for the most part are what most people call being a teenager and puberty.
But maybe it was an earlier time, and you really were the odd one out. I feel for you. Suicide in the family is tragic, but that isn't depicted in this film, despite many parts echoing a symbolic grieving process. As such, a troubled youth being angsty, doesn't make for great pathos.
Philosophically: Well the bigger picture is the religious allegories and such right, you as? (Who are you anyway?) Sure, that could be argued, but when juxtapositioned next to angsty Jack's childhood, and the 15 minute shot of the cosmos, it is more likely to lull you to sleep, than evoke any greater philosophical thought. If anything, seeing such magnificent imagery, it renders the parrallel narrative even more trivial and mundane. The voice over thoughts questioning god allude to nothing more than agnostic/atheistic freshman debate. Purposefully inconclusive, I doubt anyone watching the film will be so moved to question or be invograted by whatever beliefs that they had before.
The good: Visually amazing and the score is great. Really though nothing you couldn't get by finding a peaceful screensaver and putting on some spa music.
The bad: Nothing is bad, per se. Self indulgant and clearly a labour of love, the target audience for this film is Terrence Malick and devotees of Terrence Malick. It isn't as profound as some articles try and suggest it to be, and at the end of the day you won't be any better or worse off than you were before. So "the bad" maybe could really be "the indifferent".
Final Thoughts: I can see this film being predominantly used in the film studies classes I took in University. Students can expect to be bored to tears and lose a few nights on the inevitable essays. Otherwise, unless you really want to see pretention on film, do not see this. Might even give Lars Von Trier a run for his money.
Add to the Vault? Nope.
If I have not convinced you yet, here is the trailer for Terrence Malick's Tree of Life:
Well I have to disclaimer in that I am not really a fan of Woody Allen, nor have I been the biggest fan of Owen Wilson. His nasally way of acting like he is always on the perpetual verge of whining, I tend to find irritating.
That being said, this film was more enjoyable than I had ever imagined. I think in truth, it is the whimsical, unabashedly indulgent reality that is never questioned, that really won me over. Or perhaps it is my latent love for France (see French Kiss), hard to say.
The premise is unique enough, and lo it sound spoilerish, it revolves around a wannabe writer, disillusioned with being a cog in the Hollywood machine, finding inspiration in Paris while on a trip with his overbearing fiancee. In what is the unconventional angle for finding inspiration, he begins his self-discovery via travelling back in time to 1920s Paris every midnight, but before you lose interest, this is not some science-fiction take.
Instead Wilson's character Gil Pender, rubs shoulders with literary and artistic giants like Hemingway, Dali, Bunel, and many more. It is through these travels that he learns a bit about writing, a lot about life, and even more about himself.
It is really an enjoyable film and I grudgeonly liked Owen Wilson, despite still being the same type of character he generally is in most films.
I won't discuss much more about the plot, because while enjoyable, it is simple enough of a concept that the sparse details already provided are suffice to get a bearing on if this film may or may not be for you.
The Good: Owen Wilson, if only because this film felt like it was written exactly for him, and I hope that post-suicide attempt, he found the renewed love of life that his character did. Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, and the veritable who's who of Hollywood emulating icons of history were also enjoyable albeit all to briefly at times. Michael Sheen looking like a young Aidan Quinn was also enjoyable as a unforgiving douchebag.
Also, all things french. I would never have guessed Woody Allen adored France so much, but this film reads like a love letter to France, and French history. 1920's Paris felt real and beautiful that you can understand wanting to get lost there.
The Bad: Rachel McAdams' character. I like Rachel McAdams as an actress, but her character was just unrelatable as a self-obsessed bitchy fiancee. If we were meant to be somewhat involved with her as a character it was way off mark. I doubt that is the case though, but when a character is purely 2 dimensional in terms of depth, it is never a strong point.
Final Thoughts: I am glad I didn't write off this film as another one of Woody Allen's contrived pseudo-intellectual commentaries on society. There are definitely moments of Woody Allen-isms, that mark this film as still part of his auteur portfolio, but I am glad he remembered to tell a story this time through.
Add to the Vault? I feel so conflicted these days about wanting to buy movies. I don't know if it is because video stores have gone the way of the dodo, and the digital age makes physical copies nigh on irrelevant; or if my standards are just too darn high, but I don't think this one makes the cut. I know, i said I loved it, but I am content to have loved it and let it go. Maybe another time?
Here is the trailer, which really tells you nothing:
So happy new year and stuff....countdown to the apocalypse and all that. What better way to welcome the zombie hordes than by a movie list countdown (or is it up?)
The King's Speech
The Help
Hobo With a Shotgun
The Warrior's Way
The Resident
FUBAR II
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale
Updated to April 12, 2012.
So once again I have been negligent on the reviews. Here is a longer list of the films I can remember watching, and if any of the readers out there (all two of you) want actual reviews, let me know.
Attack the Block
Paul
Barnie's Version
Hunger Games
The Dark Crystal
Trollhunter
The Rite
The Switch
Operation End Game
Red Riding Hood (sorta)
Clash of the Titans
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom
Indiana Jones: Last Crusade
The American
30 Minutes or Less
I am sure there are more that I am just not recalling, but that more or less brings us up to speed.
Ah gotta love throwbacks to 70's exploitation flicks. Usually a hit and a miss, but when they hit. They really hit. To watch this film and appreciate it, you have to go into it, turning off your brain and knowing the film for what it is. You expect anything more, and you will be sorely disappointed. You expect cheese, you get cheese.
Unlike, say Black Dynamite, this film isn't too tongue in cheek, as it still ultimately wants to tell a story. And where as the former film fails with being too obviously ridiculous, this film is made with definitive love of the genre and wants to tell the best tale it can within the confines.
It's not a great film. It is fun though. Definitely something you and a group of friends can throw on, and appreciate together over laughs and groans.
The Good: Unabashed with cheesy violence (not torture porn for those of you quick to label everything as such, and not even ultra-violence ala Clockwork Orange) but there is still violence a plenty. And nudity, but you almost have to laugh at the ridiculousness of the situations. Seeing all the big names in such a ridiculous show only heightens the spectacle.
The Bad: Too clena of a film at times. It's best when it hearkens back to the 70's gritty film techniques, whereas a few times it is too polished.
Final Thoughts: Machete (the man not the film) is the ultimate badass. He can be beaten but he can't be killed. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually did see the faux sequels to this, actually get made.
Add to the vault: Ha ha not likely. It's a great film if you have a group of buddies around and want some mindless entertainment, but the repeat value is not entirely there. I doubt this will be remembered in 5 years let alone 30 years later, like some of the classic 70s films these newer flicks pay homage to.
If you aren't entirely certain if this film is for you, here is the red band trailer: (WARNING: NOT FOR UNDER 18 or FAINT OF HEART!!! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!)
Movies I recommend are highlighted in Green. Crap Movies are Red. All other movies will stay same background if they are just okay.
Gentlemen Broncos (Messed Up. Ultimately meh)
Red (Nice to see older actors/actresses still working. Ridiculous action though)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2010) (Had potential...but lame)
Danny Deckchair (Cute, fun and quirky film of ridiculous premise.)
Dinner for Schmucks (Some funny moments but nothing redeemable)
Agora (Great historical tale)
Bottle Rocket (Seriously? This made the Wilson brothers famous??)
Paper Man (Always good to see Jeff Daniels working, but film had very little arc)
Transformers 3 (Good freaking gawd. This was by far the worst theatre experience I ever had in my life. How was the film? Crappy)
Resident Evil: Afterlife (Ugh... I like the video games but why must they ruin such an easy premise to make cool?)
Centurion (Actually half-way decent. Obvious portfolio film, but decent none-the-less. And Imogen Poots is cute, with a goofy name.)
Never Let Me Go (Supposedly brilliant, I found it irritating.)
Greenberg (I like dramatic Ben Stiller, but irredeemable dink he is in this film doesn't work for me.)
Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Trader (just okay. I was never into the books)
The Fighter (Great film.)
Crossroads (1986) ((Not the Britney Spears films. This film follows the original karate kid on a road trip to discover blues music. Seriously! And it's actually decent.)
Conviction (It's like Dead Man Walking with a happy ending)
Freakonomics (Why in hell was this made into a film?)
Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Recommended to me, supposedly potential for a "classic" for kids of this generation.. I dunno. Don't see it.)
London Boulevard (People forget that Colin Farrell can be awesome, but this is marred by Kiera Knightly. Lots of potential, but makes me want to go watch In Bruges again.)
An Education (Carey Mulligan and Peter Sarsgaard are great actors but the story is kinda lame)
It Might Get Loud (Obvious rock legends, but just an okay documentary.)
X-Men: First Class (Not perfect but a step in the right direction for X-Men flicks. Great casting)
Bridesmaids (Decent flick but I think Kristen Wiig has yet to really get the ultimate movie to prove her worth)
Devil (Don't let M. Night Shamalyan's name stop you from watching this decent, relatively independent horror flick.)
Skyline (Crap film, obvious portfolio film for a special effects crew, but stupid flick)
Sucker Punch (Very decent flick. Gotta love original stories. Big fan of Zach Snyder, but he does need occassional help on narratives.)
Rango (Just okay. I am scared to say I am getting a little Johnny Depp weary...)
Source Code (Director of Moon. Decent flick. I recommend it.)
Faster (Just okay. I still wish Dwayne Johnson would get behind a decent headlining action role, to really prove his worth.)
Let Me In (Okay. Chloe Moretz will be great if she can avoid the Lindsay Lohan route. The original flick is much better though.)
Knight and Day. (I like Tom Cruise in some projects, but Cameron Diaz is increasingly weary these days. And this flick was dumb.)
Piranha (Ridiculous flick that shamelessly embraces what it is without getting too serious. Gotta appreciate that.)
Captain America (I thought it would be appropriate to watch this flick while actually in the U.S., truthfully as okay as the film is, it is highly overrated by other reviews.)
D13: Ultimatum (Sequel to a decent flick. Cyril Rafaelli needs his own action flick. Thumbs up.)
Monsters (Very VERY cool independent film. Highly recommend it if you are interested in an unconventional love story.)
Battle: Los Angeles (Expected something like Skyline, instead got a very cool film. Check it out!)
Tron: Legacy (Not a huge fan of Tron, but this was decent. I like it when Hollywood can actually find some charismatic young actors, instead of cookie cutter models types that can't act.)
Drive Angry (Ha ha ridiculous Nicholas Cage is ridiculous.)
127 Hours (I find James Franco very hit and miss. Highly overrated most of the time. This was a hit.)
True Grit (You've undoubtedly seen my penchant for decent westerns so far. This was not one. Highly overrated and I wanted it to be so good. I am beginning to think I don't like the Coen Brothers which I hear is sacrilege.)
Rec2 (Rec1 and the american version Quarantine are decent virus/zombie flicks. This continues the trend.)
The Mechanic (I expected a standard Jason Statham flick ala Transporter or Crank, but truthfully this was a decent back and forth assassin thriller. Not perfect but good.)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (I dunno... I feel like it would have been so much better without JK Rowlings influence.)
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (For what seemed to be a forgettable film in theatres, I was surprised at how fun and interesting this flick was. Don't write it off.)
Bet you thought this blog went by the wayside and was obsolete forever. Not so. I merely was on hiatus for 5 months or so, and now I have returned.
I won't go into details with where I was, but rest assured movies were watched, and opinions were had.Where I went there was no internet, no television, but I did have my trusty dvd player and a tv.
I will give two lists. The first is movies I own that I watched while I was in the wild, and the second list is for new(er) movies I watched while I was away. Because of the volume I will limit the reviews for the newer movies to a few words at most.
Moves I Own (watched during the hiatus)
Casino Royale
Silent Hill
Dodgeball
Spider-Man
28 Days Later
Constantine
Ace Ventura
Starship Troopers
I, Robot
Willow
Maximum Overdrive
Tremors
3000 Miles to Graceland
Die Hard
Dante's Peak
Lake Placid
French Kiss
Shaun of the Dead
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Big Fish
The Goonies
LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
Quigley Down Under
Cloverfield
Phantom of the Opera
Leon: The Professional
Strange Days
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Last Samurai
Commando
LOTR: The Two Towers (Part 1)
LOTR: The Two Towers (Part 2)
Le Pacte Des Loups (Brotherhood of the Wolf)
LOTR: Return of the King (Part 1)
LOTR: Return of the King (Part 2)
The Fifth Element
T2: Judgement Day
Inception
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Assualt on Precinct 13
30 Days of Night
Resident Evil: Afterlife
The Mummy
Unleashed
Hackers
Labyrinth
Tangled
The Mummy Returns
The Hills Have Eyes
Serenity
The Salton Sea
Underworld
Underworld: Evolution
Moulin Rouge
Brick
About A Boy
Blade II
Ghost in the Shell
Godzilla
Next post will be the newer (or new to me) movies I watched.
Before I started this blog, I had an appreciation for Clint Eastwood as an iconic actor. I've made my views clear about how much of a shame it is that The Dark Tower Series is being made into film and Eastwood isn't in his prime to play the tragic Gunslinger.
Since I started this blog, I have branched out to some of Eastwood's movies I am less familiar about, and the most surprising thing I have found is how I have never before thought of the western genre to incorporate so much of the supernatural into some stories. Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter where I would never presumed that the supernatural was so integral to the story. Both films, while vastly different in style and story, are at their core, ghost stories hellbent on revenge.
Eastwood's characters however similar are also diametrically opposite. In Pale Rider he is dubbed as the Preacher as his character aids a small community, and in High Plains Drifter he is like a tornado force of revenge against the community that stood by and watched him die.
These questionable acts are what shocked me most of all about this film. Case in point: within moments of entering this veritable town of sin, Clint takes a woman who instigates a trivial offense against him; and forcibly takes her to a barn where he proceeds to have his way with her. As a guy who held Eastwood up to a high standard throughout his life as the epitome of good. Even if he is gruff, or his means questionable, he gets the bad guy in the end. Never was he so bad that I worried he was irredeemable for his actions. The arguable sex act depicted can be argued amongst film critics everywhere whether it was full on rape or not, but it was definitely an uncomfortable moment to witness. The film then goes to great length to justify that the whole town was implicit in the death of Marshal Duncan and that their evil is simply being reflected back unto them.
This was Eastwood's also first real foray into the world of directing and seeing him tackle such a complex story only makes me more fascinated with him and shake my head with frustration that he couldn't have been born 40 years later to make quality films as a youthful actor in this day and age. Oh well, he's still making quality films regardless, and that is a blessing.
The story is, as mentioned, a ghostly revenge tale, with several theories behind what actually occurs on screen. the villains are more than just the few bad guys that the town is preparing for, because almost everyone in the town is curse marked for sins committed. The return of the "bad guys" is only a catalyst to literally paint the town red, marking the town and its people as all having blood on their hands. It would be easy to dismiss it as conventional western genre fare where the bad guys get what is coming to them, and the hero rides off into the sunset, but I would encourage you to delve deeper and question what actually transpired.
The Good: Eastwood as always. The little person. The complex story.
The Bad: Not bad per se, just that fine line the story walks, might keep you jumping from side to side, depending on how which side of the bed you wake up on in the morning.
Final Thoughts: Any western film enthusiast may not feel this film is up to par with most conventional films in the genre. People who think John Wayne is the archetype to aspire to for westerns, will not appreciate Eastwood's turn here. People who enjoy films that push the envelope... check it out.
Add to the Vault? As much as I love Eastwood, and as much as I liked this film, I don't know if it needs to be added to the vault. It is a great flick, and I appreciate having watched it and look forward to the opportunity to discuss it with others who may feel differently, but it is a one off for the most part. Maybe in another ten years or so, I will re-visit it, but I am good for the moment.
Well well well... here's one of this (last) years most anticipated films. Eccentrics everywhere are agog with how profound and astonishing this film is. But... sadly... I am alienating myself and possibly any secret readers out there, but this was simply not the case for me.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed this film, but overall, as far as stellar films go, this is not mind blowing to me. And as far as Darren Aronofsky films go... this is just a good flick.
Okay okay, from the beginning right? Premise, for those who have been sheltered from the reviews (I envy you), is this: Natalie Portman plays a repressed gifted ballerina who gets the role of a lifetime in Swan Lake, and the movie captures the struggle internal/external/etc she endures for the art.
Simple enough, and trust me the less you know the better. I was familiar with the premise, and I knew somewhat the potential arc that would transpire on screen. For me this removed me from any of the profoundness of the story. I mean once you accept the premise, you can anticipate the arc, and at that point it simply becomes a show about the journey rather than being there with the character and undertaking the journey with them.
Sure there is messed up stuff, and stuff that will make you second guess elements you witnessed, but really, and I mean honestly folks, step back from the film for one second and ask yourself if you haven't seen similar stories transpire in film, television, or literature before? "But not to this degree..." you might retort, but I think that it is just the hype talking.
Much to the chagrin of my wife, I just cannot accept that this is as great a film as people are claiming it to be, and I am not doing so simply to be contrary. I wanted to like this film. I was relishing the consistently positive reviews, but instead I got too far and found myself in the awkward territory of a film that is over hyped. And it was a good film, a film I enjoyed, but ultimately I felt underwhelmed by what transpired. I left the theatre feeling that I wanted more. Not of Natalie Portman though, she was solid.
She was, I will admit, astounding in this role simply for the dedication to character and the film, and what she undertook to complete the role. She was entirely consistent with the character and kept me engaged with the story.
Vincent Cassel was enjoyable as always in what could have easily been simply a villain role, but he kept it balanced and complex. Mila Kunis, though I always enjoy her as an actress, was simply one dimensional for me. Simply to serve as a foil for Natalie Portman and her psyche. The actress playing the mother was decently complex and twisted as well and the rest of the cast was sufficient at being ballet cast members. I can't really comment on the dance technically.
Some other issues I had were the random insertions of comedic moments in the film that removed any sense of tension and gravitas. My wife disagrees with me wholeheartedly insisting that it was the POINT of the film to have them, and that I am simply missing the PARALLELS of the DICHOTOMIES of virgins and harlots or some such thing. She offered to draw me a diagram but failed to deliver before I wrote this review. I do get that there was supposed to be the elements of "reality" that when shown in juxtaposition with "mentality" are meant to be jarring, but ultimately were unintentionally or unfortunately intentionally funny.
Two last observations I will make, is that in the theatre the male to female ratio was about 90:1, which doesn't necessarily account for much, because I did WANT to see the film, and it's possible many men do not. But there could be an additional element which affects females in a greater capacity than men. Of which I simply cannot comment. Or it could be that I am a robot like my wife says.
The second observation is that my wife, as a dancer felt a much stronger kinship with the trials and tribulations shown on film (in a much lesser capacity thankfully) which could also make for why she was able to connect to it more. I would have thought that any profession in the performance arts could invoke similar threads of connection emotionally, but I simply did not commiserate to the same capacity as her.
The good: Natalie Portman by far. Great acting, and many times did hurt my heart at how fragile she was. The style (when sticking to style) was also fascinating but left me wanting more.
The bad: Darren Aronofsky for not going further. I felt he didn't do this one as much justice as he did with Requiem for a Dream or even the Wrestler. I dearly hope that fame is not going to his head. Mila Kunis, again though I enjoy her, simply didn't seem as pivotal as she should have been.
Final Thoughts: Film enthusiasts should definitely go watch this film. As should dancers, and artists of every ilk. But go in without the hype and enjoy it more than me. Then come back and tell me how I am simply wrong in my point of view. Ha ha.
Add to the vault? My wide may want it, but I will pass personally. I can enjoy this film, but it simply isn't as good as a film as the masses are making it to be. Still a solid effort. Go watch it!
Man I do loves me some Clint Eastwood. By far not as incredible as the Man With No Name trilogy, Hang Em High is another wonderful addition in Clint Eastwood's incredible resume.
The thing with this film though that sets it apart from others in the western genre is how incredibly heavy and dark some of the material is that we witness on screen. The story seems like a straight forward revenge flick, but truthfully there is a lot more going on beneath the surface than you'd expect. Conventionally westerns like to pursue the revenge angle, or the lawless bowing down to the law of the west and such. Greed, villainy and such run rampant and the tall, dark, and mysterious leading man must save the day.
In Hang Em High, we are thrown immediately into the fray as we witness Clint Eastwood's Jed Cooper trying to start his new life as a rancher, but due to an unfortunate series of events came into possession of illegally obtained cattle. None the wiser, a lynch mob finds him and without listening to how he is innocent, they treat him to "good ol' fashioned frontier justice". Strung up and at the end of his rope, he is narrowly saved by a lawman who is nearby and cuts him down to be tried properly by a judge. The judge though is known as the hanging judge and it's a well deserved reputation but thankfully Cooper is spared the gallows again and in turn recruited to be a marshal and hunt down the men who did him wrong. The catch... he can't kill any of them, as they are all due for proper judicial proceedings.
Things go askew, more plots develop and Cooper finds a few snags in his quest for revenge. I love this story because it is complex. It isn't straight forward (as much as I love other westerns) and there are real conflicts in the pursuit of justice, which turns out to be varying shades of grey rather than the black and white some see it in. Bad folks aren't bad because they are evil, they are bad because of the decisions they make, and the resolution to follow those decisions through to completion. Multi-dimensional characters in a western. What will they think of next?
The other thing that surprised the hell out of me was the dark themes touched upon. Themes such as juvenile punishment, rape, lynching, the absolution of the law, cowardice, sympathetic villains, the spectacle of public execution and so much more. This is a great film and definitely one you should endeavour to watch if you haven't taken the time to appreciate Clint Eastwood's repertoire of films.
The good: Clint, the judge, the plot. Special mention goes to Inger Stevens, a tragic beauty who graced the screen and played Clint's love interest. In reviewing this film I looked up her resume and unfortunately saw that she had a short life, battling many personal conflicts before dying from an overdose of barbiturates. Sad.
The bad: The pacing was off a couple of times, and dragged a bit. It ran a very fine line for having one too many plots introduced, and the lack of any serious resolution which can be arguably a plus and a minus.
Final Thoughts: Clint Eastwood is a god amongst men. I cherish the fact I developed an interest in his films, having ignorantly for many a year dismissed them as old fashioned lame films. I had my epiphany with the Man with No Name trilogy a long time ago and have revered Eastwood since. The greatest shame is that we are subject to age and Clint is now too old to be the one role destined for him since the beginning... namely Roland the Gunslinger in the Dark Tower series. How I would have loved to see Clint in his prime, with today's technology tackle that series.
Add to the vault? Anything Clint does can be added to the vault. Just putting that out there.
The joys of being ill allow for more movie viewing opportunities. These 3 films were sitting on the PVR waiting for me when I got back from the holidays. Now having watched them, I am happy to finally review them. The first is iconic and by far the most remembered of the three. Nearly everyone born prior to 1985 has seen it. The other two, well memories get fuzzy and the people who have sat down to watch them drops off significantly. Which is a shame, because I really think Robert Zemeckis intended to tell the story as a trilogy.
The first film follows Marty Mcfly as he is thrust back in time to 1955. A wonderfully simplistic version of the world he is used to. Doomed to disappearing into nothingness if he doesn't set out to make things right like getting his parents together, working with his good friend Doc Brown, thwarting the bad guy, and getting back.... TO THE FUTURE.
It's a fun, simple film despite the laws of time travel they set out to establish. Easy to follow and the pacing is decent, it's no wonder why this film became a classic what with an original story and some decent effort put into it's execution.
The first film ends where the second one begins (albeit some minor casting differences) and we find our same hapless heros thrust in to the crazy futuristic future of 2015. That's right folks, in a mere 4 years we will all be using hover cars, using archaic computer systems, and watching tv in standard definition again. I'm looking most forward to the hoverboards personally.
Story-wise and film-wise, this is the weakest film of the 3. It feels discombobulated and the pacing is off. The story is rushed and all the "future" scenes feel off. It's like when they finished the first film, the premise of travelling to the future was cool, but then with the success warranting a second film, they thought, "Oh crap, we actually have to follow through with this...". So we have a jarring story about a book, that only serves to get us out of the future as soon as possible.
The one upside is that film serves to establish the premise of the 3rd film in the wild west. And like that we too segue into the third film, where once the story settles again, the audience can get their bearings, and appreciate story again. The 3rd film follows Marty as he endeavours to rescue Doc Brown from 1885, and we are treated to some quality film work again. Mary Steenburgen joins the cast as a romantic interest for Doc Brown and the "Biff" of this time period is "Mad Dog" and definitely the most inspired of the bullies of each era.
All in all they are good films. The first and 3rd are much better than the second, but such is the case with most middle films in trilogies. They were great original stories and created iconic characters we all know and love today. The may not have aged well (especially the second one) but they are still fun.
The good: Michael J Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, and Thomas F. Wilson. All were great in their multitude of roles.
The bad: 2015. If it looks anything like it did in the second film, yikes....
Final Thoughts: If you haven't watched these films lately go out and rent em. Enjoy the time it takes you back to. Enjoy the ride.
Add to the vault? I would definitely add this trilogy to the vault. The Blue Ray special edition would be a fantastic trip through time every now and again. It may be a few years in between each viewing, but these films are like wonderful little time capsules and I would definitely re-watch them again and again.
So bear with me but here are the trailers for each installment of the series:
What in hell was I thinking with this crap. I know, I know. I am probably not the target audience. But I can enjoy 70's exploitation flicks as much as anyone else. This film is obviously riding the coattails of other grindhouse flicks that started making a resurgence thanks (for nothing) to Quentin Tarantino.
This flick follows the adventures of Black Dynamite, a protagonist who refers to himself in 3rd person, as he goes the ridiculous motions of avenging his brother's death, getting smack off the streets and fighting "the man". It's filled with sexism, racism, cornball antics and jokes. It's trying so hard to be funny, tongue-in-cheek, and such that it's more irritating than anything else.
My problem with grindhouse flicks are not that they are a guilty pleasure for some, but that they are made at all. I actually do love the ridiculous trailers that are made for these films but that doesn't mean I want to actually want to see a film of the same caliber.
It's tough to review. Unless I was back in university and drinking with a bunch of friends, I can't see why anyone would actually make time to watch this drek.
The good: Michael Jai White, was obviously inspired in wanting to do this flick. He's never been a terribly good actor but he does badass well. Even though he's wasted in this drivel.
The bad: The rest.
Final Thoughts: There are undoubtedly blaxploitation or grindhouse enthusiasts out there that may not agree with my sentiments, and by all means, I applaud you. Shine on you crazy diamonds. But this film, in my humble opinion.... sucked.
Add to the Vault: Maybe if I grew up in the 70's I would feel differently, but no. Not ever.
Here is the trailer for Black Dynamite, which I assure is 100 times better than the actual film... which still isn't saying much.
This is a belated holiday flick I meant to review before my holiday hiatus but didn't have a chance to. So here's the quick recap of Home Alone.
What can I say? I'm a sucker for films that quite often are the source of ridicule to others. I know many adults around my age that would have been the target audience when this film came out, who swear they dislike the film. For that I have to call BS, as for me, every year around Christmas this is one of the magical films that immediately transport me back to being a 9 year old kid again.
It hearkens back to a time when directors still put in effort for what is admittedly a tough genre to tackle. You've seen me gripe about uninspired holiday flicks looking to make a quick buck and serve little more than to induce sleep, but once upon a time directors actually cared. Chris Columbus is thankfully one of those directors. I often wonder how films like this get pitched or become a labour of love based on the premise alone. I always imagine the conversations that must have taken place, "So I have this great idea. An 8 year old kid is forgotten at home by his family at Christmas, a couple of burglars try and rob the place and shenanigans ensue." "SOLD!" *throws money at the director* Truthfully though, I imagine John Hughes attachment to the project may have had something to do with that.
Still, I am glad they did sell the premise. The film isn't perfect, nor should it be. You know the plot, it's geared towards kids, and yet thankfully I don't care. I unabashedly love this flick. Definitely a must watch every season.
The good: The cast. Everyone has their place and have become as familiar as the movie itself. Catherine O'Hara is especially good and Macaulay Culkin is enjoyable as well. I was talking with my wife about how it really was a testament to his charisma as a child to hold the film essentially by himself and not become irritating beyond merely precocious. John Candy always breaks my heart a little bit to know he's gone. Seeing him in this with Catherine O'Hara always makes me remember their SCTV days. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern are also enjoyable as well, playing the bumbling crooks with enough heart and maliciousness to be great villians (unlike that previous flick I reviewed with Chris Kattan and some obese man-child).
The bad: Once again the portrayal of law enforcement. EGADS. I shouldn't care but seriously they are the epitome of every bad stereotype in this film. Fat, lazy, donut eating fools. And we are supposed to believe that a phone call from a frantic mother wouldn't have elicited a bigger response other than the presumption that it was a hoax. Sheesh people.
Final Thoughts: Don't let naysayers and cynical holiday grinchs keep you from enjoying this holiday classic. Up there with Scrooged, Muppet Christmas Carol, National Lampoons Christmas Vacation, and others, this is one film that should be enjoyed every year.
Add to the Vault: If it wasn't pretty much guaranteed to be on TV every year, I would probably own it already. I will definitely mark it as "To be added to the vault" but so long as they keep playing it I will likely hold tight. Next year I will endeavour to review the second installment, which I remember to be decent but honestly I haven't watched in probably over 10 years.
This concludes the holiday stretch of movies, and I apologize in advance for the next review.
Before that though, enjoy the trailer for Home Alone:
