tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85368750464618143712024-03-05T05:53:04.280-05:00Nick's Movie ReviewsBecause real movie critics use too many big words.Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-9522568423725349212011-04-05T16:04:00.003-04:002011-04-05T16:06:33.626-04:00Blogger No More...As of today, I will no longer be using this blog for film reviews. However, I will continue to write reviews for my own website, which I will link to this post. If there is anybody out there who actually reads this, I hope you'll continue to read my work on my new site. Thank you for your readership. <a href="http://www.nicksmoviereviews.com/">www.nicksmoviereviews.com</a>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-17001100047570612652011-03-20T10:03:00.004-04:002011-03-20T10:48:38.744-04:00Rango (2011)<a href="http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rango-poster-535x792.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 281px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 380px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/rango-poster-535x792.jpg" /></a>Movies I thought of while watching <em>Rango</em>: <em>High Noon, The Man with No Name Trilogy, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Cat Ballou, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Yojimbo, Unforgiven,</em><em> Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas</em>. Movies I did not think of while watching <em>Rango: Rango.</em><br /><br />At what point does a movie stop being its own film, and start becoming a clip show of Hollywood's greatest hits? When John Logan was writing <em>Rango</em>, perhaps he should have put a little less effort into paying homage to so many great films. His basic story is a very interesting one: a lizard that has been kept as a pet suddenly finds himself in an old west town called Dirt, where he has reinvented himself as a gunslinger. That lizard (voiced admirable by Johnny Depp) is the titular Rango, who enjoyed putting on theatrical performances in his terrarium before he suffered an environment change. Shortly after establishing himself as an expert marksmen (accidentally), Rango is promoted to town Sheriff by the Mayor of Dirt (Ned Beatty), a character obviously derived from John Huston's character in <em>Chinatown</em>. But as Rango delves deeper into an investigation about the town's water supply, he finds that the old west may not be the best place for a thespian lizard.<br /><br />The main problem with <em>Rango</em> is lack of identity. The lead lizard himself is sufferring an identity crisis throughout the film, constantly asking through gloomy voiceover "who am I?" While watching <em>Rango</em>, I sometimes felt as though the movie were asking me "what am I?" The only thing I can say for sure is that <em>Rango </em>is a western, through and through. But where Logan and director Gore Verbinski go wrong is they constantly remind us of past great films, but fail to make <em>Rango </em>anywhere near as good as them. It reaches a point where you ask, "well, why don't I just see <em>those </em>movies?" The highlight of the film comes in the very beginning when Rango is running away from a hawk with another desert creature. This scene is both funny and exciting, and one of the few times that <em>Rango</em> is it's own film. After the scene ends however, the clip show begins.<br /><br />The animation of <em>Rango </em>is really the saving grace of the film. Every character, though ugly, is beautifully rendered. The most interesting character to look at is bad guy Rattlesnake Jake, voiced by Bill Nighy. His winding, scaly body leads to a tail topped with a Gatling gun instead of a rattle. Every scene with him is thrilling to watch, and in fact were the only times during <em>Rango</em> when my heart actually felt involved in the film. Unfortunately, his scenes don't show up until much later in the film, and they are very scarce even then.<br /><br />One more important thing that must be stressed is that <em>Rango </em>is NOT a children's movie. Despite being produced by Nickelodeon, this film is riddled with adult humor that children will not understand. On top of that, the humor is not even that funny. You may smirk at an inappropriate comment, but there is very little to laugh at here. Even though the MPAA chose to leave the word "violence" out of it's rating, <em>Rango </em>is littered with it, from claims to cutting off other characters "giblets" to a supporting character who constantly walks around with an arrow through his eye.<br /><br /><em>Rango </em>is an hour and 47 minutes, but feels a lot longer. It has terrific animation, well crafted action scenes, but an overall slow pace and a very annoying lead character in Rango. Many will find the references to other films endearing and fun, but I found them to be distracting. You are probably better off just watching any of the films I listed earlier. My rating (3/10)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-45704509322192043122011-03-04T22:58:00.006-05:002011-03-05T00:38:24.572-05:00The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters<a href="http://www.picturehouse.com/titles/images/king.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 360px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 241px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.picturehouse.com/titles/images/king.jpg" /></a>How many hours a week do you spend playing video games? Chances are, your number doesn't even come close to the people in <em>The King Of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters</em>. The film centers around unemployed Washingtonian Steve Wiebe, who is attempting to break a world record for highest score ever on the original Donkey Kong arcade game. The man who's record Wiebe must overcome is renowned gamer Billy Mitchell, who set the benchmark in Donkey Kong over 20 years ago. In the world of competitive gaming, Billy Mitchell is the king. Always seen with a mullet and American themed ties, Mitchell is the cockiest gamer you can ever hope to encounter, and he has the world records to back it up. Does Wiebe have what it takes to dethrone this giant of the gaming world? By the end of <em>The King of Kong, </em>you're certainly going to hope so.<br /><div></div><br /><div><em>The King of Kong</em> is a documentary that unfolds as a terrific underdog story. Steve Wiebe is an easily sympathetic character who we enjoy watching succeed and hate watching fail. On the other end is Billy Mitchell, the quintessential villain who gets by on reputation alone, and is damned proud of it. He has minions (other gamers) who are hopelessly devoted to him and will do whatever they need to in order to keep him on top of the leaderboard. Mitchell doesn't even grant Wiebe the chance of facing off with him one on one, for reasons known only to himself. It's almost as though Wiebe is Mario, the world record is the Princess, and Mitchell is Donkey Kong. No matter how many barrels Wiebe jumps, whenever he gets within grasp of the record, Mitchell just picks it up and moves to the next level. The rivalry born from these two competitors throughout the film becomes so intriguing that you cannot help but invest all of your attention towards it. </div><br /><div></div><div>Director Seth Gordon needs to be heavily credited with making <em>The King of Kong</em> such an entertaining film. His clever editing paints Mitchell as a truly awful human being, someone you would never want to be friends with or look up to in your entire life. It also doesn't hurt that Mitchell is a gold mine for unashamed, self-centered remarks. Meanwhile, we see Wiebe in a much more respectable light. He is a soft-spoken family man that never says a negative thing about anyone. Some would say this shows an obvious bias that is driving the film, but I don't think that is such a big deal. After all, we are just talking about video games here. <em>The King of Kong</em> was obviously developed to be an entertaining film, and any decisions by Gordon to skew information was for the audiences benefit. In reality, Wiebe and Mitchell are actually on very friendly terms, but you wouldn't want to watch a film about two buddies having a friendly competition, would you? However, if you are very picky about your documentaries being 100% truthful, perhaps you can void yourself of this delightful film.</div><br /><div></div><div><em>The King of Kong</em> is filmed mostly in the style of cinema verite, meaning the camera is completely objective and follows events as they happened. Occasionally though, interviews with the cast are placed in order to get a direct reaction to some of the events. This was definitely the best option Gordon could have taken, as it allows every ounce of emotion, whether it be humor or sadness, out of every scene. </div><br /><div></div><div>For any readers who are scared of the idea of watching a documentary, I implore you to give <em>The King of Kong </em>a chance. It is not a political statement dealing with blood diamonds or animal cruelty. It's simply a fun film that you can have a blast watching. It follows a plot just like any other movie, so it won't bring you out of your comfort zone all that much. Or perhaps you'd rather just play video games. My rating (9/10)</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-28844969861783152072011-02-19T08:38:00.009-05:002011-02-20T12:24:50.568-05:00Boy A (2007)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEM37W3X2Z4ZD-HoiUinR4Oqhsq_zbfgRx6XWf7euY2Tk15MWc1n0vCrytGwceCmjo99yYuAb_UbXY4s8t-m2gnzy14O79Iqr9N2OcccAyPs17xw3CEuEXjroqPo58NPSnDsyv1nz8WC9Q/s1600/boy+a.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 135px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEM37W3X2Z4ZD-HoiUinR4Oqhsq_zbfgRx6XWf7euY2Tk15MWc1n0vCrytGwceCmjo99yYuAb_UbXY4s8t-m2gnzy14O79Iqr9N2OcccAyPs17xw3CEuEXjroqPo58NPSnDsyv1nz8WC9Q/s200/boy+a.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5575823965830044770" /></a><br />Everyone got into trouble when they were children. Most of the offenses were trivial: breaking a vase, running with scissors, pouring milk on the dog's head. But what of the children who do truly reprehensible things? Things that adults go to prison for. When Jack Burridge (Andrew Garfield) was a little boy, he and his friend Philip killed a fellow student. Sent to trial being known to the public as "Boy A", Jack was convicted and spent the rest of his youth and all of his teenage years in jail. But at age 24, Jack is being released (at the chagrin of all of London), and ready to start life anew. With the help of fatherly social worker Terry (Peter Mullan), Jack finds a place to live and a job delivering packages. He even stirs up a romance with curvy co-worker Michelle (Katie Lyons) which leads to his first sexual experience. All seems to be going well for Jack until an act of kindness brings him under the spotlight, and threatens to reveal his identity.<br /><em> </em>There is an obvious moral question posed in <em>Boy A. </em>Are children who do evil things inherently evil? Do they remain in the same state throughout their lives, or can their indiscretion be chalked up to naivety? As we watch Jack on a personal level, we see that he is a being fully capable of kindness and sensitivity. We see him stand up for a friend and fall into love like a newborn pup with Michelle, and we cannot help but like him. We also get a look into his past as a neglected child who is frequently bullied at school. He is clearly determined to prove that he is a changed person. He changed his name from Eric to Jack upon leaving jail so that he can literally become a new man. But not all of London can see Jack on the level that we are. They just know about what he did in the past, and for them, that's all they need to know. Unfortunately, we can't see how Jack's friend Philip fairs outside of jail, because he committed suicide.<br /> The titular <em>Boy A </em>is played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield. You may recognize him from the 2010 masterpiece <em>The Social Network</em> and photos as the new Spider-man in the upcoming franchise reboot. <em>Boy A </em>was Garfield's first ever leading film role, and it is nothing short of astonishing. As a man forced to leap from child to adult without that learning stage in between, Garfield plays the role with just enough boyish charm to really seem like somebody who never grew up properly. He is helped by a strong supporting cast, specifically Peter Mullan as Jack's social worker. Every scene between the two characters is exceptionally engaging, as you really feel a strong connection between these two actors.<br /> <em>Boy A</em> is not always an easy film to watch, but it is definitely a rewarding experience. Because of the intriguing dilemma brought up in Mark O'Rowe's screenplay, this film is sure to stir up some debate amongst intellectual circles. At 106 minutes, <em>Boy A</em> leaves at a good moment where we don't even begin to lose interest in Jack's struggles. You will be invested in this film all the way up to the emotional finale. My rating (8/10)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-12682284602566832882011-01-06T08:37:00.002-05:002011-01-06T09:33:51.695-05:00The Fighter (2010)<a href="http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the_fighter_poster_01_christian_bale_mark_wahlberg_.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 258px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 395px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the_fighter_poster_01_christian_bale_mark_wahlberg_.jpg" /></a>Family is the most important thing in the world. Families support us, make us feel accepted, and always look out for our best interests. But for Mickey Ward, family is exactly what's holding him back. A struggling boxer in Lowell, Massachusetts, Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) paves streets while in between losing fights. He is coached by his brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale), the former "pride of Lowell" who once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard in a match, but is now just a disappointing crack addict. Dicky claims to know exactly what is best for Mickey, helping him pick fights and devise strategy, but more often than not, Mickey just ends up with a bruised face and hurt pride. When Mickey starts dating a strong-minded bartender named Charlene (Amy Adams), his family dynamic is disturbed as she encourages him to stop working with his brother and manager mother and start training more seriously. Mickey has to reluctantly decide what is truly the most important to him: his family or his career.<br /><div></div><div><em>The Fighter</em> has been a passion project of Mark Wahlberg for many years. Since 2005, he has tried to get the true story of Mickey Ward on the big screen. Now that he finally has, he can be proud of his final work. Mickey is not a particularly interesting character. He could be, if only he was allowed to speak more often in his motor-mouthed family. He is consistently drowned out by brother Dicky, mother Alice, and his seven sisters who are as talkative as their hair is tall. Even after he meets Charlene, she is the one that does most of the arguing with his family. But Wahlberg still delivers a terrific, nuanced performance, using body language as a major means of communicating. He frequently gets the look of a small child who knows he is being overshadowed by his older siblings. This seems rather fitting, because Wahlberg's terrific performance is greatly overshadowed by the actor who plays his older brother, Christian Bale.</div><br /><div></div><div>Bale is simply astounding in his portrayal of down-for-the-count Dicky. Dropping all the muscle and weight he had put on for <em>The Dark Knight</em> (which he will need to put back on for the sequel filming this year), Bale perfectly achieves the look of a boxer turned crack addict. The way he handles his body through movement is as precise as a well timed left hook. Bale should be a favorite to win Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. Another strong competitor for an Oscar should be Melissa Leo, who is brilliant as Mickey and Dicky's mother, Alice. It is a guarantee that at some point you will want to tear her hair out, because she is just so believable as the cocksure head of the family. Leo's performance cuts deep into the audience, as her character cuts deep into Mickey. When she spars with Amy Adams' Charlene, the two create a scathing atmosphere that permeates the whole room. </div><br /><div><em>The Fighter </em>is very much a performance driven film. In fact, without all the exceptional performances, <em>The Fighter </em>would be a rather mediocre, run of the mill sports drama. Director David O. Russell does a good enough job behind the camera, but never really quite takes the film to it's heights. The boxing scenes are done from spectator point of view through a granier lens, and they are not as exciting as they could have been. The film also ends without showing a single one of Mickey's fights with Arturo Gatti, which are arguably the best boxing matches in history. There is a significant emotional conclusion to the film, but physically, there was a severe lacking.<br /></div><div>Come Oscar season, <em>The Fighter</em> will get serious consideration for all the top awards, and it makes sense that it would. It is certainly one of the best films of 2010. The acting through and through is superb and deserves recognition. One should hesitate before granting it any writing or directing nominations though, as both were pretty pedestrian. If you can truly appreciate great performances, you will really enjoy this film. My rating (7.5/10)</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-43033844777732091912010-10-02T21:22:00.002-04:002010-10-03T20:10:40.530-04:00The Social Network (2010)<a href="http://thesocialnetworkthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Social-Network-Poster-21-6-10-kc.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 336px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 508px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://thesocialnetworkthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Social-Network-Poster-21-6-10-kc.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Our way of living has been defined by many key creations in history. Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook. One may find it strange that Zuckerberg would be included on a list of great inventors, but think about this for a moment. Before Facebook, to write on somebody's wall meant to take a pen and draw on some one's house. "I have to pick my strawberries" was something only a farmer would say. Making friends involved going out to social events and speaking with people in the flesh. Now, with the click of a mouse you can connect with hundreds of "friends", like their status, play bejeweled, and spend a good chunk of your day "creeping" on people's profiles. Our every day lives and even our language have been updated, and it is because of Mark Zuckerberg, organizer of the biggest social gathering in human history. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><em>The Social Network</em> revolves around the birth of Facebook back at Harvard University in 2003. Jesse Eisenberg (<em>Zombieland, Adventureland</em>) plays Zuckerberg, a socially inept genius with one friend in roommate Eduardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield). After being dumped by his girlfriend in the first scene, Zuckerberg takes to the internet to create a website as way to get some revenge. No it's not Facebook yet, but the website he creates becomes so popular in just four hours, it manages to crash Harvard Univesity's server. Impressed, twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer in both roles) commission Zuckerberg to help create a website they have been thinking of. A social networking site. Zuckerberg agrees, but rather than help them, he designs his own website with the help of Savarin, and thus Facebook is born. But the journey to fame is no easy walk, and Zuckerberg's life becomes filled with controversy. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><em>The Social Network</em> just might be a perfect movie. Writer Aaron Sorkin will more than likely earn an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (the book being "The Accidental Billionaires" by Ben Mezrich). Expertly crafted, Sorkin brings the audience a witty, intelligent, cocky, quick, and sharp film, a perfect parallel to the main character Zuckerberg. Along with this, Sorkin manages to take a rather uninteresting plot and shape it into an intense two hour heart pounder that you will not want to see end. This film is driven heavily by dialogue, yet it moves with the pace of a summer blockbuster, due in part to the astute direction from David Fincher. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Jesse Eisenberg is flawless as the flawed Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg. Never hitting a wrong note, Eisenberg captures Zuckerberg's awkward, work driven, condescending demeanor in every frame. It should not surprise anyone to find Eisenberg's name in discussions for Best Actor come Oscar season. But the real surprise coming from <em>The Social Network</em> is the supporting performance from practically unknown Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg's only friend Eduardo. Garfield is outstanding as the modest, business-headed CFO of Facebook. Eduardo's story is tragic, and Garfield's performance draws out heaps of sympathy from the audience. A Best Supporting Actor nomination could be on the horizon for this young actor, and it would be well deserved. It's also worthy to note that Justin Timberlake gives a very strong performance as Napster creator Sean Parker, who infiltrates his way into Facebook and turns Zuckerberg against his friend Eduardo. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>But the part of <em>The Social Network</em> that audiences will find to be the most stimulating is analyzing the character of Mark Zuckerberg. This is a man not driven by money or fame. He does bad things, but is not inherently a bad person. At one moment he will commend his friend Eduardo and in the next breath he will demean him, both sentences being in the same tone of voice. His motivations are never explained, because it is more than likely Zuckerberg himself does not understand them. Are his actions later in the film defined by Parker interfering in his life? Is Zuckerberg legitimately a bad person? If money and fame do not motivate him to perfect Facebook, then what exactly does? These are all difficult questions, and you will have fun finding the answers.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>It should be noted that although most of the basic events that take place in this film are real, the circumstances surrounding them have been greatly exaggerated and falsified. The writers of the book and film respectively took creative license in order to make a more entertaining story, which is what the business is all about. However, this does not take away from the impact of the film at all. <em>The Social Network</em> will stand as a defining film of our generation for years to come. My guess is, you will "like" <em>The Social Network</em>. My rating (10/10).</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-70024710772556561452010-05-31T10:58:00.008-04:002010-05-31T12:03:51.926-04:00Kick-Ass (2010)<a href="http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/01/19/kick-ass-poster-paint.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 328px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 452px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/01/19/kick-ass-poster-paint.jpg" /></a>Being a superhero is as close as a fictional character can get to becoming a celebrity. Many people forget the names of actors and actresses, but nobody is going to dig through their mind trying to remember who the guy in the bat suit is. This easy notoriety is the reason so many of us <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">fantasize</span> about having superpowers (and don't pretend that you don't). So, how come nobody has tried to be a superhero? This is the exact question <em>Kick-Ass</em>' protagonist Dave <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lizewski</span> asks his two nerdy friends as they hang out in their local comic book store. If you ask me, it's to prevent movies like <em>Kick-Ass</em> from being made.<br /><div></div><div> </div><div>Dave <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lizewski</span> (Aaron Johnson) is a textbook nerd. He has big glasses, a cracking voice, and is utterly invisible to the popular crowd at school. His favorite hang out spot is a comic book store with his two friends that do nothing to improve his image. Fed up with being useless in a world run by crime, Dave decides that what we really need is a superhero. Equipped with absolutely no combat skills, a green wet suit, and some clubs, Dave assumes his alter-ego as Kick-Ass. Little does Dave know that he is not the only superhero on the block. After narrowly being killed by thugs, Dave is saved by Big Daddy and Hit-Girl (Nicolas Cage and Chloe <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moretz</span>), a father-daughter team set on seeking vengeance for a past atrocity by crime lord Frank <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">D'Amico</span> (Mark Strong). Soon after, Dave discovers that being a superhero may not always be worth the fame.</div><br /><div></div><div><em>Kick-Ass</em> is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Mark <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Millar</span>. I have not read the graphic novel, but I have no doubt that it was much better than this film. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding <em>Kick-Ass</em> because of Chloe <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moretz's</span> role as Hit Girl. There is apparently something about a 13 year old sporting a trucker's foul mouth and a tendency towards bloody violence that just did not sit right with most parents. Well, I'm no parent. Hit Girl was one of the only good things about this movie. As a source of several of the few laughs to be had, Chloe <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moretz</span> does an apt job of keeping this otherwise lackluster film afloat. But the real treat was seeing her interact with her character's father, Big Daddy, played brilliantly by Nicolas Cage. Cage and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moretz</span> bring undeniable chemistry to the screen, and are an absolute delight to watch. The best scene in the entire film comes when we first meet Big Daddy and Hit Girl as their plain clothes selves, Damon and Mindy <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Macready</span>. Former cop Damon is teaching his daughter how to deal with pain...by shooting her in the chest while she wears a bullet proof vest. This scene gave me hope that this movie would have many more brilliant scenes to come. Unfortunately, this movie was not called <em>Big Daddy and Hit Girl</em>. It's <em>Kick-Ass</em>. So let's discuss the titular hero.</div><br /><div></div><div>Do you know how fun it is to watch somebody who cannot fight, try to beat up a group of criminals? You may think it's kind of funny for a few minutes, but after a while it just becomes kind of sad. Well that is how I felt watching Kick-Ass. First of all, the character of Dave <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lizewski</span> was one that I had no feelings towards. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Aaraon</span> Johnson was not doing <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">enough</span> to create a main character that was worthy of my sympathy. I did not care about him. Because of this, my interest in the character was void. There may have been some hope when he became Kick-Ass, but I soon discovered another problem. It is just no fun to watch somebody flail their arms around in a green wet suit. I understand that his inability to fight was the point, but that doesn't make it a good point. Every film has two basic sides: the point (message, theme, etc) and the entertainment (emotional responses). You can have effective entertainment without having an effective point, but you can NEVER have an effective point without effective entertainment. You can make a film about the most important subject ever, but if I don't like the way you tell the story, than why should I care? Sadly, Kick-Ass does not gain fighting skills throughout the course of the film, so any scene with him is just as monotonous as Johnson's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">voice over</span>. </div><br /><div></div><div>Well maybe <em>Kick-Ass</em> shouldn't be graded on its performances. After all, it has been advertised as a high-octane violence fest. Surely, the action sequences are top notch and worth the films downfalls. Well, don't be so sure. There are actually relatively few fight scenes in <em>Kick-Ass</em>, and there are even fewer that are actually fun to watch. The best fight in the film belongs to Big Daddy. It was well choreographed and excellently filmed. Unfortunately, it lasts only about 20 seconds. The majority of the fighting in the film is done by Hit Girl, and though her moves are eye-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">poppingly</span> exciting the first few times around, they became rather stale near the end. I felt like I was watching the same scene over and over again. </div><br /><div></div><div><em>Kick-Ass </em>is a movie that should have remained a graphic novel. It's protagonist did not transfer well to the screen, and neither did it's style. Perhaps if the film focused more on Big Daddy and Hit Girl it would have been a lot better, but that probably would have upset the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">fanboys</span> of the graphic novel. I cannot recommend this film to anybody over the age of 30 or under the age of 17. This film is perfect for the college crowd but will not sit well with anyone else. And I have a feeling that in a couple of years, not many people will even remember it. My rating (4/10)</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-70602955356974668192010-03-20T22:04:00.001-04:002010-03-20T22:05:34.528-04:00Big Fan (2009)This review can be found at <a href="http://www.7tavern.com/4/131/1895">http://www.7tavern.com/4/131/1895</a>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-38384940203607694912010-01-31T11:48:00.006-05:002010-02-15T22:15:09.740-05:00Moon (2009)<a href="http://blog.spout.com/wp-content/uploads/moon-poster.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 266px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 326px; CURSOR: hand" border="0" alt="" src="http://blog.spout.com/wp-content/uploads/moon-poster.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Sam Rockwell is perhaps one of the most under-appreciated actors working today. Despite excellent turns in <em>The Green Mile</em> and <em>Matchstick Men </em>(just to name a few), Rockwell never received the real notoriety he deserves. Now at age 40, Rockwell may have finally found the role which will grant him A-list status. <em>Moon</em> is the futuristic story of Sam Bell, a man who has been stationed on the moon in order to collect a valuable energy source. With two weeks left on his three year contract, Sam is looking forward to returning home to see his wife and daughter. But just as his trip home looms around the corner, he begins noticing some strange occurences going on around his solitary station. With robot companion GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey), Sam attempts to unravel the mystery behind his mission.<br /><br />Moon is the debut film for writer/director Duncan Jones, who was formerly famous for being David Bowie's son. Jones' ideas are familiar enough to any science fiction fan. The ideas of solitude and dehumanization are prevalent throughout the film, which seem to be staples of the genre. But Jones handles these tried and true ideas with care, and uses apt direction to bring them to life. His frequent use of wide, expansive shots is key to showing Sam's loneliness. In one particularly powerful scene, Sam drives out to the middle of a wide open range and begins to cry for his home. Jones brilliantly places the camera in a position that shows Sam's vehicle all by itself on the moon's surface, with Earth looming in the background. As a first time writer, Jones also understands that most audiences do not like to be kept in the dark too long about a film's mystery. By revealing the "secret" halfway through the film, we were able to appreciate <em>Moon </em>as a character driven powerhouse.<br /><br />But the true reason anybody and everybody should see <em>Moon</em> is Sam Rockwell's beautiful performance. As essentially the only actor on screen for what must be 95% of the film, Rockwell is burdened with keeping this movie afloat for the 97 minute runtime. Masterfully, Rockwell tackles this chore with ease, turning this one man show into Academy Award material. Unfortunately, Sony Pictures decided to not send this film out for consideration, a move which has caused much uproar in the film community. There is no doubt that Rockwell would have been nominated for Best Leading Actor, and he maybe could have won,<br /><br />Just because Sony snubbed this film does not mean you should too. <em>Moon</em> is one of the best science fiction films of the decade, giving new life to old conventions of cinema. This film should be at the top of your movie rental list. My rating: (9/10)</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-62267885785533020412009-10-30T15:44:00.000-04:002009-10-30T15:45:55.923-04:00Paranormal Activity (2009)Has the best horror film of the decade been discovered? Audiences and critics alike have heaped praise on Paranormal Activity as being one of the scariest movies they’ve ever seen. Steven Spielberg even claims that while watching the film in his home, the door to his room inexplicably locked from the inside, and he had to call a locksmith to set himself free. The film’s producers set up a viral campaign asking for one million signatures if people wanted the film to get a wide release. In less than a week, the million signature mark was achieved. But is this a case of bandwagon hype, or has something special truly been found in Paranormal Activity?<br /><br />Paranormal Activity is a lower than low budget film that was conceived by video game designer Oren Peli. The story follows couple Micah and Katie, who have been experiencing some strange occurrences in their new home. Shot from the point of view of the camera that Micah bought to document the disturbances, we are placed directly in the house that is supposedly being haunted by a demon that has followed Katie since she was eight years old. After consulting a psychic who claims to be unable to help them, the couple must do what they can to flush the demon out, or at least just survive.<br /><br />Expecting a let-down after all the hype, I was pleasantly surprised by Paranormal Activity. Though the all out “scares” were hard to come by, Peli does a great job of creeping out the audience using clichés such as “stuff moving by itself” and “loud noises coming from the other room”. He even finds a way to make the worn out handi-cam gimmick seem new again, just by placing the camera on a tri-pod once in a while. Despite a rather dull first 20 minutes, once the paranormal activity in question starts, it is very hard to look away. Rookie actors Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat (I wonder where their characters got their names from) do a well enough job to keep the eerie tone of the film alive. Their dedication to the roles was definitely essential to keeping Paranormal Activity watchable.<br /><br />However, the claims of Paranormal Activity being something special are a bit of an over-statement. Though it was an effectively creepy film, I would not say it was unnerving enough to keep me up at night. Shortly after leaving the theater, the effects of the film wear off and you can go about your day undisturbed.<br /><br />Overall, Paranormal Activity is good enough for an unsettling movie-going experience, and is certainly much better than most of the so-called “horror” films being released today. You also may be interested in knowing that there is an alternate ending to the film online, which is said to be Peli’s original ending before the studio made him change it. My rating (7/10)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-75327823793075022712009-08-22T20:07:00.003-04:002009-08-22T21:52:52.336-04:00Inglourious Basterds (2009)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq5vjx_UU7NK1vVcj_j8sAjC1OiuNQz4hkvxElJiHGzVzI6Th0ASClpprud1TqJxIc0a37TThBoqcM102BbbDzIFu_0xk0Uw8jfBg4kqNZ4ITNB6Qjh9FOfFrUrjUhLhNa7FjRSrsXSl9A/s400/Inglourious+Basterds+Movie+Poster.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 274px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq5vjx_UU7NK1vVcj_j8sAjC1OiuNQz4hkvxElJiHGzVzI6Th0ASClpprud1TqJxIc0a37TThBoqcM102BbbDzIFu_0xk0Uw8jfBg4kqNZ4ITNB6Qjh9FOfFrUrjUhLhNa7FjRSrsXSl9A/s400/Inglourious+Basterds+Movie+Poster.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>"We ain't in the prisoner-takin business. We in the kiliin Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin". This line, spoken by Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, should just about sum up Quentin Tarantino's <em>Inglourious Basterds</em>. The "We" in question: eight Jewish-American soldiers (accompanied by German defect Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) that have vowed to deliver 100 Nazi scalps each to their leader, the aforementioned Raine. Their group's name: the Inglourious Basterds. Don't ask about the spelling. It's never explained. These men have made quite the impression on the Third Reich, angering Hitler himself and landing on the radar of "the Jew hunter" Colonel Hans Landa (superbly played by Christoph Waltz). Showing no fear for possible death, the Basterds join a mission called Operation Kino. The mission, being carried out with the help of German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark (a traitor to her own country, clearly), involves suicide bombing a movie theater that happens to be inhabited by the four major heads of power in the Third Reich, including Hitler. Little do the Basterds know that while they carry out their plan, the owner of the movie theater, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent) has her own scheme in the works. When Dreyfus was a teenager, her family was murdered by Hans Landa, and she considers this to be the perfect time for revenge. Will either parties succeed in their mission? History says no, but Quentin Tarantino didn't set out to make a historically accurate film. </div><br /><div></div><div>THE REST OF THIS REVIEW IS LOCATED AT <a href="http://www.7tavern.com/4/28/1264">http://www.7tavern.com/4/28/1264</a></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-815692685221889582009-08-05T10:49:00.002-04:002009-08-05T10:52:25.319-04:007Tavern.comRecently, I was invited to publish my reviews on the website <a href="http://www.7tavern.com/">www.7tavern.com</a>. Naturally, I accepted. Though I will be posting most of my full length reviews there from now on, I will not be abandoning this blog. I will still be posting shorties, second viewings, and I'll probably publish the first paragraph of all full length reviews, with a link to 7tavern.com so you can read the rest of it. Thanks for reading everybody!Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-19794484329209770162009-08-04T19:03:00.002-04:002009-08-04T19:54:40.162-04:00Bruno (2009)<a href="http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/imgs/media/1bruno_movie_poster.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 293px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 373px" alt="" src="http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/imgs/media/1bruno_movie_poster.jpg" border="0" /></a>In 2006, a wave of the most frightening and dangerous disease known to man swept the United States from coast to coast. It affected nearly everyone in some way, and three years later, it still has not fully died out. I am talking of course, about Borat-itis. From the mind of Sacha Baron Cohen, a character came forth that was so naive and lovable that audiences and critics alike embraced him with open arms. As I walked through the halls of my high school, I could not go more than 15 seconds without hearing a poor impersonation being spouted by a student. Claims of "great success" and an epidemic of "high fives" nearly decimated the hallways, and I was unsure if they could ever recover. Now in 2009, Cohen has unleashed a new character that will not be as loved, not be as sympathetic, and (most importantly), not be as quoted as Borat. I speak of Austrian fashionista Bruno, an extremely openly gay television host who is played shamelessly by Cohen. After making a fool of himself at a fashion show, Bruno becomes blacklisted from working in Austria and decides to move to America to become "uber famous". Shot mockumentary style just like <em>Borat</em>, we follow Bruno in his quest through such "get famous quick" schemes like pitching a show to a TV network, adopting an African baby, or making a sex tape with Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Whether he is as quotable as Borat or not, Bruno is a hilarious character, and the film by the same name is equally as funny.<br /><div></div><br /><div><em>Bruno</em> is a film that is certainly not for everybody. It contains an excessive amount of graphic homosexual intercourse, it is shocking and eye-opening (I'll explain this later), and it includes at least 30 consecutive seconds of close up male genatalia. But for those of you, like me, that just find the comedy in these things, you'll see that <em>Bruno</em> is one of the funniest movies of the year. Any film that can get Paula Abdul to willingly sit down on a "Mexican chair person" and casually carry on an interview is worthy of praise. <em>Bruno's</em> outrageous premise is held together by it's fearless lead, Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen pulls absolutely no punches as he totally immerses himself in his role. Not wavering to homophobic hunters or terrorists, Cohen shows an impressive ability to withstand a dangerous situation just to drag the absolute most comedy out of it. In one scene, Bruno finds himself at a swingers party and becomes locked in a room with a rather domineering swinger. As she whips him repeatedly with a belt, Cohen does not stop the shoot or drop character, but instead jumps out of a window and runs off into the night. Dedication such as that is nothing short of brilliant. </div><br /><div>But behind the heavy layer of lubricant, <em>Bruno</em> does have a point to it. This film is the ultimate satire of celebrities, doing whatever it takes to get into or stay in the limelight. Bruno goes as far as interviewing a known terrorist in hopes of getting kidnapped, to become famous. Sure nobody in real life would ever do such a thing, but this obvious metaphor is something that holds a lot of truth. Bruno also takes aim at parents who essentially "sell" their children for a chance at spotlight. As he interviews parents who are willing to let their children participate in a photoshoot, the questions he asks get to be outright insane. "Is your baby comfortable with working heavy machinery?" "Does your baby like the scent of phosphorous?" "Would your baby be comfortable with undergoing liposuction to lose an extra 10 pounds?" Yet all of these questions were met with a "yes" from the parents. Seeing these parents agree to these horrible things is an eye-opening experience. And if those questions weren't enough to convince you that these parents are insane, maybe this will do it. "We have chosen your baby to be dressed as a Nazi Officer, pushing a wheelbarrow, with a Jewish baby, into an oven. Is that OK with you?" "Sure". </div><br /><div>Though <em>Bruno</em> is hysterical and creatively satirical, I cannot recommend it to most people. Some of the things seen in this film cannot be unseen, and that may disturb people. Sometimes parents look the other way at R ratings and allow their children to see a film anyway. In this case, parents need to be warned that this film is NOT FOR CHILDREN!!!!! AT ALL!!!!!! UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!! If you have issues with homosexuality or graphic male nudity, you'll probably want to steer clear of this film as well. However, if you are fine with all of these things and accept the fact that this is just a movie, you'll probably enjoy it. My rating (7.5/10)</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-41094379503282920722009-07-09T13:24:00.006-04:002009-07-13T12:45:35.466-04:00Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)This review will be the first of what I'm calling "Shorties". Every now and then, if I want to post a review but simply do not have the time to devote a full length article to it, or if I want to get it out of the way for another review, I'll write a Shorty. These will be far less detailed than full length reviews, but it will still get my point across (hopefully).<br /><br />With <em>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen</em>, Michael Bay has once again dominated the summer box office. This second installment has been a smash hit, raking in $672 million worldwide in 3 weeks. But is all this attention really necessary? In 2007, <em>Transformers</em> delivered the high octane adrenaline rush a summer movie-goer craves. It's story took a back seat to flashy special effects and a very appealing Megan Fox. So what does <em>Revenge</em> really offer us in terms of originality? The answer is not much.<br /><br />In this unnecessary sequel, director Michael Bay, along with writers Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Ehren Kruger, drags us through the exact same film that he released two years ago, but with more Transformers, less plot (I didn't think that was possible), more suggestive shots of Megan Fox, and a little more length. To speak frankly about <em>Revenge of the Fallen</em>, it was a terrible film. No good performances, a terrible script, and noticably long. But who really cares about those things when they buy a ticket for this movie. You want to know about the action. Although the action was fairly impressive, there really wasn't much here that wasn't in the first film. It was more of the same, and it got pretty boring. I am also surprised that there has been no backlash by the African American community about the blatant stereotypes that the writers sprinkled into this film. Two brand new Transformers, Mudflap and Skids, are walking caricatures of all the generalizations of African Americans in our society. I was kind of insulted by it, and I'm white! I couldn't believe this cheap attempt at comic relief. Truly reprehensible.<br /><br />I can't take too much credit away from <em>Revenge of the Fallen, </em>because it was never really trying to be anything more than it was. It had no aspirations, rather than to be loud and entertain. For that I give it credit. Also, suprisingly, I understood more of what was happening on screen in this film than I did during <em>Public Enemies</em>. For that, I give <em>Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, </em>a 5/10Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-54017757238266106422009-07-03T11:58:00.003-04:002009-07-06T17:26:47.513-04:00Public Enemies (2009)<a href="http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/public-enemies-depp-poster-fullsize.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 286px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 374px" alt="" src="http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/public-enemies-depp-poster-fullsize.jpg" border="0" /></a>From the first scene of Michael Mann's <em>Public Enemies</em>, I knew the ride would be bumpy. As John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is led through the front gates of a prison, the camera jostles up and down in motion with the characters walking, but with extreme exaggeration. After a few lines of mumbled dialogue the cameraman evidently has a seizure while Dillinger and his jailhouse friends stage a breakout. As Dillinger and his buddies, including John "Red" Hamilton (Jason Clarke) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff), exit with guns blazing, not a moment of it is comprehensible through the frenetic cinematography and abrasively loud gunfire. This is just the beginning of the numerous complaints I have about <em>Public Enemies</em>.<br /><br /><div>In the year 1933, suave criminal John Dillinger is running wild in Chicago. Robbing banks in "a minute and 40 seconds. Flat." has made him public enemy number 1 for J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) FBI. With Dillinger gaining popularity in the public eye for his easy-going demeanor, Hoover is desperate to get the criminal to the electric chair. So he hires Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man who hunted down and killed Pretty Boy Floyd, to spearhead the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, including notorious Fed killer Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham). But the bulk of the story follows Dillinger in his troubled life, trying to balance his "work" with the love of his life, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). </div><br /><div>The number one reason <em>Public Enemies</em> fails is it's writer/director Michael Mann. As I described in my opening paragraph, Mann's choice of cinematography was a poor one. Choosing to use an HD handheld video camera, Mann probably wanted the viewer to feel as though he was standing next to John Dillinger. Instead, I felt like I was watching a cheap re-enactment put together for the History Channel. By placing the camera directly into the actor's faces, a sense of claustrophobia sets in, and it makes sitting still very difficult. If that were not bad enough, during the gunfights, understanding what is being shown to you is near impossible. The camera moved so fast and so unsteadily that I would think one character was being shot, and then later in the scene he'd appear again perfectly fine. After just a few seconds of this home video-esque style, my head began to hurt and I started to feel woozy. Throw in the fact that Mann made the gunshots as loud as a sonic boom each, and I couldn't listen to the film either. During a scene showing the famous battle of Little Bohemia, after 20 seconds I had my head buried in my chest, eyes shut, with my hands over my ears, because I was becoming so uncomfortable. My sight and sound, the two senses one needs to enjoy a film, were actually rejecting <em>Public Enemies</em>. </div><br /><div>If that weren't enough, Mann's writing skills were lacking greatly as well. (Though he shares billing with 2 other people, it's easier to just write his name). Though full of slick conversation, <em>Public Enemies</em> just doesn't make sense at some points. For example (nothing I'm about to say is a spoiler): the first 40 minutes of the film, the FBI is looking everywhere for Dillinger, and they frequently say they have no leads. Then in the next scene, while Dillinger is in a hotel room with Frechette, the FBI busts down the door and arrests him. That's quite the magic trick Mr. Mann, but how is it done? How could it be that the FBI can go from clueless to busting down his door in a matter of one scene? Well he doesn't explain it, so keep dreaming. For all I know, they did discuss it briefly, but who knows through the mumbled voices of almost every actor in the film. Anybody who has seen a film with Christian Bale knows that he has mastered an American accent. However, the chore of speaking in a <em>southern</em> accent proved too great the task for him. In one of his worst performances, Bale can't quite speak clearly enough to help out the audience. As a friend of mine affectionately put it, "it was like he borrowed his accent from Foghorn Leghorn, and he forgot to use it sometimes". Couldn't have said it better myself. The starpower of Johnny Depp, who tries very hard to save this sinking ship by giving a good but forgettable performance, can't distract us from the fact this film's screenplay is awful. It is painfully slow during most scenes, and then frantically hurried in scenes where valuable information is being thrown around. No medium was ever found in the script, and so the transfer to the screen was just as bad.</div><br /><div>Since Mann chose to "put us in the action" rather than tell us an actual story, <em>Public Enemies</em> was an all out failure. Even if I were to forgive the flaws of the screenplay and most of the acting, I'd still give this film a scathing review because of it's direction. It just goes to show that a cast list alone cannot make a film good. You know what I would like to see? A film based on Baby Face Nelson, played by Stephen Graham again. I felt Graham gave the best performance of the film, and I'd like to see him again in the role. That movie might be good. <em>Public Enemies, </em>not so much. My rating (2/10)</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-10896902415531491632009-07-02T09:35:00.004-04:002009-07-02T10:31:11.398-04:00I Gotta Catch UpI've been on break for almost 3 months now and I am deeply upset with myself. In an attempt at redemption for those lost months, I'm going to write brief reviews of most of the films I've seen in that time. I promise, full reviews will follow.<br /><br /><em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</em> - Talk about starting the Summer off with a whimper. This much awaited prequel to the popular X-Men franchise had so much going for it on paper, but failed to produce anything worth watching. The most <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">disappointing</span> aspect of <em>Wolverine</em> was the shoddy special effects that looked like they were borrowed from an episode of "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Smallville</span>". Obvious green screen usage made multiple scenes irritating to watch. There was even a point when my girlfriend, who had slept through half the movie, woke up and immediately said to me, "I can see the green screen". You literally could see where the floor was ending and the green screen was beginning. This is inexcusable for such a highly anticipated summer blockbuster. Hugh <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Jackman</span> gave his all as the title character, and I applaud him for that. As his brother and nemesis, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Sabretooth</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Liev</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Schrieber</span> also delivers a pretty good performance, though was under-utilized. This trend continued with most of the supporting characters in the film as well. Ryan Reynolds, who appears on screen for all of 5 minutes, steals the show as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Deadpool</span>, the mercenary famous for breaking the fourth wall. No other performance is really worth mentioning other than Taylor Kitsch, as Gambit. Ever since the X-Men franchise began, fans have wanted to see Gambit on the big screen, myself included. When the time finally came to see the universal favorite, we were handed a terrible performance by an actor who couldn't keep his accent straight. In one sentence, Gambit would be from Louisiana. Then in the next, France. Then just American, but with a speech <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">impediment</span>. All in all, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">disappointment</span>, thy name is <em>X-Men Origins: Wolverine. </em>My rating (4/10)<br /><br /><em>Star Trek</em>- This is what summer is about! Though I knew absolutely nothing about the original series, this film version of <em>Star Trek</em> was still thoroughly enjoyable throughout. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">JJ</span> Abrams, of "Lost" fame, handles the material as a seasoned <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">professional</span>, perfectly balancing cheesiness with tense action. Perhaps the most surprising thing to come from this film was the plethora of great <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">performances</span>. Chris Pine plays James T. Kirk, a young womanizer born from a former <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Starfleet</span> Captain. Pine does a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">surprisingly</span> good job as Kirk, fitting the part as if it was tailor-made for him. The most exceptional performance belongs to Zachary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Quinto</span> as Spock. In his first big screen outing, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Quinto</span> shows an impressive aptitude to really dig into a role. The half human-half Vulcan Spock is a volatile character, and it is shown clearly by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Quinto</span>. And since <em>Star Trek</em> is after all summer fare, let me talk about it's blockbuster qualities. Unlike <em>Wolverine</em>, this movie knows how to properly use special effects. As characters fight hand-to-hand with enemies on the hood of a ship, it never even crosses your mind that the scene has been altered by computers. Though the film has some flaws (in it's script especially), it is still a thrilling ride and probably one of the best films of 2009, thus far. My rating (8/10)<br /><br />Up - OK so, me and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Pixar</span> have a bit of a beef. Since I have "grown up", I have failed to be impressed by the movies <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Pixar</span> released year after year. However, year after year, movie critics from coast to coast praise their films as being amazing and then complaining that animated films don't get nominated for Best Picture. It never fails. I didn't care for <em>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Incredibles</span>.</em> I HATED <em>Ratatouille</em>. I thought <em>Wall-E</em> was OK. When would the time come when I finally agreed with those gushing critics? With <em>Up</em>, that time may have, not arrived, but gotten much closer than before. Finally, I genuinely enjoyed a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Pixar</span> film for the first time since <em>A Bug's Life</em>. Not only did this film look amazing (which is usually the only compliment I give to their films), but actually made me laugh and stay interested in the characters. Though the main character was a grumpy old man, I found him to be one of the best characters <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Pixar</span> has made. The gold star of this film which cemented it's place as a great film for me was a cute talking dog named Dug. Words can't explain how cute and hilarious Dug is. You'll have to see it for yourself. My rating (8/10)<br /><br />Brick - This film was not released this year, but I just recently watched it. It was a film <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">noir</span> set at a modern high school where Brendan (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a loner, goes deep into the world of drugs and mayhem to solve a murder mystery. The film was written and directed by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Rian</span> Johnson, and then edited on his home computer. Even with the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">noticeably</span> small budget, <em>Brick</em> was shot very <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">impressively</span> and was in all an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">entertaining</span> film to watch. The screenplay, which can only be described as clever, may have been too smart for it's own good. Johnson, who wrote the film as an homage to film <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">noir</span>, got a little too carried away, having his modern teenagers talk like Humphrey Bogart in <em>The Maltese Falcon</em>. This was the only part of the film I didn't really care for. I liked how Johnson didn't hold onto the film's secrets for very long. We find out halfway through what is going on, and I appreciated that. I can't stand when films make you wait until the very last scene to wrap up EVERYTHING. Throw in a very good lead performance by Gordon-Levitt, and you've got yourself a pretty good film. My rating (7/10)<br /><br />That's all for now. A review of <em>Public Enemies</em> will be up shortly. I'm back!Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-14652158663815956842009-04-19T13:00:00.003-04:002009-04-19T13:02:58.335-04:00Milk (2008)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thehurstreview.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/milk-the-movie-sean-penn.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 384px; height: 277px;" src="http://thehurstreview.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/milk-the-movie-sean-penn.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>"My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you!" This quote may not mean anything to most of us today, but when spoken by Harvey Milk himself in 1970s San Francisco, this was a battle cry that meant hope for homosexuals everywhere. To this day, the issue of homosexuality has been prevalent in our society. Great strides have been made to settle the dispute, but none have birthed a final conclusion. Intolerance of homosexuals became a past time for some Americans, and Harvey Milk was the man looking to find those people another hobby.<br /><div><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Milk</span> is the true story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the first openly gay man elected to a public office. Forced out of New York because of his inability to live his lifestyle freely, Harvey took to the road with his lover Scott Smith (James Franco) in search of a haven for homosexuals. The two arrived in San Francisco only to discover just as much prejudice crawling through the city as anywhere else. Determined to help the world realize that all men are created equal, Harvey runs for office multiple times but comes out on the losing end. Despite losing Scott because of the chaos of politics, he kept pursuing office and eventually won a seat as City Supervisor in 1977. Contending with the views of fellow Supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), Harvey now had to face a huge threat that endangered the jobs of millions of homosexuals: Proposition 6. Led by State Senator John Briggs, Proposition 6 called for all homosexual teachers at public schools to be fired in order to prevent them from teaching their students to be gay. This absolutely absurd claim sparked huge uproar in the gay community, specifically from Harvey Milk. Chronicling his life from his move to San Francisco to his murder (not a spoiler, as both his death and murderer are revealed about 4 minutes into the film), <em>Milk</em> is a fantastic film that teaches us about the life and teachings of this pioneer in history.</div><br /><div>It is almost impossible to determine where one should begin to discuss <em>Milk</em>. With such flawless execution in every aspect of the film, it seems unfair to start one without talking about the other. Writer Dustin Lance Black, who received an Academy Award for his Best Original Screenplay, did a terrific job of not simply stating facts about Harvey Milk's life but telling a story that dug emotions from the deepest trench of my soul. To admit something about myself for a moment, I am not exactly what you would consider a "sympathizer" of the homosexual lifestyle. However, Black's perfect blend of realistic drama and occasional humor (Dan White: Can two men reproduce? Harvey Milk: No, but God knows we keep trying!) made me connect with each and every character and start to think of things in a new light. Director Gus Van Sant complimented Black's writing beautifully with an eloquent style that was not in the least bit showy. Subtle and simple camerawork did not fancify the story but simply enabled it to be told in a direct matter for the purpose of entertainment and enlightenment. Van Sant, whose films have been hit and miss (a shot for shot remake of <em>Psycho</em> counts as not just a miss, but a complete and utter misfire that made Alfred Hitchcock weep in his grave), is at his creative best here by being as least creative as possible. </div><br /><div> </div>The piece de resistance of <em>Milk</em> is the one who not only brought the words, but the man, to life. I am referring to Sean Penn, who won his second Academy Award for Best Leading Actor for this role. My initial reaction to Penn winning this award was one of disbelief and anger, because although I had not seen the film yet, I had heavy doubts that he could have been much better than Mickey Rourke in <em>The Wrestler</em>. Having seen <em>Milk</em>, I can say both men were equally worthy of winning the award, and the reason it was granted to Penn was probably due to the fact that Hollywood is a liberal place. This does not take merit away from Penn's performance, which was nothing short of outstanding. His contribution mixed with Van Sant and Black brought the era to life and put me right in the center of the action. What is perhaps most surprising about <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk </span>is that there were a number of supporting performances that were just as praise-worthy as Penn's. Josh Brolin delivered a very powerful performance as Harvey Milk's executioner Dan White, earning him an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor. White, a man bent on protecting the sancitity of traditional family life, perhaps even confused about his own sexuality according to Milk, feels his world begin to unfurl as he starts losing support and he watches Milk start to gain some. His morals and ethics are shook to the core, and Brolin displays them easily for us to see. But to just give Brolin a nomination for Supporting Actor seems unfair to Emile Hirsch and James Franco, who both gave exceptional performances. As Harvey Milk's close political advisor and fellow gay activist Cleve Jones, Hirsch encapsulates the role and helps keep the movie afloat in scenes that in other hands would have sunk. The most unexpected performance of <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk </span>was that of James Franco, whom I have never seen in a good dramatic role. I was shocked to find that while watching the film I had completely forgotten it was Franco and I just felt like I was watching Harvey Milk and Scott Smith. Perhaps there is a future for him in serious films after all.<br /><div><br />Admittedly, my general views on homosexuality have not changed much since watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk, </span>but I have gained a better understanding of the situation. The very idea that this film resonated with me at all should give you an idea of how powerful it's message was. One can only wonder that if this film was released a few weeks earlier, would the recent Proposition 8 have passed in California? Something tells me that if everybody watched this film, whether the ideas stuck or not, the immediate reaction would have been to vote "No". This is all a relative thought, however. If you are a strict, God-fearing person, this movie will not affect you at all probably. But if you are like me and your feelings about homosexuality come from your own mind rather than a book, you may be more inclinded to succumb to the bias of <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk.</span><br /><br />Clocking in at just over 2 hours, I was never bored with <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk </span>and felt that I could have watched it again immediately afterward. To those of you who are concerned about watching men kissing other men, I assure you that at no point does the film become uncomfortable to watch, as long as you have a mature mind about you. Whether you watch <span style="font-style: italic;">Milk </span>as a historical text or a vessel of entertainment, you are guaranteed a terrific experience from a truly brilliant movie. My rating (10/10)<br /></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-5469616577988456862009-04-05T09:52:00.005-04:002009-04-07T18:50:02.306-04:00Adventureland (2009)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Adventureland/adventureland_movie_poster.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 330px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 488px" alt="" src="http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Adventureland/adventureland_movie_poster.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />In 2007, director Greg Mottola made a huge dent in the world of comedy with the hit <em>Superbad</em>. With the assistance of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, he delivered one of the funniest films of the year and still kept it sincere underneath the loads of vulgar language. In 2009, Mottola went out on his own and wrote and directed the film <em>Adventureland</em>, a project probably very close to his heart because he worked at the real Adventureland long ago. For his sake, I hope this was not an account of his actual experiences there. Not only was this film about as funny as stubbing your toe on the refridgerator, it was overrun with whiny characters that pulled no sympathy from me. <div></div><br /><div>It's 1987 and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) just graduated from college. Before attending Graduate school at Columbia, James wants to spend some time in Europe in hopes of losing his virginity to an easy foreign girl. But when the cost of his trip increases unexpectedly, James is forced to find himself a summer job to pay for the difference. Enter Adventureland, the local amusement park where James' friend Frigo (Matt Bush, the kid from the AT&T commercials, and the only funny part of this film) works. After a brief interview with park manager Bobby (Bill Hader) and his wife Paulette (Kristen Wiig), James begins his thrilling career as a game shack attendant. Life looks bleak for James until he is spotted by Em (Kristen Stewart), another game attendant. The two spark up a friendship that soon turns into romantic feelings for James. But Em's chaotic home life and an attractive musician mechanic named Connell (Ryan Reynolds) jeopardize James' chance of making this summer one he will remember forever, in a good way at least. Falsely advertised as a comedy, <em>Adventureland</em> is a drama chronicling the life of a post-graduate loser in Reagan era Long Island. </div><br /><div></div><em>Adventureland</em> did have one aspect going for it in it's favor. It was a realistic film in how people, specifically younger generations, interacted with each other in their awful job environment. The awkward and somewhat gloomy nature of these poor souls was a truthful account, so in that respect Mottola did a great job at writing. However, this brings up a serious problem in the film. Real life is not all that funny. In <em>Superbad, </em>the friendship between the two main characters was real, but events in the film were heavily exaggerated to accommodate the comedy of the film. In <em>Adventureland</em>, everything that happened was practical and thus much less funny. Mottola left little room for comedy and instead put heavy effort into developing his characters. In a dramatic film, character development is key. There needs to be a significant amount of it in order to draw an audience in. However, a comedy does not need nearly as much attention put in to the characters. In a good comedy, such as <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Superbad, </span>the very beginning of the film introduces us to exactly who our main protagonists are. As the film progresses, subtle actions inside the comedy reveal more and more about the characters, but we are never force fed the material. Mottola takes this short 5 minutes of character introduction and stretches it into a full hour. Because of this, there is no light-hearted interlude between the moments we meet our friend James and the main issue of the film. It is drama through and through, and I was looking for a comedy.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest disease that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland </span>suffered from was the fact that it was a character driven film with boring characters and lackadaisical actors. Jesse Eisenberg plays the soft spoken intellectual James in a static way that is reminiscent of Michael Cera. Both emit an air of pathetic awkwardness, and neither ever really raise their voice beyond a certain level. The only difference is that Michael Cera is actually funny. Line after line Eisenberg delivers with the same "enthusiasm", and never once did he bring a smile to my face. Much like Paul Rudd's character in <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">I Love You, Man </span>was embarrassing to watch, Eisenberg overplays the quirkiness of his role and never shows the maturity that his character supposedly gained. The lone bright spot as far as performances go belongs to Kristen Stewart, who may have actually been too good for her role. The confusion and mayhem that was Em's life is brought forth with stunning strength though Stewart's performance. I say she may have been too good for this role because since everybody else was so awful and she was so spot on, the gap between was uncomfortably recognizable. However good of a job Stewart did though can be overlooked by the fact that she too, has not a single comedic line in <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland. </span>So far, we have a comedy with two main characters. One is pathetically unfunny despite his best efforts, and the other is straight-laced and meant to amp up the drama. Forget good performances, somebody say something funny! It was here that the supporting cast contributed hugely to the film. Matt Bush as James' pestering friend was by far the funniest aspect of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland</span>, but was unfairly underutilized. I have seen Bush in a few TV commercials and I was glad to see that he transferred well onto a big screen. His future in the film industry will hopefully long, despite his upcoming project, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Halloween 2</span>. And of course, Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig deliver as always but are, like Bush, rarely on screen. Martin Starr, as James' game shack mentor Joel, provides little to nothing to film, and may as well have been dropped from the script entirely.<br /><br />It can be argued that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland </span>was not meant to be a comedy in the vein of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Superbad </span>but rather a touching coming of age story. This statement I can live with, but respectfully disagree. This film has been marketed vigorously as a hilarious follow-up to <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Superbad</span> so that is exactly what I expected. Marketing this film as a comedy makes about as much sense as marketing <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Schindler's List </span>as a great date movie. But judging <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland</span> as a coming of age tale does not help it much. Because of the dismal acting and irritating characters, the journey into manhood didn't interest me in the slightest. The final resolution to the film is predictable and conjured not a single emotion from me. The characters themselves showed little emotion to any situation presented to them. They simply looked bored, and that made me bored with them.<br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland</span> is a very long 107 minutes that is only good for a few chuckles and one solitary worth while performance. Greg Mottola has fallen victim to the sophomore slump, falling well short of the expectations brought about by <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Superbad</span>. To those of you who may complain that I am being unfair by comparing this film to <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Superbad,</span> let me say this. <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Adventureland</span> as a lone film was boring, not funny, and a waste of $8. My rating (2/10)<br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-89640213256278037922009-03-23T17:56:00.004-04:002009-03-23T18:00:59.253-04:00Special (2006)<a href="http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s274205.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 332px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 490px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s274205.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>This was a movie I watched a while ago and it just popped back into my mind today. I discovered this film accidentally, and I am glad I did. I had my television on Reelz Channel and a show called Secret's Out with Leonard Maltin came on. I was about to change the channel when he began talking about this film. It intrigued me, so I looked it up. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div></div><div>Since I haven't seen it in some time you will have to excuse my brief and vague discussion of it. </div><div> </div><div> </div><div></div><div></div><div>This independent film is the touching story of bored meter maid Les, who is searching for something else in his life. In an attempt to perhaps make his existence a little less mundane, Les volunteers to take part in an experimental drug test. But soon after his first dose, Les discovers a shocking side effect to his medicine: super powers...sort of. Believing he was given these powers for a reason, Les goes around town dressed in all white walking through walls, reading minds, teleporting, and doing all the things that superheroes do. Even though his friends don't believe him, Les begins to feel that he has something he had never had before: a purpose. This is an inspirational tale about a simple man that appeals to all of us. </div><div><br />Main character Les is played beautifully by Michael Rappaport, who is mostly known for his work on television (you may know him as Donald Self from Prison Break, or the father on the short lived Fox series The War At Home). Rappaport portrays the everyman Les with ease and in turn delivers a deeply heart-felt, profound performance that truly resonated with me. This is the only leading role Rappaport ever had and he tackles the feat with the fluidity of a household name. It's just a shame that this film probably doesn't even exist in the mind's of 97% of Americans. </div><div><br />Sure the production value is low and I could have probably recreated the cinematography with a hand-held camera, but this was not a film to look at superficially. Who among us can say they have not felt utterly unnecessary in the grand scheme of the world? What are the chances that you can actually make a name for yourself and be known to even just a few people that you don't know yourself? There are people this fortunate, but it does not happen to everyone. It is this frightening thought that may act as a spark plug for many of us, causing us to do something that could make our future a little less predictable. Then again, some of us, actually most of us, may avoid the risk and simply accept the cards we have been dealt. Special shows the story of a man who represents the former, and after seeing it, you can decide for yourself if the decision was a wise one. Maybe Les' story will inspire you to try something new, and see where it leads you. </div><div><br />I implore you to seek out this film. I am not promising the greatest film you have ever seen, but just a simple film with a huge heart, which is something we all need to experience one day. </div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-24361599072447804832009-03-19T13:04:00.004-04:002009-03-22T10:30:07.485-04:00Se7en (1995)<img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 421px" alt="" src="http://www.horror-movies.ca/albums/userpics/seven_ver3.jpg" border="0" />Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, and pride. These are the seven deadly sins as written by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, updating the work of Evagrius Ponticus in the 4th century. These cardinal vices are said to be the seven most objectionable sins a man can commit. However, for the 15 centuries this list has been around, mankind cannot seem to abide by the rules. Millions and millions of people everyday, including myself, indulge in these sins, and feel no immediate consequences (what awaits us in the afterlife, we can never be sure). Perhaps we should look upon this as a blessing, for if everyone in the world that committed one of these sins was chastised for them at once, there would not be much of a population left today. For this, we should thank our lucky stars that we do not live in the world of Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills has just transferred to a dark, ominous, unnamed city that oozes all things evil. For his first case Mills is paired up with Detective William Somerset, the very man he is replacing, to investigate the strange murder of a morbidly obese man found with his hands and feet bound and his face down in a plate of spaghetti. When another seemingly unrelated murder is discovered, the detectives start to suspect that they are dealing with a serial killer who chooses his victims based on the seven deadly sins. With five more murders to expect, Somerset and Mills have to piece the puzzle together before they, or someone they love, gets hurt. Although the story is unique, <em>Se7en</em> is executed ineffectively and leaves the viewer wanting more (not in the good way).<br /><br />A friend of mine once described <em>Se7en</em> as "if <em>Fight Club</em> had a baby with <em>Saw, </em>you would get <em>Se7en</em>". For the most part, this is a fairly accurate description, but don't be fooled. Mashing two really good movies together does not always create a <strong>great</strong> movie. In this case, it churns out a a very average movie that aspires to be something unforgettable. Director David Fincher, famous for <em>Fight Club</em> and recent Best Picture nominee <em>The Curious Case of Benjamin Button</em> (I think he has a thing for Brad Pitt), adds his noticeable touch behind the camera, but without the strength you'd expect. Given the film's unpleasant subject matter, it would make sense for the setting to be a generic rainy city that shows no light, or no signs of hope for its inhabitants. But there is a difference between dark and pitch black, which Fincher sometimes forgets throughout the film. If he wanted to give <em>Se7en </em>the feeling of a film noir, he should have just gone ahead and done the entire movie in black and white. Fincher was not a bust at the position of director, but simply made some mistakes that hindered <em>Se7en's</em> progress. Some scenes were shot superbly, one in particular when the SWAT team and Mills and Somerset discover the victim for Sloth. This scene was one of the few that I felt truly captured the ugliness, grittiness, and severity of this created world.<br /><br /><em>Se7en</em> may not have succeeded as a whole, but there was one moment in the film where everybody involved surpassed brilliance. The people in particular are director David Fincher, screenplay author Andrew Kevin Walker, and the casting directors of the film. I am referring to the reveal of the serial killer, aptly named John Doe. There is one scene in Walker's terrific screenplay (one of the few things of this film that was terrific) where Somerset and Mills sit at a bar discussing the situation at hand. Somerset turns to Mills and says, "If we catch John Doe and he turns out to be the devil, I mean if he's Satan himself, that might live up to our expectations. But he's not the devil...he's just a man". At that point the viewer thinks this is just a message Somerset is relaying to Mills. Time passes in the film, and we reach the point when Joe Doe presents himself. Fincher sets the camera on Doe's legs and shows nothing more. The anticipation grows because you cannot wait to see who they got to play this maniacal freak. Did they get a tall, lurching actor with a booming voice and a built upper body? Is it an unknown actor done up with makeup and prosthetics to seem deformed? No, it was just...well actually, I'd prefer not to say. It ruins the surprise. But when the camera finally moves up and shows John Doe's face and you discover that it is _____ ______, you understand exactly what Somerset was talking about. This was nothing more than a plain man, one that you would see riding the subway or walking his dog. It just goes to show you that appearances can be deceiving.<br /><br />Staying with the idea that appearances can be deceiving, the most disappointing aspect of <em>Se7en</em> was the below average acting from a stellar cast. Seeing the names Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman on the poster can trick a viewer into thinking they are watching a film with terrific acting, but alas, it is only a trick. Pitt in particular does little to really invent his character Detective David Mills. More or less, he seemed to simply recite the lines as he read them off the script. At the end of the film, when Mills is faced with a particularly difficult decision, Pitt's acting slips into near comedy as he just contorts his face trying to look emotional. He might as well have been saying, "Oh wow look at how emotional I am being right now. Don't I just look so conflicted?" No, he just looked foolish. Morgan Freeman does a better job with Detective Somerset, but still doesn't put his best foot forward. With Freeman, most of his acting in <em>Se7en</em> came from his countenance. Unlike Pitt, whose face is too young and smooth, Freeman exudes the feeling of a man who has spent way too much time in this unforgiving city. He is tired of the senseless crimes he is forced to investigate, and he wants out. Aside from his face, though, Freeman is a standard addition. The one performance in this film that was complete was that of the man who I'd prefer to keep unnamed, so like his character, I'll simply call him John Doe. Doe's interactions with Pitt and Somerset are truly unsettling. His calm, even voice matched with the simple face will confuse you, because you won't believe that such horrible crimes were being committed by this man. Doe's screen time is hardly enough, and I would have liked to have seen more of him.<br /><br />Despite all the negatives of <em>Se7en</em>, I would say there are just enough positives to balance them out. But a fair warning to all of you. There are lots of disturbing, realistic images in this film that you may not enjoy. Also, if you are not a fan of depressing endings, you definitely will not enjoy this film. At 127 minutes, <em>Se7en</em> does lag a bit, but like I said, there are just enough positives to recommend this film. My rating (6/10)Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-74721019274623966822009-03-09T17:22:00.008-04:002009-03-15T14:03:41.408-04:00Crank (2006)<a href="http://www.celebritywonder.com/wp/Jason_Statham_in_Crank_Wallpaper_6_800.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 669px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 452px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.celebritywonder.com/wp/Jason_Statham_in_Crank_Wallpaper_6_800.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Do you ever feel like you just need a break from the world? Do you ever just want to leave and go to a place where things don't make sense, and nobody questions it? Do you want to see a man inject himself with an overdose of Epinephren and then go on an adrenaline fueled rampage through an entire city? If you answered yes to all of those questions, I have the perfect remedy to feed your need for senseless violence. Crank is a film so out of the realm of realism that your brain may freeze from all of the impossibilities. Jason Statham, a name synonymous with "awesome", stars as Chev Chelios, a professional hit man who has run into a problem. A rival killer has injected him with a mysterious poison that will kill him if he lets his adrenaline drop too low. Set on getting revenge before he dies, Chelios does whatever he can - driving through a mall, Epinephren shots, sex in public, the usual - to keep his heart racing. But don't worry about the plot. The plot is completely irrelevant. Crank is chock full of amateur camerawork, horrific writing, dismal acting, and overall inconceivabilities...but damn is it a good time.<br /></div><br /><div>It is pointless to discuss the technical aspects of a film such as Crank. It would be like trying to find a new perfume fragrance at a farm. You can try all you want, but you won't be happy with what you find. What <em>Crank</em> offers you is an exhilerating thrill that never ceases to be ridiculous. Rookie writers/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor be sure to never lead us on to thinking this movie was meant to be taken seriously, and that is why it is such a success. Although their directing repertoire consists of only shaking cameras, poor CGI, and countless jump cuts, they keep the action going and actually make <em>Crank</em> watchable. Plus, it always helps to have the number one tough guy in Hollywood today headlining your film. It could be said that Neveldine and Taylor have created the perfect men's movie: violence, sex, violence, loud noises, Jason Statham, and violence. Deep down, I think even the most refined man secretly wants to see a guy cut off another mans hand that was holding a gun, and then pick up the hand with the gun still gripped in it, and shoot the man with the gun with his own finger on the trigger. Not in real life, of course. That would be disturbing if it was real.</div><br /><div>Much like Jean Claude Van Damme and Sylvestor Stallone before him, Jason Statham has made a name for himself in the world of over the top action flicks<em>. </em>This olympic diver turned archetypical Hollywood bad-ass first made his mark on the action world back in 2002 with <em>The Transporter</em>, and he has yet to lose his touch. In <em>Crank</em>, Statham simply does what he does best, and that is beat people senseless all while talking in that guttural, rough voice. Like his movies before this one, we are basically treated to The Jason Statham Show, because it is his mere presence that keeps us wanting to watch more. <em>Crank </em>is essentially just the next movie in a long series of films that I call <em>Jason Statham Beats The Crap Out of People. </em>Since this movie came out in 2006, he has starred in four more action films, and has five in development credits, one of which is a sequel to <em>Crank</em>. Statham is a man in high demand, and why not? Men want to be him, and according to my girlfriend, women <em>definitely </em>want to be with him. There are a few co-stars in this film, but they really don't matter. Amy Smart seemed like she was wandering around some movie sets, seeing if anybody needed a part filled, and they just grabbed her and tacked her in here. She only had about 12 lines in the entire film, and I probably could have delivered them better. </div><br /><div>Chances are that if you want to watch <em>Crank</em>, you do not care about who is in it, how well they did, how the story is, or who directed it. You just want to know if this film is going to excite you and make you feel the rush you crave. The answer is a resounding "YES!". At a quick 87 minutes, you have just enough time to enjoy your energy high without crashing from an overdrawn story. <em>Crank</em> does not take itself seriously, and offers quite a few laughs that should keep you happy too. Who ever said that a movie has to be good, to be good? My rating (7/10)</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-88536374585163061682009-03-09T17:20:00.006-04:002009-03-09T17:27:38.870-04:002001: A Space Odyssey -- Is the Fourth Time the Charm?<a href="http://theeestory.com/avatars/hal-9000-eye.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 250px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 250px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://theeestory.com/avatars/hal-9000-eye.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>2001: A Space Odyssey has been widely renowned as one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. Despite rocky reviews upon its first release, it managed to carve itself a place in history, gaining credibility as time rolled on. 2001's unique look at what the future may behold (the film was made in 1968, mind you) has surprised audiences to this day because of its accuracy. Nearly every technological impossibility in the film has become not just a possibility, but a probability in our near future. With the help of author Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick set out to make "the first good science fiction film", because he believed everything to that point was garbage. I haven't seen many science fiction films from before 1968 so I cannot comment on his statement, but when I first saw 2001 I did have something to say: "2001: A Space Odyssey was TERRIBLE". I hated this movie such an intense amount that it hurt my head to think that Stanley Kubrick made it. The film dragged along at such an indolent pace that I truly believed I had died and was now enduring what I thought was the tenth circle of Hell.<br /><br />That was the first time I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey. A year or so later I received the Stanley Kubrick DVD set for my birthday and with it came the dreaded Hell movie. When I finished with the rest of the set I decided that maybe I should try again. After all, it did seem like the film you would need multiple viewings to appreciate. So I popped it in, got through about one hour, and that's when things went black. Before I knew it my mother was waking me up on the couch, the TV still on with the DVD menu on screen. I threw the movie back in its case and considered it a victory that I fell asleep before I had to watch the entire film. Another few months had passed and I was bored as sin. So I figured hey, I'm already as bored as I can get, the only way I could go is up. So this was 2001's chance to redeem itself for me. Once again I put the movie in, and hoped for the best. I got about as far as I did the second time, and then I got up out of my chair, walked to the DVD player, contemplated smashing it with a baseball bat, and then simply decided to take the movie out and put it away. You may be asking why I keep subjecting myself to this film and just accept the fact that I hate it. If you know me, you know that I am a huge Stanley Kubrick fan. I love basically all of his films, and I frequently express how much it annoys me that he never received an Oscar for writing, directing, or producing. However, his one Oscar win was for Best Visual Effects for, you guessed it, 2001. So basically, I wanted to love the movie that gave my favorite filmmaker his only Oscar. I loved all of his other non-winners, it only seemed right that I should love the one that did win. So that's why I watched it a fourth time.<br /><br />Today, much like the day when I watched this film the third time, I was bored beyond words. But I was in a good mood, and felt like watching a movie. I went through my collection of 250+ DVD's and came across my Kubrick set and saw 2001. I thought to myself that I would give it one more shot, and just this one more. Now that I've been in this class for a bit and actually know how to identify good filmmaking, maybe the experience will be different. From the beginning, a difference was noticeable. I wasn't squirming, I wasn't fast forwarding, and I wasn't crying in agony. I didn't even notice that it took almost 26 minutes for the first word of dialogue to be spoken, and that a total of 88 minutes of the film was silence filled with classical music. After the film ended I was surprised to feel that...I liked it. I didn't love it, I didn't think it was great, and I still didn't understand most of what I just saw...but I didn't hate it anymore. The meaning behind the film, the danger of technology, actually interested me this time around possibly because I've matured. I started to think about the question, are we allowing technology to get out of hand? Can these advances backfire in our future?<br /><br />When the movie first begins, we see the dawn of man, which was basically a bunch of guys in ape costumes. If you can ignore that, you see what Kubrick was really trying to show us. This was our most primitive form. This was a world filled with danger, where it was either kill or be killed. In a single frame cut, we jump from the dawn of man to a space station in outer space, showing how quickly technology can creep up on us. As the movie progresses we feel that since that time a million years ago, we have grown as a race. But in the end, main character Dave Bowman has to revert back to the kill or be killed mentality and put an end to the humanistic computer HAL. So no matter how advanced we become, our instincts will always be the same and really nothing has changed.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULhyrVt72XdPX1OQFYkMrOvrGgh75LFq0GwynIqVc5AVY3wbbf1QxkD3H9Wdb6-799RlaH1YOhI1tnhiA4lw3I4jnoc-rci1p2kWXDdhIDX3wIgAKSCB7TUbyepj67ynLoKpLr7SJiyV2/s400/the_dawn_of_man_2001_a_space_odyssey-400-400.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 308px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 232px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiULhyrVt72XdPX1OQFYkMrOvrGgh75LFq0GwynIqVc5AVY3wbbf1QxkD3H9Wdb6-799RlaH1YOhI1tnhiA4lw3I4jnoc-rci1p2kWXDdhIDX3wIgAKSCB7TUbyepj67ynLoKpLr7SJiyV2/s400/the_dawn_of_man_2001_a_space_odyssey-400-400.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Still, I found parts of 2001 to be overly drawn out, especially the ending when Bowman is traveling hyperspeed through space and we see an orgy of colors parade across the screen for about 10 minutes. Not to mention the countless questions left open to interpretation by the filmmakers. This is something that could be fun for some people, but to a point it gets frustrating. Arthur C. Clarke once said (regarding his collaboration with Kubrick) "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered". I think this is a smart way of saying "we wrote this, but we didn't think it all the way through, so we are going to have you think about it". I like to believe that rather than my favorite director is a jerk.<br /><br />So after the fourth try, I finally like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Maybe after some more viewings I'll grow to love it. But let's just go baby steps for now.</div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-56315627665078011442009-03-03T13:39:00.009-05:002009-03-05T19:06:40.262-05:00Tropic Thunder: A Second Look<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/tropic-thunder-poster.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; WIDTH: 285px; CURSOR: pointer; HEIGHT: 364px" alt="" src="http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/tropic-thunder-poster.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />If you have not read my first review of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder </span>please go to August 2008 in my archive.<br /><br />The summer of 2008 was a great season for comic book films. Not only did every single superhero flick flourish at the box office, but most of them received critical praise as well (with the exception of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Hancock</span>). With all that success revolving around action films, the summer really needed a comedy to round itself off and make it a truly memorable one. Late in August, I reported that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder</span> was the film that fulfilled that need. I mentioned how the performances of Robert Downey Jr, Tom Cruise, and Brandon T. Jackson saved the film from it's somewhat flimsy story. The Academy went as far as to nominate Downey Jr for Best Actor in a Supporting Role as the 81st Oscar ceremony. Even now, I feel this nomination was well deserved as Downey Jr really nailed that role down to a T. Tom Cruise also received a Golden Globe nomination with Downey Jr for Supporting Actor in a Comedy, which was a bit much, but after all, it's just the Golden Globes. Either way, it was not just me that felt some of the performances in <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder </span>were praiseworthy.<br /><br />Last month, I finally bought <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder </span>hoping it would be just as funny the next few times around, and I was a little disappointed. Not a significant amount, but there was a definite letdown. All of the performances I once praised were still great and I feel like I will always give them high marks. Downey Jr was just as brilliant to watch the second time as he was the first. Cruise's foul mouthed movie executive Les Grossman was still an outrageous character that provided lots of laughs and that little extra bit of satire. However, all of the negative aspects of the film that I pointed out in my first review became much more evident and harder to avoid this second time around. The problem with comedies is that there are very few of them that have the ability to last. A joke that could have you rolling in stitches the first time you hear it may not even coerce a chuckle out of you the second time. In <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder</span>, I remembered most of the jokes of the film, and Downey Jr's performance, although still terrific, was less surprising as the first time. So sadly, there wasn't much opportunity for me to laugh out loud during my second viewing of this film. Instead, I kept noticing how Ben Stiller and Jack Black were uncharacteristically bland and one dimensional. I really noticed how it took the film a very long time to get rolling out of the starting gate. When I saw it in theaters I noticed this as well, but not to this extent. <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><br /><br /><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder </span></span></span></span>was no one hit wonder though, and I don't mean to imply that. Even on second viewing there were numerous laugh out loud moments and once again, great performances. The biting satire commenting on why actors make some decisions in their career is scarily accurate and still a potent theme. And since the direction can't change from one viewing to the next (only the way you <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">view </span>the direction can differ), the action sequences were still well put together with the perfect blend of violence and comedy. So although it may not be the ideal comedy that will live on forever, and it will probably do nothing else but diminish even more over time, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Tropic Thunder </span>is still a good experience, although less of one than I originally thought. My new rating: (6.5/10)<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><br /></span>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-66990843324363535352009-03-01T17:33:00.008-05:002009-03-06T14:54:25.172-05:00RocknRolla (2008)<a href="http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/rocknrolla-poster.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 323px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 222px" alt="" src="http://filmonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/rocknrolla-poster.jpg" border="0" /></a>So what is a Rock-n-Rolla? The marketing campaign for this film circulated this question through every possible medium, causing a terrible case of "annoying fake British accents" amongst our friends and family (a condition similar to "Borat-itis"). Before <em>RocknRolla</em> was even released, people were buzzing with fake British enthusiasm to find the answer to this question. However, when the film was finally released, we discovered people didn't so much care about finding the true meaning of a "Rock-n-Rolla" as much as they did masquerading as a British person. This is evidenced by the fact that <em>RocknRolla</em> only made about $6 million and never broke into the top 10 at the box office. Even I, who was a fan of <em>Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels</em> and <em>Snatch</em>, didn't bother seeing this film. It's a good thing I didn't waste my money. <em>RocknRolla</em> tries to be as fun and charismatic as its predecessors, but falls into a veritable mine field of movie faux pas<em>. </em><br /><br /><br /><div><div><em>RocknRolla </em>is not a sequel as I may have led on, but simply a film in the same vein as <em>Snatch </em>and <em>Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels</em>. After deviating from the "multiple storyline" gimmick since 2000, writer/director Guy Ritchie returns to the form that made him famous for his latest film. Sadly, the eight year break seems to have gotten to Ritchie and he was unable to bring himself back to his heyday. <em>RocknRolla</em> loosely revolves around Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson), the self-proclaimed King of the Old School who runs most of London. Lenny is currently trying to make a deal with some local Russians, and as a token of affection Russian head Uri Omovich (Karal Roden) allows him to hold on to his lucky painting. To Lenny's dismay, the painting is stolen from his home by his estranged son, rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell). While he searches for his junkie offspring, Lenny and his confidant Archie (Mark Strong) must also keep relations with the Russians running smoothly, keeping it a secret that he lost Uri's beloved painting. Unfortunately, tensions rise as the shipment of money between the two parties continually gets stolen by One-Two and Mumbles (Gerard Butler and Idris Elba), two crooks who were tipped off by shifty accountant Stella (Thandie Newton). As the story progresses, everyone's world begins to fold into everyone else's, meeting at an end that was more of a whimper than a bang. Much less cohesive and interesting than his previous efforts, Ritchie wastes his opportunity at a comeback on this scrap heap.</div><br /><br /><div>To some degree, <em>RocknRolla </em>is a pretty film. Not in terms of the events sprawled out on the screen, but rather in how Ritchie and cinematographer David Higgs show what is being done. The use of somewhat dirty coloring conveys the grimy feel of the world these no good characters are living in. Ritchie also sometimes redeems himself with a clever filming style, specifically in one scene as One-Two and his partner Mumbles are being chased down by some unstoppable Russians. The rest of the film however, is a total loss and an incomprehensible mess. The smash-bang execution that Ritchie perfected in <em>Snatch</em> was obviously short-lived, as was his ability to spin an engaging story from his mental yarn. The mostly central story following the whereabouts of a missing painting is hardly enough to keep the viewers eyes forward. Even a ten year old who just drank seven Red Bulls would start to get bored. Ritchie fails to create a single memorable character from his basic, bland script. Even as I'm writing this, I frequently have to visit the IMDb page of this film to remind myself of the character's names. I can't even remember if Stella, the accountant, worked for Lenny, Uri, both, or neither. You could say that this is no more than the fault of my own memory, but I argue that Ritchie didn't do a good enough job to plant these faces in my head as he did in <em>Snatch.</em> </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div>In both of Ritchie's previous multi-story films, the plot is driven by a maniacal kingpin who has "commoners" groveling for mercy. In <em>RocknRolla</em>, this role is stepped into by two time Oscar nominee Tom Wilkinson, a consistently impressive actor that most recently knocked me out with his portrayal of Benjamin Franklin in the HBO mini-series "John Adams". To my chagrin, Wilkinson brings the biggest disappointment of the film in the form of his surprisingly weak performance. An intimidating kingpin Tom Wilkinson does not make, so much as a man who is just a jerk. The characters in <em>RocknRolla</em> may have feared Lenny Cole, but that is just because the script told them to. As a viewer, I was as daunted by Cole as I would be of a Pomeranian with a mean streak. In <em>Snatch</em>, Ritchie created a villain that truly induced fear and with the perfect performance of Alan Ford, the character Brick Top was one to remember. Lenny Cole is a boring scoundrel with no lasting power. Even Cole's growing opponent Uri was portrayed in a rather tame manner. With the exception of one scene that shows his power, Karal Roden never gets the opportunity to show how devilish his character is. The supporting performances from the entire cast, including Thandie Newton, Gerard Butler, Jeremy Piven, Mark Strong, and Ludacris, are all nothing but exercises in mediocrity. The only showing anywhere close to being worthy of celebration is Toby Kebbell's drugged out, hyper-violent, comically apathetic Johnny Quid. His character's farcical behavior gives <em>RocknRolla</em> a slight ray of sunshine in an otherwise dank cave. However, his talents are grossly under-utilized and for most of the movie we are subject to the flat stories of the other characters.</div><br /><br /><div><em>RocknRolla</em> could have had a place on my DVD shelf for years to come right next to Ritchie's other accomplishment's, but instead I will never have it enter my home again. It's unnecessary length is the final straw, closing in on two hours. <em>Snatch</em> was by no means short and was only ten minutes shorter than <em>RocknRolla</em>, but it was at least filled with things to appreciate. If you want to watch a caper flick that's fast paced and highly satisfying, watch <em>Snatch</em>. If you want to watched a caper flick that tries to be quick but instead gets bogged down by it's stale story, watch <em>RocknRolla. </em>My rating (3/10)</div></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8536875046461814371.post-83644148167481684342009-02-22T16:41:00.005-05:002009-02-23T16:17:26.029-05:0081st Academy Awards<a href="http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_2/2007AcademyAwardStatue.jpg"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 289px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 350px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_2/2007AcademyAwardStatue.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div>The Academy Awards were held yesterday and so we finally have the definitive answer to which film is the best of the best of 2008. Although I don't agree with some winners, for the most part there were not many surprises. The ceremony itself had lots of potential to become the most enjoyable Academy Awards in a very, very long time. Hugh Jackman's energetic and hilarious opening number really started the show off with a bang and gave me hope that things this year would be easier to watch. But of course, you can't have an Oscar ceremony without several boring, unnecessary montages. This year they decided to create a different montage for every genre of film. The only one worth watching was Judd Apatow's comedy montage starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as their characters from <em>Pineapple Express</em>. Turns out the skit was actually a lot funnier than <em>Pineapple Express</em>. </div><br /><div>The second absolute disaster and by far the worst change made to the functionality of the ceremony was the presentation of the acting awards. Rather than have two people come out and introduce the nominees with clips of their performances, we were instead forced to endure an introduction to the FIVE presenters, and then listen to ALL FIVE PRESENTERS give long and uninteresting monologues about the nominees, and then NOT SHOW US A CLIP. Who was the bright light that thought of that idea?! Not everybody gets to go out and see most of these films, so they enjoy seeing the 10 seconds clips. But no, the Academy basically just said that if you didn't see the film, then screw you. Wouldn't you have been a lot happier if you got to see Heath Ledger's performance shown one more time? Atrocious. </div><br /><div>And lastly: Sean Penn?!?!?! I cannot fathom how Sean Penn could have possibly been better than Mickey Rourke. Granted I haven't seen <em>Milk</em>, but I did see <em>The Wrestler</em>. Mickey Rourke actually brought tears to my eyes. I had to force them back to keep them from rolling down my cheeks. The last time I cried at a film, I was 7 and watching <em>Air Bud</em>. Plus, Penn has already won an award. If the race in an acting category is that close, the scale should tip in favor of the person who hasn't won an award yet. That could just be how I feel about it, but I think it makes sense. Anyway, here is a list of basically all the winners at the 81st Academy Awards.<br /><br />Best Animated Feature - Wall-E<br /><br />Best Achievement in Visual Effects- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (should have gone to The Dark Knight)<br /><br />Best Achievement in Sound Editing- The Dark Knight<br /><br />Best Achievement in Sound Mixing- Slumdog Millionaire<br /><br />Best Original Song- Slumdog Millionaire for "Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman<br /><br />Best Original Score- Slumdog Millionaire - A.R. Rahman<br /><br />Best Achievement in Makeup- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button<br /><br />Best Achievement in Costume Design- The Duchess<br /><br />Best Achievement in Art Direction- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button<br /><br />Best Achievement in Editing- Slumdog Millionaire<br /><br />Best Achievement in Cinematography- Slumdog Millionaire (should've gone to The Dark Knight)<br /><br />Best Adapted Screenplay- Slumdog Millionaire - Simon Beaufoy<br /><br />Best Original Screenplay- Milk - Dustin Lance Black<br /><br />Best Achievement in Directing- Slumdog Millionaire - Danny Boyle<br /><br />Best Supporting Actress- Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona<br /><br />Best Supporting Actor- Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight<br /><br />Best Actress- Kate Winslet for The Reader<br /><br />Best Actor- Sean Penn for Milk (should've gone to Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler)<br /><br />Best Picture- Slumdog Millionaire</div><div></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisuRowq0kwTD4DPvfX5TzrO5W5bhpgaxbyJbq83Ws9-pKJF-RwNt_jRhj1re81nqgn78p3gv-9uoKiWPn-RgF498kK0_vJc98FKehr-SC589btPp5HJyRBDelpemZ4R7i5iWw7zfpSr_w/s320/slumdog_millionaire.jpg"><img style="WIDTH: 282px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisuRowq0kwTD4DPvfX5TzrO5W5bhpgaxbyJbq83Ws9-pKJF-RwNt_jRhj1re81nqgn78p3gv-9uoKiWPn-RgF498kK0_vJc98FKehr-SC589btPp5HJyRBDelpemZ4R7i5iWw7zfpSr_w/s320/slumdog_millionaire.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisuRowq0kwTD4DPvfX5TzrO5W5bhpgaxbyJbq83Ws9-pKJF-RwNt_jRhj1re81nqgn78p3gv-9uoKiWPn-RgF498kK0_vJc98FKehr-SC589btPp5HJyRBDelpemZ4R7i5iWw7zfpSr_w/s320/slumdog_millionaire.jpg"></a></div><div></div>Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08449611717324229108noreply@blogger.com5