tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87674669788600947802023-11-16T01:25:22.305-05:00Movie Reviews by Rafael A.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-48031240840382460462013-09-08T00:41:00.000-04:002013-09-08T21:18:05.609-04:00Metropolitan (1990)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV0GlkV3-lUwcDoCGx4cHketQD6_eJ2vlp6r1qusKwTed0bT-5fwAD-2GqAH44k6xICd14n3L719G1puDtBqezbZeF-ra3cd8Lz1vXBzesYt-NSZpUW8pNAjTQJhfPDETlNLb_dBoxz44/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV0GlkV3-lUwcDoCGx4cHketQD6_eJ2vlp6r1qusKwTed0bT-5fwAD-2GqAH44k6xICd14n3L719G1puDtBqezbZeF-ra3cd8Lz1vXBzesYt-NSZpUW8pNAjTQJhfPDETlNLb_dBoxz44/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Based around Whit Stillman's own experiences while in Washington D.C. in late 1970, <i>Metropolitan</i> is a hilarious film that presents us with human characters of the debutante society (during debutante season). Featuring characters that could easily count as irritable or unlikable, we are shown men and women who we've come to know as (or feel are or are represented as) one-dimensional and who are given the true three-dimensional treatment.<br />
<br />
They may not all be dynamic characters, but in a way (given the film's time frame), not only is this deliberate, but very difficult. Over the course of about one December week in Manhattan, we see Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) get involved in the high society lives of a few privileged preppies (a name one character thinks is inappropriate and not reflective of their group).<br />
<br />
The greatest thing this film does is dialogue (it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay). What makes it hilarious for me is how accurate, yet, satirical it feels: People do have these sorts of conversations and it feels genuine in this film. While one could argue people in real life don't always (if ever) speak the way these characters do, the fact that they actually do (to some degree or extent) is what makes it so brilliant.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the time period this film takes place in and regardless of what "social class" you belong to, there is much to admire in the way it deconstructs high society and its players. In many respects, the film is old fashioned in the way of its comedy, only sticking to dialogue that never feels forced; at no point do crazy things happen for the sake of comedy and all that does happen is to either push the story forward or help us learn more about the characters.<br />
<br />
As aforementioned, majority of the characters don't actually develop; instead, they are learned about, researched in a way, as Upper West Side Tom gets to know the Upper East Siders a bit more each day -- As Tom gets to realize who and how these people really are, so do we. Tom himself is an interesting character, being on a much different spectrum than the other characters (he has less resources, lives on a different side of town, has old fashioned socialist views, and doesn't even like debutante events); his interactions with the "urban haute bourgeoisie" are nothing short of hysterical.<br />
<br />
We are given an insight into the lives of these characters who, as it should be, live in quite a different world than Tom. For starters, the film is based around a sort of lifestyle that may have all but vanished during the film's actual time frame (a story written about the early 1970's that takes place in the very late 1980's); this is reflected upon by a couple characters, notably Nick Smith (Chris Eigeman) and Charlie Black (Taylor Nichols). Throughout the film, the debutante's themselves provide commentary about their lives and ways of thinking (philosopher Charlie leads these proceedings while Nick the cynic complains about everything).<br />
<br />
As might be expected and/or feared in a film such as this, a sort of romance begins to bloom between Tom and Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina), which, unexpectedly and unsurprisingly, has its share of problems. Thankfully, this romance is never given primary focus, and becomes just another topic of discussion this film (and its characters) addresses, which of course makes it no less important.<br />
<br />
It's the topics and themes that I admired most. Like a novel from so long ago, the topics discussed here haven't aged a day, bringing up questions of one's own class, how the times are, and how (at least to Nick) the current generation of young people is the worse one there's ever been (circa 1974/1989, mind you).<br />
<br />
Something else worthy of note is the way the whole thing goes along: At the start of the film, things are quite lively and giddy, but by the end, the film and its characters (and their events) have lost steam. At first I thought this may have been a flaw in the film until I realized how much this was just a reflection of the events conspiring on screen: As the week goes by and as the gatherings become more empty and less frequent, it becomes more apparent whom the characters really are and what they're really up to; the characters themselves get bored as the "norm" begins to take over again at the end of their winter break and debutante season.<br />
<br />
With charm, honesty, hilarity, and authenticity, <i>Metropolitan</i> manages to address timeless issues while also presenting us with a fantastic and wonderful look at a group of young men and women who, at the core of it all, aren't so different from the rest of us.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-58026572163894635082013-07-19T13:56:00.000-04:002013-09-06T18:04:32.487-04:00Casino Royale (1967)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq4YIXiMu0MgVv9Fv0XB8jxkKMeA5hfjwgwneEs404TcIJRv9cjbfQmaOzuZ-naLQMpPu-SFkvmeT2clYsjO-rcz80D1PBfLW7P-5zprULOzXD7fBAHm03H-Fqjq0daExkfo_y0RsLKaA/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq4YIXiMu0MgVv9Fv0XB8jxkKMeA5hfjwgwneEs404TcIJRv9cjbfQmaOzuZ-naLQMpPu-SFkvmeT2clYsjO-rcz80D1PBfLW7P-5zprULOzXD7fBAHm03H-Fqjq0daExkfo_y0RsLKaA/s320/1.jpg" width="172" /></a></div>
<br />
How did a film like <i>Casino Royale</i> ever get released? Troubled production, over five different directors, and God knows how many screen writers (three are credited but it's said that over six others contributed), 1967's <i>Casino Royale</i> is a perfect example of an over-budget film being high on itself and a beautiful disaster. Spoofing the spy genre (as well as capitalizing on the James Bond name), the film is the loosest adaption of the <i>Casino Royale</i> novel ever made, featuring a loose as hell narrative, too many characters, plot holes, little context, and so on. Yet, for all its flaws, I still enjoyed the film greatly: I was entertained, had some great laughs, and was genuinely interested in what went on. It's such a unique and of-its-time film that I can't help but still like it (even though its infamy is well deserved).<br />
<br />
The film's cast list includes, but is not limited to: David Niven, Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Orson Welles, Barbara Bouchet, Deborah Kerr, Joanna Pettet, and Woody Allen. A brief synopsis of the film feels almost as unnecessary as it is impossible, but: Sir James Bond (David Niven) is called out of retirement to stop SMERSH, which includes beating Le Chiffre (Orson Welles) in a game of baccarat (he owes SMERSH money, if you can believe it). Along the way, Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers), a man who knows his baccarat, is recruited by Vesper Lynd (Ursula Andress) to play against Le Chiffre and stop SMERSH from....doing more evil doings. The character of Tremble is essentially the other big important character aside from Sir Bond, but so many characters get introduced and so many get offed that I honestly didn't notice when one character disappeared and another reappeared. To top it all off, while each of the characters has a different name, many of the characters are given the title of James Bond 007; this is devised by Sir Bond himself as a way to confuse the enemy (as well as the audience, if they're trying to keep up with who is being named James Bond).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKkzVqie9hk0CoT1Aa6XdWMKLb0DnYpouhka_uWpp28GIA-EOt-4rrwvRxLN1dKyXTIg-rDISNe-BaCIPeCr3sgvUT4BVWbYghCU3PA5VmCZ1ZmKOcP4QsPY-HZE9_um5qk6h_xlfhFH8/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKkzVqie9hk0CoT1Aa6XdWMKLb0DnYpouhka_uWpp28GIA-EOt-4rrwvRxLN1dKyXTIg-rDISNe-BaCIPeCr3sgvUT4BVWbYghCU3PA5VmCZ1ZmKOcP4QsPY-HZE9_um5qk6h_xlfhFH8/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
While the film is a spy spoof, it has no other form of identity; scenes go all over the place, the direction is always changing (certain scenes and actors were specifically shot by certain directors), but the story is probably the biggest disaster because there almost isn't one. To explain: The story concerns defeating SMERSH by beating one of their own at a card game. Simple enough, right? Well, being that the film is over two hours long, it feels the need to provide scenes of characters doing certain things for over twenty minutes or more. Wanna see Sir James Bond visiting M's household? Wanna see it go on for over twenty minutes? Wanna see one of the many 007's infiltrate a SMERSH cover operation? Wanna see it go on for over twenty minutes?<br />
<br />
What happens is that these scenes go on longer than they need to and introduce even more characters that, more than likely, don't need to exist as main characters, let alone as minor characters. If these scenes were cut and made tighter in their focus, this film would be so much shorter, believe me. Yet, once again, something about the film filling and wasting its own time on unnecessary length and "exposition" fascinates me and keeps me interested; the only reason I can find for why I don't mind this or why I like it is because it makes the overall film that much more interesting to follow, giving it a slower pace than it should have. Plus, I like lengthy films. Or, maybe it being so unnecessary makes the film worse and that much more of an entertaining and sensational disaster. Who knows.<br />
<br />
So what other problems does this film have? Well, one huge problem I noticed is that it doesn't really care for context. How did we get form here to there? Why did this happen? Whatever happened to so and so? If you're really paying attention, you more than likely will be asking questions about what's going on. Of course, not like it matters, since this film barely has a story to hold onto. Still, there are moments where I'm not sure what's going on or what happened simply because no one has provided the context. Of course, some moments do have good context, but so many others have next to none. This also goes for transitions, which this film obviously has never heard about -- In fact, one moment in particular stands out above all the others: a scene transitions from a kidnapping, to one of the 007's looking for the kidnapped, to an unrelated scene, to the secret agent having been captured. Context? A transition explaining what happened? Don't count on it.<br />
<br />
So what does this film do right? Well, it succeeds in being an entertaining disaster, but I'm not sure that was the film's intention. What it did succeed most in was making me laugh. Not every scene is a hit, and many moments are more humorous than they are funny. Still, other times I was laughing out loud and enjoying what was happening on screen. Any moment something blew up, I was having a ball (the explosions truly are a highlight). As it turns out, the funniest moments for me where when certain characters were killed off. Not every single character's death was amusing, and it isn't the sole fact that they died that amused me: It was the <i>way</i> they were killed. (I won't spoil anything for those that want to see it all for themselves.) I will also add that the acting was actually not bad and the film ended exactly the way I wanted it to.<br />
<br />
The music is probably the biggest highlight and most positive thing one can say about the film. Composed by Burt Bacharach, the music is deliciously late '60s, making scenes more entertaining than they should be. There's also the song "The Look of Love" by Dusty Springfield that is surprisingly well done.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj60PVYyKLkjJd6YzmqCoLcz7L-6oA4h3AxdMwcw_cef66ho5SBKsNjWfyN2xjzCMEE7i2lplr5uBb1KJlU5LBd1DzxBJ6DkR3Oh39z3cPBQFanGHZFFQwaxO0PUDxctD9tY_UcQ5GqsrQ/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj60PVYyKLkjJd6YzmqCoLcz7L-6oA4h3AxdMwcw_cef66ho5SBKsNjWfyN2xjzCMEE7i2lplr5uBb1KJlU5LBd1DzxBJ6DkR3Oh39z3cPBQFanGHZFFQwaxO0PUDxctD9tY_UcQ5GqsrQ/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It's fully understandable why <i>Casino Royale</i> has a bad reputation: the script's narrative is beyond loose, the direction is all over the place, and the overall feel is overly goofy, ultimately confusing the audience with a film that doesn't know what to do with itself. I don't blame anyone involved in this picture with disowning or disassociating themselves from it. Still, there's something charming about this mess, something fun and entertaining. It spoofs plenty of 007 conventions well, and its erratic nature and overblown ways is something you just never see. A film like <i>Casino Royale</i> rarely ever exists; It's the result of the trends, the times, and the hype of Old Hollywood before the New Hollywood age came into town. It's the sort of film that is worth checking out for its sheer infamy alone. Whether you're a 007 fan, a fan of the late '60s, a fan of disasters, or you're masochistic, <i>Casino Royale</i> is a rare kind of picture that will (hopefully) never come into existence again.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-39468586110545279712013-07-15T12:59:00.000-04:002013-09-08T21:11:46.336-04:00Miami Connection (1987)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNobX-xc-vzjTYz39Lx3WSa3mXLC-1zVt0cBP1ZpAKswWtkwGFr_Q3FP0SQ8JLChN5PkB6h8o2PfXjyrkTU6nCA-2bhfhrEnESOszvD97iamR_0VEVnXNCxPoIy2YA4ox441WC1DVGfTE/s1600/7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNobX-xc-vzjTYz39Lx3WSa3mXLC-1zVt0cBP1ZpAKswWtkwGFr_Q3FP0SQ8JLChN5PkB6h8o2PfXjyrkTU6nCA-2bhfhrEnESOszvD97iamR_0VEVnXNCxPoIy2YA4ox441WC1DVGfTE/s320/7.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
Every so often, there comes a film so bizarre, so unique, so out there, that it ends up being a must-see for those very reasons alone, regardless of whether the film itself is actually good or bad. <i>Miami Connection</i> is one of those movies, a low budget, martial arts film that has a lot of spirit and passion from the people who made it. Conceived by director Richard Park, and Tae Kwon Do grand master Y.K. Kim (who also wrote, produced, and stars in the film), <i>Miami Connection</i> (which barely takes in place in said location) is about a Miami ninja biker gang (seriously) that runs the cocaine circuit in Miami and sets its sights on conquering Orlando as well. Orlando is where we meet our protagonists, a band called Dragon Sound with band members that are all black belts in Tae Kwon Do. When these two clash, things get really crazy.<br />
<br />
<i> Miami Connection</i> was only released regionally in Orlando and West Germany during its original release time. It was only until recently that it was rediscovered by Drafthouse Films and shown to a wider audience with positive reception. When originally being made, no distributor gave it a chance, until a small distribution company bought it for $100,000. It became an underground cult film during this time and an old shame for Y.K. Kim. However, it has recently garnered a resurgence with positive reception from critics and audiences alike.<br />
<br />
So why was this film hid away so long? Maybe because it's notoriously so bad that it's amazing and the critics of back then couldn't figure it out. The film is so incredibly '80s that it can be seen as a time capsule of that area. From the hair, to the music (which we get to hear in full '80s synth rock glory), to the cars, to the everything <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">– </span>It's all '80s all the time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJYAzRKasf8bFrmZjbp_JbZRb6segzjC_EBEd63w8-CuPsUc_TIRfyLPFk31I78hBwO7KK3BUK7Nk52gnctytwTz-wR_zXplvMNrXhu_2K4ept4M_rmRgru54zJzuS5ePYciJA5jd1y2A/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJYAzRKasf8bFrmZjbp_JbZRb6segzjC_EBEd63w8-CuPsUc_TIRfyLPFk31I78hBwO7KK3BUK7Nk52gnctytwTz-wR_zXplvMNrXhu_2K4ept4M_rmRgru54zJzuS5ePYciJA5jd1y2A/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The aforementioned plot is as basic as it gets, giving our heroes every and any opportunity to kick butt. There's even a fight against some band members and a night club owner/manager! Any excuse to simply hit people is given in this film. It helps that the main characters that compose Dragon Sound (five men and a female singer) are all black belts in Tae Kwon Do in real life (save for the female). The action scenes range from stupid awesome to just stupid: sometimes characters do or don't get hit, sometimes characters do moves that have no reason to be made, and sometimes the moves being made make sense, but the fights are almost always unnecessary, which is what makes it all so great. The fights get really crazy at the end when our heroes have to go against the Miami Ninjas, who use all sorts of blades.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
In case you're wondering, yes, all these actors are bad actors. However, they have spirit and do try (not too hard), so it's actually not as painful as it sounds. On the contrary, the acting is hilarious most of the time, featuring terrible dialogue and a man who can't speak English (Kim). Some of the acting goes to really bad heights, and other times the acting is, well, obvious, which, in turn, can make it painful to watch.<br />
<br />
The music is really awesome, being as authentic of the time as ever. Featuring original songs such as "Friends" and "Against the Ninja," these songs are so radical that I couldn't help but dance like a goof when they played. The opening credits (which feature the song "Escape from Miami") are really cool for being so serious, which noticeably contrasts with the movie, which can't be serious even when it tries.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2sN1lBZ4vkxIWc7QmSFCePt68jADJ19ysu10wnqgO_XvZTnPCtlgtoC6ttNgwtTNZHQrIYJ6w2GCb9PiOhN02vymumaf2alHFDTCAPfiFSOGUEZ0Xv6Xfl2bfvZEmtHyZDYngdHf3b1A/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2sN1lBZ4vkxIWc7QmSFCePt68jADJ19ysu10wnqgO_XvZTnPCtlgtoC6ttNgwtTNZHQrIYJ6w2GCb9PiOhN02vymumaf2alHFDTCAPfiFSOGUEZ0Xv6Xfl2bfvZEmtHyZDYngdHf3b1A/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I like that the setting is authentic, meaning that when they say they're in Miami or Orlando it's the real deal. They even show footage of the University of Central Florida, which is located near the downtown Orlando area. It is curious that nearly all the characters refer to their location as Central Florida, which is accurate, but still interesting; it's as if I were in Miami all the time but always referred to it as South Florida <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">– it is accurate, being in the general South area, but there are other cities that compose South and even Central Florida. In that respect, Miami is always referred to as Miami (whenever it's even mentioned at all).<br /><br /> And that leads me to my only complaint: It barely takes place in Miami. Consider this a precaution and not a spoiler: You don't wanna go into this movie thinking it's all in Miami, or else you'll end up a bit bummed like I was at the fact that, no, it doesn't take place on the mean streets of Miami but on the sorta-mean streets of Orlando. The title, as it turns out though, is a reference to the Miami Ninjas and not just the city; this ends up making more sense, since they're in Orlando but from Miami, hence, the Miami connection.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Aside from the aforementioned complaint, I have no other problems with this movie. There's barely any filler (and if there is it's never boring), the music is out of sight, and the whole ride is always entertaining. There are many laugh out loud moments, as well as awkward scenes, dialogue, and so on. There's a few scenes where I'm pretty certain I saw the production crew standing around, too, which is classic.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8nOjBVTV8LEH8IPjpooUjEJgkUVd_ygWZhxUFBlhsoULfmsF_C3KR9T1JiPZ_cNka1izYwd6l_u7F9Ic7xhKdEIxNJ7FBlADPwbgdJHXUPy96ZyzEeCxMWk2EDOIu3xtY_TzkQKa5hpk/s1600/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8nOjBVTV8LEH8IPjpooUjEJgkUVd_ygWZhxUFBlhsoULfmsF_C3KR9T1JiPZ_cNka1izYwd6l_u7F9Ic7xhKdEIxNJ7FBlADPwbgdJHXUPy96ZyzEeCxMWk2EDOIu3xtY_TzkQKa5hpk/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Overall, all I can say is that <i>Miami Connection</i> is so bad it's awesome. I recommend it to basically everyone and anyone who likes exploitation B-movies, hilarious movies, martial arts films, and films that are great to watch with others. And remember: Eliminating violence through violence is always the answer. </span>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-2145009871220914142013-06-28T14:49:00.000-04:002013-06-28T14:59:40.283-04:00Dragonball Evolution (2009)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLX7ZpVWgoqyLNTw7BVgChTh_F8kS6_GjLNuzFz2zc-oDrCNUFJpZjZQyS4dIm7Ojwa6TmA4yWG2MAUbP5Cj9sIXZ2IrsqZXz6-ezqnL4E_MfsyU8zpsugb7amH0FJGWWq8D6xmayvyFc/s469/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLX7ZpVWgoqyLNTw7BVgChTh_F8kS6_GjLNuzFz2zc-oDrCNUFJpZjZQyS4dIm7Ojwa6TmA4yWG2MAUbP5Cj9sIXZ2IrsqZXz6-ezqnL4E_MfsyU8zpsugb7amH0FJGWWq8D6xmayvyFc/s320/1.jpg" width="218" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Based on the highly popular manga series Dragon Ball
by Akira Toriyama, <i>Dragonball Evolution</i>
is a bastardization as well as an insult. Anyone who loved good ol’ Dragonball
more than likely would despise this film – yet, there’s something ridiculously
entertaining about the whole thing. When it comes to what makes a film bad, it
almost always comes down to execution: <i>Dragonball
Evolution</i> manages to actually have good cinematography, entertaining
moments, colorful design, and a general sense of fun. However, it also has bad
acting, bad scripting, and less than stellar special effects (some of the
practical effects are fine, though). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Dragonball
Evolution</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> (why is it called that?) tells the story of Goku
(played by Justin Chatwin), who basically has to save the world from the evil
Piccolo (James Marsters) and gather the seven Dragon Balls which will grant
anyone one who has them one perfect wish. The rest of the story and its details
are, as one might expect, not at all important or necessary to talk about in a
review. Sure, I could talk about Goku’s love interest Chi-Chi (played by Jamie
Chung, who’s attractiveness is one of the film’s strengths), about his
grandfather (Randall Duk Kim), and other pointless stuff, but that would mean
actually talking about the story (which doesn’t do this film any favors), so
instead, I’ll point out moments that either showed the film’s strengths or
weaknesses. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh3msab3zzKCrLFPkORLmbZlT26wxu9DkQPE2cCb7grti517Ot9QrYkBU4q32-oYtno8ZSZq3SjYtCmyUiqAQ6E1T81nhk3okSxnROvG3MWvLBbc06NIfBdNWYf8XL-f6LMYgdhcs0mSU/s400/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh3msab3zzKCrLFPkORLmbZlT26wxu9DkQPE2cCb7grti517Ot9QrYkBU4q32-oYtno8ZSZq3SjYtCmyUiqAQ6E1T81nhk3okSxnROvG3MWvLBbc06NIfBdNWYf8XL-f6LMYgdhcs0mSU/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> The beginning is nice, showing some insight into
Goku’s high school life and how cliché the bullies are (dur hur lameo). These
are actually some of the best moments in the film, especially when Goku goes to
Chi-Chi’s party and opens a can of whoop ass. Other neat moments are when the
characters are in that place with the tournament and temple (I can’t find or remember the
location’s name for some reason). Chow Yun-fat as Master Roshi in himself is
always entertaining, appearing to have a lot of fun in the role. There’s also
an editing technique used early in the film that I found particularly cool. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> So where does the film do wrong? In the most
important of places: Acting & Scripting. The acting is the most noticeable
problem of the two, but I guess it wouldn’t be there without the bad script,
either. Awkward moments, terrible dialogue, and strange plot points are at full
display. I call out Emmy Rossum (Bulma Briefs) and Joon Park (Yamcha)
specifically for her bad acting and his lame dialogue (though I guess his
acting isn’t much better). It’s amazing that Justin Chatwin is one of the
better actors here – in fact, he’s one of the most likeable characters (for me,
anyway). The best actors are obviously Chow Yun-fat and Randall Duk Kim. Here’s
the rest of the problem, though: These characters have odd dialogue a lot of
the time, the film itself has odd pacing, and a bizarre plot that made me
question the entire premise within the first two minutes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8I1mtOt-jI101fqvqQnL-IBhduwhbuALanDEGByTp_VbsSRs3quBSW8oXj9bIczr044PK3YYjDpfV8CNxdZ9374CiIuuiFMX7erxwiZ5si3r5db0ZQp5hzIHr8Aj4rNT3kYjjRa6w_YU/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8I1mtOt-jI101fqvqQnL-IBhduwhbuALanDEGByTp_VbsSRs3quBSW8oXj9bIczr044PK3YYjDpfV8CNxdZ9374CiIuuiFMX7erxwiZ5si3r5db0ZQp5hzIHr8Aj4rNT3kYjjRa6w_YU/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> It may not be the easiest thing to specify why, but
I know for sure that <i>Dragonball Evolution</i>
is not a good movie. I could blame it on the acting, the script as a whole, the
disgrace it is to the source material, but in the end, all I’m able to really
muster is that it’s a bad movie – not an awful one, not an unwatchable one
(it’s actually entertaining largely for its badness), but just a bad one. It
didn’t fail in its premise at all: I asked for an entertaining, pointless, bad
looking film and by God I got one. But that’s the biggest problem of all: It
had no reason to be made whatsoever. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-14428891865070749332012-12-02T02:33:00.000-05:002012-12-02T02:58:24.053-05:00Pulp Fiction (1994)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgicvS_nqUxTlpetdLO50pXAFXjSwd8iJdW9pdwVw7KfJPoBS1MuBCLrSGJyDQRQ-2Z-zEE1tpEUN0rVohcXBLK9UIEPYREAOhFadXpU-ekXfNQphqY_mPv_ceZVh6Cydj2oGiVBm3p7Lg/s1600/Pulp+Fiction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgicvS_nqUxTlpetdLO50pXAFXjSwd8iJdW9pdwVw7KfJPoBS1MuBCLrSGJyDQRQ-2Z-zEE1tpEUN0rVohcXBLK9UIEPYREAOhFadXpU-ekXfNQphqY_mPv_ceZVh6Cydj2oGiVBm3p7Lg/s320/Pulp+Fiction.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Hitting the world like a punch in the jaw, <i>Pulp Fiction</i> is a phenomenon of a movie that plays with itself as a genre film while simultaneously telling an excellent and fresh tale that never seems to get old with the passage of time or repetition. Featuring an all-star cast that includes John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Maria de Medeiros, Ving Rhames, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Christopher Walken, and Bruce Willis, <i>Pulp Fiction</i> weaves together three separate tales taking place in '90s Los Angeles, featuring killer dialogue, graphic violence, and a lot of humor - all to the sounds of an eclectic and brilliant soundtrack.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxWRVATeIOQgCiH-1jI3mTaHvzDVlr67U7j3FEfk1qXBlFA-Z1Vm7gxXgcpo0xBqgORhE3WED3XofiI4HmcBw83p2TLaWAtTOeyNz-QHrzImPDxli2BSHqWVsvn7B9SjVEihLKOQu0zPM/s1600/1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxWRVATeIOQgCiH-1jI3mTaHvzDVlr67U7j3FEfk1qXBlFA-Z1Vm7gxXgcpo0xBqgORhE3WED3XofiI4HmcBw83p2TLaWAtTOeyNz-QHrzImPDxli2BSHqWVsvn7B9SjVEihLKOQu0zPM/s320/1.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
First off, it's important to point out what kind of film this is. It's first and foremost a genre piece, an exploitation film that is an homage to the kinds of films it has been inspired by. It's also a very successful black comedy, featuring a hilarious cast of characters, scenes, and dialogue that is as quotable as anything that's ever been put on film. Characters such as Jules (Jackson) and Vincent (Travolta) have great chemistry and provide us with excellent conversations to witness. Essentially, every character in this film is excellent in one degree or the other, be it Mrs. Mia Wallace (Thurman), Marsellus Wallace (Rhames), Butch (Willis), or Winston "The Wolf" Wolfe (Keitel). Roth and Plummer are notable as a couple who rob places, with an interesting chemistry and equally interesting dialogue and scenes. However, my favorite character has to be (of all the people) Jimmie, played by Quentin Tarantino himself. As is in <i>Reservoir Dogs</i>, my favorite character ends up being played by Tarantino; something about the way he looks, acts, and is makes it almost impossible for me to not make him my favorite character/person in whatever thing he may be in. In any case, Jimmie has my favorite monologue in the movie and some of my favorite lines as well; the scene that features him is also probably my favorite.<br />
<br />
When it comes to music, Tarantino knows his stuff. He does this sort of thing instinctively, carefully, with smart input and direction. The soundtrack for <i>Pulp Fiction</i> is classic, featuring assorted genres of music that also fit perfectly well in whatever scene they are featured it. While I would say the best use of music in this film is the opening and closing credits, the music is excellent all of the time and can sometimes really make a scene what it is, so it's almost unfair for me to single out a scene or two as being the best; all I have is my opinion, and not even that can be selective.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC9YauNFKLm5mw0AvE6olCFNpDEWNmNTW08fl6B5IAQsiZc9NM52-_-tY_jPV09PqH_nnegvpXVtF0kuUqWKcSvjcfzNernRl9gA3i_s6uCNULtEMFhDkjdDaWv7HUsrCB2r2tXwmP8xY/s1600/2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC9YauNFKLm5mw0AvE6olCFNpDEWNmNTW08fl6B5IAQsiZc9NM52-_-tY_jPV09PqH_nnegvpXVtF0kuUqWKcSvjcfzNernRl9gA3i_s6uCNULtEMFhDkjdDaWv7HUsrCB2r2tXwmP8xY/s320/2.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I don't know what it is, but Tarantino is an incredible writer with an incredible knack for dialogue, be it unimportant or part of the actual over-arching story. He infuses each of his characters with personality, making them memorable for a variety of reasons. Essentially, any character that has notable screen time could be extremely well liked and memorable because they actually are characters, they are "people" who exist in this world (which is essentially a movie-like world, a theory which can be backed by Tarantino's love for movies in his movies). Tarantino's talent also goes for the stories he writes, but that goes without saying.<br />
<br />
<i> Pulp Fiction</i> is a true American masterpiece, the kind of thing that lives up to its name and manages to stay with you and have an impact on your life in some degree. Quentin Tarantino made something unique, yet old fashioned, and all brand new all at once. Movies like this don't perpetually exist. Movies as well written, as well acted, as well played as this one don't get made. As Jules might say, God came down and graced Tarantino with the will and mind to write this story down and make this film so that the world may see it and embrace it for what is: a perfect piece of pulp fiction.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWgRxRkaoqiJTFB-hZvgZ_Ao5-tz58C9t43g9cdOv6cHNa4ZeOA1uHGDiWc6UFxb169bmTUN41k0f97N_F0j0PY6HkPhT0txIXj2sBp3zO8dfzW3Hqm9i3cmR-BGZA06vx03oZuHWghg/s1600/3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWgRxRkaoqiJTFB-hZvgZ_Ao5-tz58C9t43g9cdOv6cHNa4ZeOA1uHGDiWc6UFxb169bmTUN41k0f97N_F0j0PY6HkPhT0txIXj2sBp3zO8dfzW3Hqm9i3cmR-BGZA06vx03oZuHWghg/s320/3.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-52115134592563675162012-11-28T12:35:00.001-05:002012-11-28T12:35:56.323-05:00Reservoir Dogs (1992)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaJcawLyN1R0eEowSCbeAlcUhIagF3DAVfftu_r_nfyyY_tw-SFNnniupz5_tzRwOg_DYi7m9Tsu10bMaoAMW5gQapV3FKHIheB2BYPmogOb4DUfGZRWYrwzIUQDN_CqKcvgFW6aTfcc/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaJcawLyN1R0eEowSCbeAlcUhIagF3DAVfftu_r_nfyyY_tw-SFNnniupz5_tzRwOg_DYi7m9Tsu10bMaoAMW5gQapV3FKHIheB2BYPmogOb4DUfGZRWYrwzIUQDN_CqKcvgFW6aTfcc/s320/1.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<br />
How does a robbery turn out this badly?<br />
<br />
Bloody, violent, profane, and full of pop culture references, writer-director Quentin Tarantino's feature film debut is a masterpiece of crime and confusion, dialogue and characters, action and irony. The film stars the following: Harvey Keitel as Mr. White, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink, Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Chris Penn as "Nice Guy" Eddie, Quentin Tarantino as Mr. Brown, Eddie Bunker as Mr. Blue, and Lawrence Tierney as Joe Cabot, featuring the voice of Steven Wright as DJ K-Billy.<br />
<br />
The set-up is that a group of guys plan on stealing a jewelry store in a get-in-get-out heist. As one might expect, all goes to hell, tensions rise, people don't know who to trust, and blood is shed. While we never see the robbery in process (knowing only what happened by the various accounts given by the characters), the film's focus is on the people involved in the crime and not the main crime itself. This provides us with an interesting film which believes that, above all, characterization is king. Sure there's violence, blood, and death, but that all comes from the characters. There's never any moment of violence for violence's sake. Tarantino directs everything with finesse, never framing a bad shot, always knowing what he's doing. Even though it is a debut (not including his first short film), he knows what he's doing. Sure, you could say it isn't perfect, but there's no doubt that Tarantino knows how to direct.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5KFGqwAMhQkhirYUbVSLALzYQva4wuzbK0cAXV2CMJvUMr87gjJAig3q89bDaaluiFVf0HCXaVwS5FYdSJ6A-8UXAwDYxUETDcUZ4WrAN6cugouZEVV_7dsBZX2o1WsFnGG4Ixte_V9k/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5KFGqwAMhQkhirYUbVSLALzYQva4wuzbK0cAXV2CMJvUMr87gjJAig3q89bDaaluiFVf0HCXaVwS5FYdSJ6A-8UXAwDYxUETDcUZ4WrAN6cugouZEVV_7dsBZX2o1WsFnGG4Ixte_V9k/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
When it comes to who in this film is the better actor, there's almost no definite winner. No matter how much screen time a particular character might get, each and every actor in this film is excellent, believable, and naturalistic. Keitel is excellent as White, a veteran criminal who tries to keep his cool as things get chaotic. Buscemi is phenomenally likeably hilarious (in both senses of the word) as Pink, a guy who has trouble keeping is cool and is the first to believe that the robbers were set-up, meaning that there is a rat among them. He also doesn't like his alias. Madsen unnervingly and convincingly plays Blonde, a criminal fresh out of prison who might be calm and loyal but is also a complete psychopath (this is displayed best during the famous torture scene). Penn is great as Eddie, son of Joe (Tierney's character); both are fantastic in their roles as good ol' gangsters. Roth is probably my favorite (as far as the acting goes) as Orange, a guy who spends a lot of his screen time bleeding and screaming. Bunker (who plays Blue) and Tarantino (who plays Brown) do not get as much screen time, but they make their roles their own through dialogue and character traits. (For the record, Mr. Brown's my favorite Reservoir Dog, but as far as the main Dogs go, Mr. Orange is my favorite.)<br />
<br />
An important trait in this film (and all subsequent Tarantino films) is the writing. None of the dialogue in this film feels forced, wooden, or like something someone wouldn't say. Of course, this has a lot to do with the way the actors treat the material, but none of it would really matter if the actors were great but the writing wasn't. Tarantino infuses his script with rich reveals of his characters, from their general interests, to their relationships with other characters, to how they handled (or would handle) certain situations. For a film full of violence and blood, there are many scenes in which characters are merely talking to one another. It is in these scenes where Tarantino shows his real talent for dialogue and characterization.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsB512aJAomM9xWc3pSvbefXto0THrNdDbKyRhNm9vjAxAx33wdHkEUT5C3uXve6H1lmojqNrlYOgs-6me2kmTo1JBBWaSu_y32tmjpWmNtk232dacNJINzZa9dR8ZflGwJiswg3vNiUQ/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsB512aJAomM9xWc3pSvbefXto0THrNdDbKyRhNm9vjAxAx33wdHkEUT5C3uXve6H1lmojqNrlYOgs-6me2kmTo1JBBWaSu_y32tmjpWmNtk232dacNJINzZa9dR8ZflGwJiswg3vNiUQ/s400/2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Style is also an extremely important part of this film, which also has to do with the film's soundtrack. From the black suits to the cars that are driven, these sorts of details matter to Tarantino and add to the film and its mythology. Small things from an old cereal brand to a scene specifically dealing with details needing to be remembered, Tarantino breaths his film with real people, real things, and real attention while also juxtaposing it with stringing moments of movie moments, movie situations, and movie awareness. The soundtrack adds to the style, featuring "super sounds of the seventies," which acts as soundtrack dissonance when mixed with violent moments. Above all, the soundtrack makes the whole thing a lot more cool/awesome while being a homage to older films from the 1950's and '70's. Homage is something Tarantino probably loves more than anything else, being a film buff first and a film maker second.<br />
<br />
<i> Reservoir Dogs</i> ranks as a classic crime film, as well as a classic independent film. The performances are top notch, the writing is top notch, the action is entertaining and also realistic. The soundtrack is classic and the dialogue is incredibly memorable and quotable. When it all ends, we are left with a sad scene of a heist gone awry, with a sad sort of ending that cuts to end credits featuring a song that gives off the opposite feelings that the film's end has provided. <i>Reservoir Dogs</i> isn't there to make us laugh (although there's plenty of laughs to go around) as much as it is there to tell a story about a group of criminals who get involved in something bad when it was supposed to have worked out all right. It's like an excellent crime novel that leaves you floored with its characters, situations, action, and understanding. When the end credits roll, I don't have any realization, I don't have any sort of feeling that I've learned something new or that I am emotionally effected (although that's possible). More than anything, I sit back, take it in, and enjoy what has been witnessed, revel in its greatness, and above all, feel satisfyingly entertained, even inspired. I wish I could put it into better words, but in all honesty, for something as simply done as this, I can't. It just is.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-62905506111368736652012-10-01T23:36:00.004-04:002012-10-01T23:36:54.057-04:00Rope (1948)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYyEJoljqSn_wX4f5-EAj1OQbuxCWHwl8RYzm7jB7J-ngJYWBOyoj7S6rBWqiEiBZLzymQdWs75EaOQvk_hACgCedErqKBykVxJNRTeLnwQFcamLTLtpc-xj9cuVItWaSxhNFBLuEiKcU/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYyEJoljqSn_wX4f5-EAj1OQbuxCWHwl8RYzm7jB7J-ngJYWBOyoj7S6rBWqiEiBZLzymQdWs75EaOQvk_hACgCedErqKBykVxJNRTeLnwQFcamLTLtpc-xj9cuVItWaSxhNFBLuEiKcU/s320/1.jpg" width="217" /></a></div>
<br />
Alfred Hitchock's <i>Rope</i> (adapted from the play by Patrick Hamilton) is particularly famous for one special novelty: the use of long takes with little to no editing, making it appear as though the film is shown in one long continuous shot. While the film has a few cuts here and there, the way the film is shot happens to be only the second most impressive thing in the film; the other thing is the acting. The stellar performances and the camera continually rolling (for the most part) compliment each other in a way that is almost always reserved exclusively for the stage. Indeed, given that it's based off a play, this film acts like one completely, featuring one setting during its entirety and taking place in real time. It also features minimal music and relies only on the dialogue of its actors, as well as the ever growing tension that permeates throughout the course of the film.<br />
<br />
The film's plot is fairly simple: It starts with the murder of David Kently, strangled with a rope by Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Philip Morgan (Farley Granger). The reason why they kill David is not explained immediately but becomes clear during the course of the film. As it turns out, they're hosting a cock tail party the same day they kill David, but as one will find out, all this was intentional and carefully planned. I won't go into much detail, since explaining any more will spoil the film and its surprises. We see that the character's motivations seem to stem from various things, from possible jealousy to simply the thrill of taking the life of another individual. The characters of Brandon and Philip (played phenomenally by both Dall and Granger) are so different from one another it almost seems like it was meant to be that these two would concoct such a heinous act together.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXeBm4w6w1nD2GzywcygIja9RZqU58Wjg5djT0D_lAcdKMDvuR2dfrRO4GB0y3st-Y0ViL3H_S8r1OR7Jy63OWqEs7guVm2OoacnXwFfo6U1NmiL7BT0jv2wsaReXurl0xK9LxTmBCXG4/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXeBm4w6w1nD2GzywcygIja9RZqU58Wjg5djT0D_lAcdKMDvuR2dfrRO4GB0y3st-Y0ViL3H_S8r1OR7Jy63OWqEs7guVm2OoacnXwFfo6U1NmiL7BT0jv2wsaReXurl0xK9LxTmBCXG4/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
However, the actor who gets top billing here is James Stewart, playing the former head master of Brandon and Philip, Rupert Cadell. Brandon believes that of all people, Rupert would be the one to understand his reasoning behind murdering David. Stewart's character is incredibly important and unique and his acting is also top notch, with his best scene being the final monologue he delivers at the film's end. Stewart's trademark dialect also makes its appearance and actually adds to his character in a way I didn't think possible (although in a way, his dialect always adds to whatever character he plays to some degree).<br />
<br />
The rest of the actors do an excellent job, but the standouts are without a doubt Dall and Granger. The character of Philip is such a nervous wreak throughout while Brandon is so smug and proud of what he's done he can't hide his excitement. His explanation for murder and his reasoning for doing what he does is so convincing and evil it's more than just thrilling in itself to witness; it's outright disturbing. To see Philip go from concerned to just completely losing it is also something wonderful to behold. The suspense attached to the possibility of anyone knowing what these two have done is another thrill the film does expertly and it wouldn't be half as exciting if not for the fine performances taking us through this nerve shattering event.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwB1G4pZGcYKjf9cS4vYxHa12qC11Lv2cbabQtwLVzMVLfEHF003XB-3VqN-MvOoKnX1kG0bGM10egDnVU9fhtr6JxSvoIybZ058kJaw3n9FAt4w93IYLNLFIDQIZQjK4lwk1w19yEjK0/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwB1G4pZGcYKjf9cS4vYxHa12qC11Lv2cbabQtwLVzMVLfEHF003XB-3VqN-MvOoKnX1kG0bGM10egDnVU9fhtr6JxSvoIybZ058kJaw3n9FAt4w93IYLNLFIDQIZQjK4lwk1w19yEjK0/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Without a doubt in my mind, <i>Rope</i> is one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. As a film in general, it is also one of the best I've ever seen, packed with amazing performances and stellar camera effects that keep us on the edge wondering what will happen next. It may not be the most known film out there, but it's most definitely worth at least one viewing. And if you've already seen it, why not see it again, for thrill's sake?Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-34257994423234300982012-09-29T21:38:00.001-04:002012-11-15T21:32:33.264-05:00Looper (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRdK-7hiokmsMv1yhZxn9TGaMgAVnXCVAV9F1d2o2jE0T2FZOM_x76P5ZB3XZxfJuRqrCIUXeIsLXnE3QM_wGoqSOd_YmXynUvsfpIkNKfaP7Q1ICnPS9BOHGlenOHwqmQwcEmruVnH4E/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRdK-7hiokmsMv1yhZxn9TGaMgAVnXCVAV9F1d2o2jE0T2FZOM_x76P5ZB3XZxfJuRqrCIUXeIsLXnE3QM_wGoqSOd_YmXynUvsfpIkNKfaP7Q1ICnPS9BOHGlenOHwqmQwcEmruVnH4E/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<i> Looper</i> is not your typical sci-fi film. It isn't your typical time travel film. It isn't a typical film at all. It isn't conventional, mainstream, or what you'd expect. It stars Bruce Willis and Joseph-Gordon Levitt, both playing the character of Joe (Levitt is the younger version were as Willis is the older). The third feature film from director Rian Johnson (<i>Brick</i>, <i>The Brothers Bloom</i>), <i>Looper</i> takes the science fiction genre and gives it a fresh spin, using an original premise with excellent acting, shots, effects, and script.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Joe is a looper, a hit man who kills people from the future in his present (the year is 2044). Time travel gets invented in the future and is outlawed immediately, so the mob uses it to dispose of people. Joe does his work gladly and understands the price that comes with this sort of job. During a regular hit, Joe's kill doesn't arrive on time, but when he eventually does, it turns out to be future Joe. From this point on, <i>Looper</i> becomes a chase, morality, and philosophical tale about sacrifice and the way things end up in circles, with plenty of violent action to keep you on the edge. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1LQz73GgOKHh9stCwIH69lpeH38eu4SwOF1i6Iuv10mORatRY0kSlCDhGvCPM7uxUq6dx0tcU_cRzmgKZ4JfSZxFvfykyfbEwA2d3vyC0U4qFS4j68p0kynTZhZACfjkJ5y8z8Z42fBc/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1LQz73GgOKHh9stCwIH69lpeH38eu4SwOF1i6Iuv10mORatRY0kSlCDhGvCPM7uxUq6dx0tcU_cRzmgKZ4JfSZxFvfykyfbEwA2d3vyC0U4qFS4j68p0kynTZhZACfjkJ5y8z8Z42fBc/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The visuals and sound in <i>Looper</i> are all top notch. The film has the look of a modestly budgeted picture, with practical effects (for the most part) and unique shots (camera shaking, tilting, panning, etc.), giving it an old fashioned look and feel. There tends to be a nice amount of care in the details, from Joe's apartment, to the diner he frequents. It may not be much to the average viewer, but it's something that I noticed and shows up throughout the film's entirety. These details could range from the machine in Joe's room that plays music, to the color of the cigarettes his girlfriend smokes. The details are not too much to fully distract us; they exist to show us how life is in this future, how things work, and how people live.</div>
<div>
<br />
Speaking of people, the actors are all great. Special mention to Paul Dano for his small but memorable role as Joe's best friend and Jeff Daniels as Joe's boss (who essentially becomes a scene stealer in almost every scene he's in). Emily Blunt is also in this film and has a very active role towards the latter half of the film. Her performance really surprised me, but not as much as the performance of Pierce Gagnon, who plays the child of Blunt's character, Sara. Without giving anything away, Gagnon (as Cid) does an incredible and convincing job as a young boy who is a lot more than what he seems. Another special mention goes out to Willis, who doesn't play the usual wise guy this time around. Levitt and Willis channel and embrace the roles they are given (which is technically the same role), with Levitt really channeling Willis and Willis playing his role as seriously as can be. Older/Future Joe is such a dark character, that whatever preconceptions you may have of him at the beginning will change by the film's end. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhOFzB_omzQR2uZMAfLoHqAhOiBGzrlYN11f1rB_zGsqnxr2gsk_DTxe8AR1V76_Y4M51pffpF1QEKXkjlidJr7Y7zk71nRoJgaIoiSNWV6c4DxNvCxXykYp1v0TPPv_5PcxYFad-yH5k/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhOFzB_omzQR2uZMAfLoHqAhOiBGzrlYN11f1rB_zGsqnxr2gsk_DTxe8AR1V76_Y4M51pffpF1QEKXkjlidJr7Y7zk71nRoJgaIoiSNWV6c4DxNvCxXykYp1v0TPPv_5PcxYFad-yH5k/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Speaking of the end (which I won't speak about), <i>Looper</i> doesn't end the way you might think. The easiest way to put it is that <i>Looper</i> has an unexpected ending. Much of what Looper does can be considered unexpected, as well as unconventional. The film does not glorify anything and there are certainly no heroes to be found. The film also plays with the dynamic of time travel very well without getting too deep into the subject (the film outright lets the audience know that it isn't going to go into it). While the film can be simple, it isn't structured in simplicity. When time travel is dealt with, things get tricky, things get complex, and things get philosophical. While one can get many themes out of the movie, I think the two themes that remain constant and understanding are choice and cycle. We all have the power to choose and make things different, regardless of what someone says about the future. We also have the choice to do good and bad things, and sometimes we do the wrong things because we think we're doing them for the right reasons. And as for cycle, well, everything goes in a loop (no pun intended). The final line in the film seems to sum up the main points and ideas presented in the film (or at least put a more significant layer onto the film) by emphasizing the last theme presented in the film: sacrifice. With choice comes sacrifice, and these things tend to go in a cycle. But that's just one interpretation. </div>
Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-27042358507307549592012-06-05T00:23:00.000-04:002012-06-05T00:23:52.625-04:00Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)<i>"We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold." </i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLULYY2Fswu3oQDohQSFzg2nN4GjvcI_94OXCmh0WuzDqc3a2xkjB_yHhd5VTAhKQ7YXTggKndeLxip39v5kzgpkhnydNnDrBiM0IP6q_ATNykgaP_KPJC4pZuaJWykF34ci9Q7UVFlec/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLULYY2Fswu3oQDohQSFzg2nN4GjvcI_94OXCmh0WuzDqc3a2xkjB_yHhd5VTAhKQ7YXTggKndeLxip39v5kzgpkhnydNnDrBiM0IP6q_ATNykgaP_KPJC4pZuaJWykF34ci9Q7UVFlec/s320/1.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
<br />
Based on the book by Hunter S. Thompson (first published in the 1971 November issues of Rolling Stone magazine), <i>Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas</i> is a hilarious and savage look at the death of the American Dream. Although, it could just as easily be a movie about two whack job's doing all kinds of drugs on a weekend trip to Las Vegas, with no point to it at all.<br /><br /> <i>Fear and Loathing</i> is a movie that you will either love or hate. It took me a second viewing to fully appreciate its brilliance, which is hidden under a swarm of lunacy, hallucinations, and strange behavior. It's a movie that many people have loved, as well as hated. It's polarized many critics, audiences, and just about anyone lucky/unfortunate enough to stumble upon it. It's not an easy trip to take, but as Raoul Duke says, "Buy the ticket, take the ride."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrTFqX5F8f077piQntw6ZuL7y3Ono-gLO5EWixt5zVZ4YnGvBOT4fE5f5n8aS_-_NPPmulN_PeRKrdU0sX7-dZMR42L04tqT1eGwo2hcu70r2bIIMuM2XAW6h-DCyarKSiHbIN1U4mQ4/s1600/Bats!.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnrTFqX5F8f077piQntw6ZuL7y3Ono-gLO5EWixt5zVZ4YnGvBOT4fE5f5n8aS_-_NPPmulN_PeRKrdU0sX7-dZMR42L04tqT1eGwo2hcu70r2bIIMuM2XAW6h-DCyarKSiHbIN1U4mQ4/s320/Bats!.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Directed by the one and only Terry Gilliam, the film stars Johnny Depp as Raoul Duke, AKA Hunter S. Thompson, and Benicio Del Toro as his attorney, Dr. Gonzo. The plot is arguably non existent, as it has our protagonists covering a race, gambling, taking all kinds of drugs, covering a DEA convention, wrecking convertibles, etc. etc. The amount of things that happen in this movie is so insurmountable the film cannot even show us all of it. Duke himself can't seem to remember half of it, for that matter. Speaking of Duke, Depp narrates over the film as Thompson, who is essentially Duke, since Duke is Thompson's alter ego. His narration keeps all the pieces together (your mileage may vary), explaining the situations, explaining his philosophy, questioning why he's in Vegas in the first place, etc. Most of the time the narration is commenting on the events conspiring on screen, but twice in the film, Thompson monologues about the failed Love Generation, the reason it failed, and so on. It's at these points the film shows its heart most, showing us that all the behavior we see is a result of a failed attempt to promote peace and love (as well as hide from the gruesome beast that is reality) with LSD and marijuana in a time of Vietnam and Richard Nixon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTlzXlbusL7tmYj2RJqU9eKOlfKEGEhRKDmsRB5n3Yls34UMEO3arWwq9dPxv4rMUhJtMwq09AqmblLbVK6gfL8pWtU8TQzu7vbGA7M9B-Sbl6JICrnrQBWWHGIP_e-69kbhl8QLQLvSk/s1600/Parking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTlzXlbusL7tmYj2RJqU9eKOlfKEGEhRKDmsRB5n3Yls34UMEO3arWwq9dPxv4rMUhJtMwq09AqmblLbVK6gfL8pWtU8TQzu7vbGA7M9B-Sbl6JICrnrQBWWHGIP_e-69kbhl8QLQLvSk/s320/Parking.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The cast also includes many guest stars, which I refuse to list because 1) It's unnecessary and 2) It'll ruin the surprise for those who don't know. The cinematography by Nicola Pecorini is excellent, while Gilliam's directing matches the cinematography in terms of brilliance. Just about everything from the art direction, to the costumes, to the set design is excellent. Visually, the film is incredibly excellent. The soundtrack is phenomenal, using music from Big Brother & the Holding Company, Tom Jones, The Youngbloods, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones and so on to great effect. The score by Ray Cooper, which shows its face every so often, is also excellent, manifesting the fear and loathing (and paranoia) into music.<br />
<br />
When all is said and done, <i>Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas</i> is better left experienced than explained. It's a film that should be watched by anyone with an open mind, and with an understanding that they will either hate or love this film. And if they hate it, they should re-watch it. And if they love it, they should re-watch it. <i>Fear and Loathing</i> is definitely a film that gets better with repeated viewings, which may be required for some to fully understand all that is happening (or at least some of what is happening). It's a comedy that isn't funny, a dark look at what we all strive for, a portrait of America at its worst, and a metaphor so vast that it might take you some time to fully conceive what you just witnessed. Indeed, this film is not for everyone, not for the faint of heart. But if you decide to take the trip, then may the Lord be on your side, and may you fully get something out of the experience, be it positive or negative. For there is no other film, story, trip, or metaphor quite like the one Thompson experienced and the one Gilliam concocted for the screen. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF6u1fi7LnljXAhoNjXi5FX6doK-YtpOOuFiczUUXun4D_oEdqsCqOpGKnCfx1lsQTNd2T3iDG2fACTm8oZd16-KbMtFZz-ukAvJjzh0cy0MlHHleCITgAM5ZPxuxpg3ZxqleAW7RVRPo/s1600/Fear+&+Loathing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF6u1fi7LnljXAhoNjXi5FX6doK-YtpOOuFiczUUXun4D_oEdqsCqOpGKnCfx1lsQTNd2T3iDG2fACTm8oZd16-KbMtFZz-ukAvJjzh0cy0MlHHleCITgAM5ZPxuxpg3ZxqleAW7RVRPo/s320/Fear+&+Loathing.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>"There was only one road back to L.A. - U.S. Interstate 15. Just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker and Barstow and Berdoo. Then onto the Hollywood Freeway, and straight on into frantic oblivion. Safety. Obscurity. Just another freak, in the freak kingdom." </i>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-75244872464224949462012-04-30T13:47:00.000-04:002012-04-30T13:47:24.528-04:00Shorts (2009)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-i_xlWSDyQlk5aGGwCsEx8sfq_70Qp9RDcalu4sBVJiZPPyPKOVsTIIoFGyxMSbB9f0XKLKGz46i1I7jxXWZ7qOMwLcSXO_sFGg6OM7-JPUV5QRoNL082t0_S7R9T1D1d_TeIYudU0c/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM-i_xlWSDyQlk5aGGwCsEx8sfq_70Qp9RDcalu4sBVJiZPPyPKOVsTIIoFGyxMSbB9f0XKLKGz46i1I7jxXWZ7qOMwLcSXO_sFGg6OM7-JPUV5QRoNL082t0_S7R9T1D1d_TeIYudU0c/s320/1.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
Film maker Robert Rodriguez is known for making family-friendly flicks as well as violent adults-only movies. His family films are always super family friendly and full of fantasy. <i>Shorts</i> (also known as <i>Shorts: The Adventures of the Wishing Rock</i> and <i>Shorts: A Not-So-Tall Tale</i>) is arguably his most original idea. The film is full of fantasy, adventure, humor, comedy, and life lessons. The film didn't make a huge impact when originally released and yielded mixed reviews from critics. It's a shame, but in a way, Shorts seemed destined for obscurity: it's too awesome for it's own good.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOEr_nJI-YNiGEnZ5qOksAeFbaJez_nnWHx2K90t-q93aauAaKODY8LKNHiOP9HpoTwavdCzC7nPM-MlzBaiRPtyy8RkC5YAVA7vjfwRtTae7_xswQnOXhHi_v0jzkrW6lno5wrxFulGA/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOEr_nJI-YNiGEnZ5qOksAeFbaJez_nnWHx2K90t-q93aauAaKODY8LKNHiOP9HpoTwavdCzC7nPM-MlzBaiRPtyy8RkC5YAVA7vjfwRtTae7_xswQnOXhHi_v0jzkrW6lno5wrxFulGA/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The film stars a variety of actors, from Jon Cryer, to Leslie Mann, to William H. Macy, to Kat Dennings, to James Spader. Of course, those are the adult actors, when the film really belongs to the kids: Jimmy Bennett, Jolie Vanier, Devon Gearhart, Trevor Gagnon, and Jake Short among other names that may not be familiar. All the actors, young and old, do a fantastic job without being annoying or even exaggerated. If I could name any stand outs, I think I'd name Jolie Vanier (who had apparently never done a film before) as Helvetica Black as excellent and Trevor Gagnon as the hilarious Loogie Short, but that doesn't seem fair since every actor does an equally great job in their respective roles.<br />
<br />
Wait, I haven't even gotten to the story.<br />
<br />
Toby Thompson (Jimmy Bennett) is our narrator and lives in the community known as Black Falls, which manufactures the Black Box, a black box that can do just about anything (I mean this literally). The boss, Mr. Black (James Spader) heads the whole operation and wants this thing in every home. I thought the whole Black Box idea was extremely clever, since in today's society all we do is play with black boxes that claim to do anything. The film definitely makes a mockery of the suburban subculture many of us endure, poking fun at said black boxes, TV, video games, relationships, school, and so on. It also makes fun of our self-fish attitudes and ignorance towards certain things, such as what's really important and what really matters.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQnV2obQ2xxIqHNBbdEPcRpnIqSbRYodtjNX-PLC0D5hvLvipYopMijOGaiVMDzGRTaPXHm-PgjS3fo5rS97jbRWUJcGmy-_O_44tJeBDuVeL1uXoDtzsrqg2Ooe4TKD509Hxmd_AiJJI/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQnV2obQ2xxIqHNBbdEPcRpnIqSbRYodtjNX-PLC0D5hvLvipYopMijOGaiVMDzGRTaPXHm-PgjS3fo5rS97jbRWUJcGmy-_O_44tJeBDuVeL1uXoDtzsrqg2Ooe4TKD509Hxmd_AiJJI/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Of course, at the center of all these lessons and jokes is the Wishing Rock, a rainbow colored rock that, when held, can grant you any wish imaginable. And I do mean any wish, even if it doesn't go quite the way you wanted it to. The rock manages to teach many lessons to its users as it passes through a variety of adventures, but not everyone who uses it learns something out of it (Toby's older sister Stacey played by Kat Dennings is one of these characters). As expected in family movie lore, the adults are the ones who can't control the rock properly where as the kids know better (or at least some of them do or at least their intentions are good). Also as expected, small quips of "I wish..." often lead to crazy results that lead to hilarity which then also lead to life lessons. This whole movie is wrapped in life lessons that I couldn't help but nod and agree to.<br />
<br />
The style of the movie is what probably stands out most. Due to the narrator being slightly confused and unreliable, the film is not told in order and is instead told in series of shorts (get it?), fast forwards and all. Something that struck me as strange was how the film began -- or better said, how it didn't begin. The movie is divided into five episodes, but before the movie actually starts, we see episode zero, which consists of two siblings (Cambell Westmoreland and Zoe Webb) competing in a never ending blinking contest. Does this ever affect the plot? Does it have anything to do with the plot? (I'll give you hint: Not really.) Needless to say, the short short known as episode zero gives the audience a good idea of what kind of movie they're about to watch. The music is also excellent, right from the opening logos establishing a cool but menacing tone that echos those family friendly movies that themselves have a bit of darkness in them. However, the film it self is no where near dark (not if you don't count the Black family), so the soundtrack ends up merely sounding very awesome as opposed to menacing, which I think was the point. I think the movie being silly and ridiculous was also the point, since the movie has an extremely care free and fun attitude about everything it does, save for those aforementioned life lessons.<br />
<br />
What stood out most for me was the movie's humor. Normally, family films for kids have terribly lame humor that makes me cringe uncontrollably. No, <i>Shorts</i> is extremely witty and clever, but that not only has to do with the script but the actors too. Many times, it's the actors that make a line great or horrendous, and just as many times, young children screw things up. Rodriguez is lucky that his young actors don't, if you'll pardon the phrase, suck at acting. The actors themselves might be what makes the movie as funny and fun as it is.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIcmzm7yNWSJ1mQ76-42QzZKH9vhDinK_Ymt1qkXhV9kuarG0dWCS7PggKm0PcYqmuo4WaFCw5v-lClfHsj9QmRu_wdgva-RbIYHKMJsIV1OzOVcwkeWXVLZwAbzmFrr2JQ9bLUrm5edo/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIcmzm7yNWSJ1mQ76-42QzZKH9vhDinK_Ymt1qkXhV9kuarG0dWCS7PggKm0PcYqmuo4WaFCw5v-lClfHsj9QmRu_wdgva-RbIYHKMJsIV1OzOVcwkeWXVLZwAbzmFrr2JQ9bLUrm5edo/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Other things of note: Did I mention this movie is funny? Well it is. It's also colorful and fun. I would recommend it greatly to just about anyone. Seriously, anyone could watch this movie and (hopefully) enjoy it in some aspect or other...or they could hate it. Either way, there isn't anything in <i>Shorts</i> that I find bad enough that I couldn't recommend it to literally anyone (although, that last episode could have been handled better, but it's alright). In short (O I'm so clever), while it's not perfect (one of the many themes the movie mocks), <i>Shorts</i> is an excellent family film that can be enjoyed by anyone for it's unique presentation, clever humor, comedy, and life lessons that never seem to get old. As an added bonus, there's social commentary that pokes fun at modern suburbia and its inhabitants. So what're you waiting for? Give this over looked Rainbow Rock it's wish.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-49150900205380149512012-04-15T21:20:00.000-04:002012-05-23T19:55:14.309-04:00Bottle Rocket (1996)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy84FFf0JiykfAfyFWka9h_uND2z0jNj59iQFtzeRym88IFYQj17ReZWpZbs3gX0ky65lJkgguBuPS31fYztWOlyMP8apfwHExXnDHV9peyBy7_uLZC3V2F44KW3SnVaIQ9Ai4bYLvNE4/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy84FFf0JiykfAfyFWka9h_uND2z0jNj59iQFtzeRym88IFYQj17ReZWpZbs3gX0ky65lJkgguBuPS31fYztWOlyMP8apfwHExXnDHV9peyBy7_uLZC3V2F44KW3SnVaIQ9Ai4bYLvNE4/s320/1.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<br />
In 1992, Wes Anderson made a short film called <i>Bottle Rocket</i> starring his old college room mate Owen Wilson and his brother Luke Wilson. In 1994, Anderson's short film was shown at Sundance. In 1996, the feature length version of this short film was released to theaters to terrible box office results but great critical acclaim. It was Anderson's, Owen's, and Luke's feature film debut, and was the start of a unique and fantastic career for one of America's greatest filmmakers. It was also, of course, the launching pad for the Wilson brothers.<br />
<br />
The film stars Luke Wilson as Anthony Adams, a man who's checking him self out of a mental institution (he checked in for "exhaustion") and is ready to get back out into the world with his friend Dignan, played by Owen Wilson. Dignan is the kind of man who acts like <i>he</i> should be in a mental institution: he has a strange personality but an optimistic attitude, and is extremely meticulous when it comes to just about anything and everything. Both these characters plan to be big time thieves (for whatever reason) and Dignan's the man with the plan(s); they decide, with the help of their rich friend Bob Mapplethorpe (played by Robert Musgrave), to rob a bookstore, get out of town, and go on the lam. After the heat cools down, Dignan plans to call an old employer of his, Mr. Henry (played by James Caan), who is apparently a great thief himself, so they can work with him. This is the basic premise of the film, but it goes through some notable changes.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUMpiEg97ltRy3j8jOupsjLcVev60UsWqR0HPr5OsZRU_142mSVMHTztENVNtml2cuKoyF21EFZNXwjWMQhppP_fP5JthS07b11JiB4GIj-wJV1TSLDNTYx0-ntenaeTZYS2kB-M4OAA/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheUMpiEg97ltRy3j8jOupsjLcVev60UsWqR0HPr5OsZRU_142mSVMHTztENVNtml2cuKoyF21EFZNXwjWMQhppP_fP5JthS07b11JiB4GIj-wJV1TSLDNTYx0-ntenaeTZYS2kB-M4OAA/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The acting involved is surprisingly excellent by everyone (even Shea Fowler as Anthony's sister is terrific). The man who steals the show (unsurprisingly) is O. Wilson and Dignan, who just has so much energy and charisma. Luke plays it cool while Robert plays it nervous. The Wilson's older brother Andrew even gets a role in this film as Bob's older brother (known as Future Man). Lumi Cavazos plays Inez, Anthony's love interest, who is very sweet and believable in her role. As for Caan, he is really fun as Mr. Henry.<br />
<br />
Even though it's only his first film, the trademarks Anderson would use in his later films are apparent or alluded to in <i>Bottle Rocket</i>: excellent dialogue, ever changing plot, primary colors, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson, Kumar Pallana, slow-mo endings, smoking, close-ups on writings or objects, rich people, hour-and-a-half running time, The Rolling Stones, etc. Another trademark is Mark Mothersbaugh as composer; his soundtrack for the film is excellent, using very few instruments to deliver a unique sound. The film is also presented in a 1.85:1 matted widescreen, a film ratio Anderson would rarely revisit in his later films (this was, after all, his first movie). On that note, it's incredibly fascinating to see that a major studio (Columbia Pictures) released this film, featuring (then) unknown actors and a film director with a B.A. in Philosophy. Then again, this was a Gracie Films production, and the short film could've made a huge impression on the producers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIQL-uaiv-ZmZV9QzhpQRdRoHvsgXEdvInn878IHQ3qv4DBor_o7NE8_gCzXhd7ap9cDjT1MeJiS-YWD2Ps6uoMAvzw7EN1k0IGL8nXrLtYZWkiowaESJdz0ksvFbss87JlzlogOuidI/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIQL-uaiv-ZmZV9QzhpQRdRoHvsgXEdvInn878IHQ3qv4DBor_o7NE8_gCzXhd7ap9cDjT1MeJiS-YWD2Ps6uoMAvzw7EN1k0IGL8nXrLtYZWkiowaESJdz0ksvFbss87JlzlogOuidI/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Something I'd like to note are the colors in this film. As previously stated, primary colors are one of Anderson's biggest trademarks, and they play a huge role in establishing this film's tone. When the film first begins, everything is very bright, with the colors all being noticeable, even if they aren't particularly primary. As the film goes on, the colors and the brightness begin to fade, and by the time we are at the final scene, the colors have faded and are no longer bright as they were at the start of the film. In that sense, the colors and brightness express the film's tone, which arguably goes from optimistic to melancholy. Another thing to note is the film's editing, which is much quicker and urgent then it would be in Anderson's later films; however, the film benefits greatly from its fast editing.<br />
<br />
<i> Bottle Rocket</i> is an excellent film from everyone involved, never mind that it was Anderson and the Wilson's debut feature. It's a movie that has continued to stay unique over the years while maintaining appeal and originality. It has plenty of the signature Anderson touches audiences would come to love and features excellent performances from the cast - especially Owen, which would foreshadow his career in movies. From the music to the scenery, from the direction to the dialogue, from the characters to the editing, <i>Bottle Rocket</i> is a great example of film making at its most pure and basic.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-89468786648087001842012-03-11T14:34:00.001-04:002012-03-11T14:55:30.676-04:00Constantine (2005)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqWXMlPap-LWsW86RtMvpjHm2rL-v6kNcQfe6t9P2mTjKTnmSn3xCxkEsXXg3BUvoXo785JWW2V8qXZn4b1WU7hTveU3o7KAtCY_u4Ep7JG8McXdrjC7xpbmGjXaqKW44jL8QftUVmWgg/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqWXMlPap-LWsW86RtMvpjHm2rL-v6kNcQfe6t9P2mTjKTnmSn3xCxkEsXXg3BUvoXo785JWW2V8qXZn4b1WU7hTveU3o7KAtCY_u4Ep7JG8McXdrjC7xpbmGjXaqKW44jL8QftUVmWgg/s320/5.jpg" width="216" /></a></div><br />
Released in early 2005, <i>Constantine</i> (based on the DC/Vertigo comics series Hellblazer) stars Keanu Reeves as John Constantine, a man who is able to see half-demons and half-angels in their true form. The film was directed by Francis Lawrence and also stars Rachel Weisz, Shia LaBeouf, Djumon Hounsou, Max Baker, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Gavin Rossdale, Tilda Swinton, and Peter Stormare. <br />
<br />
The plot concerns the death of Isabel Dodson, Angela Dodson's (Weisz) twin sister. Ruled a suicide, she refuses to accept this conclusion and seeks to find answers. She eventually ends up at the doorstep of John Constantine (Reeves), a chain-smoking, demon-hunting cynic who has problems of his own. He decides to help her, seeing that she's in more danger than she or he would have ever assumed. The dynamic between the two actors is very enjoyable and very well done. Weisz plays her role convincingly, as does LaBeouf as Constantine's sidekick Chas. Hounsou does a great job in the role of "Papa" Midnite, a type of witch doctor who stays neutral in the fight against Heaven and Hell (he also runs a bar where half-demons and half-angels hang out). Baker and Rossdale have very (very) enjoyable roles, with Stormare being the standout co-star as the-one-and-only Satan. There is also, of course, Swinton who plays the androgynous archangel Gabriel; she doesn't get a lot of screen time, so all I can really say is: she does a pretty good job, so no real complaints to bring up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMKbgphWWXlnVoTGWE1NZ3PX3ky9KZSew4WpqxOwOBYZeddz5IZf03fqO7-o7jNOw88ZFUmox0RnaMQPkOfkAg5ND2PSp4tuw1lxtsOMAdr1mNKBkvWbQyiEZxYOfVkgISzlOcPK_zlss/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMKbgphWWXlnVoTGWE1NZ3PX3ky9KZSew4WpqxOwOBYZeddz5IZf03fqO7-o7jNOw88ZFUmox0RnaMQPkOfkAg5ND2PSp4tuw1lxtsOMAdr1mNKBkvWbQyiEZxYOfVkgISzlOcPK_zlss/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
However, the one actor who impressed me most and entertained me most was Reeves himself. I always think that a guy in a coat and tie (who smokes cigarettes, no less) is pretty bad ass, but Reeves actually makes this character his own. Plenty of people think Reeves is anything but a decent actor, but in <i>Constantine</i>, he really puts himself in the role of a guy who's lost all faith in things involving Heaven and Hell. His attitude and personality are all done with ease and naturalism, making the performance the highlight/standout of this whole movie. The Keanu who has the accent and mannerisms of a pot head surfer where no where to be found in this film, and I was all the more pleased for it. The role of John Constantine requires a seriousness and sense of humor that Reeves manages to balance like a professional.<br />
<br />
This was Francis Lawrence's debut feature film, and he does an incredible job. The camera angles and movements are all done very, very well. Being shot and shown in anamorphic, Lawrence knows how to utilize his widescreen for moments of spectacle, intimacy, and general space. The visual effects are really good, not succumbing to the ol' I-know-it's-CGI problem I tend to personally have when I see a film that uses CGI frequently; sure, I might know it's CGI or whatever, but in <i>Constantine</i> I was pleasantly impressed and pleased with what I saw, sometimes wondering how they pulled off some of the effects. Something else to note is the score: it's nothing special, but works well in the context of the film -- but like I said, nothing special (sorry to say). However, just because it's "nothing special" doesn't mean it isn't good or doesn't fit the film's mood; it's just not memorable is all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilovTYLGb_IWHcHtx6VsGLuC8wRAsQ5nObbuEgnDJwE3gtT71XzAKPWNAFdfqJOTLXlMXT5rqXDmGrGItd12BTFI8KXvQ2TTHpbkKspEpAJchFvxX-WNLRZieu8B828B1ozy6Yqf5FJ4g/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilovTYLGb_IWHcHtx6VsGLuC8wRAsQ5nObbuEgnDJwE3gtT71XzAKPWNAFdfqJOTLXlMXT5rqXDmGrGItd12BTFI8KXvQ2TTHpbkKspEpAJchFvxX-WNLRZieu8B828B1ozy6Yqf5FJ4g/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<i> Constantine</i> succeeds in being a nice hybrid of horror and action, while also throwing in some interesting religious info, practices, and cool action scenes, as well as some great demonic set pieces. The acting is great by all involved, with Reeves and Stormare being the standouts. The effects and direction are great as well, with only the score being less than impressive. <i>Constantine</i> is no where near perfect or excellent, but it still manages to be fun and entertaining on different levels, and should definitely be taken for what it is: a (silly) fantasy movie and not merely a comic book adaption. In my opinion, Reeve's performance is what really makes this movie good and worth seeing. <br />
<br />
It is called <i>Constantine</i> after all.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-89215046305405461272012-02-04T10:30:00.000-05:002012-02-04T10:30:05.294-05:00The Descendants (2011)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpToo1eV8_7NuU7x5J2bkT_a_Jg-kvpuApw3V8pewXKZBRv-pMV5XIYmPO0Gx3OHvwWS0U3qk3hRSAUrY3BGN_w-caK4Ajvbypm0sxM8Uuv8245mCsZFO3qi-im4FuKifXyL0d4JbfYrw/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpToo1eV8_7NuU7x5J2bkT_a_Jg-kvpuApw3V8pewXKZBRv-pMV5XIYmPO0Gx3OHvwWS0U3qk3hRSAUrY3BGN_w-caK4Ajvbypm0sxM8Uuv8245mCsZFO3qi-im4FuKifXyL0d4JbfYrw/s320/1.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><div><br />
</div> The main thing that attracted me to the Alexander Payne directed film <i>The Descendants</i> (based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings) was the cinematography. Indeed, the cinematography in the this film is fantastic: from sandy beaches to high mountains, we are shown Hawaii (the film's setting) in all its natural brilliance. However, when the film ended, the thing I thought of most was the one thing I cared least about: George Clooney. In <i>The Descendants</i>, Clooney plays Matt King, a real estate lawyer/land baron whose wife is in a coma after suffering a boating accident. During this time, he is only days a way from making his biggest real estate deal -- one that involves land that he has been in-trusted with. He also has to deal with his youngest daughter Scottie (Amara Miller) and oldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley). <div><br />
</div><div> This is the only film I know (in recent memory) that, during the course of the film, I eventually liked characters that I initially disliked. That's because the characters happen to be complex and realistic; so realistic, in fact, I truly believed them - every single one. Every actor and actress in this film is on top of their game, no matter how small the role. Highlights include Robert Forster as King's wife's father, Beau Bridges as Cousin Hugh (one of the many cousins King has in this film), Matthew Lillard as Brian Speer, and Judy Greer as Speer's wife Julie. One character that impressed me was Sid, played by Nick Krause; initially, his character came off as stupid, but as the film went on, we got to know him a bit more and see who he really is (or, at least who he claims himself to really be). It's a terrific example of one of the things this film did phenomenally. In addition to that, I was able to understand the characters, understand why they felt a certain way, why they acted a certain way, and why I would initially dismiss of them. All of them have layers, all of them are more then what they initially seem, and whether or not they themselves reveal the layers, we as an audience are able to see them at some point or another. </div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeTKdJw4UPjxB0yrFMXCZCsl8iW7N3A1bmE3N530v229dDMrQspUTUXv2Vww1BcQxUXiMtkbU2DahfLU2x4bU0yudM5SNsG3hwaOkmnOUl3STRPeiIy2Yf5yWGUgG8YGhyKpEpXtLR5o/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbeTKdJw4UPjxB0yrFMXCZCsl8iW7N3A1bmE3N530v229dDMrQspUTUXv2Vww1BcQxUXiMtkbU2DahfLU2x4bU0yudM5SNsG3hwaOkmnOUl3STRPeiIy2Yf5yWGUgG8YGhyKpEpXtLR5o/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div> The other big highlight of this film is, of course, the scenery. The film shows off Hawaii in a non-exploitative fashion, showing us what's really there and not trying to pretty it up (which in turn, makes it all the more beautiful). We see the city how it is (just a city) and we see the world as it truly is (without color saturation). The thing shown the most (in terms of scenery) are mountains, fields, and beaches. The mountains and beaches are all fantastic, but the fields (like the land in-trusted to the King family) is breathtaking. The anamorphic widescreen used in the film really allows the camera to do plenty of close-ups, as well as wide shots of Hawaii's vast geography. On a simple note, seeing people dress like (as King would say it) "bums" (Hawaiian shirts and shorts) is enjoyable, given they all live on a tropical island and it would be expected, but it ends up looking more natural and realistic than one might expect. And that's probably the film's biggest accomplishment: making realistic characters. Characters I can believe in, that I care about. It's always a vast triumph to make your audience truly and honestly care for the characters they see on the screen. </div><div><br />
</div><div> Which brings me to what is arguably the film's most important point and its general selling point: Clooney. I like George Clooney a lot, but I didn't see <i>The Descendants</i> because he was in it. Truth be told, I didn't care he was in it. But then I saw his performance. What I saw wasn't George Clooney: what I saw was Matt King, a man who is having the hardest time of his life trying to cope with all that is happening around him. Never would I have thought that Clooney could completely convince me that he could act this good. What makes it is what makes every other character: naturalism. King is a completely human and understandable character, who's actions and motivations are realistic and honest. He also sees everything that happens: the whole movie takes place from his perspective, essentially. Because of this, we are able to see the different sides of every character, the different emotions King experiences (laughter not being one of them), and understand him better than anyone else. By the film's end, King is a real person, a person I know in real life, a person I know and love. King reminded me of my father, and that never happens while I watch a film. While he isn't exactly like my father, King shares realistic qualities that I can relate to real people. But it isn't just King: every character (or at least every main character) in this film reminds me of someone in real life - it doesn't matter if I can name the person or not, the point is these characters are human and real because I've seen their qualities in other people before. I always see these qualities because these qualities are not fictional; nothing the characters do in this film are things that only happen "in the movies." </div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNh2CCivobWm7gQGQ6S9q2upmqFeEl_nexZm-8sBg2Vz7kououkMtJBuxqeXAXUsrhsMo5JRlC9ZBNzI7eqlqaNK_2LaTDwcY498fvSp9KhoURYVTa_N43JcM83h4V4H6JCYMcCnLhTrk/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNh2CCivobWm7gQGQ6S9q2upmqFeEl_nexZm-8sBg2Vz7kououkMtJBuxqeXAXUsrhsMo5JRlC9ZBNzI7eqlqaNK_2LaTDwcY498fvSp9KhoURYVTa_N43JcM83h4V4H6JCYMcCnLhTrk/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div> Ultimately, what brings <i>The Descendants</i> home is it's message of loyalty. King has many responsibilities, and he stays loyal to each and everyone (or at least he tries). It's the loyalty and honor that make King who he is; it's what makes his daughter's respect him; it's what we as an audience admire most. Every character in this film has something to say that's important, and every character is an important piece to the overall picture. <i>The Descendants</i> tells a story that can resonate with all of us and it makes us care without even trying. It has moments of pain and moments of laughter - but there are two adjectives that describe this movie best. The first adjective is melancholic, for it is the one thing this movie wallows in throughout. The second adjective is beautiful, for it is the main thing this movie proves it self to be. </div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-30032462218666948282012-01-12T23:59:00.000-05:002012-01-12T23:59:06.184-05:00Scream 3 (2000)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6QOwKXyC_vHapSgWkn_WqlUYIdtWV2ug3cSRhsqRsIiWJib4gYxgAripSRREl5hlU4VFm3itsVx4xET2yVvTM3ql7-6t4MX9uK2pecviupxdUmpD2x1VgjJsEMF9tYLc42izAy9ZHSEw/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6QOwKXyC_vHapSgWkn_WqlUYIdtWV2ug3cSRhsqRsIiWJib4gYxgAripSRREl5hlU4VFm3itsVx4xET2yVvTM3ql7-6t4MX9uK2pecviupxdUmpD2x1VgjJsEMF9tYLc42izAy9ZHSEw/s320/1.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><br />
Released in February of 2000, <i>Scream 3</i> is the third installment in the <i>Scream</i> film series and the final installment in the <i>Scream</i> "trilogy," wrapping up the story that began in <i>Scream</i>. As expected, it was directed by Wes Craven, but not written by Kevin Williamson; it was instead written by Ehren Kruger. This was due to Williamson being unavalible to write a full script for the new movie; what he did, instead, was write a 20 to 30 page outline that was used to aid Kruger in re-writing the script. This change in writers is where <i>3</i>'s biggest flaw comes into play: the script - it's just not as good as the first two's. However, this doesn't mean <i>Scream 3</i> is a terrible movie (as some may have you believe); while the violence and gore is toned down a bit, the scares are still there and the comedy is as abundant as ever. But it wouldn't be a <i>Scream</i> movie without self aware humor, satire, and subverted cliches.<br />
<br />
The film (apparently) takes place three years after the events of the second film. The setting has once again changed, this time to Hollywood, CA. where <i>Stab 3</i> is being filmed (and believe me, <i>Stab 3</i> is very important to the film's plot). The plot involves Ghostface, once again terrorizing people and trying to kill Sidney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell), only this time he's leaving clues that relate to Sidney's deceased mother. To say anymore would be to spoil a surprisingly great plot with a twist that'll have you in shock.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg220ovp6ZQOaV-IhcMUKmJuUIBdzL4VKXg768cCs5d-6ju3D_jWstKHbb7eIRKr_scAxjV8TqttJiNEaaqdjT7xUTslZIA6_kuYkhrX3mm6AlAJ4Z9HLXesHbipIxnlyYEp1TPoOpyGyI/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg220ovp6ZQOaV-IhcMUKmJuUIBdzL4VKXg768cCs5d-6ju3D_jWstKHbb7eIRKr_scAxjV8TqttJiNEaaqdjT7xUTslZIA6_kuYkhrX3mm6AlAJ4Z9HLXesHbipIxnlyYEp1TPoOpyGyI/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The main cast that survived <i>Scream 2</i> are here again: Neve Campbell (who I like more and more as the series goes on) as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, and Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary (though, he only shows up in the opening scene). New faces include: Patrick Dempsey as Detective Mark Kincaid, Scott Foley as Roman Bridger, Lance Henriksen as John Milton, Deon Richmond as Tyson Fox, Matt Keeslar as Tom Prinze, Jenny McCarthy (in an extremely minor role, similar to Sarah Michelle Gellar's minor role in <i>Scream 2</i>) as Sarah Darling, Emily Mortimer (very cute) as Angelina Tyler, Parker Posey as the annoying but amusing Jennifer Jolie, and Patrick Warburton as Steven Stone, Jennifer's security guard. <i>Scream 3</i> also has more cameos this time around (probably due to the Hollywood setting), which include Jay & Silent Bob, Carrie Fisher, Kelly Rutherford (as Cotton's girlfriend), and Heather Matarazzo (as Randy's sister). There's even a special guest appearance by Jamie Kennedy as Randy, who let's us in on the rules that govern the final installment of a trilogy. And, as it should be, everyone in the film does a great (or good) job.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOHwh6JlDBjt9TU6m0WKn9Mah7bd0oehF-UnSkqqnlAdCuGiuWrzhIUNG4h2b0Ha7QDuqO9x2A1Iu-f6iJzpzmbMz6jAQfT8DN3XTax7c4UTYfPVOLpDcf6P4Q-_qM5v9A_bTgAi3Amic/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOHwh6JlDBjt9TU6m0WKn9Mah7bd0oehF-UnSkqqnlAdCuGiuWrzhIUNG4h2b0Ha7QDuqO9x2A1Iu-f6iJzpzmbMz6jAQfT8DN3XTax7c4UTYfPVOLpDcf6P4Q-_qM5v9A_bTgAi3Amic/s320/3.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The presentation is once again great: the sound, the cinematography, the anamorphic widescreen, it's all good. The scares were really great too; I found myself caring more and more about these characters as the film's progressed, so by this point I was really scared when a character I really liked was attacked (even though most of the cast in this movie is new to the series). As I mentioned before, the violence and gore in <i>3</i> is toned down a bit, but not too much, so there's still plenty of great death scenes and chase sequences. Marco Beltrami's score is at its best here, being more haunting and moody then ever before.<br />
<br />
The one thing I really want to talk about is <i>3</i>'s script. As far as story is concerned, it's actually really good, but as far as dialogue and characterization is concerned, it has issues. The story genuinely entertained me, keeping my interest throughout. Some of the dialogue, and its delivery, was either a little silly or awkward at times. In fact, this seems to be <i>Scream 3</i>'s other biggest flaw: it's too silly. From some of the acting to some of the events that occur, <i>3</i> has more then its share fair of silly moments. But of course, there are plenty of good things in <i>3</i>, too; I really liked the psychological aspect of the story (which I won't reveal) and the film's self aware humor is still around, flaunting it self wherever it can.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMwY9jvgZQxbLmCOS2cq0Nha7eooYXQSXLGaY94yv1qxVVfGrO94ebzwo3FxA2mxK_7ficgCgBl7Y939b6toV8CT93QcGTCjD9iza4LCxzCQZiD2i7F2Dw8W8fVttEJHp8hrpIDTAAWE/s1600/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBMwY9jvgZQxbLmCOS2cq0Nha7eooYXQSXLGaY94yv1qxVVfGrO94ebzwo3FxA2mxK_7ficgCgBl7Y939b6toV8CT93QcGTCjD9iza4LCxzCQZiD2i7F2Dw8W8fVttEJHp8hrpIDTAAWE/s320/6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Things of note: <i>Scream 3</i> never seems to mention the events of <i>Scream 2</i>, making it almost seem as though <i>Scream 2</i> either A) Never happened or B) Happened a long time ago (which, given the film's three year gap between <i>2</i>, makes some amount of sense). This isn't anything too unusual, however, since certain trilogies do do this, so I was okay with it. Sidney's character doesn't show up as much this time around, so we get to see more of the new cast and the love-hate chemistry between Dewey and Gale (which is never really boring). I really liked the new characters (especially Dempsey) and they all seemed to be varied enough to warrant different types of personalities; the one thing most of the new cast has in common, however, is that most of them either play actors or movie makers. The blend of reality and fantasy doesn't seem to be too apparent this time around, but the film is just as self aware as ever, so I would still say the film plays around with reality and fantasy to some degree.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXDOj4FLzme78lceZ69Q7meIWn3aI_5jk3_5I8gukL62xJG4TXcYFQUstdf_wq_KON6JS4Cs_OXLKTjqdsnx08aL3V9TD3pYaMHgq0UG_dsMQ4p5Hue0_sqyGqcqwHYo89e1q-SjDI6w/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXDOj4FLzme78lceZ69Q7meIWn3aI_5jk3_5I8gukL62xJG4TXcYFQUstdf_wq_KON6JS4Cs_OXLKTjqdsnx08aL3V9TD3pYaMHgq0UG_dsMQ4p5Hue0_sqyGqcqwHYo89e1q-SjDI6w/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
While it isn't as good as its predecessors, <i>Scream 3</i> still manages to deliver wonderful scares, great performances, comedic self aware satire, and an excellent conclusion to the "trilogy." If nothing else, <i>Scream 3</i> is terrific entertainment that just aims to be fun and enjoyable. But probably the most rewarding thing about <i>Scream 3</i> is that it reminded me of what the <i>Scream</i> franchise really is: a series of slasher movies, with a touch of satire.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-75243309952356952932012-01-11T23:52:00.003-05:002012-01-12T01:05:04.043-05:00Scream 2 (1997)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj423Q89CQ66FdtxoniDex40yOjIddrRoWjXFz5eD-k8Mfui0ztMG3RuKdB9LeIpPGM2JbYnU8QjNo6MArdxrhs39f1v42USphr1m6XPilx_oYU11j2ErL72KoKUyFX0qGlpPM8D0q1l3g/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj423Q89CQ66FdtxoniDex40yOjIddrRoWjXFz5eD-k8Mfui0ztMG3RuKdB9LeIpPGM2JbYnU8QjNo6MArdxrhs39f1v42USphr1m6XPilx_oYU11j2ErL72KoKUyFX0qGlpPM8D0q1l3g/s320/1.jpg" width="242" /></a></div><br />
Directed by Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson, <i>Scream 2</i> is (obviously) the sequel to the hit slasher film <i>Scream</i>. <i>Scream 2</i> was released only a year after <i>Scream</i> was released, but the film (apparently) takes place two years after the events of the first film. It stars most of the original main cast: Neve Campbell once again as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, Jamie Kennedy as the film geek Randy, and Courteney Cox as the ever snoopy for a story Gale Weathers. The comedy and scares are balanced extremely well the second time around and the film manages to be more entertaining and interesting than the first.<br />
<br />
The film's story is similar to the first: a killer is on the loose. However, the setting has changed to a college campus and town (which is something I really liked) and the movie, and it's characters, are well aware that this is a "sequel." The self aware humor is one of the things that made <i>Scream</i> so great and it's in full bloom, once again, in <i>Scream 2</i>. Right from the opening scene (a preview screening for <i>Stab</i>, a movie based on the events of the first movie), the film is all too aware that it's a sequel. Of course, this is mentioned by the characters, who reference the new killings as a sequel to the first killings. It's all done way too well and I enjoyed every second of the self aware attitude this film proudly flaunted. But of course, as I saw in the first film, <i>Scream 2</i> is serious and scary when it needs to be. Ghostface feels more threatening here, but he's/she's also shown to be even more clumsy and amateur then in the first film; this asserts the realism that was seen in the first film. The death scenes are excellent and even more frightening this time around; the editing is also better and the score is as good as always (although snippets of scores by Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman are also used). Craven's use of anamorphic widescreen is put to better use in <i>2</i>, as we see him really take advantage of the space he has for some of the more important scenes. On another note, I only saw one tipped-to-an-angle shot this time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg67pBi5jnfL50lKXoYQXu0GFEfFXqkfEilKd8s6fzksMMBQpJhk7VqJYyMdOvB5W4Z68NgTvKMPz_K6s2dO0dq4Yw8Gi4wesLvyaHNJEDUSRXztvHWNug_vfIa5fmsNv2RcXv14Dte90Y/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg67pBi5jnfL50lKXoYQXu0GFEfFXqkfEilKd8s6fzksMMBQpJhk7VqJYyMdOvB5W4Z68NgTvKMPz_K6s2dO0dq4Yw8Gi4wesLvyaHNJEDUSRXztvHWNug_vfIa5fmsNv2RcXv14Dte90Y/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The returning cast is as great as always, but there are some new faces: Jada Pinkett (Smith) shows up in the opening scene, Timmy Olyphant plays Mickey (a friend of Randy's who is dating Sidney's roommate), Elise Neal plays Sidney's roommate Hallie, Jerry O'Connell plays Sidney's college boyfriend Derek, Duane Martin plays Joel (Gale's new cameraman), and Liev Schreiber returns to play Cotton Weary, the man who was originally accused of having killed Sidney's mother in <i>Scream</i>. Schreiber's appearance in this film surprised me; I remember him being in <i>Scream</i> for about 10 seconds, but his role in this film is much, much bigger - he even gets semi-top billing in the film's cast credits (but so did Pinkett). Since I'm already a fan of his, I really enjoyed his performance in this film - but of course, his performance (as well as everyone else's) was great regardless. The film also has a couple cameos: Heather Graham plays the <i>Stab</i> version of Casey from the first film, and Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Cici, a sober sorority girl.<br />
<br />
Things of note: I really loved the fact that anyone in this sequel could be a victim; but of course, I'll keep the details of that to a minimum. The blend of realism and fantasy is spot on once more, with some really good social commentary thrown in; this is a satire, after all. The chemistry between Dewey and Gale is ever so fun and sweet to watch, having only gotten a small taste of it in the first film. Kennedy plays Randy just as good as he did in <i>Scream</i>, and he even lets us in on the rules that govern a sequel. I didn't fall in love with the climax this time around (like I did with <i>Scream</i>), but it was still great with a twist I didn't see coming; I also thought the ending was better than the first film's. It seems that everything that I thought was (merely) good in <i>Scream</i> was great in <i>Scream 2</i>, which also means that whatever I thought was good in <i>2</i> was done better in <i>Scream</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL4AGemvQgwb6ArcExGw2tNnK-9bTwBlA5zeC5-T_cT2XP4ToyEEDFbbl0S0v7NRCXbiH5MxaobNJgafenMHrzJxuKM-jiGOKv10o_bGfFvIDIvRILGi2DN29cHjGPBUtiVqzsmHZUbLg/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL4AGemvQgwb6ArcExGw2tNnK-9bTwBlA5zeC5-T_cT2XP4ToyEEDFbbl0S0v7NRCXbiH5MxaobNJgafenMHrzJxuKM-jiGOKv10o_bGfFvIDIvRILGi2DN29cHjGPBUtiVqzsmHZUbLg/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<i> Scream 2</i> manages to out do the original by simply being a better overall movie. The self awareness, comedy, and satire are all excellent, the subverted cliches are as great as always, and the performances are even more enjoyable than before; but <i>2</i> also manages to be scarier and more violent then its predecessor. It proves it self to be more then just a great slasher movie, but a great movie in general.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-84087224017471094442012-01-10T23:02:00.000-05:002012-01-10T23:02:03.790-05:00Scream (1996)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs4Ai8jRZilUrvCqPljDOA7CaStpDGxW01CEozoUKnlpAVP0YAsZ-m2MIziK6aVRL_LLPNtTRSFSUJybLmTkyU2Ru1atxWY6QyZIv1mG5c8vpLrSvccNqI6uTFMWdwlKMnw92w8o7JlCs/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs4Ai8jRZilUrvCqPljDOA7CaStpDGxW01CEozoUKnlpAVP0YAsZ-m2MIziK6aVRL_LLPNtTRSFSUJybLmTkyU2Ru1atxWY6QyZIv1mG5c8vpLrSvccNqI6uTFMWdwlKMnw92w8o7JlCs/s320/2.jpg" width="220" /></a></div><br />
Released in December of 1996, the Kevin Williamson penned and Wes Craven directed <i>Scream</i> is truly a unique piece of horror. It attempts and succeeds in satirizing and subverting slasher films and their cliches. However, in this process, it creates a film that is smarter than you might think and a whole lot funnier then you would have expected. The film might be known as a horror comedy but it does have plenty of genuine scares and surprises, all the while playing it straight and joking around.<br />
<br />
The story goes like this: a killer is on the loose in a small town. That's pretty much it. There is some exposition, but I'll be the last to spoil it for you. The film's cast of characters is surprisingly lovable (as opposed to likable): Neve Campbell plays Sidney, the main protagonist; Skeet Ulrich plays Sidney's boyfriend Billy; Rose McGowan plays Sidney's (extremely) attractive best friend Tatum, who is dating Stuart (played phenomenally by Matthew Lillard); Jamie Kennedy plays Randy, a movie geek who lets everyone know the rules of horror flicks; David Arquette plays Tatum's older brother Dewey, a deputy in town; Drew Barrymore plays Casey, one of first victims who only shows up in one scene, although, it's probably the most famous scene in the whole movie; rounding out the main cast is Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, a nosy reporter who is also a local celebrity. The acting done by this cast is varied and enjoyable, with the highlight going straight to Lillard (for all the right reasons).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3hhchSbGfNSNKgPf4a4vR7IKQouM6G0eSn0zvcLY2zEbixMTe6za3SOMxi8tRmBgQ2jk0kd7L6WD6MZTWc6RiXTKBcYb3n2pfeiHofV2pR2ApAy1NWc9c1iFqDc-Gc4ld4Lki-xHwDMM/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3hhchSbGfNSNKgPf4a4vR7IKQouM6G0eSn0zvcLY2zEbixMTe6za3SOMxi8tRmBgQ2jk0kd7L6WD6MZTWc6RiXTKBcYb3n2pfeiHofV2pR2ApAy1NWc9c1iFqDc-Gc4ld4Lki-xHwDMM/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The presentation is spot on, with Craven's trademark anamoprhic widescreen in check. The editing is really great too, and the film has a handful of scenes that are tipped to an angle, making it proto-modern if you ask me. The scenes featuring violence are also handled very well, and the deaths themselves are great (for the most part). <br />
<br />
Things of note: The film's most famous quality is its villain, Ghostface. Ghostface acts more like an entity then an actual person with a knife and the film plays with this idea cleverly and expertly. Whenever Ghost appeared on screen, I was on the edge of my seat and scared like everyone in the movie. However, the film also manages to be something else: hilarious. There are so many funny scenes in <i>Scream</i> but there's no way I'll reveal what they are. Another thing <i>Scream</i> managed to do was have a scene that completely elevated it from being a good movie to a great movie, and that scene is the climax. The biggest twist is revealed during the climax and I cannot tell you how hard I was laughing during this scene; although, the scene it self wasn't exactly funny, but it is arguable the scene is funny in a dark sense. The film's score (by Marco Beltrami) is also worthy of mentioning, maintaining the haunting and self aware attitude the film goes by. There's also some obligatory '90s songs thrown in, but that's okay. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7PemBxkjv812wlx0U6xbyJ8maakEAfzTGxfNf2-J_KKHNFpRs5XYcRZmRhbvhwrUzApb-0HZrLY9zdFaf71gOH3IyIrjYhp0MTvPQ5cFG_ILyM3ta5ICDFWYWYBW45DYmu8-XfWUFjmM/s1600/4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7PemBxkjv812wlx0U6xbyJ8maakEAfzTGxfNf2-J_KKHNFpRs5XYcRZmRhbvhwrUzApb-0HZrLY9zdFaf71gOH3IyIrjYhp0MTvPQ5cFG_ILyM3ta5ICDFWYWYBW45DYmu8-XfWUFjmM/s320/4.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Two things I loved in this film were the sense of realism and fantasy throughout. This is probably one of the most realistic films I've ever seen, in terms of characterization. I completely believed all of the character's emotions, behavior, and actions as genuine and real; that feat alone is something to admire. The idea of using an easily available costume to terrorize people is also one of the film's strong points in establishing a realistic setting. Ironically, though, the film also lives in a world of fantasy - like the ones in the movies. Plot points and the subverted cliches help establish this film in a movie world that is self aware of all the cliches and plot points. The blend of realism and fantasy make this film all the more enjoyable to watch (and re-watch).<br />
<br />
<i> Scream</i> was a breath of fresh air at the time of its release and still is today in the twenty-first century. It's a funny and scary movie that satirizes the slasher genre by subverting the cliches and surprising you at every available opportunity, all the while making you wonder: Who's really the killer? It succeeds in turning the slasher genre on its head and making a mockery of it, while giving the audience some great twists that make it more then just an average horror flick. But in the end, that's exactly what <i>Scream</i> is: an easily mock-able slasher film.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-73212877916477566672011-11-23T23:01:00.000-05:002011-11-23T23:01:51.182-05:00The Muppets (2011)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAoCpnY2CkbR2yEiTEi-UtftzTxxCkvUJumeieknmiIW3xWSQz7UjWfg8jHLuQP0Bcb_BbcozQVrakfAJdoUw1gGZqxDB_EWBWiq1qPbwlgudk3BMHAxvIMPTgaeRXU4KoqAvfwdcc414/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAoCpnY2CkbR2yEiTEi-UtftzTxxCkvUJumeieknmiIW3xWSQz7UjWfg8jHLuQP0Bcb_BbcozQVrakfAJdoUw1gGZqxDB_EWBWiq1qPbwlgudk3BMHAxvIMPTgaeRXU4KoqAvfwdcc414/s320/1.jpg" width="215" /></a></div><br />
Years have passed, but the good ol' Muppet gang is back for a big screen show like never before. Probably what makes this Muppet movie so different is its self-aware attitude, and I must say, it's the best self-aware movie I've ever seen. As for the movie overall, if it isn't excellent, it sure as hell is fantastic. With great and hilarious performances from Jason Segel (who co-wrote the film), Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, and of course, the Muppets, <i>The Muppets</i> succeeds in making us believe in magic and optimism all over again and putting a huge smile on our faces.<br />
<br />
The story concerns Walter, the brother of Gary (Jason Segel); Walter is technically a Muppet, but the movie doesn't directly state this. He's been a fan of the Muppets nearly all his life, so when his brother tells him they're going to Los Angeles, Walter is ecstatic to see the old Muppet Studios. Once there, they realize it's pretty much run down and is to be taken over by a rich oil tycoon by the name of Richman (Chris Cooper). Walter decides to reach out to Kermit the Frog and the other Muppets to raise the appropriate funds to save the studio. All the characters in this film are great: Peter Linz voices Walter, an energetic character and a great addition to the Muppet cast; Segel is terrific as Gary, who's heart is always in the right place; Amy Adams plays Gary's girlfriend (of ten years) Mary, who is absolutely cool and adorable at the same time; Chris Cooper couldn't be funnier and more awesome as Richman; and all of the Muppets (Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, etc. etc.) are at the top of their game (for the most part, anyway). What's great is that every character gets their time to shine, which is something I really appreciated - plus, there are a ton of awesome cameos. My favorite characters, of course, are Statler and Waldorf, the two old Muppets who are always cracking jokes; each of their scenes is gold.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyHa5GmX0vAQDbiEfhQLIuz8YSsrp9QEkNokzJl1BEsTaCMaHIFxSOkcReC-xj9X5x69gjB1M2y5IN3PrRQ4twES-sMCwGDfvlhspV4IUEHNOsDRVWbk_DFDbFyfSWgwrlQA0NyOFsewA/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyHa5GmX0vAQDbiEfhQLIuz8YSsrp9QEkNokzJl1BEsTaCMaHIFxSOkcReC-xj9X5x69gjB1M2y5IN3PrRQ4twES-sMCwGDfvlhspV4IUEHNOsDRVWbk_DFDbFyfSWgwrlQA0NyOFsewA/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Something that's note worthy are the effects. The Muppets look excellent and are as believable as they can be in a movie about Muppets. There are also musical numbers, which should be expected from a Muppets movie, but anywho: each of these musical numbers turns out being wonderful in some way or the other. And of course, this movie would be nothing without its jokes, but don't expect me to tell you what they are - there are too many to count anyway. Just be alert that this film's full of them and there's a high chance you'll laugh at each one (hopefully).<br />
<br />
Regardless of what you may think before or after the show's over, whether you grew up with these characters or don't even know who they are, <i>The Muppets </i>is guaranteed to put a smile on your face and keep you happy and optimistic the whole way through. It features great performances from all involved and leaves you with a wonderful attitude. In a world where cynicism and negativity reign, it's extremely nice for a movie like this to come along and show us that sometimes all we need to do is believe in ourselves and keep smiling. Movies like <i>The Muppets</i> need to come out more often.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-34209598087725598642011-11-09T13:38:00.000-05:002011-11-09T13:38:51.759-05:00Superman II (1980)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6r4fencu1N6LlaClv8HXpnZ_llflliAcMJrfWc7ZzPNfItLRJkiu5Rb4lFSGNxyJOKbDfrQ9o-vHsCiPl_K3Iq736Rt3MklFVy168vbCMn6GtGpjEQZfOU8UAHmQ_6nogjQ47pPFKfbU/s1600/II.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6r4fencu1N6LlaClv8HXpnZ_llflliAcMJrfWc7ZzPNfItLRJkiu5Rb4lFSGNxyJOKbDfrQ9o-vHsCiPl_K3Iq736Rt3MklFVy168vbCMn6GtGpjEQZfOU8UAHmQ_6nogjQ47pPFKfbU/s320/II.jpg" width="212" /></a></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><i> Superman</i> and <i>Superman II</i> were originally to be filmed back-to-back, but ultimately, production on <i>II</i> was halted to complete <i>Superman</i>. Once it was completed and a success, the crew went back to finish <i>II</i>. However, Richard Donner, the director of the first film, was not asked to finish the film (that job went to Richard Lester); the reasons vary, but the main reason seems to be creative differences. At this time, Donner had already filmed what he says was 75% of the film, so what ended up happening was Lester re-filmed certain scenes and changed up some stuff, which led to the film being, technically, co-directed, with 65-75% of the film being shot by Lester and the reaming being done originally by Donner. To this day there is still controversy on the whole thing. Donner's true vision was never shown to the public until him and some of the crew restored and made <i>Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut</i> in 2006. Regardless of the controversy and problems, <i>Superman II</i> was a big hit with fans and critics alike, with some saying it surpasses the original. <div><br />
</div><div> Indeed, <i>Superman II</i> manages to be better than its predecessor - as a movie, anyway. What I mean to say is this: <i>Superman</i> had a better story but <i>Superman II</i> was a better movie overall. Much of this has to do with the fact that <i>Superman II</i> is really a continuation and conclusion (of sorts) to the story that began in <i>Superman</i>. The film stars everyone who was important in the first film (except Marlon Brando) and the cast do an excellent job again. While some characters don't get as much spotlight as they did in the first film (Lex Luthor, Perry White) the film makes up for it (and makes you forget about it) with three characters that first appeared in the original: General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran). These three are the main villains of the movie and are the best part of <i>Superman II</i>. But what would <i>Superman II</i> be without the Man of Steel himself? Christopher Reeve returns, being just as great as he was in the first one and Margot Kidder also returns as Lois Lane, who is much more likable this time around.</div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGsQctO59507oZ0LDGdmLm1XtUDieLHoxgk4IAyvVqE0lzzdMre6KpApf31S4WkqOuAh2xvEhgGpiK1n6CYsdbf20XSQtHebFoRBncpbnE16Ojqzz07pyjgB4m33NUQUCtEcoC6cGRNfw/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGsQctO59507oZ0LDGdmLm1XtUDieLHoxgk4IAyvVqE0lzzdMre6KpApf31S4WkqOuAh2xvEhgGpiK1n6CYsdbf20XSQtHebFoRBncpbnE16Ojqzz07pyjgB4m33NUQUCtEcoC6cGRNfw/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div> The story continues from <i>Superman</i>, bringing along with it slight allusions to the story of Christ (Resurrection) and great themes concerning the idea of self-fishness and accepting one's destiny. Like I said, the story isn't as good or as epic as the first film, but it's continuing a story so it's understandable and forgivable, especially when the action makes up for it. That's something <i>Superman II</i> has that <i>Superman</i> didn't seem to have too much of: action.</div><div><br />
</div><div> The bad guys are great and true individuals: Zod is an arrogant egomaniac who keeps telling people to kneel before him and plans to rule the planet Earth (because he can, right?); Ursa is Zod's second in command and she is a sexy and cold foe with moves of her own and an attitude that shows she cares not for human life (her outfit is also the only one of the three that has opened slits on it's arms and legs, revealing her skin, which didn't seem like a surprising choice of style in her costume's design); Non is a brute that is -what else?- mute, but still a force to be reckoned with. The three Kryptonian villains wreak havoc whenever they're around and it's their interactions with Earth and it's people that is, in my opinion, the best part of the movie. Every scene involving them is excellent and arguably their scenes alone can make the film worth watching. As for Superman? He's just as super as ever: saving the day and being the good guy he was born to be. Clark Kent is also just as fantastic, maybe even better than how we was last time, but that's debatable (not to mention a pointless thing to debate). Lois Lane seems to be the most improved here, not being as annoying and being more entertaining. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman, receiving top billing once again) is just as arrogant and hilarious, but like I mentioned before, he isn't in the movie as much (some of his scenes were cut). Even so, he still has scenes that are true highlights (one scene involving him and Ursa is a particular favorite of mine). </div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpflhi1SDFmISo_pB1Fn-0Nl1Pm-e-T9cIXjnC9z7LBqMy6lUMpmGs2pMmBTsYZ_YAX7E3KZ2rWziE2qqADg5jqWus5yi00vsPvzIctqXKr-FatcBz6L2VQ9wexeTf5K3mp7bilS7lOKA/s1600/5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpflhi1SDFmISo_pB1Fn-0Nl1Pm-e-T9cIXjnC9z7LBqMy6lUMpmGs2pMmBTsYZ_YAX7E3KZ2rWziE2qqADg5jqWus5yi00vsPvzIctqXKr-FatcBz6L2VQ9wexeTf5K3mp7bilS7lOKA/s1600/5.JPG" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div> Sadly, I don't have as much to say about this film as I did for the first (probably because it's not as epic and doesn't have as much depth), but I do have some other things to say: The film is a bit shorter than <i>Superman</i>. <i>II</i> also features a main title sequence nearly identical to the first film (with some scenes from the first movie thrown in). The score isn't composed by John Williams this time, but it still features some of his original compositions. Unlike <i>Superman</i>, <i>II</i> doesn't seem to take place in a specific year, but we can only assume it's '79 or '80. The film has plenty of humor but didn't make me laugh as much as the first film did - maybe because I saw it in the morning in a college library as opposed to how I saw the first film: in my house at night with a glass of soda. There's also a scene that I thought was awesome for no reason involving Superman and a cellophane S (you might even know what I'm talking about). Also, Marlboro has its brand shown more than once throughout the film, but is only obnoxious about it in one popular sequence; this is because Marlboro was <i>II</i>'s biggest sponsor. The one scene I found a tad unnecessary involves Zod and Ursa using their blow-wind-from-my-mouth power to blow people and cars away. There's nothing wrong with the scene itself, I just think it went on longer than it had to. Also, it should be mentioned that the special effects in this film are spectacular.</div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvj3TaAwWgVkz6lNetb9oK8yewsWkGQFZkwuI4VBC8ggNdrTUwMXVLJijgzKwr7AU_wcm-RSjr1wv5Dkt2ocSwBLd_LVI-ufYbXkjNkZm431cKkwnxHd9bAZE6SJJ8AzCN-hBzq3qIH1U/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvj3TaAwWgVkz6lNetb9oK8yewsWkGQFZkwuI4VBC8ggNdrTUwMXVLJijgzKwr7AU_wcm-RSjr1wv5Dkt2ocSwBLd_LVI-ufYbXkjNkZm431cKkwnxHd9bAZE6SJJ8AzCN-hBzq3qIH1U/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div><i> Superman II</i> is a film that doesn't so much improve on its predecessor as much as it takes a slightly different approach and makes a better film overall. While the story isn't as grand, the film has more action, more enjoyable characters, a great ending, and terrific dialogue, featuring some of the best quotes I've heard in any movie ("Lex Luthor, ruler of Australia"). The action is great and the romance between Lane and Kent builds up to gather interest (or at least some interest). And even with a less than amazing story, the film still manages to address grand themes of sacrifice and destiny that, if elaborated on in this review, would surly spoil the film. Overall, <i>Superman II</i> is an excellent picture that rivals the original and has still to this day garnered respect and praise by fans and critics alike. </div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-74782686865774492872011-10-31T11:52:00.000-04:002011-10-31T11:52:48.837-04:00House (1977)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCU6xQT8HLdWHf_xCWr6qE4nY-HJQuE439Kjg4YvYa1_PYV9LP2Id_B_Bz2_cg50oKyREPnuOvpvhDYqBZRoE5_L6p2mHoxzZVO4DdqxkutQrZ2-rFSL9WB-swqEW4O435IPy5SZBvWyg/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCU6xQT8HLdWHf_xCWr6qE4nY-HJQuE439Kjg4YvYa1_PYV9LP2Id_B_Bz2_cg50oKyREPnuOvpvhDYqBZRoE5_L6p2mHoxzZVO4DdqxkutQrZ2-rFSL9WB-swqEW4O435IPy5SZBvWyg/s320/2.jpg" width="221" /></a></div><br />
There is absolutely no proper way to describe Nobuhiko Obayashi's <i>House </i>(which retained its English title in its native country of Japan as a way of keeping things "taboo"). An actual review of this film would only consist of a brief plot summary and explanations of the various events that occur during the course of the film's running time. The film was released by Toho, a popular and well known film company in Japan. Toho decided to take a chance with this film, which was partially written by Obayashi and inspired by the imagination of his daughter. It was hated by Japanese critics but a hit with young audiences, so it was quite successful. The film never saw a North American release date until only recently, when Janus Films bought the distribution rights and released it theatrically in 2009; the result was a hit with the midnight-movie crowd and more positive reception from critics, helping this one-of-a-kind film achieve cult status.<br />
<br />
The film's plot concerns a girl and her 6 classmates, each of them going by a nickname: Gorgeous, Sweet, Prof, Fantasy, Mac, Melody, and (my personal favorite) Kung Fu. Gorgeous invites them all to her aunt's house after their initial summer vacation plans don't work out. Once there, weird things start to happen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1D7urqZmjURrCkcBHHWDAYaiNzxYSSOWg1WJ0jV1MRbWx5Z-XKJMqkJwCWKoWVglPoEUo5jR8odcC7XdUsk4zFIiR6Uvg9uR2wi4J3KRmU4OihstW-UAdPAC_ayupKSExUSkWTh3Aqsc/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1D7urqZmjURrCkcBHHWDAYaiNzxYSSOWg1WJ0jV1MRbWx5Z-XKJMqkJwCWKoWVglPoEUo5jR8odcC7XdUsk4zFIiR6Uvg9uR2wi4J3KRmU4OihstW-UAdPAC_ayupKSExUSkWTh3Aqsc/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Majority of this movie takes place in the titular house (or mansion, whatever you wanna call it), but even from the beginning, this movie acts strange. From odd camera styles, to questionable transitions (wipes, fades, those sorts of things), this film lets on early that it's weird. Most of the things that happen have no meaning or anything like that; it's just random. Weird things happen for absolutely no reason -- there are so many bizarre events and occurrences that trying to describe them all or explain them all is pointless, but describing the events can also spoil it for anyone wanting to see this movie. Some highlights that I don't mind mentioning include the cat Blanche (watch out for that cat!), a scene involving pieces of wood, a scene involving large lips, and a scene involving what can only be described as a dance sequence (you'll know it when you see it).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHs5qfH8Ns5mQccVE2xwpELjbg9czHK0ja3SejkxDk-aPXMvR8-tC06kjiDHrd4YUwUkzOhuIEs_IAhWN_s2UtS7YxOKdNImhchc0V2QNEr2evV7XG76Ry-T6cd56mPh71JVYpeLSzYqs/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHs5qfH8Ns5mQccVE2xwpELjbg9czHK0ja3SejkxDk-aPXMvR8-tC06kjiDHrd4YUwUkzOhuIEs_IAhWN_s2UtS7YxOKdNImhchc0V2QNEr2evV7XG76Ry-T6cd56mPh71JVYpeLSzYqs/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
While the plot may seem nonsensical, it apparently has underlying themes on WWII and what not. This mainly has to do with the aunt, but I won't go into it. I'd rather talk about the main characters, because they're pretty interesting and unique. Each of their nicknames reflects them in some way: Gorgeous is seen to be the most beautiful and glamorous of the group; Sweet is, well, the sweetest and probably the cutest of the group, as well as the most innocent; Prof is the brains of the group, wearing glasses and reading at various points during the film; Fantasy is the one who starts to see the odd events before anyone else realizes they exist, so naturally, they say it's her imagination; Mac is always hungry and eating something; Kung Fu is a martial artist and takes the initiative to do things, as well as use her martial arts skills to defend the girls (but she also uses her skills to do other non-lethal stuff). Another character worthy of mentioning is Mr. Togo, who was originally going to take the 6 girls (not including Gorgeous) to some training camp thing, but it didn't work out, so he also got invited to go to Gorgeous's aunt's house. This character doesn't show up very often, but he's extremely humorous and gives, what in my opinion is, the funniest line in the whole movie ("Bananas!"); the line itself may not be too funny, but the way he says it and the context in which he says it makes it hysterical.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div> Overall, <i>House </i>is the craziest movie I've ever seen (<i>Eraserhead</i>, eat your heart out!). It's a film that features intentionally cheesy effects, random background music, unique characters, and a house full of stuff that kills people. I don't know if I'd recommend it to just anyone, but given its odd ball approach and anything goes way of being, I'd say anyone can see it if they want to. There's a few scenes of nudity and gore, but for the most part it's just a silly and (believe it or not) joyous film that only aims to entertain. If you're a fan of midnight movies or Japanese cinema, I definitely recommend it. If you're a fan of movies that make no sense and mess with your head, I highly recommend it. In the end, there is no proper way to review <i>House </i>or explain it; you'll just have to see it for yourself. And if you do decide to see it, be aware that what you're going to see isn't from this planet. </div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-7775164077904450852011-10-30T17:12:00.001-04:002011-11-08T08:13:19.802-05:00Superman (1978)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3jEEk5E1kUss2tW-1SPR2XMXdH-quRiEsoxca5fJwH37oI0BKi761u2hmFem6GyfpraQ3scCivnFadKb80PftoR5KxyV4wShZCnruHuZlB4X1atIB6R5xSIIdyD7CP-rVmTzHM1EI6cs/s1600/8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3jEEk5E1kUss2tW-1SPR2XMXdH-quRiEsoxca5fJwH37oI0BKi761u2hmFem6GyfpraQ3scCivnFadKb80PftoR5KxyV4wShZCnruHuZlB4X1atIB6R5xSIIdyD7CP-rVmTzHM1EI6cs/s1600/8.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Noted as the first superhero film, the one that started the trend, and still noted as one of the best of all time, Richard Donner's <i>Superman </i>(also known as <i>Superman: The</i> <i>Movie</i>, which is more of a marketing title, since it's just called <i>Superman </i>in the credits) is a tale of epic proportions. With a beautifully orchestrated score by John Williams, excellent performances from the cast, amazing special effects (for it's time and even today), and a timeless story who's influence is dabbled in religion and mythology, this film stands head and shoulders above the majority of comic books films.<br />
<br />
Divided into three parts, <i>Superman </i>begins on the planet Krypton, with Jor-El (played wonderfully by Marlon Brando) banishing General Zod (Terence Stamp) and his gang (only two other people) into the Phantom Zone. He later tells the council he's a part of that the planet will be destroyed soon and they will all die if they do not evacuate. Of course, no one listens to him, but Jor-El takes the necessary precautions and sends his infant son Kal-El to the planet Earth, were he will have extraordinary powers, due to Kryptonians being light-years ahead of human beings (or something like that). He sends him in what resembles a star (noted as a Biblical reference), but not before also placing a green crystal in his ship (the ship is made up of white/clear crystals).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXI2g7-MbiN5jeDbmoIPflHgOV7q_F5qYxDro9-kyeI6cFtcLs8qivmzuiK2JeYvGm6CGj56ttS8L6XJSG6Z1sbNVU6EWrRJUdDtkwXpc-yln5itsRs41Giwje5DlyCra4-wajuWBQ3Z4/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXI2g7-MbiN5jeDbmoIPflHgOV7q_F5qYxDro9-kyeI6cFtcLs8qivmzuiK2JeYvGm6CGj56ttS8L6XJSG6Z1sbNVU6EWrRJUdDtkwXpc-yln5itsRs41Giwje5DlyCra4-wajuWBQ3Z4/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The second part has us seeing Clark Kent (played by Jeff East but dubbed by Reeve) as an 18 year old living in Smallville. He wishes he could show everyone his amazing abilities, but of course, he can't, so he's no where near as popular in school as he could be (but Lana Lang takes a liking to him). His Earth father Jonathan (Glenn Ford) and Earth mother Martha (Phyllis Thaxter) are a great influence to him and stay in his heart and mind for the rest of his journey. The green crystal eventually shows it self to Clark in the family barn and he goes off to the North (where there's nothing but ice and glaciers). Once there, he throws the crystal into the distance, and it lands in the ice, changing the land area and forming the Fortress of Solitude. It is here where Clark sees his father in the crystals, and where the answers to his questions are found. After 12 years of learning and training (which we mainly hear and sort of see in a montageesque sequence, featuring excellent dialogue from Brando which still packs a punch and has grand influence today) he sets off to help the world in any way he can in a blue and red outfit.<br />
<br />
The third (and longest) part thus begins with the mild-mannered and bumbling Clark Kent getting a job at the Daily Planet. It's here we meet the characters Jimmy Olson (Marc McClure), hot-tempered boss Perry White (a hilarious Jackie Cooper), and professional, yet prone to misspells, writer Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). While I've already talked about the film's plot (in embarrassing detail), I'll say very little regarding the rest of it. As is expected, a bad guy by the name of Lex Luthor (a hysterical and evil Gene Hackman) comes up with a plan to make the West coast his own by drowning half of California. The people he mainly interacts with are his bumbling henchman Otis (Ned Beatty) and girlfriend Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine). Their interactions with one another are some of my favorite parts in the whole movie; seeing the apathetic Eve deal with Lex's actions and seeing what happens when Otis messes up an order by Lex are always a delight to watch.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdv3MHFbj0_9wMNOVtquUAiLYeabfGPOHlf8i9DUCwlneofXJL3cHJrtb134j9LOvhqgXrl4NqBbo8fwuWI-I-GmRFLO5XFfvT1C-LSlp0jS9NI1DdYujhtQhpqLRp1vjqVt3jwUNXWn0/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdv3MHFbj0_9wMNOVtquUAiLYeabfGPOHlf8i9DUCwlneofXJL3cHJrtb134j9LOvhqgXrl4NqBbo8fwuWI-I-GmRFLO5XFfvT1C-LSlp0jS9NI1DdYujhtQhpqLRp1vjqVt3jwUNXWn0/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The main star of the film (no matter what the main credits and end credits might tell you) is, of course, Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent/Superman. Let it be known, till the end of time, that Reeve <i>is </i>Superman. He's also excellent as Clark Kent, pulling off both personas as if he were born to play the roles. While many actors before and after him have played the part of Clark Kent/Superman, it's no surprise that, even to this day, Reeve is the one most remembered and revered in the role. I have absolutely no problem with seeing different actors interpret the role of an iconic hero in their own way (truth be told, I love it), but I think Reeve will forever be engraved as the Man of Steel. (One reason for this probably has to do with the fact that he played him for all 4 movies, not counting <i>Superman Returns</i>.)<br />
<br />
The rest of the cast (as aforementioned) is great. Just like how Reeve is Superman, Brando <i>is </i>Jor-El (but again, I'm all up for different interpretations by other actors). Brando's Jor-El is so well done and respectable, it's no wonder his quotes and monologues are referenced and mentioned to this day. Margot Kidder does a great job as Lois Lane, a woman who's mainly concerned with work but falls head over heels for Superman. Jackie Cooper as the head boss provides some of the funniest moments in the film. But the main scene stealer is Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, who seems to be having a lot of fun playing an arrogantly intelligent and evil character; you could even say his acting is campy or over-the-top. Either way, it's a great performance and maybe even the best one in the whole movie -- but that's all up to debate.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIANc_LuolVM8r9Z8ASJ8k0-ELTRG-NL-6E1dPtRFOmpGmcEuRvbQibVxfsUbuFymB9On14981UJPGL9UzNu8UN3YY1ZrrBoLW1NO7LhO3NB8qzncOgujcaV5TN6Zfe13gAh1zCz0WEYU/s1600/5.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIANc_LuolVM8r9Z8ASJ8k0-ELTRG-NL-6E1dPtRFOmpGmcEuRvbQibVxfsUbuFymB9On14981UJPGL9UzNu8UN3YY1ZrrBoLW1NO7LhO3NB8qzncOgujcaV5TN6Zfe13gAh1zCz0WEYU/s1600/5.JPG" /></a></div><br />
When it comes to themes, Superman has a lot of them, maybe even too much, so I'm just going to brush over the main ones. The story of Superman parallels with the story of Jesus Christ (as well as Hercules if you want to go that far): a man sends his only son to Earth so that he may find his destiny and do good and help the people of Earth. Jor-El even says some lines that talk about him always being in his son and his son always being in him, further alluding to the Biblical story. Other Biblical allusions include the banishing of Zod and his gang into the Phantom Zone (seen as God banishing Satan out of Heaven) and Kel-El having adoptive parents on Earth who couldn't have a child of their own (alluding to Mary and Joseph). Another thing I'd like to note is that the crest on Superman's outfit (which resembles an S) turns out being the House of El crest (making it the El family crest). This is never directly stated, but apparent in the council scene near the beginning of the movie where Jor-El and his fellow Kryptonians are discussing his doomsday theory; all of the Kryptonians in this scene have different crests on their outfits.<br />
<br />
John William's score (conducted by the London Symphony Orchestra) is amazing, nearly tying for Best Superhero Score Ever with Tim Burton's <i>Batman</i>. Right from the opening main titles (which is easily one of the best main title sequences in motion picture history) the score makes its presence and importance known as credits flash across the screen. The music in <i>Superman </i>is extremely important, since it emphasizes moments that are epic (main titles), romantic (Superman flying with Lois Lane), imminent (Superman facing kryptonite), or inspiring (the last scene of the film).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8LKAmF-c7SbERrHk2eukzbryRai-OL5CKaeLCcH8ZjL97BRrdmDmhwKIT6JXrHxqhgPz0p8CO07KhJsNEe8VfWMYyGWo85swdFNjhw6HgIGrfSaGC9Y6qLXnUAlhvGqT-F3JMzsvPuNw/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8LKAmF-c7SbERrHk2eukzbryRai-OL5CKaeLCcH8ZjL97BRrdmDmhwKIT6JXrHxqhgPz0p8CO07KhJsNEe8VfWMYyGWo85swdFNjhw6HgIGrfSaGC9Y6qLXnUAlhvGqT-F3JMzsvPuNw/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Other things to note: The film happens to take place in a specified year (1978, the year of the film's release), but the movie never out right tells you what it is; you'll have to piece it together (which, I promise you, is not hard to do). Due to it taking place in the late '70s, certain trends of the time show up in some of the scenes containing extras walking the street or hanging around (plain looking clothes and collars popped outside of coats, for example), but somehow, it makes the film look modern as well as retro all at the same time. Those types of things can sometimes bother me, since it can make a film look dated, but in the case of Superman, I didn't care -- especially since it takes place in a specified year (like in the Back to the Future films), which helps the film not look as dated as it could have looked. The special effects in this film were completely innovative at the time and looked amazing back then, but even today, they still look incredible and still hold up. They have a magic charm that I don't think could be replicated today, due to the excess use of CG these days. I sometimes thought Kidder's Lois Lane came off as annoying, but for the most part she came off as a city girl with a strong attitude and state of mind. There's a scene I found particularly amusing and a nod to the old-fashioned style of Superman: When Clark Kent first becomes Superman publicly, he's outside as Clark and needs a place to change; he looks at a phone booth (his most famous and iconic changing place) only to realize it's a lot more modern with no booth surrounding the phone. Something I'd really like to mention is how the film starts up: A white image (old Warner Bros. logo) with accompanied lettering lets us know that Warner Bros. released this movie; I guess since this wasn't a Warner Bros. produced film, they had no reason to display their main logo (the colored badge-looking one) at the start of the film. After that, curtains show up and pull a part a little bit to uncover a 4:3 screen showing us a brief black and white interlude (starting with the words June 1938) talking about the Great Depression and how it affected the Daily Planet. I honestly have no idea what purpose this interlude has, but within the screen between the curtains the film unexpectedly segues into the main titles, and that I must say is really cool. Still, the interlude caught me off guard (was that the intention?) and no matter what explanation I might find that explains it's purpose, I'll still find it oddly unnecessary -- but the terrific segue makes up for it.<br />
<br />
As a piece of pop culture or as a comic book adaption, <i>Superman </i>is an excellent film that transcends its initial superhero genre by telling a timeless tale with class and genuine drama, making it unlike any other superhero movie I've ever seen (although this might have something to do with it being the first real superhero movie ever produced). It has its share of action, romance, danger, and most surprising of all, comedy. The film never takes it self too seriously, but at no point does it become a campy parody. The symbolism, the themes, and the overall lesson and tale <i>Superman </i>weaves, along with its brilliant casting, effects, and music, make this classic film a masterpiece in its own right. Trust me when I tell you that, when you watch this movie, you'll believe a man can fly. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2UmyN1fU4qk553nREbkOKfHFIqaULbJ7jiBOHXBKb51IMkSTSqR7KrzV_uFc_beVCwiYrxIU2s7EN27qmyOiur04NfvXuLLlg-UXvNjpbFjRie10AutwppYdwXoVEk4gNYW9lb4G7wY/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv2UmyN1fU4qk553nREbkOKfHFIqaULbJ7jiBOHXBKb51IMkSTSqR7KrzV_uFc_beVCwiYrxIU2s7EN27qmyOiur04NfvXuLLlg-UXvNjpbFjRie10AutwppYdwXoVEk4gNYW9lb4G7wY/s320/6.png" width="320" /></a></div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-69649426325787138572011-10-23T20:03:00.002-04:002011-10-24T00:25:04.754-04:00Batman (1989)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE0NbbiXNe2abRnVbc9_HBEQmNZ2Vx3ZLkCu_8WWW3_5duue4PSkwJCTGAK4SwyHXLf0_WWQwzZ0mSjKgd5wWtwzUyuSL-yUUl87EmJS4afV_VQNkaVxqQ0jUOIQgv6i2Kln8LG83QTR8/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE0NbbiXNe2abRnVbc9_HBEQmNZ2Vx3ZLkCu_8WWW3_5duue4PSkwJCTGAK4SwyHXLf0_WWQwzZ0mSjKgd5wWtwzUyuSL-yUUl87EmJS4afV_VQNkaVxqQ0jUOIQgv6i2Kln8LG83QTR8/s320/1.jpg" width="208" /></a></div><br />
Before the late '80s, the image most associated with Batman was the one portrayed in the Batman television series from the late 1960s. This was a campy and spoof like version of Batman that actually didn't stay true to what Batman really was or represented. Never the less, the television show was popular (even among Bat fans) and helped the Caped Crusader gain a wider audience. During the '80s, graphic novels such as Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moor's The Killing Joke helped bring back the dark image and themes that were associated with Batman. By the late '80s, Warner Bros. released a film that brought Batman back to his dark roots, with the help of macabre director Tim Burton.<br />
<br />
The result was <i>Batman</i>, a dark and atmospheric film that, for the first time on screen, showed us who the Dark Knight really was. The film was a huge commercial success and garnered, for the most part, positive reviews from critics and fans who applauded the return to a darker Batman while also criticizing a few things here and there. The film stars Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but it's Jack Nicholson who gets top billing (literally) as Jack Napier/The Joker. Other characters and actors include Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, Robert Wuhl as Alexander Knox (the most '80s character in the whole movie), Pat Hingle as Commissiner Gordon, Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent, and of course, Michael Gough as Alfred. The whole cast does a great job, with the ultimate highlight and praise going towards Nicholson and Keaton, respectfully.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1A0n4yAWWQkCXok61iWzzqZmFOnHSW2pgdoBZRY34sn0OLeWWMzRnSOZ6vO4ryuKegsCoz4Wb6MWKwlljS5XoincrRezbLZR9H3It3faRnuKutuXiWyu-zNelJotXOwvN-O_hsgV3mD8/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1A0n4yAWWQkCXok61iWzzqZmFOnHSW2pgdoBZRY34sn0OLeWWMzRnSOZ6vO4ryuKegsCoz4Wb6MWKwlljS5XoincrRezbLZR9H3It3faRnuKutuXiWyu-zNelJotXOwvN-O_hsgV3mD8/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The story is fairly simple: Joker vs. Batman. That's really all that needs to be said. I mean, there's more to it then that, but not only is the story not a strong focus (a negative or positive depending on how you see it) but possible plot points can be revealed if too much of the story is discussed.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things about <i>Batman </i>is that, right at the start, Bruce Wayne is already Batman. I've never seen another superhero movie (that isn't a sequel) have the main character already be the superhero right when it starts (<i>Daredevil</i> and the <i>X-Men </i>films<i> </i>don't count). What this does is establish that in Gotham City, some "bat" or guy in a bat outfit is going around and getting bad guys. Not a bad way to start the movie at all, and it feels a lot more comic book-ish, since most first issue comic books of a superhero already have the protagonist going around being the superhero while establishing an origin story later on. Whether the movie firmly establishes how Bruce becomes Batman might be up to you to decide, but again, I won't go into that. On the other hand, we are shown how Jack Napier becomes the Joker. Nicholson is terrific as the wild and crazy villain who is absolutely unpredictable with a dark sense of humor. I used to think this movie just had Nicholson playing himself, but when I saw the film (and saw it again) I saw that it really was Nicholson playing an insane character while still staying within the confines of reality (to some degree). Some of the my favorite scenes involving him are when he doesn't look like the Joker (but still has his "smile"), like the board meeting with him and some gangsters. One my favorite scenes in the whole movie is when Napier is at a surgeon's place and he sees his reflection in a mirror, breaks the mirror, gets up, and walks out of the place (up stairs), all the while laughing manically. The place where the surgery is done, and the surgeon's character, mixed with the subtle music, the minimal lighting, and Napier's reaction, make it a one of a kind scene in my book.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD1nbmFoo_w5GB5cdaNgbTc1-pjHFMJQCdvPb4Ix96KAo-Xd_rQrg9WtJsT6WIGTd6UCjEPLjzggVn06N64NDhvCwM4mKirrzOWkmRZsEbjR0ihdxpYrRp5XlpKmDhG7OqSKn-RRemeZM/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD1nbmFoo_w5GB5cdaNgbTc1-pjHFMJQCdvPb4Ix96KAo-Xd_rQrg9WtJsT6WIGTd6UCjEPLjzggVn06N64NDhvCwM4mKirrzOWkmRZsEbjR0ihdxpYrRp5XlpKmDhG7OqSKn-RRemeZM/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Arguably, one could say there's more emphasis on the Joker then on Batman, and to that I say it's the writer's faults. By already establishing Batman as Batman, and showing us who the Joker is before he becomes the Joker, it seems the script is set up to show us more of a character we know very little of as opposed to a character we should already be familiar with. But is any of this a bad thing? No, not really, especially since Nicholson is always a delight when he's on screen.<br />
<br />
Now, about Bruce Wayne/Batman: Keaton does an excellent job as Batman; he's simply awesome in the role as well as convincing. I at first didn't like his Bruce Wayne but came to like it more with repeated viewings. When he's Wayne, he's completely unassuming to the point where I could never believe <i>this </i>guy is Batman. And then he puts on the suit and kicks ass. It's nothing short of phenomenal that he pulls off the role of Batman while still being utterly convincing as some playboy millionaire called Bruce Wayne. Michael Gough as Alfred is pretty good; there isn't too much to say, but he plays his part and plays it well. One interesting thing to note is that not too much is said as to what happened to Wayne earlier in his life, but as usual, I'm not go into that. One of my other favorite scenes is when Wayne confronts the Joker in Vale's apartment and he utters one my favorite lines in the whole movie. (And in case you're curious as to what line that is, it's during the part where he "gets nuts.")<br />
<br />
The cinematography and art direction is beautiful, in a dark kind of way of course. Many of the costumes and buildings look inspired by film noir and art deco architecture, helping to make the film look modern and old fashioned all at once. The only thing that sticks out in this regard are some of the vehicles; they look <i>too </i>modern (or at least, too '80s modern) in this type of environment. Exceptions would include the Batmobile (which is awesome) and anything driven by the Joker and his henchmen.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPLIH33lXXpjI9OXwCM_BlF6JI7PFsDs0QxLKvSyR5NQcdHIu45EZODRxeO8SC-7kx37m-wvzruhbNIMf1sgVECDy5eYe800KhqlmOUkfeintFjTbMFbZXQcGi-Te882xIvktSocWKcK8/s1600/Gotham_skyline.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPLIH33lXXpjI9OXwCM_BlF6JI7PFsDs0QxLKvSyR5NQcdHIu45EZODRxeO8SC-7kx37m-wvzruhbNIMf1sgVECDy5eYe800KhqlmOUkfeintFjTbMFbZXQcGi-Te882xIvktSocWKcK8/s320/Gotham_skyline.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The film has two soundtracks: a score by Danny Elfman and original songs by Prince. Some of the Prince songs show up in the movie (notably during the museum scene and the parade), but Elfman's score dominates this picture. This film has what is probably my favorite (if not the greatest) score for a superhero film ever (<i>Superman </i>would be the close contender); the main titles theme still gives me chills. The main titles itself is one of the greatest main title sequences I've ever seen in any film; it establishes the mood and atmosphere while moving around a landscape that eventually shows it self to be the Batman symbol.<br />
<br />
Overall, when all is said and analyzed, <i>Batman </i>is a great piece of superhero action and a great example of a superhero movie. It started off the Batman movie series and helped establish the dark mood of Batman that we see today, as well as help make the Batman animated series possible. Tim Burton knew what he was doing with <i>Batman</i>, and Keaton and Nicholson are at the top of their game as the heroes and villains of this Gotham City tale. However you like your Batman, and whatever your stance on superhero movies in general is, this is one you shouldn't miss; it still holds up today as a fine adaption of a well known and beloved icon.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtlrd89V84BdOKZP6_I4rVbhC7sXwuw0WEbzPLTxQcaPy5YQbOFr1z6qOY6rv8vOHVCmadv5qkDZWxgyi14Tb-4b7w6TB8_PGqhMz0nE53ELM15dmZ9mnEp2W8qzWAgC_qk7isosOxL4o/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtlrd89V84BdOKZP6_I4rVbhC7sXwuw0WEbzPLTxQcaPy5YQbOFr1z6qOY6rv8vOHVCmadv5qkDZWxgyi14Tb-4b7w6TB8_PGqhMz0nE53ELM15dmZ9mnEp2W8qzWAgC_qk7isosOxL4o/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-80387309958181056932011-10-18T20:27:00.004-04:002011-10-18T22:51:29.626-04:00The Big Year (2011)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_1zUK1DlWObr7ASIaQVKmd7_yreeFXphbZxcMdbWTUE_18YXd2GofEbmxgrc6XLe8u6YpsuBn0pRVBsZlNwMxJzeGlJxWmxfPTfaHjuAlHmgLlnXfgP98ocOnXeK_pDYYOFGITWiueQo/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_1zUK1DlWObr7ASIaQVKmd7_yreeFXphbZxcMdbWTUE_18YXd2GofEbmxgrc6XLe8u6YpsuBn0pRVBsZlNwMxJzeGlJxWmxfPTfaHjuAlHmgLlnXfgP98ocOnXeK_pDYYOFGITWiueQo/s320/1.jpg" width="215" /></a></div> <br />
Admit it: the idea of watching a movie about bird watchers (or birders, as they call themselves) doesn't sound as appealing as watching a movie about robotic aliens or a weekend in Vegas. Yet, <i>The Big Year</i> made me give a damn about the different species of birds, the character's determination to spot the most birds, and it made me laugh. A lot. Without using any kind of cliches, <i>The Big Year</i> also manages to teach some lessons and show us some truths along the way.<br />
<br />
Starring Steve Martin (as Stu Preissler), Jack Black (as Brad Harris), and Owen Wilson (as Kenny Bostick), the story concerns three individuals who compete in the Big Year, a competition among birders where the goal is to spot as many birds in a single year as possible. Throughout the film, we see all three characters spot so many different species of birds, you can tell the film makers did their homework. Many of the shots of the birds are great while a few are actually CG, but hey, I can forgive'em. The characters keep the story mainly interesting with their struggles and personalities. Kenny Bostick (Wilson) is the best birder in the world, having spotted a record 732 birds in 2003; he plans to keep (or beat) his record, even if it gets in the way of his family life. Brad Harris (Black) is a divorced 36 year old who's always wanted to compete in the Big Year and is able to recognize any bird by its sound. Stu Preissler (Martin) is a million/billionaire who owns his own huge company in New York City and finally decides, after so many years, to compete in the Big Year, having his family's complete support. As the film progresses, we get to see how these three characters get their spotting done, what their families think of the year long ordeal, and what eventually happens once the New Year comes around again and ends the Big Year.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLildFOol2vBjZ2o5x91TfLNv9tpzl3sgUTHCbHBjMHc6GgqKn4010AMRE_RAbAm5_Ti5gGlhdVpsMEkGWN-O2VKhxYremCFrcBSRnJqqbeB0yhNBrmI3YGlQnao7AEvuQkihZ8Dk27uI/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLildFOol2vBjZ2o5x91TfLNv9tpzl3sgUTHCbHBjMHc6GgqKn4010AMRE_RAbAm5_Ti5gGlhdVpsMEkGWN-O2VKhxYremCFrcBSRnJqqbeB0yhNBrmI3YGlQnao7AEvuQkihZ8Dk27uI/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Shot in anamorphic with Panavision cameras, the film doesn't always use its widescreen to show the audience more of things. Mainly, the widescreen is used to A) show the audience the surrounding areas that the birders visit (which include too many locations to recall) and B) to have space to fill up the screen with text, writing, and tally's. Either way, the widescreen is fitting. The story it self not only deals with the people spotting birds, but what consequences and rewards might come out of it. The film has a very quirky start and eventually goes into "realistic" territory, but for me, its ending really brought the whole thing together (like it should). The film eventually shows us what obsession can do to us if we truly let it rule our lives. It also shows us that through our obsessions or interests we can meet others who relate or understand. Unlike many stories of this sort, it doesn't stick to one side but shows us the different types of people who participate in the sport, their different experiences, the price some pay to be the best at it, and the sacrifices people make to pursue their passions. <br />
<br />
<i>The Big Year</i> may not be a great movie, but it comes out being charming and very sweet. The fact that it's rated PG also goes to show that you don't need to be rated mature to be mature. <i>The Big Year</i> has plenty of laughs, sentimental moments, characters you'll enjoy seeing, and while it isn't perfect, it ends up proving that it has more in store for the audience then it originally let on. Don't let the idea of watching the journey of a few bird watchers turn you off; this is a really good movie with true lessons and great laughs. See it before it disappears into obscurity, like a bird that is only seen by a lucky few.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-39392793809943922162011-10-10T23:16:00.001-04:002011-10-10T23:57:41.613-04:00Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7xPeQZoYCydtObX15kdoIjKPwxKJDEx4yy0xuKXk_dDa0hU61htoBSHyVpD6df4YIvM-Umdlg3NR4J7fjPgeCbV7Ltkp39TM24U9pBz1gazyKJryrVBxlZ_pE8UBLNgq4WDeNB7eA3Ws/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7xPeQZoYCydtObX15kdoIjKPwxKJDEx4yy0xuKXk_dDa0hU61htoBSHyVpD6df4YIvM-Umdlg3NR4J7fjPgeCbV7Ltkp39TM24U9pBz1gazyKJryrVBxlZ_pE8UBLNgq4WDeNB7eA3Ws/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
John Carpenter's <i>Assault on Precinct 13</i> was released in 1976 and was the director's second full-length feature film. The movie tells the story of a few people trapped in an almost abandoned police station that is under siege by a gang of street killers. If that sounds like the plot to an exploitation feature, that's because it is. <i>Assault on Precinct 13</i> was made on a low budget but never lets that get in the way of the action, suspense, atmosphere, or even the score (though, it might get in the way of some of the acting). While it isn't always action packed, it surprisingly keeps the attention of the viewer and is never exactly boring, thanks to the aforementioned suspense and characters.<br />
<br />
Shot in glorious Panavision, Carpenter makes very good use of the anamorphic widescreen format. For a film that doesn't always have a lot going on and takes place in the dark half the time, the format never seems to be put to waste. Nearly every shot takes advantage of the space that the format provides it with. The score (composed by Carpenter himself) is excellent and is only composed of synthesizers that not only sound creepy but really help establish the paranoid atmosphere of the film. Right from the opening titles (red letters on a black background), the score lets you know you're in for something serious.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2WorRAGPjuaLvmqlXhCX4fpx5a6PDDYDdoGiqFBx9cxffXYk1i6HhbOjz0O8jQliGERr379VN9aTyFnO5cxwHvxQ6cvEorrGGNTAZKefF2ermFxmYJgMgfg8I6boerKGh3qHcV-zE5qM/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2WorRAGPjuaLvmqlXhCX4fpx5a6PDDYDdoGiqFBx9cxffXYk1i6HhbOjz0O8jQliGERr379VN9aTyFnO5cxwHvxQ6cvEorrGGNTAZKefF2ermFxmYJgMgfg8I6boerKGh3qHcV-zE5qM/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Serious seems to be the word in this film. Majority of the characters (which include a cop, two secretaries, and a couple of convicts) take everything as serious as can be. The convicts are mainly the ones in charge of the comic relief; they have a sense of humor, but are not merely there for comic relief alone and get serious when the time calls for it. The film also has a few moments that impressed me (one in particular shocked and impressed me) but that doesn't mean the film as a whole isn't good; just some moments are more eventful than others. On that note, I'd like to say this: Exploitation films typically have filler (people just talking, that sort of thing) but this movie, while not always full of action, never seems to have a moment of filler. Every scene seems to be there for a reason, and for a film where the siege doesn't occur until the half way point, that's pretty impressive.<br />
<br />
<i>Assault on Precinct 13</i> isn't the best action movie I've ever seen, it could've been better, but for a second feature and for a low budget movie, it's actually really good. It just happens to suffer from the ol' it-could-have-been-better problem. But even with that in mind, it managed to keep my interest, managed to have plenty of suspense, and had really good action scenes. The acting is okay, but the characters themselves (especially the convicts) can be entertaining (in a low budget kind of way, I guess). Overall, it's a really good movie that is worth checking out, especially for Carpenter fans. When it comes to low budget exploitation action, or just action in general, this one delivers.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-60949133263024765772011-10-01T00:48:00.001-04:002011-10-01T00:56:23.921-04:00Equinox (1970)For a film like this, a review really wouldn't be necessary, but I just couldn't pass on the chance to spread the word.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKxdtS2rTILVRZLOQwCCdhJvbYpDdYVoT7JxSeuqV0G1gQ8tHlM60fp0hYR-lBq5YauQyCZXUL94fI34vxsYMgAp2u7s8UP7Bn5Vri5eOPxTdlLEYvhVDuaOXnwNqDKpHTWBJraEJFOOY/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKxdtS2rTILVRZLOQwCCdhJvbYpDdYVoT7JxSeuqV0G1gQ8tHlM60fp0hYR-lBq5YauQyCZXUL94fI34vxsYMgAp2u7s8UP7Bn5Vri5eOPxTdlLEYvhVDuaOXnwNqDKpHTWBJraEJFOOY/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<i> Equinox </i>was originally a short film by Dennis Muren (future Oscar-winning visual-effects artist) entitled <i>The Equinox...A Journey into the Supernatural</i> that was picked up for distribution by Jack H. Harris. Harris and Jack Woods shot additional footage to bring the movie to full feature length. The end result is easily the crappiest movie I've ever seen that actually isn't crappy. The movie was made with only $6500; a shoestring budget, entirely. Even with that budget, the film still has good (enough) acting and very good special effects (for a film with barely a budget). As far as low budget horror films go, this one is surprisingly good. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC4837YnUgLjIqoOyPtqbO8wh5I8EFWAoIQV_owV8Lc2bHWC07Xd2Bx3WlxePhWLyKRHDRGJxS6IoqIBdm1BJUZ9tdunQguc_DU_RrmZ4xtHm9eDaAbJvO1hRz4l9Y0SlXVENQFqGqODg/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC4837YnUgLjIqoOyPtqbO8wh5I8EFWAoIQV_owV8Lc2bHWC07Xd2Bx3WlxePhWLyKRHDRGJxS6IoqIBdm1BJUZ9tdunQguc_DU_RrmZ4xtHm9eDaAbJvO1hRz4l9Y0SlXVENQFqGqODg/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The story concerns a group of friends (or are they college students? I honestly don't know) who go into the woods to meet up with a professor (who is a friend of one of the characters). They try to find him, but only find his destroyed cabin, a creepy old man living in a cave, an old book, and a strange park ranger by the name of Asmodeus. Throughout the film (which, as you might guess, isn't very long) strange things happen, which include the discovery of another dimension and fights with monsters. The film is not a gore fest and crazy odd things aren't always happening, but, for whatever reason, I was never really bored; I was actually entertained when the characters were merely interacting.<br />
<br />
As aforementioned, the special effects in this film are quite impressive -- and sometimes hilarious. As you might expect, the film uses stop motion animation to make (most) of these monsters come alive, but the film also uses neat camera tricks to achieve its goals. It may be low budget, but it still manages to look as professional as it possibly can. Since the film is old and easily a midnight movie, the print of the film is not perfect, but it sure is a great restoration (thanks to the boys and girls at Criterion Collection who released the film on DVD). It should be mentioned that the original short film is on the same DVD that houses the theatrical version.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy67ZPJrTzroink84QywSoFvaOtyqUc6qgZ3S_hcILMk9Z8_mSCYHcLNoCN19-bEgCJkC52D4SC27TKqp1Yhl36R3hcmR1WZkvQQhjz13CjOEQP6Rn7DEps-jr-uHozIK5mPbJtPKmSW8/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy67ZPJrTzroink84QywSoFvaOtyqUc6qgZ3S_hcILMk9Z8_mSCYHcLNoCN19-bEgCJkC52D4SC27TKqp1Yhl36R3hcmR1WZkvQQhjz13CjOEQP6Rn7DEps-jr-uHozIK5mPbJtPKmSW8/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<i> Equinox </i>is a surprisingly good and entertaining movie that has great special effects, odd moments, surreal scenes, good (enough) acting, interesting enough characters, awesome monsters, and an overall midnight low budget cult B-movie atmosphere and feel. Whether you're into these types of movies or not, I'd still suggest you give <i>Equinox </i>a watch.Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8767466978860094780.post-55301756189902312642011-09-24T19:16:00.000-04:002011-09-24T19:16:25.248-04:00Citizen Kane (1941)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUlGtN4-IQ6EJnnxNyKtmYS6TRhDRiUYEO5OcSzJdLLjZRotoNftZLO7iT-gn0U311curuonKEJ5iuhr51ACy7xJCsjzSq8kljcVTrNx6-jWyS_KTZAQg_B5Gcz47darj1J2Hrobi7tvY/s1600/1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUlGtN4-IQ6EJnnxNyKtmYS6TRhDRiUYEO5OcSzJdLLjZRotoNftZLO7iT-gn0U311curuonKEJ5iuhr51ACy7xJCsjzSq8kljcVTrNx6-jWyS_KTZAQg_B5Gcz47darj1J2Hrobi7tvY/s320/1.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
If nothing else, Orson Welles's <i>Citizen Kane</i> is a special film. It has the distinction of being called the "greatest film of all time" as well as being Welles's first film. It also had a lot of controversy behind it, since the titular Kane was based off of William Randolph Hearst, a popular newspaper mogul as the time. But I'm not going to talk about historical information and references; I'm only looking at <i>Citizen Kane</i> as what it is: a movie. And as far as movies go, this one is unlike any other.<br />
<br />
For a film from 1941, it sure as hell doesn't seem like one. If I didn't know better, this film was made in the later half of the 20th century -- except it wasn't. Orson Welles truly was ahead of his time with this motion picture, and he crafted some of the best scenes and dialogue I've ever seen in any film. For the time, this movie must have blown people away. While it may not blow people away today, it can still have a powerful effect. When the film started and the title came up, I told myself this movie would be really cool (and it would also be fitting) if there were no opening credits after the title -- and there weren't. For 1941, that would be almost unheard of. Hell, until the end of the 20th century that was uncommon. The long takes, the different angles, the long zooms: all the things that make <i>Citizen Kane</i> an innovative and unique picture on a technical level.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiahyRgRQpcLVBo5rhjcJMtzRkl9-Y1c8lHdSJh6l1AGR2IPaUoTQ3sVV7pIvZhgKsMNW5um2TKW8aJZpw0B9pyM415entVur6Z0lQOMkL3KJpGjFQMQyWVeVcBHp2O97IqcDuXFC9b84Y/s1600/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiahyRgRQpcLVBo5rhjcJMtzRkl9-Y1c8lHdSJh6l1AGR2IPaUoTQ3sVV7pIvZhgKsMNW5um2TKW8aJZpw0B9pyM415entVur6Z0lQOMkL3KJpGjFQMQyWVeVcBHp2O97IqcDuXFC9b84Y/s320/3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The story of <i>Citizen Kane</i> concerns the life of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), which is shown in a series of flashbacks. At the beginning of the film, we see a news serial that pretty much summarizes his life; it's interesting to see the rest of the film show the details that the serial misses out on. When not showing flashbacks, a reporter (William Alland) tries to find the meaning behind Kane's last word: Rosebud. Throughout the film, the reporter reads entries by Kane's guardian (George Coulouris), speaks to his best friend (Joesph Cotten), his loyal associate (Everett Sloane), his second wife (Dorothy Comingore), and his butler (Paul Stewart). These characters are very interesting in their own ways and are quite like-able. It's Orson Welles as Kane, however, who steals the show. Welles pulled off something so subtle yet so clever I'm fooled at how he did it: his character at the beginning has no mustache, but once he dons one, I'm almost certain that this isn't Welles. In fact, when I'd seen pictures of the movie before watching it, and even during the news reel scene in the film, I didn't believe that Welles played Kane. He's nearly unrecognizable in the role; that's an accomplishment almost no actor can do. Almost half the time, I expected him to shout "I'm Charles Foster Kane!" as an excuse for whatever actions he may do; that's proof to how enjoyable it is to watch Welles <i>be </i>Kane.<br />
<br />
Welles's direction is simply phenomenal (like his starring role); he directs this movie like it's nobody's business. No matter what people say about this movie, there's no denying that Welles knew how to keep people's attention on the screen and to admire all that was going on. One thing that, oddly enough, enhances the film is its aspect ratio. Unlike most films these days, <i>Citizen Kane</i> was released in a time where widescreen didn't really exist; all films were shot with the Academy Ratio (1.37:1), the equivalent of a 4X3 television screen size. I usually don't like watching films in this ratio (it can make a movie feel less cinematic in my opinion), but I do respect films enough to see them in their intended and original ratio. Welles made this ratio work amazingly in <i>Citizen Kane</i>, to the point where I couldn't imagine seeing this film in any other ratio. The "full screen" feel of the film makes it seem as though it demands your attention and that it really is something grand.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeOC6Mmvq8Pq88YmFbIHjaHmN0TXUF0ur6pD9uNc0ASalxlxwxP7MMBWwABuU4tQbSuys20tAiZSI_PjDrJh3_dK20-Z9fLpTENfiVac0CBQyROe-bPnX5O1mftmOAK9kvDvrKH4WxhFQ/s1600/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeOC6Mmvq8Pq88YmFbIHjaHmN0TXUF0ur6pD9uNc0ASalxlxwxP7MMBWwABuU4tQbSuys20tAiZSI_PjDrJh3_dK20-Z9fLpTENfiVac0CBQyROe-bPnX5O1mftmOAK9kvDvrKH4WxhFQ/s320/2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The themes of power and greed are ever present in <i>Citizen Kane</i>. Kane is born into a poor family that, without knowing, lives underneath a gold mine. He is (legally) taken by a guardian to be educated and inherits his fortune at age 25. Kane starts off wanting to run The Inquirer and give people the real news. He wanted to do it for the working men and women of the United States and didn't want them reading things he thought were false. Over time, we see him turn more into a power hungry individual who believes that the people will believe anything he says. This egotism reaches its peak when he decides to run for governor of New York (one of the best moments in the film), but due to scandal, doesn't become elected, despite having plenty of supporters (as well as detractors). Over time, we see Kane go from lonely but happy to lonely and distraught. By the film's end, it seems as though Kane never really wanted all the fame and fortune that came to him. As he himself says at one point "...if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."<br />
<br />
When it comes to movies and film making and acting and story telling and technical innovation, I'm not sure if one can do much better than <i>Citizen Kane.</i> Its influence is massive, and its social status has only kept growing in stature. It's topped nearly all the major film polls and its impact can be felt to this day. It was ahead of its time and feels ever so modern in today's film making world. It has rightfully gained praise and status as a masterpiece and classic film. It's a film that will always be enjoyable to watch and will forever stand the test of time<br />
<br />
But is it the greatest film of all time? You be the judge.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFZaKJCX5t-b6dm2UVldngf8AmhaWr91X74djTt5pSNOlmJVHjgxTTk2O_fHP3rc-dvhRRgZAi4n4RaWDsTkmUSkBcq-KGaZAIjO-tYUb4hLQb9zqYTuA6K_GblB4q3cBDBBL2xoVrhA0/s1600/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFZaKJCX5t-b6dm2UVldngf8AmhaWr91X74djTt5pSNOlmJVHjgxTTk2O_fHP3rc-dvhRRgZAi4n4RaWDsTkmUSkBcq-KGaZAIjO-tYUb4hLQb9zqYTuA6K_GblB4q3cBDBBL2xoVrhA0/s320/4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Movie Reviews by Rafael A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10481610339717206276noreply@blogger.com2