I liked The Frighteners when I was a kid. It was one of the horror films I used to rewatch a lot. Haven't seen it since then.
I would say you should remedy that problem, but since I am likely going to blind buy it, I can't really comment yet.
Quote:
It's not as good as their previous work, The Descendants, but it's still a pretty solid coming-of-age dramedy. Speaking of coming-of-age movies, The Kings of Summer is pretty good as well. I had a hard time deciding which of the two was better. I'm also looking forward to The Spectacular Now. That one's been generating a lot of buzz and I was impressed with Ponsoldt's last film, Smashed.
Attending Sundance must be pretty awesome. I'd love to go to one of those one day.
As a fan of coming of age movies, I'm going to have to check out what you mentioned. Also, anything from the writers of The Descendants gets a watch from me. While Steve is still likely the biggest fan of that movie here, I'd definitely be in the Top 5.
Obviously it's nowhere near as crazy, but I'd imagine Sundance would be like Comic-Con for big fans of indie films. I'd love to go someday too since I'm becoming a bigger fan of indie films with each passing year.
I would say you should remedy that problem, but since I am likely going to blind buy it, I can't really comment yet.
As a fan of coming of age movies, I'm going to have to check out what you mentioned. Also, anything from the writers of The Descendants gets a watch from me. While Steve is still likely the biggest fan of that movie here, I'd definitely be in the Top 5.
Obviously it's nowhere near as crazy, but I'd imagine Sundance would be like Comic-Con for big fans of indie films. I'd love to go someday too since I'm becoming a bigger fan of indie films with each passing year.
Danny Boyle's films frequently stumble underneath the weight of his sublimely colorful rat-tat-tat direction, especially when tackling big topics: poverty (Slumdog Millionaire), survival (127 Hours), and drug addiction (Trainspotting). That's not to say those films aren't thrilling, they are, but his showy visual style and innate nihilism is at odds with the subject matter. That's why viewers remember the blunt impact of his films as opposed to their resonance.
Boyle's latest is his first no-nonsense straight up genre film in quite some time, alongside Shallow Grave, this has few traces of his paper-thin humanism. It's a colorful bullet train-ride into familiar territory: James McAvoy plays an art auctioneer who becomes entangled in a plot to recover a valuable painting. It's a nondescript plot, the tried and true ''everybody's after the what's-it (a particularly valuable painting)" set-up, made palatable by Boyl's willingness to envelop the audience with delicious sensory stimuli and some genuinely entertaining set pieces throughout.
Dutch angles (take notes Tom Hooper and Les Miserables DP Dan Cohen) , extremely low angles, elliptical editing, a bold use of color make each second a delight. The ravishing cinematography manages to complement both the emotions and the fine works of art themselves. Its a shame that the film doesn't have ideas just as intriguing as those pieces. Sure, it's not a terribly substantial thriller, but it goes down as smoothly as a cold carbonated beverage on a scorching summer afternoon.
The Good:Bill Murray. Tight, top-notch screenplay. Excellent message. Fantastic humor. Plenty of memorable quotes. Surprising attention to detail. Gets better every time.
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:With each repeat viewing over the years, this film has gone from underwhelming to okay to good to a masterpiece in my book. Amazing... One of the finest comedies ever made.
As a fan of coming of age movies, I'm going to have to check out what you mentioned. Also, anything from the writers of The Descendants gets a watch from me. While Steve is still likely the biggest fan of that movie here, I'd definitely be in the Top 5.
Have you seen Flipped by Rob Reiner? That one's pretty good. One of my favorite coming-of-age movies.
The Good:Bill Murray. Tight, top-notch screenplay. Excellent message. Fantastic humor. Plenty of memorable quotes. Surprising attention to detail. Gets better every time.
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:With each repeat viewing over the years, this film has gone from underwhelming to okay to good to a masterpiece in my book. Amazing... One of the finest comedies ever made.
The Good:Bill Murray. Tight, top-notch screenplay. Excellent message. Fantastic humor. Plenty of memorable quotes. Surprising attention to detail. Gets better every time.
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:With each repeat viewing over the years, this film has gone from underwhelming to okay to good to a masterpiece in my book. Amazing... One of the finest comedies ever made.
Agree with you on everything. Well, except that it took a while for me to love the movie since it has been one of my favorite comedies of all time after the first viewing. I still remember watching it again the next morning with my mom before having to return it to the video store.
Quote:
Have you seen Flipped by Rob Reiner? That one's pretty good. One of my favorite coming-of-age movies.
No I haven't. I will probably check it out at some point as I do like most of Rob Reiner's work that I've seen. *crosses fingers that I remember it*
I still remember watching it again the next morning with my mom before having to return it to the video store.
Love reading things like this. I remember pretending I "lost" Princess Mononoke when my mom asked for the tape to return so I could watch it over and over again.
The Good:The lovely Ingrid Bergman. Intense, electrifying chemistry between Cary Grant and Bergman. Magnificent performances from its three charismatic leads, including the great Claude Rains. Masterful camera work. The party. Evil Nazi mother-in-law... Of course... (Someone's got some serious mommy issues)... Oh, and did I mention Ingrid Bergman?
The Bad:Like most of Hitchcock's films, I'm not a fan of his abrupt cuts and ending in this one.
The Bottom Line:A superb, romantic spy thriller oozing with sexual tension. Well worth checking out.
For the past so many weeks, I’ve been reading the book for the next film I will review. I really expected to finish the book before watching, or maybe even blind-buying the movie. I was getting a little perturbed though, ever since somebody at work told me the movie was horrible. The book didn’t inspire much more confidence; it is a good, well-written piece of work. A lot of quality research and style went into it. However, it’s one of those books that I know is good, but still don’t find all that engaging, partly because of the varying writing styles, and partly because of the randomness of it all.
That mini-book review being posted, it’s now time to review the last greatest movie seen on an airplane...
Cloud Atlas
The name says it all: this film, like its respective novel, features a nebulous high-flying narrative that drifts from one era of human history to the next. The film covers six different narratives in six different settings with six different characters. These narratives may seem totally unrelated, but there are very subtle connections that infer a cosmic unity.
The original novel had all these stories nested, but the film lays it out as a long-running montage, which will come off as seeming totally random, and maybe even “messy” to many viewers. Each story offers a little bit of everything: there’s drama, romance, comedy, and action to be had. The most visually impressive scenes will likely be the Sonmi-451 segments, which depict a dark dystopian future where corporations become a ruling power, and they produce mindless clones to serve consumers. This story will come the closest to being Matrix-esque, thanks to some impressive special effects and thrilling chases and shoot-outs. Sci-fi fans may also dig the Sloosha’s Crossin’ sections, set in a post-apocalypse Hawaii, showcasing the encounters between natives and stellar explorers (and some bad run-ins with mean and nasty natives). I never was a fan of the Adam Ewing section of the book, but the film brings it to life vividly: this is a section that focuses on a pre-20th-century explorer going to Hawaii and back. The Letters from Zedelghem section offers the most drama: a story about a young man moving in with a famous composer, hoping to make it big. Half-Lives offers the most intrigue, as it follows a reporter investigating a conspiracy, and ultimately a death, surrounding the invention of a super-duper power reactor. Then there’s the Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish, easily the funniest part of the whole thing, which tells the story of a publisher on the run who winds up incarcerated in an oppressive retirement home.
Like I said, it all seems random, but in truth, each story is interconnected. Scenes from all six stories are cut together, but the film attends to all six and gives them each the right amount of attention to make them complete. Certain things get altered or dropped from the book; the film definitely loses some of the background detail and information surrounding the characters and events (chief among them, understanding the world of Neo Seoul, the story behind Louisa Rey’s father, and understanding the rivalry between Frobischer and Ayrs). Such changes are necessary to squeeze everything into the film’s roomy 171-minute runtime, but the film does cut out some of the pathos and logos of each story in doing so.
However, the film does excel with the themes of the book. Thanks to the way it’s put together, and the ensemble cast, the film underscores all the connections between the six stories, emphasizing the themes of past lives and the perseverance of the human spirit. Part of this is pretty dark and bleak, with elements of cannibalism present in all stories; the point of all six is that the strong will always prey on the weak, and at least three of these stories hint at a literal cannibalism to emphasize this. At the same time, the film has a brighter side, which actively asserts that love is a binding force that transcends all of space and time. Key themes of death (and possibly rebirth) emerge as well.
This entire piece of work is neatly established with superb photography and editing. The editing can be especially inspiring, since there are quite a few scenes where characters will give a profound monologue during a montage of scenes from all the stories. Acting is great, and it’s especially ingenious how each cast member plays multiple roles across all the stories to further emphasize the connections of each story. Writing is good; a lot of it is the exact same as the book, with just a few necessary changes and bits of exposition to make the best possible adaptation. This production uses some very interesting sets, props, costumes, and special effects. What music is used is not bad.
The randomness of this film may throw off a lot of viewers, but there is a certain method to the madness. I almost wish the stories were presented as a straightforward one-after-another or nested fashion, ala Sin City, but the film has merit as it is. I personally favor the film for bringing the book to vivid life and making a lot of its ideas and subtleties more visible. Above all, it is evenly-paced, entertaining, and well-made. I’d recommend checking it out at least once.
4.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Stories: Very Good | Film: Very Good)
Recommendation: Try it, you might like it.
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 04-20-2013 at 03:49 PM.
This is as real as it gets, for a Hollywood picture anyway. This film chronicles the decade-long search for the notorious Osama Bin Laden, and his ultimate demise, thanks to the dedicated actions of U.S. intelligence and soldiers. Most of this film is built on a realistic portrayal of intel gathering and the actual operation; if such things interest you, then this film should be right up your alley. Most of it is a grim, brooding, realistic drama that emphasizes the danger, the political nuances, and the moral ambiguity of the entire operation. There is action toward the end, but it’s a pretty quiet, straightforward affair, just as the operation itself would have been. There are a few ugly scenes as well: the torture scenes in the film’s beginning won’t sit well with everybody, and it has caused some controversy. Whether you condone or condemn everything in the film, these are things that actually happened, and the film presents them without condoning or condemning.
All of this is shown through the vantage point of a character named Maya, who serves to fulfill multiple roles in multiple levels of the operation, allowing us to see the whole thing unfold from the bottom up. It’s a bit of a stretch to believe that Maya could act in all the roles she’s given, but as a composite character, she serves the narrative’s purpose really well. What really helps will be the film’s pathos; it’s hard not to admire Maya as a character, who shows decent development, and proves to be a thrill to watch with her aggressive dedication and shrewdness. As far as the plot itself goes, it’s a straightforward affair, but it seems to adhere to real-life events really well.
This film uses some rough-around-the-edges photography, but the editing is not bad. Acting is generally good, but Jessica Chastain steals the show throughout with her perfectly nuanced performance. Writing is okay. This production uses real-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is pretty moody.
4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Perfect)
We’ve all seen these type of action-packed detective movies before; watching Jack Reacher reminded me so much of the typical action films of the 90s, such as The Fugitive or US Marshalls. Yes, there is action: Jack Reacher has quite a few cool fight scenes, some shooting, and one car chase scene (probably the most real-looking car chase I’ve seen since Bullit). However, the action never seems to take the front stage: it’s the characters and the mystery story that does.
The story for this film starts off looking like a standard, possibly predictable, affair: a crime happened, police catch a suspect, and you start to get the feeling that things won’t go all that simply. What really makes the story unique is that it throws in a totally random element: the Jack Reacher character, who’s not really involved with the law at all, but is sent in to investigate and deal with bad guys in his own lawless manner. It’s especially interesting that this character is basically a ghost, who can effectively disappear in a crowd and fall off the grid at a whim. The film itself seems to question, who the hell is Jack Reacher? but by the end, you get a good feeling for the answer. With a few major plot twists and good supporting characters, the film does rise a little above and beyond the average police-detective-movie fare.
This film uses some good photography, which features some interesting camera angles, but is mostly pretty plain and straightforward, like most other movies of this type. Editing is good. Acting is generally good, although I still see Tom Cruise as being just more of the same in this. Writing is good. This production uses fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music sounded good at times too.
4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
