Hello all! I hope everyone's ready for this one! Today I'll be reviewing "Chained," a psychological thriller/slasher film directed by Jennifer Lynch.
"Chained" is about a deranged serial killer who wants to rekindle the bond of a father-son relationship with the son of one of his victims. The movie follows the relationship that develops after years of the boy being forcibly kept in the serial killer's house.
Pros:
1. The entire abduction scene was super intense. The serial killer works as a taxi can driver. When the mother and her son get in his cab, you can only imagine where they're headed. He drives them to a rural and desolate area, where you know they can't get help. Then, while the child is still in the car, the killer takes the mother to a separate room and kills her. The entire scene is fairly quick, but will stick with me forever. The authenticity and intensity of the scene was just scary. It's the closest thing I could think of to actually taping a kidnapping and murder.
2. The killer's house is a character of its own. From the blood-stained walls that looked like they haven't been washed, to the creepily bare rooms that make it look abandoned (or condemned), this house was creepy as hell, and made me super uncomfortable.
Cons:
1. Okay guys, here's where things get interesting. I thought that this was going to be a movie demonstrating Stockholm syndrome, where a person is mentally, physically, and emotionally abused by a person (killer or not) and ends up getting attached to them. In a sense, that's what this movie was about. BUT, as intense as that sounds, it was not intense at all. In fact, it was the most mild case of brainwashing I've ever heard of. There is little to no actual abuse, and Rabbit (the victim) talks back to the killer and disobeys him regularly. The film makes the relationship feel more like an actual father-and-son relationship than one between a serial killer and his victim, and that was a huge strike for me.
2. Both main characters, the serial killer Bob (Vincent D'Orofino) and Rabbit (Eamon Farren) were too mild for me to believe they were such dramatic characters. D'Orofino acted too lenient and too nice to be a killer and Farren acted too normal to be the victim of years of abuse. Strike two.
3. At one point in the movie, a teenage Rabbit establishes a relationship with one of Bob's victims. He hides her from Bob and tries to help her escape. The problem is that the relationship was so ridiculous. He was forced into a room with her where Bob expected him to kill and rape her. Instead, they just talked and the girl basically begs him to have sex with her. First she was scared for her life, then she was clinging to the guy who's supposed to kill her for dear life and trying to kiss him. It was a short lived and unnecessary plot point that made the movie even worse for me. That was officially strike three.
4. And last but not least, a bonus con! They went WAY too much into the killer's past and what made him a psycho. I don't want to know what makes psycho killers how they are; I just want to see a psycho killer go crazy on people! You don't ask why Michael Meyers kills babysitters in "Halloween." You just take it for what it is: a creepy psycho who kills people for no reason. Motive equals fewer scares and a serious drop in creepiness. So, strike four.
No offense to anyone involved in the movie, but this one was just bad. I was super disappointed because it had such potential to be so amazing and dramatic, and it fell way, way short. Two stars for you, Jennifer Lynch!
Monday, April 29, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Review of Crash (2004) and Babel (2006)
Hello again, all! For this review, I'm going to be doing things a little differently. I will be comparing and contrasting two similarly themed films: "Crash," directed by Paul Haggis, and "Babel," directed by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu.
Both films follow similar plot lines: each movie is about different sets of people that are affected by each other in an indirect but significant way. Throughout the movie it is revealed that these people, who are are separated by distance, social status, and race, prove to be life changing elements in each other's lives. "Crash" takes place in Los Angeles, California, and "Babel" is more international, with stories taking place in Japan, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.
The one I liked most is "Babel," even though it came out after "Crash." Here's why:
1. "Babel" takes place on a more global scale, so each intertwining story is way more interesting. It makes you think about the connections with people that you never knew you had. A man from Japan goes on a hunting trip to Morocco, and gives his guide his gun as a thank you. The Moroccan man then sells it to his friend, who gives it to his sons to protect their herd of goats, but they end up accidentally killing a woman from the U.S. This is just one story from the movie that made me think twice about how random people from (literally) thousands of miles away could affect my life in some way.
"Crash" is more locally based. When you have a bunch of people living in the same city, it's way more likely that those people will affect you at some point, because those are the people that live in your world with you. It's essentially a small world story, and "Babel" is way more of a big world story.
2. Whereas "Babel" is focused on basically a series of random and unfortunate events that affect different people, "Crash" is solely based on events based on racism within the city of Los Angeles. And we're not talking about level one racism here; we're talking about hit-you-over-the-head, over the top racism that I just found annoying and unbelievable. I know there are people out there who have a personal vendetta against some people based on their race, but this movie was just ridiculous. It wasn't subtle in the slightest, which makes me think the director was treating the audience like they were idiots. At least the racial discrimination in "Babel" was subtle and only a small part of the film. The fact that "Crash" was solely based on blatant racism really took me out of the drama of the movie.
3. "Babel" was more of an over-arching project that is a commentary of human nature and humility as a whole. It paints a better picture of humans and how they affect each other every day; "Crash" is just a story about terrible racist people who consciously decide to do terrible things to each other, and how those stories link together.
Pros for "Crash":
1. "Crash" wasn't all bad; the acting was intense and really good. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Matt Dillon and even Ludacris (yeah, the rapper) were super amazing. Heck, even Brendan Fraser was good in it. What sucked was the screenplay.
2. You get to see dramatic and uplifting change from some of these characters. For example, Sandra Bullock's character changes from a very racist politician's wife to a stronger woman who recognizes that all people don't fit their stereotype. These are changes that were believable and really made the movie for me.
Overall, both movies were good in their own way, but in terms of story and overall impact, "Babel" takes this one, hands down. Most people prefer "Crash" to "Babel," so I hope this review offers some insight to the film less investigated.
Both films follow similar plot lines: each movie is about different sets of people that are affected by each other in an indirect but significant way. Throughout the movie it is revealed that these people, who are are separated by distance, social status, and race, prove to be life changing elements in each other's lives. "Crash" takes place in Los Angeles, California, and "Babel" is more international, with stories taking place in Japan, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.
The one I liked most is "Babel," even though it came out after "Crash." Here's why:
1. "Babel" takes place on a more global scale, so each intertwining story is way more interesting. It makes you think about the connections with people that you never knew you had. A man from Japan goes on a hunting trip to Morocco, and gives his guide his gun as a thank you. The Moroccan man then sells it to his friend, who gives it to his sons to protect their herd of goats, but they end up accidentally killing a woman from the U.S. This is just one story from the movie that made me think twice about how random people from (literally) thousands of miles away could affect my life in some way.
"Crash" is more locally based. When you have a bunch of people living in the same city, it's way more likely that those people will affect you at some point, because those are the people that live in your world with you. It's essentially a small world story, and "Babel" is way more of a big world story.
2. Whereas "Babel" is focused on basically a series of random and unfortunate events that affect different people, "Crash" is solely based on events based on racism within the city of Los Angeles. And we're not talking about level one racism here; we're talking about hit-you-over-the-head, over the top racism that I just found annoying and unbelievable. I know there are people out there who have a personal vendetta against some people based on their race, but this movie was just ridiculous. It wasn't subtle in the slightest, which makes me think the director was treating the audience like they were idiots. At least the racial discrimination in "Babel" was subtle and only a small part of the film. The fact that "Crash" was solely based on blatant racism really took me out of the drama of the movie.
3. "Babel" was more of an over-arching project that is a commentary of human nature and humility as a whole. It paints a better picture of humans and how they affect each other every day; "Crash" is just a story about terrible racist people who consciously decide to do terrible things to each other, and how those stories link together.
Pros for "Crash":
1. "Crash" wasn't all bad; the acting was intense and really good. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Matt Dillon and even Ludacris (yeah, the rapper) were super amazing. Heck, even Brendan Fraser was good in it. What sucked was the screenplay.
2. You get to see dramatic and uplifting change from some of these characters. For example, Sandra Bullock's character changes from a very racist politician's wife to a stronger woman who recognizes that all people don't fit their stereotype. These are changes that were believable and really made the movie for me.
Overall, both movies were good in their own way, but in terms of story and overall impact, "Babel" takes this one, hands down. Most people prefer "Crash" to "Babel," so I hope this review offers some insight to the film less investigated.
Review of War of the Worlds (2005)
Hello all! I'm pretty much the worst blogger ever, so far, it seems. Keeping up with 3 posts a week isn't fairing well for me when I have finals coming up at school, I'm participating in a play at the local community theater, and have work most days of the week. Once school and the show ends, though, I'm sure I'll be able to get back on schedule. Once again, I apologize for my lack of posts lately. Anywho! Time for a review! Today I will be reviewing (among other films) "The War of the Worlds," directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise.
I'm sure you all know the story, but in case you don't, here's a quick recap: "The War of the Worlds," based on the novel by H.G. Wells, is about a hostile alien invasion on Earth, and one family's struggle to survive the brutal and merciless attack by the invaders. The film stars Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Justin Chatwin. Oh, and it's narrated by Morgan Freeman. And yes, that is a pro I will mention.
Pros:
1. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about are the aliens and their ships. If you've ever read the book, it stays remarkably true to it in terms of what the aliens and their ships looked like. They were tall, jellyfish like ships with large beams on the tops of them that were able to take down entire cities in seconds. (I'm posting from my phone so I can't include pictures, but I will put in pictures as soon as I can get to a computer). They are truly terrifying, but also paint a picture of classic sci-fi aliens that really brings you back to the old movies of the 1940's and 1950's. They were intelligent, intimidating and very powerful, but also looked very interesting and creative.
2. Along with pro number one, the actors reacted so well to their CGI counterparts. I believed that they were seeing 50-foot alien ships destroying their cities. I was surprised by Tom Cruise's believability as well; he usually disappoints me when he works primarily with CGI, but this movie was spot on. It looked like a super challenging movie that I'd like to work on someday. As an actor, being able to work with CGI nowadays is a must 99% of the time, and that movie is a perfect test of an actor's believability and skill.
3. Even though the plot is about this far fetched idea of an alien invasion, the underlying story about this struggling family is surprisingly human and ordinary. And I don't mean "ordinary" in the sense that it's boring; I mean it in the sense that it's completely relatable. Tom Cruise plays a dad who has become estranged from his two children (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) after he and his wife get a divorce. Now, it just so happens that the weekend his kids are supposed to spend with him is the weekend that the attacks start, so they have to work together to survive, even though his kids virtually hate him. It's a true test of a family's strength and loyalty during a time of death and extreme destruction. Even though it was about aliens invading Earth, it had a very human quality of life to it that made it relatable to pretty much everyone.
4. It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Come on; need I say more?
Cons:
1. About halfway through the movie, the alien ships start to excrete red, slimy vines onto the ground. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be; the remains of humans they've killed, compacted into veiny vines? A network of vines to transport said human remains from ship to ship? Plants that they liked? I wasn't sure, but it was distracting and...just weird, honestly.
2. There's a scene where Tom Cruise (and his kids) run into a friend of his while trying to escape the grasp of the alien ships. He tries to help her and her daughter get onto a ferry that will take them to a safe place away from the invasion, but they get separated and the friend and her daughter end up dying. Now, the problem I have with this is the whole duration of that scene. It was way too short a scene to feel any kind of sympathy toward Tom Cruise's friend. They set it up to be a turning point in the movie, and in my opinion it just ended too soon to justify keeping it in the final reel.
Those are just nitpicky, though. As a whole, the movie was exciting, dramatic, and yet had a very real feel to it; something Spielberg does best. What can I say? It's classic genius filmmaking! Thanks for reading! Remember: pictures to follow!
I'm sure you all know the story, but in case you don't, here's a quick recap: "The War of the Worlds," based on the novel by H.G. Wells, is about a hostile alien invasion on Earth, and one family's struggle to survive the brutal and merciless attack by the invaders. The film stars Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Justin Chatwin. Oh, and it's narrated by Morgan Freeman. And yes, that is a pro I will mention.
Pros:
1. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about are the aliens and their ships. If you've ever read the book, it stays remarkably true to it in terms of what the aliens and their ships looked like. They were tall, jellyfish like ships with large beams on the tops of them that were able to take down entire cities in seconds. (I'm posting from my phone so I can't include pictures, but I will put in pictures as soon as I can get to a computer). They are truly terrifying, but also paint a picture of classic sci-fi aliens that really brings you back to the old movies of the 1940's and 1950's. They were intelligent, intimidating and very powerful, but also looked very interesting and creative.
2. Along with pro number one, the actors reacted so well to their CGI counterparts. I believed that they were seeing 50-foot alien ships destroying their cities. I was surprised by Tom Cruise's believability as well; he usually disappoints me when he works primarily with CGI, but this movie was spot on. It looked like a super challenging movie that I'd like to work on someday. As an actor, being able to work with CGI nowadays is a must 99% of the time, and that movie is a perfect test of an actor's believability and skill.
3. Even though the plot is about this far fetched idea of an alien invasion, the underlying story about this struggling family is surprisingly human and ordinary. And I don't mean "ordinary" in the sense that it's boring; I mean it in the sense that it's completely relatable. Tom Cruise plays a dad who has become estranged from his two children (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) after he and his wife get a divorce. Now, it just so happens that the weekend his kids are supposed to spend with him is the weekend that the attacks start, so they have to work together to survive, even though his kids virtually hate him. It's a true test of a family's strength and loyalty during a time of death and extreme destruction. Even though it was about aliens invading Earth, it had a very human quality of life to it that made it relatable to pretty much everyone.
4. It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Come on; need I say more?
Cons:
1. About halfway through the movie, the alien ships start to excrete red, slimy vines onto the ground. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be; the remains of humans they've killed, compacted into veiny vines? A network of vines to transport said human remains from ship to ship? Plants that they liked? I wasn't sure, but it was distracting and...just weird, honestly.
2. There's a scene where Tom Cruise (and his kids) run into a friend of his while trying to escape the grasp of the alien ships. He tries to help her and her daughter get onto a ferry that will take them to a safe place away from the invasion, but they get separated and the friend and her daughter end up dying. Now, the problem I have with this is the whole duration of that scene. It was way too short a scene to feel any kind of sympathy toward Tom Cruise's friend. They set it up to be a turning point in the movie, and in my opinion it just ended too soon to justify keeping it in the final reel.
Those are just nitpicky, though. As a whole, the movie was exciting, dramatic, and yet had a very real feel to it; something Spielberg does best. What can I say? It's classic genius filmmaking! Thanks for reading! Remember: pictures to follow!
Monday, April 15, 2013
Review of Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Hello all! For my second review of the day, I'll be talking about the 2009 film "Drag Me to Hell," directed by Sam Raimi and starring Allison Lohman and Justin Long.
I have to admit that at first, I did not want to see this movie. I had seen about 2 minutes of it when it first came out and thought, "this is really dumb. I want nothing to do with this movie." Then, a couple weeks ago, I was talking to my boyfriend about the movie and he mentioned how funny it was.
Me: Wait, funny? Like bad funny?
Boyfriend: Well yeah, but it's supposed to be funny. It's a horror comedy.
Me: ...Oh dear God...I've made a huge mistake.
And then I found out that it was directed by Sam Raimi, and I decided right then and there to give "Drag Me to Hell" another chance. It was the best decision I ever made.
"Drag Me to Hell" is a horror comedy film about a bank loan officer named Christine Brown (Allison Lohman) who is looking to get promoted at her job. Out to prove she can make tough decisions, Christine denies a third loan to an old woman who is about to lose her house. As punishment for her loan denial, the old woman puts a curse on Christine that ensures that her soul will be dragged to hell by a demon named Lamia. The rest of the movie follows Christine and her boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long) as they try to reverse the curse and get her life back to normal.
Pros:
1. This movie is classic Sam Raimi. It's absolutely hilarious and outrageous. But as outrageous and hilarious as it was, it was still subtle, in classic Raimi style. Only Raimi can make a movie hilarious and pretty terrifying at the same time. For example, Raimi has a running joke where Christine always gets something really gross projected into her mouth. Blood, guts, maggots, and other bodily fluids are always getting thrown into her mouth. He makes a really serious movie that doesn't take itself seriously.
2. Allison Lohman and Justin Long were super good in this movie. I'd only ever seen Allison Lohman in "White Oleander," which is a super serious and dramatic movie, so I wasn't sure how she would do in a comedy. But she didn't disappoint, and Justin Long never disappoints.
3. The actual premise is a really good horror movie story. I like that it's a classic curse story that ends with you being literally dragged to hell. It's not just a clever name!
Cons:
1. Some of the CGI was pretty corny, I must admit. When the ground opens up to hell, it's super silly looking. Small point though, because it didn't take me out of it at all. It was a comedy, after all.
Other than that, this movie was GREAT. It's the kind of movie I've come to expect from Sam Raimi.
I have to admit that at first, I did not want to see this movie. I had seen about 2 minutes of it when it first came out and thought, "this is really dumb. I want nothing to do with this movie." Then, a couple weeks ago, I was talking to my boyfriend about the movie and he mentioned how funny it was.
Me: Wait, funny? Like bad funny?
Boyfriend: Well yeah, but it's supposed to be funny. It's a horror comedy.
Me: ...Oh dear God...I've made a huge mistake.
And then I found out that it was directed by Sam Raimi, and I decided right then and there to give "Drag Me to Hell" another chance. It was the best decision I ever made.
"Drag Me to Hell" is a horror comedy film about a bank loan officer named Christine Brown (Allison Lohman) who is looking to get promoted at her job. Out to prove she can make tough decisions, Christine denies a third loan to an old woman who is about to lose her house. As punishment for her loan denial, the old woman puts a curse on Christine that ensures that her soul will be dragged to hell by a demon named Lamia. The rest of the movie follows Christine and her boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long) as they try to reverse the curse and get her life back to normal.
Pros:
1. This movie is classic Sam Raimi. It's absolutely hilarious and outrageous. But as outrageous and hilarious as it was, it was still subtle, in classic Raimi style. Only Raimi can make a movie hilarious and pretty terrifying at the same time. For example, Raimi has a running joke where Christine always gets something really gross projected into her mouth. Blood, guts, maggots, and other bodily fluids are always getting thrown into her mouth. He makes a really serious movie that doesn't take itself seriously.
2. Allison Lohman and Justin Long were super good in this movie. I'd only ever seen Allison Lohman in "White Oleander," which is a super serious and dramatic movie, so I wasn't sure how she would do in a comedy. But she didn't disappoint, and Justin Long never disappoints.
3. The actual premise is a really good horror movie story. I like that it's a classic curse story that ends with you being literally dragged to hell. It's not just a clever name!
Cons:
1. Some of the CGI was pretty corny, I must admit. When the ground opens up to hell, it's super silly looking. Small point though, because it didn't take me out of it at all. It was a comedy, after all.
Other than that, this movie was GREAT. It's the kind of movie I've come to expect from Sam Raimi.
Review of Django (1966)
SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS REVEALED
Hello all! Today I'll be doing two reviews, and first up is "Django"! Not the 2012 remake, oh no...I'm reviewing the original, the one that started it all, starring Franco Nero!
"Django" is an Italian western film about an outlaw named Django who seeks revenge on Major Jackson, the man who murdered his wife. He makes a deal with a Mexican general, who is also in conflict with Jackson, and the two work together to get their revenge. It's an all-out revenge and betrayal story that you would expect from a classic western.
Pros:
1. Django is an awesome character. He's not a hero, not a bad guy, just a drifter. All he wants is revenge for something that's happened to him, and he doesn't have any honorable intentions at all. He's one of the great curiosities of western film. Not to mention is crazy awesome weapon of choice: a giant machine gun inside of a badass looking coffin that he drags around behind him where ever he goes.
You can't deny the badassery that's in this picture.
2. This movie is famous for being ultra-violent. I don't want to give anything away, but trust me; it does not disappoint in the way of gore and violence.
3. The ending was super dramatic and totally badass. Django manages to shoot up about 700 guys - including Major Jackson - in a cemetery with both of his hands completely smashed and broken by biting off the trigger-guard on his pistol, leaning the trigger on the headstone of a girl that Jackson killed, and then slamming down the hammer with his broken hand. It was totally epic.
Cons:
1. The movie just didn't work for me. Besides the pros I mentioned, there wasn't really anything worth mentioning in the film. It was very flat, very cheesy and very boring. There wasn't enough in the film to keep me completely entertained, but it wasn't a terrible movie. It was just...blah. I was disappointed to learn that the movie that was so famous in Italy for being a great, ultra-violent, totally different kind of western was actually pretty much the opposite.
In conclusion, the fact that the over 50 versions of "Django" started with this one was pretty disappointing. Call me new school, but I think I'll stick with Tarantino's version. 2 stars for you, "Django"! Thanks for reading!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Review of Little Big Soldier (2010)
Hello all! I know, it's Thursday. Today's not my normal posting day, but this whole blog thing has thrown me for a loop. I'm super busy, but I'm trying to stay on track, so bear with me while I get my schedule back on track as well! Thanks for being patient and still reading :P
Today I will be reviewing "Little Big Soldier," a 2010 action-comedy film by Chinese director Ding Sheng, and starring Jackie Chan. It's set in early China during a long period of war and oppression. Jackie Chan plays a soldier for the Liang army, simply called "big soldier." The movie opens with the tail end of a great battle between his army and their enemy, the Wei army. Almost every soldier on either side perished, except for Jackie Chan (who survives by playing dead) and the General from the Wei army. Chan captures the General and intends to use him as his ticket to freedom. By giving him up to the Liang warlord, Chan will be honorably discharged and set free to continue his life as a simple farmer. From there it's a film about their journey from the battlefield to the Liang territory, fraught with danger, excitement, and a little humor by way of Jackie Chan.
Pros:
1. What I like most about this movie is that it's a really an awesome war movie with some adult-sized slapstick humor sprinkled in. It doesn't sound like a good mix, but Jackie Chan makes it work so well. The epic battle scenes are amazing, and yet there's still a humor throughout the movie that helps it go from a hum-drum, sad war movie to a more light-hearted, fun action movie.
2. The story is by Jackie Chan, which I think is awesome.
3. The cinematography was amazing, and they used such different and interesting locations to shoot. The battlefield wasn't just a battlefield; it was in the middle of a gorge with enormous, beautiful mountains all around. There's a scene where they hide in a super intense looking and scary cave; the forests they traveled in were super dense and thick, and had a lot to work with. Nothing about the location was ordinary about this film, and it made all the difference.
4. Speaking of, the costume design was also really awesome. There was a lot of variety, and honestly, Chinese film always has some of the best costumes around.
5. Not only is this movie an awesome war/comedy/action film, but what Jackie Chan movie would be complete without some AWESOME Kung Fu?! And trust me, there is some grade-A Kung Fu in this movie. Not only by the great Mr. Chan, but by everyone else as well.
Cons:
1. Okay, I'm just going to get this con out of the way: Jackie Chan wrote a song for the movie called "Rape Flowers." Yeah. Amazing singing skills, terrible song-titling skills.
2. There's a side character, Prince Wen, and he looks like he jumped straight out of an anime cartoon, which took me out of the movie a little bit every time I saw him. Not only that, but he was just an annoying character altogether. Kind of a spoiled brat/emo teen character. Just rubbed me the wrong way.
3. Like any epic war movie, it's kind of long. It's still exciting and a really good movie all around, but I must admit that the movie itself is quite a long one.
All in all, it was a super epic, funny, awesome, thrilling, great, super, amazing movie. I loved it, and I intend on watching more Chinese film because of this movie. 4 stars for you, Little Big Soldier! Thanks for reading!
MOVIE RUINER ALERT: This is not a spoiler, this is a MOVIE RUINER alert. If you don't like watching movies in another language, DO NOT watch this movie. It's in Mandarin Chinese and you DO have to read the subtitles. Once again, DO NOT WATCH if you don't like subtitles.
Today I will be reviewing "Little Big Soldier," a 2010 action-comedy film by Chinese director Ding Sheng, and starring Jackie Chan. It's set in early China during a long period of war and oppression. Jackie Chan plays a soldier for the Liang army, simply called "big soldier." The movie opens with the tail end of a great battle between his army and their enemy, the Wei army. Almost every soldier on either side perished, except for Jackie Chan (who survives by playing dead) and the General from the Wei army. Chan captures the General and intends to use him as his ticket to freedom. By giving him up to the Liang warlord, Chan will be honorably discharged and set free to continue his life as a simple farmer. From there it's a film about their journey from the battlefield to the Liang territory, fraught with danger, excitement, and a little humor by way of Jackie Chan.
Pros:
1. What I like most about this movie is that it's a really an awesome war movie with some adult-sized slapstick humor sprinkled in. It doesn't sound like a good mix, but Jackie Chan makes it work so well. The epic battle scenes are amazing, and yet there's still a humor throughout the movie that helps it go from a hum-drum, sad war movie to a more light-hearted, fun action movie.
2. The story is by Jackie Chan, which I think is awesome.
3. The cinematography was amazing, and they used such different and interesting locations to shoot. The battlefield wasn't just a battlefield; it was in the middle of a gorge with enormous, beautiful mountains all around. There's a scene where they hide in a super intense looking and scary cave; the forests they traveled in were super dense and thick, and had a lot to work with. Nothing about the location was ordinary about this film, and it made all the difference.
Like this bear in the forest
And this awesome thing
And who wouldn't love to watch Jackie run through millions of flowers?
4. Speaking of, the costume design was also really awesome. There was a lot of variety, and honestly, Chinese film always has some of the best costumes around.
5. Not only is this movie an awesome war/comedy/action film, but what Jackie Chan movie would be complete without some AWESOME Kung Fu?! And trust me, there is some grade-A Kung Fu in this movie. Not only by the great Mr. Chan, but by everyone else as well.
Cons:
1. Okay, I'm just going to get this con out of the way: Jackie Chan wrote a song for the movie called "Rape Flowers." Yeah. Amazing singing skills, terrible song-titling skills.
2. There's a side character, Prince Wen, and he looks like he jumped straight out of an anime cartoon, which took me out of the movie a little bit every time I saw him. Not only that, but he was just an annoying character altogether. Kind of a spoiled brat/emo teen character. Just rubbed me the wrong way.
3. Like any epic war movie, it's kind of long. It's still exciting and a really good movie all around, but I must admit that the movie itself is quite a long one.
All in all, it was a super epic, funny, awesome, thrilling, great, super, amazing movie. I loved it, and I intend on watching more Chinese film because of this movie. 4 stars for you, Little Big Soldier! Thanks for reading!
Monday, April 8, 2013
Review of The House at the End of the Street (2012)
SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS DISCUSSED
Hello all! Same-day post? Yeah, gonna have multiple. As you can clearly tell, I've been quite behind lately. This blogging business is serious...business? Yeah. It really is though. Anywho, my Monday post (the post that's supposed to be for today) is my review of "The House at the End of the Street," starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elisabeth Shue and Max Thieriot.
"The House at the End of the Street" is a psychological thriller film about a teenage girl named Elissa Cassidy (Jennifer Lawrence) who moves to a new neighborhood with her mother Sarah Cassidy (Elisabeth Shue). As they settle in, locals tell them the story of the brutal double murder that happened in the house across the street from theirs, and how the killer was never seen again. The movie follows her as she meets the only surviving member of the family that was killed, the charismatic Ryan Jacobson (Max Thieriot) and gets pulled into his dark and disturbing past.
Pros:
1. Jennifer Lawrence really proves herself to be a versatile actor in this role. After seeing "The Hunger Games," I wasn't sure how well she would fit into a thriller/horror setting. But she did very well; there was not one moment where she looked out of place. Granted, the movie wasn't exactly a horror movie as much as it was just a psychological drama (I'll get to that later), but there was no doubt that she had a commanding performance in this role.
2. Max Thieriot was a great Ryan Jacobson. He was one of the most interesting antagonists I've seen in a while. You don't usually see a lot of young, handsome, charismatic psychos in film, and when you do, they usually fall flat. Not this time, though; He did a great job gaining our trust throughout three quarters of the film. In fact, I was actually rooting for him and Jennifer Lawrence to get together by the end. And then he totally betrays not only J. Law, but the audience as well when he proves to be the one who's psycho. And I didn't feel betrayed in a bad way; more like in an "I'm never trusting nice people again" kind of way. Makes you think twice about people with a mysterious past.
Nice guy or super creep?
3. The plot twist is awesome. The story of the murder is presented like this: Jacobson's little sister Carrie Anne, who was mentally ill, brutally murdered their father and mother, and ran into the woods, never to be seen again. At the time of the murder, Jacobson was living with an aunt. He came back after the murders to fix up the house and sell it, since he inherited it. In reality, Jacobson's little sister died while she was a child, and his parents couldn't handle it. They abused him, physically and mentally, and called him "Carrie Anne." Jacobson eventually killed his parents, but still felt the need for a little sister, a Carrie Anne. So he kidnaps young women and forces them to stay in his house and become his little sister, which he eventually tries to do with Lawrence's character.
Cons:
1. Every night scene in the movie looked like a scene filmed in the day time with a blue filter over the camera. That is a technique that film makers use to make scenes look like night shots, but they just did a plain awful job at it.
2. It was a little too much on the drama side and not enough on the thriller/horror side. I would be less inclined to mention this if it weren't presented as a horror movie. It didn't feel like a horror or a thriller; in fact, it felt more like a made-for-TV psychological drama film. If it would have been a bit more scary, I would have been a lot more engaged.
I think that's it for me. Other than those two points, it was a pretty solid film. Jennifer Lawrence and Max Thieriot make a great team, and they proved it by making the movie as good as it was. Three stars for you, movie! Thanks for reading!
Review of The Departed (2006)
SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS DISCUSSED
Hello all! Today I will be reviewing "The Departed," directed by Martin Scorcese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, and Matt Damon. This is a fairly big-budget, super popular movie, and I'm sure most of you already have an opinion on the film, but I hadn't seen it at all until the other night, so it's new to me!
"The Departed" is about policeman Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) who's trying desperately to prove himself worthy of being an asset to his Massachusetts state police department. He does this by taking a dangerous undercover assignment to take down the ever-growing and powerful Irish mob and its leader, Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Along the way, he finds that his assignment isn't as clear as he thought, and the line between good and evil isn't black and white. The hunter becomes the hunted, and it's up to Costigan to keep his cool and finish the task he was sent out to do.
Pros:
1. The biggest pro is the fact that it's not your typical cop drama. There's an added character in the story that makes the entire movie; his name is Collin Sullivan, played by Matt Damon. Sullivan grew up with Costello as a father figure, and is a part of Costello's inner circle. Now, I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that Sullivan joins the police force to lead police away from Costello's scent, so to speak. That's what makes this movie for me; the fact that the police has an undercover cop in the mob, and the mob has an undercover agent in the police. It makes for a pretty interesting story development.
2. Martin Scorcese is a genius when it comes to casting a movie. Not only are Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio, and Jack Nicholson perfect in their roles, but there are so many other honorable mentions that it's crazy; Martin Sheen as the local police chief, Mark Wahlberg as the tough-as-nails, no bull cuss cop who doesn't trust anyone but Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin as Matt Damon's boss, another higher up in the police rank. Every character, no matter how small, delivered an Oscar-worthy performance. No one felt like a side character because everyone was doing their best main-character performance on screen.
3. Throughout the whole movie, neither Matt Damon nor Leonardo DiCaprio change their stance or feelings on the side that they're really on. Even though they play both sides of the field, so to speak, they remain loyal to their original cause. However, the one character who was supposed to be on the true blue, law enforcement side, was the one character that commits a crime for his own benefit. Mark Wahlberg's character finds out that Matt Damon is the informant for the mob, and he shoots and kills him at the very end. The fact that the audience is exposed to all of the "twists" from the very beginning makes you think that there couldn't possibly be a twist ending; but they'd be WRONG AS CRAP. Because I did NOT see that coming.
Cons:
1. Now, the only thing I can say that kind of ruined the movie for me was everyone's accent. For people like Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio, I guess I can forgive them because they're not actually from Boston, and Boston accents are pretty hard to get down pat. But I cannot forgive Matt Damon, who is actually FROM Boston and still sounded like he was trying to pull off a poor Boston accent. The only person that sounded genuine was Mark Wahlberg, and he had all but 10 lines in the film.
Other than that, though, I'd say the movie was definitely fantastic. I mean, it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, so I guess it did at least 3 things right. I give it 4 stars! 4 for you, Martin Scorcese! You've done it again.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Review of The Innkeepers (2011)
Hello all! You might notice that this review is of a horror movie. "But Sheridan, don't you review horror movies on Mondays?"
Why yes, yes I do. But as you can see, there was no post on Monday. I've been a little off the ball lately; my apologies. I'm getting back on track with this one though! So let's get to it! I reviewed a movie called "The Innkeepers," directed by Ti West.
"The Innkeepers" is about two friends who work in a failing small town hotel that's supposedly haunted. One of the friends, Luke (Pat Healy) claims that he's seen the ghost that haunts the hotel and convinces Claire (Sara Paxton) to help him with his website about paranormal activity by contacting the ghost that haunts the hotel and gathering proof that ghosts are real. Then strange things start to happen and they realize they were in over their heads from the moment they decided to go on the wild ghost chase.
Pros:
1. The cinematography was brilliant. It felt very much like "The Shining." They made good use of long, creepy hallways (a personal phobia of mine), textured walls and carpets, and loud, sudden noises. They knew how to set up a scene in such a way that made you feel uncomfortable right off the bat.
2. In the beginning, they tell you to turn up the volume on the TV for an optimum viewing experience, and I could see why. They relied a lot on the jump-out-and-scare-you stuff, and a lot of it was pretty brilliant and legitimately scary. I jumped at least 3 times while watching. However, I will be coming back to this comment in the cons section.
3. The two main characters are very natural together. It seemed to me like they were friends before this movie was made, because they were able to mess with each other and have fun together in a very natural, friendly way. They almost seemed like siblings, in a way, which made you root for them the whole time. Their enthusiasm about finding ghosts makes the viewer excited as well.
4. They used the actual Yankee-Pedlar Inn, which is supposedly really haunted. Knowing that it wasn't filmed on a set makes a horror movie so much more creepy.
5. There is a creepy guest that checks into the hotel and kills himself while Claire and Luke look for any paranormal activity. He later comes back as a ghost, and he's actually scarier than the ghost they spend the whole movie trying to find.
Cons:
1. Remember when I said that they really knew how to set up a good jump-out-at-you scene? Well, it would help if the thing that jumps out at you was actually scary. Nothing happens for half the movie; lots of stuff jumping out at you, not a lot of stuff scaring you.
2. The ghost that haunts the hotel isn't scary at all. The first time the audience sees her, it's a close up; which could be scary sometimes, but this time it just looked like a cheesy zombie bride with mediocre make up.
3. The social interactions between the main characters and other random side characters was not only unnecessary, but just awkward and weird. The only characters that were necessary to the story were the two main characters and a couple of the guests. For example, there's a scene involving Sara Paxton and a girl at a deli that did not serve the story. They set it up to be a very ominous scene, maybe involving foreshadowing, but instead they have an awkward and brief exchange, and nothing more comes of it. It's like they sold the whole movie short with brief and awkward conversations that don't mean anything to the movie.
4. The creepiness of the old man that kills himself far outweighs the creepiness of the main ghost, so it really makes the main ghost look like a joke. They should have used one ghost or the other.
5. The ghost doesn't show herself for three quarters of the movie. Nothing scary that happens is at the hand of the ghost; it's all completely explainable. But when she does show herself, she kills Claire, and then goes away. The audience has no time to decide if there's even really a ghost in the hotel, and then she randomly kills someone in the end.
6. It's just not scary. There was a lot of good build up, but absolutely no follow through. And trust me, if I don't think it's scary, it's not scary. It was just a disappointment.
There you have it, folks! A scary movie in didn't think was scary. Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Why yes, yes I do. But as you can see, there was no post on Monday. I've been a little off the ball lately; my apologies. I'm getting back on track with this one though! So let's get to it! I reviewed a movie called "The Innkeepers," directed by Ti West.
"The Innkeepers" is about two friends who work in a failing small town hotel that's supposedly haunted. One of the friends, Luke (Pat Healy) claims that he's seen the ghost that haunts the hotel and convinces Claire (Sara Paxton) to help him with his website about paranormal activity by contacting the ghost that haunts the hotel and gathering proof that ghosts are real. Then strange things start to happen and they realize they were in over their heads from the moment they decided to go on the wild ghost chase.
Pros:
1. The cinematography was brilliant. It felt very much like "The Shining." They made good use of long, creepy hallways (a personal phobia of mine), textured walls and carpets, and loud, sudden noises. They knew how to set up a scene in such a way that made you feel uncomfortable right off the bat.
2. In the beginning, they tell you to turn up the volume on the TV for an optimum viewing experience, and I could see why. They relied a lot on the jump-out-and-scare-you stuff, and a lot of it was pretty brilliant and legitimately scary. I jumped at least 3 times while watching. However, I will be coming back to this comment in the cons section.
3. The two main characters are very natural together. It seemed to me like they were friends before this movie was made, because they were able to mess with each other and have fun together in a very natural, friendly way. They almost seemed like siblings, in a way, which made you root for them the whole time. Their enthusiasm about finding ghosts makes the viewer excited as well.
4. They used the actual Yankee-Pedlar Inn, which is supposedly really haunted. Knowing that it wasn't filmed on a set makes a horror movie so much more creepy.
5. There is a creepy guest that checks into the hotel and kills himself while Claire and Luke look for any paranormal activity. He later comes back as a ghost, and he's actually scarier than the ghost they spend the whole movie trying to find.
Cons:
1. Remember when I said that they really knew how to set up a good jump-out-at-you scene? Well, it would help if the thing that jumps out at you was actually scary. Nothing happens for half the movie; lots of stuff jumping out at you, not a lot of stuff scaring you.
2. The ghost that haunts the hotel isn't scary at all. The first time the audience sees her, it's a close up; which could be scary sometimes, but this time it just looked like a cheesy zombie bride with mediocre make up.
3. The social interactions between the main characters and other random side characters was not only unnecessary, but just awkward and weird. The only characters that were necessary to the story were the two main characters and a couple of the guests. For example, there's a scene involving Sara Paxton and a girl at a deli that did not serve the story. They set it up to be a very ominous scene, maybe involving foreshadowing, but instead they have an awkward and brief exchange, and nothing more comes of it. It's like they sold the whole movie short with brief and awkward conversations that don't mean anything to the movie.
4. The creepiness of the old man that kills himself far outweighs the creepiness of the main ghost, so it really makes the main ghost look like a joke. They should have used one ghost or the other.
5. The ghost doesn't show herself for three quarters of the movie. Nothing scary that happens is at the hand of the ghost; it's all completely explainable. But when she does show herself, she kills Claire, and then goes away. The audience has no time to decide if there's even really a ghost in the hotel, and then she randomly kills someone in the end.
6. It's just not scary. There was a lot of good build up, but absolutely no follow through. And trust me, if I don't think it's scary, it's not scary. It was just a disappointment.
There you have it, folks! A scary movie in didn't think was scary. Who'd have thunk it, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)