Why do I do this to myself? I guess in order to truly appreciate good movies, maybe even to appreciate mediocre movies, I must see the occasional terrible movie. Perhaps I should have known before I went, there was the trailer, which had it's moments, but when the good moments are few and far between in a trailer, consider yourself warned... Also there was the fact that this was the directed by the same guy who directed "Daredevil". Now that wasn't the worst movie I'd ever seen, but let's just say it was in the bottom 10th percentile. Where to begin, or perhaps is it even worth reviewing at all? There are some valuable lessons to be learned from "Ghostrider", and here they are: Just because it was a comic book doesn't mean it has to be a movie too. Just because Nicolas Cage is in it doesn't mean it's good. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you have to make a movie about skeletons riding choppers in Texas... There was one good thing about "Ghostrider" and that was Sam Elliot's voice. Now Sam Elliot was in the movie, and that wasn't so great, but Sam Elliot's voice is awesome. Of course you can always watch "The Big Lebowski" or "Tombstone" to really enjoy Sam Elliot without the distraction of a bad movie like I had to endure. Beef, it's what's for dinner.
"The Departed" won. My afterthought is that I am happy.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Last King of Scotland
On Sunday in Colorado Springs there were 49 opportunities to see "Ghost Rider" and only 3 to see "The Last King of Scotland". I've been hearing about this movie for the last three months, in New York and L.A. they've been able to go see it since December. It's finally here, and it plays three times a day at one theater. Now I know, some of you have it worse, and I'm truly sorry for you. Maybe "Ghost Rider" is sweet, and maybe "Norbit" is the funniest movie you'll ever see, but give me a break. If movies are just about pleasing the most people possible with the least amount of effort, well I don't think I want to watch those movies.
Anyways, I kind of went off on a tangent, this is supposed to be about "The Last King of Scotland", right? I went into this movie knowing nothing except that Forrest Whittaker was playing the lead role in a movie called "The Last King of Scotland". Well, I really like when I see a movie like this without any preconcieved notions. The first twenty minutes or so you don't even see Whittaker, and when we finally meet him, he seems to be a side character. Then, we get thrown into his world, and it's a scary thing. At first, I thought I was going to like the General that he plays. He is fun, a man of the people, recognizes talent, and is a loyal friend. The way the story is told used this technique, of slowly unfolding the truth, very convincingly. I know I've been in situations where I though I knew what was going on, and was committed, only to find out I had been misled the whole time. This isn't a move that glosses over peoples dark side, it just starts out giving people the benefit of the doubt, and holds on to that thought until it becomes completely impossible.
"Transformers" is going to be awesome!
Anyways, I kind of went off on a tangent, this is supposed to be about "The Last King of Scotland", right? I went into this movie knowing nothing except that Forrest Whittaker was playing the lead role in a movie called "The Last King of Scotland". Well, I really like when I see a movie like this without any preconcieved notions. The first twenty minutes or so you don't even see Whittaker, and when we finally meet him, he seems to be a side character. Then, we get thrown into his world, and it's a scary thing. At first, I thought I was going to like the General that he plays. He is fun, a man of the people, recognizes talent, and is a loyal friend. The way the story is told used this technique, of slowly unfolding the truth, very convincingly. I know I've been in situations where I though I knew what was going on, and was committed, only to find out I had been misled the whole time. This isn't a move that glosses over peoples dark side, it just starts out giving people the benefit of the doubt, and holds on to that thought until it becomes completely impossible.
"Transformers" is going to be awesome!
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Queen and who I think should win Best Picture...
"The Queen" was the last on my list of films nominated for Best Picture this year. I reall wanted to see "The Departed", and I saw it way before the awards were even on the horizon. I would have seen "Letters From Iwo Jima" even if it hadn't been nominated, the idea of Eastwood making films from both perspectives back-to-back is interesting to me. "Little Miss Sunshine" and Babel both looked alright, but I probably wouldn't have seen them if they hadn't been nominated. "The Queen" was the one that I actually had the hardest time going to see. You see, ever since childhood I've had this sense, maybe my sixth sense, that has helped me avoid movies that touch upon feelings that are best left untouched. "Sarah Plain and Tall" is the epitome of this sensation... a well made, well acted, beautiful looking movie that makes me want to cry just thinking abou it. And it's not a good crying like Forrest Gump loving Jenny, or William Wallace speaking French, it's that uncomfortable, depressing kind of crying. Anyways, I was afraid that "The Queen" was going to be a lot of dealing with pent-up female emotions, which is not something I really want to spend $7.75 on. I was pleasantly suprised. This is a film about tradition, politics, compromise, family and values. Of course there was some pent-up female emotion, but balanced well, so I can't complain too much. There is quite a bit of talk about Helen Mirren's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II, which is all deserved. What I liked especially though was James Cromwell's peformance as Prince Philip, who knows how accurate it is to the real man, but it was fun to watch. I enjoy actors who you can compare their wide range of roles and enjoy them all. For Cromwell, he's been from the farmer in "Babe" to the police cheif in "L.A. Confidential", no as Prince Philip he's captured the whole spectrum, nice work.
Alright, without any more suspense, I think "The Departed" is the best film from this last year. It is kind of sad though that Scorsese has done many films better than this one and has not yet won. "Taxi Driver" lost to "Rocky", "Goodfellas" lost to "Dances with Wolves" (please tell me it isn't true!) and "Gangs of New York" lost to "Chicago"... "Rocky", OK I understand that, but "Dances With Wolves" and "Chicago"! Perhaps the Academy Awards are not a good judge of lasting quality and cultural impact. Does anyone even remeber "Chicago"? Scorsese's work will stand the test of time, and when people are watching old movies on PBS fifty years from now, I think they'll be watching Academy Award losers more often than not.
Alright, without any more suspense, I think "The Departed" is the best film from this last year. It is kind of sad though that Scorsese has done many films better than this one and has not yet won. "Taxi Driver" lost to "Rocky", "Goodfellas" lost to "Dances with Wolves" (please tell me it isn't true!) and "Gangs of New York" lost to "Chicago"... "Rocky", OK I understand that, but "Dances With Wolves" and "Chicago"! Perhaps the Academy Awards are not a good judge of lasting quality and cultural impact. Does anyone even remeber "Chicago"? Scorsese's work will stand the test of time, and when people are watching old movies on PBS fifty years from now, I think they'll be watching Academy Award losers more often than not.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Little Miss Sunshine and Children of Men
Along with "Babel" and soon "The Queen", I watched "Little Miss Sunshine" primarily because it has been nominated for Best Picture this year. It was a heart-warming, quirkily-funny, psudeo-inependent, family/road comedy. Maybe that's all I really should say. There wasn't really anything new here except instead of the typical pessimistic world view indy comedies generally have, this one actually saw the value of family and life. I would only really reccomend the movie for that reason, especially to people overwhelmed by dark, depressing, downlifting (?) comedies. Personally I understand why people like dark comedies, there's so much fluff out there, but it seems that there are only the two extremes nowadays. So in that way, "Little Miss Sunshine" does break the mould.
The best thing about "Children of Men" is that the filmmakers were able to create a county twenty years from now, playing upon all the fears that we have today. Take all the things that the news media is trying to scare us with; a flu pandemic, illegal immigration, Muslims, technology, Republicans, roadside improvised devices, genetic manipulation... and you've got "Children of Men" Now for me, atmosphere, scenerey, costumes/makeup and special effects all help tell a good story, and if done right can make an incredible difference in wether or not I'm going to like the film. Some movies have the news reports on televison, and the headlines on newspapers, but usually the filmmakers think we're idiots. The whole screen is taken up by Wolf Blitzer telling us about the most recent imprtant world event, or the newspaper spins around, banging into the camera, announcing the health crisis. Here Alfonso Cuaron (director) lets the newsbites, soundclips and headlines be background information. Now he does this clearly and inentionally, you might miss some of the information, but you get enough to know what's going on. I liked this because it's like real life, and it contributed to the sense that the characters in the film were getting the bits and pieces of news and piecing it together in real-time. Overall the movie was quite depressing, and it's sad to know that people are dealing with the exact same living conditions right now; refugee camps, immigrant discrimination, health epidemics, warzones in their streets... Will these problems reach London, or New York, or Indiana? I think everything in this movie is 100% possible, it's not a flood destroying the entire Earth, it's us not knowing you to live peacefully with each other, and that's been going on for quite some time now.
The best thing about "Children of Men" is that the filmmakers were able to create a county twenty years from now, playing upon all the fears that we have today. Take all the things that the news media is trying to scare us with; a flu pandemic, illegal immigration, Muslims, technology, Republicans, roadside improvised devices, genetic manipulation... and you've got "Children of Men" Now for me, atmosphere, scenerey, costumes/makeup and special effects all help tell a good story, and if done right can make an incredible difference in wether or not I'm going to like the film. Some movies have the news reports on televison, and the headlines on newspapers, but usually the filmmakers think we're idiots. The whole screen is taken up by Wolf Blitzer telling us about the most recent imprtant world event, or the newspaper spins around, banging into the camera, announcing the health crisis. Here Alfonso Cuaron (director) lets the newsbites, soundclips and headlines be background information. Now he does this clearly and inentionally, you might miss some of the information, but you get enough to know what's going on. I liked this because it's like real life, and it contributed to the sense that the characters in the film were getting the bits and pieces of news and piecing it together in real-time. Overall the movie was quite depressing, and it's sad to know that people are dealing with the exact same living conditions right now; refugee camps, immigrant discrimination, health epidemics, warzones in their streets... Will these problems reach London, or New York, or Indiana? I think everything in this movie is 100% possible, it's not a flood destroying the entire Earth, it's us not knowing you to live peacefully with each other, and that's been going on for quite some time now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)