august 18 2K9
district 9 is the opposite of g.i. joe.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
youth of the beast
august 18 2K9
i think the 50's and 60's in japan is a really interesting time; there is an odd mix of traditional and western cultures. the youth are "progressing" while the middle aged and older sets are clinging to the past. youth of the beast is a 60's japanese gangster flick, with a little of the story taken from yojimbo. the story is really good; there are a few twists that are well executed. there are some great compositions that enhance the scene whether it be by adding to the uneasiness or the mystery of the given scene. unfortunately the final "huge battle" is lacking, but i think that is more to do with the suficstication of contemporary movies that a lacking in skill of seijun suzuki, the director. overall youth of the beast was exciting and engaging; anyone you loves movies must see it.
i think the 50's and 60's in japan is a really interesting time; there is an odd mix of traditional and western cultures. the youth are "progressing" while the middle aged and older sets are clinging to the past. youth of the beast is a 60's japanese gangster flick, with a little of the story taken from yojimbo. the story is really good; there are a few twists that are well executed. there are some great compositions that enhance the scene whether it be by adding to the uneasiness or the mystery of the given scene. unfortunately the final "huge battle" is lacking, but i think that is more to do with the suficstication of contemporary movies that a lacking in skill of seijun suzuki, the director. overall youth of the beast was exciting and engaging; anyone you loves movies must see it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
KITE: Liberator
august 16 2K9
kite: liberator "a teenage assassin is cleaning up the grimy streets of tokyo. the police call her the angel of death." this is what i read while going through the movies on hulu. i thought "sounds awesome! i'm in the mood for some action anime." i have know idea how they summed up the movie so poorly; kite has such a horribly random and disjointed story you don't understand the importance of some of the characters and the unimportance of others. it's short, around 55 minutes and that could be why there is a severe lack of character development and lack of explanation of some events. the story is part sci-fi, part monster movie, and part hitman and none of it fits well together. when you think you're going to get some answers it just ends.
kite: liberator "a teenage assassin is cleaning up the grimy streets of tokyo. the police call her the angel of death." this is what i read while going through the movies on hulu. i thought "sounds awesome! i'm in the mood for some action anime." i have know idea how they summed up the movie so poorly; kite has such a horribly random and disjointed story you don't understand the importance of some of the characters and the unimportance of others. it's short, around 55 minutes and that could be why there is a severe lack of character development and lack of explanation of some events. the story is part sci-fi, part monster movie, and part hitman and none of it fits well together. when you think you're going to get some answers it just ends.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
casino royale
august 15 2K9
the 2006 version was the first bond film i enjoyed in a really long time; after golden eye they became more action than espionage. i was looking forward to watching the 1967 original. the movie is pretty campy, but is still funny at times; those times are few and far between. it takes awhile to actually get to the story though; it feels like the entire 1st act. once it gets going it feels very disjointed and jumps around from place to place and forward in time so it takes a sec to figure out where you are and which characters are in the scene. peter sellers is good, but his part of the story is very limited. woody allen is actually very funny playing "himself". the end gets very random similar to many mel brooks movies, but not the good mel brooks movies. i have enjoyed many of the comedies from this era and am a huge peter sellers fan, but casino royale was not very funny or interesting.
the 2006 version was the first bond film i enjoyed in a really long time; after golden eye they became more action than espionage. i was looking forward to watching the 1967 original. the movie is pretty campy, but is still funny at times; those times are few and far between. it takes awhile to actually get to the story though; it feels like the entire 1st act. once it gets going it feels very disjointed and jumps around from place to place and forward in time so it takes a sec to figure out where you are and which characters are in the scene. peter sellers is good, but his part of the story is very limited. woody allen is actually very funny playing "himself". the end gets very random similar to many mel brooks movies, but not the good mel brooks movies. i have enjoyed many of the comedies from this era and am a huge peter sellers fan, but casino royale was not very funny or interesting.
Friday, August 14, 2009
slacker
august 14 2K9
all of my preconceived notions were completely wrong; i thought it was going to be a straight forward movie with a protagonist; watching them as they do stuff. don't know where i got that idea that was just what i thought. glad i actually watched it because it was great. i would say it is a combo of coffee and cigarettes and elephant. it is extremely indie and is great characters in little vignettes like coffee and cigarettes, but isn't as funny. the none of the actors are "real actors" and the feel and shooting style is similar to elephant. this combo made slacker feel very real and pseudo docish. the characters where very interesting for the most part. each has their own theory on life, the universe, government, etc. makes you want to know about each new character you meet. towards the end the vignettes get a little short and begin to disconnect. except for the last part, which shot on super 8, it is great; the editing and music work wonderfully together. i wish it hadn't taken me so long to see it.
all of my preconceived notions were completely wrong; i thought it was going to be a straight forward movie with a protagonist; watching them as they do stuff. don't know where i got that idea that was just what i thought. glad i actually watched it because it was great. i would say it is a combo of coffee and cigarettes and elephant. it is extremely indie and is great characters in little vignettes like coffee and cigarettes, but isn't as funny. the none of the actors are "real actors" and the feel and shooting style is similar to elephant. this combo made slacker feel very real and pseudo docish. the characters where very interesting for the most part. each has their own theory on life, the universe, government, etc. makes you want to know about each new character you meet. towards the end the vignettes get a little short and begin to disconnect. except for the last part, which shot on super 8, it is great; the editing and music work wonderfully together. i wish it hadn't taken me so long to see it.
g.i. joe
august 13 2K9
g.i. joe was not that good. i grew up watching the show and playing with the toys; g.i. joe was 1a to transformers 1b. i was pretty excited about the movie, but didn't have high hopes; i knew it wasn't going to be oscar worthy. on to the movie; i knew those suits would be stupid and they were. chasing a hummer on foot = lame. there was many a time when they would needlessly vault over cars or slide on the ground. it was like they meant to put obstacles there in post but ran out of time. why did snake eyes' mask have lips? the first time we meet scarlett she is kinda bumbling then baller then bumbling then baller; aren't the best of the best supposed to baller all the time? the acting is over top; i found myself thinking "if i was a method actor what memory would i use to simulate how i feel after someone attacks my secret base and steals my secret weapon?" i kinda want to know how say sienna miller, who is a pretty good actor could be taken seriously after being in this movie. (side note wasn't a big fan before but she looks amazing with black hair and glasses) the movie has a fairly cookie cutter story including the training/proving you're good enough montage. most of the action sequences aren't that exciting and have way too much slow mo; some shots were awesome, but the ones that weren't were atrocious. cobra commander's mask is so stupid. if a sequel is made it will be bad solely based on the horrible story choices they made in this one.
g.i. joe was not that good. i grew up watching the show and playing with the toys; g.i. joe was 1a to transformers 1b. i was pretty excited about the movie, but didn't have high hopes; i knew it wasn't going to be oscar worthy. on to the movie; i knew those suits would be stupid and they were. chasing a hummer on foot = lame. there was many a time when they would needlessly vault over cars or slide on the ground. it was like they meant to put obstacles there in post but ran out of time. why did snake eyes' mask have lips? the first time we meet scarlett she is kinda bumbling then baller then bumbling then baller; aren't the best of the best supposed to baller all the time? the acting is over top; i found myself thinking "if i was a method actor what memory would i use to simulate how i feel after someone attacks my secret base and steals my secret weapon?" i kinda want to know how say sienna miller, who is a pretty good actor could be taken seriously after being in this movie. (side note wasn't a big fan before but she looks amazing with black hair and glasses) the movie has a fairly cookie cutter story including the training/proving you're good enough montage. most of the action sequences aren't that exciting and have way too much slow mo; some shots were awesome, but the ones that weren't were atrocious. cobra commander's mask is so stupid. if a sequel is made it will be bad solely based on the horrible story choices they made in this one.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
funny people
august 9 2K9
funny people was great. it felt very different from apatow's other films; knocked up and 40 year old virgin are very simple and almost simplistic in the camera angles and movement apatow uses to tell his story. where in funny people it seems during certain scenes/sequences he did want better more interesting compositions; the entire opening sequence felt like something gus van sant would do. it may be because he felt the story needed it or the influence of cinematographer janusz kaminski or apatow decided to work with kaminski for the story also. unfortunately there are one or two moments in the story where it goes on a unwarranted tangent or a scene is 1-3 minutes too long and i wanted the movie to just get on with it; but other than those few times the story keeps you engaged and interested in what is going to happen. considering the movie is almost 2.5 hours they could have cut it down some. adam sandler is wonderful; as he showed in punch drunk love he is a legit actor who can make you care about the character he is playing. jason schwartzman and jonah hill (who i love) feel like they're playing themselves and i could have done with a little less of them. eric bana is annoyingly great; the point is to not like him and you don't and its funny. seth rogen was good. he was better than i expected. there were a few scenes that really didn't seem needed between him, schwartzman, and hill. in those scenes he did things that felt out of character; which is more apatow's fault than his. i think funny people is a definite must see eventually; if you can't catch it in the theaters fo sho rent it.
funny people was great. it felt very different from apatow's other films; knocked up and 40 year old virgin are very simple and almost simplistic in the camera angles and movement apatow uses to tell his story. where in funny people it seems during certain scenes/sequences he did want better more interesting compositions; the entire opening sequence felt like something gus van sant would do. it may be because he felt the story needed it or the influence of cinematographer janusz kaminski or apatow decided to work with kaminski for the story also. unfortunately there are one or two moments in the story where it goes on a unwarranted tangent or a scene is 1-3 minutes too long and i wanted the movie to just get on with it; but other than those few times the story keeps you engaged and interested in what is going to happen. considering the movie is almost 2.5 hours they could have cut it down some. adam sandler is wonderful; as he showed in punch drunk love he is a legit actor who can make you care about the character he is playing. jason schwartzman and jonah hill (who i love) feel like they're playing themselves and i could have done with a little less of them. eric bana is annoyingly great; the point is to not like him and you don't and its funny. seth rogen was good. he was better than i expected. there were a few scenes that really didn't seem needed between him, schwartzman, and hill. in those scenes he did things that felt out of character; which is more apatow's fault than his. i think funny people is a definite must see eventually; if you can't catch it in the theaters fo sho rent it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
