-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buried - A
Full disclaimer that if you choose to watch this film you are going to see Ryan Reynolds for the full hour and a half. Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a trucker working in Iraq. When his convoy is ambushed, he is knocked out and finds himself in a coffin, buried with only a few things in his possession. A satellite phone given to him by the man holding him for ransom allows him to connect with the outside world. Some of his conversations include: the man who buried him, ignorant HR people at his company, his delusional mother, the self-serving bigwigs at his company, and a hostage specialist named Dan Brenner who is venturing to save him. I've always been interested in movies that isolate their main character; though there are plenty of interactions, they are all done with Conroy knowing he is by himself in the coffin. I don't know what I was expecting when I started the movie, but for 95 minutes I was captivated. Reynolds was awesome. I am still in shock at how this movie took me by surprise. There are a couple of quirky filmmaking things I didn't like, but for a movie set almost completely in a 8 ft. x 4 ft. coffin, it's bound to happen. Definitely worth your time, unless your claustrophobic... you might not like it if you are. Finally, I do have to say that it lost some points for using the worst word in the english language, use your imagination.
Story (10) - 8.5
Genre (Tragedy) (10) - 10
Characters (5) - 5 (there weren't many characters so this is due mainly to Reynolds superb acting)
Believability (5) - 4
Filmmaking (10) - 7.5
Enjoyment (10) - 9
Buried - 4.4 out of 5 yukes
bam... you just got Yuked.
"I have had it with these m*****f***** snakes in this m*****f***** coffin."
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Lightning Round - 5 Movies in 5 Minutes
Christmas was good, but I didn't write any of the reviews or watch any of the movies I had originally hoped to. With that said, I'm going to shorten the next couple of reviews so that I can catch up on writing them. The following are movies that are kind of here nor there movies, enjoyable (for the most part) but nothing special... in order of my ranking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ghost Writer - B
Roman Polanski directs this political thriller about a Tony Blair-esque politician (played by Pierce Brosnan) caught up in a scandal regarding some of his decisions while in office. His initial ghost writer (writing his memoires) dies under suspicious circumstances and the un-named writer (Ewan McGregor) is brought on to finish the job. Little does he know he's about to uncover deeper misgivings about the whole situation. He gets caught up in the tornado himself and follows his research to find the truth. I, unlike many others, found this movie to be entertaining, and happily complex enough for my liking, but a little to try-hard. Critics seem to love how taut the script is, the black comedy style of filmmaking and the clever acting; yet I couldn't help being let down to a certain point. I did enjoy the movie, but not as much as it seems the world did.
Story (10) - 8
Genre (10) - 7.5
Characters (5) - 4
Believability (5) - 4
Filmmaking (10) - 7.5
Enjoyment (10) - 8
The Ghost Writer - 3.9 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catfish - B
A documentary that follows Nev Schulman and his online friendship with the family of an 11 year old artist named from Michigan named Abby. Nev, a photographer strikes a romance with Abby's sister completely online and devoid of human contact. As the story unfolds however, Nev finds out that you can't always trust what you can't see. The question I kept asking myself is, "is this real?". They do a great job of keeping you in measurable suspense throughout the movie, and it almost comes across as a beautiful lead-up to a B horror movie. Some say it's a farce; I say it's a movie that begs the question of our society, "how much trust are we putting in our online interactions, and at what point will they let us down causing our social fabric to crumble?" A bit too close to home, but again, still worth a watch.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exit Through the Gift Shop - B
Another documentary that makes you wonder if it's real or not. An expose on the outsider art of graffiti artists based in Los Angeles. Thierry Guetta (or Mr. Brainwash), is a pretty terrible filmmaker that just loves filming anything. He gets caught up in the whirlwind of street art and just starts filming. Guetta, who has no clue as to the first thing about filmmaking, convinces the artists that he's making a documentary of them.... duh duh duh... the film leads you to believe he isn't... but he kinda is. Just before he makes his crappy version of a documentary, he has a chance encounter with the notorious street artist Banksy, and strikes a friendship with the artistic genius. Once Banksy gets a chance to watch the film, he convinces Guetta to follow his artistry instead of his filmmaking dreams. Guetta becomes a street artist, and through hype and copycatting famous styles, he becomes one of the biggest street art sensations in LA. I enjoyed how the movie turned into an inquisition regarding society's willingness to follow the hype machine. Reese Roper of FIF once sang these lyrics:
"The packaging is nice, we're building it to sell,
Call all your people in Hollywood and Nashville,
It's one in a million, in fact we broke the dye,
It's all of the hype that your money can buy."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ghost Writer - B
Roman Polanski directs this political thriller about a Tony Blair-esque politician (played by Pierce Brosnan) caught up in a scandal regarding some of his decisions while in office. His initial ghost writer (writing his memoires) dies under suspicious circumstances and the un-named writer (Ewan McGregor) is brought on to finish the job. Little does he know he's about to uncover deeper misgivings about the whole situation. He gets caught up in the tornado himself and follows his research to find the truth. I, unlike many others, found this movie to be entertaining, and happily complex enough for my liking, but a little to try-hard. Critics seem to love how taut the script is, the black comedy style of filmmaking and the clever acting; yet I couldn't help being let down to a certain point. I did enjoy the movie, but not as much as it seems the world did.
Story (10) - 8
Genre (10) - 7.5
Characters (5) - 4
Believability (5) - 4
Filmmaking (10) - 7.5
Enjoyment (10) - 8
The Ghost Writer - 3.9 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catfish - B
A documentary that follows Nev Schulman and his online friendship with the family of an 11 year old artist named from Michigan named Abby. Nev, a photographer strikes a romance with Abby's sister completely online and devoid of human contact. As the story unfolds however, Nev finds out that you can't always trust what you can't see. The question I kept asking myself is, "is this real?". They do a great job of keeping you in measurable suspense throughout the movie, and it almost comes across as a beautiful lead-up to a B horror movie. Some say it's a farce; I say it's a movie that begs the question of our society, "how much trust are we putting in our online interactions, and at what point will they let us down causing our social fabric to crumble?" A bit too close to home, but again, still worth a watch.
Story (10) - 7.5
Genre (10) - 7
Characters (5) - 3.5
Believability (5) - 4.5
Filmmaking (10) - 8
Enjoyment (10) - 7.5
Catfish - 3.8 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exit Through the Gift Shop - B
Another documentary that makes you wonder if it's real or not. An expose on the outsider art of graffiti artists based in Los Angeles. Thierry Guetta (or Mr. Brainwash), is a pretty terrible filmmaker that just loves filming anything. He gets caught up in the whirlwind of street art and just starts filming. Guetta, who has no clue as to the first thing about filmmaking, convinces the artists that he's making a documentary of them.... duh duh duh... the film leads you to believe he isn't... but he kinda is. Just before he makes his crappy version of a documentary, he has a chance encounter with the notorious street artist Banksy, and strikes a friendship with the artistic genius. Once Banksy gets a chance to watch the film, he convinces Guetta to follow his artistry instead of his filmmaking dreams. Guetta becomes a street artist, and through hype and copycatting famous styles, he becomes one of the biggest street art sensations in LA. I enjoyed how the movie turned into an inquisition regarding society's willingness to follow the hype machine. Reese Roper of FIF once sang these lyrics:
"The packaging is nice, we're building it to sell,
Call all your people in Hollywood and Nashville,
It's one in a million, in fact we broke the dye,
It's all of the hype that your money can buy."
Story (10) - 7.5
Genre (10) - 7
Characters (5) - 4
Believability (5) - 4
Filmmaking (10) - 8
Enjoyment (10) - 7.5
Exit Through the Gift Shop - 3.8 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawntreader - B
This movie is exactly what it sells itself to be. It's the third movie in the Chronicles series, where the kids have grown up and they're banking on the fact that their audience has too. Lucy and Edmund are the only returning children; joined by their insufferable cousin Eustace on a trip back to Narnia. They meet up with now King Caspian and the crew of the Dawntreader who set out to rescue slaves sacrificed to the "dark mist" (LOST anyone?). On their journey they must find the seven swords of the seven lost lords ... and '6 geese a laying... and... 5 golden rings'. Anyone else have a problem with them finding each sword exactly in the first place they look? It's a disconnected adaptation of the book, and seems really forced. I had fun watching it for 3 reasons...
1. The CGI is pretty good, and battle scenes are cool
2. I like Simon Pegg as the voice of Reepicheep (the fighting mouse)
3. Aslan is AWESOME
It's a better film than it's predecessor and will probably lead to another sequel. Watch it if only because Narnia is a wonderful place to be explored.
Story (10) - 7.5
Genre (10) - 7.5
Characters (5) - 3.5
Believability (5) - 3
Filmmaking (10) - 8
Enjoyment (10) - 7
Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawntreader - 3.65 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due Date - D
I was wholly unimpressed with this film. In a poor re-hashing of the classic Plains, Trains and Automobiles, Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is a stressed-out father-to-be forced to ride across the country with actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) to get home in time for the birth of his child. That's enough a synopsis for you to understand what's going on. The movie kind of lost me when you hear sounds of Ethan masturbating in the car while Peter is sleeping. It definitely lost me when Peter wakes up to find Ethan's dog is also masturbating in the backseat. The vulgarity of the movie is exactly that, and if you don't like me saying those things in a review you probably shouldn't see this movie. I can count on one hand how many times I laughed during the movie and was kind of sad that I spent money to see the movie in theaters. If you go see it and your opinion differs from mine, trust me, I won't judge you. But this movie was just not for me, and I can venture a guess that it probably isn't for most of you either.
Story (10) - 4
Genre (10) - 5
Characters (5) - 2.5
Believability (5) - 1.5
Filmmaking (10) - 4
Enjoyment (10) - 4.5
Due Date - 2.15 out of 5 yukes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, December 19, 2010
New Review - The Fighter
The Fighter - A
When you think of a film like this, your first reaction might be that it'll be focused solely on the fighter's rise to the top with a little bit of character development sprinkled in. You would be wrong. It certainly includes some of that feel-good, defying all odds kinda stuff... but what I loved about this movie is that the character development is priority for the filmmakers. The feeling we're all supposed to feel about Mark Wahlberg's character is predicated on the connection that is built in the first two thirds of the movie. Now that you have an overview, onto the review.
Story - 8
Mark Wahlberg plays "Irish" Mickey Ward, a boxer from Lowell, Mass. with a recent slump in the ring. His brother Dickie (Christian Bale), a Lowell hero and Mickey's trainer, is struggling with addiction to crack and subsequently having an HBO special recorded about his fall and addiction. As his volatile brother continues to fall, Mickey is confronted with the possibility of leaving his brother and overbearing mother/manager (Melissa Leo) for the chance to train elsewhere. At this point he meets and falls for Charlene (Amy Adams), who sees his potential and stands in the face of Mickey's family causing a rift between the once tight family unit. Dickie ends up going to jail as a part of his downward spiral, giving Mickey an out. As he starts to distance himself from his family, he finds more and more success. The story does a lot of justice to the brokenness and selfish motives that can tear a family apart, but it does a really good job of showing what can happen when all parties involved realize what needs to be done for the greater good.
Genre Fulfillment -8
It succeeds as a drama that explores broken family units and the struggles they face, and it does well to frame that drama in the style of a sports movie. It blends the two styles very well, and never feels as if one is taking over from the other.
Characters - 4.5
Let's be honest, as good as Mark Wahlberg is, he is upstaged throughout the entire movie by Christian Bale's performance. Christian ought to be recognized for this incredible turn. Melissa Leo and Amy Adams provide a great support to the story line. The family dynamic is really represented well in the script and the characters have a lot of depth to them.
Believability - 4
We all have family issues right?
Filmmaking - 8
There's not a whole lot that's outstanding when it comes to technical categories. But there isn't much that takes away from the story. The intention of this movie is to present the story and nothing really distracts you from that. Some of the boxing scenes are pretty cool, I really liked the way it really felt like a mid-nineties boxing broadcast.
Enjoyment - 8
I was invested in this family's struggle to survive together. I was invested in Mickey's success. I left the movie feeling satisfied, not blown away, but it was certainly worth watching and I would recommend you go out and see this as well... after you see Black Swan that is!
The Fighter = 4.05 out of 5 yukes
"he's a fighter... YUKE his hand"
CU
When you think of a film like this, your first reaction might be that it'll be focused solely on the fighter's rise to the top with a little bit of character development sprinkled in. You would be wrong. It certainly includes some of that feel-good, defying all odds kinda stuff... but what I loved about this movie is that the character development is priority for the filmmakers. The feeling we're all supposed to feel about Mark Wahlberg's character is predicated on the connection that is built in the first two thirds of the movie. Now that you have an overview, onto the review.
Story - 8
Mark Wahlberg plays "Irish" Mickey Ward, a boxer from Lowell, Mass. with a recent slump in the ring. His brother Dickie (Christian Bale), a Lowell hero and Mickey's trainer, is struggling with addiction to crack and subsequently having an HBO special recorded about his fall and addiction. As his volatile brother continues to fall, Mickey is confronted with the possibility of leaving his brother and overbearing mother/manager (Melissa Leo) for the chance to train elsewhere. At this point he meets and falls for Charlene (Amy Adams), who sees his potential and stands in the face of Mickey's family causing a rift between the once tight family unit. Dickie ends up going to jail as a part of his downward spiral, giving Mickey an out. As he starts to distance himself from his family, he finds more and more success. The story does a lot of justice to the brokenness and selfish motives that can tear a family apart, but it does a really good job of showing what can happen when all parties involved realize what needs to be done for the greater good.
Genre Fulfillment -8
It succeeds as a drama that explores broken family units and the struggles they face, and it does well to frame that drama in the style of a sports movie. It blends the two styles very well, and never feels as if one is taking over from the other.
Characters - 4.5
Let's be honest, as good as Mark Wahlberg is, he is upstaged throughout the entire movie by Christian Bale's performance. Christian ought to be recognized for this incredible turn. Melissa Leo and Amy Adams provide a great support to the story line. The family dynamic is really represented well in the script and the characters have a lot of depth to them.
Believability - 4
We all have family issues right?
Filmmaking - 8
There's not a whole lot that's outstanding when it comes to technical categories. But there isn't much that takes away from the story. The intention of this movie is to present the story and nothing really distracts you from that. Some of the boxing scenes are pretty cool, I really liked the way it really felt like a mid-nineties boxing broadcast.
Enjoyment - 8
I was invested in this family's struggle to survive together. I was invested in Mickey's success. I left the movie feeling satisfied, not blown away, but it was certainly worth watching and I would recommend you go out and see this as well... after you see Black Swan that is!
The Fighter = 4.05 out of 5 yukes
"he's a fighter... YUKE his hand"
CU
Saturday, December 18, 2010
New Review - 'Black Swan'
Black Swan - A
First of all, thank you for your patience as I finished up the semester... it's not a great idea to write reviews when papers are due. And for that reason, there will be a saturation of movie reviews in the coming days so I can catch up on the 10+ I have to write still. I thought I would start with one I just watched, and would recommend to EVERYONE.
Without further ado, I present to you Black Swan, but this isn't your grandmother's Swan Lake. This movie is a dark re-hashing of the Swan Lake narrative, using a creepy tone to set the stage for a dancer's 'descent into madness' (thank you CV for use of that phrase). Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail said it better than I can even put it, "Darren Aronofsky has madde one of those rare movies that gets right in your face and demands a response: Love me, hate me, just don't mess with Mister In-Between." He has hit the nail on the head there, there's a great possibility that some people won't like this movie because of it's psychological in your face attitude, you may be put off by the 3 minute Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis erotic scene (and that is my fair warning), but my argument to those is that Aronofsky presents the film and that provocative scene with such care and style that it's impossible to look away. As SP and I discussed immediately after the film, if you're sitting in the theater after 20 minutes and aren't liking the style and tone, you're in for a rough ride. There were plenty of elderly people at the theater, I'm sure expecting a sweet tale of Swan Lake, that were in for a rude awakening. The thing about this movie isn't that it will be loved by all, but rather that it will have such a dichotomous following. Whether you love it or you hate it, it's hard to find any flaws in the film.
Story - 10
Throughout the film you follow the story of Nina (Natalie Portman), a ballerina who wins the role of the Swan Queen in Swan Lake. The problem? She's the perfect technical dancer who embodies the White Swan, but lacks the emotion and rawness to portray the black swan in the ballet. The movie does so well at showing Nina's mental imbalance right from the get-go. As Nina gets further into the character of the Swan Queen, she feels as though everybody is out to get her. Throughout the whole film there is no allusion to who is good and who is bad. At different times I felt myself incensed at the over-controlling mother, or the fame-driven alternate (Mila Kunis), or even the chauvinistic dominating director (Vincent Cassel), yet throughout the film you see the possibility that Nina has concocted the whole conspiracy theory in her head. The movie is less about the mirroring of the Swan Lake plot in the movie, and more about the depths one person can sink to when uncertain of their own identity.
Genre Fulfillment - 10
This fills the boots of a psychological thriller with perfection. It's as if we are brought alongside Nina's journey from being a meek and shy white swan, to her transformation into the raw black swan. Aronofsky has overdramatized the insecurities we all feel about our inadequacies, and he has done so with spine-tingling directing. As I said above, this isn't your grandmother's swan lake, it's meant to take a new daring approach to the storyline and it does so with all the wonders a psycho-sexual-unnerving-creepy-elegant-beautiful movie should.
Characters - 5
There are only a handful of characters we are introduced to in depth, but each one is perfectly cast, and adds to the web-like melodrama of the story. Natalie Portman, like the queen her character portrays in the ballet, shows such a wide range of emotions. Her ability to display such a timid apprehension in the first half of the movie accentuates the dark, powerful black swan she becomes. Mila Kunis does really well in this serious role, and Vincent Cassel plays his part to a tee. The surprising turn in this film was from Barbara Hershey playing Nina's overbearing mother. I can't say much more than you never know if she's living out her own childhood dreams through Nina's dancing, or whether she's really concerned about where the role is taking her daughter. Characters - Great... Acting - Greater... Natalie Portman SHOULD (as of Dec. 18) win best actress.
Believability - 5
As SP said in his review here: http://skochscorner.wordpress.com/ ... Aw hell yes!
Filmmaking - 9.5
I love the idea of a story within a story. The swan lake plot is mirrored in the movie, and done with such talent. I also love a movie that has the balls to tell you exactly how the movie is going to end, then plays it out as if you had no idea what was going to happen. Black Swan does this! When Citizen Kane came out in 1941, it heralded a new line of thinking when it came to moviemaking; films used flashbacks to aide in plot progression. Flash forward to 2010, and Darren Aronofsky uses dream sequences to blur the line between reality and neurosis. Never once was I certain of what was real or one of Nina's self-dreamed fantasies. It was this blurring that really helped sell the story. Another feature to pay attention to is the use of mirrors, not unlike the last season of LOST, the characters are constantly confronted with themselves and often it's not simply their reflection staring back at them. Pay close attention to inanimate objects moving; things like pictures, paintings, tattoos and a host of other things help to showcase Nina's mental breakdown. The loss of a half point was for two reasons: a) I have a hard time giving a movie a perfect rating. b) 15 second scene near the end, it was just poorly done. But save for about 15 seconds this was the perfect movie (for me of course)
Enjoyment - 10
I had no preconceived notions as to what this movie would be like, and I left knowing that I needed to implore others to see this movie. For the last half hour I watched with a grin on my face at the marvel of moviemaking in front of me. This is a MUST SEE movie. So... go see it now!
Yuke-ann put it in the win column...
Black Swan = 4.95 out of 5 yukes
P.S. It probably won't win Best Picture because it could come across as unaccessible to some, it deserves one of the following four awards:
Best Director
Best Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Picture (if nothing else)
First of all, thank you for your patience as I finished up the semester... it's not a great idea to write reviews when papers are due. And for that reason, there will be a saturation of movie reviews in the coming days so I can catch up on the 10+ I have to write still. I thought I would start with one I just watched, and would recommend to EVERYONE.
Without further ado, I present to you Black Swan, but this isn't your grandmother's Swan Lake. This movie is a dark re-hashing of the Swan Lake narrative, using a creepy tone to set the stage for a dancer's 'descent into madness' (thank you CV for use of that phrase). Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail said it better than I can even put it, "Darren Aronofsky has madde one of those rare movies that gets right in your face and demands a response: Love me, hate me, just don't mess with Mister In-Between." He has hit the nail on the head there, there's a great possibility that some people won't like this movie because of it's psychological in your face attitude, you may be put off by the 3 minute Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis erotic scene (and that is my fair warning), but my argument to those is that Aronofsky presents the film and that provocative scene with such care and style that it's impossible to look away. As SP and I discussed immediately after the film, if you're sitting in the theater after 20 minutes and aren't liking the style and tone, you're in for a rough ride. There were plenty of elderly people at the theater, I'm sure expecting a sweet tale of Swan Lake, that were in for a rude awakening. The thing about this movie isn't that it will be loved by all, but rather that it will have such a dichotomous following. Whether you love it or you hate it, it's hard to find any flaws in the film.
Story - 10
Throughout the film you follow the story of Nina (Natalie Portman), a ballerina who wins the role of the Swan Queen in Swan Lake. The problem? She's the perfect technical dancer who embodies the White Swan, but lacks the emotion and rawness to portray the black swan in the ballet. The movie does so well at showing Nina's mental imbalance right from the get-go. As Nina gets further into the character of the Swan Queen, she feels as though everybody is out to get her. Throughout the whole film there is no allusion to who is good and who is bad. At different times I felt myself incensed at the over-controlling mother, or the fame-driven alternate (Mila Kunis), or even the chauvinistic dominating director (Vincent Cassel), yet throughout the film you see the possibility that Nina has concocted the whole conspiracy theory in her head. The movie is less about the mirroring of the Swan Lake plot in the movie, and more about the depths one person can sink to when uncertain of their own identity.
Genre Fulfillment - 10
This fills the boots of a psychological thriller with perfection. It's as if we are brought alongside Nina's journey from being a meek and shy white swan, to her transformation into the raw black swan. Aronofsky has overdramatized the insecurities we all feel about our inadequacies, and he has done so with spine-tingling directing. As I said above, this isn't your grandmother's swan lake, it's meant to take a new daring approach to the storyline and it does so with all the wonders a psycho-sexual-unnerving-creepy-elegant-beautiful movie should.
Characters - 5
There are only a handful of characters we are introduced to in depth, but each one is perfectly cast, and adds to the web-like melodrama of the story. Natalie Portman, like the queen her character portrays in the ballet, shows such a wide range of emotions. Her ability to display such a timid apprehension in the first half of the movie accentuates the dark, powerful black swan she becomes. Mila Kunis does really well in this serious role, and Vincent Cassel plays his part to a tee. The surprising turn in this film was from Barbara Hershey playing Nina's overbearing mother. I can't say much more than you never know if she's living out her own childhood dreams through Nina's dancing, or whether she's really concerned about where the role is taking her daughter. Characters - Great... Acting - Greater... Natalie Portman SHOULD (as of Dec. 18) win best actress.
Believability - 5
As SP said in his review here: http://skochscorner.wordpress.com/ ... Aw hell yes!
Filmmaking - 9.5
I love the idea of a story within a story. The swan lake plot is mirrored in the movie, and done with such talent. I also love a movie that has the balls to tell you exactly how the movie is going to end, then plays it out as if you had no idea what was going to happen. Black Swan does this! When Citizen Kane came out in 1941, it heralded a new line of thinking when it came to moviemaking; films used flashbacks to aide in plot progression. Flash forward to 2010, and Darren Aronofsky uses dream sequences to blur the line between reality and neurosis. Never once was I certain of what was real or one of Nina's self-dreamed fantasies. It was this blurring that really helped sell the story. Another feature to pay attention to is the use of mirrors, not unlike the last season of LOST, the characters are constantly confronted with themselves and often it's not simply their reflection staring back at them. Pay close attention to inanimate objects moving; things like pictures, paintings, tattoos and a host of other things help to showcase Nina's mental breakdown. The loss of a half point was for two reasons: a) I have a hard time giving a movie a perfect rating. b) 15 second scene near the end, it was just poorly done. But save for about 15 seconds this was the perfect movie (for me of course)
Enjoyment - 10
I had no preconceived notions as to what this movie would be like, and I left knowing that I needed to implore others to see this movie. For the last half hour I watched with a grin on my face at the marvel of moviemaking in front of me. This is a MUST SEE movie. So... go see it now!
Yuke-ann put it in the win column...
Black Swan = 4.95 out of 5 yukes
P.S. It probably won't win Best Picture because it could come across as unaccessible to some, it deserves one of the following four awards:
Best Director
Best Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Picture (if nothing else)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Catching up on 2010: August - 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World', 'The Switch'
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - MUST SEE *A*
This film has nostalgia written all over it for anyone in their twenties, maybe early thirties. Numerous gaming references drive this highly creative piece of artwork, from it's 8-bit take on the 'Universal' intro to coins falling when Scott defeats is foes to it's epic Mortal Kombat-like battle scenes. I'm gonna try and make lots of references from the movie in this review... so read the review, then watch the movie, then read it again. And don't get too offended.
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is dating a high schooler.. Scott Pilgrim is dating a high schooler, that is until Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) crosses his path and starts him on a journey to prove himself worthy of her lesbian. Turns out she's got some baggage, 7 evil exes to be exact. Scott has to defeat each of the exes before he can win Ramona's heart. Her exes include a mystical power-laden guy singing to compensate for his lack of any fighting skill, a famous skateboarder-turned-movie star (Chris Lee), a vegan who just happens to be dating Scott's old flame, a bi-furious girl named Roxy, a set of twins that didn't have much of a back story but happened to help out with the plot progression, and the master-mind of the league of evil exes, Gideon. This movie is all about style, and it's done with such precision and flair that I can't not help but not gush... double negative... tricky. The subplot that progresses the film is that Scott is in a band with 'the talent' Stephen Stills, and yet another ex-girlfriend female drummer Kim Pine (Alison Pill). The band enters the Toronto International Battle of the Bands and progresses through with hopes of winning a record with famed producer G-Man Graves... here's the twist... G-Man is actually Ramona's evil ex Gideon. Awesome.
As I said, it's all done with a wonderful style and a technically savvy eye. It has cult classic written all over it, although I wish more people knew about it. I just realized something, SP has the same initials as SP. Awesome. I re-watched it the other night for SP's birthday (the SP that I know) with SB, DB, DM.soontobe.P, NB, MJ, LL.soontobe.cool.J, FVdB, JVdB, GV, TP and CP. It was just as good the second time around. There are so many moments you'll find yourself grinning from ear to ear, laughing hysterically, connecting with the characters, and plain enjoying yourself. The story itself is pretty good as well, there's a real connection with Pilgrim's fight for the one he loves, and the literal controlling feeling Ramona gets when she's around her ex's.
All of this I say, without any hyperbole, that this is and will be the best movie of the year. It scores the same as Inception, but I think it'll have a longer-lasting effect than Nolan's picture. You need to watching this movie, I guarantee you will enjoy it on some level. This is my first absolute must-see of the year. It may be the last. What are you waiting for? Go watch it!
Story (10) - 8.5
Comedy (10) - 10
Characters (5) - 5
Believability (5) - 4.5
Filmmaking (10) - 10
Enjoyment (10) - 10
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World = 4.8 out of 5 yukes
The Switch - *D*
I referenced this movie in my review for The Kids Are All Right, this is the crappy version of a movie about artificial insemination. I'll tell you the one thing I like about this movie first, so you can probably skip the rest of the review. Jason Bateman, who plays Wally, and the chemistry he finds with his on-screen 'son' Sebastian (Thomas Robinson) is wonderful. They really perfect the nervous, but cute, banter. The rest? It kinda sucked.
Basic Plot: Wally and Kassie (Jen Aniston) are friends who always seem to have bad timing when expressing their feelings for each other. Kassie is sick of waiting for a man, so she decides to have a baby the artificial way (throwing a weird party for it along the way). Wally is sad, he gets drunk at the party and switches the donor sperm for his own. She moves away. She comes back. She's got a son just like Wally. He endears himself to the kid and becomes like a dad. You can probably predict the rest of the movies from there. I'm not much for judging anyone who watches any movie, but if you decide yo watch this movie, I yuke you that you do so at your own risk. It's being put in the *D* category for a reason.
This film has nostalgia written all over it for anyone in their twenties, maybe early thirties. Numerous gaming references drive this highly creative piece of artwork, from it's 8-bit take on the 'Universal' intro to coins falling when Scott defeats is foes to it's epic Mortal Kombat-like battle scenes. I'm gonna try and make lots of references from the movie in this review... so read the review, then watch the movie, then read it again. And don't get too offended.
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is dating a high schooler.. Scott Pilgrim is dating a high schooler, that is until Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) crosses his path and starts him on a journey to prove himself worthy of her lesbian. Turns out she's got some baggage, 7 evil exes to be exact. Scott has to defeat each of the exes before he can win Ramona's heart. Her exes include a mystical power-laden guy singing to compensate for his lack of any fighting skill, a famous skateboarder-turned-movie star (Chris Lee), a vegan who just happens to be dating Scott's old flame, a bi-furious girl named Roxy, a set of twins that didn't have much of a back story but happened to help out with the plot progression, and the master-mind of the league of evil exes, Gideon. This movie is all about style, and it's done with such precision and flair that I can't not help but not gush... double negative... tricky. The subplot that progresses the film is that Scott is in a band with 'the talent' Stephen Stills, and yet another ex-girlfriend female drummer Kim Pine (Alison Pill). The band enters the Toronto International Battle of the Bands and progresses through with hopes of winning a record with famed producer G-Man Graves... here's the twist... G-Man is actually Ramona's evil ex Gideon. Awesome.
As I said, it's all done with a wonderful style and a technically savvy eye. It has cult classic written all over it, although I wish more people knew about it. I just realized something, SP has the same initials as SP. Awesome. I re-watched it the other night for SP's birthday (the SP that I know) with SB, DB, DM.soontobe.P, NB, MJ, LL.soontobe.cool.J, FVdB, JVdB, GV, TP and CP. It was just as good the second time around. There are so many moments you'll find yourself grinning from ear to ear, laughing hysterically, connecting with the characters, and plain enjoying yourself. The story itself is pretty good as well, there's a real connection with Pilgrim's fight for the one he loves, and the literal controlling feeling Ramona gets when she's around her ex's.
All of this I say, without any hyperbole, that this is and will be the best movie of the year. It scores the same as Inception, but I think it'll have a longer-lasting effect than Nolan's picture. You need to watching this movie, I guarantee you will enjoy it on some level. This is my first absolute must-see of the year. It may be the last. What are you waiting for? Go watch it!
Story (10) - 8.5
Comedy (10) - 10
Characters (5) - 5
Believability (5) - 4.5
Filmmaking (10) - 10
Enjoyment (10) - 10
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World = 4.8 out of 5 yukes
The Switch - *D*
I referenced this movie in my review for The Kids Are All Right, this is the crappy version of a movie about artificial insemination. I'll tell you the one thing I like about this movie first, so you can probably skip the rest of the review. Jason Bateman, who plays Wally, and the chemistry he finds with his on-screen 'son' Sebastian (Thomas Robinson) is wonderful. They really perfect the nervous, but cute, banter. The rest? It kinda sucked.
Basic Plot: Wally and Kassie (Jen Aniston) are friends who always seem to have bad timing when expressing their feelings for each other. Kassie is sick of waiting for a man, so she decides to have a baby the artificial way (throwing a weird party for it along the way). Wally is sad, he gets drunk at the party and switches the donor sperm for his own. She moves away. She comes back. She's got a son just like Wally. He endears himself to the kid and becomes like a dad. You can probably predict the rest of the movies from there. I'm not much for judging anyone who watches any movie, but if you decide yo watch this movie, I yuke you that you do so at your own risk. It's being put in the *D* category for a reason.
Story (10) - 4.5
Comedy (10) - 6
Characters (5) - 3
Believability (5) - 1.5
Filmmaking (10) - 4.5
Enjoyment (10) - 4.5
The Switch = 2.4 out of 5 yukes
P.S. For those of you who have asked or are wondering, the term 'yuked' is interchangeable for any word I deem worthy of being spiced up. It's merely a play on my last name, and I find it enjoyable to say that...
... you just got yuked!!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Catching up on 2010: June - 'Get HIm To The Greek'
This movie is exactly as advertised, it doesn't pretend to be something that it's not. Plain and simple, it's a story about sex, drugs and Rock n' Roll. The vessel used to present the story is an international roller coaster ride where music exec Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) needs to get famous rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand) from London to Los Angeles for a show or fear losing his job. Their trip takes them through all the expected locations such as London, NYC, Vegas and LA. Snow encounters his estranged father, Green deals with having a 3-some with Snow and his girlfriend, Sean 'Puffy' Combs gets all hopped on drugs and lights a hotel suite on fire... you know, the usual. As I said, nothing you don't expect... there's an exorbitant amount of drug encounters, foul language and sexual... well I can't even really call them innuendos because they're pretty blatant. All this to say it's pretty over the top.
The movie is a spin-off of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and one of the frustrating things I found (if you've seen FSM) is that Jonah Hill is playing a completely different character. According to an interview, it's because the average person can relate more to an average joe trying to make it in the music business rather than the creepy stalkerish character he played in FSM. So really, what you're saying Jonah is that you're trying to make this film connect with our deepest need to succeed? FAIL... Just be honest and say you guys didn't like that character, that this guy is funnier. Because frankly any deeper connection or believability is lost with the ludicrous rock star lifestyle that's being showcased. And to go back to it, when was the last successful spin-off of any sort of TV show/movie??? Actually, maybe that's a good question for you to comment on...see below.
Don't get me wrong, I still laughed more than a few times throughout the film. And heck, the story is pretty simple and sound. And for that matter, Russell Brand actually deserves recognition, however inappropriate his character might have been, because not once did I catch myself thinking I was watching Russell Brand, he really sold the part of a British rock sensation. But sometimes you can have all the makings of a well done movie and still come up short. It was good all around, but never really gave itself a chance to be great. It's Judd Apatow-ness made it funny, but nothing special. If you can't handle language, sex jokes, drugs or anything of the like you should probably steer clear. If you like Judd Apatow, then you ought to enjoy it.
(I'm going to write what each category is out of in parentheses, for your sakes... thanks for the suggestion JG, keep em' coming)
Story (10) - 5.5
Comedy (10) - 7.5
Characters (5) - 2.5
Believability (5) - 2.5
Filmmaking (10) - 4.5
Enjoyment (10) - 7
Get Him To The Greek = 2.95 out of 5 yukes
Question of the Day: When was the last time a spin-off (not a sequel) came out that was actually good? I have two to start the discussion... Frasier from Cheers, and The Colbert Report from The Daily Show. Any others?
... you just got yuked!
CU
The movie is a spin-off of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and one of the frustrating things I found (if you've seen FSM) is that Jonah Hill is playing a completely different character. According to an interview, it's because the average person can relate more to an average joe trying to make it in the music business rather than the creepy stalkerish character he played in FSM. So really, what you're saying Jonah is that you're trying to make this film connect with our deepest need to succeed? FAIL... Just be honest and say you guys didn't like that character, that this guy is funnier. Because frankly any deeper connection or believability is lost with the ludicrous rock star lifestyle that's being showcased. And to go back to it, when was the last successful spin-off of any sort of TV show/movie??? Actually, maybe that's a good question for you to comment on...see below.
Don't get me wrong, I still laughed more than a few times throughout the film. And heck, the story is pretty simple and sound. And for that matter, Russell Brand actually deserves recognition, however inappropriate his character might have been, because not once did I catch myself thinking I was watching Russell Brand, he really sold the part of a British rock sensation. But sometimes you can have all the makings of a well done movie and still come up short. It was good all around, but never really gave itself a chance to be great. It's Judd Apatow-ness made it funny, but nothing special. If you can't handle language, sex jokes, drugs or anything of the like you should probably steer clear. If you like Judd Apatow, then you ought to enjoy it.
(I'm going to write what each category is out of in parentheses, for your sakes... thanks for the suggestion JG, keep em' coming)
Story (10) - 5.5
Comedy (10) - 7.5
Characters (5) - 2.5
Believability (5) - 2.5
Filmmaking (10) - 4.5
Enjoyment (10) - 7
Get Him To The Greek = 2.95 out of 5 yukes
Question of the Day: When was the last time a spin-off (not a sequel) came out that was actually good? I have two to start the discussion... Frasier from Cheers, and The Colbert Report from The Daily Show. Any others?
... you just got yuked!
CU
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Catching up on 2010: July - 'Inception', 'Dinner For Schmucks'
Inception - A
I am a big fan of Christopher Nolan... from the Batman Movies to The Prestige to Memento, there is no denying the talent of this director. The commonality found in all of his movies is the strength of the script. When a director, as Nolan does, can couple a strong story with an incredible talent for craft and detail, the finished project will be sure to impress. That is what Nolan has done here; putting together a wonderful ensemble cast, a tight yet wonderfully told story and a beautifully made piece of visual art to create one of the best movies of the year, and possibly cracking the top 10 of the decade.
How much more of a universal concept can a storyteller use but that of a dream. We all have them, whether we remember them or not. In Inception, we are introduced to a world where technology exists to enter people's dreams. Cobb (Leo Dicaprio) is an extractor capable of entering a person's dream and obtaining valuable secrets from it. He's coveted for his ability, but because of the consequences of what he has done in his line of work he is doomed to live a nomadic life outside of the US, away from the children that he loves. To win back the life he once had and now desperately wants, he must perform the impossible by entering a dream... within a dream... within a dream... within a dream. Sound complicated? It is. His mission: Plant an idea in the head of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) a soon-to-be CEO, telling him to dissolve his conglomerate utilities company. The problem, it's near-impossible to plant an idea in someone's head without them realizing it's not their own. Problems arise when Cobb's own dream world (in which he has been experimenting with for many years) blurs it's way into the other's dreams, causing the whole operation to be put in jeopardy.
Three words to describe this movie - Execution... Execution... Execution. This movie executes like none other so far this year. The dream worlds created by Nolan and his staff are hauntingly similar to those I have had each and every night. A neverending cityscape, a vast tundra wasteland with an evil fortress, anti-gravity, matrix-style fights, guns espionage... all of this I have dreamed of in the past. After watching this movie the second time in theaters I realized how nearly airtight the script was, almost every little minute detail had purpose and works towards the final payoff. Cinematography and visual effects are second to none, and serve only to enhance an already great movie. When this movie came out there was huge buzz about it's greatness and there is very little letdown throughout the film. Most of you have seen it so there's not much else to be said, if you haven't seen it then you certainly ought to.
Story - 9.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 9
Characters - 5
Believability - 5
Filmmaking - 10
Sheer Enjoyment - 9.5
Inception = 4.8 out of 5 yukes
Dinner For Schmucks - C
In theory, this movie had every chance to succeed. A cast of household names like Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell, Zach Galifianakis and Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords fame) lead one to believe this movie should be nothing short of hilarious. But as was the case with Date Night, great actors still need great material to work with.
A sub-par story line sees Tim (Rudd) seeking a promotion at work, only to find out the partners at his firm are self-righteous assholes who get enjoyment out of inviting outcasts to a dinner with the sole purpose of making fun at their expense. The movie doesn't seem to maintain any one emotion for long enough for us to enjoy ourselves. Did I laugh? Yes. The problem is that it was too few and far between for me to emotionally invest in the humor it was trying to present. My only recommendation is for you to rent at your own risk.
Story - 5
Comedy/Tragedy - 6.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 5
Sheer Enjoyment - 5
Dinner For Schmucks = 2.7 out of 5 yukes
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Catching up on 2010: July - 'Despicable Me', The Kids Are All Right'
Despicable Me
This was the first of the animated films I saw this year. At the time I was fairly impressed with the movie, the unfortunate thing is that it’s impossible not to compare it to the two giants of animated film from this year, Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon.
The idea is clever enough; a dastardly evil villain with unresolved child issues exploits three orphaned children by adopting them and using them for his own gain with hopes of destroying his nearest competition. The problem he finds is that he creates an unexpected bond with the girls as they unknowingly do his bidding. I really like films that aren’t just about superheroes, but instead take a step back and comment on the culture of superheroes. Examples of films that have done this to some extent are The Incredibles and Watchmen. Maybe it comes from mine and every young boy's (and maybe girls) fascination of becoming a superhero growing up, but the more movies address the background of the superhero culture, the more I think it’s an attainable career possibility. But I digress…
I think the brief synopsis above is as succinct as I can describe this movie. What sets it apart is its venture into darkness. It certainly doesn’t go as far as something like Coraline, but to ask an audience to immediately connect with a clear-cut villain is to create a tone unlike other animated films. One of the places this film succeeds the most is in connection with the characters. I explained in my review of Toy Story 3 that relatable characters are what have allowed that franchise to succeed. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a character you can’t help but like because of his lovable clumsiness. I couldn’t help but connect with the three girls because they’re so perfectly different, just as three sisters ought to be. And the youngest one is almost too cute… “It’s so fluffy, I’m gonna die!” Also, Gru’s minions are a great addition. The story isn’t perfect, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t distract from the overall experience. When it needs to be funny it is; it won’t WOW you, but it also isn’t lacking or overwhelming in the humour department. A respectable choice for sure, but not enough to reach the standard of animated films set this year.
Story – 7.5
Comedy/Tragedy – 7
Characters – 4.5
Believability – 3.5
Filmmaking – 7.5
Sheer Enjoyment – 8
Despicable Me – 3.8 out of 5 yukes
The Kids Are All Right
It’s a scary proposition to make a movie that centers around modern day, generally uncovered themes, case-in-point The Switch. Don’t worry, The Kids Are All Right is the classy version of movies centering on the idea of artificial insemination. Upon finding out that he’s fathered two children by artificial means to a lesbian couple, Mark Ruffalo's character is thrust into the world of parenthood. This post-modern film subtly explores the nature vs. nurture debate from the parental viewpoint instead of that of the children. To what extent is Ruffalo’s character entitled to being a part of his ‘kids’ lives? And what right of protection do their mothers have control of?
As you will have read if you have been reading my blogs, one of the greatest things I believe a movie can do is to, at its core, relate to its audience. This movie achieves this. That’s not to say that I can relate to two lesbian mothers losing grip on their teenage children. I also can’t relate to a man who’s just found out that he’s responsible for the existence of two fully grown teenagers. What I can relate to is feelings of surprise and inadequacy that Paul (Ruffalo) feels when he finds these things out. I can relate to combative feelings Nic (Annette Bening) has when she realizes that things are slowly slipping from her control. Though it isn’t to do with sexual orientation, I have surely experienced the confusion Jules (Julianne Moore) is feeling when it comes to her identity. I think we can all relate to the idea of questioning, deep down, who we really are.
Indulge me for a few sentences with some OSCARS talk. If you don’t care about this, skip to the scores at the bottom of this review. This movie will be nominated for OSCARS, mark my words. They will most likely come in the categories of Best Picture, Annette Bening for Best Actress (though it won’t be fully deserved), Mark Ruffalo for Best Supporting Actor, Julianne Moore for Best Supporting Actress (more of a longshot), and Best Original Screenplay. With that much recognition this makes it a must watch movie. The characters certainly propel this story much more than the story itself, and it’s a joy to watch. I say Annette Bening doesn’t deserve a nod not because she doesn’t give a great performance, but because I believe Julianne Moore is more of a lead in this film, and Bening takes on more of a supporting role. If she was nominated for Best Supporting I would have no hesitation leading the charge for her to receive a golden statue, but alas, my voice will not be heard. Anyways, this movie is still worth your time.
Story – 7.5
Comedy/Tragedy – 7.5
Characters – 5
Believability – 4
Filmmaking – 8
Sheer Enjoyment – 7.5
The Kids Are All Right – 3.95 out of 5 yukes
... you just got yuked!
CU
(P.S. - I will also have reviews for Inception and Dinner for Schmucks tonight... please make sure to read all my reviews if you have time, and comment on this page... it's nice to know people are reading)
Friday, November 26, 2010
Catching up on 2010: June - 'Toy Story 3', 'Winter's Bone'
Sorry for taking a couple days off from catching up on reviews. I had started Winter's Bone a couple of days ago and had to take a break from movies to finish a paper. With that paper out of the way and the next one not due until Wednesday, I'm going to try and knock off 2 months worth of reviews over the next two days.
I was thinking today as I watched the finish of Winter's Bone, my letter categories are flawed. I'm not about to change them, but some movies I wouldn't watch again, and I may or may not recommend them because some people just might not enjoy them. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be in the top category. My examples of this line of thinking come from last year's movie crop; The Road and A Serious Man were both movies that fit this mold. While neither were swimming in money from the box office, they both beautifully told a story through the art of film. Both films did this exceptionally, yet I probably wouldn't have recommended them to most people. I have since gone back and changed them in my records from B movies to A movies. All this to say, use the categories as a guideline. Read my review and I will usually make mention of the types of people I think should see these movies.
Toy Story 3 - Emphatic A
I was 11 when the first installment of the series came out. Though I may have been a little older than the intended demographic, the movie captivated me then, and it still does to this day. It changed moviemaking for the better. When Toy Story 2 came out, I was still moved because of my connection to the characters, but it took numerous viewings before the story grew on me. As I sit here to write this review, I have watched each of the movies somewhere close to 20-30 times, and over time, the second one may have surpassed the first one in my heart. Enter Toy Story 3, I have now watched it twice over the last 6-ish months. Between the first and my most recent viewing, it's captivated my heart just as if I was 11 again. The first time I watched it I wouldn't have said anything like this, but after watching it again I realized the epic scope it tries to explore, and the incredible success it attains. It's safe to say that this installment will soon become my favorite of the three.
Role call: Woody, Buzz, Jesse, Bullseye, Slink, Rex, Ham (Evil Dr. Porkchop), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Ken and Barbie are all back. When faced with the reality of Andy going off to college, the toys start to entertain ideas of what life might be like without Andy. When Andy chooses Woody as his only college-bound toy, the other toys mistakenly get thrown to the curb. After narrowly escaping the garbage truck, they decide their best course of action is to jump in a box destined for Sunnyside Daycare. They arrive with hope and excitement only to find out the daycare is run by an abandoned, bitter old stuffed bear named Lotso. The rest of the movie follows the band of toys as they try to escape the prison known as Sunnyside and return to Andy to live the rest of their days in the attic.
The toughest thing with sequels, and especially one with this magnitude, is meeting the standards set by previous installments. Introducing new characters is always tricky and must be done with care and understanding. Toy Story 3 does this with precision, creating a myriad of toys that any of us can relate to. The storyline is clever, creative and tugs at our heart strings with every twist and turn. There's almost an unfair advantage because of our deep emotional connection with each of the characters; any feeling we might have in any other movie is magnified because simply, we love each of them as if they were our own toy. Look at me, I'm gushing... Like any good animated movie nowadays, there's enough humor for children in it to last a lifetime but just enough adult oriented jokes for parents to enjoy the movie just as well. Though there isn't a whole lot of improvement on the techniques from the first two movies (there may be, but I'm not technically inclined enough to notice), the precision by which they execute is amazing. There's very few movies that will strike me like this one did... and thus deserves any credit it gets.
Story - 9
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 5
Believability - 5
Filmmaking - 9
Enjoyment - 9
Toy Story 3 = 4.55 out of 5 yukes
Winter's Bone - A
That was a long review, I'll try and keep this one nice and short. This is the type of movie I'm referring to in my rant above. This movie is good, the story is good, the feel is good. Why? Because it's real. This is the type of movie that doesn't get any mainstream recognition, yet OSCAR loves it. I am telling you right now, you may think it's boring, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it.
On the surface, this movie is about 17-year old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) and the search for her father to ensure the survival of her and her two younger siblings. Her father, a noted meth cooker, missed a court date and is being searched for by both the bail bondsmen and the law. The unfortunate thing is that he put up the family house for his bail and, as he has skipped town, Ree must find him or risk losing everything. On a deeper level this movie speaks to the importance of perseverance, hope and selflessness. There's not a lot of bells and whistles here, yet it resonated so deeply with me. Lawrence's performance is one that grows throughout the whole movie. She continues to get better as the movie progresses, and as her character becomes more and more aware to the battles she must face to survive. Her finest scene finds her on a canoe in what I believe was a lake, I won't say anymore, but when it happens... just watch and enjoy. Truthfully, as I started out, I found myself uninterested in the movie. However, as the story unfolds you can't help but find yourself walking along the journey with Ree. Every step she takes, you take. Every setback she suffers, you suffer. Every times she defies someone, you stand behind her. This is a movie worth watching. So watch it.
I would also like to know what you think specifically about this movie. Please, if you read this review and go out and watch the film, comment on this blog and give me your opinions. I want to know whether a movie like this resonates with others as it has with me.
Story - 7.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4.5
Filmmaking - 8
Enjoyment - 7
Winter's Bone - 4 out of 5 yukes
... yuke and ooh wit! (a little mad gab for you)
CU
I was thinking today as I watched the finish of Winter's Bone, my letter categories are flawed. I'm not about to change them, but some movies I wouldn't watch again, and I may or may not recommend them because some people just might not enjoy them. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be in the top category. My examples of this line of thinking come from last year's movie crop; The Road and A Serious Man were both movies that fit this mold. While neither were swimming in money from the box office, they both beautifully told a story through the art of film. Both films did this exceptionally, yet I probably wouldn't have recommended them to most people. I have since gone back and changed them in my records from B movies to A movies. All this to say, use the categories as a guideline. Read my review and I will usually make mention of the types of people I think should see these movies.
Toy Story 3 - Emphatic A
I was 11 when the first installment of the series came out. Though I may have been a little older than the intended demographic, the movie captivated me then, and it still does to this day. It changed moviemaking for the better. When Toy Story 2 came out, I was still moved because of my connection to the characters, but it took numerous viewings before the story grew on me. As I sit here to write this review, I have watched each of the movies somewhere close to 20-30 times, and over time, the second one may have surpassed the first one in my heart. Enter Toy Story 3, I have now watched it twice over the last 6-ish months. Between the first and my most recent viewing, it's captivated my heart just as if I was 11 again. The first time I watched it I wouldn't have said anything like this, but after watching it again I realized the epic scope it tries to explore, and the incredible success it attains. It's safe to say that this installment will soon become my favorite of the three.
Role call: Woody, Buzz, Jesse, Bullseye, Slink, Rex, Ham (Evil Dr. Porkchop), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Ken and Barbie are all back. When faced with the reality of Andy going off to college, the toys start to entertain ideas of what life might be like without Andy. When Andy chooses Woody as his only college-bound toy, the other toys mistakenly get thrown to the curb. After narrowly escaping the garbage truck, they decide their best course of action is to jump in a box destined for Sunnyside Daycare. They arrive with hope and excitement only to find out the daycare is run by an abandoned, bitter old stuffed bear named Lotso. The rest of the movie follows the band of toys as they try to escape the prison known as Sunnyside and return to Andy to live the rest of their days in the attic.
The toughest thing with sequels, and especially one with this magnitude, is meeting the standards set by previous installments. Introducing new characters is always tricky and must be done with care and understanding. Toy Story 3 does this with precision, creating a myriad of toys that any of us can relate to. The storyline is clever, creative and tugs at our heart strings with every twist and turn. There's almost an unfair advantage because of our deep emotional connection with each of the characters; any feeling we might have in any other movie is magnified because simply, we love each of them as if they were our own toy. Look at me, I'm gushing... Like any good animated movie nowadays, there's enough humor for children in it to last a lifetime but just enough adult oriented jokes for parents to enjoy the movie just as well. Though there isn't a whole lot of improvement on the techniques from the first two movies (there may be, but I'm not technically inclined enough to notice), the precision by which they execute is amazing. There's very few movies that will strike me like this one did... and thus deserves any credit it gets.
Story - 9
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 5
Believability - 5
Filmmaking - 9
Enjoyment - 9
Toy Story 3 = 4.55 out of 5 yukes
Winter's Bone - A
That was a long review, I'll try and keep this one nice and short. This is the type of movie I'm referring to in my rant above. This movie is good, the story is good, the feel is good. Why? Because it's real. This is the type of movie that doesn't get any mainstream recognition, yet OSCAR loves it. I am telling you right now, you may think it's boring, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it.
On the surface, this movie is about 17-year old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) and the search for her father to ensure the survival of her and her two younger siblings. Her father, a noted meth cooker, missed a court date and is being searched for by both the bail bondsmen and the law. The unfortunate thing is that he put up the family house for his bail and, as he has skipped town, Ree must find him or risk losing everything. On a deeper level this movie speaks to the importance of perseverance, hope and selflessness. There's not a lot of bells and whistles here, yet it resonated so deeply with me. Lawrence's performance is one that grows throughout the whole movie. She continues to get better as the movie progresses, and as her character becomes more and more aware to the battles she must face to survive. Her finest scene finds her on a canoe in what I believe was a lake, I won't say anymore, but when it happens... just watch and enjoy. Truthfully, as I started out, I found myself uninterested in the movie. However, as the story unfolds you can't help but find yourself walking along the journey with Ree. Every step she takes, you take. Every setback she suffers, you suffer. Every times she defies someone, you stand behind her. This is a movie worth watching. So watch it.
I would also like to know what you think specifically about this movie. Please, if you read this review and go out and watch the film, comment on this blog and give me your opinions. I want to know whether a movie like this resonates with others as it has with me.
Story - 7.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4.5
Filmmaking - 8
Enjoyment - 7
Winter's Bone - 4 out of 5 yukes
... yuke and ooh wit! (a little mad gab for you)
CU
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Siskel & Ebert on Film Criticism
This is a video of Siskel and Ebert talking about how to review movies. I like these guys. It's unfortunate that Siskel is no longer with us. But if you care at all about movie reviewing it's worth a watch or listen. Don't worry, I won't do this normally. Next review coming soon... Winter's Bone and Toy Story 3... and maybe Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Catching up on 2010: April - 'Date Night'
Date Night - B
What do you get when you pair two of the funniest people in television together? A realization that, as talented as they are, they still need a script writer to give them good material to work with. Now, don't get me wrong... I enjoyed it. I have frustration simply because I had higher expectations going into the film. As unfair as that seems, it's a part of every movie. Every viewer has some level of expectation going into any movie they see, and as much as we try to ignore them, it will always have an affect on our enjoyment of a film. I've loved everything Fey and Carrell have done over the last 5-10 years, and thus Date Night needed to do more than the average film to impress me.
Phil and Claire Foster (Carrell, Fey) are a couple trying to re-ignite the flame of a stagnant marriage after they hear of a friend couple's imminent divorce. Heading into NYC for a fun night turns sour when they steal the reservation of a couple in hot water with the wrong people. A chase pursues and the couple begins to leave their boring selves behind in exchange for excitement and thrill... not to mention survival. A great cameo by a shirtless Marky Mark gives the Foster's every technological advantage known to man to try and escape. At times it's a little far-fetched, but I guess it shows that life and excitement can be injected into any relationship. Possibly one of the funniest scenes in a movie this year is found here; 2 cars stuck together facing towards each other, a screaming cab driver and a frantic Steve Carrell always leads to laughs. A better rom-com than most, but doesn't live up to the potential it could be.
Story - 6.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2
Filmmaking - 6
Sheer Enjoyment - 6.5
...yuke on that!
What do you get when you pair two of the funniest people in television together? A realization that, as talented as they are, they still need a script writer to give them good material to work with. Now, don't get me wrong... I enjoyed it. I have frustration simply because I had higher expectations going into the film. As unfair as that seems, it's a part of every movie. Every viewer has some level of expectation going into any movie they see, and as much as we try to ignore them, it will always have an affect on our enjoyment of a film. I've loved everything Fey and Carrell have done over the last 5-10 years, and thus Date Night needed to do more than the average film to impress me.
Phil and Claire Foster (Carrell, Fey) are a couple trying to re-ignite the flame of a stagnant marriage after they hear of a friend couple's imminent divorce. Heading into NYC for a fun night turns sour when they steal the reservation of a couple in hot water with the wrong people. A chase pursues and the couple begins to leave their boring selves behind in exchange for excitement and thrill... not to mention survival. A great cameo by a shirtless Marky Mark gives the Foster's every technological advantage known to man to try and escape. At times it's a little far-fetched, but I guess it shows that life and excitement can be injected into any relationship. Possibly one of the funniest scenes in a movie this year is found here; 2 cars stuck together facing towards each other, a screaming cab driver and a frantic Steve Carrell always leads to laughs. A better rom-com than most, but doesn't live up to the potential it could be.
Story - 6.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2
Filmmaking - 6
Sheer Enjoyment - 6.5
Date Night = 3.15 out of 5 yukes
...yuke on that!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Catching up on 2010: March - 'How To Train Your Dragon', 'She's Out of My League', 'Hot Tub Time Machine'
How to Train Your Dragon - A
I just watched this movie over the weekend. For myself, this movie executed to near perfection. I felt the whole spectrum of human emotion. When it was funny, I laughed. When it called for it, I was sad. At crucial points I felt concerned for both Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and his dragon (some CGI sound I'm sure). When Hiccup's father (Gerard Butler) tells his son "You're not a viking, you're not my son." My heart was aching. Job well done. First A Category movie review of the year.
This animated feature follows the story of Hiccup, the son of the head of a viking tribe. He also happens to be an outcast in the viking world, not strong enough to fight, not big enough to command any attention. Yeah, it's a classic storyline. Lead character doesn't fit in. Lead character meets someone/something that gives him an escape. Village has something against said someone/something. Village finds out. Village uses said someone/something as a means to their own ends. Lead character summons up vigor and courage to save village. I won't give any of the details of the plot line... but you get the picture. The reason I truly loved this film is because of it's execution. Many movies come out every year with intentions of being the next big thing, but lack in getting the point across because they forget about the basic tenets of a movie. A movie needs to connect with its audience. This movie does that in full, drawing on the basic relationship of an owner with their pet.
The story isn't anything spectacular, but there are very few flaws, which make it both noticeable in a good way and very enjoyable. Casting for voices can sometimes be hit and miss, and when big names are included usually falls into the latter category. Baruchel, Butler and America Ferreira casted as the main characters were perfect, they all breathed life into their characters. As a supporting cast, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig did the same, and its the perfection of these subtleties that really strengthened the movie. Music fit nicely throughout the film, and the animation was top-notch. Dreamworks really came to bat with this picture in it's fight against the two-headed, nearly unstoppable Buzz & Woody monster that is Toy Story 3. This is definitely a must-see movie for anyone who wants to be shown what a movie is meant to look like.
Story - 7.5
Comedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4
Filmmaking - 8
Sheer Enjoyment - 8.5
How To Train Your Dragon = 4.1 out of 5 yukes
She's Out of My League - C
It's funny that after my glowing review of Jay Baruchel in How To Train Your Dragon, I have to give him a sub-par review in this movie. The plot line basically tells the story of Kirk (Baruchel) who finds himself at the end of a relationship at the outset of the movie. His self consciousness seems to be holding him back from moving on, until he meets Molly (Alice Eve). He falls for her, and oddly enough she seems to be interested in him... one problem... she's clearly 'out of his league' (cue Peter Griffin saying "oh there it is, he said it... I wondered why it was called that). Through fumbles, mishaps, ex-girlfriends, ex-boyfriends, people's clear opposition to their dichotomous relationship and Kirk's clear insecurities, the story winds its way to a climax at the ever popular shooting destination... the Pittsburgh airport.
It's kind of cute, maybe a bit charming, but mostly it frustrated me. It takes longer to get to where it's going than it needed to, it's trying too hard to be different... and failing, and it's actors just aren't strong enough to carry the film. This is something I'm finding with more regularity as of late; it seems studios are getting tired of the same old, same old lead actors/actresses and testing the waters with possible new leads. They tried, good on them. They failed, too bad. Baruchel has enough right now to carry an animated film (see above review), but not a full-length feature. Overall, it's a film that's worth a rental if there's not much for selection, but isn't a must-see. Execution just wasn't strong enough.
I just watched this movie over the weekend. For myself, this movie executed to near perfection. I felt the whole spectrum of human emotion. When it was funny, I laughed. When it called for it, I was sad. At crucial points I felt concerned for both Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and his dragon (some CGI sound I'm sure). When Hiccup's father (Gerard Butler) tells his son "You're not a viking, you're not my son." My heart was aching. Job well done. First A Category movie review of the year.
This animated feature follows the story of Hiccup, the son of the head of a viking tribe. He also happens to be an outcast in the viking world, not strong enough to fight, not big enough to command any attention. Yeah, it's a classic storyline. Lead character doesn't fit in. Lead character meets someone/something that gives him an escape. Village has something against said someone/something. Village finds out. Village uses said someone/something as a means to their own ends. Lead character summons up vigor and courage to save village. I won't give any of the details of the plot line... but you get the picture. The reason I truly loved this film is because of it's execution. Many movies come out every year with intentions of being the next big thing, but lack in getting the point across because they forget about the basic tenets of a movie. A movie needs to connect with its audience. This movie does that in full, drawing on the basic relationship of an owner with their pet.
The story isn't anything spectacular, but there are very few flaws, which make it both noticeable in a good way and very enjoyable. Casting for voices can sometimes be hit and miss, and when big names are included usually falls into the latter category. Baruchel, Butler and America Ferreira casted as the main characters were perfect, they all breathed life into their characters. As a supporting cast, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig did the same, and its the perfection of these subtleties that really strengthened the movie. Music fit nicely throughout the film, and the animation was top-notch. Dreamworks really came to bat with this picture in it's fight against the two-headed, nearly unstoppable Buzz & Woody monster that is Toy Story 3. This is definitely a must-see movie for anyone who wants to be shown what a movie is meant to look like.
Story - 7.5
Comedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4
Filmmaking - 8
Sheer Enjoyment - 8.5
How To Train Your Dragon = 4.1 out of 5 yukes
She's Out of My League - C
It's funny that after my glowing review of Jay Baruchel in How To Train Your Dragon, I have to give him a sub-par review in this movie. The plot line basically tells the story of Kirk (Baruchel) who finds himself at the end of a relationship at the outset of the movie. His self consciousness seems to be holding him back from moving on, until he meets Molly (Alice Eve). He falls for her, and oddly enough she seems to be interested in him... one problem... she's clearly 'out of his league' (cue Peter Griffin saying "oh there it is, he said it... I wondered why it was called that). Through fumbles, mishaps, ex-girlfriends, ex-boyfriends, people's clear opposition to their dichotomous relationship and Kirk's clear insecurities, the story winds its way to a climax at the ever popular shooting destination... the Pittsburgh airport.
It's kind of cute, maybe a bit charming, but mostly it frustrated me. It takes longer to get to where it's going than it needed to, it's trying too hard to be different... and failing, and it's actors just aren't strong enough to carry the film. This is something I'm finding with more regularity as of late; it seems studios are getting tired of the same old, same old lead actors/actresses and testing the waters with possible new leads. They tried, good on them. They failed, too bad. Baruchel has enough right now to carry an animated film (see above review), but not a full-length feature. Overall, it's a film that's worth a rental if there's not much for selection, but isn't a must-see. Execution just wasn't strong enough.
Story - 5.5
Comedy - 6
Characters - 3
Believability - 3.5
Filmmaking - 3.5
Sheer Enjoyment - 6
She's Out of My League = 2.75 out of 5 yukes
Hot Tub Time Machine - C
As simple as I can put it. John Cusack. I love John Cusack. Divorce. Darrel from the Office. Unhappy. Louis CK. Louis CK. Some angry kid. A weekend getaway. A hot tub. Alcohol. Radioactive somethingorother that makes it into a time machine. Depression. Fun times. Fixing mistakes. Finding true love. Growing up. Learning lessons. Louis CK finding out he's the father of the angry kid. Weird. Funny. Maybe a rental. Enjoy. It's tough catching up on reviewing 20 films. I pretty much mailed this one in.
Story - 6
Comedy - 7
Characters - 2.5
Believability - 1
Filmmaking - 2.5
Sheer Enjoyment - 7
Hot Tub Time Machine = 2.6 out of 5 yukes
... you just got yuked!
CU
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Catching up on 2010: February - 'Shutter Island'
Before I ramble on about this Scorsese epic, I have to admit that I am going to add a reviewing category. Shutter Island is mainly the reason for adding a criteria that focuses on the filmmaking techniques in the film (cinematography, musical score, costuming). It will be worth 10 points, creating my greatest nightmare of a score out of 5. Oh well, 5 yukes it is.
Also, I would like to welcome SP to the blogging world, he's going to take care of Horror movies for the most part at skochscorner.wordpress.com, read him. NOW! Oh, fair warning, as the warning says... there were some phrases that just didn't have the right effect without a curse word.
Shutter Island - B (would recommend... may/may not watch again)
Part of the reason I delayed viewing this film for so long was because I don't do very well with creepy mind 'f'-ing thrillers. I caved and watched it at work last night, poor choice. Locking up a school nearing midnight having just watched a movie with some creepy shit it is a bad idea. Every darkened window felt like someone was on the other side.
The movie centers around Teddy Daniels (Leo Dicaprio) and his investigation of a missing person on a secluded island home to a dangerous patient's mental hospital. Enough trying to be epic for you Scorsese? Daniels, a US Marshal with ulterior motives, is actually searching for the man responsible for his wife's death. Though most reviewer's I've read had a problem with the predictability of the plot twists, I let myself enter the world of the island. Maybe it's my lacking knowledge of movie history or a general apathy for 'trying to figure it out', but I much enjoyed the path the story took. From it's epic musical set-up to it's well-shot darkened feel, Scorsese used art to tell this story. Part of the reason I go into movies with no intentions of 'trying to figure it out', is because some movies aren't made for the soul purpose of messing with us. This is one of those movies, a story that is told through the artform. Avatar is another movie that fits into this mold, it will never be the perfect film because the story for many is sub-par, but it still ranks high on my movie lists because it employs techniques that can't be overlooked when deciding whether it is great or not.
One of my favorite things about this movie is the acting. I rarely caught myself thinking I was watching Leo, he did enough for me to lose myself in the character. Mark Ruffalo (his partner), whom I have a little bit of a man-crush on, and Michelle Williams (his dead wife) were superb. I found all of the supporting cast to work just well enough without any scene stealing.
To be honest, I enjoyed this film a lot. Maybe it was a lack of hype but I thought Scorsese did much better than 66.4% positive rating on moviereviewintelligence.com.
Story - 8
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 3.5
Filmmaking (cinematography, music) - 8.5
Sheer Enjoyment - 8
Shutter Island - 4 out of 5
Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU
Also, I would like to welcome SP to the blogging world, he's going to take care of Horror movies for the most part at skochscorner.wordpress.com, read him. NOW! Oh, fair warning, as the warning says... there were some phrases that just didn't have the right effect without a curse word.
Shutter Island - B (would recommend... may/may not watch again)
Part of the reason I delayed viewing this film for so long was because I don't do very well with creepy mind 'f'-ing thrillers. I caved and watched it at work last night, poor choice. Locking up a school nearing midnight having just watched a movie with some creepy shit it is a bad idea. Every darkened window felt like someone was on the other side.
The movie centers around Teddy Daniels (Leo Dicaprio) and his investigation of a missing person on a secluded island home to a dangerous patient's mental hospital. Enough trying to be epic for you Scorsese? Daniels, a US Marshal with ulterior motives, is actually searching for the man responsible for his wife's death. Though most reviewer's I've read had a problem with the predictability of the plot twists, I let myself enter the world of the island. Maybe it's my lacking knowledge of movie history or a general apathy for 'trying to figure it out', but I much enjoyed the path the story took. From it's epic musical set-up to it's well-shot darkened feel, Scorsese used art to tell this story. Part of the reason I go into movies with no intentions of 'trying to figure it out', is because some movies aren't made for the soul purpose of messing with us. This is one of those movies, a story that is told through the artform. Avatar is another movie that fits into this mold, it will never be the perfect film because the story for many is sub-par, but it still ranks high on my movie lists because it employs techniques that can't be overlooked when deciding whether it is great or not.
One of my favorite things about this movie is the acting. I rarely caught myself thinking I was watching Leo, he did enough for me to lose myself in the character. Mark Ruffalo (his partner), whom I have a little bit of a man-crush on, and Michelle Williams (his dead wife) were superb. I found all of the supporting cast to work just well enough without any scene stealing.
To be honest, I enjoyed this film a lot. Maybe it was a lack of hype but I thought Scorsese did much better than 66.4% positive rating on moviereviewintelligence.com.
Story - 8
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 3.5
Filmmaking (cinematography, music) - 8.5
Sheer Enjoyment - 8
Shutter Island - 4 out of 5
Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Catching up on 2010: February - 'Dear John'
Dear John - D
My last review said that most romantic comedies fall into category C because a date movie generally doesn't have to reach the same standards to be watchable. I also saw this movie on a date, but this movie didn't attain any level of decent filmmaking. A lack of real chemistry between Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried permeated the whole movie. There's not a whole lot to the plot line but cliche love story telling. People who like these kind of movies will like this movie. Myself and 90% of the rest of the population will not.
*Spoiler Alert*
Things I like about it: Richard Jenkins' turn as an autistic father actually got me thinking he a) deserved his nod for best actor in 'The Visitor' two years ago and b)he may even deserve some sort of recognition for his work here. Here's the *spoiler* if you care...
Things I didn't like about it: They kill the father (Richard Jenkins) off halfway through the movie and the second half suffers because he isn't in it. The story arc is weird (see Leap Year review), it doesn't follow the normal expectations and seems like a poorly hashed together script to take $13 from every 12-23 year old girl in North America.
Story - 4
Comedy/Tragedy - 6
Characters - 3.5 (mainly because of Richard Jenkins)
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3
Sheer Enjoyment - 2.5
Dear John = 2.15 out of 5 yukes
Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU
My last review said that most romantic comedies fall into category C because a date movie generally doesn't have to reach the same standards to be watchable. I also saw this movie on a date, but this movie didn't attain any level of decent filmmaking. A lack of real chemistry between Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried permeated the whole movie. There's not a whole lot to the plot line but cliche love story telling. People who like these kind of movies will like this movie. Myself and 90% of the rest of the population will not.
*Spoiler Alert*
Things I like about it: Richard Jenkins' turn as an autistic father actually got me thinking he a) deserved his nod for best actor in 'The Visitor' two years ago and b)he may even deserve some sort of recognition for his work here. Here's the *spoiler* if you care...
Things I didn't like about it: They kill the father (Richard Jenkins) off halfway through the movie and the second half suffers because he isn't in it. The story arc is weird (see Leap Year review), it doesn't follow the normal expectations and seems like a poorly hashed together script to take $13 from every 12-23 year old girl in North America.
Story - 4
Comedy/Tragedy - 6
Characters - 3.5 (mainly because of Richard Jenkins)
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3
Sheer Enjoyment - 2.5
Dear John = 2.15 out of 5 yukes
Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU
Catching up on 2010: January - 'Leap Year', 'When in Rome'
Though we are nearing the end of the calendar year, I still think it's a great idea to write reviews and give ratings for every film I have seen until this point this year. This gives a broader perspective as to how movies line up in my yearly review. I have 15 movies to catch up on so each of these reviews may be brief. I will write a small blurb about each of the films that were released in the corresponding months. This doesn't mean I first viewed these movies in the month I am writing them for, it simply tells when they were released. Here goes...
Leap Year - C (may/may not recommend... may/may not watch again)
I have to admit that I am normally a sucker for anything that includes Amy Adams, and this still fits into that category to some degree. The movie centers around an oh-so 'modern' woman trying to make up for a clueless guy by turning the tables of engagement around on him. He's clearly stringing her on and she isn't bright enough to catch on. Like any romantic comedy, the story doesn't go as she'd expect it (though you see it all coming a mile away), and Anna (Adams) finds herself with a stubborn, love scorned barkeep and adventures ensue. I won't spoil anything, but come on... it's about as predictable as my choice every time I go to Chili's (Chicken Fajitas. 8 Years Running.)
Things I like about it: Ireland. Irish Accents. Amy Adams.
Things I didn't like about it: The relationship she has with her fiance is contrived. I know it's to set up your hopes for the new guy, but this one frustrated me. It's predictable. Sometimes changing a story arc or the way you go about telling a story is a good thing, NOT in a romantic comedy, it simply doesn't work.
Story - 5.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 5.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3
Filmmaking - 3
Sheer Enjoyment - 5.5
Leap Year = 2.5 out of 5 Yukes
When In Rome - C (may/may not recommend... may/may not watch again)
I don't remember much of this. I didn't like it much. I actually like Josh Duhamel as a leading guy, but I don't know if Kristen Bell has enough draw to be considered for a leading role. It does get bonus points for being set in Europe, deal with it. That's all I have.
Story - 6
Comedy/Tragedy - 4.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3
Filmmaking - 3
Sheer Enjoyment - 4.5
When in Rome = 2.35 out of 5 Yukes
Until next time, you just got yuked...
CU
CU
(editor's note - most romantic comedies fit into category C because of their date movie possibilities)
Monday, November 15, 2010
Embarking on a Journey - Reviewing Criteria
At the counsel of some close friends, all of whom share the deep passion I have for the cinema, I have decided to begin this movie review blog. Films have always been a way for me to spend my time, engage my senses and outlet my opinions. More recently, I have become more interested in the artform of moviemaking; this is in part thanks to SP. The artform of moviemaking requires an attention to every detail involved in the movie. I will give a brief rundown of my reviewing criteria at the end of this initial blog.
I give you fair warning that I've never had much of a sense for grammatical correctness, deal with it. My expectations of you as a reader are never those of agreement, instead, I welcome differing opinions on any review or article I may write based on my own thoughts. If you do agree, you're better than the rest. There will always be some sort of bias included in anything I review, quite simply, I am seeing each movie through the lens of my own worldview and therefore find it impossible to strip who I am from what I think of a piece of art.
My intention for each of my reviews is to explain, with as much sensitivity to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, how all of the criteria worked to serve the purpose of the film. I will always take into account things like story, use of genre, characters and other things. I will also give a general explanation of how much I simply liked the film. My final hope is to make conjecture as to whether the general public, this blog's readers or my friends will actually enjoy the movie.
Without further ado here is my scale, and hopefully a satisfactory explanation behind all of the criteria involved.
Level One
My first level of rating is one meant to give the reader a basic answer to the question "Should I see this movie?" I separate movies into these 6 categories:
A - I would recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
B - I would recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it again.
C - I may/may not recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it
D - I would not recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
E - I am disappointed that the studio signed off to make this awful movie!
H - It's a horror film, it's hard to judge on this scale. It's also SP's domain.
(Category C is an ambiguous category. I may only watch it again in the right mood, and I would only recommend it to someone I knew would enjoy that type of movie)
I give you fair warning that I've never had much of a sense for grammatical correctness, deal with it. My expectations of you as a reader are never those of agreement, instead, I welcome differing opinions on any review or article I may write based on my own thoughts. If you do agree, you're better than the rest. There will always be some sort of bias included in anything I review, quite simply, I am seeing each movie through the lens of my own worldview and therefore find it impossible to strip who I am from what I think of a piece of art.
My intention for each of my reviews is to explain, with as much sensitivity to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, how all of the criteria worked to serve the purpose of the film. I will always take into account things like story, use of genre, characters and other things. I will also give a general explanation of how much I simply liked the film. My final hope is to make conjecture as to whether the general public, this blog's readers or my friends will actually enjoy the movie.
Without further ado here is my scale, and hopefully a satisfactory explanation behind all of the criteria involved.
Level One
My first level of rating is one meant to give the reader a basic answer to the question "Should I see this movie?" I separate movies into these 6 categories:
A - I would recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
B - I would recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it again.
C - I may/may not recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it
D - I would not recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
E - I am disappointed that the studio signed off to make this awful movie!
H - It's a horror film, it's hard to judge on this scale. It's also SP's domain.
(Category C is an ambiguous category. I may only watch it again in the right mood, and I would only recommend it to someone I knew would enjoy that type of movie)
Level Two
My second level of rating is meant to go deeper into the inner workings of a movie. As I said before, it's meant to explain how a movie serves its overall purpose. The 5 (6 as of Nov 20/10) criteria I use are as follows (weighting in parentheses):
Story/Plot (10) - Are there plot twists? Is there sensible conflict. Sneakyness. Is it done creatively? Or is it just re-hashing an old tale?
Comedy/Tragedy (10) - This is where I ask how well the movie serves it's genre. This allows movies like the Hangover to compete with much weightier dramas. What purpose do any generic conventions serve the movie?
Characters (5) - How are the characters developed within the movie? What is their level of interaction? Is the story character driven?
Believability (5) - Sell it to me! Movies (for the most part) are an artform created to represent real life situations so we can all relate. Can we relate? Sometimes a movie may superficially look impossible to relate to, but when we look deeper we see themes of humanity. e.g. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Filmmaking (10) - How well are cinematic techniques used? Things like cinematography, musical scoring, art direction, costuming, sound mixing/editing and visual effects. Pretty much all things we don't fully understand, but get recognized by prolonging the OSCARS.
Sheer Enjoyment (10) - When the movie's over, how much do I like it? This is where my biased guilty pleasures may rank higher in any scale.
Sheer Enjoyment (10) - When the movie's over, how much do I like it? This is where my biased guilty pleasures may rank higher in any scale.
At the end of all that a movie will receive a letter rating and a score out or 50. I then divide that score by 10 to arrive at my final grading out of 5 yukes! I reserve the right to change any rating at the end of the year if, when I compile a list of all the movies I've reviewed, I find the list not an accurate list of my favorite movies of the year. Please let me know what you think; agree or disagree. Until next time... you just got Yuked!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)