from filmmaker Takashi Miike.
You know that guy (you usually meet them in college) who is constantly singing the praises of something you've never heard of? The guy who thinks if it breaks the mold, it must be brilliant, or even worse, if it's a copy of something, that already exists, but no one has heard of it, it must be brilliant. They're the ones who use obscure quotes from obscure movies as part of their everyday language, and say things like "well sure, it's good, but it's no insert abstract reference here." And of course, they expect that you'll understand it, knowing you won't, and will fully mock you for it.
Well, those are the people who told me that Ichi the Killer was awesome.
They were wrong.
Sure it's a violent and bloody movie, and in Asian fashion, manages to mix extremes and add some very funny moments. But the gore is portrayed in a most non-nauseating way, bordering on laughable and awkward.
The plot doesn't really have a point. Clearly, it's not supposed to have any real story-telling, but it's all pretty much just a set-up for another mutilation scene. Sort of like an Aesop's fable but without the moral at the end.
I'm sure some will say that I just didn't get. No, I got it. There wasn't anything to miss and there wasn't anything to get. A director's exploration of his creativity. Whatever.
Look, it's not a terrible movie. But it's not that great, and you certainly aren't missing anything. Just a lot of fluff, bloody fluff.
So 3/5
Because it's not terrible, it's just kinda "ehh."
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Stander
With Thomas Jane.
Since the movie is based on the real story of Andre Stander, it can be a little hard to criticize the script and plot lines.
Fortunately, there's not that much to criticize.
While not an amazing film, it's still very good. It's occasionally witty and always enjoyable. The initial plot line of Stander's motivation is quickly lost, though it's unclear if it was ever the intention to portray him as an avatar of justice. Quick research of the story didn't offer any insight as to whether the real Stander had any of the intentions of the movie character anyway. So think of him as a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and keeps it for himself. There's a certain noble motivation, but that's about it.
There are also clear liberties taken with the story's conclusion, as the director obviously wanted to offer a certain sort of symmetry.
Overall, it's a good movie. Nice action and acting. The audience is presented with a noble hero and follows him on his quest, but clearly, must later question his motivation. If you think deep, you find a nice commentary on the idealization of villains (think Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde).
Definitely a movie that deserves a bigger audience.
4/5
Since the movie is based on the real story of Andre Stander, it can be a little hard to criticize the script and plot lines.
Fortunately, there's not that much to criticize.
While not an amazing film, it's still very good. It's occasionally witty and always enjoyable. The initial plot line of Stander's motivation is quickly lost, though it's unclear if it was ever the intention to portray him as an avatar of justice. Quick research of the story didn't offer any insight as to whether the real Stander had any of the intentions of the movie character anyway. So think of him as a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and keeps it for himself. There's a certain noble motivation, but that's about it.
There are also clear liberties taken with the story's conclusion, as the director obviously wanted to offer a certain sort of symmetry.
Overall, it's a good movie. Nice action and acting. The audience is presented with a noble hero and follows him on his quest, but clearly, must later question his motivation. If you think deep, you find a nice commentary on the idealization of villains (think Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde).
Definitely a movie that deserves a bigger audience.
4/5
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tristan + Isolde
Starring James Franco, Sophia Myles, and Rufus Sewell.
What? I can like love stories too.
Look it's not that bad. The love story is better than the one they tried to interject into King Arthur, but the action and general watch-ability aren't as good.
It's a little hard to watch the later love and romance scenes, because you know they shouldn't and you know they're going to get caught. Kind of like someone who's about to make a real fool of themselves. Plus, how do you not hear two dozen men on horseback without enough time for at least one of you to hide.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if someone killed the traitor simply for being a coward or a jerk, then you'd never have to worry about them actually betraying anyone.
Like all of these movies, I was constantly wondering what would have happened if they had just bothered to tell someone, instead of waiting to get caught.
But it's a good story. The acting is well done. The two story lines are carried and mixed well. And the action was also nice. Not really that much of it, and a little dark (apparently they're the "dark ages" because everything happened at night), but a good movie over all.
A four would be too high, and a three might be too low, but I don't want to get into halves.
So 3/5
What? I can like love stories too.
Look it's not that bad. The love story is better than the one they tried to interject into King Arthur, but the action and general watch-ability aren't as good.
It's a little hard to watch the later love and romance scenes, because you know they shouldn't and you know they're going to get caught. Kind of like someone who's about to make a real fool of themselves. Plus, how do you not hear two dozen men on horseback without enough time for at least one of you to hide.
Also, wouldn't it be nice if someone killed the traitor simply for being a coward or a jerk, then you'd never have to worry about them actually betraying anyone.
Like all of these movies, I was constantly wondering what would have happened if they had just bothered to tell someone, instead of waiting to get caught.
But it's a good story. The acting is well done. The two story lines are carried and mixed well. And the action was also nice. Not really that much of it, and a little dark (apparently they're the "dark ages" because everything happened at night), but a good movie over all.
A four would be too high, and a three might be too low, but I don't want to get into halves.
So 3/5
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Redbelt
Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor.
Although the movie markets like an action or thriller, it's actually more of a character study. There's not a ton of fighting. The action is good, but it's not stylized and all tricked out, as that's not what the film's really about.
The movie starts out a little hectically. There's a lot being introduced in a manner you may not entirely understand. But it pulls together well, and fairly quickly. The characters are easily understood and the main character is a good man. I mean, truly, a good man. Most main characters are decent guys who do good things, but Redbelt gives you a character that is fully realized and rounded and present.
There's a few missteps. Beyond the main character, most of the other people in the film aren't really that fully developed, just sort of, surface personalities. The movie also asks you to accept a lot of conspiracy without ever really giving you a reason why. If they just wanted to take his idea, why didn't they just take it? Especially, before he met a lawyer. The ending is a little strange. Fitting, perhaps, but doesn't really clear anything up. And I still don't know why she slaps him.
But overall, a very nice film. Sweeping but understated, and a little heartbreaking (for an action film). Ultimately, like a half-frosted cake, it could have used a little more of what it already had.
Still, 4/5.
Although the movie markets like an action or thriller, it's actually more of a character study. There's not a ton of fighting. The action is good, but it's not stylized and all tricked out, as that's not what the film's really about.
The movie starts out a little hectically. There's a lot being introduced in a manner you may not entirely understand. But it pulls together well, and fairly quickly. The characters are easily understood and the main character is a good man. I mean, truly, a good man. Most main characters are decent guys who do good things, but Redbelt gives you a character that is fully realized and rounded and present.
There's a few missteps. Beyond the main character, most of the other people in the film aren't really that fully developed, just sort of, surface personalities. The movie also asks you to accept a lot of conspiracy without ever really giving you a reason why. If they just wanted to take his idea, why didn't they just take it? Especially, before he met a lawyer. The ending is a little strange. Fitting, perhaps, but doesn't really clear anything up. And I still don't know why she slaps him.
But overall, a very nice film. Sweeping but understated, and a little heartbreaking (for an action film). Ultimately, like a half-frosted cake, it could have used a little more of what it already had.
Still, 4/5.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Next
Starring Nicholas Cage, Julianne Moore, and Jessica Biel.
My first question, when watching this movie, is how does Nicholas Cage always manage to have such young co-stars? I mean, as a man of years, he can, upon occasion, manage to seem a decade or so younger. But Jessica Biel cannot be conceived as being two decades older. It's kind of odd and a little off-putting.
My second question: What kind of diner serves Martinis at 8 in the morning?
Apparently, the Vegas kind.
Then there's questions like, why pick up the gun that isn't yours? Why steal a car when you're only being chased by hotel security? Or why do middle-of-nowhere hotels only ever have one room left?
But as far as the movie goes, it's actually pretty good. I was pleasantly surprised. I was worried that it would be on a level with Ghost Rider, but it's closer to The Rock or Gone in 60 Seconds. The acting was a little...not half-hearted, more like 3/4. They were there, but not all the way.
The timeline of the film gets a little jumpy, but it would, in a movie about time travel. And I don't exactly understand how the "two minute" rule works, but whatever. The special effects are good, the fight sequences are fun (who doesn't like to see Nicholas Cage take a punch to the jaw?).
It does, however, have two main problems. One, the film always feels like it's building up to the main conflict. And given problem two, this never gets resolved. Problem two: the ending sucks. It's terrible, cheap, a major cheat, and rather aggravating.
Other than that, it's a good film. Really.
3/5
My first question, when watching this movie, is how does Nicholas Cage always manage to have such young co-stars? I mean, as a man of years, he can, upon occasion, manage to seem a decade or so younger. But Jessica Biel cannot be conceived as being two decades older. It's kind of odd and a little off-putting.
My second question: What kind of diner serves Martinis at 8 in the morning?
Apparently, the Vegas kind.
Then there's questions like, why pick up the gun that isn't yours? Why steal a car when you're only being chased by hotel security? Or why do middle-of-nowhere hotels only ever have one room left?
But as far as the movie goes, it's actually pretty good. I was pleasantly surprised. I was worried that it would be on a level with Ghost Rider, but it's closer to The Rock or Gone in 60 Seconds. The acting was a little...not half-hearted, more like 3/4. They were there, but not all the way.
The timeline of the film gets a little jumpy, but it would, in a movie about time travel. And I don't exactly understand how the "two minute" rule works, but whatever. The special effects are good, the fight sequences are fun (who doesn't like to see Nicholas Cage take a punch to the jaw?).
It does, however, have two main problems. One, the film always feels like it's building up to the main conflict. And given problem two, this never gets resolved. Problem two: the ending sucks. It's terrible, cheap, a major cheat, and rather aggravating.
Other than that, it's a good film. Really.
3/5
Saturday, May 30, 2009
War
War is an action movie starring Jason Statham and Jet Li.
I love Jason Statham as much as the next person, probably more. But it's fair to say, he doesn't always make great movies. I barely made it through "In the Name of the King" and I barely made it through "War."
The premise of the movie is this: Statham is an FBI agent who's partner is killed by a mysterious assassin ("Rogue," face unknown). Years later, the assassin returns (played by Jet Li) and begins playing both sides to start a war between Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triad. Naturally, Statham and his obsession with revenge (which has cost him his marriage) drive him to do everything he must to hunt down Rogue.
I give Statham a lot of credit. It seems to me that he's well aware of his acting limitations. So rather than struggle for work trying to be "legitimate," he makes the movies he'd like to make, possibly movies he'd like to watch. He likes kicking ass, so that's what he does. And I love him for it.
But this was not a good movie.
The plot, while not necessarily complicated, was made complicated. So you're reaction is "What?" and then ten minutes later "Oh, I got it, rival gangs. Why didn't they just say that?" Which, more or less, ten minutes later, they do.
To be honest, the plot was also kind of dumb. Neither clever or original, it just didn't make you care about anything. And while Statham is certainly believable as an action star, he just wasn't believable as an FBI agent. There was no sense of a system of regulations, or even laws (not his fault, just poorly written). "The One" did a much better job of giving Statham, essentially, the same job. Also, after Statham lost his partner, he was suddenly heading a task force of about four people. Just extra characters thrown in for no reason. Some are there sometimes, some aren't, some get shot (but I'm still not clear if they died), some do the shooting (rather un-climatically too).
There's also unnecessary dramatics from one characters insistence on a salad (we get it, she's tough, but repeating it three times and explaining the reason and what kind you want and dressing on the side...it's a bit much) to Statham and Li having a five-minute confrontation in a warehouse (that's empty) and only Statham talking, and the owner of the warehouse (a bad guy who realized the FBI hit a dead-end) just what? Standing around watching this guy yell dramatically at the other? It was a bad scene choice.
There's also an over abundance of flashbacks (we were watching, we know what happened), a lot of suspiciously-fast travelling, an odd moment with some background characters, and another odd moment where Statham is sitting alone in the middle of a kid's playground (weird, right?)
The dialogue is terribly written (one character is reminded of a saying, and proceeds to tell an entire story), and in some cases, poorly delivered.
The movie has potential, though (or did before it was made), telling the story from the other side (which you'll only understand when you reach the end).
Also, for a movie called "War," the title doesn't really make sense. Yes, there's a gang war, but it barely feels like one. And the war between Statham and Li isn't much either. Since they barely interact. Frankly, for an action movie, there's a surprisingly small amount of action. The good fight/chase scenes are too short, the bad ones too long.
And finally, the ending is a big letdown. There's a poorly-revealed "twist", an odd shift in focus, another poorly revealed "twist," and then the movie just...ends. Kind of strangely, too.
Look, over all, skip it. Not a good Statham movie, not a good Jet Li movie.
2/5
(high simply because it has Statham in it and I'm totally bias)
I love Jason Statham as much as the next person, probably more. But it's fair to say, he doesn't always make great movies. I barely made it through "In the Name of the King" and I barely made it through "War."
The premise of the movie is this: Statham is an FBI agent who's partner is killed by a mysterious assassin ("Rogue," face unknown). Years later, the assassin returns (played by Jet Li) and begins playing both sides to start a war between Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triad. Naturally, Statham and his obsession with revenge (which has cost him his marriage) drive him to do everything he must to hunt down Rogue.
I give Statham a lot of credit. It seems to me that he's well aware of his acting limitations. So rather than struggle for work trying to be "legitimate," he makes the movies he'd like to make, possibly movies he'd like to watch. He likes kicking ass, so that's what he does. And I love him for it.
But this was not a good movie.
The plot, while not necessarily complicated, was made complicated. So you're reaction is "What?" and then ten minutes later "Oh, I got it, rival gangs. Why didn't they just say that?" Which, more or less, ten minutes later, they do.
To be honest, the plot was also kind of dumb. Neither clever or original, it just didn't make you care about anything. And while Statham is certainly believable as an action star, he just wasn't believable as an FBI agent. There was no sense of a system of regulations, or even laws (not his fault, just poorly written). "The One" did a much better job of giving Statham, essentially, the same job. Also, after Statham lost his partner, he was suddenly heading a task force of about four people. Just extra characters thrown in for no reason. Some are there sometimes, some aren't, some get shot (but I'm still not clear if they died), some do the shooting (rather un-climatically too).
There's also unnecessary dramatics from one characters insistence on a salad (we get it, she's tough, but repeating it three times and explaining the reason and what kind you want and dressing on the side...it's a bit much) to Statham and Li having a five-minute confrontation in a warehouse (that's empty) and only Statham talking, and the owner of the warehouse (a bad guy who realized the FBI hit a dead-end) just what? Standing around watching this guy yell dramatically at the other? It was a bad scene choice.
There's also an over abundance of flashbacks (we were watching, we know what happened), a lot of suspiciously-fast travelling, an odd moment with some background characters, and another odd moment where Statham is sitting alone in the middle of a kid's playground (weird, right?)
The dialogue is terribly written (one character is reminded of a saying, and proceeds to tell an entire story), and in some cases, poorly delivered.
The movie has potential, though (or did before it was made), telling the story from the other side (which you'll only understand when you reach the end).
Also, for a movie called "War," the title doesn't really make sense. Yes, there's a gang war, but it barely feels like one. And the war between Statham and Li isn't much either. Since they barely interact. Frankly, for an action movie, there's a surprisingly small amount of action. The good fight/chase scenes are too short, the bad ones too long.
And finally, the ending is a big letdown. There's a poorly-revealed "twist", an odd shift in focus, another poorly revealed "twist," and then the movie just...ends. Kind of strangely, too.
Look, over all, skip it. Not a good Statham movie, not a good Jet Li movie.
2/5
(high simply because it has Statham in it and I'm totally bias)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Låt den rätte komma in
(Let the Right One In)
A beautifully subtle film.
There are, in my opinion, three types of vampire films. Not counting the truly terrible, such as Dracula 2000, or films where vampires are an example of the types of creatures that exist, such as Nochnoi Dozor (Night Watch), or ones that are both, like Van Helsing.
Anyway. Three types:
1. Horror - i.e. 30 Days of Night
2. Stylized - i.e. Underworld
3. Noir/Gothic - such as Nosferatu, and even Buffy
Let the Right One In falls to category three.
It doesn't hide what it is. It's very clear that it has a vampire in it. But it doesn't languish through origins or characteristics. It doesn't even really argue the morality of it. I could say it's pretty much the story of boy-meets-girl, who happens to be a vampire.
But that would be a vast understatement for the movie.
To warn you, it's a foreign film. So you either suffer through reading subtitles or hearing mediocre dubbing. As well, as I've noticed with many foreign films, it lacks the clear imagery that we'd expect from an English-language film. But it probably also didn't cost 30 million dollars to make.
Other countries don't have the movie industry that we have, so you'll just have to deal.
It's a great film. There's very little humor but you don't miss it. As I said, it's subtle. It's basically just the boy and the girl on screen for the entire movie. But it's engaging, driven by character and story. In many ways, you feel like you're watching a book.
4/5
A beautifully subtle film.
There are, in my opinion, three types of vampire films. Not counting the truly terrible, such as Dracula 2000, or films where vampires are an example of the types of creatures that exist, such as Nochnoi Dozor (Night Watch), or ones that are both, like Van Helsing.
Anyway. Three types:
1. Horror - i.e. 30 Days of Night
2. Stylized - i.e. Underworld
3. Noir/Gothic - such as Nosferatu, and even Buffy
Let the Right One In falls to category three.
It doesn't hide what it is. It's very clear that it has a vampire in it. But it doesn't languish through origins or characteristics. It doesn't even really argue the morality of it. I could say it's pretty much the story of boy-meets-girl, who happens to be a vampire.
But that would be a vast understatement for the movie.
To warn you, it's a foreign film. So you either suffer through reading subtitles or hearing mediocre dubbing. As well, as I've noticed with many foreign films, it lacks the clear imagery that we'd expect from an English-language film. But it probably also didn't cost 30 million dollars to make.
Other countries don't have the movie industry that we have, so you'll just have to deal.
It's a great film. There's very little humor but you don't miss it. As I said, it's subtle. It's basically just the boy and the girl on screen for the entire movie. But it's engaging, driven by character and story. In many ways, you feel like you're watching a book.
4/5
Monday, March 16, 2009
Rabbit-Proof Fence
This is a good movie.
Basically, it has a sad story to tell, and it tells you a sad story. You feel appropriately terrible that such a thing could have really happened (it's based on a true story).
It's not a fun or exciting film, but it didn't move me enough to cry. It's a story about three girls walking through the desert.
It's not going to be among my favorite movies, and I may never watch it again. Having watched it, I'm not changed for the better, but if anyone asks, I'll probably tell them to watch it.
Ultimately, it's not really my type of film. But as I said, it's a good movie.
3/5
Basically, it has a sad story to tell, and it tells you a sad story. You feel appropriately terrible that such a thing could have really happened (it's based on a true story).
It's not a fun or exciting film, but it didn't move me enough to cry. It's a story about three girls walking through the desert.
It's not going to be among my favorite movies, and I may never watch it again. Having watched it, I'm not changed for the better, but if anyone asks, I'll probably tell them to watch it.
Ultimately, it's not really my type of film. But as I said, it's a good movie.
3/5
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Watchmen
I loved this movie. But you probably won't.
One great thing about this movie is that it makes no attempt to compromising. It makes no effort to be more entertaining or more mainstream. If superheroes are a commentary on humanity, and Watchmen is a commentary on superheroes, what does the movie attempt to say about humanity? Well, first of all, it attempts nothing. It succeeds in delivering it's dark and harsh criticism of the human condition.
The movie requires an intelligent audience. It has a lot of flashbacks and doesn't offer any real background for the characters (this is no origin story). Watchmen will be appreciated by those who don't need to be pampered by a movie. Look at it this way: most movies are like a pop album. They're fun and entertaining and you can sing along. This movie is more like a progressive rock album. It's something you have to sit down for, something that takes effort to follow and understand. You may not understand it all, you may not remember it all, but you are definitely affected by it. It's not something you play on the car ride to work. This isn't a movie you can run as background noise while you work on something else. You'll miss stuff, you won't get it. This is a movie that needs you to watch it.
On some technical aspects, the visuals are amazing. True Dr. Manhattan spends much of the movie naked (and oh so blue). And as much as you don't really pay attention to it in the comic, in such a highly visible setting, you will notice. But it's not really that important, so try not to dwell.
The effects are fantastic, the casting is superb!
If you've ever heard a zombie movie, or copious amounts of gratuitous violence and blood, described as "visceral," you've been mislead. This movie is visceral. You feel the violence. The sound and sight of it combine in a perfect harmony of visual impact. It's not nauseating, but it's not nervous laughter either. It's just realistic.
Speaking of sounds: the sound track, the one area not dictated by the comic, was nothing sort of excellent. That perfect choice of sounds and songs that doesn't undercut the action but is that perfect counterpoint. It stands out enough to hear it, stands out enough to enhance what you're seeing, but doesn't tell you what you're supposed to be feeling. It doesn't encourage your suspense. Even the choice of a bad song (a terrible cover of Hallelujah) was the perfect choice.
Basically, if you understand that movies don't have to appeal to everyone, that movies can be vastly disliked and still be good, then this is possibly the movie for you.
5/5
One great thing about this movie is that it makes no attempt to compromising. It makes no effort to be more entertaining or more mainstream. If superheroes are a commentary on humanity, and Watchmen is a commentary on superheroes, what does the movie attempt to say about humanity? Well, first of all, it attempts nothing. It succeeds in delivering it's dark and harsh criticism of the human condition.
The movie requires an intelligent audience. It has a lot of flashbacks and doesn't offer any real background for the characters (this is no origin story). Watchmen will be appreciated by those who don't need to be pampered by a movie. Look at it this way: most movies are like a pop album. They're fun and entertaining and you can sing along. This movie is more like a progressive rock album. It's something you have to sit down for, something that takes effort to follow and understand. You may not understand it all, you may not remember it all, but you are definitely affected by it. It's not something you play on the car ride to work. This isn't a movie you can run as background noise while you work on something else. You'll miss stuff, you won't get it. This is a movie that needs you to watch it.
On some technical aspects, the visuals are amazing. True Dr. Manhattan spends much of the movie naked (and oh so blue). And as much as you don't really pay attention to it in the comic, in such a highly visible setting, you will notice. But it's not really that important, so try not to dwell.
The effects are fantastic, the casting is superb!
If you've ever heard a zombie movie, or copious amounts of gratuitous violence and blood, described as "visceral," you've been mislead. This movie is visceral. You feel the violence. The sound and sight of it combine in a perfect harmony of visual impact. It's not nauseating, but it's not nervous laughter either. It's just realistic.
Speaking of sounds: the sound track, the one area not dictated by the comic, was nothing sort of excellent. That perfect choice of sounds and songs that doesn't undercut the action but is that perfect counterpoint. It stands out enough to hear it, stands out enough to enhance what you're seeing, but doesn't tell you what you're supposed to be feeling. It doesn't encourage your suspense. Even the choice of a bad song (a terrible cover of Hallelujah) was the perfect choice.
Basically, if you understand that movies don't have to appeal to everyone, that movies can be vastly disliked and still be good, then this is possibly the movie for you.
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)