Intense, delightfully scary, and somehow very real, I enjoyed every step of this movie. I really liked that it was not about what happened to the world. That was just the back story. What happened to the world was just the environment in which our protagonist, Robert Nevill, had to live and survive.
I also like the way that the intensity and suspense was created and maintained. Most of the time you saw shadows and highlights, instead of outright monsters. When you did see the monsters, they were more scary than gross.
I liked the level that Robert went to in order to protect himself. The story also gained a ton of reality by not making him a super hero. He only did as well as he did by luck or thinking ahead. And when he was in major danger, he was scared out of his mind.
But most of all, the realism in the story was gained by the way Robert was dealing with his situation. How he interacted with his dog, things he did to try to keep his sanity, and the level of sanity he actually managed to keep, all contributed to the rich tapestry of the story.
Now if you don't like scary stories, don't see this one. It was quite frightening. This wasn't just Shyamalan-scary, it was the stuff of nightmares. And if you are only looking for a horror flick, skip this movie. It took a luxurious amount of time creating a story and character that you could believe. However, if you like compelling stories, detailed characters, and intense, freakily frightening films, this might be right up your ally.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Mars Attacks (1996)
Ok, my review for this movie will be short: This was the dumbest, more boring movie I have ever seen.
I only saw the last half-hour. I dont need to see any more. This movie was trying to be cheeky, playing on the style of classic Sci-Fi 'B' movies. It failed. The jokes did work, the style didn't work. Every weird idea just fought against every other one, and the whole thing just made you feel sorry for all the big names that got roped into it.
If you want an intentionally bad movie that is actually funny, check out "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." However, ignore "Return of the Killer Tomatoes." That one is dumb too.
I only saw the last half-hour. I dont need to see any more. This movie was trying to be cheeky, playing on the style of classic Sci-Fi 'B' movies. It failed. The jokes did work, the style didn't work. Every weird idea just fought against every other one, and the whole thing just made you feel sorry for all the big names that got roped into it.
If you want an intentionally bad movie that is actually funny, check out "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." However, ignore "Return of the Killer Tomatoes." That one is dumb too.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Golden Compass (2007)
Loved it.
The more I think about this film, the more I enjoyed it. This movie had all the aspects I look for in a movie. Great story, engaging dialog, great visuals and music, and something to make me think. But there were two things I liked most about this movie.
1) The Girl. She was a great character from beginning to end. She was not just the lead character, she was by far the star. Her cheekiness, to her dedicated fight at the end, was believable at every turn.
2) Agency. Ultimately, I believe this movie was about agency. I've never read the book. I don't know the author of the book or the screenplay, or what their belief systems might be. But the basic message from the movie I got was that any organization or authority that tries to remove agency is bad. This is a message I happen to believe in.
I only have two complaints. First, the movie felt a bit rushed throughout. This is a risk with a book adaptation. It is hard to have time to put everything in that needs to be in there. Second, the end felt a bit canned. They were trying to create an ending that didn't feel to much like a cliffhanger, because when they made this film they didn't know if they were going to be able to make any others. Thay had to give us some kind of ending. But unfortunately, it kinda felt like they just stuck a little dialog on the end and called it good.
However, even with those two small complaints, I enjoyed myself while watching, and I enjoyed thinking about it after. What more can you want.
The more I think about this film, the more I enjoyed it. This movie had all the aspects I look for in a movie. Great story, engaging dialog, great visuals and music, and something to make me think. But there were two things I liked most about this movie.
1) The Girl. She was a great character from beginning to end. She was not just the lead character, she was by far the star. Her cheekiness, to her dedicated fight at the end, was believable at every turn.
2) Agency. Ultimately, I believe this movie was about agency. I've never read the book. I don't know the author of the book or the screenplay, or what their belief systems might be. But the basic message from the movie I got was that any organization or authority that tries to remove agency is bad. This is a message I happen to believe in.
I only have two complaints. First, the movie felt a bit rushed throughout. This is a risk with a book adaptation. It is hard to have time to put everything in that needs to be in there. Second, the end felt a bit canned. They were trying to create an ending that didn't feel to much like a cliffhanger, because when they made this film they didn't know if they were going to be able to make any others. Thay had to give us some kind of ending. But unfortunately, it kinda felt like they just stuck a little dialog on the end and called it good.
However, even with those two small complaints, I enjoyed myself while watching, and I enjoyed thinking about it after. What more can you want.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Three things I like about "A Beautiful Mind" (2001)
1) I liked the phrase "I choose not to partake in certain appetites. Call it a diet of the mind."
2) I liked that the birds didn't move the when the little girl Marcee went running through them with a joyful shout.
3) I liked when Nash received his Nobel Prize, that he said the most important discovery in his life was understanding the love his wife had for him.
2) I liked that the birds didn't move the when the little girl Marcee went running through them with a joyful shout.
3) I liked when Nash received his Nobel Prize, that he said the most important discovery in his life was understanding the love his wife had for him.
Pay It Forward (2000)
Saw this on TV again. You know, there are just some great things about this movie.
I love the entire opening dialog of the teacher, Mr Eugene Simonet. The way he introduced the subject of Social Studies, by drawing out the place that 11 year olds have in the world was delightful.
The way the movie dealt with the mom Arlene's addiction to alcohol is really interesting. The details of where she hid her bottles and her reactions as she felt an overwhelming need to drink were just exquisite. But I loved the way she managed to stop herself the one time after she hit Trever, even when the liqueur was in her mouth.
The mistakes that the people make in this movie are enlightening. The mistakes they make, and the consequences of them, and the opportunities they get to correct the mistakes.
I love the conflict and dialog between Arlene and Eugene, and the way their relationship develops. From the initial angry conflict to understanding and respect, to compassion and love.
I think it is funny that Trever's dad is Jon Bon Jovi.
But most of all, I think it is fantastic that this movie is about doing things for other people. Big, hard things. Things they can't do for themselves. And I love that one of the most important things that is done is a daughter forgiving her mother for really bad stuff that happened when she was little. We often don't understand how important a thing like forgiveness is. And it is something only we can do. It is not something that can be done by those that have wronged us, we have to do it for them.
I love that this movie says that we have to take care of each other, and by doing so one person can affect many, many people. Even one person can change the world.
I love the entire opening dialog of the teacher, Mr Eugene Simonet. The way he introduced the subject of Social Studies, by drawing out the place that 11 year olds have in the world was delightful.
The way the movie dealt with the mom Arlene's addiction to alcohol is really interesting. The details of where she hid her bottles and her reactions as she felt an overwhelming need to drink were just exquisite. But I loved the way she managed to stop herself the one time after she hit Trever, even when the liqueur was in her mouth.
The mistakes that the people make in this movie are enlightening. The mistakes they make, and the consequences of them, and the opportunities they get to correct the mistakes.
I love the conflict and dialog between Arlene and Eugene, and the way their relationship develops. From the initial angry conflict to understanding and respect, to compassion and love.
I think it is funny that Trever's dad is Jon Bon Jovi.
But most of all, I think it is fantastic that this movie is about doing things for other people. Big, hard things. Things they can't do for themselves. And I love that one of the most important things that is done is a daughter forgiving her mother for really bad stuff that happened when she was little. We often don't understand how important a thing like forgiveness is. And it is something only we can do. It is not something that can be done by those that have wronged us, we have to do it for them.
I love that this movie says that we have to take care of each other, and by doing so one person can affect many, many people. Even one person can change the world.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Earthquake (1974)
What a boring comedy.
This movie was one of those great disaster movies, back in the day when they made a ton of them. This might be the granddaddy of them all. You know the formula: get to know the complex lives of a bunch of different people, then WHAM! Big monster disaster that puts everything into Chaos. Now we get to see how these people we care about cope with this life changing event.
Problem is, I think it is a dumb formula. I dont really care about these people, and time spent getting to know them is now a chunk of my life forever lost to me. In a well made story character development leads into the major conflict or plot of the story, and is a major aspect of the story telling process. In a movie like this, the first hour of the movie is spent bouncing from one person to the next, showing little mini-episodes in soap opera fashion, with no rhyme or reason to anything that is going on. There is no real plot development from beginning to end.
Of course, once the earthquake hit, I really started laughing. I mean, how can you not laugh to see a little mini truck full of cows drive off a miniaturized elevated freeway, and plummet to their little, mini, plastic deaths? Or when there is a group of people in a falling elevator, when the elevator hits the bottom we get to see animated blood flying at the screen? Honest. Cartoon blood. Or those houses on the hill that are raised up on stilts? Why would you build something like that in southern California, in a fault zone? When I first saw those I knew what was going to happen. I mean, come-on! I really enjoyed the people on the dam, flopping hither and thither, as the camera shakes. Or how about the guy that runs into his house to turn off the gas with a lit cigarette in his mouth!? Ka-Blam!
While some of the visuals of the city in chaos were spectacular, views of block after block of buildings in ruins and flames, and the shear number of extras was staggering, it couldn't make up for how dumb this movie was in general. Why would one group use a fire hose to climb down several stories without actually tying off the end? Why would the city have as an aid station a multi-storied mall that was still standing after the quake. Dont they know about after-shocks? (Oh wait, it was supposed to be quake-proof!)
I think the biggest problem with the movie was they tried to make you care about the people, and then they just killed most of them off. So how can I care? I can't. So instead it is just boring.
This movie was one of those great disaster movies, back in the day when they made a ton of them. This might be the granddaddy of them all. You know the formula: get to know the complex lives of a bunch of different people, then WHAM! Big monster disaster that puts everything into Chaos. Now we get to see how these people we care about cope with this life changing event.
Problem is, I think it is a dumb formula. I dont really care about these people, and time spent getting to know them is now a chunk of my life forever lost to me. In a well made story character development leads into the major conflict or plot of the story, and is a major aspect of the story telling process. In a movie like this, the first hour of the movie is spent bouncing from one person to the next, showing little mini-episodes in soap opera fashion, with no rhyme or reason to anything that is going on. There is no real plot development from beginning to end.
Of course, once the earthquake hit, I really started laughing. I mean, how can you not laugh to see a little mini truck full of cows drive off a miniaturized elevated freeway, and plummet to their little, mini, plastic deaths? Or when there is a group of people in a falling elevator, when the elevator hits the bottom we get to see animated blood flying at the screen? Honest. Cartoon blood. Or those houses on the hill that are raised up on stilts? Why would you build something like that in southern California, in a fault zone? When I first saw those I knew what was going to happen. I mean, come-on! I really enjoyed the people on the dam, flopping hither and thither, as the camera shakes. Or how about the guy that runs into his house to turn off the gas with a lit cigarette in his mouth!? Ka-Blam!
While some of the visuals of the city in chaos were spectacular, views of block after block of buildings in ruins and flames, and the shear number of extras was staggering, it couldn't make up for how dumb this movie was in general. Why would one group use a fire hose to climb down several stories without actually tying off the end? Why would the city have as an aid station a multi-storied mall that was still standing after the quake. Dont they know about after-shocks? (Oh wait, it was supposed to be quake-proof!)
I think the biggest problem with the movie was they tried to make you care about the people, and then they just killed most of them off. So how can I care? I can't. So instead it is just boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)