Part of me hates the fact that I watched The Paperboy yesterday instead of this.Originally Posted by Aaron Leggo
Part of me hates the fact that I watched The Paperboy yesterday instead of this.
And I still haven't seen The Paperboy! We'll have to swap viewings of these two. The Paperboy sounds similar-ish in that it's a trashy southern noir-ish thing. Or something like that.
But yeah, totally check out Killer Joe. When it first started, I thought it was unintentionally funny, but as the movie progressed, I caught up with what Friedkin was doing and found it all sort of deliciously demented.
I re-watched Barry Lyndon the other day, for the first time in 7 years or so, and found it a vastly different experience than I remembered. The mixture of romantic visuals and anti-dramatic pacing with Kubrick's acid sense of humor and bleak outlook on life was rather unlike anything else I can think of. I don't know that I could ever recommend that film to people who aren't a certain brand of cinephile, but I almost want to show it to one of my classes just to register their reactions.
I'm in the same boat. I'm not sure to go see Warm Bodies or not. Its reviews are putting it at a 59 on metacritic and a 78 on rottentomatoes. I liked Levine's 50/50, but the trailer for Warm Bodies did not really impress me. If anyone sees it this weekend, please report back.
I saw a test screening of it last year and I imagine it's pretty much the same. I enjoyed it, it's entertaining and has some funny moments, but it's one those you don't need to see in the theater, it'll be just an entertaining watching it with a group of friends at home on a Saturday night or at a party or something. I will say though, I hope they kept the same songs they had in the test screening, I liked that soundtrack.
I'm with CocoActual Items
In the Year 2000
As more and more people start having sex with robots, it will become increasingly embarrassing to buy a can of WD-40.
Well can't help you there. I'm seeing BULLET TO THE HEAD this weekend via my free ticket. I'm taking a bullet for AD on that one if the reviews are any indication.
Then again THE LAST STAND got rotten reviews and I ended up enjoying that one.
And to complete my Childhood's Big Action Idols trifecta, we also get another DIE HARD out in a few weeks.
Movies recently reviewed by RRA:
Star Trek (2009)
Pain & Gain (2013)
Oblivion (2013)
Jurassic Park III (2001)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
The New RRA: Less Spam, still 100% ruining AD.
Ulrich Seidl's Paradise: Love was really good! I was just expecting an exploitative and politically incorrect film filled with empty shock tactics. But this was actually a profound (albeit, playful) reflection on the daily realities and truths of human nature. Paradise: Faith and Paradise: Hope have me definitely intrigued.
Very interesting. Aurelius had a completely opposite but equally strong reaction.Ulrich Seidl's Paradise: Love was really good! I was just expecting an exploitative and politically incorrect film filled with empty shock tactics. But this was actually a profound (albeit, playful) reflection on the daily realities and truths of human nature. Paradise: Faith and Paradise: Hope have me definitely intrigued.
Worst film of 2012. Filled with empty shock tactics. Dsigustingly one-sided view of the African rentboys. What am I to get out of this?
Yet another subject that would have been better as a documentary.
I will marshall all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide - Peter Capaldi, In The Loop
Kim Ki-duk's Pieta is a film that certain critics had their knives out for. Not being a big fan of Kim myself, I wasn't expecting much. But, to my surprise, I actually liked it! You kind of have to take Kim on his own loopy terms. Like all his other films, Pieta is coarse, puerile and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's overstuffed with hamfisted symbols and thinly-conceived characters. And yet, for all that, it struck me as perhaps his most complete statement on what seems to be his central thematic concern: the reconciliation of brutality and tenderness. I think he moves between both extremes most credibly here. This is Kim's most elaborately plotted film, and despite feeling too schematic at times, there's a kind of symmetry and inevitability to the story that gives it a tragic power. And it's all capped off by an unforgettable final sequence that manages to be both shockingly grisly and strangely elegant.
It's also a work of fierce anti-capitalism. I feel like Kurosawa or the Dardennes could have made this film (albeit a lot more tastefully).
Thanks for the hint on how to find it, Cricket!
I finally finished Chris Marker's A Grin Without a Cat (Le fond de l'air est rouge, 1977) - it is on YouTube as well - and I am completely in awe at the level of detail and mastery of Marker's craft. This would definitely be a great companion piece to The Hour of the Furnaces (1968) but, whereas the latter is a proactive reflection on Latin American revolutionary activism, Marker's film is a reflection (contemplation?) on the world's progressive "reflections" on revolutionary activism, the New Left, etc. It is less of a didactic history lesson and more of an impressionistic take on the contradictions, struggles and triumphs of those turbulent movements in the 60s and 70s. The two parts ("The Fragile Hands" and "The Severed Hands") intertwine historical events from Che's assassination to the 1968 DNC debacle to the Cultural Revolution and the Watergate hearings into one unified (but purposely disjointed) piece. I really believe that this is essential viewing for everyone. It may not claim or seek to clarify everything in this world (and what had happened in the past) but Marker infuses a feeling of purpose in his endeavour. And I have to admit that being born in the 80s, I was largely absent (literally!) during those periods tackled in the film. But after watching this, it gave me a better sense of personal clarity.
I went to see the Animated and Live Action Oscar-nominated shorts today and had a pretty good time. On the whole, I'd say that the nominees are weaker than last year, but there are a few really good ones in there.
Animated:
1. Head Over Heels (A-)
2. Adam and Dog (A-)
3. Fresh Guacomole (B+)
4. Paperman (B)
5. The Longest Daycare (B-)
Live Action:
1. Death of a Shadow (A-)
2. Henry (A-)
3. Curfew (C+)
4. Asad (C)
5. Buzkashi Boys (C)
As for who I think will win... I think it will come down to Head Over Heels and Adam and Dog in Animated. Live Action is a lot trickier, as I could see it go to anything there, but if I had to predict one, I'd go with Buzkashi Boys.
Side note: Matthias Schoenaerts is in Death of a Shadow. I almost didn't recognize him, so it was a bit surprising when I saw his name in the credits.
Recently watched films:
Series 7: The Contenders - **
The Island President - ****
The Friends of Eddie Coyle - ****
The Proposition - ****1/2
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels - ****1/2
I've been going through this book of "501 Must See Movies" my friend got me for Christmas a few years back and watching a lot of my most glaring blind-spots. So far I've seen The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Rosemary's Baby...and tonight I watched An American in Paris, which I absolutely adored. The colors are spectacular, Gene Kelly is wonderfully charming, the dancing is terrific, the choreography is exquisite, and Gershwin's music is sublime. And then that final dream sequence that is just a masterpiece in its own right. I was literally astonished. Minnelli's direction is flawless throughout, but here he really goes all out and it's breathtaking.
I watched the majority of the Best Picture winners when I was in high school and haven't re-watched many of them since, An American in Paris is one that I really need to check out again.
I'm with CocoActual Items
In the Year 2000
As more and more people start having sex with robots, it will become increasingly embarrassing to buy a can of WD-40.
Yeah, it is a great fucking movie. While the final dream is great, I also really love the Tra-La-La number, I Got Rhythm, 'S Wonderful (Oscar Levant's expressions during this sequence are priceless), and the Concerto in F. Gershwin was a phenomenal composer (and Ira Gershwin a great lyricist) and the film really does his work justice. Just a wonderfully charming blast of fun.I've been going through this book of "501 Must See Movies" my friend got me for Christmas a few years back and watching a lot of my most glaring blind-spots. So far I've seen The Producers, Blazing Saddles, Rosemary's Baby...and tonight I watched An American in Paris, which I absolutely adored. The colors are spectacular, Gene Kelly is wonderfully charming, the dancing is terrific, the choreography is exquisite, and Gershwin's music is sublime. And then that final dream sequence that is just a masterpiece in its own right. I was literally astonished. Minnelli's direction is flawless throughout, but here he really goes all out and it's breathtaking.
We need to talk about Kevin was hard to watch.
Now I fully understand why Swinton was snubbed in spite of hitting all precursors. Actually, it's remarkable that such a film went so far in Awards Season.
Of course, she was fantastic, Ezra Miller too. And the kid who played young Kevin is the most disturbing one I've seen since The Omen.
I loved how Ramsay played with sounds and colours to make an even more uncomfortable atmosphere.
Right now I need rewatching Pride and Prejudice or something.
As far as music goes, I agree that those songs are better than the final dream. But on a technical level, I was just blown away by the dream.
So I watched a movie last night. The review ballooned to huge proportions, but I'm still going to put it here, because I seriously doubt there'd be any interest in a thread on this.
Sherlock Holmes (2009, Ritchie)
The whole reason I watched this movie was because of an AV Club comment. I wish I had taken down who wrote this immortal summary of the Robert Downey Jr.-led version of Sherlock Holmes, because it is probably the most accurate, pithy, profound summary of a film I've ever heard. The comment, mildly paraphrased, went something like "The Ritchie Sherlock Holmes is pretty faithful to the books, but instead of Sherlock finding clues, he punches people."
That's pretty much exactly the movie, in a nutshell. As a summer blockbuster action film, it has a lot of strengths, and is a remarkably good film, with plenty of visual inventiveness, fun casting, and a script that, while problematic, isn't completely asinine. As a Sherlock Holmes film, it's an absolutely preposterous exercise that somehow believes Holmes was an 1800s James Bond who uses his deductive skills most clearly to figure out how to punch people effectively.
The storyline is one of my problems with the film at large. My initial misgivings about the strong steeping of supernatural goings-on in the film , but there is still a ridiculous amount of shadowy things that amount to nothing, sequel hooks (which I hate), characters that needed serious fleshing-out to have the kind of story impact that the film hopes they'd have, and the list goes on. One of my biggest problems with the film was I'm probably dissecting a popcorn movie too much, and, weirdly, most of the movie holds up better to scrutiny than, say, Silver Linings Playbook.
In regards to the script executing characters... it succeeds and fails. (It's hard to give a proper analysis of the characters of Sherlock Holmes without going back to the books/other interpretations/common cultural consensus, so this will probably be the most biased part of the review for me.) I really did like Jude Law's interpretation of Watson head and shoulders above RDJ's Sherlock. Law not only nails the exasperation, but incredible loyalty, of Watson, but isn't portrayed as the complete moron he's usually made to be in popular culture. The script does Watson a lot of favors as a character, too: his affections for Mary Morstan (a near non-entity of a character) are nicely played, and his arc through the film, holding onto both her and the wild life he's become accustomed to with Sherlock, is remarkably subtle in a movie where bombast, bondage nudity, and punching things often substitute for nuance. As for RDJ's Sherlock, he is too much in the mold of the "rogue hero" that's been typified by Captain Jack Sparrow. The movie wants us to so desperately like Sherlock while conceding that you should find Sherlock aggravating. It can't have both, and the character suffers for it, especially as, in this iteration, we are supposed to see him as a genius, a viable romantic partner, someone worth defending, and someone who should be dropped off a bridge, sometimes all in the same moment. Too many paradoxes to work. For what it's worth, Downey Jr. plays this Sherlock-like character very well. He is appropriately ruggedly handsome and irksome in equal measure, and I can totally see his character slogging through a dirty, grimy, grotesque underworld just to find the frog fetus that'll unlock his case, unlike some of the more gorgeously polished actors who've played Sherlock (coughBenedictTimothyCarltonCumberb atchcough). The other problem with Watson and Holmes in this variant of the story, though, is that they are both presented as very intelligent individuals with their own individual strengths... whose primary mode of solving crimes is knocking the shit out of anyone in their sight line. I get that this is an action movie, but the integration of the action elements is wholly inorganic and distracting in all but one case ( ). A beloved series predicated on intellectualism is probably the worst thing to ever turn into a beat-em-up action flick anyways.
I actually liked Irene Adler here more than I've liked other interpretations of her character, and I'm pretty sure that fell entirely on Rachel McAdams' acting, as she's turned into a slightly more capable version of your typical action-movie heroine here. She's being put in harms' way by lots of men, and only other men can save her! (At least she's not being turned straight by Sherlock, I guess. Poor Irene Adler.) Not exactly progressive, but again, Rachel McAdams plays her with a really nice mixture of guile, genuine concern, and shiftiness. Probably the worst bit of character execution regards , aka the dude with a gun that looks like a knife. Finding out that this malevolent figure pulling the strings is little more than a sequel hook is pretty damn annoying. And as for Lord Blackwood... Mark Strong seriously looks like Evil Steve Carell and it was distracting.
Truthfully, as an action movie - and discounting that making this canon an action film was a terribly weird idea - it has a lot to recommend it over other similar-minded films. The set work, costume design, and visuals (aside from some terrible CGI in the boatyard and regarding the construction of London Bridge) are beautiful, sumptuous, and work well for the setting. Again, aside from some terrible CGI, this is a beautiful-looking film, and, more importantly, a real-looking film. (Seriously, those frogs were disgusting-looking). The acting is uniformly excellent (even from Evil Steve Carell, who I didn't say much about because his whole character is "OMGZMENACING"), the cinematography is inventive and fun, and Guy Ritchie directs one hell of a good action movie. The visual language of Sherlock Holmes is top-tier. Much as I don't like the general idea of Sherlock punching people all the time, the fight scenes are well-choreographed and certainly more interesting and involving than most of Nolan's Dark Knight work. It's never a boring movie by any stretch of the movie, and damn it, the studio/Ritchie/the actors wanted to make this a really entertaining action movie. They certainly did that well.
But how on earth does one read Sherlock Holmes and go, "this is prime action movie material"? Part of me is torn between the fact that this is genuinely a well-designed crowd-pleaser, something that's very hard to find in this media environment. Another part of me wants to just be really annoyed at how I really didn't like what it did tot he canon. I'm gonna split the difference in my score. I really enjoyed watching this movie, and would probably enjoy watching it again, but its weird deviation from the logic of the novels does read to me as defilement.
***.5/*****
Though not as strong feelings as McTeague had for Amour or filmy for Django Unchained, but I got pretty close to those after watching The Impossible. I was avoiding it but had to due to some friends
weird, I just now realized that Campbell Scott is George C Scott's son.
I'm with CocoActual Items
In the Year 2000
As more and more people start having sex with robots, it will become increasingly embarrassing to buy a can of WD-40.
Posting Permissions
