The Fountain was released on November 22, 2006, and is Darren Aronofsky's third film, and certainly his most interesting. It was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, with story by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel, and stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz.
4 years ago, my mother rented this film, for us to watch. We had recently been watching Oscar nominated films, including Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, and Brokeback Mountain. We put this on, and within 5 minutes, we turned it off. We thought it was a load of rubbish, mostly because of it's overtly confusing plot. 4 years later, I still thought it was rubbish, and had no real intention of ever watching it. However, here it was, on the list. So, I put it on, and 96 minutes later, I found myself in an odd position.
This movie is... strange. Visually, it's beautiful. It truly is. And the music is spectacular too. Clint Mansell's score is fantastic, and gut-wrenching, all at the same time. But the plot is just... confusing. It's extremely hard to describe. Essentially, we have these 3 storylines, one in the past, one in the present, and one in the future (I'm not entirely sure it is in the future, for the most part. This film is very confusing). Aside from the fact that Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz play characters in all of them (Rachel Weisz isn't in the future storyline), they seemingly have no connection, other than the themes of the tree of life, and losing your loved ones.
The film is well acted, the dialogue well written, and the scenes well directed. However, the film is odd. It's extremely odd. It's all because of the plot. The plot is so weird, and jarring, it just leaves you confused. Regardless, I found that at the end of this film, I had not, in my opinion, wasted 96 minutes. I wouldn't call it good, but I would call it something positive.
I don't really have that much else to say about this film. It's a great audio-visual experience, but because of it's jarring plot, that's all it is. An experience. A film critic I follow once said, in regard to this film, a film that trades story and plot for great audio and visuals creates a truly great experience. He is right, it creates a truly great experience, but not a truly great film. I enjoyed that 96 minutes, but I wouldn't say that I watched a film.
Overall, this one is an extremely interesting experience. If you are 100% sure you are up for it, then do it. But don't go into this wanting an enlightening story, go into this for a good experience. On an enjoyment scale, I give this a 7.5/10. However, I think I should rate this on a greatness scale as well (remember, this scale is for how good the film is, not how much I enjoyed it). For that, I'd have to give it a 3/10. While the visuals are great and the audio is superb, that's all this film has got. It's an experience, not a film.
Next time, I'm watching The Big Red One, a World War II film starring Lee Marvin and Mark Hamill. Interesting combination.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Captain America: The First Avenger
Captain America: The First Avenger was released on July 22, 2011, and is the fifth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, directed by Joe Johnston, and stars Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Neal McDonough, Derek Luke, and Stanley Tucci.
So, here we are. The fifth, and second-last entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (so far). We've seen the rise of Iron Man, the return of the Hulk, and the beginning of Thor. Now, we are introduced to Captain America, the Star-Spangled Man. Now let me say, while I know the basic story of Captain America, I don't really know anything else about him. I know he was puny Steve Rogers, they give him a super soldier serum, and now he's super human. I know he gets frozen, and wakes up in present day and starts dating his former girlfriend's niece, and joins the Avengers. I know that Red Skull is his nemesis, and he's a Nazi. I know about Bucky, and what he becomes. But that's pretty much it. So going into this film, I knew the basics, and that's it.
Something I was very worried about going into this film was, "how are they going to make a superhero film in World War II?" These are two things that don't look like they mix very well. And normally, they wouldn't. However, it worked here, and here's why it did. The original Captain America comics, before the Avengers, were created as propaganda. They were created for children, to entertain, and educate about the war, to an extent. The famous comic book cover with Captain America punching Hitler, is propaganda.
During the war, Captain America was the most popular comic book out there, because he was entirely propaganda, and a representation of America itself. He never gave up, and he always won the battle. And in this film, that's how Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, in his second superhero role, and definitely better one) starts out, once he gets his powers. He tours America, selling war bonds, doing shows, in which he states that he fights for America, and in his shows, he punches an actor playing Hitler. The kids love it, the adults love it, it's all good stuff. Once he goes to entertain the troops, however, they can't stand him, because what he represents is not what war is. It's not what they've seen. This had to be my favourite aspect of the film, because here, they successfully combined a superhero film with a World War II film. The soldiers, annoyed with his performance, boo him off stage. When he learns that his friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is trapped behind enemy lines, with roughly 350 other men, he goes in, and frees them, winning the respect of the troops. From here, he assembles a team of men, who fight the Nazis, namely HYDRA, the occult division led by Johann Schimdt, commonly known as Red Skull (Hugo Weaving).
I really enjoy World War II films, and because of how this film was able to connect a superhero story with a World War II film, I found myself really enjoying it. There were some other aspects of it I liked, and here they are:
1. Tommy Lee Jones.
This film has Tommy Lee Jones playing Tommy Lee Jones. That's as good as Nic Cage doing whatever the hell he wants to. It's extremely entertaining, and absolutely hilarious. It really helped the film.
2. Hayley Atwell.
Most people don't know her, and I think that helped this film, having a female lead that most people don't know. You can't judge her on who she is, or what she's done, because you don't know who she is or what she's done. I had seen her two years ago in the Prisoner remake, and I thought she was one of the best parts of that horrible, horrible miniseries. She's a very good actress, and I hope to see her do more productions.
3. Stanley Tucci.
While his role was small, his impact was powerful. I'd argue, he was the best actor in the whole film. Mind you, this is a film filled to the brim with good actors, but I think he had the best performance of them all. He was funny and heartfelt all at the same time.
4. The CGI.
In the first third of the film, Chris Evans' entire body was done with CGI, to make him look short, and thin. It was some of the best CGI I'd ever seen. It looked completely realistic. Better than Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
5. Howard Stark.
The addition of Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) in the film was a nice little treat for us, that actually turned out to be something great. Not only does he look like Tony Stark (I honestly thought Robert Downey Jr. was in this film the first time I saw Howard Stark), but he acts just like him. It was a very pleasant addition.
There are a few small problems with this film, but they're just that: small. This film was very good, and I'd say the best superhero film of this year. In comparison to Thor, the film is much better, because we now have an identifiable character. Speaking of Thor, there's a scene near the end in which something shoots up into the sky, and it results in an effect that looks similar to the transportation between worlds effect in Thor. What could it mean?
Overall, this was a very good superhero film, and I'd say second-best in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I give it an 8.5/10. It leaves me extremely excited for The Avengers, next year's (possible) conclusion to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. By the way, the post-credits scene is a short trailer for the Avengers. Enjoy. :)
P.S. For all readers of the list, don't worry, I'm still doing it. I'm having some trouble finding the next few films on the list though. The list will return.
So, here we are. The fifth, and second-last entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (so far). We've seen the rise of Iron Man, the return of the Hulk, and the beginning of Thor. Now, we are introduced to Captain America, the Star-Spangled Man. Now let me say, while I know the basic story of Captain America, I don't really know anything else about him. I know he was puny Steve Rogers, they give him a super soldier serum, and now he's super human. I know he gets frozen, and wakes up in present day and starts dating his former girlfriend's niece, and joins the Avengers. I know that Red Skull is his nemesis, and he's a Nazi. I know about Bucky, and what he becomes. But that's pretty much it. So going into this film, I knew the basics, and that's it.
Something I was very worried about going into this film was, "how are they going to make a superhero film in World War II?" These are two things that don't look like they mix very well. And normally, they wouldn't. However, it worked here, and here's why it did. The original Captain America comics, before the Avengers, were created as propaganda. They were created for children, to entertain, and educate about the war, to an extent. The famous comic book cover with Captain America punching Hitler, is propaganda.
During the war, Captain America was the most popular comic book out there, because he was entirely propaganda, and a representation of America itself. He never gave up, and he always won the battle. And in this film, that's how Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, in his second superhero role, and definitely better one) starts out, once he gets his powers. He tours America, selling war bonds, doing shows, in which he states that he fights for America, and in his shows, he punches an actor playing Hitler. The kids love it, the adults love it, it's all good stuff. Once he goes to entertain the troops, however, they can't stand him, because what he represents is not what war is. It's not what they've seen. This had to be my favourite aspect of the film, because here, they successfully combined a superhero film with a World War II film. The soldiers, annoyed with his performance, boo him off stage. When he learns that his friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is trapped behind enemy lines, with roughly 350 other men, he goes in, and frees them, winning the respect of the troops. From here, he assembles a team of men, who fight the Nazis, namely HYDRA, the occult division led by Johann Schimdt, commonly known as Red Skull (Hugo Weaving).
I really enjoy World War II films, and because of how this film was able to connect a superhero story with a World War II film, I found myself really enjoying it. There were some other aspects of it I liked, and here they are:
1. Tommy Lee Jones.
This film has Tommy Lee Jones playing Tommy Lee Jones. That's as good as Nic Cage doing whatever the hell he wants to. It's extremely entertaining, and absolutely hilarious. It really helped the film.
2. Hayley Atwell.
Most people don't know her, and I think that helped this film, having a female lead that most people don't know. You can't judge her on who she is, or what she's done, because you don't know who she is or what she's done. I had seen her two years ago in the Prisoner remake, and I thought she was one of the best parts of that horrible, horrible miniseries. She's a very good actress, and I hope to see her do more productions.
3. Stanley Tucci.
While his role was small, his impact was powerful. I'd argue, he was the best actor in the whole film. Mind you, this is a film filled to the brim with good actors, but I think he had the best performance of them all. He was funny and heartfelt all at the same time.
4. The CGI.
In the first third of the film, Chris Evans' entire body was done with CGI, to make him look short, and thin. It was some of the best CGI I'd ever seen. It looked completely realistic. Better than Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
5. Howard Stark.
The addition of Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) in the film was a nice little treat for us, that actually turned out to be something great. Not only does he look like Tony Stark (I honestly thought Robert Downey Jr. was in this film the first time I saw Howard Stark), but he acts just like him. It was a very pleasant addition.
There are a few small problems with this film, but they're just that: small. This film was very good, and I'd say the best superhero film of this year. In comparison to Thor, the film is much better, because we now have an identifiable character. Speaking of Thor, there's a scene near the end in which something shoots up into the sky, and it results in an effect that looks similar to the transportation between worlds effect in Thor. What could it mean?
Overall, this was a very good superhero film, and I'd say second-best in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I give it an 8.5/10. It leaves me extremely excited for The Avengers, next year's (possible) conclusion to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. By the way, the post-credits scene is a short trailer for the Avengers. Enjoy. :)
P.S. For all readers of the list, don't worry, I'm still doing it. I'm having some trouble finding the next few films on the list though. The list will return.
Monday, July 18, 2011
#485 - The Wicker Man
The Wicker Man was released in December of 1973 (the exact date is unknown), and is widely regarded as a cult classic, and one of the best British, and horror, films ever made. It was written by Anthony Shaffer, directed by Robin Hardy, and stars Edward Woodward, Britt Ekland, Diane Cilento, Ingrid Pitt, and Christopher Lee.
I'd never seen this film before, or its remake. I knew the twist at the end, as many people do, but literally, that's all I knew. (SPOILERS) The twist is this: the people of Summerisle believe they need to sacrifice someone to their sun god in order to get their crops to grow, and they sacrifice protagonist Sergeant Neil Howie, by burning him in a gigantic wicker man, hence the title. I didn't really know the plot of the film, aside from that basic twist. I'm glad that I didn't know the plot, cause this film was rather brilliant, and kept me interested the entire time.
Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward), a Scottish police officer, is sent to the small island of Summerisle, just off the coast of Scotland, to search for a missing girl, Rowan Morrison (Gerry Cowper). On this small island, the inhabitants adhere to an odd religion, which according to Wikipedia, is inspired by Celtic paganism. They believe in reincarnation of the soul, into fire, water, air, earth, and animals. They believe they must make a sacrifice every Mayday in order to ensure their crops will grow. They teach their boys songs about sex and reincarnation through sex, and they teach their girls about phallic symbols, and how to jump over fire naked. Howie is disgusted by this, and rightfully so. He is a Christian, and proud. Now, I'm not religious at all, but I can completely agree with Howie in these matters. Quite frankly, the people of Summerisle are crazy. There must have been some inbreeding somewhere, because these people will believe just about anything. It seems that they are manipulated by their spiritual and political leader, Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee), into believing whatever he says, and it seems like he truly believes in what he's saying.
I found myself being extremely emotionally involved with the film, and I can think of 3 main reasons.
#1. The oddities of the people of Summerisle.
These people are just plain weird, and shocking. There is one scene where a teacher is teaching young girls about phallic symbols, penises, and it seems that this is the most basic of education for them. Not only that, but in a later scene, we see these same girls, completely nude, dancing around a fire, singing some weird song about reincarnation, and jumping across the fire. Encouraged by their teacher. These people are really odd, and regardless of your religion or beliefs, you are concerned for these children. Yes, this is film, and hence, fiction, but what you see is so shocking, that you feel emotionally involved with the story.
#2. Edward Woodward.
He is the protagonist, and the most identifiable character. He represents sanity in this world of insanity. He attempts to being Christianity to this island, only to be repressed. And the reason why we identify with him so well is because he is a great actor. He shows such concern for the people of Summerisle, and fights against the insanity of Lord Summerisle. He is a police officer, and so, is a strong authority figure. We trust him, because he is normal in this world of abnormal.
I've never seen him act before, or even heard of him, for that matter, but let me tell you, he was brilliant. If he's done more films, I intend to check them out.
#3. The soundtrack.
The soundtrack, composed by Paul Giovanni, is rather brilliant. (Does the fact that I'm using the word brilliant a lot imply something?) It's a mix of folk, 70s rock, and musical. The music can show the oddities and insanity of Summerisle, but it can also be strangely compelling in scenes (admittedly, Britt Ekland being nude in this scene helps). Arguably, it's one of the best horror soundtracks ever.
Overall, I'm extremely glad I saw this film. This film was brilliant. And because of this, it earns the Seal of Brilliance, along with #492 - Amores perros. This film truly is a gem of horror cinema. Overall, this film earns a 10/10 from me. I highly recommend this film to anybody. And watch the remake if you want too, but from what I've heard, it's some of Nic Cage at his best.
Next time, I'm watching The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky's foray into the mainstream.
I'd never seen this film before, or its remake. I knew the twist at the end, as many people do, but literally, that's all I knew. (SPOILERS) The twist is this: the people of Summerisle believe they need to sacrifice someone to their sun god in order to get their crops to grow, and they sacrifice protagonist Sergeant Neil Howie, by burning him in a gigantic wicker man, hence the title. I didn't really know the plot of the film, aside from that basic twist. I'm glad that I didn't know the plot, cause this film was rather brilliant, and kept me interested the entire time.
Sergeant Neil Howie (Edward Woodward), a Scottish police officer, is sent to the small island of Summerisle, just off the coast of Scotland, to search for a missing girl, Rowan Morrison (Gerry Cowper). On this small island, the inhabitants adhere to an odd religion, which according to Wikipedia, is inspired by Celtic paganism. They believe in reincarnation of the soul, into fire, water, air, earth, and animals. They believe they must make a sacrifice every Mayday in order to ensure their crops will grow. They teach their boys songs about sex and reincarnation through sex, and they teach their girls about phallic symbols, and how to jump over fire naked. Howie is disgusted by this, and rightfully so. He is a Christian, and proud. Now, I'm not religious at all, but I can completely agree with Howie in these matters. Quite frankly, the people of Summerisle are crazy. There must have been some inbreeding somewhere, because these people will believe just about anything. It seems that they are manipulated by their spiritual and political leader, Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee), into believing whatever he says, and it seems like he truly believes in what he's saying.
I found myself being extremely emotionally involved with the film, and I can think of 3 main reasons.
#1. The oddities of the people of Summerisle.
These people are just plain weird, and shocking. There is one scene where a teacher is teaching young girls about phallic symbols, penises, and it seems that this is the most basic of education for them. Not only that, but in a later scene, we see these same girls, completely nude, dancing around a fire, singing some weird song about reincarnation, and jumping across the fire. Encouraged by their teacher. These people are really odd, and regardless of your religion or beliefs, you are concerned for these children. Yes, this is film, and hence, fiction, but what you see is so shocking, that you feel emotionally involved with the story.
#2. Edward Woodward.
He is the protagonist, and the most identifiable character. He represents sanity in this world of insanity. He attempts to being Christianity to this island, only to be repressed. And the reason why we identify with him so well is because he is a great actor. He shows such concern for the people of Summerisle, and fights against the insanity of Lord Summerisle. He is a police officer, and so, is a strong authority figure. We trust him, because he is normal in this world of abnormal.
I've never seen him act before, or even heard of him, for that matter, but let me tell you, he was brilliant. If he's done more films, I intend to check them out.
#3. The soundtrack.
The soundtrack, composed by Paul Giovanni, is rather brilliant. (Does the fact that I'm using the word brilliant a lot imply something?) It's a mix of folk, 70s rock, and musical. The music can show the oddities and insanity of Summerisle, but it can also be strangely compelling in scenes (admittedly, Britt Ekland being nude in this scene helps). Arguably, it's one of the best horror soundtracks ever.
Overall, I'm extremely glad I saw this film. This film was brilliant. And because of this, it earns the Seal of Brilliance, along with #492 - Amores perros. This film truly is a gem of horror cinema. Overall, this film earns a 10/10 from me. I highly recommend this film to anybody. And watch the remake if you want too, but from what I've heard, it's some of Nic Cage at his best.
Next time, I'm watching The Fountain, Darren Aronofsky's foray into the mainstream.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Pokemon Bass Tab
K. Basically, about a year and a half ago (early 2010), I was making YouTube videos. I had two main types of videos: movie reviews (which weren't very good, and I have switched to writing, and intend to stay that way), and bass covers. These were usually just songs I liked, and videos no one really cared about. Except for one. It was a bass cover of the American version of the Pokemon theme song. Currently, it has roughly 7,600 views. It's my most viewed and most commented video. Most of these comments are people wanting the tab, so here you go. Enjoy! :)
|--------------------------------------------| Intro
|----5~----3~-----3-------3h5----------|
|-------------------------5-----------------|
|--------------------------------------------|
|----5~----3~-----3-------3h5----------|
|-------------------------5-----------------|
|--------------------------------------------|
|----------------------------------------------| “I will travel across the land…. Searching far”
|----3---------------------3-----------------|
|---------5--------------------3-----66-----|
|---------------3-----------------------------|
|----3---------------------3-----------------|
|---------5--------------------3-----66-----|
|---------------3-----------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------3h5----|
|---1~---------1---------3-------5----------5-------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------3h5----|
|---1~---------1---------3-------5----------5-------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|----------------------------------------------|
|----3---------------------3-----------------|
|---------5--------------------3-----66-----|
|---------------3-----------------------------|
|----3---------------------3-----------------|
|---------5--------------------3-----66-----|
|---------------3-----------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------3h5----|
|---1~---------1---------3-------5----------5-------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------3h5----|
|---1~---------1---------3-------5----------5-------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---6--66---666------------------------6--66--666-----8---88--888----|
|----------------------6--66---666-------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---6--66---666------------------------6--66--666-----8---88--888----|
|----------------------6--66---666-------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------3-------5---------------|
|---3---33--333-------5---55---555------6--------------------------------|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------3-------5---------------|
|---3---33--333-------5---55---555------6--------------------------------|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------3--33---333------5---55---555----7---77---777----|
|---6--66---666------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------3--33---333------5---55---555----7---77---777----|
|---6--66---666------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---6—-----66-------------8----------88------------------1---------3---------5--------|
|--------6---------6---------------8----------8--------------------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---6—-----66-------------8----------88------------------1---------3---------5--------|
|--------6---------6---------------8----------8--------------------------------------------|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---------3---------------------3-------5-----------------------------------------|
|---6------------------5-----------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|---------3---------------------3-------5-----------------------------------------|
|---6------------------5-----------------------------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
just use these parts to play the 3 min song although this is the tab for the 1 min one.
The tab was written by Josh Witt. Hope you enjoy this bass tab, and if you feel like it, make a video of you playing and send it to me, montypython2011.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (we'll call it HP8) was released on July 15, 2011, and is the last film in the epic fantasy series, Harry Potter, based off of J.K. Rowling's book series of the same name. It was directed by David Yates, written by Steve Kloves, and stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon, Warwick Davis, Maggie Smith, and Matthew Lewis.
Something I have constantly heard from my friends is, "my childhood is over." That's a very fair statement. For my generation, Harry Potter is our childhood. Many of us can remember the times when we dressed up as Harry for Halloween, when we would have spell fights in the playground. Me personally, I can remember the first time I read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I was 6 or 7, sitting in a car, as we were about to go on a road trip. My father gave me this book, and told me a little bit about it. While I wasn't initially excited about it, I read it through, over the course of the next few weeks, and got swept up in the world of Harry Potter.
My fondest memory involving Harry Potter would have to be when I first bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I was leaving for a trip to Scotland, the day before it came out in the U.K. We had to stop at Heathrow, and at 6 A.M. in the morning, on the day Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released in the U.K., for £17.99, I bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at a store in the airport. It's one of my proudest possessions, and my fondest memory of Harry Potter. However, we're not here to talk about fond memories, we're here to talk about HP8.
Long time readers may recall my review of the 7th Harry Potter film. If you haven't read it, you can find it here: http://montypython2011reviews.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-part-1.html . In my review, I noticed that the majority of characters took a backseat to the three leads. Here, every character takes a backseat to Harry and Voldemort. While we do see a good amount of Ron and Hermione, they definitely have a smaller presence. Now overall, I'd say that this is a bad thing, but in the case of Ron and Hermione, I'm glad they took a backseat to our protagonist and antagonist. However, for all of the supporting characters, this is a bad thing. This is the final film. (Hopefully) This is the last time we will see all of these characters, and so, they all deserve to go out with a bang, or at least, get the proper attention they deserve, as they did in the novel. Snape, who was a major character in this novel, takes a backseat, but is also the biggest of the supporting characters in this film. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here. If he was given more screentime, he would've been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the upcoming Academy Awards. He was superb. Alan Rickman is a fantastic actor, but that's because he's been able to play a sort of whiny character so well. (This isn't a bad thing, this is a good thing.) He hasn't really played any other character in his whole life, this character included. There are scenes though, where he breaks away from that. And he becomes truly amazing. If he only had more screentime, this performance would be one of the best of the year.
Aside from that, and some moments of anti-climactism, this film was outstanding. Arguably the best film of the year. The writing was terrific, the directing, superb, and the acting, from everyone, with what little screentime they got, was sublime. (I feel like I use that word a lot.) It truly was sublime. While Alan Rickman stole the show, particular mention must also be given to Ralph Fiennes, Matthew Lewis, and Maggie Smith. Ralph Fiennes was the perfect choice to play Voldemort, because he could be a truly evil character. Here, we see him in desperation, as he is reaching the end, and needs to defeat Harry Potter. Matthew Lewis started out this series as a pathetic little child, who had possible greatness in him. Here, he has achieved that greatness, as we see he has become the leader of Dumbledore's Army in Harry's absence, he stands up to Voldemort when everyone thinks the battle is over, and destroys the last Horcrux, Nagini. Neville Longbottom is bad-ass, and Matthew Lewis portrays him perfectly. Maggie Smith (completely absent from the last film) is back, and gloriously. While she does have more lines and screen time than most supporting performances in this film, she still has a small amount of screentime. However, with every second she is on screen, she shows us the best she's ever been, without transforming into a cat. Fighting all the way, and kicking ass. And being funny too.
The special effects in these films have always been great, and it's no exception this time. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the special effects were at they're best here. One scene in particular, the infamous scene where Harry pulls Voldemort off of a cliff, by hugging him, while pointless, was a special effects marvel. It ranged from Army of Darkness like effects to Come to Daddy effects, from comedy to horror in a span of 30 seconds. While it is a pointless scene, it's a rather brilliant looking one.
Overall, this film is one of the best of the year, and will probably be the highest grossing this year. It's truly superb, and earns a 9.5/10 from me. (With new release films, the numeric scale is for how good the film is, not my enjoyment. In this case, however, the score is the same for both enjoyment and greatness.) If you're a fan of Harry Potter, you've probably seen the film twice already. If not, I would still recommend this film. Not only is it truly great, but it essentially contains cameos from every major modern British actor. Just think of it like that, if you're not a Harry Potter fan.
P.S. I want to say a quick little thing about 3.D. This film was made like a normal film, and was post-converted to 3D, like many films nowadays. And, like many films nowadays, it's too dark to enjoy, and thus, this takes away from the experience. However, there was one scene in the film that, in a way, could be a realization for filmmakers. One scene, had a completely white background, and the characters wearing light coloured clothes. (I won't say what this scene is, because of spoilers, but it's pretty easy to figure out, even if you don't know what happens.) It was phenomenal in 3D. If a scene is bright, it can work in 3D. The films that work best in 3D are ones with bright colours. Avatar, animated films. If filmmakers can realize this, and try to incorporate this into their films, we won't be questioning the use of 3D, because it will no longer be pointless. Think of this, modern day filmmakers. Think of this.
P.P.S. On behalf of my generation, I'd like to thank the filmmakers, cast, and crew, and everyone involved with this film, as well as the cast and crew other films in the series, and J.K. Rowling. You gave us an awesome childhood, and made it truly spectacular as well. Thank you sincerely.
P.P.P.S. Pottermore is a stupid idea.
Something I have constantly heard from my friends is, "my childhood is over." That's a very fair statement. For my generation, Harry Potter is our childhood. Many of us can remember the times when we dressed up as Harry for Halloween, when we would have spell fights in the playground. Me personally, I can remember the first time I read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I was 6 or 7, sitting in a car, as we were about to go on a road trip. My father gave me this book, and told me a little bit about it. While I wasn't initially excited about it, I read it through, over the course of the next few weeks, and got swept up in the world of Harry Potter.
My fondest memory involving Harry Potter would have to be when I first bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I was leaving for a trip to Scotland, the day before it came out in the U.K. We had to stop at Heathrow, and at 6 A.M. in the morning, on the day Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released in the U.K., for £17.99, I bought Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at a store in the airport. It's one of my proudest possessions, and my fondest memory of Harry Potter. However, we're not here to talk about fond memories, we're here to talk about HP8.
Long time readers may recall my review of the 7th Harry Potter film. If you haven't read it, you can find it here: http://montypython2011reviews.blogspot.com/2010/11/harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-part-1.html . In my review, I noticed that the majority of characters took a backseat to the three leads. Here, every character takes a backseat to Harry and Voldemort. While we do see a good amount of Ron and Hermione, they definitely have a smaller presence. Now overall, I'd say that this is a bad thing, but in the case of Ron and Hermione, I'm glad they took a backseat to our protagonist and antagonist. However, for all of the supporting characters, this is a bad thing. This is the final film. (Hopefully) This is the last time we will see all of these characters, and so, they all deserve to go out with a bang, or at least, get the proper attention they deserve, as they did in the novel. Snape, who was a major character in this novel, takes a backseat, but is also the biggest of the supporting characters in this film. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here. If he was given more screentime, he would've been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the upcoming Academy Awards. He was superb. Alan Rickman is a fantastic actor, but that's because he's been able to play a sort of whiny character so well. (This isn't a bad thing, this is a good thing.) He hasn't really played any other character in his whole life, this character included. There are scenes though, where he breaks away from that. And he becomes truly amazing. If he only had more screentime, this performance would be one of the best of the year.
Aside from that, and some moments of anti-climactism, this film was outstanding. Arguably the best film of the year. The writing was terrific, the directing, superb, and the acting, from everyone, with what little screentime they got, was sublime. (I feel like I use that word a lot.) It truly was sublime. While Alan Rickman stole the show, particular mention must also be given to Ralph Fiennes, Matthew Lewis, and Maggie Smith. Ralph Fiennes was the perfect choice to play Voldemort, because he could be a truly evil character. Here, we see him in desperation, as he is reaching the end, and needs to defeat Harry Potter. Matthew Lewis started out this series as a pathetic little child, who had possible greatness in him. Here, he has achieved that greatness, as we see he has become the leader of Dumbledore's Army in Harry's absence, he stands up to Voldemort when everyone thinks the battle is over, and destroys the last Horcrux, Nagini. Neville Longbottom is bad-ass, and Matthew Lewis portrays him perfectly. Maggie Smith (completely absent from the last film) is back, and gloriously. While she does have more lines and screen time than most supporting performances in this film, she still has a small amount of screentime. However, with every second she is on screen, she shows us the best she's ever been, without transforming into a cat. Fighting all the way, and kicking ass. And being funny too.
The special effects in these films have always been great, and it's no exception this time. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the special effects were at they're best here. One scene in particular, the infamous scene where Harry pulls Voldemort off of a cliff, by hugging him, while pointless, was a special effects marvel. It ranged from Army of Darkness like effects to Come to Daddy effects, from comedy to horror in a span of 30 seconds. While it is a pointless scene, it's a rather brilliant looking one.
Overall, this film is one of the best of the year, and will probably be the highest grossing this year. It's truly superb, and earns a 9.5/10 from me. (With new release films, the numeric scale is for how good the film is, not my enjoyment. In this case, however, the score is the same for both enjoyment and greatness.) If you're a fan of Harry Potter, you've probably seen the film twice already. If not, I would still recommend this film. Not only is it truly great, but it essentially contains cameos from every major modern British actor. Just think of it like that, if you're not a Harry Potter fan.
P.S. I want to say a quick little thing about 3.D. This film was made like a normal film, and was post-converted to 3D, like many films nowadays. And, like many films nowadays, it's too dark to enjoy, and thus, this takes away from the experience. However, there was one scene in the film that, in a way, could be a realization for filmmakers. One scene, had a completely white background, and the characters wearing light coloured clothes. (I won't say what this scene is, because of spoilers, but it's pretty easy to figure out, even if you don't know what happens.) It was phenomenal in 3D. If a scene is bright, it can work in 3D. The films that work best in 3D are ones with bright colours. Avatar, animated films. If filmmakers can realize this, and try to incorporate this into their films, we won't be questioning the use of 3D, because it will no longer be pointless. Think of this, modern day filmmakers. Think of this.
P.P.S. On behalf of my generation, I'd like to thank the filmmakers, cast, and crew, and everyone involved with this film, as well as the cast and crew other films in the series, and J.K. Rowling. You gave us an awesome childhood, and made it truly spectacular as well. Thank you sincerely.
P.P.P.S. Pottermore is a stupid idea.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
#486 - Breakfast at Tiffany's
Breakfast at Tiffany's was released on October 5, 1961. It was written by George Axelrod, based on the novella Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote, produced by Martin Jurow and Richard Shepard, directed by Blake Edwards, and stars Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard, Patricia Neal, Mickey Rooney, and Buddy Ebsen. You can find the trailer here:
I've never seen this film before. If not for this list, I probably never would've seen it. So, I do thank the list for that. However, I truly didn't enjoy the movie as much as I thought I would. A phrase that has been coming up every now and then in these reviews is, "I went in to it knowing I would like it, but not love it. And I came out loving it." That wasn't the case with this film.
Let's start with Audrey Hepburn. Everyone always talks about how she was just phenomenal in this, and for good reason. She was brilliant. Truly sublime. She plays Holly Golightly, a country girl who has become a New York socialite. I've never seen one of her films before, and I gotta tell you, she was great. She loves her brother so much, that she calls her best friend by her brother's name. She wants to marry rich men, and will stop at nothing to do so. She assists known mobsters with their dealings, and pretends she knows nothing of it. She's a truly fascinating character, simply brilliant. But praise must also be given to the other lead, Paul Varjak, played by George Peppard. Everytime I've heard something about this film, I've never heard anything about his performance, but I think he was just as good as Audrey Hepburn. Admittedly, the reason why you never hear about his performance is probably because his character isn't as interesting as Holly Golightly, but still, he's not boring you.
The rest of the cast does good, but I want to talk about one person in particular: Mickey Rooney. He plays a character called Mr. Yunioshi. He's playing a complete Asian stereotype. I've heard that some screenings of this film have been recently protested by Asian groups, because of his portrayal. It really is quite offensive, and stupid. I don't really see why it was inserted in the film, or why it wasn't downplayed. I realize that it was 1961, and Asian people appeared in Asian cinema, not mainstream American cinema, but seriously, would it have been extremely hard to get an actual Asian person to play the Asian character in the film? And portray him convincingly? Now, I have to admit, it doesn't harm the film, seeing how his character isn't part of the main plot, except for one scene at the end that actually is quite funny, and doesn't invoke the Asian stereotype. Overall, I suppose it's just harmless fun, but seems really stupid and non-PC nowadays.
Now let me talk about what I really don't like. While Holly Golightly is an interesting character, she's not an identifiable one. I found her to be stupid, arrogant, and just plain bitchy at some parts of the film. It makes her character more interesting to watch, but for me at least, I find myself hating her. When the world has come down around her, and the man who loves her is there for her, willing to do anything for her, she insists on leaving him, and running away. (SPOILERS) While she doesn't, the sheer fact that she wanted to was just plain stupid, arrogant, and bitchy. And that is the main reason why I didn't like this film.
One good thing for the film would have to be the comedy. When it wanted to be, it was very funny. For instance, there's a party, and we see a woman, drunk out of her mind, looking at herself in the mirror, and laughing her head off. It cuts to a scene of Holly talking to some men, and a minute later, we cut back to this woman, except now, she's bawling her eyes out, makeup all over her face. That is HILARIOUS. The film has these little bits of comedy every now and then, and it's always a joy to see these. However, we have to cut back to the plot, so that is quite annoying for me.
Overall, I'd have to say that due to Audrey Hepburn's performance, this is one of the best films on this list. However, I didn't enjoy it all that much, for the same reason as why it is so great. Overall, I give it a 6/10. Remember, this numeric score rates my enjoyment of the film, not how great it is. If you want a great film, you should check this out, but be warned. You might come out hating Miss Golightly.
Next time, I'm watching The Wicker Man, the film infamous for it's remake with Nicolas Cage. (Not the bees! Not the bees! AAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
I've never seen this film before. If not for this list, I probably never would've seen it. So, I do thank the list for that. However, I truly didn't enjoy the movie as much as I thought I would. A phrase that has been coming up every now and then in these reviews is, "I went in to it knowing I would like it, but not love it. And I came out loving it." That wasn't the case with this film.
Let's start with Audrey Hepburn. Everyone always talks about how she was just phenomenal in this, and for good reason. She was brilliant. Truly sublime. She plays Holly Golightly, a country girl who has become a New York socialite. I've never seen one of her films before, and I gotta tell you, she was great. She loves her brother so much, that she calls her best friend by her brother's name. She wants to marry rich men, and will stop at nothing to do so. She assists known mobsters with their dealings, and pretends she knows nothing of it. She's a truly fascinating character, simply brilliant. But praise must also be given to the other lead, Paul Varjak, played by George Peppard. Everytime I've heard something about this film, I've never heard anything about his performance, but I think he was just as good as Audrey Hepburn. Admittedly, the reason why you never hear about his performance is probably because his character isn't as interesting as Holly Golightly, but still, he's not boring you.
The rest of the cast does good, but I want to talk about one person in particular: Mickey Rooney. He plays a character called Mr. Yunioshi. He's playing a complete Asian stereotype. I've heard that some screenings of this film have been recently protested by Asian groups, because of his portrayal. It really is quite offensive, and stupid. I don't really see why it was inserted in the film, or why it wasn't downplayed. I realize that it was 1961, and Asian people appeared in Asian cinema, not mainstream American cinema, but seriously, would it have been extremely hard to get an actual Asian person to play the Asian character in the film? And portray him convincingly? Now, I have to admit, it doesn't harm the film, seeing how his character isn't part of the main plot, except for one scene at the end that actually is quite funny, and doesn't invoke the Asian stereotype. Overall, I suppose it's just harmless fun, but seems really stupid and non-PC nowadays.
Now let me talk about what I really don't like. While Holly Golightly is an interesting character, she's not an identifiable one. I found her to be stupid, arrogant, and just plain bitchy at some parts of the film. It makes her character more interesting to watch, but for me at least, I find myself hating her. When the world has come down around her, and the man who loves her is there for her, willing to do anything for her, she insists on leaving him, and running away. (SPOILERS) While she doesn't, the sheer fact that she wanted to was just plain stupid, arrogant, and bitchy. And that is the main reason why I didn't like this film.
One good thing for the film would have to be the comedy. When it wanted to be, it was very funny. For instance, there's a party, and we see a woman, drunk out of her mind, looking at herself in the mirror, and laughing her head off. It cuts to a scene of Holly talking to some men, and a minute later, we cut back to this woman, except now, she's bawling her eyes out, makeup all over her face. That is HILARIOUS. The film has these little bits of comedy every now and then, and it's always a joy to see these. However, we have to cut back to the plot, so that is quite annoying for me.
Overall, I'd have to say that due to Audrey Hepburn's performance, this is one of the best films on this list. However, I didn't enjoy it all that much, for the same reason as why it is so great. Overall, I give it a 6/10. Remember, this numeric score rates my enjoyment of the film, not how great it is. If you want a great film, you should check this out, but be warned. You might come out hating Miss Golightly.
Next time, I'm watching The Wicker Man, the film infamous for it's remake with Nicolas Cage. (Not the bees! Not the bees! AAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Thursday, July 14, 2011
#487 - Superbad
Superbad was released on August 17, 2007, and was one of many hits by producer Judd Apatow. It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, produced by Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, and Shauna Robertson, directed by Greg Mottala, and stars Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (in his first, and breakout role), Seth Rogen, and Bill Hader.
Judd Apatow is the main man for comedy nowadays. In the last decade, he has been involved with essentially every comedy made, except for the Hangover series. I think a big reason for this is his comedies are identifiable with the internet generation, who are essentially a bunch of overweight, intelligent but lazy, young guys with no luck when it comes to the ladies. No offence, but that's a generalization of what we are. The only real difference with Apatow's films is that these guys get the ladies, and they get the hottest of the hot. This film is a little bit different, warranting it's spot on the list. In this film, the guys want the girls, and the girls want the guys, but they don't end up together. It seems like they will, but as far as we can tell, they don't. That's what makes this film stand out, compared to his others.
Admittedly, this isn't my favourite Apatow film. That would be the 40 Year Old Virgin. Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen in a supporting role, the 80s soundtrack, and Kat Dennings. All a good recipe for a great film. Unfortunately, that film isn't on the list. So instead, we have Superbad, which is also great. This film was based off of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's childhood. It's about these two teens, Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill and Michael Cera, respectively), who, in attempt to have sex with their crushes, Jules and Becca (Emma Stone and Martha MacIsaac, respectively), attempt to buy alcohol for a graduation party. They do this with the help of Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, in his debut role, and is without a doubt, the best part of the film), who recently acquired a fake I.D. On his fake I.D., it says he is 25 years old, lives in Hawaii, and his name is McLovin. No first name, just McLovin. Absolutely hilarious.
While Jonah Hill and Michael Cera do good jobs, playing young friends who are unfortunately going to be separated by their post-secondary education, Christopher Mintz-Plasse is the show stealer. He is tremendous, superb, even sublime at points. He plays a complete nerd, trying to be a gangster, who looks like he's 15 years old, and a pedophile in training, and calls himself McLovin. While he initially tries to buy alcohol for his friends, he gets mugged, and ends up hanging out with two policemen (played by Seth Rogen and Bill Hader), who show him a phenomenal time. I highly recommend this film, if only for his performance. It's absolutely brilliant.
The writing is also fantastic. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have done the majority of writing for Apatow films, and they've all been pretty good because of it. This is probably their best film, because they based it off of their own experiences, as teenagers. Supposedly, they started writing this film when they were 13 years old. The main underlying conflict of the film is Seth and Evan having to go to different colleges. It's handled rather brilliantly, and the end scene is rather fantastic, showing the honest truth of what will happen, but showing it in a good light. That scene, I would argue, is the main reason why this film is on the list.
Overall, this is a hilarious film, one of the best comedies of the last decade, as well as a touching film on the matter of two best friends going to different colleges. But McLovin is what makes it. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10. If you want a good laugh, check it out. Your sides will split. Mine did. (No really, they did. It really hurt.)
Next time, I'm watching Breakfast at Tiffany's, an adaption of Truman Capote's novella with Audrey Hepburn in one of her most famous roles.
P.S., I'm moving to Vancouver soon, to attend university, and I couldn't help but notice that everytime a street is mentioned in this film, it's a street in Vancouver. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg came from Vancouver. That was pretty cool. :)
Judd Apatow is the main man for comedy nowadays. In the last decade, he has been involved with essentially every comedy made, except for the Hangover series. I think a big reason for this is his comedies are identifiable with the internet generation, who are essentially a bunch of overweight, intelligent but lazy, young guys with no luck when it comes to the ladies. No offence, but that's a generalization of what we are. The only real difference with Apatow's films is that these guys get the ladies, and they get the hottest of the hot. This film is a little bit different, warranting it's spot on the list. In this film, the guys want the girls, and the girls want the guys, but they don't end up together. It seems like they will, but as far as we can tell, they don't. That's what makes this film stand out, compared to his others.
Admittedly, this isn't my favourite Apatow film. That would be the 40 Year Old Virgin. Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen in a supporting role, the 80s soundtrack, and Kat Dennings. All a good recipe for a great film. Unfortunately, that film isn't on the list. So instead, we have Superbad, which is also great. This film was based off of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's childhood. It's about these two teens, Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill and Michael Cera, respectively), who, in attempt to have sex with their crushes, Jules and Becca (Emma Stone and Martha MacIsaac, respectively), attempt to buy alcohol for a graduation party. They do this with the help of Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, in his debut role, and is without a doubt, the best part of the film), who recently acquired a fake I.D. On his fake I.D., it says he is 25 years old, lives in Hawaii, and his name is McLovin. No first name, just McLovin. Absolutely hilarious.
While Jonah Hill and Michael Cera do good jobs, playing young friends who are unfortunately going to be separated by their post-secondary education, Christopher Mintz-Plasse is the show stealer. He is tremendous, superb, even sublime at points. He plays a complete nerd, trying to be a gangster, who looks like he's 15 years old, and a pedophile in training, and calls himself McLovin. While he initially tries to buy alcohol for his friends, he gets mugged, and ends up hanging out with two policemen (played by Seth Rogen and Bill Hader), who show him a phenomenal time. I highly recommend this film, if only for his performance. It's absolutely brilliant.
The writing is also fantastic. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have done the majority of writing for Apatow films, and they've all been pretty good because of it. This is probably their best film, because they based it off of their own experiences, as teenagers. Supposedly, they started writing this film when they were 13 years old. The main underlying conflict of the film is Seth and Evan having to go to different colleges. It's handled rather brilliantly, and the end scene is rather fantastic, showing the honest truth of what will happen, but showing it in a good light. That scene, I would argue, is the main reason why this film is on the list.
Overall, this is a hilarious film, one of the best comedies of the last decade, as well as a touching film on the matter of two best friends going to different colleges. But McLovin is what makes it. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10. If you want a good laugh, check it out. Your sides will split. Mine did. (No really, they did. It really hurt.)
Next time, I'm watching Breakfast at Tiffany's, an adaption of Truman Capote's novella with Audrey Hepburn in one of her most famous roles.
P.S., I'm moving to Vancouver soon, to attend university, and I couldn't help but notice that everytime a street is mentioned in this film, it's a street in Vancouver. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg came from Vancouver. That was pretty cool. :)
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
#488 - Princess Mononoke
Princess Mononoke was released on July 12, 1997. It is an anime film, made by Hayao Miyazaki, for Studio Ghibli. It was written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, and stars (in the dubbed version) Billy Crudup, Claire Danes, Gillian Anderson, Minnie Driver, and Billy Bob Thornton. Here is a link to the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4pxURy5-I
My experience with anime hasn't been very big. Excluding Princess Mononoke, I have seen 2 anime films (Akira and Spirited Away, and yes, both are on the list), 3/4 of a series (Fruits Basket), and read volume 1 of Akira (which isn't anime, it's manga). I do want to see more, the problem is that I like to watch DVD's, and anime is very hard to find on DVD. However, I have vowed to watch more, hopefully to the level of being an otaku. But oh well, we're not here to talk about anime and becoming an otaku, we're here to talk about Princess Mononoke.
As far as I can tell, Hayao Miyazaki is widely regarded as one of the greatest anime filmmakers of all time. Spirited Away is good proof of that. It's a brilliant film, and one of the few that can make me cry. This film came out before Spirited Away, and to me, it seems like he had not yet perfected his craft. This film is good, but I found it to be very odd. Admittedly, that's what I thought with Spirited Away and Akira, but both have grown over time for me, particularly Spirited Away.
I had the dubbed version, so that's what I will be reviewing. I was very shocked to see Billy Crudup voice main character Ashitaka, because he sounds completely different than Billy Crudup does. He sounds like he was the greatest teenage warrior who ever lived. Young, smart, and honourable. That's the sign of a good actor, and especially a good voice actor, when you can't recognize them at all. He's also a great character, accepting his fate as doomed, but looking for a cure anyway, simply because he must. Claire Danes also did a great job, as San, the titular Princess Mononoke, because I couldn't hear Claire Danes in this film either, but I knew she was in this film, so some of the effect was lost. The rest of the cast did good, the only real problem for me being Billy Bob Thornton, who is instantly recognizable. He still did a pretty good job, though.
The basic story is typical of anime, particularly Miyazaki anime. It deals with nature, strong female characters, and spirits, all recurring themes in Miyazaki productions. The plot concerns Ashitaka, a young warrior, who is forced to kill a boar demon that attacks his village. The boar demons touches his arm, giving him a curse that gives him super strength, marks on his arm, and a death sentence. He leaves the village in order to search for a cure, travelling west. He reaches Iron Town, a town that makes iron from the charcoal from the neighbouring forests. This puts them at odds with the wolf god and her family, including San, a human adopted by the wolf family, and raised as a wolf. She is known as Princess Mononoke by the residents of Iron Town. Overall, it was a good story, but had what I call the typical anime overload. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but puts me off the first time I watch an anime. Essentially, near the end of the film, things start happening, making the anime a complete mess of confusion. Admittedly, I've seen worse, but I was still very confused near the end. This could be typical of anime, but for me, it can be a little jarring. I still want to watch more anime, though.
Now, I don't know much about animation, but let me say, the animation here was great. This film combined 3D computer generated imagery with hand-drawn animation, and it looked absolutely beautiful. Without a doubt, this animation was fantastic, particularly whenever the demon worms appear on screen. (Watch the film, and you'll know what I mean.) This is mostly the work of Miyazaki himself, and applaud must be given to him.
While I did enjoy this, I didn't think it was great. There were many good aspects, but overall, it just wasn't great, and not up to par like Spirited Away. Admittedly, this came out before Spirited Away, so no blame can be found there. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10. It was a touch decision between this and an 8, but I decided this because it wasn't as great as I thought it would be. However, I definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested. This film will probably grow with time, though. Tell you what, when I review the next anime on this list (Akira, #440), I'll give a new score for Princess Mononoke.
Next time, I'm watching Superbad, one of Judd Apatow's best.
My experience with anime hasn't been very big. Excluding Princess Mononoke, I have seen 2 anime films (Akira and Spirited Away, and yes, both are on the list), 3/4 of a series (Fruits Basket), and read volume 1 of Akira (which isn't anime, it's manga). I do want to see more, the problem is that I like to watch DVD's, and anime is very hard to find on DVD. However, I have vowed to watch more, hopefully to the level of being an otaku. But oh well, we're not here to talk about anime and becoming an otaku, we're here to talk about Princess Mononoke.
As far as I can tell, Hayao Miyazaki is widely regarded as one of the greatest anime filmmakers of all time. Spirited Away is good proof of that. It's a brilliant film, and one of the few that can make me cry. This film came out before Spirited Away, and to me, it seems like he had not yet perfected his craft. This film is good, but I found it to be very odd. Admittedly, that's what I thought with Spirited Away and Akira, but both have grown over time for me, particularly Spirited Away.
I had the dubbed version, so that's what I will be reviewing. I was very shocked to see Billy Crudup voice main character Ashitaka, because he sounds completely different than Billy Crudup does. He sounds like he was the greatest teenage warrior who ever lived. Young, smart, and honourable. That's the sign of a good actor, and especially a good voice actor, when you can't recognize them at all. He's also a great character, accepting his fate as doomed, but looking for a cure anyway, simply because he must. Claire Danes also did a great job, as San, the titular Princess Mononoke, because I couldn't hear Claire Danes in this film either, but I knew she was in this film, so some of the effect was lost. The rest of the cast did good, the only real problem for me being Billy Bob Thornton, who is instantly recognizable. He still did a pretty good job, though.
The basic story is typical of anime, particularly Miyazaki anime. It deals with nature, strong female characters, and spirits, all recurring themes in Miyazaki productions. The plot concerns Ashitaka, a young warrior, who is forced to kill a boar demon that attacks his village. The boar demons touches his arm, giving him a curse that gives him super strength, marks on his arm, and a death sentence. He leaves the village in order to search for a cure, travelling west. He reaches Iron Town, a town that makes iron from the charcoal from the neighbouring forests. This puts them at odds with the wolf god and her family, including San, a human adopted by the wolf family, and raised as a wolf. She is known as Princess Mononoke by the residents of Iron Town. Overall, it was a good story, but had what I call the typical anime overload. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but puts me off the first time I watch an anime. Essentially, near the end of the film, things start happening, making the anime a complete mess of confusion. Admittedly, I've seen worse, but I was still very confused near the end. This could be typical of anime, but for me, it can be a little jarring. I still want to watch more anime, though.
Now, I don't know much about animation, but let me say, the animation here was great. This film combined 3D computer generated imagery with hand-drawn animation, and it looked absolutely beautiful. Without a doubt, this animation was fantastic, particularly whenever the demon worms appear on screen. (Watch the film, and you'll know what I mean.) This is mostly the work of Miyazaki himself, and applaud must be given to him.
While I did enjoy this, I didn't think it was great. There were many good aspects, but overall, it just wasn't great, and not up to par like Spirited Away. Admittedly, this came out before Spirited Away, so no blame can be found there. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10. It was a touch decision between this and an 8, but I decided this because it wasn't as great as I thought it would be. However, I definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested. This film will probably grow with time, though. Tell you what, when I review the next anime on this list (Akira, #440), I'll give a new score for Princess Mononoke.
Next time, I'm watching Superbad, one of Judd Apatow's best.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
#489 - Brick
Brick was released on April 7, 2006, and is director Rian Johnson's first film. It was written and directed by Rian Johnson, and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Emilie de Ravin, Nora Zehetner, Matt O'Leary, Noah Fleiss, Brian J. White, Meagan Good, and Noah Segan, with Richard Roundtree and Lukas Haas.
Like many films on the list, I watched this thinking I would like it, not love it. And, like many films on the list, I came out loving it. However, there is one major difference between this film and every other film on the list that I saw and loved: a big plot hole, of sorts. Now, this doesn't completely destroy the plot, like most plot holes do, but just makes you question, "really?," all the time. What is this plot hole of sorts you may ask? It's set in a high school.
OK, here's the basic plot. Brendan Frye (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a young loner in high school. His ex-girlfriend, Emily Kostich (Emilie de Ravin), calls him, telling him she screwed up bad, and spewing a bunch of nonsense, or so it seems. As it turns out, she has gotten involved in the drug circuit, with the drug baron the Pin (Lukas Haas). Two days later, Brendan finds her dead, and becomes determined to solve her murder.
So, basically, without really spoiling anything, Brendan, the loner, who chooses not to be part of anything, throws himself into the world of drugs. Now, this I'm fine with. It makes sense, he wants to find his ex's killer, because he loves her. However, the fact that they're all in high school is what I find odd. For instance, when we first meet the Pin, he is portrayed as a ruthless drug baron, who is not one to be messed with. But he lives with his mother. Who gives him cookies. Also, Brendan offers his help to him by pretending to be an informant for the Vice Principal of the high school. That's really kinda laughable. Another thing I find hilarious has to be when there's a meeting at the end between all the members of the drug world, they meet at the Pin's house, at 4:00 A.M., and his mother serves them milk. He's a drug baron, who lives with his mother, doesn't hide it, and is worried about what the vice principal thinks. That really just doesn't make sense.
However, if you take this out, trust me when I say, everything else is absolutely brilliant. The acting, particularly from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lukas Haas, is tremendous. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the perfect outsider, his character really doesn't care about anyone else, and understands everyone on first sight. And Lukas Haas plays this creepy person who runs everything, and isn't to be messed with. I never really liked Lukas Haas, because he always seemed like some little boy to me, whiny and pretending to be a big boy. However, here, he is extremely creepy. The directing and writing are also great. The writing is great, especially for Gordon-Levitt. He's got some great lines like, "I've got all my 5 senses, plus I slept well last night, so I'm 6 up on you." Plus, it's a great modern detective film. It's nice to see a detective film made nowadays without the internet playing a big role, because it reminds of us the older detective films, when people had to use libraries and newspapers.
Overall, I'd have to say that this film is a modern gem. Without a doubt, one of the best films of the 2000s, but unfortunately, it's setting is detrimental, at least for me. Perhaps if they set it in college, I'd like it better. I was considering giving this film a Seal of Brilliance, but because of the setting, I didn't. Unfortunate. Overall, I give this an 8.5/10. If you've ever been interested if seeing a Joseph Gordon-Levitt indie film, this is the one to check out first.
Next time, I'm watching Princess Mononoke, one of Hayao Miyazaki's most famous films.
Like many films on the list, I watched this thinking I would like it, not love it. And, like many films on the list, I came out loving it. However, there is one major difference between this film and every other film on the list that I saw and loved: a big plot hole, of sorts. Now, this doesn't completely destroy the plot, like most plot holes do, but just makes you question, "really?," all the time. What is this plot hole of sorts you may ask? It's set in a high school.
OK, here's the basic plot. Brendan Frye (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a young loner in high school. His ex-girlfriend, Emily Kostich (Emilie de Ravin), calls him, telling him she screwed up bad, and spewing a bunch of nonsense, or so it seems. As it turns out, she has gotten involved in the drug circuit, with the drug baron the Pin (Lukas Haas). Two days later, Brendan finds her dead, and becomes determined to solve her murder.
So, basically, without really spoiling anything, Brendan, the loner, who chooses not to be part of anything, throws himself into the world of drugs. Now, this I'm fine with. It makes sense, he wants to find his ex's killer, because he loves her. However, the fact that they're all in high school is what I find odd. For instance, when we first meet the Pin, he is portrayed as a ruthless drug baron, who is not one to be messed with. But he lives with his mother. Who gives him cookies. Also, Brendan offers his help to him by pretending to be an informant for the Vice Principal of the high school. That's really kinda laughable. Another thing I find hilarious has to be when there's a meeting at the end between all the members of the drug world, they meet at the Pin's house, at 4:00 A.M., and his mother serves them milk. He's a drug baron, who lives with his mother, doesn't hide it, and is worried about what the vice principal thinks. That really just doesn't make sense.
However, if you take this out, trust me when I say, everything else is absolutely brilliant. The acting, particularly from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lukas Haas, is tremendous. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the perfect outsider, his character really doesn't care about anyone else, and understands everyone on first sight. And Lukas Haas plays this creepy person who runs everything, and isn't to be messed with. I never really liked Lukas Haas, because he always seemed like some little boy to me, whiny and pretending to be a big boy. However, here, he is extremely creepy. The directing and writing are also great. The writing is great, especially for Gordon-Levitt. He's got some great lines like, "I've got all my 5 senses, plus I slept well last night, so I'm 6 up on you." Plus, it's a great modern detective film. It's nice to see a detective film made nowadays without the internet playing a big role, because it reminds of us the older detective films, when people had to use libraries and newspapers.
Overall, I'd have to say that this film is a modern gem. Without a doubt, one of the best films of the 2000s, but unfortunately, it's setting is detrimental, at least for me. Perhaps if they set it in college, I'd like it better. I was considering giving this film a Seal of Brilliance, but because of the setting, I didn't. Unfortunate. Overall, I give this an 8.5/10. If you've ever been interested if seeing a Joseph Gordon-Levitt indie film, this is the one to check out first.
Next time, I'm watching Princess Mononoke, one of Hayao Miyazaki's most famous films.
Monday, July 4, 2011
#490 - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street was released on December 21, 2007, and is the first major film adaption of the musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, by Stephen Sondheim, based on the original play of the same name by Christopher Bond. It was directed by Tim Burton, written by John Logan, and stars Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jamie Campbell Bower, Laura Michelle Kelly, Jayne Wisener, and Ed Sanders.
I saw this film once before, roughly a year ago. I didn't like it then, I didn't like it now. Here's why. Tim Burton cannot adapt stuff. He tries to make everything dark, when it's supposed to be light. Yes, Alice in Wonderland has all this psychological stuff underneath it, but it's was presented in a light-hearted matter. And that's why people like it lighthearted, because it's a contrast with the darker psychological stuff underneath. You're probably wondering, does American McGee's Alice not work either? No, that does work, because it brings the psychological stuff underneath to the forefront, creating a totally different, but good, experience. Burton's adaptions are just pure crap. The only exception is Batman, and without studio interference, it would've been much worse, like Batman Returns. His original ideas are always genius. They're dark, they're quirky, they're just plain fun. I think out of all his original films, my favourite would have to be Ed Wood. It's a great portrayal of the worst director of all time, and a rather beautiful film. But enough about Tim Burton, let's get to the film.
Like I said, I don't like this film. Mostly because the people that can act, can't sing, and the people that can sing, can't act. The only exception to this is Sacha Baron Cohen. He can both sing, and act. However, Johnny Depp can't sing very well. Helena Bonham Carter can't sing. I love Helena Bonham Carter, but she's not a very good singer. Alan Rickman can't sing. Timothy Spall can't sing. Jamie Campbell Bower can sing, but he can't act very well. Ed Sanders can sing, but he can't act very well. Another big problem I had with the film has to be the love story between Anthony and Johanna. I don't believe it. I can believe that they could be in love, because he is struck by her beauty, and she desires to be let out of her imprisonment, and it seems he is the one to do that. But the only scene where they have dialogue together, she's a complete pessimist, and he's a complete optimist. Their relationship will not work. Plus, I think she might be a little mad that he leaves her for a while with a serial killer.
Another thing I don't like about this film, and this I really don't like, are the special effects. Tim Burton is a visual genius. It's the one good thing about all of his films, even the bad adaptations. He can always create beautiful visuals, and special effects. Here, they're horrendous. They look terribly fake, and like they just don't exist. Mrs. Lovett's final scene is without a doubt, the worst. It looks so terrible, I can't stand to watch it. Also, the blood is incredibly fake. It looks like he bought a lot of ketchup, and mixed it with water. The sets and costumes in this film are great, but the special effects aren't. It really is a step down, Mr. Burton.
Now, there are some good things. All the actors that can't sing, can act. And they act damn well. All of them are rather brilliant. Johnny Depp was the perfect choice for playing Sweeney Todd, aside from the singing, because he can easily portray this shell of a man that just wants to kill until he has his revenge. Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall are both great at creating despicable villains, who you just want to see dead. I love how Alan Rickman acts like he's a good man, trying to provide for Johanna, when in reality, he's locking her up, just so he can marry her. Mrs. Lovett had to be my favourite character, because of her sheer love for Sweeney Todd. She loves him so much, that she locked away the only person who loved her, Toby, her surrogate son, just so Todd would take her. Brilliant. And interestingly enough, although Depp can't sing, his vocals, especially the low vocals, work really well in the film. The songs are also great, a classic of musicals.
Overall, I really don't like this film. The cons outweigh the pros, and it's a real shame. However, I knew that there would be some films on the list that I didn't like, and it makes sense that they would come earlier rather than later. Overall, I give this film a score of 4.5/10. This may seem shockingly low, considering how this film is on the list, but I just don't like this film. However, I have never seen it performed on stage, so perhaps there is hope for this film yet.
Next time, I'm watching Brick, one of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's earlier independent films.
I saw this film once before, roughly a year ago. I didn't like it then, I didn't like it now. Here's why. Tim Burton cannot adapt stuff. He tries to make everything dark, when it's supposed to be light. Yes, Alice in Wonderland has all this psychological stuff underneath it, but it's was presented in a light-hearted matter. And that's why people like it lighthearted, because it's a contrast with the darker psychological stuff underneath. You're probably wondering, does American McGee's Alice not work either? No, that does work, because it brings the psychological stuff underneath to the forefront, creating a totally different, but good, experience. Burton's adaptions are just pure crap. The only exception is Batman, and without studio interference, it would've been much worse, like Batman Returns. His original ideas are always genius. They're dark, they're quirky, they're just plain fun. I think out of all his original films, my favourite would have to be Ed Wood. It's a great portrayal of the worst director of all time, and a rather beautiful film. But enough about Tim Burton, let's get to the film.
Like I said, I don't like this film. Mostly because the people that can act, can't sing, and the people that can sing, can't act. The only exception to this is Sacha Baron Cohen. He can both sing, and act. However, Johnny Depp can't sing very well. Helena Bonham Carter can't sing. I love Helena Bonham Carter, but she's not a very good singer. Alan Rickman can't sing. Timothy Spall can't sing. Jamie Campbell Bower can sing, but he can't act very well. Ed Sanders can sing, but he can't act very well. Another big problem I had with the film has to be the love story between Anthony and Johanna. I don't believe it. I can believe that they could be in love, because he is struck by her beauty, and she desires to be let out of her imprisonment, and it seems he is the one to do that. But the only scene where they have dialogue together, she's a complete pessimist, and he's a complete optimist. Their relationship will not work. Plus, I think she might be a little mad that he leaves her for a while with a serial killer.
Another thing I don't like about this film, and this I really don't like, are the special effects. Tim Burton is a visual genius. It's the one good thing about all of his films, even the bad adaptations. He can always create beautiful visuals, and special effects. Here, they're horrendous. They look terribly fake, and like they just don't exist. Mrs. Lovett's final scene is without a doubt, the worst. It looks so terrible, I can't stand to watch it. Also, the blood is incredibly fake. It looks like he bought a lot of ketchup, and mixed it with water. The sets and costumes in this film are great, but the special effects aren't. It really is a step down, Mr. Burton.
Now, there are some good things. All the actors that can't sing, can act. And they act damn well. All of them are rather brilliant. Johnny Depp was the perfect choice for playing Sweeney Todd, aside from the singing, because he can easily portray this shell of a man that just wants to kill until he has his revenge. Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall are both great at creating despicable villains, who you just want to see dead. I love how Alan Rickman acts like he's a good man, trying to provide for Johanna, when in reality, he's locking her up, just so he can marry her. Mrs. Lovett had to be my favourite character, because of her sheer love for Sweeney Todd. She loves him so much, that she locked away the only person who loved her, Toby, her surrogate son, just so Todd would take her. Brilliant. And interestingly enough, although Depp can't sing, his vocals, especially the low vocals, work really well in the film. The songs are also great, a classic of musicals.
Overall, I really don't like this film. The cons outweigh the pros, and it's a real shame. However, I knew that there would be some films on the list that I didn't like, and it makes sense that they would come earlier rather than later. Overall, I give this film a score of 4.5/10. This may seem shockingly low, considering how this film is on the list, but I just don't like this film. However, I have never seen it performed on stage, so perhaps there is hope for this film yet.
Next time, I'm watching Brick, one of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's earlier independent films.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
#491 - Ben-Hur
Ben-Hur was released on November 18, 1959, and is the third film adaption of Lew Wallace's 1880 novel, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. It was written by Karl Tunberg (Gore Vidal and Christopher Fry are uncredited writers), directed by William Wyler, produced by Sam Zimbalist, and stars Charlton Heston (in his Academy Award winning role), Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, and Hugh Griffith (also in his Academy Award winning role).
I wasn't looking forward to this film for two reasons. First, I'm not very religious, and rarely enjoy films about Jesus, or anything similar. Second, it's 3 and a half hours long. Not very appealing to someone of my generation, even for film lovers. I mean, I knew it would be good. After all, it won 11 Oscars (a feat only accomplished by this film, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). But I just thought I plain wouldn't like it. However, it is on the list.
As you probably guessed, I enjoyed this film. However, I didn't think it was absolutely brilliant. There were two problems for that. The first was the last act of the film. A good chunk of the film was all about the politics of Rome and Judea and Ben-Hur's (Charlton Heston) revenge on childhood friend and Roman Tribune (assistant to the Governor) Messala (Stephen Boyd). In the third and last act, the film focuses more on Ben-Hur relationship with Jesus, which is still entertaining, but not as interesting as the rest of the film.
The second problem is the running time. At roughly 3 and a half hours, it's a long film. The first two hours fly by, but after that, the film starts to drag on. Admittedly, this is when the film starts to get into the Jesus section, so that does have a lot to do with it. Quite frankly, everything after the chariot scene is pretty boring, at least to me. I imagine someone strongly religious would find that to be the best part of the film.
Because of my disdain of the last hour and a half, I'm mostly gonna sing praises for the first two hours. Everything about this was absolutely brilliant. It was all about Ben-Hur gaining revenge of Messala for exiling him to the galleys and sending his family to the dungeons. We see his incredibly lucky life, where he becomes the adopted son of a Roman official, and great charioteer. He returns to Judea, seeking revenge on Messala. With the help of Ilderim (Hugh Griffth, in his Academy Award winning role) he enters into a chariot race against Messala, and defeats him, when Messala accidentally gets trampled by another chariot. Up until this point of the film, I found the film to be absolutely brilliant, with the chariot race in particular being the highlight of the film. Some of the deaths in this scene are still shocking today, and dare I say, this remains one of the best action scenes in film today.
The acting is phenomenal. I've never seen Charlton Heston act before, and he was tremendous. He could play any character in film, he's so damn good. I find it interesting how initially he acts so friendly with Messala, a Roman, while trying to be a good Jew, standing up against the tyrannical Romans. But as soon as Messala betrays him, he goes into straight vengeance mode. He was absolutely tremendous, and more than deserved his Oscar. I thought Stephen Boyd was also terrific, and was surprised to find out that he didn't win an Oscar for this film. Instead, Hugh Griffth, who plays the sheik Ilderim, won Best Supporting Actor. While he did a good job, I don't think he was in the film enough to win the award. The directing and writing are both also fantastic. Once again, I have to say the chariot scene was the highlight of the film, but definitely in the directing area. Like I already said, one of the best action scenes on film. The writing was also great, but I can't really give any real reasons why without spoiling things that shouldn't be spoiled. I'll say this, though. Before the third act (or Jesus act, as I like to call it), we have one slight appearance from someone we all recognize that was a rather brilliant piece of writing. His intervention in the film allowed Ben-Hur to keep living, and gave him a reason to keep going. Rather brilliant.
Overall, this film is very good for the first two hours, then drags on a bit for me. While it is long, I do recommend everyone see this film, religious or not. And yes, it is over 3 hours, but films released during the Golden Age of Cinema (as it has been called, for all those who didn't know) were typically this long, some even longer. Overall, this films gets a 7.5/10 for enjoyment. Very good for the first two hours, but then starts to drag when Jesus gets involved.
Next time, I'm watching Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Tim Burton's version of the popular musical.
I wasn't looking forward to this film for two reasons. First, I'm not very religious, and rarely enjoy films about Jesus, or anything similar. Second, it's 3 and a half hours long. Not very appealing to someone of my generation, even for film lovers. I mean, I knew it would be good. After all, it won 11 Oscars (a feat only accomplished by this film, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). But I just thought I plain wouldn't like it. However, it is on the list.
As you probably guessed, I enjoyed this film. However, I didn't think it was absolutely brilliant. There were two problems for that. The first was the last act of the film. A good chunk of the film was all about the politics of Rome and Judea and Ben-Hur's (Charlton Heston) revenge on childhood friend and Roman Tribune (assistant to the Governor) Messala (Stephen Boyd). In the third and last act, the film focuses more on Ben-Hur relationship with Jesus, which is still entertaining, but not as interesting as the rest of the film.
The second problem is the running time. At roughly 3 and a half hours, it's a long film. The first two hours fly by, but after that, the film starts to drag on. Admittedly, this is when the film starts to get into the Jesus section, so that does have a lot to do with it. Quite frankly, everything after the chariot scene is pretty boring, at least to me. I imagine someone strongly religious would find that to be the best part of the film.
Because of my disdain of the last hour and a half, I'm mostly gonna sing praises for the first two hours. Everything about this was absolutely brilliant. It was all about Ben-Hur gaining revenge of Messala for exiling him to the galleys and sending his family to the dungeons. We see his incredibly lucky life, where he becomes the adopted son of a Roman official, and great charioteer. He returns to Judea, seeking revenge on Messala. With the help of Ilderim (Hugh Griffth, in his Academy Award winning role) he enters into a chariot race against Messala, and defeats him, when Messala accidentally gets trampled by another chariot. Up until this point of the film, I found the film to be absolutely brilliant, with the chariot race in particular being the highlight of the film. Some of the deaths in this scene are still shocking today, and dare I say, this remains one of the best action scenes in film today.
The acting is phenomenal. I've never seen Charlton Heston act before, and he was tremendous. He could play any character in film, he's so damn good. I find it interesting how initially he acts so friendly with Messala, a Roman, while trying to be a good Jew, standing up against the tyrannical Romans. But as soon as Messala betrays him, he goes into straight vengeance mode. He was absolutely tremendous, and more than deserved his Oscar. I thought Stephen Boyd was also terrific, and was surprised to find out that he didn't win an Oscar for this film. Instead, Hugh Griffth, who plays the sheik Ilderim, won Best Supporting Actor. While he did a good job, I don't think he was in the film enough to win the award. The directing and writing are both also fantastic. Once again, I have to say the chariot scene was the highlight of the film, but definitely in the directing area. Like I already said, one of the best action scenes on film. The writing was also great, but I can't really give any real reasons why without spoiling things that shouldn't be spoiled. I'll say this, though. Before the third act (or Jesus act, as I like to call it), we have one slight appearance from someone we all recognize that was a rather brilliant piece of writing. His intervention in the film allowed Ben-Hur to keep living, and gave him a reason to keep going. Rather brilliant.
Overall, this film is very good for the first two hours, then drags on a bit for me. While it is long, I do recommend everyone see this film, religious or not. And yes, it is over 3 hours, but films released during the Golden Age of Cinema (as it has been called, for all those who didn't know) were typically this long, some even longer. Overall, this films gets a 7.5/10 for enjoyment. Very good for the first two hours, but then starts to drag when Jesus gets involved.
Next time, I'm watching Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Tim Burton's version of the popular musical.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
#492 - Amores perros
Amores perros was released on June 16, 2000 in Mexico, priemiering at Cannes on May 14 of the same year, and is the first film in director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's trilogy of death (the other two films are 21 Grams and Babel). It was written by Guillermo Arriaga, directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, and stars Gael Garcia Bernal, Vanessa Bauche, Alvaro Guerrero, Goya Toledo, and Emilio Echevarria.
I was interested in this film, because I wanted to see more foerign films, as I said in my review of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. This time, the film was Mexican, not Chinese. I literally knew nothing about the film, aside from the fact that it was Mexican. However, two days before watching it, I heard that it had dogfights in it, and I became worried. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm an animal lover to the extent of PETA, I do genuinely care about animals, and it hurts me to see them in pain. This film has brutal dogfights.
Within 10 minutes, I wanted to put this film off. Just because of the dogfights. They were harsh, they made me hurt, and quite frankly, they were rather brilliant. Despite it being hard to watch, I found myself emotionally invested in this film, because of how hard it was to watch. I was almost crying at many points, and not just from the dogfights. Very rarely has a film gotten me this emotionally invested, and due to that, I applaud this film as the best film I have seen so far. And if you're wondering if the dogfights are the only stuff that got me emotionally invested, it isn't. All across the film, the film makes you wince with pain, feel for the characters more than you've ever felt before, and genuinely enjoy this film.
The film has three parts: Octavio y Susana, Daniel y Valeria, and El Chivo y Maru. In the first part, we meet Octavio and Susana. Susana is Octavio's sister-in-law, and Octavio is in love with her. In order to make enough money to run away with her, he joins the dogfighting world. In the second part, we meet Daniel and Valeria. Daniel is a magazine publisher who left his wife and two daughters to be with Valeria, a supermodel. In the third part, we meet El Chivo and Maru. El Chivo is a hitman, who pretends to be a homeless man, and Maru is his estranged daughter, who he hasn't seen since she was two years old. They are all connected (except for Maru, who has a very small role in the film) by a car crash that opens the film, and changes the lives of all characters.
The things that really make this film brilliant are the acting, the writing, and the cinematography. The acting from all actors is brilliant, particularly Alvaro Guerrero and Goya Toledo, who play Daniel and Valeria. Due to the car accident, something very serious happens to this couple, and you see their relationship initially in strong hands. Their love is strong. But as time goes on, you see their relationship becoming more strained. It's great acting. You can see them become more annoyed with each other, and eventually starting to loath each other. It's absolutely brilliant. The writing is also a big factor in this, which is great all around. All of the main characters (Octavio, Valeria, and El Chivo) own dogs that they deeply love. Their dogs are their best friends. It's a great way to connect all the characters, aside from the crash. But in particular, I think the cinematography is the greatest thing about this film. It consists of a bunch of long shots that follow the characters wherever they go. I don't know how to describe it, but it just works. The cinematography in this film is some of the best I've seen, just because of the long shots. It made me feel more emotional about the film, and made me care about it so much more. I can't explain why, it just did.
Overall, Amores perros was absolutely brilliant, but extremely tough to watch. As I already said, I wanted to turn it off in the first 10 minutes, but stuck through. I can only recommend this film if you really want to see it, and are 110% sure you can handle it. It's extremely tough. Overall, this film earns a score of 10/10, and so far, it is the best film of this list I have seen. This film earns a Seal of Brilliance, and is the first to do so. Congratulations, # 492, Amores perros, you have earned a Seal of Brilliance.
Next time, I'm watching Ben-Hur, the Biblical epic starring Charlton Heston, and winner of most Academy Awards (11, tied with Titanic and Return of the King).
I was interested in this film, because I wanted to see more foerign films, as I said in my review of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. This time, the film was Mexican, not Chinese. I literally knew nothing about the film, aside from the fact that it was Mexican. However, two days before watching it, I heard that it had dogfights in it, and I became worried. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm an animal lover to the extent of PETA, I do genuinely care about animals, and it hurts me to see them in pain. This film has brutal dogfights.
Within 10 minutes, I wanted to put this film off. Just because of the dogfights. They were harsh, they made me hurt, and quite frankly, they were rather brilliant. Despite it being hard to watch, I found myself emotionally invested in this film, because of how hard it was to watch. I was almost crying at many points, and not just from the dogfights. Very rarely has a film gotten me this emotionally invested, and due to that, I applaud this film as the best film I have seen so far. And if you're wondering if the dogfights are the only stuff that got me emotionally invested, it isn't. All across the film, the film makes you wince with pain, feel for the characters more than you've ever felt before, and genuinely enjoy this film.
The film has three parts: Octavio y Susana, Daniel y Valeria, and El Chivo y Maru. In the first part, we meet Octavio and Susana. Susana is Octavio's sister-in-law, and Octavio is in love with her. In order to make enough money to run away with her, he joins the dogfighting world. In the second part, we meet Daniel and Valeria. Daniel is a magazine publisher who left his wife and two daughters to be with Valeria, a supermodel. In the third part, we meet El Chivo and Maru. El Chivo is a hitman, who pretends to be a homeless man, and Maru is his estranged daughter, who he hasn't seen since she was two years old. They are all connected (except for Maru, who has a very small role in the film) by a car crash that opens the film, and changes the lives of all characters.
The things that really make this film brilliant are the acting, the writing, and the cinematography. The acting from all actors is brilliant, particularly Alvaro Guerrero and Goya Toledo, who play Daniel and Valeria. Due to the car accident, something very serious happens to this couple, and you see their relationship initially in strong hands. Their love is strong. But as time goes on, you see their relationship becoming more strained. It's great acting. You can see them become more annoyed with each other, and eventually starting to loath each other. It's absolutely brilliant. The writing is also a big factor in this, which is great all around. All of the main characters (Octavio, Valeria, and El Chivo) own dogs that they deeply love. Their dogs are their best friends. It's a great way to connect all the characters, aside from the crash. But in particular, I think the cinematography is the greatest thing about this film. It consists of a bunch of long shots that follow the characters wherever they go. I don't know how to describe it, but it just works. The cinematography in this film is some of the best I've seen, just because of the long shots. It made me feel more emotional about the film, and made me care about it so much more. I can't explain why, it just did.
Overall, Amores perros was absolutely brilliant, but extremely tough to watch. As I already said, I wanted to turn it off in the first 10 minutes, but stuck through. I can only recommend this film if you really want to see it, and are 110% sure you can handle it. It's extremely tough. Overall, this film earns a score of 10/10, and so far, it is the best film of this list I have seen. This film earns a Seal of Brilliance, and is the first to do so. Congratulations, # 492, Amores perros, you have earned a Seal of Brilliance.
Next time, I'm watching Ben-Hur, the Biblical epic starring Charlton Heston, and winner of most Academy Awards (11, tied with Titanic and Return of the King).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)