It has been a while since I saw this movie the first time, but watched it again recently on Netflix with the family. First and best thing it has going for it...villains you don't care about. Seriously, since Nazis we've had a real shortage of villains you can find in the real world who are basically just so evil that you don't care what physical violence is done to them. Sex Trafficers are a good addition to that list though.
The film goes through an excellent set up, with the daughter willfully ignoring her concerned father's legitimate security concerns, which also end up saving her life in a fantastic scene (seen in the trailer so not a spoiler) where she is hiding under the bed and has to reveal details of her kidnappers in only a few seconds.
And then we see Liam Nielson get to work. He's not batman. He is absolutely lethal in combat, but it is still at the believable gritty real world level. There are no absolutely over the top vehicle scenes like you see in a lot of movies in this genre, and while the film does push the envolope (hard) it stays (in my opinion) in the 'this could theoretically happen in the real world' scenario, including why people like the slavers are able to get away with a lot of what they do.
Its an action thriller but Liam's performance is so good that you are emotionally connected to him as well. You can feel his absolute torment as his daughter is suffering, as he helps the other victims that he manages to find or rescue along the way and has concerns for them as well. He is a one man force of nature and (again from the trailer) the bit where he threatens the guys who take his daughter...and delivers on that threat are excellent.
There is, I should warn, torture in this. I'm firmly against torture, but I understand that it is used sometimes. From an artistic stand point, I would have found it less believable if he hadn't tortured when he felt he must. They're not portraying him as a saint, but a 'flawed but good man' which comes across in this. Conversely, he is never sadistic or truly vengeful, just ruthlessly efficient and utterly without mercy at those who have taken his daughter.
It is, to be blunt, an absolutely fantastic movie and if this kind of thing interests you, its a must see in the thriller/action genre.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Movie Review - Rachel Getting Married
I can see why Ann Hathaway got the positive reviews that she did in this. It was a break from previous type casting, and her non verbal acting alone was extremely memorable. Having said that, honestly...? This thing felt as if someone took clip footage of someone's home wedding and spliced in about 10 minutes worth of a well done indy short that you might see at Sundance. The entire thing was in shaky cam. I'm not a big fan of shaky cam, and I really don't feel it made this more realistic.
The slow reveal about the underlying tensions despite the veneer of positive relations when the family originally met are well confirmed. The echoes of a tragic event (not spoiling it) revealed were well choreographed, and you can understand that they have so much footage of the wedding and preparations thereof to help establish emotional ties to the characters as well as hide the building sense of drama in plain sight.
It is also well done in that it is not 'cliche.' The main character does not, for example, relapse as you might expect (that's not a spoiler). People are human.
Having said that, I really still honestly felt this film could have been about half of the length it was. Would that have made it commercially unviable to have a 44 minute film instead of 88 minutes?
Maybe. But it would have been a hell of a lot more watchable. There is a lot that is solid and well done in this film but it still needed a serious edit pass. Particularly in the toast scene where the protagonist gives her awkward speech and then, because we can, we give 3-4 more. Maybe to show that other people went after here? Why did we need to know that?
It was gratuitous and frankly silly. Good movie. Worth watching. On 50% fast forward.
The slow reveal about the underlying tensions despite the veneer of positive relations when the family originally met are well confirmed. The echoes of a tragic event (not spoiling it) revealed were well choreographed, and you can understand that they have so much footage of the wedding and preparations thereof to help establish emotional ties to the characters as well as hide the building sense of drama in plain sight.
It is also well done in that it is not 'cliche.' The main character does not, for example, relapse as you might expect (that's not a spoiler). People are human.
Having said that, I really still honestly felt this film could have been about half of the length it was. Would that have made it commercially unviable to have a 44 minute film instead of 88 minutes?
Maybe. But it would have been a hell of a lot more watchable. There is a lot that is solid and well done in this film but it still needed a serious edit pass. Particularly in the toast scene where the protagonist gives her awkward speech and then, because we can, we give 3-4 more. Maybe to show that other people went after here? Why did we need to know that?
It was gratuitous and frankly silly. Good movie. Worth watching. On 50% fast forward.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Movie - Cabin in the Woods
Short Version: FANTASTIC!
Medium Version: Five friends go into what is supposed to be their certain predestined doom, only to find out that reality is often messier than the fictional fiction they are supposed to emulate. Which might sound crazy but so is the movie.
Long Version: Spoilers below.
So this is basically a meta movie. I've read some who call this an analysis of the relationship between the audience and Hollywood. There is some of that. After all, horror fans demand these conventions and are squeezed into amalgamated cans of preponderated crap that are then packaged and sold to the Sline populace for as much bang for their buck as possible on Opening Weeekend.
But I think it is more than just a meta movie. It is also a movie that tries to apply reason where reason normally has no business existing.
Why do ordinarily smart people split up or have sex or mess around with the creepy artifact? Are they really guilty of something when the odds are tilted in the favor against them so much that they are doomed from the start?
This movie is on the surface about five characters in search of a bloody death, but becomes much more once they get out of the cliche and into the support structure of the infrastructure. Joss Whedon both obeys and destroys regular convention but does so in a way that still keeps it grounded in some kind of reality without going full out Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
I've heard some people hate this movie but many love it. If you like Whedon, odds are you'll like this. If you hate movies that make you think, even if you normally like 'all kinds of cinema' then this probably isn't your thing.
Me, I probably will own this movie even if I don't normally like Horror per se (though I am starting to like it.) I like things that break the norm and break the rules, which this definitely does without getting to wrapped up in its own cutesyness.
Medium Version: Five friends go into what is supposed to be their certain predestined doom, only to find out that reality is often messier than the fictional fiction they are supposed to emulate. Which might sound crazy but so is the movie.
Long Version: Spoilers below.
So this is basically a meta movie. I've read some who call this an analysis of the relationship between the audience and Hollywood. There is some of that. After all, horror fans demand these conventions and are squeezed into amalgamated cans of preponderated crap that are then packaged and sold to the Sline populace for as much bang for their buck as possible on Opening Weeekend.
But I think it is more than just a meta movie. It is also a movie that tries to apply reason where reason normally has no business existing.
Why do ordinarily smart people split up or have sex or mess around with the creepy artifact? Are they really guilty of something when the odds are tilted in the favor against them so much that they are doomed from the start?
This movie is on the surface about five characters in search of a bloody death, but becomes much more once they get out of the cliche and into the support structure of the infrastructure. Joss Whedon both obeys and destroys regular convention but does so in a way that still keeps it grounded in some kind of reality without going full out Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
I've heard some people hate this movie but many love it. If you like Whedon, odds are you'll like this. If you hate movies that make you think, even if you normally like 'all kinds of cinema' then this probably isn't your thing.
Me, I probably will own this movie even if I don't normally like Horror per se (though I am starting to like it.) I like things that break the norm and break the rules, which this definitely does without getting to wrapped up in its own cutesyness.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Review of Hugo
Martin Scorcese is a master film maker by anybody's barometer, and I certainly enjoy his work. But I think he has achieved something transcendantly new in his most recent release of "Hugo." My initial impression of the movie, based on the whimsical but mysterious trailers leading up to it, was that it involved a train station and some kind of hidden world within the world that all revolved around a mechanical man that Hugo, an orphan living inside of the train station, was desperately trying to recreate.
I only got it partially right. And I do think that any attempt by the marketing department to mismarket a film will cause its demise. Anyone remember the fate of Kangaroo Jack or Hudson Hawk? Of course, I'm not exactly weeping over the fate of Kangaroo Jack, which I understand to be miserable, but Hudson Hawk was a whimsical fourth wall breaking 'crime drama' that did not at all take itself seriously, which was instead marketed by yet another Hollywood genius as something similar to Die Hard. Yeah, because lying to your audience is always a brilliant idea.
Then again, when one looks at the fare targeted to the audience in most network TV in recent years, this is no surprise. Then again, given my opinion of Slines after 2010, I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong. Then again again, the Slines do not appreciate being underestimated and most stupider shows have died horrible deaths this season. So I suppose the trick is to play for the lowest common denominator, but not to bid beneath the actual IQ of the critical mass of the mob thereof? Who knows. The price is wrong Bob.
Regardless, this film is both a heartwarming trip into whimsy, but also a celebration of the lost work of the early pioneers of cinema. To begin with, it formally attributes the creation of the motion picture camera to France instead of Edison (who was noted for stealing other people's ideas). The movie basically involves (spoilers follow) the discovery of the long lost works of Georges Méliès and how due to the bitterness and jaded hyperrealism demanded after the horrors of WWI, the fantasies of Georges Méliès were considered trite. Ruined, Melies retired into obscurity as a toy maker. The toy maker who happens to be in the very same shop in the very same subway station being run by the orphan Hugo. It is a whimsical tale in which everyone gets a happy ending. But what else do you expect from a movie set in France but made by Americans? Still, in this case it works, and not only does it work, it works fantastically so.
It is particularly ironic to me that this film is about the robbing of future generations from their cultural heritage as so many of Georges Méliès's works were destroyed that the major zaibatsu studios are destroying their 9mm collections because they find them difficult to maintain. And after all...digital copies exist right? I mean, it isn't like future generations will want to see them on film or anything...they'll want to see them on the latest ASTOUNDOVISION(tm) digital or hyperdigital or whatever made up format that the zaibatsu's dream up next.
I enjoyed this movie and highly recommend seeing it.
I only got it partially right. And I do think that any attempt by the marketing department to mismarket a film will cause its demise. Anyone remember the fate of Kangaroo Jack or Hudson Hawk? Of course, I'm not exactly weeping over the fate of Kangaroo Jack, which I understand to be miserable, but Hudson Hawk was a whimsical fourth wall breaking 'crime drama' that did not at all take itself seriously, which was instead marketed by yet another Hollywood genius as something similar to Die Hard. Yeah, because lying to your audience is always a brilliant idea.
Then again, when one looks at the fare targeted to the audience in most network TV in recent years, this is no surprise. Then again, given my opinion of Slines after 2010, I'm not entirely convinced they're wrong. Then again again, the Slines do not appreciate being underestimated and most stupider shows have died horrible deaths this season. So I suppose the trick is to play for the lowest common denominator, but not to bid beneath the actual IQ of the critical mass of the mob thereof? Who knows. The price is wrong Bob.
Regardless, this film is both a heartwarming trip into whimsy, but also a celebration of the lost work of the early pioneers of cinema. To begin with, it formally attributes the creation of the motion picture camera to France instead of Edison (who was noted for stealing other people's ideas). The movie basically involves (spoilers follow) the discovery of the long lost works of Georges Méliès and how due to the bitterness and jaded hyperrealism demanded after the horrors of WWI, the fantasies of Georges Méliès were considered trite. Ruined, Melies retired into obscurity as a toy maker. The toy maker who happens to be in the very same shop in the very same subway station being run by the orphan Hugo. It is a whimsical tale in which everyone gets a happy ending. But what else do you expect from a movie set in France but made by Americans? Still, in this case it works, and not only does it work, it works fantastically so.
It is particularly ironic to me that this film is about the robbing of future generations from their cultural heritage as so many of Georges Méliès's works were destroyed that the major zaibatsu studios are destroying their 9mm collections because they find them difficult to maintain. And after all...digital copies exist right? I mean, it isn't like future generations will want to see them on film or anything...they'll want to see them on the latest ASTOUNDOVISION(tm) digital or hyperdigital or whatever made up format that the zaibatsu's dream up next.
I enjoyed this movie and highly recommend seeing it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
I saw the car from the road and was intrigued. I pulled in and saw right in the middle of nowhere (Well...Flagler Colorado to be precise) a perfect 1950's replica Diner. The people were very nice, but the food was awesome. I liked the Hamburger Flights and LOVED the Pie (Cherry), Potato Soap, and most of all the small samplings of Chili I was given to show how awesome they were. The red chili was the best. These guys are trying to get on a TV show, and I agree they should be there. Nice little place, incredible food, with weird little wind up car out front.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)