Change Your Image
keyser27
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Couldn't be worse without a 45 minute mime scene.
I really wanted to like this movie. And I did enjoy the actors (Ben Foster particularly) for trying to make this work. Technically the film is flawed, which contributes to an overall feeling of being unfinished. The music, which is of course subjective, tries to be evocative of the genius Ennio Morricone scores of the Leone westerns. This fails miserably, because it draws attention to how poor the cinematography is. In Leone's spaghetti westerns, you have amazing beautiful landscapes contrasted with extreme closeups. Everyone has character. Everyone is defined. Here we have very short cuts early on destroying any sense of pace, edited poorly and simply framed poorly. Add to that the steadicam shake that is simply distracting for a film shot this much in closeup and you have a film that's cinematography is simply inexcusable for this day and age. In Ford's westerns, the landscape is used to full advantage. Leone's westerns are breathtaking marvels of wide open landscape. To be more modern, Open Range's scenery is absolutely stunning. This could have been shot in a trailer park or a lumber yard. It really can not be overstated how poor the scenery and cinematography is.
SPOILERS BELOW
From start to finish the major problem with this movie is the characters. Characters who are ex-military behave as poorly as possible in a gunfight (getting near a campfire in the middle of a gunfight in the dark), people who would never touch guns form mobs to kill lawmen for $200, and we have a prisoner who despite being a remorseless icy killer of dozens of people refuses to escape. Not only does he refuse to escape, but he saves the lives of his CAPTORS, returns to them, and then continues to be a prisoner. He pulls DYNAMITE out to help them all escape conveniently later, and after exchanging recipes for cookies with one of them decides to not only let him singlehanded try to get him on the train, but to virtually carry him to the station. Of course, since you've already abandoned all logic by this point, you may as well have the bad guy kill his entire posse who rescue him. Of course, he may as well get on the train by himself to just go to jail. I have seldom seen so many plot holes, and rarely been as irate upon leaving the theater. Just because there aren't many westerns produced year by year, that doesn't mean anything that is a western gets a pass for being this poor. There are some really good modern westerns that find their own way. I delight in westerns. I own the vast majority of Leone and Eastwood directed westerns and some John Ford ones. I would probably say Lonesome Dove is among the very best. I would in no uncertain terms recommend any of the films I have listed here. If you get the absolute worst of Ford, Leone, Costner, or even Jarmusch you are head and shoulders much better off than seeing this abomination. Oh and a note to the writers: Amputees from the civil war era didn't exactly jump off of roofs and run around all over the place.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (2007)
Did they pull it off? YES! ...and no.
With ATHF running 11 minutes per episode on adult swim, a lot of fans were simply afraid that the movie would either 1) not be able to sustain for 90 minutes, or 2) be too much to handle. ATHF:MFFT answers both questions as a yes and a no.
Part of the genius behind the show is the lack of knowing the origin of the characters... people who watch the show for the first time immediately start asking veteran viewers questions that haven't been addressed ever. The show is what it is, pop culture references surface and disappear but are (wisely) pop culture references from 70's, 80's and 90's. As an example, in the movie Meatwad talks about "getting pythons like Chief Wahoo McDaniel." Saying "pythons like Hulk Hogan" or someone more current and recognizable would be more expected of another show, but its part of ATHF's brilliance. Family Guy is immediately dated and will have no legacy because of it's incessant dependence on pop culture, while ATHF's pop culture references are either sardonic or constructed in the creator's minds.
The movie opens with a very clever musical number that is certainly meant to be viewed in theaters for best effect, and proceeds immediately into origins... kind of. After the revelation of that origin's source, another opening occurs and reveals into a more straightforward story... kind of. Dr. Weird and Steve play huge roles in this one, as well as providing a central point to the movie... kind of. I will say that if you like the TV show and "get it" then you will not be disappointed, but if you have friends that don't care for the show or have never seen it, DO NOT MAKE THIS THE FIRST IMPRESSION OF ATHF. Anyone curious about this movie should watch a few episodes on Adult Swim and see if you appreciate the humor before seeing it.
I personally was afraid for the running time. I did not think the movie would be able to handle a 80+ minute runtime; but I am happy to say when I thought it started to drag a bit. I looked at my watch and was 50 minutes in instead of the 20 minutes I was afraid I was going to see. Not bad. It picked right back up mainly because they used the randomness of the show to their advantage without making it too random. Plot lines do run their course in 5-10 minutes and concentrate on another bit of plot. The Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future is used heavily to interject plot line and create new branches, but can get a little old in places. Still, Cybernetic ghost, Oglethorpe and Emory, (the plutonians) and Igniktnot and Err (the Mooninites) form one faction, Steve and Dr. Weird another, and of course the Aqua Teens form the third. There is a monster running amok with a kidnapped Carl and a master villain running around (Walter Mellon) with a miniature Niel Peart in tow. Hilarity ensues. When the climactic showdown occurs between the Aqua Teens and Dr. Weird, you are treated to some origins and some other surprises that can be believed or discarded just as easily as anything that occurs in any episode of the show.
Sitting through the credits will award you with a 5 or 6 second bit that may or may not be worth your time. If you love it stay and see, if you hate it you probably left long ago. Just like the show, the movie is not for everyone. The language isn't terribly bad compared to how bad I thought it would be, but there were some f bombs if you care about that sort of thing. It's got the humor of roughly 6 episodes stuffed into the running time of 8 episodes, so they could've reasonably included more jokes, but the jokes they use require more setup, so it's a fair trade off. Special points for including a special thanks to Jim Samples (the president of Cartoon Network who resigned after the Boston marketing terrorist scare) in the credits.
The Pledge (2001)
Definitely worth a viewing,
After recently seeing The Pledge, I wasn't really sure how I felt about it. I actually bought the movie without having seen it because it came packaged with The Departed. Jack Nicholson's performance is among his best, far better (in my opinion) than his performance in The Departed or other recent films because it was more layered and textured and far more subtle.
Nicholson is a retiring detective who is close to retiring when the body of a young girl is found. He makes a promise to the family to try to find the killer. He continues with his retirement, but through his contacts and many years of friendship with other detectives (most notably Aaron Eckhart, who appears to be phoning it in) he continues to try to solve the case. The story and pace are very well executed, but other elements of the direction are not. What feels right is the pace. It's very deliberate and handled expertly, walking the line between advancing the story and pausing to smell the roses, with just the right amount of pause and not moving too fast through other scenes. The problem for me starts to rear it's head in a lot of the acting. Sean Penn is a great actor, but tends to make the obvious choices in his acting and sticking to those choices. It's strong acting, but it's not always interesting. This is a major flaw with The Pledge. It feels as though most secondary characters are trying to play the obvious stereotype. It wouldn't be so jarring if Nicholson's subtlety wasn't so refined, but with Nicholson's even toned and thoughtful portrayal highlighting the ham-fisted choices a lot of the actors make, it really does remind you that it's just a movie. Another problem is some of the shots and effects and editing are very over the top. I can certainly appreciate the idea that zooming in on a character then repeating the zoom again by copying the last 10 or so frames of film is emotionally supposed to connect me with the impact of finding a dead body, but frankly, it's very poor film-making. Penn has directed before, and it's very disappointing that he uses a lot of very hackneyed editing/camera techniques that are simply out of place here. The effect of some of the editing and camera technique is very jarring simply because it doesn't work. HOWEVER, It is a very interesting story and for the most part it is well told and definitely worth watching, but the performances by usually great great actors (Benicio Del Toro, Robin Wright Penn, Aaron Eckhart) just miss the mark.
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005)
Prolific + built in audience = talented?
Well, before I can even review a video like this I have to put the following disclaimer in: I don't care about the man's politics. He's not running for office he's producing propaganda, thus I care about the work. How is it? If you've seen his other documentaries you know what to expect here; Something is evil and hurts/misleads people while people generally enjoy it. You know who else did this? Morgan Spurlock... the key difference being Spurlock's Supersize Me did it with humor, facts, and kept on message while being engaging and honest and extremely personable. Greenwald is closer to Michael Moore than Spurlock, as he is definitely a propaganda artist and not a documentarian. Whatever your thoughts on Moore's politics and questionable nature of his facts, Moore is extremely gifted as a filmmaker and very affable. Greenwald, while ideologically in sync with Moore, is far less talented. There are long stretches of this (and his other movies) which neither provide a compelling argument nor have any energy whatsoever... it's not that he doesn't make points, but the points are less like a great prosecutor building a court case and more like a long time ex-girlfriend bringing up you not complementing her dress 25 years ago at the 8th grade dance (fertilizer spilled! People got robbed in the parking lot! Walmart should buy cameras!). I do need to also say that his points are very well documented, but certain things have less impact than I think he would like due to people generally having more sense than he gives them credit for: i.e. the excruciatingly long boring segment with the Asian worker. Everyone knows how much of our products sold EVERYWHERE are foreign. It's a genuine problem. This segment should have been it's own film and could have been done in such a way to provide a compelling documentary on why all Americans should really question where we get our goods, instead it's squandered away in this tantrum. Granted, if you are so in tune with towing a party line (red or blue) you'll have a good or infuriating time with what he has to say. If you have a strong interest in documentary film-making and want to see what NOT to do, this is a good one. If you don't mind propaganda with your entertainment get Michael Moore instead. If you like good documentaries, look elsewhere. Prolific does not mean talented.
Better than: Outfoxed Not quite as good as: Enron: The smartest guys in the room Must see: Super Size Me Like it? Try: Fog of War
Rock School (2005)
I have to go practice and tell them they suck.
First off, I'm a huge fan of documentaries. A lot of times I really enjoy them but am slow to recommend them to friends as broad appeal is sometimes limited. (American Movie being a huge exception). Rock School is just great, both as entertainment and certainly succeeds as a documentary. I would like to address the heavy handedness that others reviewing this film seem to take at the Zappa-heavy content or the tearing apart of Paul Green, the namesake of the Paul Green School of Rock. It is true that there is a lot of Zappa, a lot of fiery temper, and some harshness from the man himself. I guess I would ask those who attack the film with low ratings (because of the man) if they have ever had crowds bow down in front of them in a foreign country after performing so well? This film succeeds in its ability to deftly pull you into the reality of the school. You meet the kids, the instructor, and some parents and are constantly and linearly drawn to what feels like a very organic conclusion. I was very impressed at the rate at which you identify with the kids and the parents, and the ability of the director to edit in such a way to provide just the right amount of emphasis. Paul Green is completely right in his teaching technique. Paul Green is completely wrong in his teaching technique. Doesn't matter. Rock School is extremely entertaining and very interesting and compelling because of one thing Paul says early in the film... "It's easy to be a novelty act, a bunch of kids playing rock, but the goal is to do it very well..." The kids can indeed play. I especially enjoy the confession that "The Guitar teacher and the Guitar Player inside me are always at odds, as a teacher I want to make them better, but the player doesn't like that at all". The best part of the documentary is the way there is the prodigy juxtaposed with the sad emo kid, who was my favorite character... each has his own relationship to the instructor and each has a different outlook on life, on music, and on the school. I especially enjoyed Will O' Conner's (sad emo kid) candor in addressing a newspaper article in which he was misquoted. I felt that Mr. Green was indeed hamming it up in parts, but it didn't hurt the documentary at all. In fact, the character and role he has created for himself is one I find fascinating. I think and genuinely believe he cares about those kids. And wants them to succeed. And refuses to grow up. And gets results. The film itself is 1.78:1 and looks great, sounds great. Those of you used to docs looking and sounding sub-par despite being great (I'm looking at you, Paper Clips) and having genuinely fascinating moments but being very unevenly paced (Spellbound) will find this fresh and fun. The performance footage shown is just enough. Not so much you feel it's there to artificially pad the run time, and not so short you can't get a feel for their talent. The interviews are well placed, well directed, and very well edited. There are a lot of moments in the movie where you'll wish it were longer... but not so much you feel cheated. A good documentary is one, in my opinion, has got to show equal parts of an obvious passion for the subject material and those the camera capture as well as the courage to be honest. In today's land of multi-movie propaganda lectures, this is a great relief from the Greenwalds and the Moores... they could learn a lot from the masterful pacing and invisibility of Don Argott. You forget this is a documentary entirely... there is no agenda. Andrew Jarecki's BRILLIANT Capturing the Friedman's is one of the slight few other examples I can think of that play that card so well. Here it's raised to an art form. The exception being the last minute or two of the film that really tie it together in a very nice way. Kudos all around, I'll be keeping an eye out for more from Mr. Argott.
Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic (2005)
Kind of a hodge podge of delivery, self indulgence, and predictability.
At the outset of Jesus Is Magic, one gets the feeling they are about to be thrown into the middle of a Mr. Show sketch, or series of them. After the sketch folds into a musical number, some will be enthralled and some will be rolling their eyes. Sarah Silverman is extremely talented, but this is not in any way indicative of her talent, or I seriously need to re-evaluate being a fan of hers. It cuts from stand-up routine to musical numbers when certain lines are said, although, its not a natural feel; the transitions feel clumsy and forced. The songs themselves are amusing with clever punchlines at times, but predictable and go on far too long to retain comedic value.
Also a problem is the comedy itself. Some people think its far too early for United 93 to be released as a movie. I do not. Jokes about the Holocaust or rape or 9/11 or race are all pretty much going to land you in the "shock comedy" genre. But to be clear, Sarah Silverman is not in the shock comedy genre because there is no comedy there. I once saw an old Carroll Burnett skit based on the idea that a good comic should be able to read right out of the phone book and it should be funny. Unfortunately, Sarah Silverman seems to be trying this approach because the jokes she tells feel like a 2nd grader trying to gross out their parents. There is nothing wrong with offensive humor... if it's funny. It;s just not funny here.
Another problem that mounts after time is her delivery. At first, I liked her timing and joke delivery... she is extremely attractive, but after 10 minutes of the same exact delivery, one gets the feeling she's heard the phrase "You are so sexy when you hold the punchline" from boyfriends, girlfriends, or whatever, because every single joke is delivered the same way. The musical numbers also play less as true comedy than valentines from Sarah Silverman to Sarah Silverman, instead of playing on the comedy. More than once I got the feeling that these are the same faces she used to make at herself in the mirror as a teen-aged girl applying makeup.
This was a real letdown, having seen her hosting shows and doing the occasional gig here and there, she never seemed as contrived as she does here. There is some fun to be had here, and it's always nice to see Bob Odenkirk (unless he's on Curb Your Enthusiasm, yikes!) but by and large there is a whole lot of watch-checking going on in the audience. I would definitely recommend clever comedy like Eddie Izzard over this any day. Fans of David Cross's drunken idiotic "did you ever notice" stand-up "comedy" may like this, but for a female comic who is offensive but actually FUNNY, I'd have to recommend Lisa Lampanelli, who may be predictable at times, but is genuinely funny. I'd imagine Silverman is a far better actress, but like David Cross, she needs to stay off the stage. All stand-up comedy viewers are aware that no act is perfect, but this one's golden moments are way too few and far between.