After watching Public Enemies tonight, I am sorely missing my 11 dollars. The movie was a mish-mash of bad camera work and bad script writing. The camera was constantly shaking and moving rapidly, so there was no opportunity to focus or figure out what was going on. I think the director was going for that kind of frenetic, fast-paced, gangster feel for the film so he made the camera very jumpy, but it seemed like amateur hour(or two). The camera also featured numerous close-up views of the characters,to the point of it becoming extremely irritating.
Public Enemies also stars Christian Bale, doing a southern accent. The accent is reminiscent of Foghorn Leghorn if you're familiar with Looney Tunes(I made sure I made everyone aware of that), and it was inconsistent throughout the movie. The accent got heavier or lighter at times, almost as if Bale forgot his character place. Bale was one of the most disappointing things in the movie.
The plot was convoluted, and many scenes were extremely drawn out and didn't contribute to the progression of the film. There were scenes of rival gangsters plotting against Dillinger, but to no end. There was no point for any of that.
There are some redeeming qualities to the movie, Depp's performance was good (although forgettable), and some of the shootouts were enjoyable to watch. Depp's Dillinger was very mundane and boring, but I do credit him for being the only redeeming aspect in the movie. He did the best he could with the suave and laid back Dillinger, but my friends and I were dissapointed at the fact that the "fearsome" Dillinger never killed anyone or showed a hint of anger for 2 and a half hours! I will blame the bad screenplay and camera work for the mediocre end product. This movie wanted to be great, but just fell way short.
I would advise people not to see it in theaters, but I'd recommend renting it. 6/10
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Credits Roll On Our Film Class...
This Film Class has been a great experience for me, and it is without a doubt the best class I have ever taken. Our class featured some of the best minds that Tech has to offer, which is saying a lot. Every day I looked forward to attending the class to watch movies and listen to Mr. Bennett. I thought it was amazing that Mr. Bennett commanded such respect from the class, without ever raising his voice one time all semester. I found his knowledge and force of character to be incredibly inspiring, and I hope I can one day have a similar effect on people, by using my intelligence and love for whatever it is that I'll be doing. I'm very sad that you will be retiring Mr. Bennett, it was definitely a shock to me, but I wish you the best of luck and I will definitely continue posting on this blog in the future. I'm going to miss this film class a lot!
My top 3 favorite movies of the semester would have to be:
1. Memento
2. A Simple Plan
3. Runaway Train
I'll go into more detail about my opinions on each movie in my next post
My top 3 favorite movies of the semester would have to be:
1. Memento
2. A Simple Plan
3. Runaway Train
I'll go into more detail about my opinions on each movie in my next post
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Fargo vs. In Bruges
Mr. Bennett made an interesting comment today about the similarities between In Bruges and Fargo. They are two very similar films, but I think if you compare them, it is pretty obvious which film is superior.
Both films are meditations on the darkness of life and it's other bleak prospects. In Bruges features many terrible things, such as the murder of a young boy in a church, or the shooting of a friend. Fargo has the same type of morally objectionable elements, such as theft, murder, and kidnapping. But the way these elements are put on the screen is very different.
In Bruges uses contrast. They put all of these terrible things in a city that is beautiful beyond measure. Things in it can make you question your own existence profoundly. How could murder exist in such a perfect city? How can your own friend shoot you in the back? Through the use of contrast, In Bruges paints a dark picture in the middle of a beautiful one.
Fargo, on the other hand, uses a technique I could less than affectionately call exhaustion. It constantly shows a bleak, snowy, and barren landscape. It has irritating characters that cannot get over the middle-class hump, and are otherwise unable to pronounce most words correctly. Like Mr. Bennett said, at the end of the movie, you are overcome with that bleak feeling that it tries so hard to portray. It's inherent in almost every single scene, until you cannot help but feel what the directors want you to feel. This effect is akin to bashing the audience over the head with 98 minutes of snowy torture.
When you think about the things in life that catch your eye the most, what is almost always included? Comparison and contrast! Whether its a weight-loss commercial, a new TV, video game system, whatever! The contrast shown in In Bruges makes it so much more effective.
In Bruges possesses a subtelty that cannot be matched in Fargo, and it is also superior in the message that it tries to give to the audience(in my opinion). In Bruges ponders questions of heaven and hell, and the consequences of our actions on this earth. Fargo didn't seem to have that much of an underlying message, at least I didn't feel it did. In Bruges also has funnier comedic moments, which is important since both films are considered to be black comedies.
I challenge any who don't believe me to go see both movies and then decide which is better!!!
Both films are meditations on the darkness of life and it's other bleak prospects. In Bruges features many terrible things, such as the murder of a young boy in a church, or the shooting of a friend. Fargo has the same type of morally objectionable elements, such as theft, murder, and kidnapping. But the way these elements are put on the screen is very different.
In Bruges uses contrast. They put all of these terrible things in a city that is beautiful beyond measure. Things in it can make you question your own existence profoundly. How could murder exist in such a perfect city? How can your own friend shoot you in the back? Through the use of contrast, In Bruges paints a dark picture in the middle of a beautiful one.
Fargo, on the other hand, uses a technique I could less than affectionately call exhaustion. It constantly shows a bleak, snowy, and barren landscape. It has irritating characters that cannot get over the middle-class hump, and are otherwise unable to pronounce most words correctly. Like Mr. Bennett said, at the end of the movie, you are overcome with that bleak feeling that it tries so hard to portray. It's inherent in almost every single scene, until you cannot help but feel what the directors want you to feel. This effect is akin to bashing the audience over the head with 98 minutes of snowy torture.
When you think about the things in life that catch your eye the most, what is almost always included? Comparison and contrast! Whether its a weight-loss commercial, a new TV, video game system, whatever! The contrast shown in In Bruges makes it so much more effective.
In Bruges possesses a subtelty that cannot be matched in Fargo, and it is also superior in the message that it tries to give to the audience(in my opinion). In Bruges ponders questions of heaven and hell, and the consequences of our actions on this earth. Fargo didn't seem to have that much of an underlying message, at least I didn't feel it did. In Bruges also has funnier comedic moments, which is important since both films are considered to be black comedies.
I challenge any who don't believe me to go see both movies and then decide which is better!!!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Requiem For A Dream
I just watched Requiem For A Dream on Hulu.com, after reading Mr Bennett's blog post. Wow.
Requiem For A Dream (2000) stars Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, and Ellen Burstyn. To this date, I have never seen a movie that has made me more uncomfortable than this one. I have seen countless gory slasher films and otherwise repulsive movies, but this one takes the cake. There was not a single scene in the movie that didn't make my skin crawl.
That being said, there was a lot of merit to the movie as well. It was skillfully shot, and there were many clever camera angles that Director Darren Aronofsky utilizes to drive his point home. He captures the adverse affects of consistent drug use and addiction over the course of time, even though there is only one scene of someone shooting up in the entire movie. Aronofsky uses a series of cuts that show an eyeball dilating and other clever gimmicks. I have never seen something like this in film, and I found it to be an extremely clever and innovative substitute for constantly showing the act of drug use.
As an audience member, you find yourself completely immersed in the lives of the four characters. The plot is chaotic and hard to follow at times, but I think this plays into the director's vision of the chaos surrounding the lives of this sorry quartet. Requiem For A Dream is a movie that can be analyzed endlessly, because it is so much more than a movie about drugs. It is a meditation on corruption, greed, loneliness, and love. I've seen addiction in my own life in many forms, and I think that this film is fairly accurate it's description. Drug use is analyzed as a method of escapism, because each person driven to drugs has a root problem that they must run from, something I found to be extremely realistic and true to life.
I think that this movie is much more powerful to teenagers rather than adults as Mr. Bennett said, because of the parallels it may possess to the teenage lifestyle. I think we are affected more, because we are most likely around drugs more, and also, because many teenagers are constantly tempted with one of this movie's themes, escapism. Young people are forced to come to terms with a lot of things in their life when they reach a certain age, and the ones that cannot cope or have difficulty seek solace in whatever they can. Video games, movies, drugs, and many other things are mediums of escapism. It may affect us more because these themes often apply to young people. This is of course, is a generalization, I'm not saying escapism applies exclusively to young people, but it could be a reason why this film has a differing impact on different age groups.
This movie is one of the most powerful I have ever seen, and it was incredibly sad. The relationship between Harry and Marion went from perfect to nothing in the span of Summer to Winter. I think the scene where Harry calls up Marion from Florida, who he left back in New York so he could score drugs, is the saddest scene I've ever seen. Marion asks Harry to "come home tonight" as she is getting ready to go to an orgy, forced to degrade herself for her addictions. Harry can only say that he will, but both know that this will never happen.
This movie will have you thinking for a long time after you watch it. It is one of the best movies that I have ever seen, but I think I will not watch it again, at least not anytime soon. I would advise everyone mature enough to go watch it and see for yourself.
Requiem For A Dream (2000) stars Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, and Ellen Burstyn. To this date, I have never seen a movie that has made me more uncomfortable than this one. I have seen countless gory slasher films and otherwise repulsive movies, but this one takes the cake. There was not a single scene in the movie that didn't make my skin crawl.
That being said, there was a lot of merit to the movie as well. It was skillfully shot, and there were many clever camera angles that Director Darren Aronofsky utilizes to drive his point home. He captures the adverse affects of consistent drug use and addiction over the course of time, even though there is only one scene of someone shooting up in the entire movie. Aronofsky uses a series of cuts that show an eyeball dilating and other clever gimmicks. I have never seen something like this in film, and I found it to be an extremely clever and innovative substitute for constantly showing the act of drug use.
As an audience member, you find yourself completely immersed in the lives of the four characters. The plot is chaotic and hard to follow at times, but I think this plays into the director's vision of the chaos surrounding the lives of this sorry quartet. Requiem For A Dream is a movie that can be analyzed endlessly, because it is so much more than a movie about drugs. It is a meditation on corruption, greed, loneliness, and love. I've seen addiction in my own life in many forms, and I think that this film is fairly accurate it's description. Drug use is analyzed as a method of escapism, because each person driven to drugs has a root problem that they must run from, something I found to be extremely realistic and true to life.
I think that this movie is much more powerful to teenagers rather than adults as Mr. Bennett said, because of the parallels it may possess to the teenage lifestyle. I think we are affected more, because we are most likely around drugs more, and also, because many teenagers are constantly tempted with one of this movie's themes, escapism. Young people are forced to come to terms with a lot of things in their life when they reach a certain age, and the ones that cannot cope or have difficulty seek solace in whatever they can. Video games, movies, drugs, and many other things are mediums of escapism. It may affect us more because these themes often apply to young people. This is of course, is a generalization, I'm not saying escapism applies exclusively to young people, but it could be a reason why this film has a differing impact on different age groups.
This movie is one of the most powerful I have ever seen, and it was incredibly sad. The relationship between Harry and Marion went from perfect to nothing in the span of Summer to Winter. I think the scene where Harry calls up Marion from Florida, who he left back in New York so he could score drugs, is the saddest scene I've ever seen. Marion asks Harry to "come home tonight" as she is getting ready to go to an orgy, forced to degrade herself for her addictions. Harry can only say that he will, but both know that this will never happen.
This movie will have you thinking for a long time after you watch it. It is one of the best movies that I have ever seen, but I think I will not watch it again, at least not anytime soon. I would advise everyone mature enough to go watch it and see for yourself.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Cohen Brothers
I just saw Fargo earlier today, and I decided to write a more informal review about it to express my disdain for the Cohen brothers and their work. I personally haven't liked any of the Cohen brothers movies that I have seen (No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, Burn After Reading) and I'm going to make some statements about the Cohen brothers that I've gathered from the movies I have seen. So, hardcore fans, please don't get all offended and start pulling out obscure Cohen films that don't fit the mold that I'm about to state, because I haven't seen them.
The irony of most Cohen brothers movies is the fact that they are so damn formulaic. This is ironic because they are reputed to be a mish-mash of all these crazy circumstances and uniquely odd/quirky characters. These characters could never be repeated in any other movies, right? Or could they?
All of the Cohen Brothers movies have a static character in their films, someone who is unchanged(in thought or opinion) by the end of the movie, and this character is never fazed by any of the crazy events that are going on around them. An example of this would be jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, who negotiates the terms of his wife's kidnapping as if it were a car sale, not knowing that his wife was in the hands of killers. Or Brad Pitt's idiotic character in Burn After Reading. These characters are focused on a single, ultimately, unimportant thing for the entire movie. This is one part of the formula.
The next part of the formula has two parts. Part one includes a nice little bit of intense violence. This is to disgust the audience or startle them, and it serves as a contrast to the second part. The second part is a bit of normal, boring, banter. Everyday, inconsequential things just take up screen time, and you wonder, why do I have to watch some hippie walk around in his underwear for twenty minutes? I mean, I can do these things at home, movies cost a lot these days! If there is a reason this mix of violence/mundaneness is in every single movie, then it is lost on me.
The third part of a Cohen Brothers movie is adultery. Throw in some scenes where there is the tempation or actual act of adultery, and there you have it. I don't know why this could contribute to a movie other than in helping tie the bizarre coincidences together at the end, but that's just me.
I'm not saying a formulaic movie can't be a good one, it's just that I find the Cohen Brothers formula to be very unbearable. I challenge and invite you all to comment on this, but please remember that it is my opinion, and each one of us sees something different when we see a film!
So there you have it, another Cohen Brothers masterpiece! Mix it all together and let it sit and you've got some Oscar nominations!!
The irony of most Cohen brothers movies is the fact that they are so damn formulaic. This is ironic because they are reputed to be a mish-mash of all these crazy circumstances and uniquely odd/quirky characters. These characters could never be repeated in any other movies, right? Or could they?
All of the Cohen Brothers movies have a static character in their films, someone who is unchanged(in thought or opinion) by the end of the movie, and this character is never fazed by any of the crazy events that are going on around them. An example of this would be jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, who negotiates the terms of his wife's kidnapping as if it were a car sale, not knowing that his wife was in the hands of killers. Or Brad Pitt's idiotic character in Burn After Reading. These characters are focused on a single, ultimately, unimportant thing for the entire movie. This is one part of the formula.
The next part of the formula has two parts. Part one includes a nice little bit of intense violence. This is to disgust the audience or startle them, and it serves as a contrast to the second part. The second part is a bit of normal, boring, banter. Everyday, inconsequential things just take up screen time, and you wonder, why do I have to watch some hippie walk around in his underwear for twenty minutes? I mean, I can do these things at home, movies cost a lot these days! If there is a reason this mix of violence/mundaneness is in every single movie, then it is lost on me.
The third part of a Cohen Brothers movie is adultery. Throw in some scenes where there is the tempation or actual act of adultery, and there you have it. I don't know why this could contribute to a movie other than in helping tie the bizarre coincidences together at the end, but that's just me.
I'm not saying a formulaic movie can't be a good one, it's just that I find the Cohen Brothers formula to be very unbearable. I challenge and invite you all to comment on this, but please remember that it is my opinion, and each one of us sees something different when we see a film!
So there you have it, another Cohen Brothers masterpiece! Mix it all together and let it sit and you've got some Oscar nominations!!
Monday, March 16, 2009
In Bruges (2008)
In Bruges is a film that will be reverberating within your head long after you finish it. It is the first movie I have seen in a long time that successfully combines a number of different genres into one exceptional work. Centered on the exploits of two hitmen hiding away in Bruges, Belgium, the film slowly builds up an intense story of murder, revenge, and redemption. Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are the two hitmen, on the lamb from a botched murder attempt in the medieval Bruges. Director Martin McDonagh infuses the beauty of Bruges into every possible scene, which comes to reflect the double-sided beauty of so many things in the film.
One thing that struck me as an important part of the film's message was the beauty and morality of Bruges and it's inhabitants which was often skin-deep. The lovely picturesque Bruges ensares the eye of any visitor, yet is infamous for the child abuse rampant in it's streets. The beautiful young woman who steals and sells drugs to townspeople. The boss of an organized crime operation specializing in murder that refuses to harm women or children. And last but certainly not least, the two hitmen that each possess a hidden morality. Each one of these situations exemplifies the saying "beauty is only skin deep" because even the most beautiful characters in the story (including the city of Bruges itself) are morally corrupt, while every murderer in the story posesses a certain honor and regret for lives lost. A big part of the movie is a discussion between Ray and Ken, who speak about Heaven and Hell, and what happens after death. *SPOILER* The last thing Ray sees before (dying?) is the beautiful tower in Bruges, and he says:
"Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in f***in' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, f*** man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in f***in' Bruges. And I really really hoped I wouldn't die. I really really hoped I wouldn't die."
This just shows how the most beautiful place in the world, a "fairytale" city could also be the most hellish place on earth. McDonagh delivered his message beautifully in that there is a world of good and bad in the least likely of places, if one just cared to look beneath the surface.
I strongly urge you all to see this movie if you seek to be entertained, but even more if you wish to have your brain stimulated and your thoughts provoked.
One thing that struck me as an important part of the film's message was the beauty and morality of Bruges and it's inhabitants which was often skin-deep. The lovely picturesque Bruges ensares the eye of any visitor, yet is infamous for the child abuse rampant in it's streets. The beautiful young woman who steals and sells drugs to townspeople. The boss of an organized crime operation specializing in murder that refuses to harm women or children. And last but certainly not least, the two hitmen that each possess a hidden morality. Each one of these situations exemplifies the saying "beauty is only skin deep" because even the most beautiful characters in the story (including the city of Bruges itself) are morally corrupt, while every murderer in the story posesses a certain honor and regret for lives lost. A big part of the movie is a discussion between Ray and Ken, who speak about Heaven and Hell, and what happens after death. *SPOILER* The last thing Ray sees before (dying?) is the beautiful tower in Bruges, and he says:
"Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in f***in' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, f*** man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in f***in' Bruges. And I really really hoped I wouldn't die. I really really hoped I wouldn't die."
This just shows how the most beautiful place in the world, a "fairytale" city could also be the most hellish place on earth. McDonagh delivered his message beautifully in that there is a world of good and bad in the least likely of places, if one just cared to look beneath the surface.
I strongly urge you all to see this movie if you seek to be entertained, but even more if you wish to have your brain stimulated and your thoughts provoked.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Platoon vs. Full Metal Jacket
I saw the movie Platoon the other night, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Throughout the duration of the film I couldn't help but compare it to Full Metal Jacket. Both films are about the Vietnam War, shown from a soldier's perspective. Platoon features a more well-known cast (Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen, Forest Whittaker, Johnny Depp and many more) and was made a year before FMJ in 1986. Charlie Sheen in Platoon is a rich young man that decides to volunteer to serve his country. The story flows fairly smoothly, and I enjoyed this particular film over FMJ, and I'll list some of the reasons why.
1. Better cast list. Everyone knows that in war movies, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between characters in a frantic battle scene. Lots of similar-looking people running around, shouting who know's what. I find this confusion immensely annoying. I thought Platoon was superior to FMJ in this aspect because their cast/supporting cast was much stronger. They skill of the actors in Platoon caused their characters to develop a little better. In FMJ, I didn't even know where Private Joker was half the time, and it was difficult to see what separated him from the rest of the people in his squad.
Also, another reason that Platoon was less confusing, and thus more enjoyable to watch for me was because of a simple, (but unrealistic) tool. Pretty much every single character had hair. They were all sporting movie star-styled full-length hair in the midst of the Vietnamese jungles. I was under the impression that soldiers all had crew cuts, and if not, very very short hair. I mean, the first 3 minutes or so of FMJ is just of a barber shaving hair off of various soldiers. But the fact that each character had hair allowed people to identify them much easier.
2. Storyline. I thought Platoon's storyline was more interesting, and less choppy than FMJ's. FMJ was like two movies, one while they were at training camp, and one during the Tet Offensive. Platoon followed a single plotline, and it was much easier to get immersed in the experience of the soldiers. When you are trudging through a jungle for an entire movie, you can almost feel the fatigue, the hopelessness of the soldiers, just from watching it for so long. You are tired of the jungle, and you are not even there, so I think this makes you feel more for the men. FMJ has many different locations, and there is never really much direct conflict, so it barely feels like a Vietnam movie at all.
3. Better action sequences. There really isn't much to this one, but I thought it was obvious that Platoon's action sequences were more captivating, considering in FMJ there wasn't much of any.
4. Better message. The message I gleaned from FMJ was that soldiers were unemotional machines, and that was the only way they could survive. Private Joker ends the movie much different and colder than he was pre-war. Gone is his joking demeanor, and in its place is a killer of a young woman, begging for mercy. Did he kill her out of mercy? Or was it revenge?
Platoon's message seemed to delve a little deeper than FMJ's. yes, war can dehumanize you so that you become a killing machine to your enemies, but it also has effects that are much more complex. Destroying hundreds of innocents, turning on your friends, these are all things that you become capable of.
After all, if a dead man falls in the jungle, does he make a sound? I think not.
1. Better cast list. Everyone knows that in war movies, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between characters in a frantic battle scene. Lots of similar-looking people running around, shouting who know's what. I find this confusion immensely annoying. I thought Platoon was superior to FMJ in this aspect because their cast/supporting cast was much stronger. They skill of the actors in Platoon caused their characters to develop a little better. In FMJ, I didn't even know where Private Joker was half the time, and it was difficult to see what separated him from the rest of the people in his squad.
Also, another reason that Platoon was less confusing, and thus more enjoyable to watch for me was because of a simple, (but unrealistic) tool. Pretty much every single character had hair. They were all sporting movie star-styled full-length hair in the midst of the Vietnamese jungles. I was under the impression that soldiers all had crew cuts, and if not, very very short hair. I mean, the first 3 minutes or so of FMJ is just of a barber shaving hair off of various soldiers. But the fact that each character had hair allowed people to identify them much easier.
2. Storyline. I thought Platoon's storyline was more interesting, and less choppy than FMJ's. FMJ was like two movies, one while they were at training camp, and one during the Tet Offensive. Platoon followed a single plotline, and it was much easier to get immersed in the experience of the soldiers. When you are trudging through a jungle for an entire movie, you can almost feel the fatigue, the hopelessness of the soldiers, just from watching it for so long. You are tired of the jungle, and you are not even there, so I think this makes you feel more for the men. FMJ has many different locations, and there is never really much direct conflict, so it barely feels like a Vietnam movie at all.
3. Better action sequences. There really isn't much to this one, but I thought it was obvious that Platoon's action sequences were more captivating, considering in FMJ there wasn't much of any.
4. Better message. The message I gleaned from FMJ was that soldiers were unemotional machines, and that was the only way they could survive. Private Joker ends the movie much different and colder than he was pre-war. Gone is his joking demeanor, and in its place is a killer of a young woman, begging for mercy. Did he kill her out of mercy? Or was it revenge?
Platoon's message seemed to delve a little deeper than FMJ's. yes, war can dehumanize you so that you become a killing machine to your enemies, but it also has effects that are much more complex. Destroying hundreds of innocents, turning on your friends, these are all things that you become capable of.
After all, if a dead man falls in the jungle, does he make a sound? I think not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
