Pycs Reviews

Under the Skin (I) (2013)

Moody science-fiction with ominous undertones

[10/10 · 23 July 2014]

"Under the Skin," the first film by Jonathan Glazer after a nine-year hiatus following the release of "Birth" (2004), is a film certain to alienate audiences. More concerned with mood and atmosphere than conventional storytelling, "Skin" excises superfluous (or, for that matter, most if not all) exposition and dialogue, as director Glazer is more intent on visualizing the story rather than merely telling it explicitly, passing the complexity of his tale to the audience to piece together.

Scarlett Johansson stares as an unnamed stranger in Scotland who utilizes her sensuality to lead dirty-minded young men to their doom. Aided by a mysterious man on a motorcycle, Johansson's character prowls the streets for potential prey. Blinded by lust or simply their own naivete, the victims swiftly begin to tally up, though their exact fates are unclear (as is apt with the rest of the narrative.)

Beautifully shot by cinematographer Daniel Landin and featuring a hauntingly beautiful score by Mica Levi, Glazer's "Under the Skin" is an abstract and disturbing film, deeply unsettling in many respects, and a rewarding experience for a patient audience.

The Immigrant (2013)

A Sympathetic Portrait Guided by a Strong Cast and Period Details

[8/10 · 19 July 2014]

The opening shot of James Gray's "The Immigrant" is, rather befittingly, the Statue of Liberty, circa 1921. For Lady Liberty, herself of foreign origins, exemplifies the ideals and ambitions millions upon millions of immigrants have sacrificed and labored for in the hopes of one day achieving. The camera then pulls back slowly and the statue disappears into the background, for this is no grand tale of success or prosperity, but of the hardships and struggles associated with the vast majority of immigration experiences.

The title character refers to Ewa Cybulska (Marion Cotillard), a Polish immigrant freshly off the boat at Ellis Island alongside her sister , Magda (Angela Sarafyan). The sisters are hastily separated when Magda is unable to conceal her illness (later discovered to be tuberculosis), and is promptly quarantined. Faced with deportation, Ewa is recruited by Bruno (Joaquin Phoenix), a shady theater promoter, who is able to furnish her with a bed and employment.

Ewa finds her situation anything but ideal, and it is not long before her body becomes her greatest commodity. Feeling exploited by Bruno, she manages to locate her aunt and uncle, earlier immigrants living in the city for some time now. This effort proves futile, and she is once again resigned to operate under Bruno.

Further complications ensue when Emil (Jeremy Renner), a magician and Bruno's cousin, enters the picture and is instantly enraptured by Ewa. Partly seeing it as an infringement of his turf and partly out of envy, Bruno reacts hostilely towards Emil's advances towards Ewa. Ewa, whose justification for her prostitution is a hopeful reunion with her sister, is torn between the two men. Not necessarily out of love, for something so trivial surely has no use in the world of struggles Ewa finds herself in, but she is divided as to whom can properly benefit her, as she has reason to doubt both men's claims.

Showcasing a handsome reproduction of early 1920's New York, Gray's film is a very sympathetic portrait of the burden of immigrant life. As depicted in the film, the processing system dehumanized the migrants, frighteningly close to the same degree as the slave processing in "Goodbye Uncle Tom." If one was lucky enough to make it through customs and into the country, "The Immigrant" pulls no punches in representing the strife of the urban environment at a time where work came cheap and arduous, as was human life.

As one would come to expect by now, Marion Cotillard, who has been nothing less than terrific in various foreign and domestic films in the last couple years, is well cast as Ewa. Able to channel the character's sympathy without falling victim to excessive sentiment, Cotillard's Ewa is a woman who has convinced herself to make the necessary sacrifices, yet cannot help but to bear the guilt. Though Cotillard's Ewa may doubt her methods, her zeal is never up for question. She is absolutely determined to see her sister again from whatever cash she can scrap together, and the end will surely justify the means.

Also notable is Phoenix, who continues his recent career renaissance following 2012's "The Master" and 2013's "Her." Bruno, as played by Phoenix, is undoubtedly taking advantage of Ewa and her situation, yet there is a sense of gentleness and care that Phoenix is able to bring to the character. Under Bruno's wing, Ewa may be compromised, but she is cared for and secure. Bruno never physically abuses her or coerces her into something she isn't prepared for, as her path into prostitution was clearly forged given the situation, whether she came across Bruno or not. Thus Bruno's recruitment was both a blessing and a curse for Ewa. Great credit should go to screenwriters Gray and Ric Menello and actor Phoenix for carving a well-structured and nuanced character out of what could have easily fallen into the ranks of cliché.

As her character states early on, Ewa's only ambition in coming to America is "to be happy," yet she finds her conditions to be anything but. Thus "The Immigrant" is a testament to the trials and tribulations that countless individuals and families have endeavored (and those who continue to do so) at the aspiration of forging a better lives for themselves.

Argo (2012)

Vibrant blend of humor, tension, and history

[9/10 · 12 October 2012]

'Argo' presents maybe the greatest, if not the most absurd, account of American foreign policy espionage widely unbeknownst to the greater majority. The story, which falls perfectly into the category of you-can't-make-this-kind-of-thing-up, is based upon Tony Mendez's rescue of six isolated US diplomats out of Iran, during the time of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980, through the means of creating a fake film production as cover.

Director Ben Affleck proves here just how incredibly mature and restrained a filmmaker he's become, molding what is inherently a political story, yet wisely setting aside the politics. He masterfully handles the changes in tone very fluidly, from one moment being edge of your seat tension, to the next of inspired comic relief. It brings back memories of 70's thrillers, when craft and entertaining went together hand-in-hand.

The cast of veteran character-actors is worth the price of admission alone. Nearly every speaking role is occupied by a recognizable face, with the likes of Philip Baker Hall, Bob Gunton, Michael Parks, Kyle Chandler, John Goodman, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, and more. This is easily the best cast of 2012 and, better yet, they all brought out there A game.

'Argo' is not a film to miss, its subject matter being more relevant than ever and will be a major contender come award season (and deservedly so.)

9/10 -Pycs

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Satisfying, it not somewhat of a letdown

[7/10 · 20 July 2012]

Before I get down-voted because I'm not giving 'The Dark Knight Rises' a 10 (the trend most of the users on her seem to be following), I'll list the numbers of things I really enjoyed about the film, and there were plenty.

-The cast Nolan's able to put together to end his trilogy is really something to marvel at. From the veterans of the series (Bale, Freeman, Caine, Oldman) to the new faces (Gordon-Levitt, Cotillard, Hathway, Hardy) each bring their all to their characters, even if a few are somewhat undeveloped (more on that later).

-Action scenes. 'Batman Begins,' while I admire it for it's first look at the gritty take to the comic formula, had some incredible poor and incomprehensible fight scenes, where it was unclear how who punching what or what was happening. In 'The Dark Knight,' the scenes were much more clear, a big improvement. Here, the fighting scenes are at their best. When Baine and Batman throw down, it's some of the most intense fight scenes I've seen in a long time.

-Huge setpieces. I could say that about all of these movies, but in this film especially. Gotham City is beautifully recognized. It's always great to see a huge place like this down naturally, never been plagued by artificial CGI (Nolan uses as little as possible.) Not to mention the number of extras, which number in the thousands.

-The ending. Even if it jumps the shark, the ending to Nolan's epic trilogy is overall fulfilling. Fans of the series won't be disappointed, even if the casual might

Not that that's out of the way, the problems I had with the film. . .

-Bane's voice. When we first meet Bane, on a plane, his voice was nearly unbearable. It sounded like something a ten-year-old would do when playing with audio effects on his computer. The dialogue didn't help, as he spewed out clunky one-liners. Here was Bane, with his terrifying appearance,sounding like a cartoon. It did improve over the ocurse of the movie, but the first introduction to the character was something I almost couldn't shake off.

-Too many character introductions. Maybe this is a criticism of the whole trilogy, but I'll have to put the blame on this one. Too many characters are brought in, with their developments feeling rushed. It almost appears like Nolan adds these new additions to the script at the last minute.

For the most part, the good outweighs the bad. It's a very entertaining film and, as far as summer blockbusters, it's definitely worth the price of admission.

7/10

Safe (I) (2012)

Entertaining yet forgettable

[6/10 · 3 May 2012]

'Safe' is the latest vehicle to showcase Jason Statham's ability to punch, kick, and shoot various henchmen. The plot here plays more of a role than compared to past JS films, as this one involves a young Chinese girl with a brilliant memory who's wanted by both the Russian and Chinese mob, aided by corrupt cops, and it's just to a down-on-his-luck Jason Statham to save the day.

When watching a film like this, suspending your disbelief is a must, which is just a given. Things happen in this movie that not only wouldn't be possible, but you wonder how some characters can escape out of situations not only alive, but untouched. But this was actually one of my favorite Stathom movies in a while. I despised his recents efforts in throwaway films like The Mechanic and Killer Elite. It hasn't been since Transporter 3, another mindless romp, that I've enjoyed one of films this much.

The film's worth seeing if you're an action movie fan with some time to kill, in sort of a Sunday afternoon stay at home type of way. You'll cringe at the acting and dialogue of the little Chinese girl, but you'll be entertained.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Light entertainment

[7/10 · 3 May 2012]

VERY MINOR SPOILERS! NOTHING THAT WILL RUIN THE MOVIE!

'Pirates! Band of Misfits' is the most recent Aardman (Wallace and Gromit) production, showcasing beautiful stop motion animation, a few genuine chuckles, and a predictable story.

The story follows Pirate Captain (a running joke that wears itself out quickly), as he leads his inept crew over the Seven Seas. The first 10 minutes or so (before the story kicks in) is genuinely enjoyable.

But the story has to come in eventually, and when it does, we get the same set up we've seen a million times before. The hero starts out with his loyal crew, who treat him with nothing but the utmost admiration. The hero then makes a selfish move, involving greed, and the crew, disappointed, abandons him. This is when the 'sad' montage takes effect, which always involves sad music, the hero sulking as he backs through gutters. The hero then gets his chance to redeem himself and saves the day, and everyone lives happily ever after. This movie doesn't add anything to the formula, and that's how it comes off, formulaic.

But, as someone who's worked frequently with stop motion, I have s soft spot to see this type of animation still getting work in this day of computer-generated images. It's a fun film, easily forgettable, but should keep the kids satisfied and a smile on your face.

Thor (2011)

Oh.....my.....God!

[1/10 · 1 May 2012]

Thor was simple thrust out by the studio to make a quick buck and establish the character before the release of The Avengers. And boy, does it really show here! The first half of the movie, set on Planet Asgard, was generally interesting, even if Anthony Hopkins was sleep walking through his performance. The Frost Giants of Jotunheim presented pretty scary villains and if the film had the courage to keep the setting there, with the Frost Giants as the main antagonists, they would of made the film all the better (I know the comic takes place on Earth, but c'mon, we've seen the superhero comes to earth and saves the day a million times! Try something new!)

Just like The Green Lantern (which is still much worse), my biggest criticism is that they don't spend enough time in the foreign landscape of Asgard (Oa in GL), and head to dull old planet Earth in no time. The first time this was done (on screen, of course) in 1978's Superman, it was a refreshing take on the fish-out-of-water story. Here it acts like a poorly done comedy, throwing the tone of the whole first act off. There is a few laughs to be had (as when he wanders into a pet shop), but really felt forced for the most part.

Then there's the love story. Look, I realize films like these aren't too concentrated on developing character bonds like a (much superior) film such as Before Sunrise would, but at least show us why the two are in love! I, of course, speak of Natalie Portman's character and Thor, and the inevitable attraction that grows between them. First off, and I know other reviewers have stated it before, but Natalie Portman is horribly miscast here. Either that, or she's giving one of the worst paycheck-performances I've seen in some time (there's one line reading in particular near the end that is so excruciating, it might as well of been nails on a chalkboard). But all the 'romance' consists of is Natale Portman giving Thor an awkward, teenage-crush like smile, for maybe a scene or two. In the climatic fight (no spoilers here), Thor takes a fall, and Portman's character rushes over to help him - in which I don't know how she doesn't get killed, but this movie's logic is not exactly present. They have a moment where we get those Natalie Portman tears and her eyebrows scrunch up (as they always do when she cries, in like EVERY single movie she's ever been in.) As the audience, we're suppose to feel an emotion connection to the two that just doesn't exist. They both could of been killed right then and there, the credits roll up, and I wouldn't of felt the least bit unsatisfied. Of course that doesn't happen, as you can surely guess what the outcome is, which only irritated me more.

Tom Hiddleston is an up-and-coming actor I have high hopes for. He was great as F. Scott Fitzgerald in Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris and one of the best parts in War Horse, but here is given nothing to do here in the role of Loki. It's no surprise he'll become the villain, as it's hinted at constantly in the film. But when he does become the main antagonist, his motivations are very askewed. Is he an outright villain? Is he a sympathetic villain? Is he even a villain at all? The film doesn't seem to know how to handle these questions. One scene he'll act one way, the next scene he'll be a completely new person. It'll be like if the Joker from the Dark Knight tries to kill Batman, then a minute later saves his life and buys him a beer. Is character continuity that difficult of a concept?

Stellan Skarsgard, one of the most unappreciated actors working today, also isn't given a chance to really make anything of his character. There's an assistant scientist, played by Kate Dennings, who doesn't really add anything to film and is only there for 'comedic' relief (I use the term very loosely.) Chris Hemsworth is a pretty good Thor, he comes off as very arrogant and strong-willed. But when he's asked to handle more dramatic scenes, well, I'll just says he's no Brando.

I'm sure this movie isn't directed at me (I usually prefer, you know, movies with a brain and pulse), so I'm sure this will make money and produce needless sequels. But, for my money, I think the material could of been handled a lot better.

Trainspotting (1996)

'Choose Life'

[10/10 · 11 April 2012]

'Trainspotting' is a bold and audacious film by British director Danny Boyle which launched the career of then unknown actor Ewan McGregor. The day-to-day struggle of a group pf heroin addicts in Edinburgh could never be told so stylishly and clever, equipped with both big laughs and horrific images. It doesn't judge it's characters and their addictions, just portrays them as what they are: young people without a clue as to what direction they're heading down in life. There's no good guys and bag guys, it doesn't play out like a PSA, and each character is well developed and multy-dimensional. I couldn't recommend this title more - truly one of my favorites of all time.

Absolutely 10/10

Harold and Maude (1971)

Does the cult hit live up to it's reputation?

[8/10 · 11 April 2012]

Hal Ashby's 'Harold and Maude' fits into a genre of it's own. Too serious to be a comedy, and too funny to be a drama. The story centers around Harold (Bud Curt), a lonely and depressed teenager obsessed with staging fake suicides. In his spare time, he gets his kicks out of attending funerals, to people he has never seen or met. He befriends another frequent funeral attendee, Maude (Ruth Gordon), nearly his total opposite, an older woman who wants to get the most out of life.

The script here is great. Taking somewhat of a lubricious subject matter, and making it completely believable. Ashby, the film's director, should also be credited, as the film is very vibrant and full of life. But, mostly, the film is carried by Curt and Gordon, who play off one another to nearly perfection. Their relationship never comes off as simplistic, as these actors add another layer to make it an even deeper and more fulfilling experience.

The film's end, without giving it away, left me very disappointed. It's totally predictable, only to serve as melodrama and get an emotional reaction out of the audience. It really left a sour taste in my mouth when the film does wrap up, after the first hour and twenty-five minutes are very solid, then the last five minutes totally veers off the track.

That aside, 'Harold and Maude' is an extremely charming film that holds up to is cult following. Worth seeing.

8/10

50/50 (2011)

Overrated, but certainly has it's moments

[7/10 · 11 April 2012]

Seeing this movie reverted me back to when I saw '(500) Days of Summer,' and not just because Joesph Gordon-Leavitt headlines both. When I went to see 'Days,' my expectations were inflated because of all the buzz I had been hearing, which ultimately left mem a little disappointed when it didn't meet them. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the film, but I didn't fall in love with like everyone else. The same thing happened with this film, I enjoyed it for the most part, but still had my reservations.

I'll start with what I liked, mainly, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt. He really puts this film on his back and delivers a great performance. He's funny when he has to me, and believable when he's playing a dramatic role. The more I see him on screen, the more I'm convinced he's blossoming into one of the finest young actors of his generation. Anna Kendrick, who plays the naive therapist, really establishes great chemistry with JGL, and the two play off each other very well. Seth Rogen, while he really does just play Seth Rogen in every film, has his best role I've seen him in, meaning he is only he doses (one can only fathom so much Seth Rogen.) And the story, for the most part, is meaningful and realistic (the screenwriter based it on actual circumstances), never falling into Hollywood clichés and melodrama, which is refreshing.

As for my criticisms, I have a few. Too much of the film's humor relied on juvenile jokes. Maybe it has something to do with the film's serious material, but no one ever seems to have a problem with the constant sex-jokes, which grew old fast. Bryce Dallas Howard's character, the 'bad' girlfriend (what else?), didn't seem to move the story further and acted very one-dimensional. Her not being in the movie at all would of been a benefit, allowing more time for the growth between the otherwise interesting characters.

But the good outweighs the bad here, and it's an enjoyable, if not somewhat forgettable, little movie worth seeing if you have some free time.

7/10

Wrath of the Titans (2012)

Why God? Why?

[1/10 · 30 March 2012]

'Clash of the Titans,' which graced silver screen in April of 2010, was reviled by critics and fans of the 1981 original a-like. The script was a mess and the converted 3-D looked, well, converted. It'd only make sense that such a travesty was met with poor results at the box office?Nope. 'Clash' was one of the highest grossing movies of 2010 and, inevitably, launched a sequel in the hopes of duping a few more simple minded people into making a buck.

Now, to clear things up, I had not seen the 2010 version, and don't plan on it based on what I've heard. So I went into this sequel without much of a back story. This shouldn't ruin my movie-going experience, as I had seen movies like 'Terminator 2' and 'Aliens' without viewing the originals beforehand.

The story was a mess. Plot elements didn't add up or happened too conveniently. Characters traveled places that weren't well explained (sometimes barely at all) and I was often left scratching my head, wondering where they were or how they got there. Most of the plot points that I felt perplexed on, I figured it was because I hadn't seen the first film. But these moments kept repeating while I was watching it, until I finally gave up all thought of making sense of the story.

Nothing irritates me more than clichés piling up and, oh boy, did this movie have it's share. Perseus (a dull Sam Worthington, which is a nearly a cliché in its own right) has left his heroic days behind and become a fishermen in a local village. Of course, just like every other story ever written, the would-be pacifist is called back into arms for the greater good. And, what's that? There's a child as well! His son! How convenient! But I doubt they'll us him in the climatic fight, as a emotional weakness for the bad guy to exploit. That would never happen! Oh, and the over-the-top hostile, misunderstood criminal at the beginning story is magical transformed into a hero by the end. How creative!

The more I think about this movie, the more my anger swells inside me, like a hurricane of hatred being forged in the deep depths of the ocean, ready to explode into a fury of rage and destruction over all in it's path. So, I'll leave it as this, if you somehow (and I use that term very lightl) enjoyed the 2010 'Clash of the Titans,' you might want to check this turd out. Other than that, don't waste your time or money on this pile of junk.

Jeff, Who Lives at Home (2011)

Money, That Was Well Spent

[8/10 · 30 March 2012]

Don't let the title scare you away, 'Jeff, Who lives At Home' is a deep character study about three unhappy people and the meaningless existences they each inhabit.

One such person is Pat (Ed Helms), a man stuck in a roller coaster of a relationship with his wife, Linda (Judy Greer). Pat has recently purchased any man's dream car, a brand new Porsche. Judy doesn't share in his delight for his new automobile, which only distances them even more. When Pat suspects Linda of having an affair, it leads him on a inept detective mysterious, where most of the films humor draws on.

Susan Sarandon plays Sharon, the mother of Pat. A widower, Sharon is very lonely and loans for someone to connect with. When a "secret admirer" begins sending her flirty messages, Sharon is delightfully surprised someone is still interested in her despite her age. It's up to Sharon to uncover this mystery person's identity.

The last chapter, the title character, is played by Jason Segal. By far the best part of the movie, Jeff is a slacker in his 30's with no real aim in life. After seeing the movie 'Signs' and having someone with the wrong number call him and ask for a Kevin, he believes it to be a sign. The rest of his arc delves into him following after all things tied to "Kevin," and the strange paths it takes him.

A common misconception I can see being falling into is that this will be a broad, raunchy comedy, like the ones Ed Helm and Jason Segal have headlined in their career. If you go into this film expecting that, you'll be disappointed. This is a thinking man's movie, with smart humor and likable characters sprinkled in. With your time.

21 Jump Street (2012)

Worth Your Time

[8/10 · 19 March 2012]

'21 Jump Street' is a largely forgotten late 80s/early 90s television show, which today is widely acknowledged for helping launch the career of actor Johnny Depp, who you made of heard of. Having not seen a single episode of the program (which was before my time), could I make it through this film with a complete understanding without any backstory?

Let me get one thing straight: unlike the show (which deals with such heavy issues as child abuse, homophobia, AIDS, and hat crimes), this is a raunchy comedy. And the movie's not afraid to admit it, as the first ten minutes alone provide us with a galore of genitalia and gross out gags. Normally, these would scare me away and become a liability when considering how one movie would score. Maybe it's the fact that the funniest moments stem from witty banter or creative sequences rather than gross out themselves, but it the raunchiness didn't seem to bother me (for the most part.)

Then there's Channing Tatum. If you were to bring his name up anytime before this year, I would shutter.I mean, we all know he might not have the greatest resume ('Fighting' anyone?), but he's honestly one of the best things about this movie. So much so that he even manages to be better than Jonah Hill, one of the best comedic actors working today. Rob Riggle and Ice Cube each provide inspired supporting roles that are nearly laugh out loud funny each time they're on screen, never feeling forced or overused.

Does the film have problems? Well...yeah. I won't deny that. Some of the jokes fall flat, while some jokes that initially worked are stretched a little too far. There's the (inevitably) love story between one of the main characters and a high school girl feels too forced and only is there to serve as a 'love story.' But, for the most part, I completely enjoyed it, though I can't ever see myself taking time to watch it again.

So if turning a serious-themed show like '21 Jump Street' into a very good raunchy comedy does make me wonder if other old 80s TV shows would make a similar transition. Wouldn't Alf as a pot-smoking, potty-mouthed slacker who still lives with his mom in modern day Los Angeles be an instant classic?

John Carter (2012)

The book's a classic, but as for the film. . .

[6/10 · 19 March 2012]

The more I think about 'John Carter', the more I see the similarities between it and 'Avatar'. Both films are huge-budgeted, ambitious science fiction films that seem to showcase to much beautiful CGI (boy, does that feel weird to say), rather than tell an all too original and compelling story.

Now, before you think too yourself that I was not aware that this was based on a book, you're wrong. I understand that the book was written in 1912 (which is incredibly ahead of its time), and many, many science fiction films and stories have borrowed elements (such as 'Avatar.')I wish it would have just given us something new. The princess story is clichéd and predictable, the main characters journey from foreigner to hero has been done many times before, the villains who seem to lack any sort of motivation doesn't help matters for that fact as well.

Is it visually appealing? Of course. It's beautiful. Gorgeous. Stunning. But as a complete story, does it make coherent sense and is paced well? No. Not at all.

I'd recommend for big sci-fans to check it out, they won't be disappointed. As for the average viewer, waiting until it's able to rent is the way to go.

Haywire (2011)

A Rare Feat: An Action Movie with a Brain

[8/10 · 21 January 2012]

Most January movie releases are simply just studios putting on junk they know is junk to make a quick buck. This January, the big studios have subjected audiences to the horrendous 'The Devil Inside' and the extremely corny 'Red Tails.' Even a semi-decent release like 'Contraband' was easy forgettable.

So when I hear that Steven Soberbergh is making a spy revenge movie with the likes of Michael Fassbender, Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Channing Tatum (who I believe is drastically underrated because of his poor role choices), and Antonio Banderas, I had high hopes. But two thing worried me: the first is, as previously stated, it would be a January release, which didn't make the film seem all that appearing. The second was the fact that a total non-actor would be carrying the film, real life MMA star, Gina Carano.

I won't bother getting much into the plot (see the synopsis on the home page), but I will say that in order to get the full experience and be able to follow along, do NOT take any bathroom breaks or go to refill your popcorn. As an avid movie buff who's seen his fair share of complex plot lines, I was even confused as to who some of the characters were or what there tie in was to the plot, which is one of my few gripes.

But the fighting scenes in this movie were worth the price of admission alone. None of this computer-generated, unrealistic cliché Hollywood BS. The fights in this, while being incredbily awesome, also possessed a feeling of actual realism, which is very refreshingly this day in age. Soberbergh proves here that he's one of the best working directors in the ways that he does not continuously chop up the edits or add any unnecessary music.

As for Gina Carano, let's just say she can hold her own in a fight sequence. As beautiful as Angelina Jolie and Kate Beckingsale are, when it comes down to them being action stars, it's simply not believable that a woman of such a small stature can take down a 220 pound man. Carano, on the other hand, is completely believable. Not only does she kick plenty of butt (Soderbergh made the movie around her athletic ability), she doesn't look half bad doing it: which is the best combination for any action star.

My biggest problem with the movie itself is Gina Carano's voice, which was 'altered' (let's face it, dubbed) into a voice that almost doesn't sound human. At some moments in the film, it's passable, but at others, it almost sounds like a robot is talking. Why the voice altering happened is up in arms, but it pulled me away from the movie for a few short times.

For a January release, this is all you can ask for and more. Had this come out a month's prior, it could of made my top 10 of 2011, and that's high praise.

Chasing Amy (1997)

Romance 101: Kevin Smith style

[15 September 2011]

I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith's work in the 90's (2000's not so much with the exception of 'Clerks II'.) His movies, all set in the backdrop of Jersey, were each filled with witty dialogue, well-drawn out characters, and humor. 'Chasing Amy,' his 1997 romance movie, perfectly fits the bill as his other top achievements(mainly 'Clerks' and 'Dogma,') while establishing a signature style of it's own.

The story follws Holden (Ben Affleck), a comic book artist who writes 'Bluntman and Chronic,' with his longtime friend Banky (Jason Lee.) Holden is introduced to a beautiful woman, Alyssa (a magnificent Joey Lauren Adams) by his very flamboyant friend, Hopper (Dwight Ewell).

Holden falls in love with Alyssa in an instant. And everything is looking up when she extends him an invitation to a night club a few days after meeting. Only one problem: it's a lesbian club, and Alyssa's fits right in with the crowd.

Unlike any other Smith movie, this one poses a very poignant moral conundrum: what happens when you fall in love with someone who's attracted to a different sex? The movie constantly questions this, sometimes going a bit overboard. But, for the most part, it's a very balanced argument on the underlying nature of human sexuality preferences and what constitutes as 'love.'

But let those deep themes and morale questions scare you off. It's still not a Terrance Malick picture, there's plenty of humor throughout the 1 hour and 51 minute running time. Like many other Smith pictures, the dialogue is VERY raunchy at times. Probably not a good idea to watch this with the parents. Also, the film often mentions back to Smith's previous two efforts (Clerks and Mallrats.) Not saying it's necessary, but in order to complete a viewing experience, prior knowledge of these two will provide additional jokes.

I would highly recommend to not only fans who favor Smith's brand of hi-jinks, but too any fan of cinema. I would hesitate to simple label this a 'romantic comedy,' a term that has been soiled in recent years. No, 'Chasing...' is surprisingly more intellgient, emotional, and clever than many, movie other movies in the 'romance' department.

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star (2011)

A Stunning Cinematic Achievement

[12 September 2011]

Based on the edge-of-your-seat trailer and the early Oscar buzz, I had extremely high hopes for this film. Easy to say, I was not let down.

From the awe-inspiring cinematography to the tour-de-force performances from the A-list cast, it's nearly impossible to classify this movie as anything less than a masterpiece.

The emotional climatic twist left the entire nearly everyone in the theater in tears, myself included. Never before had a film had such a powerful impact on me. It truly has changed the way I look at the world.

Mark my words, this will soon become a timeless classic required by film schools across the country. This is not one to miss.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

You either hate it or love it.

[28 July 2011]

There's no between. Oliver Stone's 'Natural Born Killers' opened up in 1994 to controversy over the suggested glorification of violence. Irony considering that happens to be the message behind the story.

The story follow Mickey and Mallory (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) as they wreak havoc on their cross county killing spree. They kill anyone in their way, leaving one alive to tell the story. It doesn't matter how saintly or amoral you are, you cross paths with these two, you're as dead as Julius Caesar.

At it's core it's really about how America becomes (fueled by the media) obsess over psychopathic behavior. Mickey and Mallory are seen as heroes throughout their killings. This part of the movie is genius. How many times have you turned on the news to hear massive coverage about murders or rapes? How many times have you seen the picture of killers on the front page of the paper? It's just like car accidents. They're horrible, but everyone's always wanting to catch a peek.

As for the visuals, I'd classify this film as one of the most original and stylistic pictures I've ever seen. Most of the scenes consist of disoriented color, bizarre camera angles, mixed in with black and white. There's a whole scene filmed in green. That being said, there would be a warning issued with this film. If your prone to headaches or epilepsy, stay away from this film.

The story is where the movie suffers the most. Sure, it's not aiming for realism in any circumstance whatsoever. I enjor many films that are completely overblown, but this film seems to go far. There's points where the characters get involved in crazy situations, and somehow manage to come out untouched. There are scenes that could of been entirely cut out and nothing would change.

This film is a real toss-up. A disappointment if anything, considering possibly the greatest screenwriter of all time Quentin Tarantino helmed the script (later asked for his name to be removed from the project) and two time Best Director Oscar-winner Oliver Stone in command. If you're a film buff or just trying to kill time, give it a look. Otherwise, don't go out of your way to get a hold of this one.

Knocked Up (2007)

Disappointed. . .

[6/10 · 27 July 2011]

• MINOR SPOILERS (Nothing that will ruin the film!!!) -

I had high anticipations for this film, seeing as how it scored a 90% approval rating on RottenTomatoes and a 7.4 here. Judd Apatow's first directing effort turned out to be a delightful sex comedy in 2005's 'The 40-Year-Old Virgin.' Seth Rogen has proved to be funny (in moderations) during his early efforts, could this be the staring vehicle that launches his career?

The story: It follows a slacker (played by Rogen) who's one night stand with Katherine Heigl's character leads to her pregnancy. Simple plot that could of really provided big time laughs. But the narrative is so clichéd in the way it evolves. After she gets pregnant, he's shocked. Then he enters Heigl's character's life, in an aim to father the child. They (inevitably in these sort of situations) get in a fight and break up, only to reunite at the end. It's basically the formula for any Will Ferell film, just with different actors.

Is it funny? Ehhhhhh. Sort of. I give the film credit for not relying heavily on crude humor, as so many comedies are these days. There were genuinely funny moments in the film. I chuckled a few times throughout. But a chuckle here and there isn't enough for me to recommend the movie.

How'd the actors do? The acting was surprisingly good for a movie of this nature. Seth Rogen, while I didn't think he was excellent. proved to be just enough to carry the film. And Katherine Heigl, well, this is probably her best performance she's given (which doesn't say much when looking at her body of work.) Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann give great supporting help, even if they're a little overused. Some small cameos provide the funniest moments, such as Kirsten Wiig's tiny part.

The final verdict? 6/10. A slight above average film that's forgettable but a good way to kill some time.

United 93 (2006)

A Haunting Experience

[10/10 · 27 July 2011]

This is a film you will not enjoy viewing. You don't watch this movie to kill time. This is not a movie you see if with your drinking buddies. This is definitely not the type of movie you see with a date. And yet, it's essential viewing for every human being on this planet.

What Paul Greengrass does flawlessly is recapture the atmoshere on that fateful day in history. Confusion, lack of communication, and chaos was on everyone's mind involved. We are presented no back-story to anyone of the characters, whether it be the average people going about their business, the people working air control, or even the terrorists themselves. This effect is perfect for the story because, at it's core, it's a human story.

The balance of the story is perfect. It goes from how the air control attempted to handle a situation that couldn't comprehend, to the nail-biting final ten minutes that left me breathless.

I remember the first time I saw this movie, on television. I cried like a baby at the film's end, something I'm not prone to doing. It was on my mind that rest of the day, carrying over to the next. The next film I saw it - months later - I cried like a baby again. The next time after that, the same reponse. If you're looking for an easy-breezy experience, skip this film. This film NEEDS to be shown inn high schools in the future, as a reminder of the great evil that exists in the world, and the everyday heroes that stood up to it.

Without a doubt in my mind: 10/10

Mama's Boy (2007)

15 million dollars to make this? That's some expensive garbage!

[26 July 2011]

'What the hell did I just watch????' Those were my closing thoughts after I subjected myself to one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. Some movies are bad. Some movies suck. But there's only one movie that's horrible enough to claim the title worst movie ever made: this movie.

But just how bad is it? I'm glad you asked. I can sum it up as 93 of the longest minutes of my life. The movie just wouldn't end. I'm sure it didn't help that I was looking at the clock every ten seconds. It might even be a be a benefit in that way. Say you only have 93 minutes to live. Hell, sit through this colossal mess of a film and then seconds will stretch on like years.

What the problem that is wasn't funny? Sort of. Was it funny? No. But that wasn't the problem. The problem was that there were no jokes. Some movies aren't funny, but at least they make an attempt to be. This movie didn't even try. It's like the producers just slapped together words in a certain order for a 'script' (I use that term very loosely for this movie) and then cast well-respected actors to earn back it's budget.

Which brings me to my next point: the actors. Diane Keaton is a previous Oscar-winner who's starred in classic films such as 'The Godfather,' 'The Godfather Part II,' and 'Annie Hall.' Now she's doing this kind of garbage? There must not be much work out there. Same goes for Jeff Daniels. I wouldn't consider him a great actor, but he's been in some solid films over the years. And Eli Wallach? You appeared in one of my favorite films of all time in 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.' I guess you don't tread too far away from unfamiliar territory, because this is film is UGLY (for all the wrong reasons.)

I'm going on too long about this film. It's already wasted too much of my time. My only hope in writing this review was to scare away potential viewers. To warn them of the dangerous, life-scarring, torturous, agonizing, cruel experience that would await. How anyone could rate this movie about a 3 is beyond me. They either 1) accidentally rated the wrong film 2) worked on the film (though that's not something to be proud of) or 3) are on drugs of some sort (maybe that will somewhat salvage this mess.)

If you watch this whole movie, start to finish, you deserve some type of reward, my friend. If you can sit through it twice, my God, you must be inhuman.

The Mechanic (2011)

Cashing in on the Jason Statham Image. . .

[26 July 2011]

'The Mechanic' is a mindless romp. Completely forgettable with not much good to say about it. I'll organize my good and bad thoughts on the film.

The Good:

-It had Jason Statham. He's pretty cool, right?

-There was at least one good fight scene.

-Uhhhhh... I guess the movie had some cool cars?

The Bad:

• Pointless sex scenes just for the sake of having a sex scene. This statement speaks for itself. I see too many movies now-a-days where a sensual situation will be thrown in only for the sake of pleasing the target audience (males ranging from 15-30.)

• And the ridiculousness of how those scenes happened were unintentionally hilarious. The two main characters go to this bar or club or whatever it is. Sit down for about a minute. Literally, a minute. Then a beautiful girl comes up to them, out of the blue, full of seduction. Without any dialogue or conversation between the two, they cut to the scene where they're doing it. What??????????? What kind of club is this? And where can I find one?

• Lack of action. Now I'm not a big explosion guy. I prefer witty dialogue and an intriguing story compared to noisy action scenes. But when you're dealing with a Jason Statham movie, you expect they're to be non-stop, off the wall fist fights and car cases. This movie fails to deliver. So much so, the first 40 minutes go by without any action at all. You can call it the 'set-up', but a movie like this should give the people what they came to see.

• Jason Statham. Yes, I know I labeled him as one of the few decent qualities about this movie. But the fact is this actor has such a one note performance in every single one of his movies (at least that I've seen), it gets to the point where I can't take it. He talks quietly, has that mad look on his face, and always escapes the most dangerous of scenarios completely unharmed.

• Ben Foster's character (or whatever his name was.) Didn't belong in the movie at all. Why in the world Statham's character would bring him on board as like a 'hitman's assistant' is never explained. Was it guilt? Was he to be his apprentice? Do I care?

• Training results. Many, many, many, many action movies fall to this cliché. It's that only after a short and most likely useless training session (Ben Foster's character shoots shotgun shells at various targets in the woods) he becomes an untouchable killing machine. You're telling me this guy went from a drunk to a weapon in such a short amount of time like that? Hard to believe. . .

• The Climax. I won't give it away (not like it would matter anyways) but the final battle has something to do with a large city. Car crashes, explosions, massive gunfire everywhere. But I thought Jason Statham's character was suppose to be this ninja-like assassin who moves in silence and covers up his footsteps? He's causing about as much destruction as you would see in any disaster movie. Did he just say 'screw it, I'm tired off playing it safe'?

Conclusion:

This movie is garbage. But, what more do you expect from a January movie? I originally gave it a 3/10, but when writing this review realized how bad it really was. So, here it is. My first 1/10 I've given a movie. Congrats!

Midnight Express (1978)

A Movie with a Statement

[26 July 2011]

The film that won Oliver Stone his first Academy Award, 'Midnight Express' is an exercise in what not to do when visiting a foreign landscape: extract illegal narcotics. The landscape here being Turkey, circa 1970. While the film is most remembered for it's Oscar-winning score, it's message carries on throughout the years.

By no account is this a perfect film. The flaws are few and far between, but one stands out far more than any other. It involves a gay romance inside the Turkish prison that seems forced, almost laughable. The story could of done without it all together, nothing would be missed.

But the good greatly outweighs the bad. The script is very compressed. Maybe the best Stone's written in his vast career. The opening scenes at the Customs area would impress the master of suspense himself. Brad Davis, the actor who plays Billy Hayes, the main character, is nothing short of spectacular. It's really a sad thing when a young man with so much potential dies so young.

Give this movie a watch, but don't expect a mindless popcorn flick. This movie is a life lesson. A must see for any movie lover.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Some people haven't seen this movie? What????

[26 July 2011]

There's an expression called the 'sophormore slump,' or something to that nature. It deals in terms of an artists/athletes/etc. who's second effort lack's the success of their initial. In movies, many filmmakers go through this exact struggle (Kevin Smith I'm looking at you.) But, like every rule, there are exceptions. And, oh boy, is this one ever.

Quentin Tarantino started his film career by penning the script to 'True Romance.' An enjoyable, yet ultimately forgettable work. He followed that up by directing his desk script, shot on a minuscule budget. That film happened to be 'Reservior Dogs,' and the rest is history. Following the success that was 'Dogs.' QT finds himself in a more comfortable position to make his second film (and I'm sure the fact that he made it independently rather than under a big studio helped.) His sophomore effort was 'Pulp Fiction' and it has changed the cinematic experience from the get-go. This little 8 million dollar film blew up to be a 100 million dollar plus investment, becoming a hit not only in the states, but internationally.

Why was it such a hit? The movie speaks for itself. Don't believe me? Read anyone else review who delves into trivial details than provide much of the greatness. The acting is great. The directing is great. The writing is some of the best and wittiest dialogue I've ever heard. The movie somehow manages to be hilariously dark and an exercise in bad-assery (if that's even a word.) 'Pulp Fiction' isn't just required viewing for hardcore movie lovers, it's a required film for anyone of the human race. 'Pulp' will never get old, it will always remain timeless and my favorite movie of all time because of that.

Amadeus (1984)

Mozart Lives!

[25 July 2011]

How awesome is this movie? It's a visual feast for the eyes, a hilarious comedic effort, with the backdrop to one of the most intriguing plots of all time. In that, 'Amadeus' is a very rare film. A film that contains everything that is enjoyable about watching movies, yet is unlike any movie I've ever seen.

The plot? Well, the website sums it up as ' The incredible story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, told in flashback mode by Antonio Salieri - now confined to an insane asylum.' But the story is as much about Mozart (played by Tom Hulce in a career defining performance) as it is about his jealous counterpart, Salieri (A much deserved Best Actor performance by F. Murray Abraham.) The root of his jealously? Mozart's musical talent, which speaks for itself. Salieri can't come to grips as to how this young man, who acts with immense immaturity, has been gifted this extraordinary talent. It's a story every human being should be able to relate to. I mean, who hasn't been envious one time or another? That's what a great film does, takes a richly exotic scenario and applies real world issues to the plot.

See this movie if you haven't, I personally guarantee you will be pleased. I know I was. This film deserved every Oscar it was a given (all 8.)