So I've decided to take this blog in a different direction. Initially, I set out for it to be only about me reviewing films, but that didn't work out (no one was watching the films I was talking about), so I figured if no one was going to read it/talk to me about these films, I might as well just talk about what I want to and throw in a review every now and then. Hell, I love doing them. So here is something that I have discussed with my friends and family for a long time, but I still haven't reconciled anything, and I still have the same pent up rage that I have had for a while:
The American Education System
I'll start out by saying that, currently, I'm a Junior Year Film Studies major with a focus in Cinematography. Now onto my rant: I feel like the educational system, at least at every college I have attended thus far (University of Toledo, Columbus State Community College, and Ohio State University) has been, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Absolute bullshit. I have to take 10 hours of History credit, and essentially learn the exact same things that I learned in high school. It's like being a freshman in college is synonymous to being a freshman in high school (with the exception that there are more people who won't talk to me in classes and more parties I'm not invited too and the cute girl popular girl still won't talk to me and I am still failing every class because I can't get fuc- sorry, I'm digressing from the point).
Back on track, I'm learning everything I have been taught since high school, but now I'm paying more to do it. And as far as GEC's go, not a single shred of information will stay with me past my final exam, because nothing pertains to what I'm studying! If the school is requiring me to take a non-western history class, and I'm a film studies major, then why doesn't taking Cinema History and American Silent Film fill out my 10 credit hours? For sciences, why do I have to take an identical natural science class to the one I took freshman year of high school? If I forgot it by the time I reached college, what makes them think it's going to stick with me past graduation?
"But Kevin, you don't haaaaaaaaaaaave to take natural sciences. You can take physics of light and sound or something." And I will, but I have to learn intro physics first, and math has never been my strong suit. But I'm still going to do it anyway. Now, of all the physics I'm going to learn, how much do you think will pertain to being a film studies major? Probably about 10%. So I have to sift through all of this crap to find anything relative to what I'm focusing on.
This is why I think college is bullshit. For the most part, it's all theory and no practice. Like a chef being taught why potato chips are made, but not how to make them. Yet, in order to get any sort of job, I have to have a degree in something. So if I'm paying thousands of dollars per year WHY DO I STILL NOT KNOW HOW TO WORK A VIDEO CAMERA?!?!?!?!?!? I'm almost a edging into my senior year of college and I still haven't learned a single practical thing. It seems like I honestly could have taught myself how to do all of this.
Don't get me wrong, there are things I have learned in college that have been useful. Like what a dangling modifier is. I have seen plenty of films and have learned how to discuss them. But I learned all of that my freshman year. So for the past two years, every film class has been the same:
-What is the difference between an extreme close and an extreme long shot?
-What is the difference between Bird's eye view and Worm's eye view?
-What is the difference between Intellectual montage and the Kuleshov effect?
-What kind of meaning can we infer from a canted camera angle?
-What does kind of emotion does X angle create?
-Now let's watch Citizen Kane.
Honestly. I have seen Citizen Kane 7 times. That's 14 hours. But, since these professors aren't getting paid to collaborate on anything, I will watch it probably once a quarter until I graduate. Come to think of it, all of those are important to learn once. Maybe twice. But imagine learning it every film class I take.
The sad thing is that these professors had to go through much more schooling and are probably making a decent amount more than my high school teachers, but it's my high school teachers who do a far better job. I mean, the fact that I remember all of these things after 3-6 years really says something. They deserve way more credit than they get. I'm not improving at all as a student right now. All of the things I'm learning, I am teaching myself. And despite what some may say, I'm not resisting the education being provided for me. I took one of the hardest classes of my life last quarter, and it was an English class. It was infuriatingly labor intensive, but I learned a lot about writing (feel free to critique the way I write all you want).
Alright, I feel like I've said all I can say about this for the time being. I may make edits or if I think of other things I want to say, I'll add them. But that is my little momentary rant.
3/15/2011
9/12/2010
Fun Idea + Review!
Tonight, I was thinking of something to watch. I have been a bit depressed so I wasn't really feeling something romantic or funny. Then I remembered that I have a 720p copy of the film Inside. Now, I've been told this is a horrifying and traumatic film and if you have read any of my earlier posts, you know that that means I have to watch it. So, I came up with this little idea: What if I just shared my thoughts about it beforehand, then talk about it immediately after I watch it?
Inside (Julien Maury, Alexandre Bustillo, 2007)
Beforehand Thoughts:
Right now, I feel exactly like I did when I was told to watch the film Martyrs. Pretty nervous, but excited. I haven't read what Inside is about or anything like that. All I know is that it is part of a "French New Wave Horror Gore Blood Fest" genre (or something like that). The cover of the film has the imprint of a child on the mothers womb and a pair of scissors so I should probably be ready for some intensely grotesque violence. Maybe even a self-administered abortion. Who knows what those crafty French are up to these days...
The last film I watched in 720p was [REC], and that alone was terrifying in High-Def. So, lets see how this is...
Post-Trauma:
Well... That was... Hmm... So, I was bracing for it to be a lot more visually terrifying than it was. As far as blood and gore goes, it has a ton. There is an overwhelming amount of violence, but with these films, I expect nothing less.
The plot for Inside is like this: A pregnant woman is driving and gets in a car accident and her husband dies. 4 months later, the night before she is going to be induced into labor, she is terrorized by a psychotic woman who wants her child.
For some reason, when I watched this, I was expecting a bit more Rosemary's Baby and less "Dr. 90210," so I was letting myself get far more frightened than I should have. This is basically your stereotypical slasher film, but with the violence turned up to "Ultra" and less scantily clad co-eds being slaughtered. I mean, it's fairly predictable. But here is my rant about slasher films, why are the characters absolutely brainless? Sure, in a situation like that, you may make some bad decisions spur of the moment, but I think we have all played enough video games to know that if you have a gun, and someone is stalking you, you hold up in a small room with the door open and shoot whatever steps in front. But the protagonist of this film doesn't think like that; no traditional logic. She is more the
So there is someone coming to kill me. Do I:
A) Hold up in a bathroom, lock the door and ONLY open it when I am 100% positive of my safety?
B) Peek out every now and then, vapidly fighting back when attacked, getting my shit rocked, only to retreat right back to where I started?
C) Find a sharp object and take that ho-bag on while yelling, "COME AT ME, BRO!"?
D) Walk out and let her have her way with me? I'm gonna die someday, why not make it now?
Traditional logic says A and if you are a Viking or a Bear, C. But for some reason, she says, "B sounds like a great plan! You can never be covered in enough of your own blood! And really, who needs extremities? So I lose use of my ankle or my hand, whatever!"
Ugh, it's beyond me.
★★★½ - The good thing about films like Inside, High Tension and Martyrs is that, usually, they are really well shot. It makes the gore look a lot more elegant (if that makes any sense). At some point, it ceases to look like a snuff film and it looks more like an artsy gore film, which is essentially what it is. If you are into the tense, ultraviolent horror film, I'd say this was pretty decent. I liked the concept behind Martyrs a lot more than this (both fall into this same French pretty/ultraviolent genre). But, besides the stupidity of the protagonist, it's a pretty cool little film. Prepare yourself for a LOT of blood.
Funny story, while writing this I have been listening to the song "Bloodrocuted" by Dethklok. It seems to fit well.
Inside (Julien Maury, Alexandre Bustillo, 2007)
Beforehand Thoughts:
Right now, I feel exactly like I did when I was told to watch the film Martyrs. Pretty nervous, but excited. I haven't read what Inside is about or anything like that. All I know is that it is part of a "French New Wave Horror Gore Blood Fest" genre (or something like that). The cover of the film has the imprint of a child on the mothers womb and a pair of scissors so I should probably be ready for some intensely grotesque violence. Maybe even a self-administered abortion. Who knows what those crafty French are up to these days...
The last film I watched in 720p was [REC], and that alone was terrifying in High-Def. So, lets see how this is...
Post-Trauma:
Well... That was... Hmm... So, I was bracing for it to be a lot more visually terrifying than it was. As far as blood and gore goes, it has a ton. There is an overwhelming amount of violence, but with these films, I expect nothing less.
The plot for Inside is like this: A pregnant woman is driving and gets in a car accident and her husband dies. 4 months later, the night before she is going to be induced into labor, she is terrorized by a psychotic woman who wants her child.
For some reason, when I watched this, I was expecting a bit more Rosemary's Baby and less "Dr. 90210," so I was letting myself get far more frightened than I should have. This is basically your stereotypical slasher film, but with the violence turned up to "Ultra" and less scantily clad co-eds being slaughtered. I mean, it's fairly predictable. But here is my rant about slasher films, why are the characters absolutely brainless? Sure, in a situation like that, you may make some bad decisions spur of the moment, but I think we have all played enough video games to know that if you have a gun, and someone is stalking you, you hold up in a small room with the door open and shoot whatever steps in front. But the protagonist of this film doesn't think like that; no traditional logic. She is more the
So there is someone coming to kill me. Do I:
A) Hold up in a bathroom, lock the door and ONLY open it when I am 100% positive of my safety?
B) Peek out every now and then, vapidly fighting back when attacked, getting my shit rocked, only to retreat right back to where I started?
C) Find a sharp object and take that ho-bag on while yelling, "COME AT ME, BRO!"?
D) Walk out and let her have her way with me? I'm gonna die someday, why not make it now?
Traditional logic says A and if you are a Viking or a Bear, C. But for some reason, she says, "B sounds like a great plan! You can never be covered in enough of your own blood! And really, who needs extremities? So I lose use of my ankle or my hand, whatever!"
Ugh, it's beyond me.
★★★½ - The good thing about films like Inside, High Tension and Martyrs is that, usually, they are really well shot. It makes the gore look a lot more elegant (if that makes any sense). At some point, it ceases to look like a snuff film and it looks more like an artsy gore film, which is essentially what it is. If you are into the tense, ultraviolent horror film, I'd say this was pretty decent. I liked the concept behind Martyrs a lot more than this (both fall into this same French pretty/ultraviolent genre). But, besides the stupidity of the protagonist, it's a pretty cool little film. Prepare yourself for a LOT of blood.
Funny story, while writing this I have been listening to the song "Bloodrocuted" by Dethklok. It seems to fit well.
9/11/2010
Vintage Dames pt. 2
I haven't updated this in a while and, honestly, for no reason other than I'm lazy. I started a few posts but then just deleted them because I felt... I don't know... Apathetic? I kind of feel like doing this is really trivial. Oh well, so long as someone watches any of the films I have recommended, I think I'll be happier about this. So, if you watch one, please email me (Kevinopatrick@gmail.com) or let me know in the comments or something.
Without further ado, Audrey Hepburn:
Sabrina (Billy Wilder, 1954)
It was only after I had a conversation with my dad about amazing directors that I learned that this was made by Billy Wilder. Just to give you a perspective of how AMAZING Billy Wilder is, here is his directorial resumé:
-Double Indemnity (1944): I'm going to do a post about this film when I do my Film Noir post.
-Sunset Boulevard (1950)
-The Seven Year Itch (1955)
-Some Like It Hot (1959)
-The Apartment (1960)
The four films in bold above are in the American Film Institute's Top 100 Films of the 20th Century. I just wanted to get that out of the way. If you are looking for some awesome older films to watch, any Billy Wilder film should suit your fancy.
Sabrina is a wonderful romantic comedy about a young mechanics daughter who lives on the estate of the incredibly wealthy Larrabee family. Since she was young, Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn (Breakfast at Tiffany's, Wait Until Dark, and Roman Holiday)) has been in love with the skirt-chaser Thomas Larrabee (William Holden (Sunset Boulevard, Golden Boy, and The Wild Bunch)) but Thomas has always turn a blind eye to her charms. But when Sabrina is sent off to a cooking school in Paris, France, she comes back a changed girl, and even more gorgeous than the day she left.
Also in this film as Thomas' workaholic brother, Linus, is Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre).
If you're not convinced that this film is amazing based on those three people alone, then... I guess... you'll just have to keep reading. Or something...
Audrey Hepburn is just adorable. Let's be honest. Many believe she is the most attractive woman to ever live (personally, I think Ingrid Bergman gives her a run for her money, but I have friends who will fight me over that. Them be fightin' words!). But her charming personality really just pours out of this character. Match that with the narcissist the Holden plays and the ever wonderful Humphrey Bogart and you have an incredible film. Bogart does an incredible job as the man who knows nothing other than work. He dresses nicely on every occasion and really doesn't know how to live. But leave it to Audrey Hepburn to change that.
★★★★½ - Just watch this. I may not be the best at eloquently getting my thoughts out, but just trust me on this, it's a great film. There was a remake with Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear but if it doesn't have Audrey, there really isn't a point in watching it. She adds such a huge dynamic to this. She's irreplaceable.
Roll credits.
Without further ado, Audrey Hepburn:
Sabrina (Billy Wilder, 1954)
It was only after I had a conversation with my dad about amazing directors that I learned that this was made by Billy Wilder. Just to give you a perspective of how AMAZING Billy Wilder is, here is his directorial resumé:
-Double Indemnity (1944): I'm going to do a post about this film when I do my Film Noir post.
-Sunset Boulevard (1950)
-The Seven Year Itch (1955)
-Some Like It Hot (1959)
-The Apartment (1960)
The four films in bold above are in the American Film Institute's Top 100 Films of the 20th Century. I just wanted to get that out of the way. If you are looking for some awesome older films to watch, any Billy Wilder film should suit your fancy.
Sabrina is a wonderful romantic comedy about a young mechanics daughter who lives on the estate of the incredibly wealthy Larrabee family. Since she was young, Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn (Breakfast at Tiffany's, Wait Until Dark, and Roman Holiday)) has been in love with the skirt-chaser Thomas Larrabee (William Holden (Sunset Boulevard, Golden Boy, and The Wild Bunch)) but Thomas has always turn a blind eye to her charms. But when Sabrina is sent off to a cooking school in Paris, France, she comes back a changed girl, and even more gorgeous than the day she left.
Also in this film as Thomas' workaholic brother, Linus, is Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre).
If you're not convinced that this film is amazing based on those three people alone, then... I guess... you'll just have to keep reading. Or something...
Audrey Hepburn is just adorable. Let's be honest. Many believe she is the most attractive woman to ever live (personally, I think Ingrid Bergman gives her a run for her money, but I have friends who will fight me over that. Them be fightin' words!). But her charming personality really just pours out of this character. Match that with the narcissist the Holden plays and the ever wonderful Humphrey Bogart and you have an incredible film. Bogart does an incredible job as the man who knows nothing other than work. He dresses nicely on every occasion and really doesn't know how to live. But leave it to Audrey Hepburn to change that.
★★★★½ - Just watch this. I may not be the best at eloquently getting my thoughts out, but just trust me on this, it's a great film. There was a remake with Harrison Ford and Greg Kinnear but if it doesn't have Audrey, there really isn't a point in watching it. She adds such a huge dynamic to this. She's irreplaceable.
Roll credits.
8/29/2010
Vintage Dames Pt. 1
The most attractive women of the pre-80's Silver Screen. This 5 part tribute starts off with my #1: Ingrid Bergman.
Goodbye Again (Anatole Litvak, 1961)
I have to admit, with the exception of a lot of Exploitation Films, I haven't really seen a lot of the popular vintage films. Or at least, not enough with actresses like Ingrid Bergman. And, pardon me for being so frank, that's a damn shame. 30 minutes in to Goodbye Again and I could already tell that this was going to be one of my favorite films ever made.
Set in France (my favorite country on earth), a highly successful 40 year old businesswoman, Paula (Ingrid Bergman (Casablanca, For Whom The Bell Tolls, Spellbound)), is in love with a womanizer, Rodger (Yves Montand (Le Cercle Rouge, Z, The Wages of Fear)).He loves her too, but Rodger enjoys his promiscuous lifestyle too much to be tied down to just one woman (even if it is Ingrid Bergman. What a dolt). Then, Paula meets Philip (Anthony Perkins (Psycho, The Trial, The Matchmaker), a 24 year old lawyer, who becomes infatuated with her and works desperately to win her affection.
I find it hard to put into words how incredible this film was. That said, it was incredibly hard to find. I spent at least an hour searching for a copy that didn't even work. When I finally got around to seeing a good copy, it was worth all of that frustration.
This picture pretty much sums up my thoughts on the film. It's a wonderfully loving and heartwarming picture. Anthony Perkins is so incredibly charming. His on-screen chemistry with Ingrid Bergman is absolutely flawless. The best line in this film comes from a little back and forth twixt the two of them:
Perkins: I don't know you, if I did, I'd tell you how happy I was to see you again.
That should give pretty good insight as to how awesome Anthony Perkins is.
Remember how with Eat, Pray, Love I said that it doesn't capture the heart of the city at all? Well, Goodbye Again does an incredible job of completely subtly capturing the romance of France.
★★★★★ - If you have the chance to see this (maybe on Turner Classic Movies or something), DO NOT miss it. There isn't a solid thing wrong with this film and Ingrid Bergman is an absolute fox. Seriously, the best film I have seen in months.
Note: I sent the Criterion Collection an email about it, so maybe they'll pick it up :D Then, everyone can see it!
EDIT: As of 9/15/2010, this film is streaming on Netflix. Watch it right now, if you have an account. Please. Just do it.
Roll credits.
Goodbye Again (Anatole Litvak, 1961)
I have to admit, with the exception of a lot of Exploitation Films, I haven't really seen a lot of the popular vintage films. Or at least, not enough with actresses like Ingrid Bergman. And, pardon me for being so frank, that's a damn shame. 30 minutes in to Goodbye Again and I could already tell that this was going to be one of my favorite films ever made.
Set in France (my favorite country on earth), a highly successful 40 year old businesswoman, Paula (Ingrid Bergman (Casablanca, For Whom The Bell Tolls, Spellbound)), is in love with a womanizer, Rodger (Yves Montand (Le Cercle Rouge, Z, The Wages of Fear)).He loves her too, but Rodger enjoys his promiscuous lifestyle too much to be tied down to just one woman (even if it is Ingrid Bergman. What a dolt). Then, Paula meets Philip (Anthony Perkins (Psycho, The Trial, The Matchmaker), a 24 year old lawyer, who becomes infatuated with her and works desperately to win her affection.
I find it hard to put into words how incredible this film was. That said, it was incredibly hard to find. I spent at least an hour searching for a copy that didn't even work. When I finally got around to seeing a good copy, it was worth all of that frustration.
This picture pretty much sums up my thoughts on the film. It's a wonderfully loving and heartwarming picture. Anthony Perkins is so incredibly charming. His on-screen chemistry with Ingrid Bergman is absolutely flawless. The best line in this film comes from a little back and forth twixt the two of them: Perkins: I don't know you, if I did, I'd tell you how happy I was to see you again.
That should give pretty good insight as to how awesome Anthony Perkins is.
Remember how with Eat, Pray, Love I said that it doesn't capture the heart of the city at all? Well, Goodbye Again does an incredible job of completely subtly capturing the romance of France.
★★★★★ - If you have the chance to see this (maybe on Turner Classic Movies or something), DO NOT miss it. There isn't a solid thing wrong with this film and Ingrid Bergman is an absolute fox. Seriously, the best film I have seen in months.
Note: I sent the Criterion Collection an email about it, so maybe they'll pick it up :D Then, everyone can see it!
EDIT: As of 9/15/2010, this film is streaming on Netflix. Watch it right now, if you have an account. Please. Just do it.
Roll credits.
8/27/2010
Horror Films + A Story About Me!
I love horror movies. Given, the genre is totally played out nowadays, but if you can find the diamond in the rough, it's usually wonderfully terrifying. That said, if I watch any sort of horror movie, I get really paranoid when I'm alone that night. Tonight, I saw The Last Exorcism and, although I wasn't blown away, it brought up this reoccuring vision that goes like this: I am sitting at my desk in my room, my back turned to both of my doors, headphones on, music loud (like I do every night), and the creepy monster from [REC] creeps in without me knowing. I hear the floor creek, I look back and BAM! It's right there and just attacks me. I feel like I wouldn't put up much of a fight in that situation, but just this vision horrifies me. The thought of such a malevolent being, creeping up on me and me not knowing until the last second just seems... Ugh. It sends chills down my spine just thinking about it.
I should also add that I have been an avid horror movie fan since I was little and I had nightmares for years. I remember a fair amount of them too. But while I have been writing this, I have looked over my shoulder several times. I keep expecting a decrepit hand to just reach over my shoulder and spin me out of my chair. It's so incredibly irrational, but I can't help it.
While I'm on the topic, when I'm in full horror/paranoid mode, I hate going in front of mirrors. I don't know what it is, but I always expect the image in the mirror to be demonic or to do something different and then I freak out and... My god, I am not sleeping tonight...
Without further ado, here are my thoughts on:
The Last Exorcism (Daniel Stamm, 2010)
You may be saying to yourself, Lolwat? Why is there a picture of an adorable Corgi puppy instead of the movie poster for The Last Exorcism? Because I know for a fact that if I google image search "The Last Exorcism," a horrifying image of Linda Blair will pop up (or something worse) and, being in full paranoid/horrified mode right now, I will fix that when daylight comes. Don't you judge me. The mind does crazy things.
Now, to the film. Basically, this just tried to be a mix between Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. What it ended up being was far from that. I will admit, the first half of this film is incredibly tense, but the ending... Man, talk about a cop out.
The story is this: A pastor who has been doing exorcisms since he was 10 goes on camera to attempt to prove to everyone that it's all just a sham and that these "possessions" are really just in the victims head. Apparently, people have died during exorcisms and, since he believes they are just scams, he feels that he will be saving a tremendous amount of lives by doing this.
Okay, since you're caught up on the story, I'll talk about the flaws. As I previously stated, it seemed like the filmmakers were just trying to make a new movie of the same old things. It's basically an amalgamation of The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Paranormal Activity, and [REC]. Four horror movies I deeply respect, but shouldn't be combined. The film makes it seem like the writers, Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, got bored and just decided to end it. I can just imagine the conversation they had when wrapping the story up, Alright, I no longer care, I just want to get this done. Andy, go to your collection and just grab some horror movies and we'll just take the most common ending amongst them. I feel like we have enough intensity in the middle section that we can just make a stupid ending and no one will care. For shame, Huck and Andy. For shame.
Some good things about this though:
1) Some solid acting by the adorable Ashley Bell (in her debut film role). She plays the possessed girl. I was pretty blown away by how well she was able to go from cute and "man, I just want to hug you" to "dear sweet Saint Patrick, stay away from me. IS THAT A KNIFE?!?!?!?!"
2) Hmmm... I've been thinking about this for a while. I think that may be it. Yup. That's all.
3) Oh wait, I got something else. The first half is incredibly edge-of-your-seat. I grabbed my friends arm during one scene and I believe that was the first time I have ever done that. I felt like a 14 year old girl. No shame. But the intensity dies down rather abruptly. Just warning you.
I think most movies about demon possession just seem to get to me. I'll admit, I'm not very religious, but it's an interesting concept and I think the uncertainty behind it is what makes the topic so terrifying. I have been curious to know what the people are going through when they are "blacked-out" during the possession, but no movie really talks about it. The way they make it seem is sort of like anesthesia before surgery. You just blink and a lot happened that you have no recollection of actually taking place. I don't know though. (Horrible memories of The Exorcist are coming back to me... Why am I doing this post at 4am?)
Last thing, although it may seem like a lot of complaining, I love the feeling of being terrified. It's so refreshing; like defibrillating my imagination. It goes from being "meh" to "Were those my floorboards creaking? DEMONS ARE COMING TO INFILTRATE MY MIND! GET ME A ROSERY! I'M SORRY, GOD! WHY ME!?!??!?!? WHY!?!?!?!?!?!? WHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!??!?!?" Then someone walks into my room thinking I just smashed in Nancy Kerrigan's knee, the cops get called, I have to sign a release form to be on TV, then I'm known as "that guy from the TV lookity box, what with the wrestling and such" Bad news bears.
★★★ - Watch any of the other films I have mentioned in this post before seeing this one. If you thought this looked interesting, I say go see it. Don't pay $10 for it. It may be worth $5.
I had a nostalgic moment while thinking about these horrifying films; I wanted to share.
My First Time Seeing The Exorcist:
My dad knew I loved horror movies when I was younger so, I think it was like 5th grade, a local theater was doing a special Halloween showing and so he took me to see it. I don't think I have ever been more terrified of anything in my entire life since. My dad kept asking, "Are you gonna be alright? Do you wanna leave?" but I was persistent. I was not leaving the theater before the credits. So, I made it through (a lot of the time I had spent with my eyes diverted, but I got the gist of it). When I got home, my mom said something along the lines of, "What'd you think? Were you scared when her head spun around?" I. Absolutely. Freaking. Lost. It. I did a good job of keeping my composure for most of the night, but when she said that, I just started bawling out of sheer terror and clung to her like she was God; like she would ward off any horrible demon that would walk through the door at that instant. Needless to say, I was traumatized, but, oddly enough, I have been searching for that same feeling ever since. I still haven't found it. I am dying to see a film that leaves me sitting indian style in bed that night with a baseball bat. Anything that would make me overreact more than usual. I think that's why I turn to traumatically disturbing films now. They stick with me in the same sense that horror movies used to.
Epilogue: I have seen it 4 times since and every time, I have kept my eyes focused on the screen, making sure to never look away. I still regard it as the most terrifying film I have ever seen.
Side note:
I fell behind on my "Vintage Dames" post. Part 1 will be tomorrow, don't worry.
Roll credits.
P.S.: Here is the poster for The Last Exorcism. I couldn't bring myself to take down that adorable corgi. I just love looking at him :)
I should also add that I have been an avid horror movie fan since I was little and I had nightmares for years. I remember a fair amount of them too. But while I have been writing this, I have looked over my shoulder several times. I keep expecting a decrepit hand to just reach over my shoulder and spin me out of my chair. It's so incredibly irrational, but I can't help it.
While I'm on the topic, when I'm in full horror/paranoid mode, I hate going in front of mirrors. I don't know what it is, but I always expect the image in the mirror to be demonic or to do something different and then I freak out and... My god, I am not sleeping tonight...
Without further ado, here are my thoughts on:
The Last Exorcism (Daniel Stamm, 2010)
You may be saying to yourself, Lolwat? Why is there a picture of an adorable Corgi puppy instead of the movie poster for The Last Exorcism? Because I know for a fact that if I google image search "The Last Exorcism," a horrifying image of Linda Blair will pop up (or something worse) and, being in full paranoid/horrified mode right now, I will fix that when daylight comes. Don't you judge me. The mind does crazy things.Now, to the film. Basically, this just tried to be a mix between Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist. What it ended up being was far from that. I will admit, the first half of this film is incredibly tense, but the ending... Man, talk about a cop out.
The story is this: A pastor who has been doing exorcisms since he was 10 goes on camera to attempt to prove to everyone that it's all just a sham and that these "possessions" are really just in the victims head. Apparently, people have died during exorcisms and, since he believes they are just scams, he feels that he will be saving a tremendous amount of lives by doing this.
Okay, since you're caught up on the story, I'll talk about the flaws. As I previously stated, it seemed like the filmmakers were just trying to make a new movie of the same old things. It's basically an amalgamation of The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Paranormal Activity, and [REC]. Four horror movies I deeply respect, but shouldn't be combined. The film makes it seem like the writers, Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland, got bored and just decided to end it. I can just imagine the conversation they had when wrapping the story up, Alright, I no longer care, I just want to get this done. Andy, go to your collection and just grab some horror movies and we'll just take the most common ending amongst them. I feel like we have enough intensity in the middle section that we can just make a stupid ending and no one will care. For shame, Huck and Andy. For shame.
Some good things about this though:
1) Some solid acting by the adorable Ashley Bell (in her debut film role). She plays the possessed girl. I was pretty blown away by how well she was able to go from cute and "man, I just want to hug you" to "dear sweet Saint Patrick, stay away from me. IS THAT A KNIFE?!?!?!?!"
2) Hmmm... I've been thinking about this for a while. I think that may be it. Yup. That's all.
3) Oh wait, I got something else. The first half is incredibly edge-of-your-seat. I grabbed my friends arm during one scene and I believe that was the first time I have ever done that. I felt like a 14 year old girl. No shame. But the intensity dies down rather abruptly. Just warning you.
I think most movies about demon possession just seem to get to me. I'll admit, I'm not very religious, but it's an interesting concept and I think the uncertainty behind it is what makes the topic so terrifying. I have been curious to know what the people are going through when they are "blacked-out" during the possession, but no movie really talks about it. The way they make it seem is sort of like anesthesia before surgery. You just blink and a lot happened that you have no recollection of actually taking place. I don't know though. (Horrible memories of The Exorcist are coming back to me... Why am I doing this post at 4am?)
Last thing, although it may seem like a lot of complaining, I love the feeling of being terrified. It's so refreshing; like defibrillating my imagination. It goes from being "meh" to "Were those my floorboards creaking? DEMONS ARE COMING TO INFILTRATE MY MIND! GET ME A ROSERY! I'M SORRY, GOD! WHY ME!?!??!?!? WHY!?!?!?!?!?!? WHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!??!?!?" Then someone walks into my room thinking I just smashed in Nancy Kerrigan's knee, the cops get called, I have to sign a release form to be on TV, then I'm known as "that guy from the TV lookity box, what with the wrestling and such" Bad news bears.
★★★ - Watch any of the other films I have mentioned in this post before seeing this one. If you thought this looked interesting, I say go see it. Don't pay $10 for it. It may be worth $5.
I had a nostalgic moment while thinking about these horrifying films; I wanted to share.
My First Time Seeing The Exorcist:
My dad knew I loved horror movies when I was younger so, I think it was like 5th grade, a local theater was doing a special Halloween showing and so he took me to see it. I don't think I have ever been more terrified of anything in my entire life since. My dad kept asking, "Are you gonna be alright? Do you wanna leave?" but I was persistent. I was not leaving the theater before the credits. So, I made it through (a lot of the time I had spent with my eyes diverted, but I got the gist of it). When I got home, my mom said something along the lines of, "What'd you think? Were you scared when her head spun around?" I. Absolutely. Freaking. Lost. It. I did a good job of keeping my composure for most of the night, but when she said that, I just started bawling out of sheer terror and clung to her like she was God; like she would ward off any horrible demon that would walk through the door at that instant. Needless to say, I was traumatized, but, oddly enough, I have been searching for that same feeling ever since. I still haven't found it. I am dying to see a film that leaves me sitting indian style in bed that night with a baseball bat. Anything that would make me overreact more than usual. I think that's why I turn to traumatically disturbing films now. They stick with me in the same sense that horror movies used to.
Epilogue: I have seen it 4 times since and every time, I have kept my eyes focused on the screen, making sure to never look away. I still regard it as the most terrifying film I have ever seen.
Side note:
I fell behind on my "Vintage Dames" post. Part 1 will be tomorrow, don't worry.
Roll credits.
P.S.: Here is the poster for The Last Exorcism. I couldn't bring myself to take down that adorable corgi. I just love looking at him :)
8/25/2010
Movies in Theaters
So, I went to the movies today to see if anything good was playing. Per usual, I just showed up and watched whatever was playing soon that looked interesting. To my complete dismay, nothing looked good. Until The Last Exorcism comes out, everything in theaters looks like crap (aside from the films I have already mentioned). But I figured, what the heck? I need to see something bad to make everything good look better, right? So I bought a ticket for The Switch. As I walked towards the theater, I saw two other movies starting in 5 minutes. Eat, Pray, Love and The Other Guys. Now came the moments of deliberation. Did I want to put up with Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman, Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrel, or Julia Roberts and James Franco?
9 times out of 10 I would have gone with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrel, except for the fact that buddy cop movies are terrible. Always. I have seen at least 5 and they are all the exact same. I feel like The Other Guys was made to be satirical of the genre but I just wasn't in the mood for it. So I decided to see
Eat, Pray, Love (Ryan Murphy, 2010)
If you are looking for a film that absolutely captures the magnificence of the location, this isn't a film for you (Try Paris, Je T'aime or Vicky Christina Barcelona). If you are looking for some phenomenal acting, skip this. If you are looking for the vapid blathering of a woman going through a midlife crisis: Bingo.
Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride, Erin Brockovich) plays a woman who, after going through a painful divorce, decides to travel and find herself.
As I have mentioned before, sometimes sitting down to a nice chick flick can be fun, but this, not so much. The cliché story and poor writing made the movie seem like it was a few days long. I found myself around the halfway point thinking to myself, God, is this over yet? I have places to be tomorrow.
So, Julia Roberts goes through this huge divorce and, I gotta say, her life wasn't really that bad. She breaks things off with her husband without even attempting to compromise with him. They had been married for a year or so and they were acting like teenagers. She is really overdramatic and just seemed depressed and he seemed like he genuinely wanted to work things out. But she didn't bother to give him a fighting chance. Pshaw and guffaw.
I should probably mention, in the beginning of the film, she gets prompted by a Spiritual Healer in Bali who tells her that she is going to be married twice, one short and one long. So she goes back and lives out this self fulfilling prophecy. Then she meets James Franco (Spiderman, Pineapple Express, Annapolis) and has a short little fling with him, then bails for Italy. Meets some people there, blah blah blah, goes to Bali and basically the entire film is just absolute crap until Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Love in the Time of Cholera) shows up. Then, Bali gets this romance to it, whereas before, it seemed very dirty and morose.
As far as the scenery goes in general, it didn't make me want to travel there like most movies "travel movies" do. If you're in Italy, show me the most romantic locations; take me to places that only the locals know. Make me contemplate abandoning my prior engagements to get on a plane tomorrow. I felt nothing towards the scenery other than, Wow, that's definitely not America.
The last problem I'll share is that, in most of the film, the lighting was terrible. I think it was probably intentional, but the lighting is so strong in most scenes that Julia Roberts has this halo around her head. I pray that it was a fluke and that Ryan Murphy was just so over budget and out of time that he just said, "Screw it, we'll try and fix it in post!" Otherwise, he missed the mark entirely. If he tried to make her seem angelic, then he must have been reading the wrong script. In the movie (I didn't read the memoirs of the same name, nor do I care to) she isn't an angel at all. She is flawed and lonely and depressed and melodramatic. Maybe that's what someone like John Waters would argue is an Angel, but that's not what mainstream America would say, which is this movie's target audience!
★★ - Originally, I was going to give this ★ ½, but I guess I was a little harsh on the acting. It just seemed to drag on for sooooooooo loooonnnnnggggg that, by the end, I never wanted to hear Julia Roberts say another word. her acting skills could've gotten exponentially better to the point where I started to enjoy her, but it wouldn't have mattered. It still would've felt like an eternity due to the terrible writing. At least it didn't have Mila Kunis though (Don't ever see Max Payne. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy). Everything with Javier Bardem made this movie a lot more tolerable, but until he showed up, the movie itself was just absolute crap. Trust me, watch Vicky Christina Barcelona and thank me later. Or even if you want a film with a confused older woman, scrambling to find what she wants in life, watch It's Complicated. At least that is heartwarming.
I am going to do a "Vintage Dames" post soon enough. Ingrid Bergman, Audrey Hepburn, and Marilyn Monroe. I'm really excited about that :) Already watched my Ingrid Bergman film, Goodbye Again. More soon!
Roll credits.
9 times out of 10 I would have gone with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrel, except for the fact that buddy cop movies are terrible. Always. I have seen at least 5 and they are all the exact same. I feel like The Other Guys was made to be satirical of the genre but I just wasn't in the mood for it. So I decided to see
Eat, Pray, Love (Ryan Murphy, 2010)
If you are looking for a film that absolutely captures the magnificence of the location, this isn't a film for you (Try Paris, Je T'aime or Vicky Christina Barcelona). If you are looking for some phenomenal acting, skip this. If you are looking for the vapid blathering of a woman going through a midlife crisis: Bingo.Julia Roberts (Pretty Woman, Runaway Bride, Erin Brockovich) plays a woman who, after going through a painful divorce, decides to travel and find herself.
As I have mentioned before, sometimes sitting down to a nice chick flick can be fun, but this, not so much. The cliché story and poor writing made the movie seem like it was a few days long. I found myself around the halfway point thinking to myself, God, is this over yet? I have places to be tomorrow.
So, Julia Roberts goes through this huge divorce and, I gotta say, her life wasn't really that bad. She breaks things off with her husband without even attempting to compromise with him. They had been married for a year or so and they were acting like teenagers. She is really overdramatic and just seemed depressed and he seemed like he genuinely wanted to work things out. But she didn't bother to give him a fighting chance. Pshaw and guffaw.
I should probably mention, in the beginning of the film, she gets prompted by a Spiritual Healer in Bali who tells her that she is going to be married twice, one short and one long. So she goes back and lives out this self fulfilling prophecy. Then she meets James Franco (Spiderman, Pineapple Express, Annapolis) and has a short little fling with him, then bails for Italy. Meets some people there, blah blah blah, goes to Bali and basically the entire film is just absolute crap until Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Love in the Time of Cholera) shows up. Then, Bali gets this romance to it, whereas before, it seemed very dirty and morose.
As far as the scenery goes in general, it didn't make me want to travel there like most movies "travel movies" do. If you're in Italy, show me the most romantic locations; take me to places that only the locals know. Make me contemplate abandoning my prior engagements to get on a plane tomorrow. I felt nothing towards the scenery other than, Wow, that's definitely not America.
The last problem I'll share is that, in most of the film, the lighting was terrible. I think it was probably intentional, but the lighting is so strong in most scenes that Julia Roberts has this halo around her head. I pray that it was a fluke and that Ryan Murphy was just so over budget and out of time that he just said, "Screw it, we'll try and fix it in post!" Otherwise, he missed the mark entirely. If he tried to make her seem angelic, then he must have been reading the wrong script. In the movie (I didn't read the memoirs of the same name, nor do I care to) she isn't an angel at all. She is flawed and lonely and depressed and melodramatic. Maybe that's what someone like John Waters would argue is an Angel, but that's not what mainstream America would say, which is this movie's target audience!
★★ - Originally, I was going to give this ★ ½, but I guess I was a little harsh on the acting. It just seemed to drag on for sooooooooo loooonnnnnggggg that, by the end, I never wanted to hear Julia Roberts say another word. her acting skills could've gotten exponentially better to the point where I started to enjoy her, but it wouldn't have mattered. It still would've felt like an eternity due to the terrible writing. At least it didn't have Mila Kunis though (Don't ever see Max Payne. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy). Everything with Javier Bardem made this movie a lot more tolerable, but until he showed up, the movie itself was just absolute crap. Trust me, watch Vicky Christina Barcelona and thank me later. Or even if you want a film with a confused older woman, scrambling to find what she wants in life, watch It's Complicated. At least that is heartwarming.
I am going to do a "Vintage Dames" post soon enough. Ingrid Bergman, Audrey Hepburn, and Marilyn Monroe. I'm really excited about that :) Already watched my Ingrid Bergman film, Goodbye Again. More soon!
Roll credits.
8/22/2010
35mm vs Digital rant, My Movie Collection, and Three Reviews!!
I think tonight, I'm going to start things off with a little bit of a rant. I went to see The Girl Who Played With Fire (Daniel Alfredson, 2009) with my mom at this local, independent theater. We had both seen the first film of the trilogy, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and it was only being shown for one night. Sitting in the 20-30 seat theater, I came to a realization while watching the prefilm trailers: I absolutely love the look of 35mm films. Back in the 70's (and it may still be true today, I have no idea), there were only a few reels of film for each film made and they would just make circuits around the country. So by the time it made it to Smalltown, Iowa, the film shown was probably beaten and all crackly looking and the audio probably sounded like a dusty, vinyl LP. That just doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I doubt the IMAX 3D version of Avatar you saw had any imperfections whatsoever (other than the plot). But imperfections are what I love about going to the theaters! That is why I go see movies. I don't go because the screen is huge or for the overpriced, artery clogging popcorn (although, I have to say, AMC has the best tasting Cherry Coke I have ever had). I love going to "mom n' pop" theaters for three reasons:
1) They always show the best movies.
I don't think AMC would ever show Lars Von Trier's shock horror film, Antichrist but the local independent theater sure as hell did.
2) Tickets are usually cheaper
These small theaters don't usually seem as profit driven as the larger chains are. I see movies for $5 at Gateway Film Center. AMC is $10. I can see two awesome films at Gateway for the price of 1 mediocre film at AMC.
3) Beat up film reels.
As previously stated, I love the look of a beat up 35mm. AMC has a lot of "Digital Presentations" now and that just doesn't fly with me. Another thing people should note about me is that I hate the fact that we as a film society are drifting towards 3D everything. The gimmick was cool when I went to the MGM Themepark to see the Terminator ride. Or seeing that Muppet video thing there. It was ages ago, I don't really remember except it was cool and in 3D. When I saw Avatar, I was like "Wow, this is cool!" For the first 10 minutes, then thought to myself, "Wow, I'm really over this... So the storyline doesn't get creative? It's ALL about the visuals? Damn. :("
The day that 35mm stops being shown OR the day that everything is in 3D will be the day I stop going to theaters to see movies.
Now that that's over, onto
My Movie Collection:
As of right now, I'm in between leases so I'm living at my parents' house. All of my films and books are in the basement in giant stacks. The picture to the left doesn't even do my collection justice. There are still 3 piles behind me. But you can imagine how frustrating it is to think, "I want to watch [insert film title]!" then have to sift through all of it. During the move, they ALL fell out of order (I usually keep them alphabetized on this big black bookshelf). I just wanted to share that with you all.
The Girl Who Played With Fire (Daniel Alfredson, 2009)
This is the second film in "The Millennium Trilogy" (These are film adaptations of the books by the same titles). The first being The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and the third being The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
IMDB captured the brief synopsis of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo quite nicely, so I'll just post that: A journalist is aided in his search for a woman who has been missing -- or dead -- for forty years by a young female hacker.
So, that said, this is what The Girl Who Played With Fire is about: As computer hacker Lisbeth and journalist Mikael investigate a sex-trafficking ring, Lisbeth is accused of three murders, causing her to go on the run while Mikael works to clear her name.
I love mysteries (Film Noir w00t!) but I feel like I don't watch them enough; this trilogy has quenched that thirst. As the film unfolds, I found myself completely captivated and unsure of what was coming next. A lot of the film isn't necessarily edge-of-your-seat in the same sense as Rear Window, but my eyes were glued to the screen. Noomi Rapace (who has been in nothing I am familiar with) plays this cynical cyber-goth, Lisbeth Salander, perfectly. Although she is almost an antiheroine, it is so easy to connect with her and empathize with her plight, especially in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
A lot of the time with trilogies, the director makes an attempt to capture the essence of the first film and fails miserably. I must say, both of these films are equally as remarkable. I'm very excited to see The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
Before I forget, I should mention that these films are Swedish. That means nothing to me, but some people may be like, "WHY DIDN'T HE WARN ME I WOULD HAVE TO READ!?!?!? I HATE READING!!!!!! >:C" I bet if you are one of those people, you get to the end of my post and just punch a hole in your wall, don't you? "DAMN WORDS!!!!!!"
★★★★★ - Again, I feel really bad having given so many movies on this blog 5 stars, but this really deserves it. Incredible acting, very well written, captivating, and just all around exciting. Don't watch this without seeing the first one, though. It may be quite confusing. But, don't miss either of these if they are showing in your town. I think they may be streaming on Netflix too (the first one was, as of August 8th. I don't know if it still is or not).
Also should note: There is some fairly graphic violence and a lot of nudity in these films. Probably should warn you before you sit down with Grampappy to watch what you think is innocent fun.
This next film, I don't even really want to write about, but I watched it, so I will:
Junebug (Phil Morrison, 2005)
I blind-bought this movie because, well, just look at that cover. Indie beyond all reason! Just kidding. Ben McKenzie ("The O.C.", "Southland", 88 Minutes) was in it with Amy Adams (Enchanted, Doubt, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby). Both of them in an Indie comedy? Should be good. Only after starting it did I realize that Embeth Davidtz (Matilda, Army of Darkness, Schindler's List) was in it! She is the second most adorable actress ever! My number one will go to Audrey Tautou (Amélie, Priceless, The Libertine). I saw Matilda not too long ago for the first time in years and I was completely lovestruck with her as Ms. Honey. She is just so loving and empathetic towards Matilda, it's hard not to love her. I just wanted to picnic with her and watch clouds pass and hug her until I lost feeling in my arms. Back to Junebug.
Embeth Davidtz did an incredible job in this as the owner of this art gallery who is married to Ben McK-... You know what? WIKIPEDIA! SNAP SNAP: When newlywed Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz), an art dealer, travels from Chicago to North Carolina to pursue a local, self-taught painter (Frank Hoyt Taylor) for her outsider art gallery she takes the opportunity to meet her husband George's (Alessandro Nivola) family, who live close by.
The film seems promising, but Ben McKenzie wasn't half as prominent as I wanted. And from the cover of the DVD, he looks all nice and sympathetic. Not the case at all! He's a dick in this. But he has a mustache so that counts for something, right? And Amy Adams' character was just too eccentric for me. I mean, I know it was written like that, but it was just too much for me. I did like how she interacted with Davidtz though. They had some really good awkward chemistry going on.
I feel like if films are going to go for that sort of awkward feel, make it as awkward as possible. Go big or go home. Nothing in this was cringeworthy, but it was sort of "Heh, that's kind of uncomfortable." Also, the beginning of the film is funny and pretty lighthearted with a few tense and sobering undertones, but then it just takes this horrid change into really serious. Like, fairly abruptly. I wasn't to keen on that.
★★½ - I gave it the ½ because Amy Adams delivers an amazing monologue. Very passionate and well acted. I wouldn't watch this again, but I think that may just be my own personal preference. I think if this interests you at all, watch it. I recommend not paying for it, but it's sort of worth a one time view.
After watching that, I needed to cleanse my pallet. So I figured I would get something that was funny, but also really depressing, because I'm into those kinds of films (if you haven't noticed).
Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris, 2006)
I feel like what Junebug tried to do, Little Miss Sunshine does thrice-fold. The funny parts are really funny, the awkward parts are cringeworthy, and the sad parts are really sad. This film was marketed as a comedy, but I saw it as more of an indie drama than anything; nothing like the previews made it out to be.
This is today's "Favorite Role of Favorite Actor." I would say this is tied with Dan in Real Life for my favorite of Steve Carell's (Dinner For Schmucks, Date Night, The 40 Year Old Virgin), but this takes precedent because I saw it before I saw that one. He is so great at doing serious roles, I don't know why he constantly chooses these "Rent Films"* like Dinner For Schmucks. After doing 6 seasons of "The Office" and tons of other high grossing films, why doesn't he do more serious roles?
*Rent Film: films with poor scripts that will make a lot of money, so that you have enough money for rent until you can finish your next good film.
This is also the film that introduced me to Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood, L.I.E., Fast Food Nation). Another favorite actor, but this wasn't my favorite role of his.
So, the plot of this one: A family determined to get their young daughter into the finals of a beauty pageant take a cross-country trip in their VW bus. Short and simple.
There is just so much about this film to love. The characters were all really well thought out, it has this really happy and cheerful outer shell with an incredibly depressing inner layer. I know I have used that analogy somewhere... <_< >_> but this fits it too. And I love films like that. These characters are comprised of such good actors, the interactions are flawless to how they should be.
★★★★★ - Yup. Another 5 star. Absolutely incredible. It was exactly what I was looking for when I finished watching Junebug. Plus, the band Devotchka did the music for it, which is awesome. If you aren't familiar with them, check this out:
Amazing.
Roll credits.
1) They always show the best movies.
I don't think AMC would ever show Lars Von Trier's shock horror film, Antichrist but the local independent theater sure as hell did.
2) Tickets are usually cheaper
These small theaters don't usually seem as profit driven as the larger chains are. I see movies for $5 at Gateway Film Center. AMC is $10. I can see two awesome films at Gateway for the price of 1 mediocre film at AMC.
3) Beat up film reels.
As previously stated, I love the look of a beat up 35mm. AMC has a lot of "Digital Presentations" now and that just doesn't fly with me. Another thing people should note about me is that I hate the fact that we as a film society are drifting towards 3D everything. The gimmick was cool when I went to the MGM Themepark to see the Terminator ride. Or seeing that Muppet video thing there. It was ages ago, I don't really remember except it was cool and in 3D. When I saw Avatar, I was like "Wow, this is cool!" For the first 10 minutes, then thought to myself, "Wow, I'm really over this... So the storyline doesn't get creative? It's ALL about the visuals? Damn. :("
The day that 35mm stops being shown OR the day that everything is in 3D will be the day I stop going to theaters to see movies.
Now that that's over, onto
My Movie Collection:
As of right now, I'm in between leases so I'm living at my parents' house. All of my films and books are in the basement in giant stacks. The picture to the left doesn't even do my collection justice. There are still 3 piles behind me. But you can imagine how frustrating it is to think, "I want to watch [insert film title]!" then have to sift through all of it. During the move, they ALL fell out of order (I usually keep them alphabetized on this big black bookshelf). I just wanted to share that with you all.
The Girl Who Played With Fire (Daniel Alfredson, 2009)
This is the second film in "The Millennium Trilogy" (These are film adaptations of the books by the same titles). The first being The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and the third being The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
IMDB captured the brief synopsis of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo quite nicely, so I'll just post that: A journalist is aided in his search for a woman who has been missing -- or dead -- for forty years by a young female hacker.
So, that said, this is what The Girl Who Played With Fire is about: As computer hacker Lisbeth and journalist Mikael investigate a sex-trafficking ring, Lisbeth is accused of three murders, causing her to go on the run while Mikael works to clear her name.
I love mysteries (Film Noir w00t!) but I feel like I don't watch them enough; this trilogy has quenched that thirst. As the film unfolds, I found myself completely captivated and unsure of what was coming next. A lot of the film isn't necessarily edge-of-your-seat in the same sense as Rear Window, but my eyes were glued to the screen. Noomi Rapace (who has been in nothing I am familiar with) plays this cynical cyber-goth, Lisbeth Salander, perfectly. Although she is almost an antiheroine, it is so easy to connect with her and empathize with her plight, especially in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
A lot of the time with trilogies, the director makes an attempt to capture the essence of the first film and fails miserably. I must say, both of these films are equally as remarkable. I'm very excited to see The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest.
Before I forget, I should mention that these films are Swedish. That means nothing to me, but some people may be like, "WHY DIDN'T HE WARN ME I WOULD HAVE TO READ!?!?!? I HATE READING!!!!!! >:C" I bet if you are one of those people, you get to the end of my post and just punch a hole in your wall, don't you? "DAMN WORDS!!!!!!"
★★★★★ - Again, I feel really bad having given so many movies on this blog 5 stars, but this really deserves it. Incredible acting, very well written, captivating, and just all around exciting. Don't watch this without seeing the first one, though. It may be quite confusing. But, don't miss either of these if they are showing in your town. I think they may be streaming on Netflix too (the first one was, as of August 8th. I don't know if it still is or not).
Also should note: There is some fairly graphic violence and a lot of nudity in these films. Probably should warn you before you sit down with Grampappy to watch what you think is innocent fun.
This next film, I don't even really want to write about, but I watched it, so I will:
Junebug (Phil Morrison, 2005)
I blind-bought this movie because, well, just look at that cover. Indie beyond all reason! Just kidding. Ben McKenzie ("The O.C.", "Southland", 88 Minutes) was in it with Amy Adams (Enchanted, Doubt, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby). Both of them in an Indie comedy? Should be good. Only after starting it did I realize that Embeth Davidtz (Matilda, Army of Darkness, Schindler's List) was in it! She is the second most adorable actress ever! My number one will go to Audrey Tautou (Amélie, Priceless, The Libertine). I saw Matilda not too long ago for the first time in years and I was completely lovestruck with her as Ms. Honey. She is just so loving and empathetic towards Matilda, it's hard not to love her. I just wanted to picnic with her and watch clouds pass and hug her until I lost feeling in my arms. Back to Junebug.
Embeth Davidtz did an incredible job in this as the owner of this art gallery who is married to Ben McK-... You know what? WIKIPEDIA! SNAP SNAP: When newlywed Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz), an art dealer, travels from Chicago to North Carolina to pursue a local, self-taught painter (Frank Hoyt Taylor) for her outsider art gallery she takes the opportunity to meet her husband George's (Alessandro Nivola) family, who live close by.
The film seems promising, but Ben McKenzie wasn't half as prominent as I wanted. And from the cover of the DVD, he looks all nice and sympathetic. Not the case at all! He's a dick in this. But he has a mustache so that counts for something, right? And Amy Adams' character was just too eccentric for me. I mean, I know it was written like that, but it was just too much for me. I did like how she interacted with Davidtz though. They had some really good awkward chemistry going on.
I feel like if films are going to go for that sort of awkward feel, make it as awkward as possible. Go big or go home. Nothing in this was cringeworthy, but it was sort of "Heh, that's kind of uncomfortable." Also, the beginning of the film is funny and pretty lighthearted with a few tense and sobering undertones, but then it just takes this horrid change into really serious. Like, fairly abruptly. I wasn't to keen on that.
★★½ - I gave it the ½ because Amy Adams delivers an amazing monologue. Very passionate and well acted. I wouldn't watch this again, but I think that may just be my own personal preference. I think if this interests you at all, watch it. I recommend not paying for it, but it's sort of worth a one time view.
After watching that, I needed to cleanse my pallet. So I figured I would get something that was funny, but also really depressing, because I'm into those kinds of films (if you haven't noticed).
Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris, 2006)
I feel like what Junebug tried to do, Little Miss Sunshine does thrice-fold. The funny parts are really funny, the awkward parts are cringeworthy, and the sad parts are really sad. This film was marketed as a comedy, but I saw it as more of an indie drama than anything; nothing like the previews made it out to be.
This is today's "Favorite Role of Favorite Actor." I would say this is tied with Dan in Real Life for my favorite of Steve Carell's (Dinner For Schmucks, Date Night, The 40 Year Old Virgin), but this takes precedent because I saw it before I saw that one. He is so great at doing serious roles, I don't know why he constantly chooses these "Rent Films"* like Dinner For Schmucks. After doing 6 seasons of "The Office" and tons of other high grossing films, why doesn't he do more serious roles?
*Rent Film: films with poor scripts that will make a lot of money, so that you have enough money for rent until you can finish your next good film.
This is also the film that introduced me to Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood, L.I.E., Fast Food Nation). Another favorite actor, but this wasn't my favorite role of his.
So, the plot of this one: A family determined to get their young daughter into the finals of a beauty pageant take a cross-country trip in their VW bus. Short and simple.
There is just so much about this film to love. The characters were all really well thought out, it has this really happy and cheerful outer shell with an incredibly depressing inner layer. I know I have used that analogy somewhere... <_< >_> but this fits it too. And I love films like that. These characters are comprised of such good actors, the interactions are flawless to how they should be.
★★★★★ - Yup. Another 5 star. Absolutely incredible. It was exactly what I was looking for when I finished watching Junebug. Plus, the band Devotchka did the music for it, which is awesome. If you aren't familiar with them, check this out:
Amazing.
Roll credits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)