Viddy's Views

  • Thread starter Thread starter iluv2viddyfilms
  • Start date Start date
Milk (2008, Gus Van Sant)



For the second time in several years we get a homosexuality themed film that features A-list males making out on screen. I reckon that's a good thing. Gus Van Sant tackles this project/biopic based on San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk who was assassinated in 1978. This is not the first time his story's been covered cinematically. In 1984 The Life of Harvey Milk was a documentary that came out and while superior to the non-doc version that Van Sant just release I still wouldn't say that's an insult to Sant.
Homosexuallity seems to be topic Van Sant is versed in, as he too is gay and has made my favorite gay-themed film in My Own Private Idaho. Milk is more mainstream and straight-forward than that film. It is good that we have become open minded enough that a film like this can do well critically and commercially.
Now about Sean Penn. Great actor and great performance. No real surprise there. Should he win the Academy Award for best actor? Maybe, though I'd rather see it go to Rourke, a less acceptable and recognized choice. I thought Penn got it right. The look of Harvey Milk and even the way he talks isn't far off. His behavior and mannerisms are good. It's easy to see Penn did his homework in no doubt watching clips of Milk himself.
The pacing of the movie was as good as a biopic can be. I always think it's difficult to cover a lot of ground in two hours and the last eight years of Harvey Milk's life is no exception. They say no bad movie is short enough and no good movie is to long, that's the case here as Milk is a good movie. I would have rather had a three hour long film that took more time to pace itself out, but Van Sant has never really made long pictures.
I think the political angle of the film works well. I understand how the striking down of Proposition 6 was the major contribution of his short public career, but it would have been nice to see Milk presented as a politician who happened to be gay rather than a gay politician. All too often homosexuality is seen as the prominent force in shaping the identity of gays. I'm mostly heterosexual, but it doesn't matter because gay or straight sexuality is the least interesting thing about a person. The more we define ourselves by sex, gay or straight, the more we are bound by silly limitations. I have been around the gay culture and it's a very insecure and youth oriented culture by its own design. Once we get beyond sexuality being a culture we can truely get down to defeating discrimination. Milk seem to treat its characters as though they were their sexuality instead of simply having a preference.
I do think the relationship between James Franco and Penn was excellent. I would have much rather seen him get the supporting actor nod than film-mate Brolin. I would argue that more of the film's success depends on him than Brolin, but who knows. The film is an actor's tour-de-force.
One thing that did bog the film down was Diego Luna's character because it seemed under-written or focused on. It simply was tacked on and bogged the film down. I did not connect with that relationship the way I did with the others. I almost forgot to give props to Emile Hirsch who was excellent as Cleve Jones and Van Sant's recreation of a 1970's San Francisco.

Grade: B
 
Half Nelson (2006, Ryan Fleck)



This is the best movie about a teacher or a classroom that I've ever seen. With so much worthless dreck out there like Dangerous Minds, this film rings home as honest and true. As an English teacher I could relate in part to the main character, Dan Dunne - played with marvelous somberness by Ryan Gosling. Dunne is a teacher who lives alone in his apartment with his cat and has a shady past and a shady habbit. He smokes crack and an unlikely friendship developes between him and a junior high student (Shareeka Epps) when she catches him. This film is not cliche. It's brutal and honest and never spells out the live's of the characters too much. Anthony Mackie is strong in a non stereotypical part which could have played to type as the drug dealer. We need more movies like this and less idealogical garbage like Dangerous Minds. Teachers can also have issues the same as students can and this film shows the other side of the classroom.

Grade: A-
 
Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Nicholas Meyer)



The second Star Trek film seems to be a response against the negative reception of the first film. I enjoy the first film slightly more with it's connection to historical space exploration, the Voyager probe. The enemy was too abstract, the dialogue was too dense, and the ideas were a bit too much for mainstream audiences. After having watched the entirety of the first season of "Star Trek" this summer, it is clear to see the first movie is much more in tone with the series.
The Wrath of Khan takes place 15 years after "Space Seed" where Khan is released after 200 years from his cryogenic freezing chamber. After he attempts to take over the Enterprise, Kirk maroons him on a planet. Enter 15 years later where the film takes over. In the film Khan manages to take hostage the USS Reliant and plans on getting revenge on Kirk. There is also a scientific pursuit called "Project Genesis" which can terraform barren planets in a matter of minutes. Khan plans to use this as a weapon. It's also one of those side plots that gets brushed over too quickly.
I think the film is a good, but not my favorite of the Trek films, that title goes to The Undiscovered Country. I do like the idea of an easily understandable and traditional villain, but I thought the film could have gone much further with the Chess game between the two. Quite simply this movie feels slightly rushed and sparse. It's a hint of great things, but the film could have been spectacular if more of the subtext had been explored. I'm guessing this is a reaction to the long running time of the first film. As a side note, and it's already been mentioned, but Ricardo Montalban is amazing as Khan and was in great physical shape. It's a shame they didn't do more with this excellent character.

Grade: B
 
I'm saying that whites are the main spectators that fill the pockets of black entertainers by going to the sports games and buying the $10 movie tickets. Exceptions in everything of course. I'm trying to look at the larger trends. And yes I agree there are more white entertainers than blacks, but that wasn't at all the point I was talking about.

Also why do you not see a lot of blacks in sports like Tennis, Golf, Hockey, and those sorts of things? The reason is because of demographics. Those are sports which require land/space/membership fees/lots of equipment to play. Basically upper middle class playground sports.





You need to watch the film. The character/role of Oher has very little to do in the film. He exists soley to support Bolluck's character and reaffirm her "savior" role. It's really shameful. Watch the film and notice the almost zero dialogue that Oher has. It reminds me of one of those performances where the character comes from outer space and has to be taught the ways of Earth through a host family character. There's really little difference. And it's not inspirational at all. Oher does nothing to control his own destiny, which is the problem, because there are forces that act upon him, and he simply receives them. Essentially the character in the film is a puppet.




I'm not offended that Oher is good at football. I'm offended that the story is told in film. Period. I'm offended that this white woman is portrayed as a hero. I'm offended that poor people "need" rich people to raise them up in life. I'm offended that we live in a society where there are people who have nothing while others have more than they could ever wish for.




That's the way the film comes across. And white people can help blacks without it being "white guilt" of course. This film doesn't come across to me as an example of that.

Watch the film. I'm curious to hear what you think about it, after you see it.
 
Welcome to Macintosh (2008, Robert Baca and Josh Rizzo)



I've owned IBM products for as long as I can remember, but in the fall of 2007 I finally broke down and purchased one of those iPod thingies. I was in love at first sync. Two years later I now own a PowerMac laptop and though it's not going to do any impressive gaming (that's why I have an Xbox 360) it's very portable, sleek, runs well, and efficient. I get the appeal of Apple products and I guess I'm a sucker just like anyone.
What I don't necessarily enjoy is a 90-minute infomercial going through the history of the company. That is what this film/documentary boils down to. Welcome to Macintosh is a company piece of film making that serves to glorify it's subject, rather than look at it objectively as I had hoped. There are interviews with the likes of Mac VIPs, including; Jim Reekes, Richard Halsey, Wayne Bibbens and others. This is fine, but there is no thesis to this documentary. What is the point? To tell the viewer how loyal Mac fans are? I guess this works when the audience is taken through a man's house who has owned thousands of Mac products over the year. Certainly Mac users do tend to stick with Macs and don't cross the border into IBM. Ultimately this documentary is boring and serves little purpose other than to chronicle the history of various Mac products and interview people who have worked for and/or are loyal to the company. I guess I was hoping for something more indepth that adressed the issue of the Mac cult.

Grade: D+
 
Doubt (2008, John Patrick Shanley)



Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the priest who may or may not have molested a child in a private Catholic school. Meryl Streep plays the bitter sister and principal of the school who goes after him. This could be an interesting morality play because ironically the priest who may be guilty likely cares more about the child than the sister who protects him. That neither of the two main leads break into cliche' is refreshing. Hoffman's character, the audience suspects is likely guilty, but as played by the actor we tend to doubt his guilt. Afterall, aren't all child molesters evil gross men who twirl mustaches and bait children with candy? The most likeable, sympathetic, and caring people can also hold the darkest secrets, and it is a credit to the film and the performance that the role of the priest does not become caricature.
With the exception of Amy Adams, who plays the young teacher, all the other roles are minor. The mother, and child are after thoughts. Doubt is appropriately titled as different people will draw different conclusions. In the end I reckon it really doesn't matter, whether he is guilty or not, as he is the same caring person. We all have our sins, and we must all pay for them. We know the lead character has them, we're just not sure what they are. That's part of the mystery.

Grade: B
 
Well, in that case I don't think I know what you were talking about. You said that white people "view black people as entertainers." The only way I know how to interpret this statement is to mean that white people generalize about blacks and their value to society, and/or discount their ability to do something else of value. But if the evidence of this is that "whites are the main spectators," then the fact that there are more white entertains than black ones is a relevant counterpoint. As is the fact that white spectators are probably more common than any other race the moment.

Perhaps it wasn't meant to really mean anything, but to me, saying that white people "view black people as entertainers" is basically an accusation of racism, albeit of the more muted variety. Please let me know if you were trying to convey something else.


I'm sure this plays a role. There's clearly more going on, though. Basketball still requires a court, which isn't always easy to come by and isn't something you can just build or improvise. Football and baseball are far simpler.

And of course, the simplest and most accessible of all sports -- soccer -- was absolutely dominated by white kids when I played it as a child.


Why can't a character be talented and timid? Why can't a black character need help? If Oher was really like this (and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to be disputing the film's general accuracy), then aren't you trying to critique reality in ways we normally critique fiction? Complaints about Oher's passive attitude only strike me as valid if they're not accurate. Otherwise, it's just biographical.


Well, there it is. You're offended at the mere fact that these things happened and a film was made about it. I have no idea how to respond to such a criticism, because it's not really a film-related criticism at all.

There's a great movie called The Counterfeiters that depicts Jews during the Holocaust forced to make horrendous moral choices that balance their own survival against their desire to assist the Allied effort through their resistance. I'm certainly offended that the things it depicts happened, but that's not the same thing as being offended by the film itself, and it's not something I can (or would) fault the film itself for.


Even if she may have acted heroically? Shouldn't it only be a problem if it inflates her importance or heroism beyond what it was in reality?


Whatever disagreements I have aside for the moment, this is a social critique, not a cinematic one.


Sure, I absolutely will. But keep in mind that almost everything I'm saying is already presupposing that your description of it is accurate. I'm mostly disagreeing with you conceptually, and not factually.

For the record, I don't expect to love it all that much. But I suppose we'll see.
 
Give it a watch, let me know what you think Yoda.

Anyways...


The Blues Brothers (1980, John Landis)



By no means am I a huge John Landis fan, but The Blues Brothers is a funny and feel good movie to be sure. It was released before my birth, so I hold none of the nostalgia or sentimental feeling that has garnered this film somewhat of a cult classic status. The opening shots of the film are amazing, an early morning aerial over what I presume are the steel mills of Gary Indiana, or somewhere near the banks of the southern portion of Lake Michigan. There's very little dialogue in the opening minutes as it sets up a mood. How odd for a film that is a musical.
Like most musicals the story takes second seat to the pace of the dialogue followed by music and then repeat. One of my major complaints of this film is that the premise is setup to have the Blues Brothers save the convent, but little else is mentioned of it through the film and certainly they never travel back to where they begin. The Blues Brothers does feel to be more than a series of SNL skits, but at the same time, the movie never feels complete. The best moments are the opening sequence, the car chase through the mall, and of course the chase under the elevated train toward the end. Dan Akroyd and James Belushi are both fine in their stoic black-suit and sunglasses clad roles, but the film does not resonate with me the way it does with so many others.

Grade C
 
Hancock (2008, Peter Berg)



In order to care about a character based film, the audience must care about the character. In order to care about a character the audience must relate to them in some way. In the case of Hancock, the title character is an alcoholic superhero with little regard for property or politeness, but he has a kind heart. What does this say about audiences when we need our super heroes to be jackasses downing the liquor? It's ironic that the super hero is the person who needs saving the most. I get and even appreciate the push toward gritty realism with these movies ala The Incredibles, but it doesn't work in this film. If the writers of the film really wanted to have a despicable superhero they should have written him as a pedophile. Like anyone watching the film really gives a **** if he destroys a building in the process of saving an innocent life.
Will Smith plays Will Smith, again, which means the viewer can expect the typical tough remarks, grimaces, gnarling, and smirks at the camera. It's difficult to take the material of Hancock seriously, but even more so when you have Will Smith in the lead. But Will Smith is one of the only black A-list actors you can have play a character without it being specifically written as a black character.
Hancock is a film which annoyed me. Hancock is a film which runs out of steam 30 minutes in and requires a silly genre turn into a prison movie and then runs out of steam again and requires a plot twist revolving around Charlize Theron's character. This is a nothing film with a nothing plot.
Ultimately this film is a bore that insults my intelligence and masqurades as something it really is not: a fresh take on an old genre. Hancock is nothing new, it's just plain insulting. But hey at least Will Smith's character is cool enough to recognize that super hero outfits are homo looking. I'm guessing the only reason Will Smith didn't call them faggots is to keep the PG-13 rating. That's right, kids under 13 should not be saying ******.

Grade: D-
 
The Hurt Locker (2009, Kathryn Bigelow)



The EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) units must be one of the more tense jobs in the United States military. Their job is to uncover, disarm, and then safely detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This film is quite remarkable in the documentary style it's presented through. The screenwriter of The Hurt Locker is Mark Boal, who spent time in Iraq as a journalist with several bomb crews. That first hand experience from the writing perspective tends to shift the film toward a more realistic and somber fair and away from an action and bells and whistles type of war-film. The film was extremely refreshing and tense and will certainly rank up there in my mind with the great war films; Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now, and so forth. Now we finally have a great film about the struggle in Iraq.
There is no huge story to be found here. The Hurt Locker follows the last 30-some days of Bravo company after their team leader (Guy Pearce) is killed in the amazing opening 10 minutes of the film. The replacement team leader is Sgt. James played to perfection in one of the great performances of film by Jeremy Renner, a relatively unknown actor. Certainly the fact that director Bigelow filmed the movie in Jordan and in horrible conditions right next door to Iraq, helped Renner and the other actors achieve that sense of tension and somberness in their parts. There's no glory to be had, or any message in The Hurt Locker, just a small group of men doing their job to save lives. Renner has some excellent moments, and as they say embodies the part. He smokes, jokes, and doesn't follow the rules because the rules are in part meant to protect him, whether it's wearing a cumbersome "protective" suit or setting a time limit to the detonation. He ignores the rules when the rules don't help him get his job done. There's no bravo or machismo hint in his performance whatsoever. This is one of those films that you watch and you believe the actors are their character. Anthony Mackie plays his second, in charge of having his back and covering him while in the open. Brian Geraghty plays the third member of the small crew, as a jaded and death-phobic shooter. None of these "stock" war-film parts drift into parody or cliche'.
The cinematography is excellent, The Hurt Locker is simply a beautiful film to watch, and the amazing action sequences kept me at edge for the films two plus hour length. Certainly one of the best films of 2009, and it breathes new life into a stale genre of film. There's no sentimental musical score telling us to feel nervous. We simply watch and that's enough. The editing is pitch-perfect, we know exactly what is going on and when and this isn't sacrificed in the name of fancy and frantic Michael Bay-esque camera work. This is simply an amazing film and amazing story-telling with little undermining manipulation to the viewer.

Grade: A
 
Save Me (Robert Cary, 2007)



The title of the film refers to an unsaid emotional plea shouted by several possible characters in the film. The plot centers around a young man, Mark (Chad Allen) who is homosexual and after overdosing on drugs is sent to a Christian "gay rehab," but instead of making the residents watch John Wayne movies, they instead help them find the Lord. The story captured my interest, as I thought it would be good for a few laughs, and any attempt at the material would faily miserably. I thought an dramatized presentation of a "straighten you out camp" would be a joke.
Fortunately, the film is mature with the issues and most of all does not stereotype either the gays of the Christian right. No character in the film lisps, prances, or shops at Abercrombie & Fitch, nor do they burn crosses or any such thing. The film has a realistic approach when it comes to the characters, and even though it is a drama, it has a touch of documentary vibe with the underplayed acting. There's no bombastic musical score to tell the viewer what to feel which is a plus, however there are a couple of lame songs scattered throughout.
Stephen Lang is great as the patriarch of the camp, who approaches things through God's word without bastardizing. Judith Light plays the matriarch who tries to correct the gay men, because of a mistake she made with her son. Save Me is a different kind of a movie, and feels a bit made-for-TV, but despite the lack luster presentation and "made for the family" quality, it is worthwhile for a viewing.

Grade: B-
 
Matt Damon's the first name that popped into my head when I saw that pic, too GP.
 
Well, I agree it's a good date movie, but maybe we have different definitions. My gf and I went to see this several months ago and while we thought it was pretty and had some good scenes, wasn't interesting or particularly touching enough to keep us from spending most of the film making out.

While I think I know what you mean about the "pretentious sexiness" of certain vampire films, I would ask you to focus your bile on the "pretentious" (or perhaps portentous - which certainly applies as much to films like Nosferatu) and spare the sexiness from the stake. My favorite vampire films are Roman Polanski's and Guy Maddin's, two movies that I don't think anyone can deny are very sexy.
 
Zombieland (2009, Ruben Fleischer)



Zombieland is a movie where individual scenes standout, but as a whole I really wasn't impressed with the film. There really is no explanation as to why the zombies have taken over the world, but that's never necessary in these types of films. Zombieland goes for comedy and certainly succeeds, but it isn't enough to sustain an already short 88 minute film. The premise is that in zombieland people can survive by following basic rules such as always double-tap your victims and check the back seats of cars before getting in. These will ensure survival, as it has with the film's two main protagonists Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) and Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). The two of them have sufficient chemistry together as Columbus survives by luck and following the rules as fleeing rabbit contrasting with Tallahassee's shotgun wielding badassness. It works. Harrelson has proven time and time again to be an excellent comedic actor with great timing and an amazing sense of snarling dry wit about him. Tallahassee may as well be Mickey Knox's distant and more subdued cousin. Anyway, the best thing about the film is when the two men, along with a couple of con artist females they tag up with, hide in Bill Murray's house for awhile. Bill Murray's cameo role is as good as any I've seen, including an excellent death scene.
I enjoyed the film but was not captivated by it. There's really no story. The action scenes are a bit boring, the zombies are uninteresting and card board cutout, and aside from the excellent acting I can say I was more involved with the drama within the "Left 4 Dead" videogames. Anywho zombie film lovers certainly shouldn't miss out on this though.

Grade: C+
 
Back
Top