Viddy's Views

  • Thread starter Thread starter iluv2viddyfilms
  • Start date Start date
I

iluv2viddyfilms

Guest
Since I plan on writing quite a few reviews at the site, I'm going to start my own thread as I see others have done.

I first wanted to comment on The Wrestler, which I enjoyed very much.


-----

The Wrestler (2008, Darren Aronofsky)



Apparently The Wrestler is Mickey Rourke
 
Death Proof (2007, Quentin Tarantino)



I must say I was surprised by the ending and somewhat irked by it. Kurt Russell is given a role in this film as the bad guy who uses his stunt/muscle car to setup vehicular homicide crashes with his victims typically being young up-and-coming girls in show business. The story is divided into two sections, but of which deal with different "victims"/targets of Stuntman Mike (Russell). I enjoyed the premise, basically an amped up slasher flick with a few quirks thrown in. I enjoyed the slow pace of the film and the work of the esemble cast. A showcase for some young actresses.
As usual Tarantino lets his vices/fetish's get in the way and it does pull me out of the story at times. For instance when Zoe Bell is having a discussion in a cafe about Vanishing Point, it takes me out of the action because I know these are not the characters speaking, but rather Tarantino himself. A few other distractions are thrown in... the cheerleading outfit (for what purpose?), Quentin's foot fetish (in all his movies annoyingly), failed attempts at recreating previous genres/styles of films he watched in his youth. The best example of that in Death Proof would be the imposed digital scratches to make the film look old. Some will like, others such as myself will see it as gimicky. Death Proof is the lesser of the two films in Tarantino's/Rodriguez's Grindhouse, with Planet Terror being a superior film.

Grade: B-
 
One Eight Seven (Kevin Reynolds, 1997)



The titles refers to the police code for the crime of homicide. The films centers around a teacher, Trevor Garfield, (Sam Jackson), who is stabbed by one of his students in New York City after a warning written into a textbook. Of course being a teacher, the administration ignores all warnings. Garfield moves to the other coast where he becomes a substitute teacher and where the main story begins.
I have no problem with films about teachers. I must say the whole "teach vs. gangbanger student" thing is becoming very worn. The idea especially runs thin because so much of the plot is contrived and seems caterred to an audience composed of women who open enroll their kids out of the city and into the suburb schools. Things such as drugs, teen pregnancy, and violence don't go on in suburb schools. I'm ranting now, but I'll digress. Even so the story of One Eight Seven is preposterous. Think of Death Wish meets Dangerous Minds and you might be on to something. Clifton Collins Jr. plays the antagonist to Sam Jackson and does a fine job, as well as he could do for the material. Nevermind the fact that at 26 years old he really doesn't give the vibe of an 18 year old.
The direction the film takes roughly an hour in, once the viewer's expectations for our wonderful hero, Garfield are obscured, is a complete wash. The finalle is equally as ridiculous. The film shows promise with some nice close in, clausterphobic shots, introducing the character of Garfield. There's a nice introduction showing Sam Jackson pedal his bike furiously across the Brooklyn bridge. Why doesn't he live in Brooklyn where he teaches? Who knows? Skip this garbage and go watch The Principal if you want some silly entertainment. If you want something more serious watch the brilliant, Half Nelson. Otherwise pop in Death Wish.

Grade: D
 
THX 1138 (1971, George Lucas)



I can't imagine what people would have felt when they first watched this directorial debute by George Lucas in 1971. The set designs and cold sterile environments are right up there with the likes of 2001. Both films features a future vision in which humanity is dissolved into its dependance on computers. In THX 1138, society is chemically subdued via medicine, to repress all emotions and sexuality. Neither human element is productive and Lucas' vision of the futures revolves around human productivity. In this case, a labyrinthine underground city where nuclear tests are done, policemen are metal shells manufactured to act and move like humans, and vehicles travel hundred MPH on a circuit of highways.
Robert Duvall stars as the title character, who begins to question the establishment. He rebels, and stops taking his emotion repressant medicine, along with his "mate" LUX. They make love, which is a no-no within this society and ultimately know that, "It can't go on." In standard utopian sci-fi fare, it's this dissatisfaction with the status quo that creates the drama. George Lucas is clearly inspired by Brave New World, 1984, and the likes. The story, while inspired, is nothing new, but ultimately the theme and message is what's important in films like these.
Lucas demonstrates a craft for directing here. Considering the film is a first of his and had a minor budget, some of the special effects are quite remarkable. Science fiction films like this are all about mood, presence, and aura. The world created in THX 1138 is viable. Amazing sound effects haunt the viewer along with a spectacular low key score by Lalo Schiferin. The film has a very Kubrick-like vibe to it, the way certain frames could be froze and studied as textbook photography. The last scene of the film, while liberating on first inspection, holds dire implications and is very sad. Society's do not topple easily and in many circumstances one man cannot and will not make a difference. This is key when the hunt is given up as it over exceeds its budget.
It's too bad George Lucas went on to make the mediocre nostalgia piece, American Graffetti, and never backed away after touching mainstream success with Star Wars. THX 1138 is his best film, and it would be cool to see him return to this type of fair after dealing with mass spectacle his entire career. Oh well.

Grade: A-
 
Erm... What now? Just to clear it up for me, is that a complaint?





Is that not the purpose?
 
Swing Vote (2008, Joshua Michael Stern)



Calling the movie Swing Vote Capraesque is too damn easy. I call it garbage. Capra's films had a few good moments. Kevin Costner is God-awful in this thing as the dead-beat white trash low-life father to his all too intelligent daughter. His daughter convinces Costner's character, Bud Johnson to go out and vote. He doesn't vote, but rather gets drunk instead and his daughter sneaks in to vote for him. The trouble is, the plug gets pulled before his vote can be cast, and as the election is a dead heat, Bud Johnson is the tie-breaking vote. That's the setup for the film, ridiculous as it is. I can't figure out if the film is meant to be some lame feel good thing about how your vote counts or a brilliant and subtle slam against the electoral college. Eh.
This film is beyond manipulative and it caters to the lowest denominator in our country, people who believe in this patriotic trite and are easily persauded that one villain politician is better than another. People like... say Bud Johnson. Now there's an American name!
I could write pages and rant on for hours about how horrible this movie is, but I'll just mention a few complaints. The shameless promotion of Bass Pro Shop brand with Bud's baseball cap. How American! The pathetic real-life cameo's attempting to place the film into the real contemporary world: cameos such as Richard Petty (looking more like Skeletor), Bill Mahr, Willie Nelson, Chris Mathews, Larry King, and so forth. Does this ******** really make audiences think more highly of these types of films? Does Larry King getting a paycheck for a minute's work make this film more credible as a quality product?
If the "your vote counts" and the stupid cameos weren't enough to make me hate this film then what I really abhor is the light hearted humor that's made out of a worthless father. I really dislike how the film makes a joke out of Costner losing his job, but that's OK because like a real slacker American, he'd rather drink a beer and go fishing, YEES SAARR! Yeehaw, I'm sure the beer guts in the audience can relate to that. I hated how the daugther seemed responsible in light of this worthless father, because these things rarely happen. I teach school with many parents that are as worthless as the Bud Johnson character and the apple does not fall far from the tree. I dislike how irresponsibility and people who should have jerked off instead of having kids, are made into light Frank Capra-corn humor.
This film is beyond reproach. It's remarkable that the idea didn't get laughed out of existance. It's suprising that anyone would even want to attach themselves to this project. Swing Vote now ranks up there with The Terminal as one of the most insulting films I've ever seen.

Grade: F
 
The Professionals (1966, Richard Brooks)



Somewhat of a minor classic of the western genre, the first half of the film shines, but once our four protagonists; Lee Marvin, Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, and Woody Strode, reach their goal, the film goes down hill. The plot is very simple with the four men for hire going on a mission to rescue a millionaire's "kidnapped" wife (Claudia Cardinale) from a Mexican revolutionary (Jack Palance). I don't usually mind these star ensembles, but this one felt like a bit of a wash with several of the actors having nothing to do. Woody Strode, a western regular during the 60's, has nothing to do once Cardinale is rescue. Aside from a few grimances at the camera and shots of him running around he does nothing, not even getting as much as a full line of dialogue in. Robert Ryan is also wasted as he takes second seat to Marvin and Lancaster who play themselves. Of course Marvin and Lancaster are more screen personalities and presences than full fledged thespians, and God bless them for that, but they need good stories. This ensemble is promising with a nice setup, but it quickly falls to pieces.
Cardinale's character could have been interesting, but she lines seem poorly written. The only good scene she has is when attempting to seduce Lancaster in an effort to sneak his gun away ala Joanne Dru in Red River. Even this is a western archetype. Cardinale is much more interesting and dynamic in Once Upon a Time in the West which came out several years later. Also I noticed a similarity between the themes in this film and The Wild Bunch, with of course the later being a brilliant piece of filmmaking and storytelling. Both films have a nice ensemble of men going on a mission to Mexico toward the end of the western time period who are outgrowing their usefulness becoming anachronisms of their time. Where The Wild Bunch succeeds in being deep and meaningful, not to mention bloody violent, this film comes off as a half-hearted buddy film between Marvin and Lancaster with Marvin playing the straight-man and Lancaster filling in for the goof, even if he is a deadly goof. The film's conclusion feels tacked on and I get a vibe from it that there must've been a last minute rewrite. Even Jack Palance as the sympathetic heavy has little to do except brandish a mustache and his best Mexican accent. Oh and the cliche' bit where Marvin dresses up as a Mexican doning a sombrero and poncho feels like it belongs in another film entirely.

Grade: C
 
Great review... thanks for sharing... I've been a bit iffy about this movie but may try to catch it soon...
 
Would you say you're "nostalgic" for "The Wonder Years" any more than for Forrest Gump? Your use of the word "nostalgic" often confuses me. For example, you mention that you're not "nostalgic" for American Graffiti and if I recall correctly, you implied that I may be, which is very weird to me because I was six years old and 10 years away from having a driver's license in 1962.
 
Do you ever watch movies for what's in them or do you only fill in your own pre-conceived notions to what "appears" on the screen? I realize you review them after the fact, but your agenda is so rigid, it's hard for me to believe that you can enjoy watching any film. Yeah, even Monty Clift flicks.
 
What's your question?


The movie and the TV shows dealt with similar time periods. People often like things they associate good memories with. I imagine some people like Forrest Gump because it's about a time period they were alive in. I like "The Wonder Years" as a great quality show, but I also have nostalgia for it, not because I was alive during the setting, rather because it reminds me of watching it when I was a kid.

And American Graffiti came out in the 70's I believe.

Anyway mark. Please stop fishing and grow up. It really gets old after awhile dude.
 
My thoughts explain themselves. I'm confused at the comment. I mentioned what was in the film and what didn't work for me. Why do you say agenda? I'm confused. I have an agenda?
 
Cat People (1982, Paul Schrader)



If anything this film made me appreciate the value of Nastassja Kinski's attractiveness a bit more. How could it not, as she runs around naked the last 30 minutes of the film. It also sparked an interest in finding the original film from the 1940s. Malcolm McDowell is fine in the film, but the role doesn't seem that great playing the jealous brother of Kinski. The premise is a bit silly, but that's OK as this film is somewhat of a horror, love story, and fantasy mix. Cat people are a line of half humans half leopards passed down from the beginning of man when women were thrown to the cats to be sacrificed, but instead were allowed to make love to them and produced offspring. Nice premise huh? I love cats, so it works I reckon. Think wereleopards.
Paul Schrader, who helms the movie, is more of a screenwriter than a director. His work is serviceable here, but is nothing compared to the amazing Blue Collar. This is one of those films that reminded me a bit of The Hunger. Both are interesting exercises in filmmaking and finding eroticism in the genre, but unfortunately both fall victim to the time period - the 1980's in that over baked method of stylizing. Some of the scenes in Cat People feel like they come straight out of a cheesy early music video. The David Bowie song is a bit of a synthesized bore, but without the classic camp value of knowing its camp along the lines of his Labyrinth material. Kinski does her best with the part and plays the role with a good balance of seriousness knowing the material isn't meant to be overly dramatic. Cat People is an interesting flick and well worth a watch, if for nothing else to see some nice red tones and excellent specimens of female human body parts as gorgeously displayed by Kinski.

Grade: C+
 
Presumed Innocent (1990, Alan J. Pakula)



As most courtroom dramas go there must be a surprise ending. We, the audience want answers to the questions posed. And as filmmakers know that the audience will be piecing together the evidence in similar regard as the characters playing the lawyers, this task may be difficult. "Who dun its," are always fun films. I enjoy courtroom dramas that aren't always preachy where there isn't a clear villain. Presumed Innocent, where Harrison Ford plays a prosecuting attorny being accused of murder, is very reminescent of the best film of this sub genre, Anatomy of a Murder. By the end of Presumed Innocent we discover if Harrison Ford's character is guilty of killing his fellow colleague and bedmate, played beautifully in flashback by Greta Scacchi. I was surprised that I didn't get the surprise I expected at the end, which is a compliment to the film.
Throughout the movie we are introduced to a labyrinth of evidence and relationships between legal workers, cops, judges, and everyone in-between. The fact that this film contains so much information for the viewer to take in, but can be held together, as to prevent the plot from becoming confusing is a credit to Alan J. Pakula as director and Frank Pierson as the adapting screen writer.
Here is a wonderful cast lead by Harrison Ford, Raul Julia, and Brian Dennehy. Bonnie Bedelia has one of the more difficult parts I'm sure, playing a woman who must stand by her man as she knows he was cheating on her. I've seen her face before, but I couldn't recognize it until my memory was jogged by IMDB as having played the wife of Bruce Willis in Die Hard. Nice to see her in another role.
Presumed Innocent takes a bit to get rolling, the first 20-minutes are fairly standard and boring, but once the affair between Harrison Ford and Greta Scacchi's characters is introduced, the tension keeps the viewer in its grip.

Grade: A-

Note: There does seem to be some descrepancy with the setting. Several skyline shots clearly indicate Detroit, however dialogue of North and South side indicate Chicago, as does one view out the window of an office where Navy Pier and The John Hancock Tower as clearly observed. Opps.
 
That's a pretty good review there, viddy, but ultimately anyone who believes that "American Graffetti" [double sic] is a "mediocre nostalgia piece" should "just get himself a wheelchair and roll himself home".
 
I'm glad you took the effort to point out the "double sic" as opposed to just making the corrections in your own reply. This clearly exposes your motives to reply.

I'm glad you thought that on the whole I was coherent with my thoughts on THX-1138. Oh and I believe it was the 88 minute director's cut that I viewed.

As far as American Graffiti goes, I didn't like it for similar reasons as to why I didn't like Dazed and Confused. Some people look fondly upon their high schools years, but I don't see them as all that grand. Maybe this is me lashing out at all the swirlies... maybe I received none and worked through my high school years or maybe I'm just nitpicking.

In any event I have no use for American Graffiti, and would much rather stick to something along the lines of The Virgin Suicides or Rebel Without a Cause. Films that don't glamorize the high school years while sadly looking ahead to the depature that is college.

SNIFF
 
Very proffesional review. I watched some of this movie with a friend. I didn't catch it all (given that I was kinda wasted) so I can't really give my opinion on it yet. One thing I can say though, is that when I was stumbling home I remember having a new respect for wrestling and I definetly didn't think it was fake anymore.
 
Starship Troopers (1997, Paul Verhoeven)



A year after this film was released, I found myself constantly battling the bugs with space marines in Blizzard's excellent RTS computer game, "StarCraft." Of course I'd heard of Starship Troopers and there were huge similarities, but I don't think I'd had watched it at that point.
I really enjoy this movie. As lame as it is, there manages to be a certain charm to the naive gung-ho totalitarianism presented when a young high school graduate shouts, "I want to be a citizen!" I've never read the source material the film is based upon, but I understand Paul Verhoeven's film is largely faithful to it. Roger Ebert wrote an interesting review and I agree with his sentiment that this is "the most violent kiddie movie I've seen." At it's heart this thing is very simple. Man battles bugs, or more specifically archanids. Verhoeven has his stamp plastered all over this flick. The sudden bursts of violence are here, but also the lame dialogue, use of commercials, and oddly placed satire that seems out of place with the vibe of the film, but strangely works. No this film is not anywhere near the biting cynicism that Robocop offered to its viewer. Nor does it feature as polished and original vision as that of Total Recall. It's certainly not as fun and doesn't hold the rewatchability of the Arnold film. Even so, I enjoy Starship Troopers for what it is. I enjoy watching an interesting cast chew through the lame lines given to them. Any movie with Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside in the cast has at least one redeeming factor. In this case the viewer gets both actors! My only real complaint is that I would have liked to have seen more of the Dina Meyer character, and I mean that in two meanings, for those who have seen this movie.
I imagine where Starship Troopers fails is in finding an audience. It's too violent for kids. Too lame for most teenagers who won't understand that it is meant to be lame. And adults might enjoy the simplistic novelty of it, but tune out after five minutes. Everything about this movie spells "B-picture," even the CGI effects, while seamless for the most part, are extremely repetitive. Make one bug and then copy a thousand times. This is no Aliens, but it lacks the pretentiousness of the previous year's alien blaster, Independence Day. And thank God there's no semi-serious speech involving uniting all the nations... yada... yada... yada.

Oh Hell fine...

I admit it...

I just like the shower scene.

Grade: C+
 
Back
Top