N
nebbit
Guest
Finally caught up on all your Reviews Thanks for them
Can't believe you gave The Dude a C I this movie
Can't believe you gave The Dude a C I this movie
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
I had to look up portentous.
I've never once made out during a movie.
I thought Let the Right One In was unique and avoided many cliche's. But it only used the word vampire once, as my count went, so how silly.
I'm a bit curious because you never said specifically what you didn't like about it. What bored you about it that you decided to use the time in the dark for other purposes besides watching the film?
I wouldn't call The Fearless Vampire Killers sexy, although it does have its moments - just not on the whole.
I've only seen bits of Maddin's ballet Dracula if that's what you're referring to, but it is in my queue on Netflix.
Speaking of Dracula, I very much enjoyed Coppola's version, but not completely because I thought it was style over substance and featured some poor casting decisions.
I've never once made out during a movie.
I thought Let the Right One In was unique and avoided many cliche's. But it only used the word vampire once, as my count went, so how silly.
I'm a bit curious because you never said specifically what you didn't like about it. What bored you about it that you decided to use the time in the dark for other purposes besides watching the film?
I wouldn't call The Fearless Vampire Killers sexy, although it does have its moments - just not on the whole.
I've only seen bits of Maddin's ballet Dracula if that's what you're referring to, but it is in my queue on Netflix.
Speaking of Dracula, I very much enjoyed Coppola's version, but not completely because I thought it was style over substance and featured some poor casting decisions.
H
honeykid
Guest
I read your review with interest viddy and, as I read, it sounded more and more like the film I thought it'd be when I first saw the trailers and buzz around its release. The problem is, now I'm thinking that I might have to take a look at it sometime. Not really sure why, but your review, of what I thought was, in all probability a poor film,
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The Life of David Gale (2003, Alan Parker)
The most bizarre thing about this film is that the life of David Gale is the most interesting thing, yet the movie is more worried about his death and a shocking twist at the end. For those of you that have seen other Alan Parker films his style is quite distinct with plenty of low droning saxophone notes over the movie's action. For those of you, like myself, who love a little film called Angel Heart, you'll be pleased at the style of The Life of David Gale. However where Angel Heart goes out with a bang and a huge twist, it seems like icing on a delicious cake. In The Life of David Gale the ending seems a bit wee manipulative and implausible.
Kevin Spacy is good as the title character. He plays an advocate against the death penalty and an expelled college professor, after he's falsely accused of rape. The darndest thing about the film is that it's the moments the film skims over such as his relationship with his family, his career and then lack of a career, and his relationship with his best friend played by Laura Linney that are the most interesting things.
When the film is not in flashback mode, and shows the present day of Gale on death row, while being interviewed by Kate Winslet, ala Silence of the Lambs, the film bores. Kate Winslet is bland in this film. Oh well. Not exactly a great part. How many times have we seen an ambitious young reporter get the great scope and then fall for the man/target of the interview. Sigh. Move along.
Grade: C
The most bizarre thing about this film is that the life of David Gale is the most interesting thing, yet the movie is more worried about his death and a shocking twist at the end. For those of you that have seen other Alan Parker films his style is quite distinct with plenty of low droning saxophone notes over the movie's action. For those of you, like myself, who love a little film called Angel Heart, you'll be pleased at the style of The Life of David Gale. However where Angel Heart goes out with a bang and a huge twist, it seems like icing on a delicious cake. In The Life of David Gale the ending seems a bit wee manipulative and implausible.
Kevin Spacy is good as the title character. He plays an advocate against the death penalty and an expelled college professor, after he's falsely accused of rape. The darndest thing about the film is that it's the moments the film skims over such as his relationship with his family, his career and then lack of a career, and his relationship with his best friend played by Laura Linney that are the most interesting things.
When the film is not in flashback mode, and shows the present day of Gale on death row, while being interviewed by Kate Winslet, ala Silence of the Lambs, the film bores. Kate Winslet is bland in this film. Oh well. Not exactly a great part. How many times have we seen an ambitious young reporter get the great scope and then fall for the man/target of the interview. Sigh. Move along.
Grade: C
L
linespalsy
Guest
I guess I just thought it was a pretty simplistic narrative so without any fun/unusual/complicated storytelling that normally propels me through a film I had to spend time ruminating on the content of the story and its characters and it came up short.
I didn't care about any of the characters enough to worry about what was going to happen to them. There just seemed to be this introverted malaise over everyone in the movie that to me didn't translate to the main characters being sensitive outsiders because, really, everybody seemed pretty out of it. they all looked depressed (except when that one kid got hit in the ear and those bumbling murders, those were the two things I found entertaining).
I think we were supposed to feel something for the two main characters, that they were special and their relationship meant something but (have a similar problem with The Professional, by the way) really I just recall getting this feeling of emotional interchangeability between the two leads, Oskar just conveniently filling vampire girl's open slot for "lifelong mate/blood procurer". That's all they want out of life? What a couple of boring assholes. Why do people find this to be a compelling relationship?
It's also possible that I've been having higher expectations for relationships in movies since I got involved in one [a relationship not a movie] and which ones I find interesting and compelling in movies probably says more about me than it does about the movies so I'm not sure if I answered your question adequately.
edit - sorry i replied to this so late.
I didn't care about any of the characters enough to worry about what was going to happen to them. There just seemed to be this introverted malaise over everyone in the movie that to me didn't translate to the main characters being sensitive outsiders because, really, everybody seemed pretty out of it. they all looked depressed (except when that one kid got hit in the ear and those bumbling murders, those were the two things I found entertaining).
I think we were supposed to feel something for the two main characters, that they were special and their relationship meant something but (have a similar problem with The Professional, by the way) really I just recall getting this feeling of emotional interchangeability between the two leads, Oskar just conveniently filling vampire girl's open slot for "lifelong mate/blood procurer". That's all they want out of life? What a couple of boring assholes. Why do people find this to be a compelling relationship?
It's also possible that I've been having higher expectations for relationships in movies since I got involved in one [a relationship not a movie] and which ones I find interesting and compelling in movies probably says more about me than it does about the movies so I'm not sure if I answered your question adequately.
edit - sorry i replied to this so late.
M
mark f
Guest
Good. It's well worth a look. Sure, it's incomplete, unfinished, predictable, commercial ("DA!"), etc., but one does get credit for trying. This film at least tries. Just looking at the cast proves it's closer to a B- than a D-, but hey, I go on auto-pilot sometimes too. You do realize that if you believe that filmmakers go on auto-pilot, that you may also go on auto-pilot sometimes in a review? But I'll leave, because these are viddy's views and not marky's malevolent MoFoisms.
J
Juno MacGuff
Guest
Still going to wait for this film on DVD. I love Jesse Eisenberg , but the trailers looked so silly that I just couldn't see paying $10 to see it in the theater and then another $10 for popcorn and soda.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
I'm sorry that you didn't find a Swedish story about a 12-year old vampire interesting.
Again too many big words... what's the point? I'm sorry if you just liked the violent scenes and that you didn't care about the depressed characters.
Ahh and I love The Professional and it gets an easy A+ from me. And yes you're right about Oskar being a basic blood supplier for life. But I'm sure they'll go see many interesting places during their travels. Most of us work, have a family then die. That's boring. Come to think of it, my relationship with my girlfriend who also works is boring. Excuse while I go kill myself now. Thanks a lot!
That's OK on both counts (the question and lateness) but yes you answered my question. You didn't like the characters much and I did - a lot, and that's not necessarily because they were likeable (if that makes sense). For a film to work it is important that the viewer like the characters - or at least enjoy watching them.
Again too many big words... what's the point? I'm sorry if you just liked the violent scenes and that you didn't care about the depressed characters.
Ahh and I love The Professional and it gets an easy A+ from me. And yes you're right about Oskar being a basic blood supplier for life. But I'm sure they'll go see many interesting places during their travels. Most of us work, have a family then die. That's boring. Come to think of it, my relationship with my girlfriend who also works is boring. Excuse while I go kill myself now. Thanks a lot!
That's OK on both counts (the question and lateness) but yes you answered my question. You didn't like the characters much and I did - a lot, and that's not necessarily because they were likeable (if that makes sense). For a film to work it is important that the viewer like the characters - or at least enjoy watching them.
G
Golgot
Guest
I reckon the love/like divide with Blues Bros is always gonna hang on the music. If you like the music on top, then the whole thing becomes a double treat. (I'm no great fan of musicals as a whole, but stick Aretha, Ray Charles and the like in there, and things are looking up )
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The Usual Suspects (1995, Bryan Singer)
The best things about this film are the chemistry of the ensemble rogues gallery of actors, and of course the twist at the end, which is sufficiently cool for what's it's worth. Beyond that, the viewer gets a basic crime caper heist film. Heist films can be great or lame. The Usual Suspects seems built around building viewer expectation and turning it about on its head. This is fine, but I would hardly say it is enough to justify the somewhat modern classic reputation this film has garnered in the past couple of decades.
I don't really need to go much into the plot. The narrative is tight for sure, and non-traditional, out of order story-telling has been a staple of film-noir and its kin for decades. All of this is fine and well, but often times these lesser noirs fall flat in the character department. Sure the characters are interesting, but they purely exist within the realm of film and fail to transcend that fourth wall between the screen and viewer to become something real. I didn't really care about any character in The Usual Suspects because none were well developed outside of their ability to service the plot.
Certainly some noirs are great. You can't help but cry tears for Bogart in In a Lonely Place. The only actor in The Usual Suspects able to pull their character beyond archetype is Gabriel Byrne's former cop turned criminal.
When taking a good look at The Usual Suspects, the ending fits nicely into the puzzle the film creates, but it's an emotionless and ultimately forgettable ride. Sure you can tell me who the real Keyser Soze is, but can you tell me what the usual suspects were meant to rob on the ship after you haven't watched the film in over a year? Not likely. There's another great caper film out there that I haven't watched in sometime and I can still tell you about the horse and the dog. Beyond the twist ending and some finely polished storytelling, The Usual Suspects rings a tad hollow and vanishes... poof... into the thin recesses of my memory. The greatest trick the filmmakers pulled with this film is to convince the viewer of its greatness.
Grade: C+
The best things about this film are the chemistry of the ensemble rogues gallery of actors, and of course the twist at the end, which is sufficiently cool for what's it's worth. Beyond that, the viewer gets a basic crime caper heist film. Heist films can be great or lame. The Usual Suspects seems built around building viewer expectation and turning it about on its head. This is fine, but I would hardly say it is enough to justify the somewhat modern classic reputation this film has garnered in the past couple of decades.
I don't really need to go much into the plot. The narrative is tight for sure, and non-traditional, out of order story-telling has been a staple of film-noir and its kin for decades. All of this is fine and well, but often times these lesser noirs fall flat in the character department. Sure the characters are interesting, but they purely exist within the realm of film and fail to transcend that fourth wall between the screen and viewer to become something real. I didn't really care about any character in The Usual Suspects because none were well developed outside of their ability to service the plot.
Certainly some noirs are great. You can't help but cry tears for Bogart in In a Lonely Place. The only actor in The Usual Suspects able to pull their character beyond archetype is Gabriel Byrne's former cop turned criminal.
When taking a good look at The Usual Suspects, the ending fits nicely into the puzzle the film creates, but it's an emotionless and ultimately forgettable ride. Sure you can tell me who the real Keyser Soze is, but can you tell me what the usual suspects were meant to rob on the ship after you haven't watched the film in over a year? Not likely. There's another great caper film out there that I haven't watched in sometime and I can still tell you about the horse and the dog. Beyond the twist ending and some finely polished storytelling, The Usual Suspects rings a tad hollow and vanishes... poof... into the thin recesses of my memory. The greatest trick the filmmakers pulled with this film is to convince the viewer of its greatness.
Grade: C+
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Actually it is on DVD and blu-ray right now.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The Big Lebowski (1998, Joel and Ethan Coen)
Cases of mistaken identity are always a nice plot to work a film around. This prized gem in the Coen's filmography centers around Lebowski, AKA "The Dude" and his attempt to get his rug replaced. One thing leads to the next and he's involved in a kidnapping, a bunch of wierd German nihlists, and an eccentric millionaire. The story is complicated, but I read online that it's deeply influenced by The Big Sleep. Well if it is, I would say in plot only.
Jeff Bridges is a great actor, but he doesn't really seem to belong in a Coen film. Usually their characters are overplayed and the human elements take second seat to their flamboyancy and eccentric quirks. Meaning they play more like brilliantly drawn cartoon characters than real human beings. This works for awhile, but The Big Lebowski lost steam for me after about an hour. Julianne Moore and Sam Elliot are thrown into the story, for what reasons I can't be certain. John Goodman is great, as he is in all Coen films, but this is really Jeff Bridge's show.
I only wish I could have got more involved in the story, because essentially that's what Coen films are... storytelling in a bizarre style. As such The Big Lebowski has one of the worst stories of any of the Coen brother's films I've seen. Certainly it's a stretch. Watching the film move on is like seeing a string of loosely connected vignettes. Sure it's entertaining, though ultimately shallow.
Grade: C+
Cases of mistaken identity are always a nice plot to work a film around. This prized gem in the Coen's filmography centers around Lebowski, AKA "The Dude" and his attempt to get his rug replaced. One thing leads to the next and he's involved in a kidnapping, a bunch of wierd German nihlists, and an eccentric millionaire. The story is complicated, but I read online that it's deeply influenced by The Big Sleep. Well if it is, I would say in plot only.
Jeff Bridges is a great actor, but he doesn't really seem to belong in a Coen film. Usually their characters are overplayed and the human elements take second seat to their flamboyancy and eccentric quirks. Meaning they play more like brilliantly drawn cartoon characters than real human beings. This works for awhile, but The Big Lebowski lost steam for me after about an hour. Julianne Moore and Sam Elliot are thrown into the story, for what reasons I can't be certain. John Goodman is great, as he is in all Coen films, but this is really Jeff Bridge's show.
I only wish I could have got more involved in the story, because essentially that's what Coen films are... storytelling in a bizarre style. As such The Big Lebowski has one of the worst stories of any of the Coen brother's films I've seen. Certainly it's a stretch. Watching the film move on is like seeing a string of loosely connected vignettes. Sure it's entertaining, though ultimately shallow.
Grade: C+
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Moon (2009, Duncan Jones)
Amazing how a viewer can be captivated by a movie with very little action in it. Moon takes a page from 2001: ASO, Solaris, Alien, and Silent Running, all of which are brilliant science fiction films with an objective of thrilling with ideas rather than intricate action sequences ala Star Wars. Avatar got all the hype in 2009, but was a failure of a film... failure if movies should be good and not sucky. A couple years ago there was a nice little sci-fi flick from Danny Boyle called Sunshine, that started off remarkably but fizzled into cliche' suspense and filth.
Moon is a film that is good from start to finish with very few wasted moments. Every image bursting from the screen is pure gold. Moon is largely a one man show with lead actor Sam Rockwell playing a scientist on a three year contract to operate a moon station. The moon station is the command center for a mining operation extracting helium-3 which presumably solves Earth's energy crisis. GERTY, Sam's only companion is a AI program, that resembles Hal-9000, but certainly doesn't copy him. I admire the way the story went with this relationship between man and his computer.
The slow revolation the viewer sees coming, but it's amazing and the predictability of the situation added dread for me as opposed to boredom. Minimal is the way the filmmakers went with this film. There is more cerebral matter in this film than most science-fiction pieces today. Of course while Moon is true science fiction, a flick like Avatar is not science fiction. The backdrop may be sci-fi but the spirit of the film certainly is not.
Watch Moon in a big dark room on a big bright screen with a nice cup of coffee and no distractions... soak it in. One of the best films of 2009, likely the best sci-fi of the year, and viewed from a certain perspective it is probably the year's best horror film.
Grade: A
Amazing how a viewer can be captivated by a movie with very little action in it. Moon takes a page from 2001: ASO, Solaris, Alien, and Silent Running, all of which are brilliant science fiction films with an objective of thrilling with ideas rather than intricate action sequences ala Star Wars. Avatar got all the hype in 2009, but was a failure of a film... failure if movies should be good and not sucky. A couple years ago there was a nice little sci-fi flick from Danny Boyle called Sunshine, that started off remarkably but fizzled into cliche' suspense and filth.
Moon is a film that is good from start to finish with very few wasted moments. Every image bursting from the screen is pure gold. Moon is largely a one man show with lead actor Sam Rockwell playing a scientist on a three year contract to operate a moon station. The moon station is the command center for a mining operation extracting helium-3 which presumably solves Earth's energy crisis. GERTY, Sam's only companion is a AI program, that resembles Hal-9000, but certainly doesn't copy him. I admire the way the story went with this relationship between man and his computer.
The slow revolation the viewer sees coming, but it's amazing and the predictability of the situation added dread for me as opposed to boredom. Minimal is the way the filmmakers went with this film. There is more cerebral matter in this film than most science-fiction pieces today. Of course while Moon is true science fiction, a flick like Avatar is not science fiction. The backdrop may be sci-fi but the spirit of the film certainly is not.
Watch Moon in a big dark room on a big bright screen with a nice cup of coffee and no distractions... soak it in. One of the best films of 2009, likely the best sci-fi of the year, and viewed from a certain perspective it is probably the year's best horror film.
Grade: A
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3 (2009, Tony Scott)
Denzel Washington has certainly put on the pudge of late, meanwhile Travolta looks equally out of shape. Anywho on to the remake of a classic 70's film. I must say the update was interesting and the writers did manage to spin it to a contemporary issue or two, mainly the crappy economy and NYC's fear of terrorism. Or should I say defiance of it? Of course Travolta in the film as the main antagonist is not a terrorist at all, but an ex Wall Street rat and con looking to get revenge on the system. It's a nice change from the more straight forward Robert Vaughn. I must say Vaughn in the original role was a bit more menacing, but at least with this remake Travolta didn't play it completely ham-fisted ala Broken Arrow.
The most impressive bit of the film was watching Denzel Washington in one of his most subdued roles to date. Instead of spewing one liner after one liner and being the cool action hero with plenty of facade, he plays a down to earth subway dispatcher who is stuck in a situation he doesn't want to be in, but knows he can do good with. Also he's a bit morally ambiguous, as the film provides a nice little backstory with his character. For the most part this is a good remake. It lacks the grittiness and urgency of the original and some of the characters are not that drawn out well at all with this remake. Luis Guzman's, a character actor whom I enjoy very much on screen, has a nothing part, but does the best he can with it. Also the ending of the original was much more interesting and involving. I was rather let down with this film's predictable and "hollywood" conclusion, which was a bore. But all in all, this remake was definitely more than what I expected it to be. Even Tony Scott managed to tone his "Tony-Scottness" flair down a bit.
Grade: B-
Denzel Washington has certainly put on the pudge of late, meanwhile Travolta looks equally out of shape. Anywho on to the remake of a classic 70's film. I must say the update was interesting and the writers did manage to spin it to a contemporary issue or two, mainly the crappy economy and NYC's fear of terrorism. Or should I say defiance of it? Of course Travolta in the film as the main antagonist is not a terrorist at all, but an ex Wall Street rat and con looking to get revenge on the system. It's a nice change from the more straight forward Robert Vaughn. I must say Vaughn in the original role was a bit more menacing, but at least with this remake Travolta didn't play it completely ham-fisted ala Broken Arrow.
The most impressive bit of the film was watching Denzel Washington in one of his most subdued roles to date. Instead of spewing one liner after one liner and being the cool action hero with plenty of facade, he plays a down to earth subway dispatcher who is stuck in a situation he doesn't want to be in, but knows he can do good with. Also he's a bit morally ambiguous, as the film provides a nice little backstory with his character. For the most part this is a good remake. It lacks the grittiness and urgency of the original and some of the characters are not that drawn out well at all with this remake. Luis Guzman's, a character actor whom I enjoy very much on screen, has a nothing part, but does the best he can with it. Also the ending of the original was much more interesting and involving. I was rather let down with this film's predictable and "hollywood" conclusion, which was a bore. But all in all, this remake was definitely more than what I expected it to be. Even Tony Scott managed to tone his "Tony-Scottness" flair down a bit.
Grade: B-
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Carrie (1976, Brian De Palma)
The opening moments of this film strike me as completely wrong. Sissy Spacek plays the dorky and bullied titular character. The first scenes involved her being pushed around by her female classmates after flubbing a volleyball play. The immediate scenes show the girls galavanting like men in the locker room after gym class, while Carrie silently slips off to take a shower. I may be wrong, but do girls behave like this? Maybe they would if they were on a varsity volleyball team and very close, but regular P.E.? To my knowledge the number one reason girls fail P.E. so often is because they hate to dress and undress for gym. Moving on. The camera then zooms to Spacek who is naked and spends a sufficiently awkward amount of time on her flesh before the big finale of the opening moments, which feature Carrie getting her first period. Don't most girls get their period at ages 12-14? Carrie's character is 17 or 18. And of course she has no idea what a period is? Not even the silly plot device of having her being raised by an insane religious zealot of a mother (Piper Laurie) can explain Carrie not knowing what a period is.
The rest of the film is pretty much like this... silliness. Carrie continues to battle with her inner turmoil of being a loser, while succombing to her insane mother's demands and teachings. The mother character here is so far over the top, the viewer would expect it to be written for comedy or at least satire, but no such luck. The part is written to be played straight, which could be a possibility, as I'm sure there are religious lunatics out there. However Piper Laurie's performance is so off kilter and alien to anything I've seen before, I don't know whether to call it atrocious or brilliant. I loved the actress in The Hustler, but here she goes beyond anything the role could have demanded.
The teenagers are basic archetypes. The jock, the guilt-ridden prep, the scheming popular girl, and of course the idiot abusive boyfriend played by John Travolta in one of his most unbearable performances - which says a lot.
Brian De Palma as adds his own flair with some intentional flourishes. Yes he wears Hitchcock on his sleeve with Carrie and even borrows Bernard Herrman's piercing Psycho theme. Some of the slow motion shots seem self-indulgent. The spinning camera scene at the prom, I'm sure great symbolic meaning of Carrie's Cinderella character spinning out of control as she's in a dream she cannot steer.
I like horror films, and teenage dramas, and even crappy and not so crappy Stephen King adaptations, but this thing is just ugh.
Grade: D
The opening moments of this film strike me as completely wrong. Sissy Spacek plays the dorky and bullied titular character. The first scenes involved her being pushed around by her female classmates after flubbing a volleyball play. The immediate scenes show the girls galavanting like men in the locker room after gym class, while Carrie silently slips off to take a shower. I may be wrong, but do girls behave like this? Maybe they would if they were on a varsity volleyball team and very close, but regular P.E.? To my knowledge the number one reason girls fail P.E. so often is because they hate to dress and undress for gym. Moving on. The camera then zooms to Spacek who is naked and spends a sufficiently awkward amount of time on her flesh before the big finale of the opening moments, which feature Carrie getting her first period. Don't most girls get their period at ages 12-14? Carrie's character is 17 or 18. And of course she has no idea what a period is? Not even the silly plot device of having her being raised by an insane religious zealot of a mother (Piper Laurie) can explain Carrie not knowing what a period is.
The rest of the film is pretty much like this... silliness. Carrie continues to battle with her inner turmoil of being a loser, while succombing to her insane mother's demands and teachings. The mother character here is so far over the top, the viewer would expect it to be written for comedy or at least satire, but no such luck. The part is written to be played straight, which could be a possibility, as I'm sure there are religious lunatics out there. However Piper Laurie's performance is so off kilter and alien to anything I've seen before, I don't know whether to call it atrocious or brilliant. I loved the actress in The Hustler, but here she goes beyond anything the role could have demanded.
The teenagers are basic archetypes. The jock, the guilt-ridden prep, the scheming popular girl, and of course the idiot abusive boyfriend played by John Travolta in one of his most unbearable performances - which says a lot.
Brian De Palma as adds his own flair with some intentional flourishes. Yes he wears Hitchcock on his sleeve with Carrie and even borrows Bernard Herrman's piercing Psycho theme. Some of the slow motion shots seem self-indulgent. The spinning camera scene at the prom, I'm sure great symbolic meaning of Carrie's Cinderella character spinning out of control as she's in a dream she cannot steer.
I like horror films, and teenage dramas, and even crappy and not so crappy Stephen King adaptations, but this thing is just ugh.
Grade: D
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Taken (2009, Pierre Morel)
Without the casting of Liam Neeson and the directing by long time camera-man Pierre Morel, this would be a basic and silly Steven Seagal movie. With those two film alumni however, the film is much less enjoyable than a Steven Seagal movie. Maybe a little more funny however. The plot deals with bodyguard/agent/spy/secret service man-something played by Liam Neeson who has a daughter that's kidnapped in Paris and sold into prostitution. He constantly warns his little girl before leaving that something bad might happen to her. We're not surprised that it does. His little girl also aspires to be a garbage pop singer along the lines of a Brittany Spears or Miley Cirus.
Of course Neeson knows everything and can defeat anyone in a fisticuffs or gun battle. If MacGyver, Steven Seagal, and Ward Cleaver got together in a blender you might pull something out like Neeson's character. This movie is not just bad, it's really bad, especially since it aims for a completely different demographic of audience that would typically watch a Steven Seagal film. Plus that little girl needed slapped, not rescued. I half expected Neeson's character to be relieved that she was being sold into prostitution as such it would probably negate any need for him to pay child support.
Grade: D-
Without the casting of Liam Neeson and the directing by long time camera-man Pierre Morel, this would be a basic and silly Steven Seagal movie. With those two film alumni however, the film is much less enjoyable than a Steven Seagal movie. Maybe a little more funny however. The plot deals with bodyguard/agent/spy/secret service man-something played by Liam Neeson who has a daughter that's kidnapped in Paris and sold into prostitution. He constantly warns his little girl before leaving that something bad might happen to her. We're not surprised that it does. His little girl also aspires to be a garbage pop singer along the lines of a Brittany Spears or Miley Cirus.
Of course Neeson knows everything and can defeat anyone in a fisticuffs or gun battle. If MacGyver, Steven Seagal, and Ward Cleaver got together in a blender you might pull something out like Neeson's character. This movie is not just bad, it's really bad, especially since it aims for a completely different demographic of audience that would typically watch a Steven Seagal film. Plus that little girl needed slapped, not rescued. I half expected Neeson's character to be relieved that she was being sold into prostitution as such it would probably negate any need for him to pay child support.
Grade: D-
M
mark f
Guest
The opening moments of your review strike me as completely wrong. viddy, this film was made before you were born. Everybody dressed and everybody took a shower in P.E. You had no choice. Public schools demanded it. Back then, yes, we had sex education, but as it is today, any student's parents can sign a slip to have their child excused from those classes. I can still remember at my school the sex-ed classes were so boring and obscure that I don't think I had a clue what the hell a period was, but the sex ed classes were always separated by sex so maybe I wasn't supposed to know.
Sure, Piper Laurie is supposed to be over-the-top. What would the point of the film be if she wasn't? This is not a docudrama for God's sake, but a revenge fantasy often told from the perspective of one of the cruel participants who feels sorry for her actions. Spacek and Laurie both got Oscar noms, and my friends and I all love the whole Grand Guignol aspect of the thing. If I were to name a fave De Palma film, it's probably Carrie. The film just goes off into realms which most films dare never to tread, especially that telekinesis finale where Carrie skewers her mother in the exact same way that Christian saint in her house was. The use of music and photography in that scene (and others) is brilliant.
Sure, Piper Laurie is supposed to be over-the-top. What would the point of the film be if she wasn't? This is not a docudrama for God's sake, but a revenge fantasy often told from the perspective of one of the cruel participants who feels sorry for her actions. Spacek and Laurie both got Oscar noms, and my friends and I all love the whole Grand Guignol aspect of the thing. If I were to name a fave De Palma film, it's probably Carrie. The film just goes off into realms which most films dare never to tread, especially that telekinesis finale where Carrie skewers her mother in the exact same way that Christian saint in her house was. The use of music and photography in that scene (and others) is brilliant.
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
I dressed and I took a shower in P.E. too when in high school 10 years ago. Nobody acted like that because we were teenagers and a bit too self conscious to Top Gun it out. Girls are even more so than guys. Again, it doesn't fit regardless of time period.
And I wasn't referring to sex ed. I was referring to the fact that at age 17 a girl not knowing or even having a period, strikes me as well... not a fact at all. And you weren't supposed to know what a period was as you weren't a girl. But I'm sure a girl knew what a period was whether it was called "the curse" or something else. That Carrie goes and freaks out and thinks she dying because she's bleeding out of her vagina is a bit too much to accept.
As for De Palma films, I'll take Carlito's Way any day. And I will say I did enjoy the ending of the film and the revenge she takes on her mom, and thought it a nice end to match with the Jesus figurine. That I'll give ya about the film!
And I wasn't referring to sex ed. I was referring to the fact that at age 17 a girl not knowing or even having a period, strikes me as well... not a fact at all. And you weren't supposed to know what a period was as you weren't a girl. But I'm sure a girl knew what a period was whether it was called "the curse" or something else. That Carrie goes and freaks out and thinks she dying because she's bleeding out of her vagina is a bit too much to accept.
As for De Palma films, I'll take Carlito's Way any day. And I will say I did enjoy the ending of the film and the revenge she takes on her mom, and thought it a nice end to match with the Jesus figurine. That I'll give ya about the film!
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Black Hawk Down (2001, Ridley Scott)
Quite a rush of a film. Ridley Scott brings a small degree of film-snob cred to this Jerry Bruckheimer production about a US Army Black Hawk helicopter that is shot down in the middle of the Somalia civil war. The following rescue ensues in which hundreds of Army Rangers fight to survive against thousands of Somali militia toting AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades.
This film is all about action. Of course there's a rogues gallery of actors involved; Tom Sizemore, Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Sam Shepard, Eric Bana, and other up-and-comers from the early 2000's. The ensemble cast works well, as no one actor is truly a star. It follows different squads of men as they are separated and attempt to regroup. The music heightens the tension, and there are fewer films better than Black Hawk Down when it comes to sustained battle sequences. Much to the credit of the editing and directing, it is very possible to follow the action of events and what is going on within the frantic pace and movement of the film.
There's really not a whole lot of commentary on war itself. The film doesn't seem to take a stance, but there are a few moments of dialogue that got me slapping my head. Eric Bana's character being one of them toward the end. Very few complaints however. Great action film.
Grade: B+
Quite a rush of a film. Ridley Scott brings a small degree of film-snob cred to this Jerry Bruckheimer production about a US Army Black Hawk helicopter that is shot down in the middle of the Somalia civil war. The following rescue ensues in which hundreds of Army Rangers fight to survive against thousands of Somali militia toting AK-47s and rocket propelled grenades.
This film is all about action. Of course there's a rogues gallery of actors involved; Tom Sizemore, Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Sam Shepard, Eric Bana, and other up-and-comers from the early 2000's. The ensemble cast works well, as no one actor is truly a star. It follows different squads of men as they are separated and attempt to regroup. The music heightens the tension, and there are fewer films better than Black Hawk Down when it comes to sustained battle sequences. Much to the credit of the editing and directing, it is very possible to follow the action of events and what is going on within the frantic pace and movement of the film.
There's really not a whole lot of commentary on war itself. The film doesn't seem to take a stance, but there are a few moments of dialogue that got me slapping my head. Eric Bana's character being one of them toward the end. Very few complaints however. Great action film.
Grade: B+
I
iluv2viddyfilms
Guest
Does this mean a movie with a strong cast can bump up its quality by just having a rogues gallery of actors show up for a hefty paycheck? By that logic The Towering Inferno is probably the best film of the 70's.