Change Your Image
motorfocus82
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)
I've seen worse
...I just can't remember when right now.
But really, I have. I shut my brain off for most of this movie, and that was certainly the best way to experience it.
The scenes were, taken by themselves, a lot of fun at times. Concepts are often inventive and much of the sets and costuming worked really well. The dialogue occasionally throws out something irreverently amusing and fun. And as a general homage to kung-fu flicks, some of the script's fast-forward-through-the-subplots bluntness was understandable and helped move things along. I like Russell Crowe here, and it's unusual for me to ever like Russell Crowe. Amusing explosions of blood and genuinely good fight choreography save much of the movie.
Most problems can be easily forgiven with the understanding that this is a campy Grindhouse flick. There is absolutely none of Tarantino's focus, and not much of Eli Roth's, so you could call this false advertising, which could lead to excessively high expectations. That can be a big problem.
It can be a problem because there's also a LOT that sucks. First, there's RZA, and I have three complaints about him. First, he's a bad actor, to the point where calling him "wooden" would be too positive. Second, like many black screenwriters, he is fundamentally incapable of making a film without getting into slavery. And third, his understanding of Zen and Chinese flow of energy seems to come down to giving his character superpowers, which is fun but ridiculous and verges on cultural insult territory. That last is the easiest to deal with because we are so used to stuff like that, but it's still not saying anything positive about RZA's filmmaking sensibility.
Other faults? The script was busy but very shallow and, once again, looking for solid direction and cohesion of story was a lost cause. Characters came in and out with almost total randomness; in fact, I think I might have either gone to the bathroom during a few scenes, or someone accidentally cut a necessary character introduction, maybe two, from my copy of the movie. Villains were fun but completely one- dimensional, and so were several of the "good" characters. I feel glad to have forgotten basically everything that was said, plot-wise, almost immediately after the film ended, because I vaguely remember that the plot sucked.
I know RZA cares about chop-socky and I congratulate him on getting the film made. Hell, I like fight scenes for their own sake, so at times, I really did enjoy this. I didn't really see much I passionately hated, so maybe RZA does have some potential. Just manage your expectations.
The Island (2005)
Bay's Best Movie
I've come to the conclusion that the reason Michael Bay's movies are so brainless today - see the Transformers series and the new TMNT - is because of this film. It's actually thoughtful and coherent, not nearly AS MANY plot holes as we're used to out of him.
And it wasn't very successful. What's a poor director to do when he's expected to make films which cost over $100 million? You know the answer: dumb it down, kimosabe.
It's not a masterpiece. The concept is about 60% developed and the script is occasionally wonky. But it's not BAD in those areas, maybe a touch better than average for high concept in Hollywood. I'd say this is actually slightly more intelligent and involved than Arnie's 6th Day, which in itself wasn't a bad flick. Plus, since you're talking Michael Bay, he has some really good camera work sprinkled in there and a great highway chase scene. Djimon Hounsou is excellent as usual, the standout of the cast.
I don't know Bay's entire catalog, so I can't be absolutely sure. But this is his best film I'm aware of. If you like action with a science-fictiony feel, give it a shot.
Gravity (2013)
A great film about overcoming terrible odds
Wow, there are a lot of bad reviews on this movie around here, most of them disappointed for the lack of absolute realism. My, what strange expectations you kids seem to have. I've never seen a scientifically perfect sci-fi film, and if you can't let some of it slide in favor of a little Movie Physics, then the problem is yours. It's not a documentary, it's a story.
What I knew of this movie was that it got great reviews by a lot of people after its release, and it was set in space with excellent graphics. Accurate on both counts. It kicks off without any background stuff, characterization and lead-in minimal. The entire thing, start to finish, is focused on the trials of Sandra Bullock, which for once she's not so annoying, mostly because she has to spend most of the film reacting to her environment, which is quickly falling apart.
The entire thing is about overcoming in a harsh place, which might have just hit the spot for me when I watched it. The dialogue was not elegant but worked anyway; the characters could have been essentially mute and I still would have enjoyed it. There's no good guys versus bad guys, no subplots, really minimal garbage to clutter up what's going on. The lapse into religion and odd symbolism are there, all of it representative of scarred people struggling for safety; the fetal position thing was, I think, somewhat misinterpreted as rebirth, which would have been a strange metaphor given where this was in the plot. None of this is terribly intrusive, although it is certainly nothing special. But it's easy enough to let it pass.
But then there are the graphics. My TV is not an advanced piece of machinery, but it didn't matter, because the real treat of these graphics is how they pull you into the situation. Cuaron knows how to use the perspective of the camera lens, and you feel every body impact as Bullock gets thrown onto every man-made piece of hardware in orbit. Sandra hits all the right emotional notes without extensive exposition; you can feel how she feels and you know that, in her position, you would probably be ready to quit, like she often seems to be. It's fine acting and, if you aren't nitpicking the science or probabilities of what you see, harrowing stuff. Great film if you want to root for someone against the odds, and everyone likes doing that. Watch it, and let that which does not matter slide.
Cube (1997)
A very mediocre movie that wants to be more.
I walked in on this while friends were watching it, just a couple of minutes in. Thus, I had no idea whether they were watching it and had never seen it, or had seen it and thought it was good or bad, or if they even realized that it was a B movie. After it was mostly over, I said that it was a bad movie, which got me the kind of looks you get when you accidentally step on a dog's tail and the yelp draws everyone's attention. Don't watch it with libertarians.
It IS a bad movie. I've seen worse, but it's bad. The production values, including the acting, are good for $300,000, but the script and its underlying ideas make up its real purpose. It is philosophical in the sense of basically ripping the basics of post-Enlightenment humanism out of the most clichéd characters and faux-sophisticated dialogue possible. The script is the point. And the script is pretty bad.
The lead guy, the one who starts off as the ringleader and driver of the action, must eventually turn out to be an insane, violent pederast simply because he's not a whimpering moron with a singular function or a strident bleeding heart; his transformation represents the throwing off of authoritarian shackles by the good and virtuous people following the birth of the age of reason. The perspective makes itself more clear with the explanation for the existence of the cube: it has no purpose, no driver, just an accident of power that traps people. The ending shows the one remaining character stepping into a pure light of nothingness, and that's about the size of it. It's humanitarian nihilism on film. Judging by the ratings and comments on it here, that qualifies as deep psychology to the typical moviegoer.
The handful of surprises in the movie revolve around the room design, with its Hollywood Standard methods of killing people like acid and blades, and a strangely convoluted explanation of how a three-axis coordinate system works. The novelty of these parts, along with the bare adequacy of the production values when handicapped for a B grade budget, get the film four out of ten, maybe four and a half. But let's be clear: it's a bad movie. I can actually enjoy a pointless movie, but movies which think they have a point, then fail to make it, are far worse. And for Christ's sake, do NOT watch this with libertarians. Probably not liberals, either. It's one of those films that makes people think that it vindicates their worldview, no matter what that worldview is.
Zombie Strippers! (2008)
Awesomely Bad
I don't even want to give this a number grade, because we're kind of beyond that, but evidently, some people have no idea how to watch a campy, purposefully ridiculous B movie.
Yes, the script is schlock garbage. There is no message, nothing about government or Nietzsche or the objectification of women that didn't exist just to service the overall B movie tone of the entire train wreck of the thing, so don't go doing something stupid like "thinking about it". The acting is terrible, the production values and special effects are the film's most consistent joke. Large portions of this movie are basically unwatchable.
But then there are moments, like Jenna offering a tasty human arm to people who walk in on her mealtime, like the ultra-stereotypical Mexican guy being ultra-stereotypical, like Robert Englund's membership in the NRA, and like Tito Ortiz being a flaming coward. Some of this was just... fun. Christ, people, have a sense of humor.
Iron Sky (2012)
Make Up Your Mind
So, you want to make a movie about Moon Nazis. Sounds awesome! Which way are you going to go with it? Is it going to be a hilariously dumb comedy? It is going to be a cheap excuse for a thrilling action movie? Or is it going to be genuinely biting satire?
These people couldn't make up their minds.
It's not terribly funny, although there are some mildly funny parts. The pseudo-Palin delivers a few of them, but otherwise acts like a snarky, opportunist movie politician. None of these characters are very interesting, though, and I was particularly disappointed in the typically excellent Udo Kier, who really phoned in his role on this film.
The action... well, there really isn't much of it. The battle sequences don't come until the end and they aren't really very good or exciting, although I will say that, for a movie with a budget under 10 million Euro, they jammed in a lot of decent digital FX.
Then, there's the satire. It says nothing at all about Nazis, to the point of being unable to figure out if they should be technologically backwards or technologically advanced. All it seems to say is that they're stuck up and mean. On the other side, you can definitely tell that this was written around the time of the 2008 election, with all the insults to America under Bush-style neoconservatism a good European can throw in, but none of it really says anything that other crappy movies, like War Inc, said long ago. There are some good points, though; I particularly liked the remaking of the scene from Downfall. And the scene with the representative from North Korea was great.
They should try again, with more focus.
The Green Hornet (2011)
Pretty Bad
This review isn't worth spending too much time on. I don't always dislike Seth Rogan; I thought he belonged in Knocked Up and 50/50, but here, his juvenile idiocy hurts a film that could have been passable with a more restrained lead character. Simply put, he's a grating moron that I found impossible to like. That's the big problem, but hardly the only one.
Christoph Waltz is ineffective as a villain, which is surprising, given how good of an actor he is. Cameron Diaz is superfluous (I think that's the third time I've written that about one of her characters). Chou is good, but really, the bromance between him and Rogan is given too much screen time and the whole thing would have been better with a dry note to the humor instead of the two of them playing the "relationship" angle. On the plus side, some of the action is well-done and I like the way Chou's abilities are shown on screen. And of course, the car is great. I like action movies, and this one could have been a great addition to that genre, a little irreverent, lots o' gear... I had some hopes going in.
Fortunately, I only paid $4 for it at a pawn shop when I went to grab some Allen wrenches. I can probably sell it for that much again.
Family Business (1989)
Decent and Thought-Provoking
As far as directorial work, this movie is a mixed bag; the pacing borders on terrible and there are some elements that are either wasted, or are the movie version of a non-sequitor. On the other hand, it has a few really good shots in it, too, and comes across as having some emotional honesty to every character that gives it value. It has funny moments but it's not a comedy, but more a drama. I'm writing this review mostly because the different moralities at play give people very subjective interpretations as to what this entire story is actually about. The three stars each have something to say that comes out garbled in the film's message. Connery is the grandfather, Hoffman the father, Broderick the son.
The real action is within the dynamics between Broderick and Hoffman, the son and his father who cannot see the other's point of view clearly; Hoffman has renounced crime to do well-paying grunt work for the rest of his life to care for his family, pressuring Broderick into a conventionally successful career that the kid doesn't want. But the thing is, Hoffman dislikes his life, and Broderick, as Connery points out, can smell the dishonesty; the boy resents the pressure placed on him to make good on his father's self-sacrificing investment. Hoffman's character, in bourgeoisie fashion, places way too much emphasis on status at the expense of intimacy, and there is a price.
This is one of those situations that bedevils families in the real world all the time, just exaggerated. If you don't have a taste for what the world considers the right way, then do you suck it up and pay it forward to the next generation? Do you deny yourself to create a more conventional environment for your kid? Even if it basically costs you a sense of identity that the kid might not respect you for losing? Or do you go your own way, accept the risks, and take your lumps? Sometimes, self-sacrifice is the best thing to do in the bigger calculation; sometimes, it's just stupid, a chip turning into a huge burden maintained by delusional self-righteousness.
There's an interesting, and thoughtful, code of ethics going on here. Connery's criminal morals are interesting: the risk, for him, makes crime honest, like any other business venture. As an economist and one who understands enough about the ethics behind property rights to know how fuzzy all this is, I can understand. It's not exactly inaccurate, and I share Connery's disdain for the idea that the law defines morality. So the movie raises some interesting questions, and that I like. Call it a C+, verging on B-.
Lincoln (2012)
Okay, but it should have been better.
It didn't seem like I could go wrong with this movie, and I didn't, not exactly. It's a good movie for me. I don't mind a deliberate pace for this sort of thing. I have a strong interest in politics, and I don't at all mind watching power players do their thing; frankly, I thought the backalley deals and the House speeches were very good and quite entertaining, certainly a subjective taste but doubtlessly well done from a cinematic perspective. And after you get past some of Spielberg's sentimentality, you can enjoy that the movie is well produced, with a fairly honest perspective on people's perspectives from the time. This is not a populist movie. It is the story of a man in a leadership position making a moral call, even against the institutional controls which are supposed to limit his power; I can appreciate that, as I am not a legal fundamentalist.
But this is Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis. I expected something far greater than a good movie. And there are some missteps.
Some stylistic elements of filming, particularly towards the end, were simply bad. The kid in the theater reacting to the news was a poor way to show the impact, and later, after Lincoln has been pronounced dead, his image in the candle flame was the kind of film school amateurishness that seemed deeply out of place. And the ending, showing Lincoln speaking his famous reconciliation speech (after he was already dead, in flashback) came off surprisingly flat.
And the personification of Lincoln through his homespun manner with people seemed either contrite or outright fake. I have never said anything bad about Daniel Day-Lewis as an actor, and this is rather difficult now, because technically, he did everything right. The voice and mannerisms are historically accurate and for playing someone who we have no video footage of, his improvisations were sensible and well thought out. But the illusion was not complete. I saw him under the character. Everything seemed scripted and it was more of a performance than it should have been, too unnatural, too stage-y. The only thing worse was the way that people often reacted to him in the film, which is also, at times, extremely stage-y and reflective of a reverence that, even given his popularity and office, seems far too distantly awed to be genuine.
Beyond this, the story and script were okay, as was the cinematography, but just okay given the quality they were working with. There was certainly a choice going on to not show too much of life at the time and the differences that mark out a period film. Why? Because Spielberg tried to make it feel like something much more contemporary than it was. He wanted to show that these kinds of dealings are gritty but necessary government work, and in the process, maybe impart a bit more tolerance to our own discussions of policy today. These kinds of machinations could be going on with health care or immigration now, and that was in the mind of writer or director somewhere. I don't really think it worked that well and I would have preferred a more period feel.
Sally Field and David Strathairn are very good, Tommy Lee Jones is enjoyable and very Tommy Lee Jones-ish, while other actors like Joseph Gordon Levitt aren't given much to work with. In all, it's a good film. Not great, though. I can't get past the feeling that there was a lost opportunity to make something truly excellent.
Carnage (2011)
Far, far better than expected
This is one of the most interesting - and most fun - case studies of parents, couples, aggrieved parties trying to work out a conflict, and simply people I've watched in years. The film basically never leaves the apartment of the Longstreets (Jodie Foster and John C Reilly) and follows the conversations between that couple and the Cowans (Kate Winslet and Cristoph Waltz).
The first half of the film is filled with realistically portrayed subtext and passive-aggression, constant blame-shifting and last-word small party politics, which continues and unravels as the facade of the civilized breaks and the characters loosen up in the second half. The first half is, frankly, funnier than the second in lots of ways; the thick veneer of ridiculous push-and-pull pretentious fakery is wonderfully obvious but believably played. The many attempts to leave that fail so predictably are hysterical fun. Waltz plays a prick, and plays him well, and his character morphs the least, while Foster's mask drops the most radically, albeit without losing the same basic core from the beginning. Great acting and script all the way around. Cinematography is appropriately invisible.
I didn't really bond with any of the characters or take strong sides during this too much, although I am a male and the writing paints gender differences quite well, so I liked the men more and could see myself being either of them, depending on my mood. I don't really think this is supposed to be a film with strongly relatable characters. Relatable characters are purposefully bland in a way that lets the viewer fill in the blanks for their own personality preferences; here, the characters are defined enough that you don't put yourself in their shoes so much as really WATCH them. The characters are stereotypes, but very strong characters as well.
Other reviewers have noted Foster's character is the least likable, which is certainly true. Her view of conflict is straight-up good- versus-evil liberal Judeo-Christianity-on-crack, and there are many like her. Her attitude is just understandable enough that you believe she really doesn't get how her attitude inflames every conflict it touches. She is not a nice person, but she sees herself as superior, apart from the others while actually belonging among them in the worst way.
They're all somewhat vacuous. Christoph Waltz' cellphone is a character in itself, an aggravating one placed strategically into every conversation, fueling hatreds. It's HILARIOUS! Waltz couldn't possibly have played it better; you're never sure if he's just doing it because he's an oblivious prick who's more concerned with his job than the situation, or if he might be pissing the rest of them off purposefully after a while.
Winslet's character has a thick facade to break through, like Foster's, but not nearly as interesting or reprehensible. Reilly, who I expected to get blown apart by the rest of the cast, turned out to be flawless for his part and played well in his loaded conversations, less aggressive but certainly aware of the subtext.
The ending was abrupt, but I thought it was good considering; there was no way to end it well without screwing up the realism. Abrupt is fine. Other reviewers here have talked about the ending being disappointing, like it was supposed to be an action film or a serious, clichéd drama. Such an attitude seems to miss the entire point. If you get it, understand the ridiculousness of blame, resolution, and subjectivity and what it says about civilized behavior, it's just fun and could possibly be an eye-opener to how well this kind of thing can be put to film.
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)
Ignore the Ratings
This is the most shocked I have ever been by an IMDb rating. Particularly when I first watched JVTV a decade ago, it struck me as a wonderful, fun film that I was sure people loved; now, having found out differently, I am reminded of just how subjective these things are.
I don't really think that the film was difficult to understand or too complex or not capable of striking some chords, but it's an interesting thing here... The story is SO understandable and, at times, clichéd, that it turns itself from an actual story into an allegory of a story. There's some pretentiousness, certainly, but the simple-mindedness of it should be forgiven by just how entertaining it is. The characters are fantastic and well played (my favorite is the luggage guy, and when I tell people "may you live to be a thousand years old, sir" they never get it. their loss) and I thought the pacing and dialog were great. It's funny, light in the best ways with just a few of those moments where Joe takes stock and says what people need to hear a relatable character say.
Some of the parody might be too in-your-face, like the office scene. But the thing is, that's a great scene, hilarious and very satisfying. Meg Ryan is good here, and I usually don't think she's a great actress. Tom Hanks is, well, Tom Hanks, the perfectly-manufactured everyman.
I'm a cynical bastard today, and this isn't my normal kind of film. I like darker movies, and usually shrug off pap. But I still enjoy JVTV, so I'd recommend that those who haven't seen it give the film a chance. It's not for everyone, but if you are one of the people who enjoys it, then you will REALLY enjoy it.
Army of Darkness (1992)
Alright, you primitive screwheads, listen up!
WELCOME to the land of fantasy! We aren't just talking about the goody- little-two-shoes and the skeletons moving with fishing line and the heli-Oldsmobile. We aren't just talking about the cheap, immovable mask on the flying demon and pretending that trying to say the line "Sally forth" three times is funny, because he got his face blown off. We aren't even talking about the mini-Ashes or the horrible, horrible sword-fighting choreography. That's the obviously cheap stuff. I mean FANTASY, where Ash burns the minis with "hot chocolate", then has eyes growing out of his shoulder. It's being able to do advanced chemistry in the 13th century. It's "gimme some sugar, baby." It's pit demons that fight an awful lot like experienced bar brawlers dressed as a witch, and wind up their punches like a Looney Tunes skit. It's Tha Boomstick. Later, it's S-mart evidently carrying Winchester repeating rifles, fully loaded in the store, with about a hundred round tube capacity. I'm talking some major plot points that are purposefully absurd.
It's completely and totally ridiculous, and completely and totally awesome. Bruce Campbell, king of all B-movies, knows exactly how to play it, and Raimi knew precisely what he was doing. There are great shots, and a gleeful inventiveness not found in almost any other movie I've seen. It's brilliant, a classic. I love this film; it's probably one of my favorites. If you take it seriously, you're a moron, and if you can't enjoy it at all, your soul is dead and you need to go find it. Just remember the words, "Klatu-verata-nektu". Well, repeat them...
Event Horizon (1997)
Didn't finish it.
I'm giving this score on raw concept, because when I watched it, I didn't finish it. So obviously, there's a bit I didn't see. This is the only time this has happened to me. It was a long time ago... I was 16.
At that age, I knew just enough about physics to know that, with the black hole horror movie device, the restraints had been removed. You can theoretically put ANYTHING on the other side of a black hole. It's a dimensional gateway concept perfected, with some theoretical scientific validity. After seeing the chick with no eyes at the beginning, I decided that I was good without watching whatever other madness the creators came up with. I can do without filling my pants tonight, thanks.
I should rent it and try again, but... hell no.
The Boondock Saints (1999)
You look good, Roc! You look f**kin' SCARY!
I was introduced to this movie many years ago, and while it was fun the first time, it's only gotten better with repeated viewing. The cinematography stands out as superb, the direction and pacing of the story excellent, the characters just great. It isn't perfect, and I can see how some people would think it was trying too hard, but it's not like Pulp Fiction wasn't trying just as hard, and it pulled off the coolness necessary to make it work. By and large, this succeeds as well.
There are some hilarious one-liners in here, so long as you don't get uptight about political correctness. Half the words spoken by Rocco seem to have a tendency to make people shoot beer out of their noses when I'm watching this with friends. It was made for seven million bucks, and no other action film comes close to its value. Amazing introduction to Troy Duffy. The moral tone of the movie, well, obviously justice is a bit more complex than that, but it's a MOVIE, and the perspective of it is engrossing.
Speaking of which, I'll betray some bias of the best kind: While stationed in Africa, Troy Duffy, Norman Reedus, Sean Patrick Flannery, and Brian Mahoney paid us a visit as an MWR function. MWR stuff can be lame, but servicemen LOVE this movie and someone figured that out. The troops were besides themselves, myself included. The four spent several days with us, and I had the unusual experience of watching Boondock 1 and 2 with the cast hanging around, drinking, BS-ing with everyone as if they lived there. I talked to all of them, with Troy and Brian quite a bit. Flannery does combatives, and rolled with the combatives club on base. Troy sent a friend of mine, an aspiring writer, screenplays and script software after they left. They're a fantastic group of guys. If this colors my perspective too much for the review to be taken seriously, all I can offer is that I'd seen the film probably more than twenty times before that deployment and my opinion was just as high before. But, man, it doesn't hurt that I like these people.
Meet the Parents (2000)
Not painfully funny to me, just painful
Five out of ten isn't a horrible review, and I'm giving it because everyone looks at these kinds of things differently and the theme of the movie was simply the opposite of what I find enjoyable to watch. The movie was well-produced, well-paced, and well-acted, so I'm not faulting it on its technical merits. It's all perspective, and I know that. Some fool on here said the thing was all about power and control and anti- Semitism among WASPS, which simply doesn't scan at all to me and seems to indicate that some people really want to see things how they always see them anyway.
The problem that I have with the movie is that pretty much the entire thing revolves around 'embarrassment humor'. Quite simply, I empathized with Greg's character enough that I didn't like watching him get beat on for nearly two hours, watching him make things worse for himself by being both stupid and pathetic, and then have a five minute resolution at the end that makes it all 'worth it'. It's just not funny to me. Rather, it's about the last thing I want to subject myself to, especially in the guise of a comedy. Some people enjoy this kind of thing, I guess because they're glad it isn't them or can think back to a time it WAS them and be glad it's over. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be some tension in any film and the risk of embarrassment works very well, even for me, in moderate doses. But this wasn't moderate. Watching 'The Passion of the Christ' is less painful for me, because as I see it, physical pain happens. This kind of social pain is more unjust.
Good scenes? The cat milking discussion was hilarious. The lie detector scene was fun. The resolution at the end was far from adequate, but still a good scene. DeNiro is a far better comic actor than he's given credit for, and Stiller has made much of his career by being victimized by various forces on screen, so of course he does it well. It was just overload as far as I'm concerned.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Movie and book
I'm giving this ten out of ten, and I think the 'why' will be complicated, because if the collected opinions of this review board are any indication, my opinion will make no sense.
I saw this for the first time as a teenager soon after its release on video. I thought it was fun and exciting and hilarious in the way it cheesed on the propaganda. I still hold this opinion, basically, although if I hadn't read the book, I'd probably have given the movie maybe a seven or eight.
But I did read the book, while in Iraq. My appreciation for it has only grown in the years since, and that's quite a thing because I really loved it when I read it. It's on the Marine Corps recommended reading list (I'm Army, and just got to it by word of mouth. I didn't associate it with the movie for a while in any way).
After exposure to the book, the satire of the movie goes from being hilariously overblown upon an ignorant viewing, to something much more relevant ideologically. The book's perspective on merit, values, respect and entitlement do not lend themselves to the medium of film except in the most emotionally dense way possible, so it's no surprise that the movie didn't touch on this stuff. In loyalty to its idea, Verhoeven does no justice to Heinlein, who's other works include such culturally seditious classics as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land, and ST the movie paints with a simpleminded brush that can't be seen as a criticism of Heinlein's views on lack of sophistication alone. But where Verhoeven does do justice to the book is in the simple fact that he uses an engaging story to present a point of view without compromise, just like Heinlein did. And it is a liberal point of view, complete with the opinion that conflicts of interest all have their root in misunderstanding, complete with an inherently evil establishment of power, complete with the apotheosis of victimhood and empathy, shown here by being mostly devoid in the society as presented. This movie compares interestingly to RoboCop, another piece of Verhoeven brilliance with an uncompromising worldview.
ST is not subtle satire: It's so bombastically blunt that it takes an incredibly low level of intelligence to take the film on its face and anyone who does so is the perfect argument for why Heinlein thought limiting voting rights might be a good idea. It's just right THERE, Nazi Melrose Space for the viewing free of anything remotely resembling a need for critical thought in order to criticize. It has Doogie Howser in an SS trenchcoat, for Christ's sake. You can just look at the thing and tell aesthetically that it's ridiculous. Verhoeven is not stupid and did this on purpose, and had to do so, because he had to know that any more subtle criticism of militaristic government would be lost on most viewers. And yet, still, people take it seriously as military propaganda.
One more part of the book thoroughly ignored was Heinlein's take on the future between the year he was writing and the unstated year of the book. It was the late fifties when he wrote ST, not long after the birth of rock and roll and the explosion of teen-oriented pop culture. His take was that increasingly poor parenting and excessively soft perspectives on authority would create a world where juvenile delinquency was rampant. He should have added one more thing to round out this picture and become a prophet: An all-encompassing dumbing-down of culture. Look at politics, look at ideology, look at the fate of religion, look at consumerism in all its glory. The book has a limited readership by nature. It's a book, and we don't read much. The movie made the mistake of being too sophisticated for its audience. That doesn't mean that it's terribly sophisticated, just too much so for American moviegoers. But it reaches a unique sort of perfection for anyone approaching with an active mind and a sense of humor. There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying it with your brain turned off, so long as you remember to turn it back on.
Ronin (1998)
Just excellence
I've watched this movie dozens of times, and it deserves higher ratings than the 7.2 it's getting here so far. Few films work so well on repeat viewings, especially in the action genre.
Starting with the slight negatives, the plot has some points that could have been better. The McGuffin brand case works fine but it's a little simpleminded, especially given the sophistication of the rest of the film. And there are some questionable plot points, a few instances of 'why doesn't he just...'. But these things happen in the best of thrillers, and this one has a level of complexity that requires a bit of focus the first couple of times you watch it, so these things happen. After you've seen it more than twice, you can start to notice the excellent detailing, and everything makes much better sense.
DeNiro gives a wonderful performance, exactly as intense as necessary to be convincing without going overboard. He and Jean Reno have great chemistry as actors, playing two men who find themselves being able to trust each other in an untrustworthy situation, and it only occasionally steps into cliché territory. Stellan Skarsgaard is fantastic as usual. Natasha McElhone speaks with a not-too-great Irish brogue, but putting that aside, her look and attitude give a much more adult sensuality to her character than most action movie females put on. Great performances.
Really, the film is meant for action lovers who are over the age of twenty-one, and that's a revelation in itself. Ronin has a stylishness born of an atmosphere that's both cool - love the soundtrack - and gritty, preferring a portrayal of international intrigue that cuts the perfect balance between entertaining and realistic enough to spark the imagination. The bullet removal scene is just excellent, and will draw squirms from some viewers.
If there's any place where the film goes overboard, it's the car chases, but good sweet baby Jesus, it's the best kind of overboard. You need not violate the laws of physics to create an exciting chase, Hollywood. No other movie comes close on filming vehicular chaos, and I'm including the massively overrated chase in Bullitt. This movie has two chase scenes - one rigorously planned and one off the cuff, both frenetic and amazingly well-shot - and they just work. Even when playing with rocket launchers and taking the Citroen off-road and massively exaggerating the destructive effects of 40mm M203 grenades, you just let the movie have those things and enjoy every screaming second of it.
The data on the IMDb page says the movie didn't make a profit, not surprising given the cash outlay for the car chases but still just too bad. I wish there were more films like it.
Too Big to Fail (2011)
I liked it
This is getting seven out of ten from me because it cut a good line between being informative and entertaining. It tried to be human and occasionally witty, particularly with the whitewashing of Paulson, while blasting through events at rapid speed. It needed to, because a lot was attempted and a lot happened. While the human side wasn't always perfectly effective, the sequence of events and the reasoning behind the actions is fairly clear, enough so to remind me all about what happened and how much worse things could be. Not the greatest entertainment, but effective if you come in with an interest in the material.
I wouldn't have bothered with the review at all were it not for the other reviews on here, which seem to be angry at a straightforward narrative decision to focus on Paulson and make him look like a decent human being, which is evidently unforgivable. This attitude is exactly why I've lost empathy for the average American over the last few years and gained it for people in positions of major responsibility. I'm tired of the wholesale apotheosis of the pathetic. Paulson made some genuinely good moves, and putting more decisions in the hands of the stupid multitude would have made everything worse. Hardly anyone complained about the vivisection of Glass-Steagal when it happened, which makes sense because hardly anyone really understands modern banking anyway. So I made my decision: I dropped the brain-dead populism, I stopped finding any excuse to help abdicate responsibility for the fools who bought too much house they couldn't afford, and I'm not joining any more choruses of those begging for bailouts for millions of ordinary people who couldn't keep their job or find a new one. Living helplessly doesn't garner my attention anymore. Most of the people involved in the story here went along with a broadly shared delusion of value in CDO/MBS's, then tried to pull off some damage control in a hugely complicated situation, meeting with some success while not always being smart about who to trust. The masses go along with delusions constantly, too, and they have no better record on choosing who to trust, Washington. I'm more inspired by power used competently, or even semi-competently, than inspired to throw up a middle finger because I don't feel like being a grown up anymore. Why do so many reviewers find juvenile finger-pointing worthwhile, anyway?
Fight Club (1999)
Now at the top of my list
This is the one. I saw it in the theaters at the ripe old age of 17, and was too blown away to fully process it. I've owned several copies of it since, and I've tried not to watch it too often so I can retain some fresh perspective when I do. This one isn't like the other movies. This one belongs in a different category, somewhere that serious-budget movies almost never dare to tread, but somehow, this was made. Between the stunning screenplay based on the fantastic book, and the amazing directing and basically perfect acting, there is no slack to even try to critique it as a normal film. It is inspired art. Some people will hate it. In fact, lots of people will hate it. Given the intelligence of the average consumer, that's the finest calling card I can imagine for a mainstream concept film.
I'm a capitalist with an economics degree, so don't take this the wrong way, but this movie is the perfect assault on the concept of the economy being anything more than a means to an end, both critical and wary of the hollow, pathetic stupidity and vulnerability of the populace that has nothing better to do than participate in it and buy their hopes and dreams off the rack at Target. Even beneath this, the strong flavor of empowerment, Nietzsche-style, makes itself known with the charisma of the finest salesman and challenges everyone to find a better way. At once subverting society and subverting itself, the layered texture of the whole thing is probably too good for mass consumption. Well done. This one is now at the top of my list for best, and therefore most entertaining, films I've ever seen. Perfect ten.
21 Jump Street (2012)
not as bad as I thought it would be
Since I have no attachments to 21 Jump Street the TV series and I strongly dislike Jonah Hill, I avoided this for a while. Picked it up today as a lark, and because I didn't see anything else in the video store particularly interesting as far as action movies go. Hell, let's watch some things explode, shall we?
What I figured out after a few minutes was that whoever made this thing knew that lots of people would be thinking pretty much that. It's been a while since I've seen movie-making done with such glee at screwing with the audience. It was the best facet of the film, but I admit that I just like self-referential humor when done well, and here, that's what happened.
That said, I couldn't get into the relationship between Hill and Tatum, and I still don't like Jonah Hill. However, I do like Channing Tatum more now, since he had the good taste to allow himself to be a complete boob when necessary here. With a little work, he might yet prove himself to be more than a lighter-haired clone of Josh Hartnett, with all the rom-com crap that implies.
Huge parts of the story were absurd, so if that can't wash for you, then don't watch this movie. Taking this seriously should make one eligible for psychiatric care. Otherwise, it's good for some laughs and the occasional clever twist on your expectations.
Cowboys & Aliens (2011)
Irritating
This movie irritated me, for exactly one reason: This film had no sense of humor about itself.
You can't name a movie 'Cowboys & Aliens' and not have some fun with the thing, but that's what Favreau does. I don't know why. Just a fraction of the chuckles I got out of the second Iron Man would have made this ten times better, just one character who throws out something funny on a semi-regular basis. But no, we get very minor league religious and family sentiments, and a love interest with an alien, wrapped in a plot with some extra-large holes. Come on, Jon. One really funny death scene might have excused so much...
The graphics were good and the actors played their parts well enough, and I actually thought the cinematography was great, especially at the beginning. For a minute there, it was an arresting film. But... crap. Such a waste of a potentially fun premise.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
An interesting story
After my year of convoy duty, I think I need to repeat a few of the concerns posted by vets about the content and portrayal of the military in this movie. It should be obvious that EOD does not roll this way: They do not run around, three guys in a humvee, responding to calls like frickin' plumbers. They do not leave the wire without everyone knowing where they're going and staying in constant contact with landowners (especially not to break into someone's house dressed with a gun in civilian clothes only to return back and be allowed to enter the base by lying about whorehouses). They do not take psychologists outside the wire on the spur of the moment, if ever. They do not end up out in the middle of nowhere with contractors, and form impromptu sniper teams. And on and on.
On the attitudes of the characters, the hyperactive pseudo-despair displayed by James' subordinates is almost as rare as James' own adrenaline driven pseudo-insanity. It does happen, but the vast majority of the time, that kind of personality is well-controlled in that environment, for reasons involving both straightforward tactical considerations and unit cohesion. Allowing this type of crazy to exist unbridled is a stupid way to run a military, and despite what you may have heard, the American military is most definitely not stupid. Also, colonels do not regularly talk to EOD sergeants and tell them they're 'hot sh*t!' while muscling with their rank. Just in case you didn't know. And I don't know why so many posters on here insist on saying that James is a staff sergeant. He's a sergeant first class. I will say that EOD is filled with ballsy soldiers who deal with fantastic pressure and do their jobs well. Those guys gave us our lives so often in theater that the symbol for their job really should be a green mushroom from Super Mario Brothers.
Now, I'm still giving this movie an 8 because it really is a good story and really does show some realities of the addiction to excitement that need to be shown. The characters are exaggerations, but not extreme ones. The filming and quality of direction are excellent. The tension is thicker than Campbell's Chunky Soup. The acting is very well done. I didn't care for Jeremy Renner before this movie, but his talent impressed throughout. Supporting cast was equally strong. Many of the details of being overseas are carefully portrayed here, and I can appreciate that. As a reflection of soldiers, it's too cynical and psychoanalytical in a sophomoric way to resound flawlessly and should be taken with a grain of salt. But as a movie, it's really good and I enjoyed it.
Avatar (2009)
Finally got around to this one.
I've avoided this movie for a couple of years because, given what I've heard, there was not much to expect from the story, although the graphics were spectacular. Finally watched it, and indeed, the graphics are impressive. Still a touch on the cartoony side to my eye, but nevertheless, visually arresting.
But even though I was prepared for a sophomoric plot, I found it hard to stomach this. With some people it will resound. With the people who despise their own culture, the people who loathe being part of a society that grants power to fools with their votes and consumer dollars, they will really connect with this film. It will also help if they know nothing of anthropology, have a one sided view of history taken straight from a Zinn book, and have never spent more than twenty seconds learning about ecology.
And that's fine. There have been more ridiculous stories told, although none more hyped. What personally chaffed me was the portrayal of the military. The film had to have bad guys, I know, but good Lord. I'm biased, I know, but really, I have to mention that it's a parody of real people that would be offensive if it was worth taking seriously. I have overly strong opinions sometimes, I know, but did Cameron have to spend over 300 million to tell a story this vapid? I could go on about how unlikely everything about the last fight scene is from a strategic perspective, or I could point out how culturally horrifying it is that the main character screwed up an important arranged marriage because of his frickin' feelings, but Hollywood makes its bread and butter insisting that love and an aversion to technological progress are sentiments to be overvalued at every turn. It's not surprising, but the reception it has received from people still disturbs me. I want this country to be more environmentally responsible, but I'm still thankful that the 'message' here has been forgotten already.
This gets 5 stars from me, on the basis of its graphics, and on the fact that the acting is good by genre standards. The cast did well, and as a director, I have no less respect for Cameron's skill. I just don't care what he has to say, and this film needed far more originality to make up for how absurd much of it really was.
Runaway Jury (2003)
Good movie but poor adaptation.
This movie irritated me a bit because I had read the novel first, and the glaring shift of changing the antagonistic evil from cigarette companies to firearms companies hurts the transition from book to movie quite a bit. It was disappointing, because the case points presented to not feel realistic in the way that Grisham made them feel when discussing tobacco in the novel. I'm a smoker and I don't think plaintiffs in most smoking cases deserve so much compensation, but man, Grisham put the story together well. The case in the movie feels like it shouldn't have made it anywhere close to a jury.
The best performances here have already been mentioned: Weiss and Hackman. Gene Hackman, in particular, with his snarky, "I am not of the people" arrogance embodies his role particularly well. The movie was not poorly made at all, and after suspending the disbelief over the court case itself, could be interesting. So, well-directed but poorly adapted. If you haven't read the novel, then you'll probably enjoy it.
The Dark Knight (2008)
This review is unnecessary.
Everyone knows about it. Everyone's seen it. Almost everyone raves about it, and the ones that don't have to work hard to pick at it.
It's almost unnecessary to go into the details, but I will say a couple of things: Both the cinematography and Christian Bale are slightly overrated, workmanlike rather than passionate or tremendously innovative. The pacing feels nearly contrived in how it alternates between action and calm in such a way as to prevent the audience's interest from slipping. These things are so minor that no stars need to be deducted for them. The pacing and the cinematography and Bale all do the job, which in some cases is to stay the hell out of the way for the two stars of the show.
One is Heath Ledger. You can watch the movie for him alone and be blown completely away by how he embodies everything scary about humanity outside the boundaries of social control. The kid from 'Ten Thing I Hate About You' does not exist, instead having been replaced by a daemon of such menacing empowerment and sophistication that you can't help but to think: In the real world, we wouldn't stand a chance in hell without resorting to scorched-earth tactics against such madness.
Which brings us to number two: The philosophical edge of the movie can creep up on you and stun you for one reason: The Joker may not be THAT insane. The Joker understands power. The Joker knows how rules and morality are constraints that prevent the individual from overpowering the world, and he knows precisely how to use it to turn whatever place he wishes into a chaotic playground for the sake of his own amusement. The vulnerability of civilization comes into contrast when placed in front of him. You can only beat him by breaking the rules, which is the purpose of Batman to begin with. And Batman, empowered and without constraints, can become him all to easily, judging the world however he likes. Scary stuff, and only resolvable by allowing our trust in people, in Batman and in the people on the boats, to be rewarded.
It's tempting to look at that boat scene sometimes and say, "They would have been fighting over the trigger on both ships, clamoring for the chance to survive at the cost of strangers. Too Disney for a movie so dark." Maybe, maybe not. But it's endlessly interesting to wonder about it. Not bad for a summer blockbuster in this lowest-common-denominator world.