Viewed in
2009
Premise
In 1987 Pittburgh, a college graduate is forced to work at the local amusement park, and learns about life.
Who should watch
Those who like smart, realistic coming-of-age dramas.
Thoughts
No sophomore slump for director Greg Mottola.
Probably due to the marketing, I thought I was watching a teen sex comedy with wacky characters (which would make sense given the settings). I was pleasantly surprised by the believable story about a young man learning about love and complicated relationships. Given my lack of sexual/romantic experience, I totally related to the awkwardness and shattered idealism exhibited by the main character, played by Jesse Eisenberg.
The cast was very good. I know she gets blasted for lack of acting in the 'Twilight' series, but I thought Kristen Stewart was very sympathetic as the troubled love interest of Eisenberg. As for the minor characters, they were all excellent, kids and adults alike, unknowns and stars alike. Granted it was a small part, but I do not see why there is so much hate for Ryan Reynolds' acting. Krisetn Wiig and Bill Hader were hilarious as the bosses of the park.
As mentioned before, I did not classify this as a comedy whatsoever. Though there were some very funny moments, such as when the bosses are chilling in their office, Eisenberg runs in being chased by a an angry, dangerous cusomter, Hader deals with the customer, then the bosses return to chilling, as if nothing interested had just happened.
Another thing I really liked was the selection of music. There was a great collection of appropriate music for the era, from excellent (Velvet Underground and Lou Reed) to to popular (Falco and Foreigner).
While Eisenberg was very good at portraying a naive young man, his character lacked the charm for me to love this semi-loser lover boy. A bigger issue I had was the last act. The last complication was a love story cliche and the happy ending seemed a little too Hollywood after all the excellent realistic relationships and behaviors of the characters beforehand.
Overall, it was a nice little film with flawed young adults growing up before our eyes. It might be something that entertains and enlightens young moviegoers.
What I would change
Not sure.
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Angels & Demons
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Based Dan Brown's novel, Tom Hanks must protect the Vatican from the Illuminati.
Who should watch
Tom Hanks fans and fans of the book.
Thoughts
It has been a while since I read the novel, but I felt it was faithful to the main plot of the story. Sure, a lot of the little cool puzzles had to be swept aside, but that is always a necessary evil when adapting for film.
Since I remembered the basic story, it was as if I were watching for the second time. Yet, it was still enjoyable for me, as I was able to see how the film makers had to trick the audience in certain key scenes. I am sure if I thought hard enough, I could find the plot holes, but I was entertained to not care.
Compared to the 'Da Vinci Code' movie, this was much better. Partly because of a better story to tell, but also the film was livelier in style. My main problem with the other movie was that Hanks and Ron Howard were cruising on auto-pilot. Here, there was more intensity from the scenes and acting, aided by Hans Zimmer's grandiose score. It did not feel like a two hour twenty minute movie.
Maybe it was the theater dimming their projector lights again, but the image appeared to be obviously computer graphic-y (yes, I made that up). A lot of exterior and structure shots were hazy, unclear, and just gave off the aura of artificiality, as if they filmed it all on set, even though they did film stuff in Italy.
Perhaps it was my lowered expectations, but I liked it much more than the critics did. As a fan of the novel, I enjoyed this entertaining adaptation.
What I would change
Not sure.
2009
Premise
Based Dan Brown's novel, Tom Hanks must protect the Vatican from the Illuminati.
Who should watch
Tom Hanks fans and fans of the book.
Thoughts
It has been a while since I read the novel, but I felt it was faithful to the main plot of the story. Sure, a lot of the little cool puzzles had to be swept aside, but that is always a necessary evil when adapting for film.
Since I remembered the basic story, it was as if I were watching for the second time. Yet, it was still enjoyable for me, as I was able to see how the film makers had to trick the audience in certain key scenes. I am sure if I thought hard enough, I could find the plot holes, but I was entertained to not care.
Compared to the 'Da Vinci Code' movie, this was much better. Partly because of a better story to tell, but also the film was livelier in style. My main problem with the other movie was that Hanks and Ron Howard were cruising on auto-pilot. Here, there was more intensity from the scenes and acting, aided by Hans Zimmer's grandiose score. It did not feel like a two hour twenty minute movie.
Maybe it was the theater dimming their projector lights again, but the image appeared to be obviously computer graphic-y (yes, I made that up). A lot of exterior and structure shots were hazy, unclear, and just gave off the aura of artificiality, as if they filmed it all on set, even though they did film stuff in Italy.
Perhaps it was my lowered expectations, but I liked it much more than the critics did. As a fan of the novel, I enjoyed this entertaining adaptation.
What I would change
Not sure.
Avatar
Viewed in
2009 (2), 2010
Premise
James Cameron's historically expensive story about a paralyzed soldier who gets to control another alien during a military conflict.
Who should watch
Those with a strong bladder who like expensive action flicks.
Thoughts
Definitely an epically visual feast.
Obviously, every new computer graphics-laden movie usually looks better than the last, but this film definitely felt like it achieved something significant. I do not recall another film since 'Lord of the Rings' that had such an effortless, natural blend of animation and actors. Thanks to the remarkable technology and performances, these blue aliens truly existed as characters in my eyes. For the most part, the film destroyed the 'Uncanny Valley'. I know this because I got chills during a 'Braveheart'-like speech, and again during an act of terrorism.
One reason for it's long length was because the film makers successfully created a visually beautiful planet, and a detailed history for the alien race. Like the main character, I enjoyed taking the time immersing myself in their culture and world.
While I got to watch it in IMAX 3D, I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. Unlike other IMAX films, the ratio aspect was smaller, with black bars even on the sides. Shockingly, the 3D was rarely breathtaking, which was something I had expected. My friend was convinced that the second half had less 3D in it, but it's possible that after two hours, our eyes just got used to it. I know it's not considered prestigious, but a few gratuitous 3D shots would have given the film an extra 'oomph' factor.
Despite all the good stuff, I hesitate to call it great. In fact, considering Cameron's track record of blowing away expectations, I was rather disappointed. I blame the story. It was not bad, but was just predictable. When I saw the trailer, I already knew how it was going to shake down, and it pretty much did. Those who have seen 'Dances with Wolves' or 'Princess Mononoke' will get a familiar sense of 'blah'. Hardcore science fiction or anime fans will probably think 'been there, seen that' with some of the themes and creative worlds.
No matter how much it cost (I would like to believe the half a billion dollars rumor), it was all very well spent. I enjoyed the hard work and creativity poured into the special effects and the alien culture. I just wished the poured a little bit of that creativity more into the story.
Upon multiple viewings, I found the film to be much much more enjoyable. Once I stopped caring that about the predictable plot, I was able to truly appreciate the exquisite animation, thoughtful details, and 3D IMAX experience. As an American, I found parallels to Vietnam and 9/11 in certain parts.
What I would change
Changed the marketing to hide the plot. I think had I not known what the plot was, then I probably would have been swept away more easily by the experience and enabled myself to dive into James Cameron's world.
2009 (2), 2010
Premise
James Cameron's historically expensive story about a paralyzed soldier who gets to control another alien during a military conflict.
Who should watch
Those with a strong bladder who like expensive action flicks.
Thoughts
Definitely an epically visual feast.
Obviously, every new computer graphics-laden movie usually looks better than the last, but this film definitely felt like it achieved something significant. I do not recall another film since 'Lord of the Rings' that had such an effortless, natural blend of animation and actors. Thanks to the remarkable technology and performances, these blue aliens truly existed as characters in my eyes. For the most part, the film destroyed the 'Uncanny Valley'. I know this because I got chills during a 'Braveheart'-like speech, and again during an act of terrorism.
One reason for it's long length was because the film makers successfully created a visually beautiful planet, and a detailed history for the alien race. Like the main character, I enjoyed taking the time immersing myself in their culture and world.
While I got to watch it in IMAX 3D, I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. Unlike other IMAX films, the ratio aspect was smaller, with black bars even on the sides. Shockingly, the 3D was rarely breathtaking, which was something I had expected. My friend was convinced that the second half had less 3D in it, but it's possible that after two hours, our eyes just got used to it. I know it's not considered prestigious, but a few gratuitous 3D shots would have given the film an extra 'oomph' factor.
Despite all the good stuff, I hesitate to call it great. In fact, considering Cameron's track record of blowing away expectations, I was rather disappointed. I blame the story. It was not bad, but was just predictable. When I saw the trailer, I already knew how it was going to shake down, and it pretty much did. Those who have seen 'Dances with Wolves' or 'Princess Mononoke' will get a familiar sense of 'blah'. Hardcore science fiction or anime fans will probably think 'been there, seen that' with some of the themes and creative worlds.
No matter how much it cost (I would like to believe the half a billion dollars rumor), it was all very well spent. I enjoyed the hard work and creativity poured into the special effects and the alien culture. I just wished the poured a little bit of that creativity more into the story.
Upon multiple viewings, I found the film to be much much more enjoyable. Once I stopped caring that about the predictable plot, I was able to truly appreciate the exquisite animation, thoughtful details, and 3D IMAX experience. As an American, I found parallels to Vietnam and 9/11 in certain parts.
What I would change
Changed the marketing to hide the plot. I think had I not known what the plot was, then I probably would have been swept away more easily by the experience and enabled myself to dive into James Cameron's world.
Band That Wouldn't Die, The
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Part of ESPN's 30 for 30 series, Barry Levinson explores Baltimore from 'The Move' to the Ravens, through the eyes of the Baltimore Colts Marching Band.
Who should watch
Anyone with a heart.
Thoughts
This was an excellent, emotional film.
First off, this was an amazing story, and Levinson was able to show all aspects of it. I laughed at the funny anecdotes of how the band uniforms were saved before the move and smoldered at Robert Irsay's abuses. The irony of Art Modell being sympathetic to the band, then later ripping the hearts out of Cleveland was astounding.
I liked all off the interviews, especially Jim Irsay's honesty. He did not apologize nor rationalize his father's follies in the whole saga.
The film did an excellent job of portraying the love the city had for the team and the band. A great story about determination and heart.
What I would change
I know it's an ESPN co-production, but do you really have to use the technicolor-ed footage of The Greatest Game Ever Played? The vintage black-and-white would have added to the legendary aura of the Baltimore Colts.
2009
Premise
Part of ESPN's 30 for 30 series, Barry Levinson explores Baltimore from 'The Move' to the Ravens, through the eyes of the Baltimore Colts Marching Band.
Who should watch
Anyone with a heart.
Thoughts
This was an excellent, emotional film.
First off, this was an amazing story, and Levinson was able to show all aspects of it. I laughed at the funny anecdotes of how the band uniforms were saved before the move and smoldered at Robert Irsay's abuses. The irony of Art Modell being sympathetic to the band, then later ripping the hearts out of Cleveland was astounding.
I liked all off the interviews, especially Jim Irsay's honesty. He did not apologize nor rationalize his father's follies in the whole saga.
The film did an excellent job of portraying the love the city had for the team and the band. A great story about determination and heart.
What I would change
I know it's an ESPN co-production, but do you really have to use the technicolor-ed footage of The Greatest Game Ever Played? The vintage black-and-white would have added to the legendary aura of the Baltimore Colts.
Big Fan
Viewed in
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Patten Oswalt stars as a rabid fan of the New York Giants football team, who gets into a violent encounter with his favorite player.
Loved
That it took risks.
Liked
The cast, the interesting take on sports fans.
Disliked
The last act.
Thoughts
I was fairly impressed, even with the hype.
The best part was the acting, especially Marcia Jean Kurtz and Oswalt as mother and son. Oswalt carried the film, with a great portrayal of the type of sports fan that makes you feel sorry for, or fear. I enjoyed the creative twists on the fan/athlete dynamics, and it took me to some interesting, somewhat-dark places into the psyche of an obsessive fan.
Another aspect I never thought about was the self-gratification from sports talk radio. Similar to a blogger, these people create identities, try to stand out in a pack of voices, and puff out their chests when their "clever" rants are "noticed". Guilty as charged.
Despite all these interesting things, I did not get a memorable payoff at the end. Even when I felt sorry for Oswalt's character, I never loved him enough through the story. The third act was far from typical, which I appreciated, but it led to minimal character development.
Bottom line, I recommend this little film for risk-taking in acting, story, and themes, even if it led to an unsatisfactory ending.
What I would change
Got rid of the dream sequences. They brought nothing to the table.
2010
Formats
HD TV
Premise
Patten Oswalt stars as a rabid fan of the New York Giants football team, who gets into a violent encounter with his favorite player.
Loved
That it took risks.
Liked
The cast, the interesting take on sports fans.
Disliked
The last act.
Thoughts
I was fairly impressed, even with the hype.
The best part was the acting, especially Marcia Jean Kurtz and Oswalt as mother and son. Oswalt carried the film, with a great portrayal of the type of sports fan that makes you feel sorry for, or fear. I enjoyed the creative twists on the fan/athlete dynamics, and it took me to some interesting, somewhat-dark places into the psyche of an obsessive fan.
Another aspect I never thought about was the self-gratification from sports talk radio. Similar to a blogger, these people create identities, try to stand out in a pack of voices, and puff out their chests when their "clever" rants are "noticed". Guilty as charged.
Despite all these interesting things, I did not get a memorable payoff at the end. Even when I felt sorry for Oswalt's character, I never loved him enough through the story. The third act was far from typical, which I appreciated, but it led to minimal character development.
Bottom line, I recommend this little film for risk-taking in acting, story, and themes, even if it led to an unsatisfactory ending.
What I would change
Got rid of the dream sequences. They brought nothing to the table.
Blind Side, The
Viewed in
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on the Michael Lewis book, Sandra Bullock plays a rich Tennessee mother who takes in a disadvantaged kid named Michael Oher and help him become a good student and athlete.
Who should watch
Those who want to feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Thoughts
The game plan was above average, but its execution was nearly flawless, making this an easy touchdown. Okay, I'm done with NFL analogies.
The strength of the film was the charming performances by all the actors. Sandra Bullock did a good job in an un-Sandra Bullock-like role, but I would not say it made me say 'wow' (other than realizing she can still look sexy in her mid 40's). Jae Head was an scene-stealer as the adorable little brother. Granted I do not watch CMT, but I did not recognize Tim McGraw as the supportive husband, and I thought he did just fine.
That was pretty cool of reach college coaches to play themselves in the film. Though the unintentional comedy is that the majority of them were no longer with the teams they represented in the film only a few years later.
Not sure how close it was to the book, but the story was genuinely uplifting. I could tell the story cared for these characters, who were flawed, real humans, but pretty much were all good people who wanted to do the right things in life.
I would say the only flaw was that things were a little too nice and tidy. Obviously, this was to keep the main story going, keep the audience entertained, and maintain the overall sappy (in a good way) atmosphere throughout the story. Nevertheless, there were times that it crossed the line of plausibility occasionally, which was not helped by the fact that we know the original source was not fiction.
I highly recommend this film, thanks to the actors and the uplifting story. It might not be Christmas themed, but it sure felt like a nice holiday movie for the family.
What I would change
Nothing... well, I might have toned down Lily Collins' (Bullock's daughter) hotness. I understand that a hot mama would produce a hot daughter, but holy cow, she was distractingly attractive for a minor character.
Personal
For hardcore NFL fans, you know about the infamous Theisman injury footage. They show it in the very first scene. I do not know if they showed the actual, gruesome leg break because I closed my eyes when it was supposed to happen. Considering I did not hear the audience gasp in horror, I assume they did not show the break, or it was not as bad as I imagine.
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on the Michael Lewis book, Sandra Bullock plays a rich Tennessee mother who takes in a disadvantaged kid named Michael Oher and help him become a good student and athlete.
Who should watch
Those who want to feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Thoughts
The game plan was above average, but its execution was nearly flawless, making this an easy touchdown. Okay, I'm done with NFL analogies.
The strength of the film was the charming performances by all the actors. Sandra Bullock did a good job in an un-Sandra Bullock-like role, but I would not say it made me say 'wow' (other than realizing she can still look sexy in her mid 40's). Jae Head was an scene-stealer as the adorable little brother. Granted I do not watch CMT, but I did not recognize Tim McGraw as the supportive husband, and I thought he did just fine.
That was pretty cool of reach college coaches to play themselves in the film. Though the unintentional comedy is that the majority of them were no longer with the teams they represented in the film only a few years later.
Not sure how close it was to the book, but the story was genuinely uplifting. I could tell the story cared for these characters, who were flawed, real humans, but pretty much were all good people who wanted to do the right things in life.
I would say the only flaw was that things were a little too nice and tidy. Obviously, this was to keep the main story going, keep the audience entertained, and maintain the overall sappy (in a good way) atmosphere throughout the story. Nevertheless, there were times that it crossed the line of plausibility occasionally, which was not helped by the fact that we know the original source was not fiction.
I highly recommend this film, thanks to the actors and the uplifting story. It might not be Christmas themed, but it sure felt like a nice holiday movie for the family.
What I would change
Nothing... well, I might have toned down Lily Collins' (Bullock's daughter) hotness. I understand that a hot mama would produce a hot daughter, but holy cow, she was distractingly attractive for a minor character.
Personal
For hardcore NFL fans, you know about the infamous Theisman injury footage. They show it in the very first scene. I do not know if they showed the actual, gruesome leg break because I closed my eyes when it was supposed to happen. Considering I did not hear the audience gasp in horror, I assume they did not show the break, or it was not as bad as I imagine.
The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story
Viewed in
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
A documentary about the Sherman brothers, composers of many great Disney musicals from the 1960's.
Loved
The footage showing how the brothers worked together.
Liked
The music, the interesting dynamic between them.
Thoughts
It was a surprisingly compelling story, and the film makers did good job of telling it.
With a wealth of archived footage and in depth interviews, including Robert and Richard themselves, the film gave me a very good idea about the brothers' early years, their days at Disney, and how two people so in sync in creating art could be so far apart in life. By telling the story chronologically and clearly, I was able to understand the brothers' personalities, lifestyles, and complexities in their relationships.
At the same time, it was a celebration of their accomplishments. Beforehand, I was not aware of just how important they were to the success of Disneyland, Mary Poppins, or other Disney animated musicals. In fact, a great deal of time was spent on the creation process of the Julie Andrews masterpiece. My favorite parts were when the film talked about how catchy and annoying "It's a Small World (After All)" is, and the footage/explanation of how the brothers operated when they wrote music. I did not realize that they also contributed to non-Disney titles like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Snoopy Come Home.
By the end, I learned to appreciate the Sherman brothers' craft and influence, as well as the documentary's nostalgic trip. It also helped me further admire the depth and complexity in Mary Poppins's music.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Formats
DVD
Premise
A documentary about the Sherman brothers, composers of many great Disney musicals from the 1960's.
Loved
The footage showing how the brothers worked together.
Liked
The music, the interesting dynamic between them.
Thoughts
It was a surprisingly compelling story, and the film makers did good job of telling it.
With a wealth of archived footage and in depth interviews, including Robert and Richard themselves, the film gave me a very good idea about the brothers' early years, their days at Disney, and how two people so in sync in creating art could be so far apart in life. By telling the story chronologically and clearly, I was able to understand the brothers' personalities, lifestyles, and complexities in their relationships.
At the same time, it was a celebration of their accomplishments. Beforehand, I was not aware of just how important they were to the success of Disneyland, Mary Poppins, or other Disney animated musicals. In fact, a great deal of time was spent on the creation process of the Julie Andrews masterpiece. My favorite parts were when the film talked about how catchy and annoying "It's a Small World (After All)" is, and the footage/explanation of how the brothers operated when they wrote music. I did not realize that they also contributed to non-Disney titles like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Snoopy Come Home.
By the end, I learned to appreciate the Sherman brothers' craft and influence, as well as the documentary's nostalgic trip. It also helped me further admire the depth and complexity in Mary Poppins's music.
What I would change
Nothing.
Broken Embraces (Los abrazos rotos)
Viewed in
2010
Premise
A complicated love triangle involving a blind screenwriter, a rich businessman, and the woman both loved.
Who should watch
Those who like entertaining, sexy soap operas. And can handle foreign films.
Thoughts
Once again, Pedro Almodóvar created another fascinating tale.
Throughout the film, I was thoroughly engrossed in the love triangle, and the minor characters who were affected by the lovers. It was definitely fun watching the layers of secrets peel away.
As a mostly straight guy, I definitely enjoyed the steamy sex scenes and plentiful topless moments involving Penelope Cruz.
Almodóvar director/writer's style unfortunately left the film a little unrealistic, thus I had trouble connecting to the characters and their feelings. It also suffered from slow pacing, due to the dreaded too-man-endings.
The soap opera style of the film made it very fun, but it was also its flaw. It was good, but not as excellent and memorable as 'Volver'.
What I would change
Drastically shorten the movie-within-the-movie footage. It would have made certain key moments more nice and tidy.
2010
Premise
A complicated love triangle involving a blind screenwriter, a rich businessman, and the woman both loved.
Who should watch
Those who like entertaining, sexy soap operas. And can handle foreign films.
Thoughts
Once again, Pedro Almodóvar created another fascinating tale.
Throughout the film, I was thoroughly engrossed in the love triangle, and the minor characters who were affected by the lovers. It was definitely fun watching the layers of secrets peel away.
As a mostly straight guy, I definitely enjoyed the steamy sex scenes and plentiful topless moments involving Penelope Cruz.
Almodóvar director/writer's style unfortunately left the film a little unrealistic, thus I had trouble connecting to the characters and their feelings. It also suffered from slow pacing, due to the dreaded too-man-endings.
The soap opera style of the film made it very fun, but it was also its flaw. It was good, but not as excellent and memorable as 'Volver'.
What I would change
Drastically shorten the movie-within-the-movie footage. It would have made certain key moments more nice and tidy.
Bruno
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In 'Borat' style, Sacha Baron Cohen is Bruno, hell-bent on becoming the most famous celebrity in the world.
Who should watch
Cohen fans.
Thoughts
Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the bravest artists I have ever seen. While I admired his courage, I was underwhelmed by this film.
As expected, I laughed a lot and squirmed a lot. My favorite part was when Bruno ventures into the Middle East in attempt to bring peace. In terms of crudeness, I think it may be a while until I won't have nightmares about a dancing penis that shouts 'Bruno!' at me.
There were many reasons for its lack of greatness. While there were some shocking moments, such as his attempt to get famous by trying to get kidnapped by terrorists, there were few 'holy $#*!' moments. I think we've become so jaded by the outrageous trash we see in reality television shows these days.
Another issue was the lack of a direction. In 'Borat', his character's goal was simple and you could tell it was approaching its climax. Here, it just meandered from one gag to another. Speaking of gagging, the last problem with the film was that it could only make gay jokes. There's only so much one could handle before getting bored. 'Borat' was great because it was able to explore a large variety of situations and themes, especially regarding American culture.
The reason why I keep making comparisons to 'Borat' is because it makes it easy to illustrate 'Bruno''s inferiority in this unique genre. If you only have the time (or the stomach) for one Sacha Baron Cohen film, I would recommend 'Borat' instead.
What I would change
No idea.
2009
Premise
In 'Borat' style, Sacha Baron Cohen is Bruno, hell-bent on becoming the most famous celebrity in the world.
Who should watch
Cohen fans.
Thoughts
Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the bravest artists I have ever seen. While I admired his courage, I was underwhelmed by this film.
As expected, I laughed a lot and squirmed a lot. My favorite part was when Bruno ventures into the Middle East in attempt to bring peace. In terms of crudeness, I think it may be a while until I won't have nightmares about a dancing penis that shouts 'Bruno!' at me.
There were many reasons for its lack of greatness. While there were some shocking moments, such as his attempt to get famous by trying to get kidnapped by terrorists, there were few 'holy $#*!' moments. I think we've become so jaded by the outrageous trash we see in reality television shows these days.
Another issue was the lack of a direction. In 'Borat', his character's goal was simple and you could tell it was approaching its climax. Here, it just meandered from one gag to another. Speaking of gagging, the last problem with the film was that it could only make gay jokes. There's only so much one could handle before getting bored. 'Borat' was great because it was able to explore a large variety of situations and themes, especially regarding American culture.
The reason why I keep making comparisons to 'Borat' is because it makes it easy to illustrate 'Bruno''s inferiority in this unique genre. If you only have the time (or the stomach) for one Sacha Baron Cohen film, I would recommend 'Borat' instead.
What I would change
No idea.
Christmas Carol
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Based on Charles Dickens' novel, Robert Zemeckis re-tells the story of three Christmas spirits teaching selfish Scrooge a lesson in 3D, motion-capture computer animation.
Who should watch
Those who want to see the novel come to life on the screen, but do not want to see the 1938 classic because it was in black-and-white.
Thoughts
It was an above-average holiday film, with some outstanding moments.
The best part was the 3D animation, especially during the second and third spirits visit scenes. Zemeckis knows how to deliver memorable, fantastic scenes. Audiences know the story, and he brought something visually new and exciting to the table. I love dark stuff, so my favorite scene was the death-laden, ominous ghost of Christmas future.
While I never read the novel, nor do I remember much from the 1938 original, this film felt like it was close to what those sources were. Zemeckis' vision was dark, scary, and grimy. I never understood why studios try to sell this story to kids.
My main issue was the casting and marketing of the cast. Jim Carrey did a pretty good job as Scrooge, and there were scenes that he was born to do. Also, I appreciate his willingness to take acting risks. However, I think this film would be more enjoyable if a character actor or lesser known actor (or even a British actor!) was the lead. For the first half of the film, I spent a lot of time thinking distractingly 'hey, Jim Carrey's doing pretty good', when I should have been focused only on the story. Maybe if Carrey was not the centerpiece of Disney's marketing, I would have less thoughts during the film as well.
While the 3D animation were haunting to behold, there was a little too much 3D for 3D sake. During my favorite segment, there was a superfluous chase scene through the deserted streets of London, and a rat-sized Scrooge, sliding and flying around human-sized things. Zemeckis usually lets the story guide everything, but he failed here.
The acting, animation and quality was better than I expected, especially in the second half. However, in terms of computer animated, Christmas-theme films by the underrated Zemeckis, I would choose 'Polar Express' over this any time.
What I would change
The dancing scenes. Granted they were flashbacks, but the physics-defying dancing by characters looked very unrealistic. This stood out like a sure thumb when compared to the rest of the film. Worse yet, the dance animation did not even look completed.
2009
Premise
Based on Charles Dickens' novel, Robert Zemeckis re-tells the story of three Christmas spirits teaching selfish Scrooge a lesson in 3D, motion-capture computer animation.
Who should watch
Those who want to see the novel come to life on the screen, but do not want to see the 1938 classic because it was in black-and-white.
Thoughts
It was an above-average holiday film, with some outstanding moments.
The best part was the 3D animation, especially during the second and third spirits visit scenes. Zemeckis knows how to deliver memorable, fantastic scenes. Audiences know the story, and he brought something visually new and exciting to the table. I love dark stuff, so my favorite scene was the death-laden, ominous ghost of Christmas future.
While I never read the novel, nor do I remember much from the 1938 original, this film felt like it was close to what those sources were. Zemeckis' vision was dark, scary, and grimy. I never understood why studios try to sell this story to kids.
My main issue was the casting and marketing of the cast. Jim Carrey did a pretty good job as Scrooge, and there were scenes that he was born to do. Also, I appreciate his willingness to take acting risks. However, I think this film would be more enjoyable if a character actor or lesser known actor (or even a British actor!) was the lead. For the first half of the film, I spent a lot of time thinking distractingly 'hey, Jim Carrey's doing pretty good', when I should have been focused only on the story. Maybe if Carrey was not the centerpiece of Disney's marketing, I would have less thoughts during the film as well.
While the 3D animation were haunting to behold, there was a little too much 3D for 3D sake. During my favorite segment, there was a superfluous chase scene through the deserted streets of London, and a rat-sized Scrooge, sliding and flying around human-sized things. Zemeckis usually lets the story guide everything, but he failed here.
The acting, animation and quality was better than I expected, especially in the second half. However, in terms of computer animated, Christmas-theme films by the underrated Zemeckis, I would choose 'Polar Express' over this any time.
What I would change
The dancing scenes. Granted they were flashbacks, but the physics-defying dancing by characters looked very unrealistic. This stood out like a sure thumb when compared to the rest of the film. Worse yet, the dance animation did not even look completed.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Viewed in
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on the children book, the town's mad scientist invents a machine that turns weather into food.
Who should watch
Those who like family-oriented animated movies that are entertaining for kids and adults.
Thoughts
Even with the positive reviews, I was genuinely surprised by the humor and likable characters.
I've never the book, so I can't comment on how close the story was the original source. Nevertheless, I credit the writing for creating a fun story without attempting to jam pop culture references. I laughed at pretty much every joke and twist on cliches.
In addition to being creative and funny, there were some nice morals serving as the backbone of the story, with themes of being true to yourself, loving your family, and the folly of trying to be popular.
The characters' likability were enhanced by some excellent voice work. During the film, I rarely felt like I was watching a cartoon voiced by a big name star. Most of the characters were organically created, and I was surprised at the names in the credits. The only voice that stood out was Mr. T's as the town sheriff. But that's a good thing, as his performance was hilarious and cool, and his character had a bald hawk.
I got to watch it in 3D IMAX, and that added to the experience. Thanks to the story, halfway through, I forgot I was watching a 3D movie. The animation was way better than I expected, as I was immersed in a colorful universe with energetic and creative computer graphics.
My only concern was that the climax got a little weird when food started mutating.
I think most viewers will have a lot of fun watching this film, thanks to its creativity and writing. I was surprised I was not craving for food upon leaving.
What I would change
While it gave a chance for animators to do some cool stuff with computer generated food, I thought the climax was a tad long.
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on the children book, the town's mad scientist invents a machine that turns weather into food.
Who should watch
Those who like family-oriented animated movies that are entertaining for kids and adults.
Thoughts
Even with the positive reviews, I was genuinely surprised by the humor and likable characters.
I've never the book, so I can't comment on how close the story was the original source. Nevertheless, I credit the writing for creating a fun story without attempting to jam pop culture references. I laughed at pretty much every joke and twist on cliches.
In addition to being creative and funny, there were some nice morals serving as the backbone of the story, with themes of being true to yourself, loving your family, and the folly of trying to be popular.
The characters' likability were enhanced by some excellent voice work. During the film, I rarely felt like I was watching a cartoon voiced by a big name star. Most of the characters were organically created, and I was surprised at the names in the credits. The only voice that stood out was Mr. T's as the town sheriff. But that's a good thing, as his performance was hilarious and cool, and his character had a bald hawk.
I got to watch it in 3D IMAX, and that added to the experience. Thanks to the story, halfway through, I forgot I was watching a 3D movie. The animation was way better than I expected, as I was immersed in a colorful universe with energetic and creative computer graphics.
My only concern was that the climax got a little weird when food started mutating.
I think most viewers will have a lot of fun watching this film, thanks to its creativity and writing. I was surprised I was not craving for food upon leaving.
What I would change
While it gave a chance for animators to do some cool stuff with computer generated food, I thought the climax was a tad long.
Crazy Heart
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Jeff Bridges attempts to win a best actor award as a struggling, past-his-prime country singer.
Who should watch
Bridges fans.
Thoughts
It's got good music and acting, but not much else.
Jeff Bridges was very well cast. He was very believable as a talented, alcoholic singer who has trouble learning from his mistakes. Though I was amused by how much he looked like an older Eddie Vedder. Bridges was flanked by some cool and unexpected cast members, especially the great Robert Duvall. The dynamic between Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal, especially when things start falling apart was quite affecting.
Overall, the characters were well drawn out. Most of the time, it felt like I was watching real people dealing with real issues and behaving like human beings. It also had quite a bit of unexpected, organic humor.
My problem was that I could not help but compare this to last year's 'The Wrestler'. When put side by side, this felt like an inferior copy. A film like this really hinges on the audience to forgive the plot or other flaws and to be fully emotionally attached to the main character as he fights his demons. Mickey Rourke sold it with every grunt out of bed, with every wrinkle on his face. In this film, I found this archetype just too familiar and, frankly, uninteresting. So despite Bridges' efforts, he never won me over.
I enjoyed the music and the acting. Too bad it just screamed 'Vote Jeff Bridges for Best Actor!' in every scene. Perhaps I would have liked it more if it came out a few years later, or if it had less hype.
What I would change
Not sure.
Random
I loved that the credits kept the Juan/Jesus joke going.
2010
Premise
Jeff Bridges attempts to win a best actor award as a struggling, past-his-prime country singer.
Who should watch
Bridges fans.
Thoughts
It's got good music and acting, but not much else.
Jeff Bridges was very well cast. He was very believable as a talented, alcoholic singer who has trouble learning from his mistakes. Though I was amused by how much he looked like an older Eddie Vedder. Bridges was flanked by some cool and unexpected cast members, especially the great Robert Duvall. The dynamic between Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal, especially when things start falling apart was quite affecting.
Overall, the characters were well drawn out. Most of the time, it felt like I was watching real people dealing with real issues and behaving like human beings. It also had quite a bit of unexpected, organic humor.
My problem was that I could not help but compare this to last year's 'The Wrestler'. When put side by side, this felt like an inferior copy. A film like this really hinges on the audience to forgive the plot or other flaws and to be fully emotionally attached to the main character as he fights his demons. Mickey Rourke sold it with every grunt out of bed, with every wrinkle on his face. In this film, I found this archetype just too familiar and, frankly, uninteresting. So despite Bridges' efforts, he never won me over.
I enjoyed the music and the acting. Too bad it just screamed 'Vote Jeff Bridges for Best Actor!' in every scene. Perhaps I would have liked it more if it came out a few years later, or if it had less hype.
What I would change
Not sure.
Random
I loved that the credits kept the Juan/Jesus joke going.
District 9
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In present day 2000's, District 9 is a refugee camp for a shipwrecked group of alien species.
Who should watch
Those who want to see the alien genre told in an intelligent, realistic and unique way.
Thoughts
In the past, aliens were portrayed as omnipotent advanced beings, magical cuddly creatures or simply monsters. I've never seen them quite as human. Here, the Prawns, as they're called, were leader-less, power-less, forced to live in slums, subservient to warlords, bureaucracy and addiction.
I liked the documentary storytelling of the film. It was quite believable with the character behaviors and realistic violence, with the documentary style as icing to the cake. The main flaw was that it succumbed to the current fad of making every shot hand-held. It annoyed me, brought nothing to the story, and gave my friend motion sickness.
My favorite parts of the film were in the first half, as it had an allegory feel to it. I was interested in exploring the themes of refugee camps, and racism (species-ism? specism?). While the second half was much more action-oriented, I was fully invested in the characters and their predicaments, and the story was consistently intelligent and plausible, so I was still on for the ride.
My friend and I argued about the ending. She believed that it was open-ended to set up a possible sequel. I doubted that there is anything left in the story to tell. I like films that made us think.
Please note that I had not mentioned the special effects. Consider that as a compliment. The film makers put story first, and used excellent special effects to enhance the experience.
Audiences who are tired of typical aliens should find this believable, unique twist on the genre as a breath of fresh air.
What I would change
Reduced some of the gore. It was consistent with the realistic style, but, just like the overuse of hand held cameras, too much is too much.
2009
Premise
In present day 2000's, District 9 is a refugee camp for a shipwrecked group of alien species.
Who should watch
Those who want to see the alien genre told in an intelligent, realistic and unique way.
Thoughts
In the past, aliens were portrayed as omnipotent advanced beings, magical cuddly creatures or simply monsters. I've never seen them quite as human. Here, the Prawns, as they're called, were leader-less, power-less, forced to live in slums, subservient to warlords, bureaucracy and addiction.
I liked the documentary storytelling of the film. It was quite believable with the character behaviors and realistic violence, with the documentary style as icing to the cake. The main flaw was that it succumbed to the current fad of making every shot hand-held. It annoyed me, brought nothing to the story, and gave my friend motion sickness.
My favorite parts of the film were in the first half, as it had an allegory feel to it. I was interested in exploring the themes of refugee camps, and racism (species-ism? specism?). While the second half was much more action-oriented, I was fully invested in the characters and their predicaments, and the story was consistently intelligent and plausible, so I was still on for the ride.
My friend and I argued about the ending. She believed that it was open-ended to set up a possible sequel. I doubted that there is anything left in the story to tell. I like films that made us think.
Please note that I had not mentioned the special effects. Consider that as a compliment. The film makers put story first, and used excellent special effects to enhance the experience.
Audiences who are tired of typical aliens should find this believable, unique twist on the genre as a breath of fresh air.
What I would change
Reduced some of the gore. It was consistent with the realistic style, but, just like the overuse of hand held cameras, too much is too much.
Drag Me to Hell
Viewed in
2010
Premise
Poor Alison Lohman is tormented by a gypsy woman's curse.
Who should watch
Those who like horror that is more old school, and not the torture-porn that is all the rage.
Thoughts
I was definitely spooked out all the way through.
Alison Lohman was really good, and I felt sorry for her character as she deals with scary and disgusting moments. The climax in the graveyard was one of my favorite scenes, thanks to her butt-kicking performance. Big ups to Lohman for the physical/mental/emotional toll and risks she took to achieve those scenes. The behind the scenes helped me appreciate her performance even more.
Sam Raimi still has his fastball. It had nice mix of indulgent uneasy creepiness, surprising shock reveals with stinger chords, and flat out enthusiastic grossness. At times, I was cowering, afraid to know what happens next, but at the same time I was smirking by how much fun I was having (as well as the film makers).
The story was pretty good for a horror movie. In fact, the moral dilemma subplot was very interesting, and pushed the film beyond its genre a bit. How Lohman's character gets cursed by the scary gypsy woman was very unexpected, rather bizarre and darkly funny.
My only beef with the film was the resolution, as it involved a cliche plot device to flip the story around. As an intelligent audience I felt cheated. Kind of odd that I could accept the heroine's dumb idea of never telling her doting boyfriend the truth in key scenes, but I could not accept that device near the end.
Also, some of the computer graphics could have been better.
I enjoyed this Sam Raimi film, but with a much better budget with slicker special effects. It was like watching an old master, schooling all the wannabes, screaming 'this is how you do it right!' without even breaking a sweat. Definitely a fun, odd, and memorable horror film.
Note: I watched the theatrical version.
What I would change
Though I liked the risk-taking by Justin Long and the film makers to cast him as the boyfriend, I would have picked a better actor.
2010
Premise
Poor Alison Lohman is tormented by a gypsy woman's curse.
Who should watch
Those who like horror that is more old school, and not the torture-porn that is all the rage.
Thoughts
I was definitely spooked out all the way through.
Alison Lohman was really good, and I felt sorry for her character as she deals with scary and disgusting moments. The climax in the graveyard was one of my favorite scenes, thanks to her butt-kicking performance. Big ups to Lohman for the physical/mental/emotional toll and risks she took to achieve those scenes. The behind the scenes helped me appreciate her performance even more.
Sam Raimi still has his fastball. It had nice mix of indulgent uneasy creepiness, surprising shock reveals with stinger chords, and flat out enthusiastic grossness. At times, I was cowering, afraid to know what happens next, but at the same time I was smirking by how much fun I was having (as well as the film makers).
The story was pretty good for a horror movie. In fact, the moral dilemma subplot was very interesting, and pushed the film beyond its genre a bit. How Lohman's character gets cursed by the scary gypsy woman was very unexpected, rather bizarre and darkly funny.
My only beef with the film was the resolution, as it involved a cliche plot device to flip the story around. As an intelligent audience I felt cheated. Kind of odd that I could accept the heroine's dumb idea of never telling her doting boyfriend the truth in key scenes, but I could not accept that device near the end.
Also, some of the computer graphics could have been better.
I enjoyed this Sam Raimi film, but with a much better budget with slicker special effects. It was like watching an old master, schooling all the wannabes, screaming 'this is how you do it right!' without even breaking a sweat. Definitely a fun, odd, and memorable horror film.
Note: I watched the theatrical version.
What I would change
Though I liked the risk-taking by Justin Long and the film makers to cast him as the boyfriend, I would have picked a better actor.
An Education
Viewed in
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
Carrie Mulligan plays a 1960's British school girl who falls for an older man, Peter Sargaard.
Liked
The acting, the writing.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed the writing. Not only was it extremely well-structured, but it had interesting characters. Like most of Nick Hornby's other works, his characters talked and behaved like real regular people, and their believability made them endearing.
Mulligan definitely deserved her nomination for best actress. She was excellent as her character transformed from her arc. Sarsgaard was well-cast as a non-threatening older man, which is rather difficult, since modern audiences are keenly aware of the creepiness of older men seducing young girls. Emma Thompson and Alfred Molina added some nice supporting moments.
The directing and art direction succeeded in moving the story and feeling like authentic 1960's Britain. One of my favorite moments was when Mulligan and Sarsgaard visit Paris. The execution of capturing that time and place, as well as making it feel like a shout out to French New Wave was impeccable.
One unsuccessful moment was when the parents mulled over a big decision by the school girl. I thought their behavior was of sarcasm, when it turned out that was not the case. So that section could have been clearer.
An Education obviously created some double-takes when it made the nomination list. While I would not consider it one of the best films of 2009, I would consider it a very recommendable film, thanks to Hornby's writing and Mulligan's performance.
Lastly, I hope this encourages Hornby to do more screenplays. I'm starting to become a fan after his involvement with High Fidelity and About a Boy.
Note: For American audiences, I think the English accents were pretty light, so you could do without subtitles.
What I would change
Nothing.
2011
Formats
TV
Premise
Carrie Mulligan plays a 1960's British school girl who falls for an older man, Peter Sargaard.
Liked
The acting, the writing.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed the writing. Not only was it extremely well-structured, but it had interesting characters. Like most of Nick Hornby's other works, his characters talked and behaved like real regular people, and their believability made them endearing.
Mulligan definitely deserved her nomination for best actress. She was excellent as her character transformed from her arc. Sarsgaard was well-cast as a non-threatening older man, which is rather difficult, since modern audiences are keenly aware of the creepiness of older men seducing young girls. Emma Thompson and Alfred Molina added some nice supporting moments.
The directing and art direction succeeded in moving the story and feeling like authentic 1960's Britain. One of my favorite moments was when Mulligan and Sarsgaard visit Paris. The execution of capturing that time and place, as well as making it feel like a shout out to French New Wave was impeccable.
One unsuccessful moment was when the parents mulled over a big decision by the school girl. I thought their behavior was of sarcasm, when it turned out that was not the case. So that section could have been clearer.
An Education obviously created some double-takes when it made the nomination list. While I would not consider it one of the best films of 2009, I would consider it a very recommendable film, thanks to Hornby's writing and Mulligan's performance.
Lastly, I hope this encourages Hornby to do more screenplays. I'm starting to become a fan after his involvement with High Fidelity and About a Boy.
Note: For American audiences, I think the English accents were pretty light, so you could do without subtitles.
What I would change
Nothing.
Fantastic Mr Fox
Viewed in
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on Roald Dahl's children's book about a fantastic fox trying to beat three of the meanest human farmers in the neighborhood.
Liked
Wes Anderson sense of humor.
Disliked
Wondering if it was watchable for kids.
Thoughts
Basically an animated Wes Anderson film.
I highly doubt it was remotely close the the book, other than the visuals. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the film. The characters were super-quirky, the irreverent dialogue sparkled, and the low-key voices performances were pitch-perfect. Jason Schwartzman was hilarious as the neglected, passively-aggressive son.
My favorite moments were when the civilized animal characters would suddenly revert to their 'wild animal' selves, when getting into arguments or chowing down their food. I spent a lot of time smirking, giggling or laughing out loud.
The main issue is whether this film will work for kids. I do not know if they would understand the humor in most of the dialogue and behaviors.
As a film goer who appreciates Wes Anderson movies, I had a good time. I just do not know how regular audiences or children will enjoy it as much as I did.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
The film makers used recorders as part of the score. I have not heard one of those since elementary school.
2009, 2010
Premise
Based on Roald Dahl's children's book about a fantastic fox trying to beat three of the meanest human farmers in the neighborhood.
Liked
Wes Anderson sense of humor.
Disliked
Wondering if it was watchable for kids.
Thoughts
Basically an animated Wes Anderson film.
I highly doubt it was remotely close the the book, other than the visuals. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the film. The characters were super-quirky, the irreverent dialogue sparkled, and the low-key voices performances were pitch-perfect. Jason Schwartzman was hilarious as the neglected, passively-aggressive son.
My favorite moments were when the civilized animal characters would suddenly revert to their 'wild animal' selves, when getting into arguments or chowing down their food. I spent a lot of time smirking, giggling or laughing out loud.
The main issue is whether this film will work for kids. I do not know if they would understand the humor in most of the dialogue and behaviors.
As a film goer who appreciates Wes Anderson movies, I had a good time. I just do not know how regular audiences or children will enjoy it as much as I did.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
The film makers used recorders as part of the score. I have not heard one of those since elementary school.
(500) Days of Summer
Viewed in
2009, 2010
Premise
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel star in one of those quirky romantic comedies.
Who should watch
Those who like quirky indie romantic comedies.
Thoughts
A very cute film.
I liked how the screenplay was offbeat and goofy, yet it was able to maintain its believability. The film makers did an excellent job of showing what it's like for socially awkward people in their late 20's to fall in love for the first time. (Yes, I speak from experience.) As it moved from 'boy meets girl' phase to 'boy loses girl' phase, the characters remained human and realistic. Throughout the story, the writers kept things funny and entertaining.
Aside from both having difficult names to spell, Levitt and Deschanel lit up the screen with their adorable charm. Levitt really reminded me of John Cusack circa 'Grosse Point Blank' and 'High Fidelity'. It was amazing how both could effortlessly portray brooding, love-obsessed, aloof, off-kilter young men, yet make them completely sympathetic. I loved the scene when Levitt's character is speechless when asked to define 'love'. Just a perfect moment.
Sometimes it tried too hard to be an 'indie film', such as the relentless eclectic score, wizened young sister, random musical dance scene, and parodies of French New Wave classics. But that was just a nit-pick; last year's 'Juno' had a similar, but larger, flaw.
It did not bring anything new to the genre, but I would highly recommend it for its well-written portrayal of awkward human relationships and lovable leads.
What I would change
Nothing.
Personal
I was amused by the striking number of similarities between the main characters and my first girlfriend experience. Some stuff was spot on and really hit home. So either this was a testament to the film's universality of awkward, first-time lover moments, or I should sue them for royalties. I wonder what my ex-girlfriend thinks about this film...
Funny that it referenced 'The Graduate' because of the parallels. Not in terms of plot, but of tone. My biggest gripe with that film was its 180 degree turn in tone halfway through the film from darkly funny to very serious. In 'Days of Summer', when the plot got a little gloomy, the comedy tone and character behaviors were still consistent. Plus, they warn the audience in the first scene by time-jumping to when boy loses girl.
2009, 2010
Premise
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel star in one of those quirky romantic comedies.
Who should watch
Those who like quirky indie romantic comedies.
Thoughts
A very cute film.
I liked how the screenplay was offbeat and goofy, yet it was able to maintain its believability. The film makers did an excellent job of showing what it's like for socially awkward people in their late 20's to fall in love for the first time. (Yes, I speak from experience.) As it moved from 'boy meets girl' phase to 'boy loses girl' phase, the characters remained human and realistic. Throughout the story, the writers kept things funny and entertaining.
Aside from both having difficult names to spell, Levitt and Deschanel lit up the screen with their adorable charm. Levitt really reminded me of John Cusack circa 'Grosse Point Blank' and 'High Fidelity'. It was amazing how both could effortlessly portray brooding, love-obsessed, aloof, off-kilter young men, yet make them completely sympathetic. I loved the scene when Levitt's character is speechless when asked to define 'love'. Just a perfect moment.
Sometimes it tried too hard to be an 'indie film', such as the relentless eclectic score, wizened young sister, random musical dance scene, and parodies of French New Wave classics. But that was just a nit-pick; last year's 'Juno' had a similar, but larger, flaw.
It did not bring anything new to the genre, but I would highly recommend it for its well-written portrayal of awkward human relationships and lovable leads.
What I would change
Nothing.
Personal
I was amused by the striking number of similarities between the main characters and my first girlfriend experience. Some stuff was spot on and really hit home. So either this was a testament to the film's universality of awkward, first-time lover moments, or I should sue them for royalties. I wonder what my ex-girlfriend thinks about this film...
Funny that it referenced 'The Graduate' because of the parallels. Not in terms of plot, but of tone. My biggest gripe with that film was its 180 degree turn in tone halfway through the film from darkly funny to very serious. In 'Days of Summer', when the plot got a little gloomy, the comedy tone and character behaviors were still consistent. Plus, they warn the audience in the first scene by time-jumping to when boy loses girl.
Food, Inc.
Viewed in
2010 (2)
Premise
A documentary about how the corporate food industry affects our American way of life.
Who should watch
Anyone who eats.
Thoughts
An amazing film that educated and entertained me.
I considered myself to be above average when it comes to being knowledgeable about how unnatural the majority of our food supply has become, such as animals living in cramped, dirty pens, and that 80% of our diet consumption contains corn. Even so, I was impressed, in fact shocked by how much I did not know.
For example, I learned that even charcoal contains corn, and that chicken are grown so fast that they cannot stand/walk because of brittle bones and muscles. For me, the biggest revelation was just how powerful the handful of companies that control the majority of our food supply are. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but their super-shady tactics of manipulating their products, the farmers, the poor, the public, and the politicians smelled like one.
Kudos to the film makers for presenting their story clearly and with the human touch. Each chapter had an understandable arc and flow. At first, I thought it was a scattering of stories, but in the end they all tied to the main themes. Amazingly, the film rarely stooped to sensationalism to get their point across. Just in depth research and slick journalism.
While it explored the economical, environmental, political, and ethical impacts of this style of doing business, 'Food, Inc.' also masterfully highlighted the human impacts. They followed the advocate who lost her child to bad meat, the farmers who were financially cornered and bullied by conglomerates, and a poor family struggling to eat healthy within their means.
The coolest character was Joel Salatin, a farmer fighting to keep his convictions. He was smart, articulate, passionate, and frankly, gave me hope that we the consumers have choices. I was also very intrigued by the individuals striving to find the compromise between profit and doing the right thing. Going into the film, I never expected Wal-Mart to be helping the cause.
When we see a burger with a low price tag, we need to recognize that its true price might include mistreated animals, questionable ethics, manipulated natural and human resources, and our health. I'm glad this film enlightened me about this, and I hope it will enlighten you.
This was equally important and excellent. It made me angry, appalled, speechless, and lastly, it made me think a little harder about what I eat and buy. An entity that altered domestic policy, brought hardships to other nations, and even attacked Oprah cannot be ignored.
What I would change
Nothing.
Personal
I found it interesting and eerie that some of the faulty business practices and philosophies that were revealed during the sub-prime market industry were also prevalent with the food industry. This film already claimed that the food industry was the most protected of the special interests. Now that Congress just repealed the hundred-year old regulations, this just gave them even more power. Scary thought.
2010 (2)
Premise
A documentary about how the corporate food industry affects our American way of life.
Who should watch
Anyone who eats.
Thoughts
An amazing film that educated and entertained me.
I considered myself to be above average when it comes to being knowledgeable about how unnatural the majority of our food supply has become, such as animals living in cramped, dirty pens, and that 80% of our diet consumption contains corn. Even so, I was impressed, in fact shocked by how much I did not know.
For example, I learned that even charcoal contains corn, and that chicken are grown so fast that they cannot stand/walk because of brittle bones and muscles. For me, the biggest revelation was just how powerful the handful of companies that control the majority of our food supply are. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but their super-shady tactics of manipulating their products, the farmers, the poor, the public, and the politicians smelled like one.
Kudos to the film makers for presenting their story clearly and with the human touch. Each chapter had an understandable arc and flow. At first, I thought it was a scattering of stories, but in the end they all tied to the main themes. Amazingly, the film rarely stooped to sensationalism to get their point across. Just in depth research and slick journalism.
While it explored the economical, environmental, political, and ethical impacts of this style of doing business, 'Food, Inc.' also masterfully highlighted the human impacts. They followed the advocate who lost her child to bad meat, the farmers who were financially cornered and bullied by conglomerates, and a poor family struggling to eat healthy within their means.
The coolest character was Joel Salatin, a farmer fighting to keep his convictions. He was smart, articulate, passionate, and frankly, gave me hope that we the consumers have choices. I was also very intrigued by the individuals striving to find the compromise between profit and doing the right thing. Going into the film, I never expected Wal-Mart to be helping the cause.
When we see a burger with a low price tag, we need to recognize that its true price might include mistreated animals, questionable ethics, manipulated natural and human resources, and our health. I'm glad this film enlightened me about this, and I hope it will enlighten you.
This was equally important and excellent. It made me angry, appalled, speechless, and lastly, it made me think a little harder about what I eat and buy. An entity that altered domestic policy, brought hardships to other nations, and even attacked Oprah cannot be ignored.
What I would change
Nothing.
Personal
I found it interesting and eerie that some of the faulty business practices and philosophies that were revealed during the sub-prime market industry were also prevalent with the food industry. This film already claimed that the food industry was the most protected of the special interests. Now that Congress just repealed the hundred-year old regulations, this just gave them even more power. Scary thought.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
Viewed in
2009
Premise
A movie based on the popular toys and 1980's cartoon.
Who should watch
Fans of 'G. I. Joe'?
Thoughts
I went in expecting nothing, and I was still bored and disappointed.
My inner twelve year old boy was force-fed with all sorts of action from ninja kids to computer-generated explo-gasms. There was also hot chicks in tight clothing (I sure love me some redhead). Lastly, I enjoyed Brendan Fraser's cameo.
Maybe I did not like it because I never watched a single episode (I was more of a 'Transformers' fan). Thus, I did not really know any of the characters, and about 20 minutes in, I did not care to know them. The action sequences and flashbacks were numerous and long. Any shoutouts or insides jokes were useless to me. I wonder if I would have said the same thing about 'Transformers' had I never watched the cartoons?
Even though I know nothing about the Joes, I'm pretty sure it did not involve soldiers using nano-robotic-steroids and power suits saving Paris and the Arctic Circle. Where are 'the real American heroes'?
To me. this was a typical summer movie: too many explosions, hot chicks, predictable plots, no brains, and computer graphics that look like computer graphics. If you needed one more of these to end the summer, then have fun.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
What the hell is the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt doing in here?! Apparently he likes to plays soldiers with Channing Tatum.
2009
Premise
A movie based on the popular toys and 1980's cartoon.
Who should watch
Fans of 'G. I. Joe'?
Thoughts
I went in expecting nothing, and I was still bored and disappointed.
My inner twelve year old boy was force-fed with all sorts of action from ninja kids to computer-generated explo-gasms. There was also hot chicks in tight clothing (I sure love me some redhead). Lastly, I enjoyed Brendan Fraser's cameo.
Maybe I did not like it because I never watched a single episode (I was more of a 'Transformers' fan). Thus, I did not really know any of the characters, and about 20 minutes in, I did not care to know them. The action sequences and flashbacks were numerous and long. Any shoutouts or insides jokes were useless to me. I wonder if I would have said the same thing about 'Transformers' had I never watched the cartoons?
Even though I know nothing about the Joes, I'm pretty sure it did not involve soldiers using nano-robotic-steroids and power suits saving Paris and the Arctic Circle. Where are 'the real American heroes'?
To me. this was a typical summer movie: too many explosions, hot chicks, predictable plots, no brains, and computer graphics that look like computer graphics. If you needed one more of these to end the summer, then have fun.
What I would change
No idea.
Random
What the hell is the great Joseph Gordon-Levitt doing in here?! Apparently he likes to plays soldiers with Channing Tatum.
Hangover, The
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Four buddies go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party, and all hell breaks loose and hilarity ensues.
Who should watch
Those who want to have a fun(ny) time at the movies.
Thoughts
Finally, a lean, mean, laughing machine!
I do not recall laughing at such a high frequency during a film in a long time. It delivered a great blend of slapstick, raunchy, random, inappropriate and broad comedy without any slow moments or boring romantic subplots. Kudos to the writing, directing and acting. It had to balance on a thin line between outrageous and plausible, and it barely hung on by a pinkie.
As a 'Daily Show' fan, I was glad to see Ed Helms succeed in his first 'lead' role. I was also glad to see the still hot Heather Graham still employed. The Mike Tyson cameo was great, because unlike others, his character was actually a meaningful (and very funny) subplot. The actor playing the Gaysian (gay + Asian) mobster was hilarious.
My favorite parts was anything involving the tiger, because it was interesting to watch from a film maker standpoint on how those scenes were achieved. Also, I totally did not expect a hilarious parody/reference to 'Rain Man'.
My main gripe was that it lacked that 'oomph' factor to make it great and memorable. Five years from now, somebody will ask me 'Should I rent 'The Hangover'?', and I will reply 'yes', but I will not remember why they should watch it.
Also, Ed Helms' character arc was completely predictable. On the other hand, I was completely wrong about predicting the missing groom's arc.
This film was like a fun party in Vegas... without the hangover.
What I would change
Nothing.
2009
Premise
Four buddies go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party, and all hell breaks loose and hilarity ensues.
Who should watch
Those who want to have a fun(ny) time at the movies.
Thoughts
Finally, a lean, mean, laughing machine!
I do not recall laughing at such a high frequency during a film in a long time. It delivered a great blend of slapstick, raunchy, random, inappropriate and broad comedy without any slow moments or boring romantic subplots. Kudos to the writing, directing and acting. It had to balance on a thin line between outrageous and plausible, and it barely hung on by a pinkie.
As a 'Daily Show' fan, I was glad to see Ed Helms succeed in his first 'lead' role. I was also glad to see the still hot Heather Graham still employed. The Mike Tyson cameo was great, because unlike others, his character was actually a meaningful (and very funny) subplot. The actor playing the Gaysian (gay + Asian) mobster was hilarious.
My favorite parts was anything involving the tiger, because it was interesting to watch from a film maker standpoint on how those scenes were achieved. Also, I totally did not expect a hilarious parody/reference to 'Rain Man'.
My main gripe was that it lacked that 'oomph' factor to make it great and memorable. Five years from now, somebody will ask me 'Should I rent 'The Hangover'?', and I will reply 'yes', but I will not remember why they should watch it.
Also, Ed Helms' character arc was completely predictable. On the other hand, I was completely wrong about predicting the missing groom's arc.
This film was like a fun party in Vegas... without the hangover.
What I would change
Nothing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)