Here is a look at a movie based off of a book, and also a movie in a series in which a new actor has taken the part of the lead character, the 1992 film Patriot Games. Based off of the novel by Tom Clancy, Patriot Games was directed by Phillip Noyce (Salt, The Saint, Clear and Present Danger) and stars Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan. As many of you are surely aware of, Jack Ryan was played by Alec Baldwin in Hunt for Red October, but because negotiations broke down between Paramount Studios and Baldwin, Ford was tapped as Baldwin's replacement, which was an interesting choice because Ford is 16 years older than Baldwin. Patriot Games also stars Anne Archer, James Earl Jones, Sean Bean, Patrick Bergan, Thora Birch, and Samuel L. Jackson. In Patriot Games, Ryan, a former CIA Agent, thwarts an assassination attempt by an IRA splinter group while vacationing in London. Ryan returns back home, but quickly discovers that he and his family are in danger, as the group wants revenge on Ryan. So Ryan must go back to the CIA to not only find out more about his pursuers, but to save his family as well. A few notes about the movie:
- This movie caused quite a bit of controversy when it came out. For one, Tom Clancy felt that the movie's script was so much different from his book that he distanced himself from the movie. He probably had good reason, considering the movie's ending was totally different from the book and the target of the terrorists went from the King and Queen of Wales to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Also, a lot of people were not too fond of the movie's portrayal of the IRA (a.k.a. The Provisional Irish Republican Army) as a group of loose cannons that travel to America and target an innocent woman and her daughter for vengeance's sake. Personally, I don't know enough about all that to form an opinion on it, but a writer for The Variety felt that the film was 'anti-Irish', which ticked Paramount off to the point that they briefly pulled all their advertising from that publication.
- As Jack Ryan, Harrison Ford does Harrison Ford things in a Harrison Ford manner. He plays it cool 95 percent of the time, then he starts yelling and running around like a madman when he or his family are in peril. Sure, it's not a bad performance, but it's basically the same type of character he played in The Fugitive and Air Force One, a man that gets thrown into a challenging situation and has a thirst for revenge. The only difference is that in those movies, he added a little more emotion and drama to the proceedings, while in Patriot Games, there were times that looked as if he was just going through the motions.
- Jack Ryan was not the only character to undergo a change of actors, as Anne Archer stepped in for Gates McFadden in Patriot Games. As Catherine Ryan, Archer's performance is much like the film itself, solid overall, but nothing that particularly stands out. I will say that Ford and Archer did have good chemistry when they were on screen together. Thora Birch plays the daughter of the couple, and does a commendable job in a challenging role. In fact, if it wasn't for Richard Harris's performance as IRA head Paddy O'Brien, I'd say that Birch was the best actor in this film.
- Despite all the fancy trappings this film offers, such as filming inside the CIA offices and all that, this basically is a story of revenge. After Ryan kills his brother, Sean Miller (Sean Bean) is broken out of prison and has only one thing in mind, to avenge his brother's death. After Miller and his friends put his wife and daughter in the hospital, Ryan drops everything, takes a leave from his job and rejoins the CIA, basically browbeating the head of the CIA in the process. While Ryan is sometimes cool and calm, and other times driven to anger, Miller is a hothead of the nth degree, and seems to be in a seething rage for the whole film. As Miller, Bean is a convincing bad guy, not making his character too over the top to be believable and proving to be a worthy villian in this film.
- As I mentioned before, the CIA opened up its headquarters and allowed filming to take place there, which was the first time the CIA ever did anything like that. I honestly don't know why they bothered, as other than a few scenes of people sitting around in an office and a viewing of an attack on a North African terrorist camp, the CIA setting was hardly utilized at all. Heck, they spent as much time at the hospital than the CIA building. Seems like a waste of money to me, but to each their own.
- As the director, Philip Noyce does well enough, I suppose. The action shots in this film were well-done and provided quite a bit of suspense. Basically, Noyce did enough to make this film work and lets the actors and scenes speak for themselves. James Horner provides a good and fitting score based largely off of Irish music, and cinematographer Donald McAlpine does a solid job as well.
Overall, Patriot Games is the type of film that is solid on most levels and keeps the viewer interested throughout, but ultimately isn't very memorable or remarkable. The acting is good, but the characters are mostly one-dimensional. The plot moves quickly, but it does have a few holes (such as, why does a splinter group of the IRA seem to have such a large overhead?). This movie was made to be a distraction for viewers for two hours, and serves its purpose, providing some suspense and an ending that is safe and predictable. Overall, I'd give Patriot Games a 5.9 out of 10, as its a decent film, but not great. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this film, than feel free to express them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, than share those ideas by sending me an e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Hollywood Homicide
Today's review is about a 2002 film that did not do so well at the box office, losing over 40 million dollars, Hollywood Homicide. Directed by Ron Shelton, Hollywood Homicide stars Harrison Ford, Josh Hartnett, Master P, Lena Olin, Martin Landau, Dwight Yoakam, Isaiah Washington, and Robert Wagner as himself. In this movie, an up-and-coming rap group is brutally murdered after a performance, and it's up to a pair of detectives, Joe Gavilan (Ford) and K.C. Calden (Hartnett), to solve the case. The duo try to solve this case while juggling their other professions, as Gavilin is a real-estate agent, while Calden is an aspiring actor who also runs a yoga studio in his spare time. As they get deeper and deeper into the case, the duo find it harder and harder to manage both the case and their other projects. Presumably, hyjinx ensue. A few notes about this movie, and I'll try to avoid SPOILERS as much as possible, but I'm sure some will slip in there.
- As Joe Gavilan, Ford does a decent job, though I got the feeling that he was basically playing himself for two hours. As for the character itself, while at first the idea of a detective being more concerned with his next real-estate deal was somewhat humorous, the constant co-mingling between Gavilan's cop life and real-estate career gets tiresome, especially during the extra long chase scene at the end of the movie. To me, I didn't think Gavilan was a particularly likable character, as he came across as more of a desperate shyster trying to hustle an extra buck or two than a heroic figure. Even when you found out that Internal Affairs officer Macko (Bruce Greenwood) was hell-bent on bringing Gavilan down, part of me felt that Gavilan probably deserved it.
- Opposite of Ford is Josh Hartnett's portrayal of detective K.C. Calden. While Hartnett wasn't neccesarily bad in this movie, he didn't bring anything extra to the table, and frankly, I felt that any number of young actors could have played the same role as well, if not better, than Hartnett did in this film. Of course, the script doesn't do Hartnett any favors, as Calden is basically a young cop who gets a lot of tail and, like everyone in Hollywood, wants to be an actor. Well, of course he does. Calden also doesn't seem to be very good at his job, as he's a poor shot who also has a severe problem with dead bodies. One wonders how a cop as young as Calden gets to the rank of detective despite being less than stellar at his craft, but I guess you're supposed to ignore that.
- Shelton and screenwriter Robert Souza (a former cop who also moonlighted as a real-estate agent) decided to pack the script of Hollywood Homicide with as many cop-movie cliches as they could get away with. There's the investigation by the hard nosed cop from Internal Affairs whose sole purpose seems to be to complicate matters, there's the gruff police lieutenant in charge (this time played by Keith David) whose sole purpose is to bark orders. Also, there's the twist that Calden's father was also a cop, and he was killed in the line of duty. Conveniently enough, Calden gets a chance to avenge his father's death and bring down his crooked ex-partner (played by Dwight Yoakam). Heck, there's even a fight over a girl in this film, as Gavilan has unwittingly stolen Macko's girlfriend, a radio psychic named Ruby (Lena Olin). There's so much cliches packed into the script that at the end, none of the storylines are allowed to stand out, so you end up getting a bunch of brief glimpses at each one without any background or real meaning behind them.
- If you like your movies packed with cameos, well Hollywood Homicide is right up your alley. Not only does Robert Wagner play himself, but you also get Gladys Knight playing the mother of a young rapper (played by Kurupt) whom the police is after, Master P as a club owner looking for a new house, and Smokey Robinson as a taxi driver. Perhaps the most interesting cameo is that of Lou Diamond Phillips as a cop undercover as a hooker. So, if you ever wanted to see Lou Diamond Phillips in drag, well I'd suggest you watch this film immediately.
Overall, there's not really a whole lot to say about Hollywood Homicide, because the film lacks substance. It's a paint-by-numbers buddy cop flick which tries to be clever, but ultimately falls short. Worst of all, it seems as if the film is caught in a middle ground between a comedy and a drama, and at the end, it's not humorous enough nor dramatic enough to be either. There's a few humorous moments in the film, and the climatic chase scenes, while overly drawn out, have a few intriguing action sequences, but it's not enough to make up for a muddled story and mostly boring first hour of the film. Overall, I'd give Hollywood Homicide a 3.5 out of 10, as it's a rather unremarkable film that offers hardly anything original and is well below the usual efforts of both Harrison Ford and director Ron Shelton. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or Hollywood Homicide in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- As Joe Gavilan, Ford does a decent job, though I got the feeling that he was basically playing himself for two hours. As for the character itself, while at first the idea of a detective being more concerned with his next real-estate deal was somewhat humorous, the constant co-mingling between Gavilan's cop life and real-estate career gets tiresome, especially during the extra long chase scene at the end of the movie. To me, I didn't think Gavilan was a particularly likable character, as he came across as more of a desperate shyster trying to hustle an extra buck or two than a heroic figure. Even when you found out that Internal Affairs officer Macko (Bruce Greenwood) was hell-bent on bringing Gavilan down, part of me felt that Gavilan probably deserved it.
- Opposite of Ford is Josh Hartnett's portrayal of detective K.C. Calden. While Hartnett wasn't neccesarily bad in this movie, he didn't bring anything extra to the table, and frankly, I felt that any number of young actors could have played the same role as well, if not better, than Hartnett did in this film. Of course, the script doesn't do Hartnett any favors, as Calden is basically a young cop who gets a lot of tail and, like everyone in Hollywood, wants to be an actor. Well, of course he does. Calden also doesn't seem to be very good at his job, as he's a poor shot who also has a severe problem with dead bodies. One wonders how a cop as young as Calden gets to the rank of detective despite being less than stellar at his craft, but I guess you're supposed to ignore that.
- Shelton and screenwriter Robert Souza (a former cop who also moonlighted as a real-estate agent) decided to pack the script of Hollywood Homicide with as many cop-movie cliches as they could get away with. There's the investigation by the hard nosed cop from Internal Affairs whose sole purpose seems to be to complicate matters, there's the gruff police lieutenant in charge (this time played by Keith David) whose sole purpose is to bark orders. Also, there's the twist that Calden's father was also a cop, and he was killed in the line of duty. Conveniently enough, Calden gets a chance to avenge his father's death and bring down his crooked ex-partner (played by Dwight Yoakam). Heck, there's even a fight over a girl in this film, as Gavilan has unwittingly stolen Macko's girlfriend, a radio psychic named Ruby (Lena Olin). There's so much cliches packed into the script that at the end, none of the storylines are allowed to stand out, so you end up getting a bunch of brief glimpses at each one without any background or real meaning behind them.
- If you like your movies packed with cameos, well Hollywood Homicide is right up your alley. Not only does Robert Wagner play himself, but you also get Gladys Knight playing the mother of a young rapper (played by Kurupt) whom the police is after, Master P as a club owner looking for a new house, and Smokey Robinson as a taxi driver. Perhaps the most interesting cameo is that of Lou Diamond Phillips as a cop undercover as a hooker. So, if you ever wanted to see Lou Diamond Phillips in drag, well I'd suggest you watch this film immediately.
Overall, there's not really a whole lot to say about Hollywood Homicide, because the film lacks substance. It's a paint-by-numbers buddy cop flick which tries to be clever, but ultimately falls short. Worst of all, it seems as if the film is caught in a middle ground between a comedy and a drama, and at the end, it's not humorous enough nor dramatic enough to be either. There's a few humorous moments in the film, and the climatic chase scenes, while overly drawn out, have a few intriguing action sequences, but it's not enough to make up for a muddled story and mostly boring first hour of the film. Overall, I'd give Hollywood Homicide a 3.5 out of 10, as it's a rather unremarkable film that offers hardly anything original and is well below the usual efforts of both Harrison Ford and director Ron Shelton. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or Hollywood Homicide in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Canon Movie Review: Blow Dry
See, I told you that it wouldn't be two weeks before another post on The Canon Review. Rather, it's only been a couple of days, so perhaps that's a step in the right direction. Anyway, today's review is of the 2001 film Blow Dry. Directed by Paddy Breathnach and written by Simon Beaufoy (who also wrote the screenplay for The Full Monty and Slumdog Millionaire, among others), Blow Dry stars Alan Rickman, Natasha Richardson, Josh Hartnett, Rachel Griffiths, Rachael Leigh Cook, and Bill Nighy. In Blow Dry, the British Hair Styling Championships are coming to the small town of Keithley, which inspires a salon artist named Shelley (Richardson) to try to get her old team back together and compete. However, Shelley's ex-husband Phil Allen (Rickman) and their son Brian (Hartnett) aren't exactly on the best of terms with Shelley, seeing as she left them for Phil's show model Sandra (Griffiths) some 10 years ago. But Shelley wants to make things right between everyone, as she has recently been told that she is dying of cancer, and wants her dysfunctional family to come together as a unit and figures that the competition will help in that pursuit. Meanwhile, hundreds of stylists have come to Keithley in pursuit of this year's title, including two-time defending champion and Phil's old rival, Raymond Robertson. Raymond has employed his American daughter, Christina, as a model this year, but things grow complicated once she strikes up a relationship with Brian. A few notes about this film, and there may be SPOILERS, but I'll try to keep them to a minimum.
- This film actually reminded me of a couple of other films, actually. A comparison that I saw a lot about this film was to the 2000 film Best in Show, which was similar in that both films dealt with offbeat people in a competition. Blow Dry also shared some similarities with the 1992 Strictly Ballroom, although it wasn't quite as over the top and glamorous as Ballroom was. After watching Blow Dry, I kind of want to watch those other two movies again, which may not necessarily be a good thing for this movie.
- As Phil Allen, Rickman does a nice job in portraying him as a bitter man who once tasted greatness and now carves out a simple living cutting hair in a simple barber's shop. In fact, he does such a good job that it became hard to imagine Phil as once being a flashy hair-stylist. But once the final scene rolls around, Rickman is also able to portray his character in an over-the-top yet humble manner, a multi-layered portrayal which really sticks out compared to all the other hairdressers.
- The best acting performance in this movie would have to be Natasha Richardson's portrayal of Shelley. Richardson was able to play a part that's been played hundreds of times before, the terminally ill woman wanting to tie together all the loose ends, and plays the part better than most. She's able to be both vulnerable yet strong, positive yet cynical, and plays Shelley with a levity that is often missing from roles such as these. Even though the script doesn't exactly do Richardson a lot of favors, she's able to take what she's given and deliver a great performance anyhow.
- Josh Hartnett and Rachael Leigh Cook are also in the movie, as a pair of young adults who knew each other as kids and are now reconnecting after years as young adults. Cook plays Christina, the daughter of hairstylist Raymond Robertson, who is not above cheating to reclaim his crown as Britian's best hairstylist, while Hartnett plays the son of Phil and Shelley. Hartnett attempts to speak with a British accent throughout the film, but it comes and goes a lot of the time, while Cook plays an American who happens to have a British hairstylist for a father. Either way, neither Hartnett or Cook are particularly outstanding in their roles, and their storyline just seems like filler most of the time.
- This movie also has a lot of supporting characters, some of which are stronger than others. Bill Nighy as Raymond Robertson is very effective in his role as the over-the-top villian of the film who will stoop to any level to win. Meanwhile, Warren Clarke provides quite a few laughs as the mayor of Keithley and the MC of the hair competition. There's also a subplot involving a model (played by Heidi Klum) and two stylist brothers that provide a couple of laughs, but really just seemed tacked on to the script, probably as an excuse to cast Heidi Klum.
Overall, Blow Dry is supposed to be a comedy about an underdog team of hairstylists coming together to win the big game, so to speak. But there's too much drama in this film for it to be a comedy, and it's too muddled of a film to be considered a straight drama. Blow Dry is a good film, but ultimately it's also a film that's not particularly memorable and outside of Richardson's performance, the acting is hit-or-miss. I'd recommend seeing it, especially if you are a fan of Alan Rickman or Natasha Richardson, but it's not exactly an essential film that everyone must see. Overall, I'd give Blow Dry a 6.1 out of 10, as it's good in a lot of spots, but not great. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or Blow Dry in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- This film actually reminded me of a couple of other films, actually. A comparison that I saw a lot about this film was to the 2000 film Best in Show, which was similar in that both films dealt with offbeat people in a competition. Blow Dry also shared some similarities with the 1992 Strictly Ballroom, although it wasn't quite as over the top and glamorous as Ballroom was. After watching Blow Dry, I kind of want to watch those other two movies again, which may not necessarily be a good thing for this movie.
- As Phil Allen, Rickman does a nice job in portraying him as a bitter man who once tasted greatness and now carves out a simple living cutting hair in a simple barber's shop. In fact, he does such a good job that it became hard to imagine Phil as once being a flashy hair-stylist. But once the final scene rolls around, Rickman is also able to portray his character in an over-the-top yet humble manner, a multi-layered portrayal which really sticks out compared to all the other hairdressers.
- The best acting performance in this movie would have to be Natasha Richardson's portrayal of Shelley. Richardson was able to play a part that's been played hundreds of times before, the terminally ill woman wanting to tie together all the loose ends, and plays the part better than most. She's able to be both vulnerable yet strong, positive yet cynical, and plays Shelley with a levity that is often missing from roles such as these. Even though the script doesn't exactly do Richardson a lot of favors, she's able to take what she's given and deliver a great performance anyhow.
- Josh Hartnett and Rachael Leigh Cook are also in the movie, as a pair of young adults who knew each other as kids and are now reconnecting after years as young adults. Cook plays Christina, the daughter of hairstylist Raymond Robertson, who is not above cheating to reclaim his crown as Britian's best hairstylist, while Hartnett plays the son of Phil and Shelley. Hartnett attempts to speak with a British accent throughout the film, but it comes and goes a lot of the time, while Cook plays an American who happens to have a British hairstylist for a father. Either way, neither Hartnett or Cook are particularly outstanding in their roles, and their storyline just seems like filler most of the time.
- This movie also has a lot of supporting characters, some of which are stronger than others. Bill Nighy as Raymond Robertson is very effective in his role as the over-the-top villian of the film who will stoop to any level to win. Meanwhile, Warren Clarke provides quite a few laughs as the mayor of Keithley and the MC of the hair competition. There's also a subplot involving a model (played by Heidi Klum) and two stylist brothers that provide a couple of laughs, but really just seemed tacked on to the script, probably as an excuse to cast Heidi Klum.
Overall, Blow Dry is supposed to be a comedy about an underdog team of hairstylists coming together to win the big game, so to speak. But there's too much drama in this film for it to be a comedy, and it's too muddled of a film to be considered a straight drama. Blow Dry is a good film, but ultimately it's also a film that's not particularly memorable and outside of Richardson's performance, the acting is hit-or-miss. I'd recommend seeing it, especially if you are a fan of Alan Rickman or Natasha Richardson, but it's not exactly an essential film that everyone must see. Overall, I'd give Blow Dry a 6.1 out of 10, as it's good in a lot of spots, but not great. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this review or Blow Dry in general, then share them by leaving a comment. Also, if you have an idea for a future review, then share those with me either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Matrix Revolutions
Here is a review of a movie I refused to see in theaters after being so disappointed in the film's predecessor, Matrix Reloaded, although I did see it later on DVD. However, that was like five years ago, so I decided to give The Matrix Revolutions another chance because, honestly, I really didn't remember a lot about it. Anyway, The Matrix Revolutions is the final film of the Matrix Trilogy. Released in 2003, the movie was written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers (although now one of them is technically a sister, but that's not relevant here) and stars Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Laurence Fishburne, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Hugo Weaving, and a whole lot of other people. In The Matrix Revolutions, Neo (Reeves) and his girl Trinity (Moss) choose to stop the evil that is agent Smith (Weaving), who seems hell-bent on destroying everything in its path, while everyone else retreats to the great city of Zion to defend the town against the invading machines that control the Matrix. A few notes about this film, and there will be SPOILERS, so if you haven't seen the movie, read carefully.
- What's strange about The Matrix Revolutions is that hardly any of the film takes place in the actual Matrix itself. About 85 percent of the movie takes place in the 'real' world controlled by machines, most of it either concentrated on the machines' attack of the dock of Zion or Niobe (Pinkett-Smith) and Morpheus' (Fishburne) attempt to sneak their ship into Zion through a mechanical line. As a result, this film is probably the least impressive of the three Matrix films as far as action is concerned, and unfortunately, the story is not nearly compelling enough to make up the deficit.
- In the original Matrix movie, the plot revolved almost entirely around Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus. In the second film, it was pretty much more of the same. However, in The Matrix Revolutions, Morpheus and Trinity take a major step back, as all Morpheus does for the most part is co-pilot Niobe's ship and sit back while everybody else goes to war, and Trinity is merely a supporting player in Neo's flight to the machine city. Even Neo is not immune from this shift, as he goes at least 45 minutes straight without being featured in a scene. Instead of focusing on the characters we all know, the Wachowski brothers focused large amounts of screen time on such characters as Sati, Captain Mifune, and the Kid (yes, that's what he was credited as), characters that either serve no purpose (Sati) or we have no idea who they are, so we really don't care what happens to them.
- For all the talk about how philosophically deep The Matrix trilogy is, this movie bludgeons the viewer over the head in explaining it's underlying themes. Neo is presented as a Christ-like savior, as a lot of the dialogue is spent on characters either expressing faith in Neo as the 'Chosen One' or people doubting that he is what he's supposedly proclaimed to be, and the film even has Neo assume a cross-like pose towards the end of the movie. Also, every character in the first thirty minutes or so just can't help but mention that Neo and Trinity are so in love with each other that they'd die for each other, and Agent Smith spends most of his screen time mocking human emotions such as love. There's also a lot of allusions to the importance of choice and free-will, as the Oracle spends most of her time in this movie telling characters to make their own decisions.
- Even though this movie seems to try it's hardest not to let their best actors shine, there are a couple of highlights to speak of. Weaving as Agent Smith is just as evil and compelling as ever, although after a while his ad naseum talk of the inferiority of humans becomes a little tiresome. Also a highlight is Ian Bliss as Bane, the soilder who is taken over by Agent Smith in the real world. Bliss does a nearly spot-on impression of Weaving, and seems even more menacing in doing it. What's interesting about Bane's metamorphasis into Smith is that it takes forever for Neo to realize what's actually happened. You would think he would get after the sixth time Bane calls him Mr. Anderson, but not our man Neo. As far as Reeves' performance, it was about what you would expect.
- As I mentioned before, the action sequences in the Matrix Revolutions were the weakest of the three Matrix movies. The shootout with Trinity and company at the Merovingian's nightclub was poorly-lit and the camera shook so much that you couldn't tell what was going on. Meanwhile, the climatic fight scene between Smith and Neo looked cool, but basically followed the same pattern for 15 minutes (exchange of strikes, big punch that knocks both men back and causes an earthquake, flying towards each other, repeat). The best action scenes were probably the scenes where the machines come in to Zion's walls and meet resistance by these giant robot looking crafts with machine guns called APUs, although it kind of lost its luster after 20 minutes or so.
- Before I conclude this review, I want to talk about the ending, which although it's presented as happy and all seems to leave the humans back at square one. Yes, Smith is dead, but so is their Chosen One and while the machines retreated from Zion due to Neo's actions in getting rid of Smith, they still not only killed lots of people and destroyed a huge chunk of Zion, but also still have the majority of humans plugged into the Matrix and still harvest them for energy. However, it does somewhat leave the door open for a sequal when the Oracle mentiones to Sati that perhaps we will see Neo again (even though I don't see how that's possible).
Overall, I will say that I liked this movie more than The Matrix Reloaded. Then again, that's damning with faint praise since I strongly dislike Reloaded. Both movies would have probably been better as one movie and at least half the scenes in each movie could have been cut out, but sometimes art is sacrificed for profits, and this is the case here. As far as Revolutions goes, the main problems were that it decided to shift the focus away from the characters so vital to the Matrix franchise and center large parts of the story around characters which they really didn't even bother explaining their importance to the story. Plus, the whole idea of the humans and machines somehow teaming up to save the world flies against the original notion of the series, which was basically man vs. machine, and really makes the machines' attack on Zion seem like a waste of energy in retrospect. The action scenes were hit-or-miss, the acting was decent at best, and the film was as subtle as a sledgehammer. Overall, it's not the worst sequel ever, but it's not all that great either. I'd give it a 4 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- What's strange about The Matrix Revolutions is that hardly any of the film takes place in the actual Matrix itself. About 85 percent of the movie takes place in the 'real' world controlled by machines, most of it either concentrated on the machines' attack of the dock of Zion or Niobe (Pinkett-Smith) and Morpheus' (Fishburne) attempt to sneak their ship into Zion through a mechanical line. As a result, this film is probably the least impressive of the three Matrix films as far as action is concerned, and unfortunately, the story is not nearly compelling enough to make up the deficit.
- In the original Matrix movie, the plot revolved almost entirely around Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus. In the second film, it was pretty much more of the same. However, in The Matrix Revolutions, Morpheus and Trinity take a major step back, as all Morpheus does for the most part is co-pilot Niobe's ship and sit back while everybody else goes to war, and Trinity is merely a supporting player in Neo's flight to the machine city. Even Neo is not immune from this shift, as he goes at least 45 minutes straight without being featured in a scene. Instead of focusing on the characters we all know, the Wachowski brothers focused large amounts of screen time on such characters as Sati, Captain Mifune, and the Kid (yes, that's what he was credited as), characters that either serve no purpose (Sati) or we have no idea who they are, so we really don't care what happens to them.
- For all the talk about how philosophically deep The Matrix trilogy is, this movie bludgeons the viewer over the head in explaining it's underlying themes. Neo is presented as a Christ-like savior, as a lot of the dialogue is spent on characters either expressing faith in Neo as the 'Chosen One' or people doubting that he is what he's supposedly proclaimed to be, and the film even has Neo assume a cross-like pose towards the end of the movie. Also, every character in the first thirty minutes or so just can't help but mention that Neo and Trinity are so in love with each other that they'd die for each other, and Agent Smith spends most of his screen time mocking human emotions such as love. There's also a lot of allusions to the importance of choice and free-will, as the Oracle spends most of her time in this movie telling characters to make their own decisions.
- Even though this movie seems to try it's hardest not to let their best actors shine, there are a couple of highlights to speak of. Weaving as Agent Smith is just as evil and compelling as ever, although after a while his ad naseum talk of the inferiority of humans becomes a little tiresome. Also a highlight is Ian Bliss as Bane, the soilder who is taken over by Agent Smith in the real world. Bliss does a nearly spot-on impression of Weaving, and seems even more menacing in doing it. What's interesting about Bane's metamorphasis into Smith is that it takes forever for Neo to realize what's actually happened. You would think he would get after the sixth time Bane calls him Mr. Anderson, but not our man Neo. As far as Reeves' performance, it was about what you would expect.
- As I mentioned before, the action sequences in the Matrix Revolutions were the weakest of the three Matrix movies. The shootout with Trinity and company at the Merovingian's nightclub was poorly-lit and the camera shook so much that you couldn't tell what was going on. Meanwhile, the climatic fight scene between Smith and Neo looked cool, but basically followed the same pattern for 15 minutes (exchange of strikes, big punch that knocks both men back and causes an earthquake, flying towards each other, repeat). The best action scenes were probably the scenes where the machines come in to Zion's walls and meet resistance by these giant robot looking crafts with machine guns called APUs, although it kind of lost its luster after 20 minutes or so.
- Before I conclude this review, I want to talk about the ending, which although it's presented as happy and all seems to leave the humans back at square one. Yes, Smith is dead, but so is their Chosen One and while the machines retreated from Zion due to Neo's actions in getting rid of Smith, they still not only killed lots of people and destroyed a huge chunk of Zion, but also still have the majority of humans plugged into the Matrix and still harvest them for energy. However, it does somewhat leave the door open for a sequal when the Oracle mentiones to Sati that perhaps we will see Neo again (even though I don't see how that's possible).
Overall, I will say that I liked this movie more than The Matrix Reloaded. Then again, that's damning with faint praise since I strongly dislike Reloaded. Both movies would have probably been better as one movie and at least half the scenes in each movie could have been cut out, but sometimes art is sacrificed for profits, and this is the case here. As far as Revolutions goes, the main problems were that it decided to shift the focus away from the characters so vital to the Matrix franchise and center large parts of the story around characters which they really didn't even bother explaining their importance to the story. Plus, the whole idea of the humans and machines somehow teaming up to save the world flies against the original notion of the series, which was basically man vs. machine, and really makes the machines' attack on Zion seem like a waste of energy in retrospect. The action scenes were hit-or-miss, the acting was decent at best, and the film was as subtle as a sledgehammer. Overall, it's not the worst sequel ever, but it's not all that great either. I'd give it a 4 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Lion King
The highest selling home video of all-time (and I still have a copy of that video somewhere), The Lion King is a 1994 film made by Disney and is in my opinion the last great hand drawn animated film Disney ever produced, even if the storyline is largely lifted from a 1960s Japanese cartoon called Kimba the Lion. The Lion King featured voice acting from Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, James Earl Jones, Mr. Bean, Moira Kelly, Robert Guillamane, Nathan Lane, one half of Cheech and Chong, and the naked guy on the subway from Seinfeld. Also, it featured a soundtrack written by Elton John and Tim Rice, and a talking warthog. In The Lion King, Simba (Broderick) watches his father and king of Pride Rock Mufasa (Jones) die thanks to an evil plot conceived by his uncle Scar (Irons). Convinced he is to blame, Simba leaves for a long exile, but eventually he must come back to face his past and regain his throne. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's basically the jist of the movie. A few notes about this film, and there are SPOILERS, so read carefully.
- For a kid's movie, this is some heavy stuff. Not only is there the on-screen death of a major character in Mufasa, there's numerous attempts on Simba's life when he's a mere cub, male on female violence, themes of imprisonment and starvation and even flatulence, although that last one is more humorous than anything. Sure, it is more tame than most other movies, but there are some mature themes in this film that may have some effect on younger viewers.
- Scar is an interesting villian in this film. For one, he's a cold and evil lion, willing to kill his own family to get his way, but at the same time he's not willing to get his hands dirty. Instead of, say, killing Simba himself, Scar tries to set Simba up for the hyenas to kill instead. Also, Scar comes up with a convoluted plan to kill Mufasa and really only does that by letting gravity take its course, then pins it on Simba before getting the hyenas to try and kill him again. One might say that Scar is a coward that only picks on those weaker than him and backs down from confrontation when faced with an equal challenger. To his credit, Scar is charismatic in his own way, as he is able to spin enough lies to get the hyenas on his side to carry out his evil plan.
- Speaking of the hyenas, I kind of feel for them. I mean, think about it. The hyenas are banished by Mufasa or whoever was before him to live in an elephant graveyard where all they get to eat is scraps and whatever poor soul happens to come across their path. Then Scar comes around and promises food and equality for all the hyenas, so they do what they must in order to secure more food and a better future for their kind. Then the guy they've pinned all their hopes on, Scar, isn't so good as a king, and all the food eventually disappears (perhaps due to the ecosystem not being able to handle the infusion of all the hyenas, although the movie seems to just put all the blame on Scar because he sucks or something), so eventually the hyenas are just left with the same situation as before, with little food and little hope, plus they're being scapegoated for all the problems of Pride Rock. It's not east being a hyena in this tale, that's for sure.
- After Simba leaves his home, he meets up with a pair of aimless drifters named Timon (Lane) and Poomba (Ernie Sabella/naked guy from Seinfeld), a meerkat and warthog respectively. The duo ends up carrying the bulk of the humor in the film, and despite being a little over the top, they aren't too annoying at all. I don't know how a meerkat and warthog get along so well, but by golly they do here. Timon and Poomba are portrayed as aimless drifters who live off the earth and have a motto of no worries. So I guess that makes them hippies? I wonder if Timon and Poomba ever did some wacky tobaccy? Or maybe I'm just overthinking things again.
- My least favorite character in this story is Mufasa's assistant, a bird named Zazu (Rowan Atkinson). He's either an overbearing twit (as in the scene where he confronts Scar about missing Simba's introduction ceremony) or a bossy know it all. Let's just say I wasn't too upset that he ended up in a prison during Scar's regime. Apparently, I'm not the only person that feels this way, as this video below will attest:
- The animation of this movie is incredible, particularly the opening montage and the stampede scene. It was so well-drawn that there were times where it looked as if it was done by computer instead of by hand. Also, the soundtrack had a few memorable songs, including The Circle of Life and Can You Feel the Love Tonight? My favorite was Be Prepared, in spite of its general message of genocide and murdering of family members via stampede.
Well, it's late, so I'm going to wrap it up here. I watched The Lion King in theaters when it was first released as a young lad, and came out really liking the film. After watching it again, I must say that I feel the same way that I did some 16-17 years ago. Yes, The Lion King may be a little above the heads of some younger viewers, but it is also a film that features great animation, an interesting (if simple) plot, and some memorable songs. Overall, I'd give The Lion King an 8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
- For a kid's movie, this is some heavy stuff. Not only is there the on-screen death of a major character in Mufasa, there's numerous attempts on Simba's life when he's a mere cub, male on female violence, themes of imprisonment and starvation and even flatulence, although that last one is more humorous than anything. Sure, it is more tame than most other movies, but there are some mature themes in this film that may have some effect on younger viewers.
- Scar is an interesting villian in this film. For one, he's a cold and evil lion, willing to kill his own family to get his way, but at the same time he's not willing to get his hands dirty. Instead of, say, killing Simba himself, Scar tries to set Simba up for the hyenas to kill instead. Also, Scar comes up with a convoluted plan to kill Mufasa and really only does that by letting gravity take its course, then pins it on Simba before getting the hyenas to try and kill him again. One might say that Scar is a coward that only picks on those weaker than him and backs down from confrontation when faced with an equal challenger. To his credit, Scar is charismatic in his own way, as he is able to spin enough lies to get the hyenas on his side to carry out his evil plan.
- Speaking of the hyenas, I kind of feel for them. I mean, think about it. The hyenas are banished by Mufasa or whoever was before him to live in an elephant graveyard where all they get to eat is scraps and whatever poor soul happens to come across their path. Then Scar comes around and promises food and equality for all the hyenas, so they do what they must in order to secure more food and a better future for their kind. Then the guy they've pinned all their hopes on, Scar, isn't so good as a king, and all the food eventually disappears (perhaps due to the ecosystem not being able to handle the infusion of all the hyenas, although the movie seems to just put all the blame on Scar because he sucks or something), so eventually the hyenas are just left with the same situation as before, with little food and little hope, plus they're being scapegoated for all the problems of Pride Rock. It's not east being a hyena in this tale, that's for sure.
- After Simba leaves his home, he meets up with a pair of aimless drifters named Timon (Lane) and Poomba (Ernie Sabella/naked guy from Seinfeld), a meerkat and warthog respectively. The duo ends up carrying the bulk of the humor in the film, and despite being a little over the top, they aren't too annoying at all. I don't know how a meerkat and warthog get along so well, but by golly they do here. Timon and Poomba are portrayed as aimless drifters who live off the earth and have a motto of no worries. So I guess that makes them hippies? I wonder if Timon and Poomba ever did some wacky tobaccy? Or maybe I'm just overthinking things again.
- My least favorite character in this story is Mufasa's assistant, a bird named Zazu (Rowan Atkinson). He's either an overbearing twit (as in the scene where he confronts Scar about missing Simba's introduction ceremony) or a bossy know it all. Let's just say I wasn't too upset that he ended up in a prison during Scar's regime. Apparently, I'm not the only person that feels this way, as this video below will attest:
- The animation of this movie is incredible, particularly the opening montage and the stampede scene. It was so well-drawn that there were times where it looked as if it was done by computer instead of by hand. Also, the soundtrack had a few memorable songs, including The Circle of Life and Can You Feel the Love Tonight? My favorite was Be Prepared, in spite of its general message of genocide and murdering of family members via stampede.
Well, it's late, so I'm going to wrap it up here. I watched The Lion King in theaters when it was first released as a young lad, and came out really liking the film. After watching it again, I must say that I feel the same way that I did some 16-17 years ago. Yes, The Lion King may be a little above the heads of some younger viewers, but it is also a film that features great animation, an interesting (if simple) plot, and some memorable songs. Overall, I'd give The Lion King an 8 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Expendables
Last week, I was discussing the Oscar Nominations with a few people when it occurred to me that I hadn't watched any of the movies that were nominated. Furthermore, I realized that I haven't seen any movie that came out in theaters in 2010. I'm not sure why this happened, as while it is true that I really don't watch a whole lot of movies, I usually go to the theater a couple times a year to check out some flick. Heck, I even saw Van Helsing when it came out in theaters, and that movie wasn't too good, let me tell you. But, here we are. So, in an attempt to rectify that, I decided to watch The Expendables. Sure, it wasn't nominated for any Oscars, but hey, it's a start.
The Expendables is a 2010 film directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone. The movie also stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, and Bruce Willis. Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Segal were also offered roles in the film, but both men declined for different reasons. Wesley Snipes was also offered a role in the film, but due to legal troubles he was unable to star. Other than that, pretty much every big time action movie star of the past 30 years, with the glaring exception of Chuck Norris, was in this film. The plot of The Expendables is rather simple, as a group of mercenaries called The Expendables led by Barney Ross (Stallone) take up a mission to overthrow a dictator of a fictional island and the ex-CIA Agent (Roberts) who has pretty much taken over the island and its illegal drug trade. So, of course, they go to the island and blow lots of stuff up. A few notes about this film, and yes there will be SPOILERS, so read carefully:
- When watching The Expendables, I expected a lot of action-scenes full of fighting and gunfire and explosions, and while there was a lot of it, the action shots itself were not well shot at all. For one, a lot of the scenes were way too close up on the actors, so you couldn't tell which Expendable was doing what half the time. Furthermore, Stallone for some reason used the camera shaking technique a lot, particularly in the climatic scene, which I must admit I am not a fan of at all. I guess he did it to add some sort of realism to the fight, but damn it I wasn't watching this film for realism, I was watching it in the hopes of getting a well-shot action sequence, and I got neither.
- The acting in The Expendables is a mixed bag. Li is hardly in the film and he's either doing martial arts scenes or complaining about money (I wonder if he did that behind the scenes), Crews and Couture are one-note members of the Expendables, although Crews does better in his role. Stone Cold plays Stone Cold as Eric Roberts's enforcer, while Stallone and Lundgren at least try to act, but their performances are average at best. Statham is rather believable as the knife throwing expert Lee Christmas (despite the dumb name). Sure, he's given a side story with Charisma Carpenter that goes nowhere, but he still does well in those scenes. Rourke is easily the best actor in the whole film, and his scene where he reminisces about a girl he didn't save in Bosnia is the most emotional scene in the film, even if Stallone almost ruined it by staring blankly for a minute before disappearing off the screen.
- The Expendables apparently have an unlimited budget. I mean, they have their own plane complete with two big guns that fire hundreds of rounds a minute, and they also have tons of grenades, remote explosives, more guns than an NRA convention, motorcycles, and Ross drives around in a souped up 55 'Ford pick up. At one point, I thought to myself 'I wonder what their overhead is?' A dumb thing to think I know, but still.
- The Expendables are also hella tough, as despite fighting an entire army loaded to the teeth they hardly suffer a scratch. The only time any of the Expendables are in real danger is when they're fighting each other, or when Stallone's character must take on Steve Austin. This total domination of their opponents kind of takes away from the danger of the film, as it's pretty clear from the beginning what's going to happen at the end since nobody is made out to be vulnerable.
- Filming for The Expendables was somewhat hard on the actors, as Sylvester Stallone actually broke his neck during his fight scene with Austin. Speaking of Austin, he also suffered many injuries, and according to Stallone nearly lost a leg when an explosion went off too close to him. I'm also surprised that Randy Couture didn't burn himself considering he punched a man that was ON FIRE, although it was probably a special effect.
Overall, The Expendables was billed as a throwback to the big-time action films of the 1980s with big guns and lots of explosions. While it had some of that, The Expendables just seemed to be missing something that those films had. Stallone tries to give this film some sort of deeper meaning, but it just doesn't come across too well, and the action scenes were a mixed bag at best due to some poor cinematography. There are a lot worse way to spend an hour and a half, but while The Expendables is a decent time-killer where you don't have to think too much, I was hoping for a little more. Overall, I'll give it a 4.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com
The Expendables is a 2010 film directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone. The movie also stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, and Bruce Willis. Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Segal were also offered roles in the film, but both men declined for different reasons. Wesley Snipes was also offered a role in the film, but due to legal troubles he was unable to star. Other than that, pretty much every big time action movie star of the past 30 years, with the glaring exception of Chuck Norris, was in this film. The plot of The Expendables is rather simple, as a group of mercenaries called The Expendables led by Barney Ross (Stallone) take up a mission to overthrow a dictator of a fictional island and the ex-CIA Agent (Roberts) who has pretty much taken over the island and its illegal drug trade. So, of course, they go to the island and blow lots of stuff up. A few notes about this film, and yes there will be SPOILERS, so read carefully:
- When watching The Expendables, I expected a lot of action-scenes full of fighting and gunfire and explosions, and while there was a lot of it, the action shots itself were not well shot at all. For one, a lot of the scenes were way too close up on the actors, so you couldn't tell which Expendable was doing what half the time. Furthermore, Stallone for some reason used the camera shaking technique a lot, particularly in the climatic scene, which I must admit I am not a fan of at all. I guess he did it to add some sort of realism to the fight, but damn it I wasn't watching this film for realism, I was watching it in the hopes of getting a well-shot action sequence, and I got neither.
- The acting in The Expendables is a mixed bag. Li is hardly in the film and he's either doing martial arts scenes or complaining about money (I wonder if he did that behind the scenes), Crews and Couture are one-note members of the Expendables, although Crews does better in his role. Stone Cold plays Stone Cold as Eric Roberts's enforcer, while Stallone and Lundgren at least try to act, but their performances are average at best. Statham is rather believable as the knife throwing expert Lee Christmas (despite the dumb name). Sure, he's given a side story with Charisma Carpenter that goes nowhere, but he still does well in those scenes. Rourke is easily the best actor in the whole film, and his scene where he reminisces about a girl he didn't save in Bosnia is the most emotional scene in the film, even if Stallone almost ruined it by staring blankly for a minute before disappearing off the screen.
- The Expendables apparently have an unlimited budget. I mean, they have their own plane complete with two big guns that fire hundreds of rounds a minute, and they also have tons of grenades, remote explosives, more guns than an NRA convention, motorcycles, and Ross drives around in a souped up 55 'Ford pick up. At one point, I thought to myself 'I wonder what their overhead is?' A dumb thing to think I know, but still.
- The Expendables are also hella tough, as despite fighting an entire army loaded to the teeth they hardly suffer a scratch. The only time any of the Expendables are in real danger is when they're fighting each other, or when Stallone's character must take on Steve Austin. This total domination of their opponents kind of takes away from the danger of the film, as it's pretty clear from the beginning what's going to happen at the end since nobody is made out to be vulnerable.
- Filming for The Expendables was somewhat hard on the actors, as Sylvester Stallone actually broke his neck during his fight scene with Austin. Speaking of Austin, he also suffered many injuries, and according to Stallone nearly lost a leg when an explosion went off too close to him. I'm also surprised that Randy Couture didn't burn himself considering he punched a man that was ON FIRE, although it was probably a special effect.
Overall, The Expendables was billed as a throwback to the big-time action films of the 1980s with big guns and lots of explosions. While it had some of that, The Expendables just seemed to be missing something that those films had. Stallone tries to give this film some sort of deeper meaning, but it just doesn't come across too well, and the action scenes were a mixed bag at best due to some poor cinematography. There are a lot worse way to spend an hour and a half, but while The Expendables is a decent time-killer where you don't have to think too much, I was hoping for a little more. Overall, I'll give it a 4.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you any ideas for future posts, or thoughts about this post, than either leave a comment on the blog or send them to me at e-mail at KtheC2001@gmail.com
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Sea Hawk
So earlier today, Turner Classic Movies was playing the 1940 movie The Sea Hawk, and since there was nothing else on, I decided to watch the film and see if it's as good as Alec Baldwin said it was at the beginning of the movie. The Sea Hawk is a flim directed by Michael Curitz (Casablanca) and stars the legendary Errol Flynn as the English pirate Geoffrey Thorpe. The movie also starts Claude Rains, Brenda Marshall, Alan Hale, Henry Daniell, and Flora Robson as Queen Elizabeth. In The Sea Hawk, Thorpe and his band of troubadours are sailing on his ship the Albatross when they come across a Spanish ship that just happens to be carrying the ambassador of Spain Alvarez (Rains) and his niece Dona Maria (Marshall). Thorpe captures the ship, frees the slaves in the galley and ends up transporting Alvarez and his party to England. On his return to England, Thorpe and Dona Maria start to hit it off despite a tumultuous beginning, and despite the protests of the Queen's council Lord Wolfington (Daniell), Thorpe and his men get unofficial permission from the Queen to embark on a mission designed to take a lot of gold from Spanish hands. However, Wolfington has his own agenda, and he and Alvarez work behind the queen's back in the name of Spain. A few notes about this film, and there will probably be SPOILERS, so read with caution.
- The Sea Hawk is a rather extravagant production for its, and well, any other time. The scene where The Albatross does battle with the Spanish army ship is masterfully done, full of action and suspense and showcasing the excellent fencing skills of Flynn as he does battle with the Spanish captain. Even though there's a lot going on in the scene, the direction is such that you are always aware of what exactly is happening at the time, who's on each side of the fight, and the scene also has a sense of real peril. Also, the final scene and the sequence where Thorpe and his men are ambushed in Mexico are also well done scenes that are full of suspense and excitement.
- Make no mistake about it, The Sea Hawk is a film designed to showcase Errol Flynn, as he's nearly in every scene and is portrayed as a heroic pirate serving under the queen who has few flaws, the utmost respect of his men, and a pet monkey to boot. There's nothing wrong with building a film around a single person if they can pull it off, and by golly Flynn is able to excel in this role as the dashing Thorpe. Heck, I have a hard time imaging anybody else taking that role and excelling the way Flynn did in this film. The Sea Hawk is a prime example of Flynn at his gallant best, the perfect marriage of actor and role.
- However, Flynn wasn't alone in deserving praise for their acting skills. Claude Rains was very good in his role as Alvarez, making him seem sympathetic despite the fact that he's basically the enemy in this film. Alan Hale deserved praise for his job as Pitt, Thorpe's rough-and-ready right hand man, and Henry Daniell is very believable in his role as the villain in the film, Lord Wolfington. Props are also due to Robson's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, as she nearly manages the impossible and steals the movie from Flynn. Over the years, a lot of women have played the role of Queen Elizabeth I, and I'd put Robson's Queen right up there among the top portrayals of that role.
- If I have one complaint about the acting, it would be Brenda Marshall's portrayal as Thorpe's love interest Dona Maria. To me, she just seemed a little too steely and cold, even when she was supposed to feel grief for Thorpe's fate. I just had a hard time buying the chemistry between Thorpe and Dona Maria, and it didn't help matters that the writers wrote her character so one-dimensional, as we hardly get any idea of what type of person she is other than the fact that she likes English roses and stolen Aztec jewelry. However, if that was her singing in the film, then I must say that Marshall has a very nice voice.
- Speaking of music, the film features an excellent score from composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold, although I felt that there were a couple of times that the music was just too overpowering and distracted from the scene instead of enhanced it. Even so, Korngold's score was top-notch, and one of the first things many people mention when remembering the film. Also of high quality was the cinematography of Sol Polito, and Michael Curitz is excellent as the director of the film, even if he and Flynn didn't like each other at the time. The script is decent enough, I suppose, with some flaws but those flaws are more than made up for by the excellent performances of the actors and the talent of Korngold, Polito, and Curitz.
- This film was rather pro-England, I will say, and is ever so subtetly an anti-Nazi propaganda film as well. Themes of the Sea Hawk include stopping a ruler who will stop at nothing to conquer the entire world (Spain's King Phillip in the film, Hitler in 1940 England) and for England to be the nation that stands up for freedom (i.e. the Spanish Inquistion in the film, the Holocaust in 1940 England), and a call to a ruler that will stand proud and fight a war that they don't want to fight, but must be done to protect England and ultimately the world (i.e. Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill).
Overall, The Sea Hawk is a classic film that is both a fun adventure and a politically charged movie. Flynn is at the top of his game here and so is the director Curitz and Robson does an excellent job as the Queen. Overall, I'd give The Sea Hawk an 8.25 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The Sea Hawk is a rather extravagant production for its, and well, any other time. The scene where The Albatross does battle with the Spanish army ship is masterfully done, full of action and suspense and showcasing the excellent fencing skills of Flynn as he does battle with the Spanish captain. Even though there's a lot going on in the scene, the direction is such that you are always aware of what exactly is happening at the time, who's on each side of the fight, and the scene also has a sense of real peril. Also, the final scene and the sequence where Thorpe and his men are ambushed in Mexico are also well done scenes that are full of suspense and excitement.
- Make no mistake about it, The Sea Hawk is a film designed to showcase Errol Flynn, as he's nearly in every scene and is portrayed as a heroic pirate serving under the queen who has few flaws, the utmost respect of his men, and a pet monkey to boot. There's nothing wrong with building a film around a single person if they can pull it off, and by golly Flynn is able to excel in this role as the dashing Thorpe. Heck, I have a hard time imaging anybody else taking that role and excelling the way Flynn did in this film. The Sea Hawk is a prime example of Flynn at his gallant best, the perfect marriage of actor and role.
- However, Flynn wasn't alone in deserving praise for their acting skills. Claude Rains was very good in his role as Alvarez, making him seem sympathetic despite the fact that he's basically the enemy in this film. Alan Hale deserved praise for his job as Pitt, Thorpe's rough-and-ready right hand man, and Henry Daniell is very believable in his role as the villain in the film, Lord Wolfington. Props are also due to Robson's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, as she nearly manages the impossible and steals the movie from Flynn. Over the years, a lot of women have played the role of Queen Elizabeth I, and I'd put Robson's Queen right up there among the top portrayals of that role.
- If I have one complaint about the acting, it would be Brenda Marshall's portrayal as Thorpe's love interest Dona Maria. To me, she just seemed a little too steely and cold, even when she was supposed to feel grief for Thorpe's fate. I just had a hard time buying the chemistry between Thorpe and Dona Maria, and it didn't help matters that the writers wrote her character so one-dimensional, as we hardly get any idea of what type of person she is other than the fact that she likes English roses and stolen Aztec jewelry. However, if that was her singing in the film, then I must say that Marshall has a very nice voice.
- Speaking of music, the film features an excellent score from composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold, although I felt that there were a couple of times that the music was just too overpowering and distracted from the scene instead of enhanced it. Even so, Korngold's score was top-notch, and one of the first things many people mention when remembering the film. Also of high quality was the cinematography of Sol Polito, and Michael Curitz is excellent as the director of the film, even if he and Flynn didn't like each other at the time. The script is decent enough, I suppose, with some flaws but those flaws are more than made up for by the excellent performances of the actors and the talent of Korngold, Polito, and Curitz.
- This film was rather pro-England, I will say, and is ever so subtetly an anti-Nazi propaganda film as well. Themes of the Sea Hawk include stopping a ruler who will stop at nothing to conquer the entire world (Spain's King Phillip in the film, Hitler in 1940 England) and for England to be the nation that stands up for freedom (i.e. the Spanish Inquistion in the film, the Holocaust in 1940 England), and a call to a ruler that will stand proud and fight a war that they don't want to fight, but must be done to protect England and ultimately the world (i.e. Queen Elizabeth and Winston Churchill).
Overall, The Sea Hawk is a classic film that is both a fun adventure and a politically charged movie. Flynn is at the top of his game here and so is the director Curitz and Robson does an excellent job as the Queen. Overall, I'd give The Sea Hawk an 8.25 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Canon Movie Review: The Presidio
After watching and reviewing Sleepless in Seattle, a reader named Paul S. requested that I review an earlier Meg Ryan film. Well, I aim to please, so I decided to watch a Meg Ryan from 1988 titled The Presidio. In this film, Meg Ryan plays Donna Caldwell, the daughter of Lt. Alan Caldwell (Sean Connery), the Provost Marshal at the titular Presidio. In the Presidio, a break in leads to the murder of a Military Police officer, and San Francisco Police detective Jay Austin (Mark Harmon) is sent in to investigate. To complicate matters, he and Lt. Caldwell have had issues in the past, as Austin was a MP under Caldwell in the past, but after a case involving the arrest of a colonel, Caldwell did not back Austin, and the two have shared a dislike ever since. Also, Jay meets Donna, and the two start a romance of their own, much to the chagrin of Lt. Caldwell. Despite all this, the two are forced to work together to solve the murder, even if each man wants nothing to do with the other. Directed by Peter Hyams, The Presidio also stars Jack Warden, Mark Blum, Dana Blackstone, and Jenette Goldstein. A few notes about this film, and there are SPOILERS, so read with caution.
- There's a lot of storylines going on in The Presidio, from the murder case, to the uneasy partnership between Caldwell and Jay to Donna's relationship with and her feud with her father to the whole story between Caldwell and his friend Russ McClure (Warden). In fact, there was probably too much going on, and it doesn't help that the plot has some serious pace problems. For example, it seems as if the movie spends 15 minutes or so detalining Donna's story, then forgets about her for a half hour or so while the case is being investigated, then bam, there's suddenly like eight scenes in a row with Donna in them.
- This film is chock full of cinematic cliches, I tell you what. Since the movie is set in San Francisco, the movie has a Bullitt-like car chase full of cars driving down the hilly roads. There's the two cops that hate each other storyline between Connery and Harmon (even though one's a military officer, he basically acts like a cop in the film). Also, there's a shootout at a factory, which just about every other action film made in the 1980s had. There's also a surprise twist at the end that seemed to be thrown in just for the sake of having a surprise twist at the end, as it didn't make a whole lot of sense and wasn't really explained that well, and there's also a bar fight scene for no good reason at all (although at least it was somewhat different, as Lt. Caldwell beat up generic loud-mouth tough guy #24 just by using his right thumb).
- You would think that a movie titled The Presidio filmed at the actual location of The Presidio would be primarily set at, you know, the Presidio. But after the first few minutes or so, the Presidio is barely used at all as a setting for the film. Instead the movie just turns it into another typical whodunit case where the two cops travel all through San Francisco, the only real difference being that most of the characters are involved in the military. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Hyams is a talented cinematographer and uses his setting of San Francisco to maximum effect through his cinematography. Every scene is well lit and nicely shot. But it is kind of odd that the actual Presidio wasn't utilized that much in this film.
- As for the acting in The Presidio, well I didn't think it was too bad, even though the script didn't give them too much to work with. Connery does an excellent job as Lt. Caldwell, although he plays a rather similar role in the Untouchables. Still, his acting gives this film some needed credibility. Harmon is decent in the role of Jay Austin, but one wonders how Kevin Costner would have done with this role, as it was rumored that he was once signed on to star in this project. While Harmon is able to hold his own in scenes with Ryan and Connery, his attempts to give his character an edge didn't exactly come across that well, especially his first scene where he stares down a criminal with a gun pointed at him and disarms him with tough talk and his bare hands. To me, it seemed stupid, but whatever. Ryan is pretty good in this film, although her character isn't exactly that well-written. Nevertheless, she's able to make the best out of it and makes Donna seem likable, whereas other actress given a similar character could not make her sympathetic towards the audience. The supporting actors weren't too bad, although I didn't really see Mark Blum (who played former CIA Agent Arthur Peale) as a convincing bad guy.
While The Presidio isn't too bad, I suppose, but it does seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. The Presidio is part action flick, part romantic flick, and part cop drama, all with a military overtone over the storyline. Instead of concentrating on one element, the writers and director decided to pack this film with many different narratives that hardly intertwine with each other, almost making it seem as if it was two different films. But the acting, cinematography, and score are all above-average, and make this film somewhat enjoyable.
Overall, while The Presidio got a great performance from Connery and had some high points, there are too many issues with the plot that keeps the film from being great, and drags it down into run-of-the-mill territory. I'd give it a 5.3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- There's a lot of storylines going on in The Presidio, from the murder case, to the uneasy partnership between Caldwell and Jay to Donna's relationship with and her feud with her father to the whole story between Caldwell and his friend Russ McClure (Warden). In fact, there was probably too much going on, and it doesn't help that the plot has some serious pace problems. For example, it seems as if the movie spends 15 minutes or so detalining Donna's story, then forgets about her for a half hour or so while the case is being investigated, then bam, there's suddenly like eight scenes in a row with Donna in them.
- This film is chock full of cinematic cliches, I tell you what. Since the movie is set in San Francisco, the movie has a Bullitt-like car chase full of cars driving down the hilly roads. There's the two cops that hate each other storyline between Connery and Harmon (even though one's a military officer, he basically acts like a cop in the film). Also, there's a shootout at a factory, which just about every other action film made in the 1980s had. There's also a surprise twist at the end that seemed to be thrown in just for the sake of having a surprise twist at the end, as it didn't make a whole lot of sense and wasn't really explained that well, and there's also a bar fight scene for no good reason at all (although at least it was somewhat different, as Lt. Caldwell beat up generic loud-mouth tough guy #24 just by using his right thumb).
- You would think that a movie titled The Presidio filmed at the actual location of The Presidio would be primarily set at, you know, the Presidio. But after the first few minutes or so, the Presidio is barely used at all as a setting for the film. Instead the movie just turns it into another typical whodunit case where the two cops travel all through San Francisco, the only real difference being that most of the characters are involved in the military. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Hyams is a talented cinematographer and uses his setting of San Francisco to maximum effect through his cinematography. Every scene is well lit and nicely shot. But it is kind of odd that the actual Presidio wasn't utilized that much in this film.
- As for the acting in The Presidio, well I didn't think it was too bad, even though the script didn't give them too much to work with. Connery does an excellent job as Lt. Caldwell, although he plays a rather similar role in the Untouchables. Still, his acting gives this film some needed credibility. Harmon is decent in the role of Jay Austin, but one wonders how Kevin Costner would have done with this role, as it was rumored that he was once signed on to star in this project. While Harmon is able to hold his own in scenes with Ryan and Connery, his attempts to give his character an edge didn't exactly come across that well, especially his first scene where he stares down a criminal with a gun pointed at him and disarms him with tough talk and his bare hands. To me, it seemed stupid, but whatever. Ryan is pretty good in this film, although her character isn't exactly that well-written. Nevertheless, she's able to make the best out of it and makes Donna seem likable, whereas other actress given a similar character could not make her sympathetic towards the audience. The supporting actors weren't too bad, although I didn't really see Mark Blum (who played former CIA Agent Arthur Peale) as a convincing bad guy.
While The Presidio isn't too bad, I suppose, but it does seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. The Presidio is part action flick, part romantic flick, and part cop drama, all with a military overtone over the storyline. Instead of concentrating on one element, the writers and director decided to pack this film with many different narratives that hardly intertwine with each other, almost making it seem as if it was two different films. But the acting, cinematography, and score are all above-average, and make this film somewhat enjoyable.
Overall, while The Presidio got a great performance from Connery and had some high points, there are too many issues with the plot that keeps the film from being great, and drags it down into run-of-the-mill territory. I'd give it a 5.3 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let me know about them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Canon Movie Review: In the Shadow of the Moon
So, I just finished watching the documentary In the Shadow of the Moon, which tells the story of the astronauts that were a part of the Apollo missions in America's attempts to reach the moon. In the Shadow of the Moon was originally released in 2007, and made its debut at the Sundance Film Festival, where it won the World Cinema Audience Award. In the Shadow of the Moon was directed by David Sington and Christopher Riley, and features interviews with 10 of the 24 men that orbited, looped around, or landed on the moon, including two of the men that part of the first crew to land on the moon, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins. A few notes about this film, and there will more than likely be SPOILERS, so be careful.
- One of the things that struck me about the film was just how humble all of the astronauts were. To a man, each one of them were almost in awe and felt really blessed that they were the chosen ones to go to the moon. A few of the astronauts talk about the spiritual connection that they felt being up in space with the earth so far away that you could cover it up with your thumb, and most of the astronauts are not too proud to share their fears on the film. For one, astronaut Alan Bean of Apollo 12 mentioned that he considered himself to be the most afraid of the astronauts, as he correctly realized that he was about one inch from death looking out the window into space. In a world where showing any sort of vulnerability and humility is considered almost passe, it was refreshing to see these men who certainly had something to brag about be so, well, human, not putting up a front and being real, so to speak.
- One of the things I rather appreciate about the film is that the entire story is narrated by the astronauts themselves. Well, there's some old newsreel footage of important figures like President Kennedy, and a couple of news accounts are shown, but everything else in the film is entirely in the words of the men that were there. You don't get an account from someone like Larry King or Macho Man Randy Savage or some other famous person who the produces just attached to get the movie more recognition instead of the person actually having something to say. No, this story is entirely about the astronauts, and the director does them great justice by letting the men that were actually there tell the story in their own words.
- It's easy to look back now at those days and somewhat dismiss landing on the moon as a huge deal. After all, NASA did it seven times and haven't sent anyone back since 1972, as people just lost interest. But at the time, this was a very risky mission full of possible problems. After all, three astronauts had perished in a fire during a test mission on Apollo 1. During the Apollo 11 training missions, Neil Armstrong had to bail out on a test lunar module mere seconds before the craft exploded (and went on as if nothing happened, according to a bemused Alan Bean). During the actual landing of the lunar module, the computer controlling the spaceship was overloaded with information and malfunctioned, so Armstrong had to manually pilot the ship down to land. NASA and President Richard Nixon even prepared a speech in case Armstrong and Aldrin were not able to get the lunar module back into space to connect with the other ship controlled by Mike Collins. During the film, Collins read the speech out loud and seemed kind of bemused that he was basically reading the obituary of his crew mates.
- The film also uses scores and scores of NASA footage of each moon landing, and the Apollo 13 mission that was aborted due to mechanical failure (luckily, all three crew members survived and they later made a movie about it which you might have heard of). The footage isn't terribly clear and motion is a bit jerky at times, but it is still quite an incredible sight to see the moon that up close. It's just amazing stuff, really, from seeing the launch and flight of the shuttle to shots of Armstrong and Aldrin putting the American flag on the moon's surface to Gene Cernan driving around the moon on a rover (now that would be pretty awesome to drive around the moon's surface in a dune buggy, although I'd be afraid to go too fast and hit a bump that launches the buggy way in the air due to the moon's lower gravity level than earth, but I digress). Considering that most of the footage was from the 1960s and early 1970s, it's quite clear and amazing to watch, almost awe-inspiring, really.
- The one noticeable person missing from the film was the first man to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong. Armstrong, described as a quiet private man by some of his peers, is talked about in glowing terms by the rest of the astronauts, as they pointed out his ability to keep cool under pressure (which he showed when landing the lunar module manually). While the film doesn't necessarily suffer from Armstrong's absence, it still would have been great to here the man himself speak about his experiences on Apollo 11 and the moon. However, while Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, it was Buzz Aldrin that was the first man to relieve himself on the moon, as he points out with little shame during the movie.
Overall, this is quite a fascinating documentary that is also very inspiring. In the Shadow of the Moon is deserving of all the praise it has gotten from various critics over the past few years, as it is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. My only real qualm with the film is that it didn't focus a lot of time on the other Apollo missions besides Apollo 11, but that's understandable since it was the first flight to the moon that everybody remembers. Overall, I'd give it an 8.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- One of the things that struck me about the film was just how humble all of the astronauts were. To a man, each one of them were almost in awe and felt really blessed that they were the chosen ones to go to the moon. A few of the astronauts talk about the spiritual connection that they felt being up in space with the earth so far away that you could cover it up with your thumb, and most of the astronauts are not too proud to share their fears on the film. For one, astronaut Alan Bean of Apollo 12 mentioned that he considered himself to be the most afraid of the astronauts, as he correctly realized that he was about one inch from death looking out the window into space. In a world where showing any sort of vulnerability and humility is considered almost passe, it was refreshing to see these men who certainly had something to brag about be so, well, human, not putting up a front and being real, so to speak.
- One of the things I rather appreciate about the film is that the entire story is narrated by the astronauts themselves. Well, there's some old newsreel footage of important figures like President Kennedy, and a couple of news accounts are shown, but everything else in the film is entirely in the words of the men that were there. You don't get an account from someone like Larry King or Macho Man Randy Savage or some other famous person who the produces just attached to get the movie more recognition instead of the person actually having something to say. No, this story is entirely about the astronauts, and the director does them great justice by letting the men that were actually there tell the story in their own words.
- It's easy to look back now at those days and somewhat dismiss landing on the moon as a huge deal. After all, NASA did it seven times and haven't sent anyone back since 1972, as people just lost interest. But at the time, this was a very risky mission full of possible problems. After all, three astronauts had perished in a fire during a test mission on Apollo 1. During the Apollo 11 training missions, Neil Armstrong had to bail out on a test lunar module mere seconds before the craft exploded (and went on as if nothing happened, according to a bemused Alan Bean). During the actual landing of the lunar module, the computer controlling the spaceship was overloaded with information and malfunctioned, so Armstrong had to manually pilot the ship down to land. NASA and President Richard Nixon even prepared a speech in case Armstrong and Aldrin were not able to get the lunar module back into space to connect with the other ship controlled by Mike Collins. During the film, Collins read the speech out loud and seemed kind of bemused that he was basically reading the obituary of his crew mates.
- The film also uses scores and scores of NASA footage of each moon landing, and the Apollo 13 mission that was aborted due to mechanical failure (luckily, all three crew members survived and they later made a movie about it which you might have heard of). The footage isn't terribly clear and motion is a bit jerky at times, but it is still quite an incredible sight to see the moon that up close. It's just amazing stuff, really, from seeing the launch and flight of the shuttle to shots of Armstrong and Aldrin putting the American flag on the moon's surface to Gene Cernan driving around the moon on a rover (now that would be pretty awesome to drive around the moon's surface in a dune buggy, although I'd be afraid to go too fast and hit a bump that launches the buggy way in the air due to the moon's lower gravity level than earth, but I digress). Considering that most of the footage was from the 1960s and early 1970s, it's quite clear and amazing to watch, almost awe-inspiring, really.
- The one noticeable person missing from the film was the first man to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong. Armstrong, described as a quiet private man by some of his peers, is talked about in glowing terms by the rest of the astronauts, as they pointed out his ability to keep cool under pressure (which he showed when landing the lunar module manually). While the film doesn't necessarily suffer from Armstrong's absence, it still would have been great to here the man himself speak about his experiences on Apollo 11 and the moon. However, while Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, it was Buzz Aldrin that was the first man to relieve himself on the moon, as he points out with little shame during the movie.
Overall, this is quite a fascinating documentary that is also very inspiring. In the Shadow of the Moon is deserving of all the praise it has gotten from various critics over the past few years, as it is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. My only real qualm with the film is that it didn't focus a lot of time on the other Apollo missions besides Apollo 11, but that's understandable since it was the first flight to the moon that everybody remembers. Overall, I'd give it an 8.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Canon Movie Review: A League of Their Own
Earlier today, I watched the 1992 movie A League of Their Own, which is a fictional account of the 1940's women's baseball league, the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (AAGPBL). Well, that's a mouthful. Anyway, the movie was directed by Penny Marshall and stars Geena Davis, Tom Hanks, Madonna, Rosie O'Donnell, Jon Lovitz, and Bill Pullman. The plot of A League of Their Own centers around catcher Dottie Hinson (Davis) and her sister Kit Keller (Lori Petty), who play for the Rockford Peaches, even though Dottie would of rather stayed in Oregon waiting for her husband to come home from the war. Dottie becomes the league's breakout star, a catcher that can hit with power and pull off spectacular plays in the field. However, her younger sister Kit bristles at being in Dottie's shadow, and their relationship is strained to the point where a trade is made just to keep Dottie in the league. A few notes about this movie, and there are probably SPOILERS, so read carefully. Or not, it's up to you.
- One of the things that A League of Their Own does right is the casting, as Marshall and the casting directors made sure to fit their actors in the right roles. For example, Jon Lovitz is a wise-cracking scout, basically playing himself the whole. Rosie O'Donnell is a loud-mouthed New Yorker, and Bill Pullman has very little to do, among other examples.
- Most of the humor in A League of Their Own comes from Tom Hanks's characater, manager Jimmy Dugan. Dugan, a former star in the majors, is now a staggering drunk who is down to his last chance at not becoming a complete screwup. Hanks had some great scenes in this film, from the scene where he wakes up after the bus driver quit in the middle of the team's trip, to the scene where he meets his team for the first time, and urinates for a solid two minutes, to the inscription he writes on the kid's baseball along with his autograph. Of course, Hanks also said the line the movie's famous for "There's no crying in baseball", which is also a good scene in which Hanks excels.
- To the credit of the actors in the film, most of the women in the film at least act like they can play some baseball. Well, I had a hard time believing that Madonna could leg out a triple, but there were no glaring issues with the quality of play in the film, so to speak, which is more than I can say for some other movies (like Bull Durham, where Tim Robbins played a fireball throwing pitcher even though he threw like someone that had only taken up baseball three days ago, but I digress).
- Like I said before, the story of A League of Their Own revolves largely around Dottie and her sister Kit. While Dottie has a few character flaws, such as a touch of arrogance and seeing herself as a bit above the game, she mostly comes across as a good person with a strong will. Kit, on the other hand, acts like a spoiled brat for most of the film, always complaining about Dottie's success and blaming her own failures on Dottie even when she has nothing to do with them. The fact that Kit is such an immature brat makes the ending seem like a giant letdown, although at the very least, Kit does redeem herself somewhat.
- Maybe it's just because I am biased towards the performer, but I couldn't stand Rosie O'Donnell's character Doris Murphy at all. Murphy seemed just like O'Donnell in that she was a loud mouth from Long Island who just would not keep quiet. I mean, she would not shut up through the entire movie, always getting her two cents in at the conclusion of nearly every scene. I suppose that O'Donnell didn't do too badly in the film, and that it's my own personal bias that has lowered my opinion of her performance, but nevertheless, she had the most annoying character in the movie, even moreso then that little kid.
Overall, A League of Their Own is a charming portrayal of life in the AAGPBL, even though it's not entirely accurate (for one, pitchers in the real AAGPBL threw underhanded, unlike the overhand style employed by the pitchers in this movie). Despite from minor flaws, A League of Their Own is a pretty good movie that should entertain both sports fans and movie lovers alike. Sure, some people might have a hangup about watching a movie about women playing baseball, but if they look past that, then they would find that this is one of the best baseball movies ever. Overall, I'd give A League of Their Own a 7.752 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com. Also, come back to The Canon Review later this afternoon for an announcement about a new project that I will be doing that may very well cause me to lose my insanity. So, until next time, avoid the clap.
- One of the things that A League of Their Own does right is the casting, as Marshall and the casting directors made sure to fit their actors in the right roles. For example, Jon Lovitz is a wise-cracking scout, basically playing himself the whole. Rosie O'Donnell is a loud-mouthed New Yorker, and Bill Pullman has very little to do, among other examples.
- Most of the humor in A League of Their Own comes from Tom Hanks's characater, manager Jimmy Dugan. Dugan, a former star in the majors, is now a staggering drunk who is down to his last chance at not becoming a complete screwup. Hanks had some great scenes in this film, from the scene where he wakes up after the bus driver quit in the middle of the team's trip, to the scene where he meets his team for the first time, and urinates for a solid two minutes, to the inscription he writes on the kid's baseball along with his autograph. Of course, Hanks also said the line the movie's famous for "There's no crying in baseball", which is also a good scene in which Hanks excels.
- To the credit of the actors in the film, most of the women in the film at least act like they can play some baseball. Well, I had a hard time believing that Madonna could leg out a triple, but there were no glaring issues with the quality of play in the film, so to speak, which is more than I can say for some other movies (like Bull Durham, where Tim Robbins played a fireball throwing pitcher even though he threw like someone that had only taken up baseball three days ago, but I digress).
- Like I said before, the story of A League of Their Own revolves largely around Dottie and her sister Kit. While Dottie has a few character flaws, such as a touch of arrogance and seeing herself as a bit above the game, she mostly comes across as a good person with a strong will. Kit, on the other hand, acts like a spoiled brat for most of the film, always complaining about Dottie's success and blaming her own failures on Dottie even when she has nothing to do with them. The fact that Kit is such an immature brat makes the ending seem like a giant letdown, although at the very least, Kit does redeem herself somewhat.
- Maybe it's just because I am biased towards the performer, but I couldn't stand Rosie O'Donnell's character Doris Murphy at all. Murphy seemed just like O'Donnell in that she was a loud mouth from Long Island who just would not keep quiet. I mean, she would not shut up through the entire movie, always getting her two cents in at the conclusion of nearly every scene. I suppose that O'Donnell didn't do too badly in the film, and that it's my own personal bias that has lowered my opinion of her performance, but nevertheless, she had the most annoying character in the movie, even moreso then that little kid.
Overall, A League of Their Own is a charming portrayal of life in the AAGPBL, even though it's not entirely accurate (for one, pitchers in the real AAGPBL threw underhanded, unlike the overhand style employed by the pitchers in this movie). Despite from minor flaws, A League of Their Own is a pretty good movie that should entertain both sports fans and movie lovers alike. Sure, some people might have a hangup about watching a movie about women playing baseball, but if they look past that, then they would find that this is one of the best baseball movies ever. Overall, I'd give A League of Their Own a 7.752 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com. Also, come back to The Canon Review later this afternoon for an announcement about a new project that I will be doing that may very well cause me to lose my insanity. So, until next time, avoid the clap.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Canon Movie Review: A Player to be Named Later
Today's review comes from a suggestion from reader Ben W. Recently, Ben W. had seen the 2005 documentary A Player to be Named Later, and felt that this movie would be something worth viewing and reviewing. So I decided, sure, what the hey, and watched the documentary myself. Directed by Bart Stephens and produced by Maternity Films, A Player to be Named Later follows the 2001 season of the Milwaukee Brewers' Triple-A affiliate, the Indianapolis Indians. The story of A Player to be Named Later is centered around four players, outfielder Brad Tyler, outfielder Micah Franklin, infielder Marco Scutaro, and pitcher Kyle Peterson. Each player is at a different stage of their career, but they all share the same goal in common, to get the call to the big leagues. The film also features a variety of other characters, from Brewers' director of minor league personnel Greg Riddoch to the Indianapolis Indians' number one fan, Miss Jackie. A few notes about the film:
- The only one of the four players featured in the movie to have a successful career in the majors is Scutaro, who is currently on the Boston Red Sox. At the time, Scutaro was a 25 year-old middle infield prospect who was not yet on the forty man roster, and was still struggling to make the big leagues. Both Scutaro and his wife are interviewed in the film, and while Scutaro is focused on nothing other than making the big leagues, and remote control cars, his wife still seems to be coming to terms with the drastic changes that have taken place in her life, as both of them are originally from Venezuela and have only been in America for a few years. One of the more interesting things said in the movie is that Scutaro's wife wishes that her kids wouldn't grow up to be ballplayers, as life in the minor leagues can be hard on both the player and their family. I wonder if she thinks differently now that Scutaro has a multi million dollar contract and would seem to be set for life.
- One of, if not the most interesting aspects of this movie is now just the story of the players, but also the story of their wives. Particularly the life of Brad and Kimberly Tyler, who at this point had an infant daughter and were in the process of getting a house built when early on in the season, Brad got cut by the Brewers organization. To continue his career and make ends meet, Brad goes to Mexico to play for a team called the Oaxaca Guerreros. While in Mexico, Brad and Kimberly live in a one bedroom apartment with no oven and very little amenities. Yet Brad remains hopeful, and Kimberly is never wavering in her undying support of Brad's dreams. Fortunately for Brad, a team in America does sign him to a contract later on in the season, although he gets sent to double-A and because of that, has to miss his daughter's one year birthday party. Tyler never made it to big leagues, as he was 32 at the time of this film and only played one more year of baseball afterwards. Looking at his numbers, I don't see why he didn't get a shot, to be honest, as Tyler was a left-handed hitting outfielder with good speed (175 career steals), decent power (141 homeruns) and excelled at getting on base (a career .371 OBP). Originally a second baseman, Brad Tyler struggled some with the glove at second, according to his minor league stats, but he was skilled enough to at least earn a look in the majors at one point in his career. But, as is the case with so many others, Tyler just never got the call.
- Of the four players featured, Micah Franklin is the one that seems to be the most realistic about his chances of being called up by the Brewers. A veteran of the minor leagues who had a cup of coffee with the Cardinals and spent two years in Japan, Franklin spends the majority of the movie in a bit of a funk, as he has come to the realization that age 29, the best case scenario for him is a spot on the bench for the Brewers. To his credit, Franklin takes everything in stride, even as he gets off to a slow start and finds himself on the Indianapolis bench more often than he would like. Towards the end of the season, Franklin finds his stroke, and at one point hits an incredible six home runs in seven at-bats. The year was also memorable for Franklin because his second daughter was born during the season, and the producers are able to be with Franklin and his family as they bring his daughter back home from the hospital.
- Of the four players featured, the one with seemingly the brightest future would have been Peterson, a first round pick by the Brewers in 1997 who had pitched some in the bigs in 1999 before shoulder surgery. Even though the surgery has changed the way Peterson throws, the Brewers still though highly of him and after a strong start, called him up for a brief stint in the majors. However, after being sent down (to make room for the immortal Lou Collier), Peterson goes into a tailspin, struggling to get hitters out and to make matters worse, his shoulder is starting to hurt again. As the season progresses, things just get worse for Peterson, as he's put on the DL and eventually dropped from the Brewers' 40-man roster. As the film goes on, you start to feel bad for Peterson, a bright guy who later would graduate from Stanford University, as his once promising future becomes more and more of a question mark. Unfortunately, 2001 proved to be Peterson's final season in baseball, as he later had to have a second operation on his shoulder and never came back from it.
- The film's emotional peak comes at the end of the season, a disappointing one for the Indianapolis Indians, as the Brewers expand their rosters and add more players from the minors. A player who surely would merit a callup is Scuturo, who won the team's MVP award and whom everybody in the organization thinks is a future big leaguer for sure. Remarkably, Scutaro does not get the call, and you can see his frustration come through as all he can do is quietly ask the manager 'what more can I do?' I can't see why he wasn't called up either, my only guess is that the Brewers just hadn't seen enough of James Mouton and Angel Echevarria. Then again, the 2001 Brewers won't be remembered for their shrewd personnel decisions, and letting Scutaro go the next year is just one of the many mistakes made during this time period.
Overall, A Player to be Named Later is a rather interesting look at life on the outside of the major leagues, where players must ride the bus and aren't paid nearly as much as in the bigs. My only real complaint is that we really didn't get a whole lot of interaction between the players and their teammates, as most of the movie is just shot interview style with the subject while game clips are mixed in. It would have been interesting to see more of the interactions between a player and the manager or coach, or how the locker room is before and after a game. But nevertheless, A Player to be Named Later is a documentary worthy of viewing for any baseball fan. Overall, I'd give it a 7.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The only one of the four players featured in the movie to have a successful career in the majors is Scutaro, who is currently on the Boston Red Sox. At the time, Scutaro was a 25 year-old middle infield prospect who was not yet on the forty man roster, and was still struggling to make the big leagues. Both Scutaro and his wife are interviewed in the film, and while Scutaro is focused on nothing other than making the big leagues, and remote control cars, his wife still seems to be coming to terms with the drastic changes that have taken place in her life, as both of them are originally from Venezuela and have only been in America for a few years. One of the more interesting things said in the movie is that Scutaro's wife wishes that her kids wouldn't grow up to be ballplayers, as life in the minor leagues can be hard on both the player and their family. I wonder if she thinks differently now that Scutaro has a multi million dollar contract and would seem to be set for life.
- One of, if not the most interesting aspects of this movie is now just the story of the players, but also the story of their wives. Particularly the life of Brad and Kimberly Tyler, who at this point had an infant daughter and were in the process of getting a house built when early on in the season, Brad got cut by the Brewers organization. To continue his career and make ends meet, Brad goes to Mexico to play for a team called the Oaxaca Guerreros. While in Mexico, Brad and Kimberly live in a one bedroom apartment with no oven and very little amenities. Yet Brad remains hopeful, and Kimberly is never wavering in her undying support of Brad's dreams. Fortunately for Brad, a team in America does sign him to a contract later on in the season, although he gets sent to double-A and because of that, has to miss his daughter's one year birthday party. Tyler never made it to big leagues, as he was 32 at the time of this film and only played one more year of baseball afterwards. Looking at his numbers, I don't see why he didn't get a shot, to be honest, as Tyler was a left-handed hitting outfielder with good speed (175 career steals), decent power (141 homeruns) and excelled at getting on base (a career .371 OBP). Originally a second baseman, Brad Tyler struggled some with the glove at second, according to his minor league stats, but he was skilled enough to at least earn a look in the majors at one point in his career. But, as is the case with so many others, Tyler just never got the call.
- Of the four players featured, Micah Franklin is the one that seems to be the most realistic about his chances of being called up by the Brewers. A veteran of the minor leagues who had a cup of coffee with the Cardinals and spent two years in Japan, Franklin spends the majority of the movie in a bit of a funk, as he has come to the realization that age 29, the best case scenario for him is a spot on the bench for the Brewers. To his credit, Franklin takes everything in stride, even as he gets off to a slow start and finds himself on the Indianapolis bench more often than he would like. Towards the end of the season, Franklin finds his stroke, and at one point hits an incredible six home runs in seven at-bats. The year was also memorable for Franklin because his second daughter was born during the season, and the producers are able to be with Franklin and his family as they bring his daughter back home from the hospital.
- Of the four players featured, the one with seemingly the brightest future would have been Peterson, a first round pick by the Brewers in 1997 who had pitched some in the bigs in 1999 before shoulder surgery. Even though the surgery has changed the way Peterson throws, the Brewers still though highly of him and after a strong start, called him up for a brief stint in the majors. However, after being sent down (to make room for the immortal Lou Collier), Peterson goes into a tailspin, struggling to get hitters out and to make matters worse, his shoulder is starting to hurt again. As the season progresses, things just get worse for Peterson, as he's put on the DL and eventually dropped from the Brewers' 40-man roster. As the film goes on, you start to feel bad for Peterson, a bright guy who later would graduate from Stanford University, as his once promising future becomes more and more of a question mark. Unfortunately, 2001 proved to be Peterson's final season in baseball, as he later had to have a second operation on his shoulder and never came back from it.
- The film's emotional peak comes at the end of the season, a disappointing one for the Indianapolis Indians, as the Brewers expand their rosters and add more players from the minors. A player who surely would merit a callup is Scuturo, who won the team's MVP award and whom everybody in the organization thinks is a future big leaguer for sure. Remarkably, Scutaro does not get the call, and you can see his frustration come through as all he can do is quietly ask the manager 'what more can I do?' I can't see why he wasn't called up either, my only guess is that the Brewers just hadn't seen enough of James Mouton and Angel Echevarria. Then again, the 2001 Brewers won't be remembered for their shrewd personnel decisions, and letting Scutaro go the next year is just one of the many mistakes made during this time period.
Overall, A Player to be Named Later is a rather interesting look at life on the outside of the major leagues, where players must ride the bus and aren't paid nearly as much as in the bigs. My only real complaint is that we really didn't get a whole lot of interaction between the players and their teammates, as most of the movie is just shot interview style with the subject while game clips are mixed in. It would have been interesting to see more of the interactions between a player and the manager or coach, or how the locker room is before and after a game. But nevertheless, A Player to be Named Later is a documentary worthy of viewing for any baseball fan. Overall, I'd give it a 7.45 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this or other posts, or ideas for future posts, than let us know them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Since I reviewed the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone last week. I decided to watch the movie and see how it matched up to the book. The film version was directed by Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, Nine Months) and stars Daniel Ratcliffe as Harry Potter. The movie also stars Emma Watson, Rupert Grant, Richard Harris, Maggie Smith, and Alan Rickman, among others. The movie was released in 2001, and set a then record for the highest grossing opening weekend in movie history. The film made 974.7 million dollars at the box office worldwide, which is currently the seventh highest grossing film of all-time. A few thoughts about this movie, and I must warn you that there are spoilers ahead:
- Unlike some movies based on books, the movie's script follows the original source material rather closely. Sure, there are some scenes that are taken out of the book, and the manner in which Hagrid gives up his dragon is changed, but other than that, the script nearly follows the book to a tee. In fact, it kind of impaired my enjoyment of the film because I had just read the book, and therefore I knew what was coming.
- The special effects in the movie are really well-done. Particularly the scenes with the three headed dog and the little dragon of Hagrid's. Heck, they look so life-like that they almost look real. The giant troll looked kind of silly, though, especially when Harry jumped on his back. But overall, the special effects were well done and did not subtract at all from the movie.
- As I said before, one of the strengths of the movie was that it followed the book so thoroughly. However, I must say I was disappointed by the exclusion of Snape's defense mechanism in guarding the Sorcerer's Stone. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, and also the scene would have only taken a minute or so to do. But instead they went right from the chessboard to the final confrontation. Oh well.
- One odd thing about this film is that for a fantasy film, the movie almost seems too practical. Compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, with its gorgeous scenery and larger-than-life characters and effects, Harry Potter looks kind of run-of-the-mill, to be honest. Yes, some of the special effects are nicely well done, but most of the settings in the movie look like settings that you've probably seen in other movies before. I don't know, I guess overall I had imagined a far grander film than what I ended up watching.
- Last week, my sister Maggie warned me not to watch this film because the actors were just kids then and therefore the movie wasn't all that good. Well, after watching the film I'd say she wasn't wrong. Of the three main characters, I thought that Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley turned in the most convincing performance. Daniel Ratcliffe played Harry Potter, and even though I don't want to be too critical, it seemed as if he turned in a lackadaisical performance. Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger was all right I guess, but I felt the movie made her too much of a know-it-all. Actually, the movie made Hermoine out to be somewhat unlikeable, whereas the book portrayed her as a misunderstood overachiever, the movie kind of made her out to be a stuck up know-it-all. The adult actors all played their parts rather well, particularly Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid and Rickman as Professor Snape, although I felt he wasn't in the movie enough.
- One problem I had with the movie is that, while the events took place almost identically as described as the book, it seemed as if something was missing in the retelling. For one, in the book Harry was kind of freaked out in the beginning about being a wizard and discovering this new world and all that, but in the movie, he seemed to accept everything rather quickly, and just acted as if all of these new things were just normal everyday stuff. Also, in the book Harry and the gang were always scared about passing classes and gaining acceptance, but you hardly see any of that in the movie, other than Hermoine worrying about Harry and Ron getting her killed "or worse, expelled".
- The movie also cuts out a lot of scenes featuring Harry's family the Dursleys, who are much more important in the book but only get a couple of minutes in the movie. Also, Draco Malfoy's character in the book was a rich stuck-up bully who tormented Harry and Ron all year. In the movie, he's more of a troublemaker who serves little purpose but to advance the story.
Overall, while the movie is very faithful to the original material, it comes off as a flat retelling of the tale instead of adding to it, if that makes any sense. It lacks a lot of the emotion and suspense of the book and the movie kind of drags in the middle. To me, the film is simply a by-the-numbers retelling of the book I found it okay, but something was lost in the translation from the book to the film. I'll give it a 5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Unlike some movies based on books, the movie's script follows the original source material rather closely. Sure, there are some scenes that are taken out of the book, and the manner in which Hagrid gives up his dragon is changed, but other than that, the script nearly follows the book to a tee. In fact, it kind of impaired my enjoyment of the film because I had just read the book, and therefore I knew what was coming.
- The special effects in the movie are really well-done. Particularly the scenes with the three headed dog and the little dragon of Hagrid's. Heck, they look so life-like that they almost look real. The giant troll looked kind of silly, though, especially when Harry jumped on his back. But overall, the special effects were well done and did not subtract at all from the movie.
- As I said before, one of the strengths of the movie was that it followed the book so thoroughly. However, I must say I was disappointed by the exclusion of Snape's defense mechanism in guarding the Sorcerer's Stone. That was one of my favorite parts of the book, and also the scene would have only taken a minute or so to do. But instead they went right from the chessboard to the final confrontation. Oh well.
- One odd thing about this film is that for a fantasy film, the movie almost seems too practical. Compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, with its gorgeous scenery and larger-than-life characters and effects, Harry Potter looks kind of run-of-the-mill, to be honest. Yes, some of the special effects are nicely well done, but most of the settings in the movie look like settings that you've probably seen in other movies before. I don't know, I guess overall I had imagined a far grander film than what I ended up watching.
- Last week, my sister Maggie warned me not to watch this film because the actors were just kids then and therefore the movie wasn't all that good. Well, after watching the film I'd say she wasn't wrong. Of the three main characters, I thought that Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley turned in the most convincing performance. Daniel Ratcliffe played Harry Potter, and even though I don't want to be too critical, it seemed as if he turned in a lackadaisical performance. Emma Watson as Hermoine Granger was all right I guess, but I felt the movie made her too much of a know-it-all. Actually, the movie made Hermoine out to be somewhat unlikeable, whereas the book portrayed her as a misunderstood overachiever, the movie kind of made her out to be a stuck up know-it-all. The adult actors all played their parts rather well, particularly Robbie Coltrane as the gentle giant Hagrid and Rickman as Professor Snape, although I felt he wasn't in the movie enough.
- One problem I had with the movie is that, while the events took place almost identically as described as the book, it seemed as if something was missing in the retelling. For one, in the book Harry was kind of freaked out in the beginning about being a wizard and discovering this new world and all that, but in the movie, he seemed to accept everything rather quickly, and just acted as if all of these new things were just normal everyday stuff. Also, in the book Harry and the gang were always scared about passing classes and gaining acceptance, but you hardly see any of that in the movie, other than Hermoine worrying about Harry and Ron getting her killed "or worse, expelled".
- The movie also cuts out a lot of scenes featuring Harry's family the Dursleys, who are much more important in the book but only get a couple of minutes in the movie. Also, Draco Malfoy's character in the book was a rich stuck-up bully who tormented Harry and Ron all year. In the movie, he's more of a troublemaker who serves little purpose but to advance the story.
Overall, while the movie is very faithful to the original material, it comes off as a flat retelling of the tale instead of adding to it, if that makes any sense. It lacks a lot of the emotion and suspense of the book and the movie kind of drags in the middle. To me, the film is simply a by-the-numbers retelling of the book I found it okay, but something was lost in the translation from the book to the film. I'll give it a 5 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Canon Movie Review: U-Turn
The Canon Review's weekend of Jon Voight concludes with the 1997 Oliver Stone film U-Turn. Based off of a novel written by John Ridley title Stray Dogs, the movie has a big-time cast, starring Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Lopez, Billy Bob Thornton, Voight, Claire Danes, and Joaquin Phoenix. U-Turn tells the story of a drifter named Bobby Cooper (Penn), who is on his way to Las Vegas to pay a debt off, has to take a U-Turn after the radiator hose in his car bursts and finds himself in the town of Superior, Arizona. After that Bobby's day goes from bad to worse, as he has difficulties with the town's mehanic Darrell (Thornton) a beautiful woman named Grace (Lopez) and her real-estate developer husband Jake McKenna (Nolte), who oddly enough, each wants Penn to kill off their respective spouses. Penn also meets a blind man (Voight) who loves to drink Dr. Pepper and pops up from time to time to offer Bobby advice, and a fickle girl named Jenny (Danes), whose frequent flirting with Bobby leads to problems with her boyfriend Toby N Tucker, aka TNT (Phoenix). No matter how hard Bobby tries, he just can't seem to get out of Superior, and ends up getting deeper and deeper in a web of lies, jealousy, and greed. A few thoughts about the film, and there are SPOILERS ahead:
- Director Oliver Stone is a talented filmmaker, and his talent shows in this film. The cinematography is excellent in this film, and Stone uses different tricks such as flashbacks to add background to the characters and slow-motion shots to add a sense of importance to certain scenes. However, Stone does get a bit too reliant on these and other gimmicks, so to speak, and a lot of it doesn't really add anything to the film at all and just seems as if he's trying to show off.
- As Bobby Cooper, Sean Penn does a wonderful job of playing the role, and manages to get the audience to root for this seemingly lowlife character to succeed in his quest not only to get out of town, but to pay off his debts as well. You almost feel sorry for him seeing his money being destroyed by a shotgun blast from a store owner after a failed robbery attempt from two local thugs, and his constant battle with the mechanic over the bill is something people can relate to, as most of us have been in slightly similar situations before. Penn plays Cooper with such skill that it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role better. Certainly not Tom Cruise and Bill Paxton, who also were considered for the role. No offense to either men, who are both fine actors in their own right, but I feel like something would have been missing had anyone else other than Penn had played the role.
- Actually, most of the acting in this film is quite top-notch. Billy Bob Thornton does an excellent job playing Darrell the redneck mechanic, making him one of the film's more memorable characters. Jon Voight is a little over-the-top as the blind man who carries a dead dog with him, but the movie in itself was over-the-top, so it fits the film perfectly here. Actually, Voight was almost unrecognizable at first, so kudos to the makeup department for making Voight look like a hapless old blind bum. Voight's Anaconda co-star Jennifer Lopez also turned in a solid performance as Grace McKenna, and did more than just hold her own in her many scenes with Penn. Nick Nolte, however, was just ok as Jake McKenna, as he really just seemed to be going through the motions and didn't give his character a whole lot of depth. Meanwhile, Joaquin Phoenix was hysterical in his portrayal of the high-tempered TNT, nearly stealing the show despite being in the movie no longer than five minutes.
- This movie is shot and directed very well, and is acted very well. However, I must say that I felt the plot was a little bit flat with a few holes in it. There were quite a few moments where you may wonder "What are the chances of that happening?" Also, the story has so many twists and turns that some might end up confused, and the movie has so many false endings that at the end, I just couldn't wait for the makers of the movie to just pick an ending and go with it instead of dragging the film on.
Overall, this seems to be Oliver Stone's attempt at making a scuzzy, Tarantino-esque film. While the acting is strong, and Stone's talent shines through, there are some weaknesses with the plot and a few scenes just wind up going nowhere. It's a good film, probably worth seeing and I wouldn't be surprised if others like this more than I did, but to me it just fell short of being a great film. I'll give U-Turn a 5.920 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Director Oliver Stone is a talented filmmaker, and his talent shows in this film. The cinematography is excellent in this film, and Stone uses different tricks such as flashbacks to add background to the characters and slow-motion shots to add a sense of importance to certain scenes. However, Stone does get a bit too reliant on these and other gimmicks, so to speak, and a lot of it doesn't really add anything to the film at all and just seems as if he's trying to show off.
- As Bobby Cooper, Sean Penn does a wonderful job of playing the role, and manages to get the audience to root for this seemingly lowlife character to succeed in his quest not only to get out of town, but to pay off his debts as well. You almost feel sorry for him seeing his money being destroyed by a shotgun blast from a store owner after a failed robbery attempt from two local thugs, and his constant battle with the mechanic over the bill is something people can relate to, as most of us have been in slightly similar situations before. Penn plays Cooper with such skill that it's hard to imagine anyone else playing the role better. Certainly not Tom Cruise and Bill Paxton, who also were considered for the role. No offense to either men, who are both fine actors in their own right, but I feel like something would have been missing had anyone else other than Penn had played the role.
- Actually, most of the acting in this film is quite top-notch. Billy Bob Thornton does an excellent job playing Darrell the redneck mechanic, making him one of the film's more memorable characters. Jon Voight is a little over-the-top as the blind man who carries a dead dog with him, but the movie in itself was over-the-top, so it fits the film perfectly here. Actually, Voight was almost unrecognizable at first, so kudos to the makeup department for making Voight look like a hapless old blind bum. Voight's Anaconda co-star Jennifer Lopez also turned in a solid performance as Grace McKenna, and did more than just hold her own in her many scenes with Penn. Nick Nolte, however, was just ok as Jake McKenna, as he really just seemed to be going through the motions and didn't give his character a whole lot of depth. Meanwhile, Joaquin Phoenix was hysterical in his portrayal of the high-tempered TNT, nearly stealing the show despite being in the movie no longer than five minutes.
- This movie is shot and directed very well, and is acted very well. However, I must say that I felt the plot was a little bit flat with a few holes in it. There were quite a few moments where you may wonder "What are the chances of that happening?" Also, the story has so many twists and turns that some might end up confused, and the movie has so many false endings that at the end, I just couldn't wait for the makers of the movie to just pick an ending and go with it instead of dragging the film on.
Overall, this seems to be Oliver Stone's attempt at making a scuzzy, Tarantino-esque film. While the acting is strong, and Stone's talent shines through, there are some weaknesses with the plot and a few scenes just wind up going nowhere. It's a good film, probably worth seeing and I wouldn't be surprised if others like this more than I did, but to me it just fell short of being a great film. I'll give U-Turn a 5.920 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Midnight Cowboy
The Canon Review's weekend of Jon Voight continues with the film that made Voight famous, the 1969 classic Midnight Cowboy. Starring Voight and Dustin Hoffman, and directed by John Schlesinger, Midnight Cowboy won three Academy Awards, including best picture and best director. In fact, Midnight Cowboy is the only X rated movie to win the Academy Award for best picture, although by today's standards the movie would be rated R. Midnight Cowboy is about a young man from Texas named Joe Buck (Voight) who goes to New York in the hopes of becoming a high-priced gigolo. While there, he meets a crippled con artist named Enrique "Ratso" Rizzo, who at first cons Buck out of twenty bucks, but eventually gives Buck a place to stay after learning that Buck had nowhere else to go. The two then try to scrape by in the big city, doing whatever it takes to survive and make money and improve their surroundings. A few thoughts about this film (SPOILERS AHEAD):
- The director, Schlesinger, used a lot of flashbacks and fantasy sequences in the film, to the point where there are a couple of times where you're wondering what is real and what is not. Despite that, Schlesinger uses the flashbacks and fantasies to great effect, telling of the background of Joe Buck from his confusing relationship to his grandmother to the relationship he had with a girl named Crazy Annie. The fantasy sequences also give a deeper impression of both Rizzo and Buck's ultimate dreams, Buck's to become a man making his money making love to rich women and Rizzo's desire to leave New York behind and start a new life in Florida, using Buck to accomplish that goal.
- One of the aspects that make this film such a work of art is the soundtrack. From the use of Harry Nilsson's "Everybody Talkin at Me" whenever Buck is featured in a scene either walking around or riding the bus, to the haunting tone of John Barry's score, including his Grammy Award winning "Midnight Cowboy Theme". The soundtrack adds a lot to the film and really helps tell the story being presented.
- Last night I laid into Voight's performance in Anaconda, although to be fair, it wasn't as if he had a whole lot to work with. Well today I have a completly different opinion on Voight's acting in a movie, as he just did a magnificent job playing the naive cowboy Joe Buck. Voight perfectly captures Buck's transformation from a hopeful man ready to make a living for himself in New York to a man willing to do just about anything, except going back to washing dishes, to get by and provide himself and Rizzo with a life outside of a condemned building they currently call home. The experiences that Joe has had in New York changes him greatly, and Voight is able to capture and show all of the little changes of Joe's personality effectively.Voight even gets the Texan accent down perfectly, not bad considering he's a native New Yorker.
- Meanwhile, Hoffman also turns in a strong performance as Ratso Rizzo, a crippled low-rate thief who will do anything, much like a rat, to survive his environment another day. Even though Rizzo is little more than a petty thug, Hoffman is able to humanize him, to make Rizzo a sympathetic and likable character to the audience. A tour de force performance from one of the greatest actors of his time.
- Ultimately, the heart of the story is the strange friendship that develops between Buck and Rizzo, mainly because they realize that one can not survive without the other. Buck is hopelessly naive about life as a hustler in New York City, which Rizzo at least knows a little about, while Rizzo comes to depend on Buck as not only a physical protector of sorts, but also as the one person that can help him escape from be a rat in New York and enjoy a new life in Florida. So, while the story is at first glance a tale of hustlers trying to scam a buck, it's actually a story of despair and loneliness and a friendship between two out-of-place people who have nothing to rely on but each other.
- Sylvia Miles received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her work in the film, even though she may have been in the movie for three minutes. She plays a rich lady who Buck tries to hustle for a few bucks in exchange for a good time, but Buck's attempt backfires to the extent that he consuls her for daring to ask money for his services and ends up giving her twenty bucks for cab fare. While the scene shows that's it is not going to be as easy as Buck thinks it will be to become a hustler, there's so much going on later in the movie that you somewhat forget about the scene, so it's a mystery why a person in what amounted to a secondary scene was nominated for an Academy Award.
- This was an X rated movie by 1969 standards, although if it came out today it would hardly be shocking to today's audience. Sure, there is nudity, graphic violence and strong language, but those things can be found in nearly every movie out these days. What made it particularly shocking to audiences of this time period was the subject matter being explored, from male prostitution to homosexuality to rape and other controversial subjects that have been in movies for many years since then, but by 1969 standards was highly shocking to see in a film.
- Jon Voight actually wasn't the first choice to play Joe Buck, as other actors such as Lee Majors and Michael Sarrizan were offered the role first, but turned it down. An actor that wanted to play Joe Buck was none other than Elvis Presely, although if he had been in it the film would have to be completely changed and Joe would probably end up singing a few songs. Instead, Elvis did a film called Change of Habit, which bombed, and Midnight Cowboy ended up being an Oscar winning film. I guarantee that doesn't happen if Elvis plays Joe Buck, no disrespect to Elvis.
Overall, Midnight Cowboy is just a great movie. There are a couple of weak spots, the whole party scene and the idea that a cowboy like Buck would actually be invited to an Andy Warhol-style party is a little weak, and the scene just goes on forever before finally something of significance happens. Other than that and a few minor hiccups, I have no complaints about this film. The soundtrack is great, the director did a fantastic job, and Voight and Hoffman turned in performances that few actors and actresses will ever be able to match. I'll give the film an 8.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- The director, Schlesinger, used a lot of flashbacks and fantasy sequences in the film, to the point where there are a couple of times where you're wondering what is real and what is not. Despite that, Schlesinger uses the flashbacks and fantasies to great effect, telling of the background of Joe Buck from his confusing relationship to his grandmother to the relationship he had with a girl named Crazy Annie. The fantasy sequences also give a deeper impression of both Rizzo and Buck's ultimate dreams, Buck's to become a man making his money making love to rich women and Rizzo's desire to leave New York behind and start a new life in Florida, using Buck to accomplish that goal.
- One of the aspects that make this film such a work of art is the soundtrack. From the use of Harry Nilsson's "Everybody Talkin at Me" whenever Buck is featured in a scene either walking around or riding the bus, to the haunting tone of John Barry's score, including his Grammy Award winning "Midnight Cowboy Theme". The soundtrack adds a lot to the film and really helps tell the story being presented.
- Last night I laid into Voight's performance in Anaconda, although to be fair, it wasn't as if he had a whole lot to work with. Well today I have a completly different opinion on Voight's acting in a movie, as he just did a magnificent job playing the naive cowboy Joe Buck. Voight perfectly captures Buck's transformation from a hopeful man ready to make a living for himself in New York to a man willing to do just about anything, except going back to washing dishes, to get by and provide himself and Rizzo with a life outside of a condemned building they currently call home. The experiences that Joe has had in New York changes him greatly, and Voight is able to capture and show all of the little changes of Joe's personality effectively.Voight even gets the Texan accent down perfectly, not bad considering he's a native New Yorker.
- Meanwhile, Hoffman also turns in a strong performance as Ratso Rizzo, a crippled low-rate thief who will do anything, much like a rat, to survive his environment another day. Even though Rizzo is little more than a petty thug, Hoffman is able to humanize him, to make Rizzo a sympathetic and likable character to the audience. A tour de force performance from one of the greatest actors of his time.
- Ultimately, the heart of the story is the strange friendship that develops between Buck and Rizzo, mainly because they realize that one can not survive without the other. Buck is hopelessly naive about life as a hustler in New York City, which Rizzo at least knows a little about, while Rizzo comes to depend on Buck as not only a physical protector of sorts, but also as the one person that can help him escape from be a rat in New York and enjoy a new life in Florida. So, while the story is at first glance a tale of hustlers trying to scam a buck, it's actually a story of despair and loneliness and a friendship between two out-of-place people who have nothing to rely on but each other.
- Sylvia Miles received a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her work in the film, even though she may have been in the movie for three minutes. She plays a rich lady who Buck tries to hustle for a few bucks in exchange for a good time, but Buck's attempt backfires to the extent that he consuls her for daring to ask money for his services and ends up giving her twenty bucks for cab fare. While the scene shows that's it is not going to be as easy as Buck thinks it will be to become a hustler, there's so much going on later in the movie that you somewhat forget about the scene, so it's a mystery why a person in what amounted to a secondary scene was nominated for an Academy Award.
- This was an X rated movie by 1969 standards, although if it came out today it would hardly be shocking to today's audience. Sure, there is nudity, graphic violence and strong language, but those things can be found in nearly every movie out these days. What made it particularly shocking to audiences of this time period was the subject matter being explored, from male prostitution to homosexuality to rape and other controversial subjects that have been in movies for many years since then, but by 1969 standards was highly shocking to see in a film.
- Jon Voight actually wasn't the first choice to play Joe Buck, as other actors such as Lee Majors and Michael Sarrizan were offered the role first, but turned it down. An actor that wanted to play Joe Buck was none other than Elvis Presely, although if he had been in it the film would have to be completely changed and Joe would probably end up singing a few songs. Instead, Elvis did a film called Change of Habit, which bombed, and Midnight Cowboy ended up being an Oscar winning film. I guarantee that doesn't happen if Elvis plays Joe Buck, no disrespect to Elvis.
Overall, Midnight Cowboy is just a great movie. There are a couple of weak spots, the whole party scene and the idea that a cowboy like Buck would actually be invited to an Andy Warhol-style party is a little weak, and the scene just goes on forever before finally something of significance happens. Other than that and a few minor hiccups, I have no complaints about this film. The soundtrack is great, the director did a fantastic job, and Voight and Hoffman turned in performances that few actors and actresses will ever be able to match. I'll give the film an 8.75 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Anaconda
In a decision I made after watching Deliverance last night, this weekend is now Jon Voight weekend at The Canon Review. Today the Voight movie under review is the 1997 movie Anaconda, which stars Jennifer Lopez, Ice Cube, Voight, Owen Wilson, and a giant computer generated snake. Directed by Luis Llosa, Anaconda is set in the Amazon River. The plot of the movie is that a film crew sets out to make a documentary about a rarely seen Brazilian tribe deep in the Amazon. While on their voyage, they rescue a mysterious stranger stranded on a boat name Paul Sarone, played by Jon Voight. From there, the crew faces all sorts of danger from the anacondas and other wildlife, while the snake hunter Sarone seems hell bent on capturing one of the snakes alive in order to get a million dollar payday. Naturally, their conflicting goals cause Sarone and the rest of the crew on the boat to clash, and Sarone ends up becoming an over the top mad villian. A few notes about this movie, and there are SPOILERS AHEAD, so if you haven't seen this movie and still want to, I suggest that you stop reading this post, and read another fantastic post on The Canon Review instead.
- Before I start to give this film the thrashing it so deserves, I will say that the cinematographers did a great job of showing the scenery and the beauty of the Amazon River. The lush jungle and rainforest around the Amazon is really captured and shown with great detail. Overall, Anaconda is actually a beautifully shot film, with a rich setting around the characters, even with the CGI snake thrown in.
- The acting in this film is a wide range, from the wooden (Kari Wuhrer as the production assistant) to the stereotypical (Ice Cube as a black man from Los Angeles, what a stretch that must have been), to just completly hamming it up (Voight, which will be dealt with later). Lopez is the star of the film as director Terri Flores. I wouldn't say she was awful, but it wasn't exactly DeNiro in Taxi Driver good either. Her scenes with her supposed love interest, Professor Steven Cale (Eric Stoltz), are just totally unbelievable. Also, it seems Lopez is totally unable to express any emotion other than anger, even though most of her crew end up dead or incapacitated, Flores doesn't seem to give a damn about any of them. Then again, if I was hanging out with guys like Owen Wilson, who plays, well, the same character he plays in every other movie, and the snobby British narrator Warren Westridge (Jonathan Hyde), I wouldn't necessarily be too broken up over their deaths either.
- Then there's Jon Voight, as Paraguayan ex-priest turned snake poacher Paul Sarone. While everyone else around are either playing themselves or acting with all the excitement of a three-pack of sponges, Voight takes it upon himself to steal the show with his overacting. Voight speaks with some sort of weird accent that makes him sound like a mixture of Christopher Walken and Marlon Brando. His performance of Sarone borders on the absurd, to be frank. There were quite a few times in the movie that I just couldn't help but laugh at the actions and words of Sarone, even though he's supposed to be some sort of evil version of Captain Ahab terrorizing these inexperienced film makers. If the director had just gotten Voight to turn it down a little, than the character may have been more sinister and therefore the movie would have been better. As it is, Voight almost singlehandedly turns Anaconda into a comedy, albiet an unintentional one.
- The scene below is probably my favorite scene of the movie. In this scene, Sarone is all tied up thanks to the actions of Flores, Danny the camera man (Ice Cube), and Westridge. The three then have to go out of the boat because Danny somehow got it stuck, so they have to tie some ropes to some trees in order to steer it back into water. Meanwhile, Denise (Wuhrer) is angry or sad or confused or something, I can't really tell, so she decided to kill Sarone with a knife, and well, this happens:
How exactly, did Sarone jump that high from a seated position with his hands tied around a post behind his back? I have no clue, maybe you can explain it better than I.
-Sarone wasn't the only ridiculous villain in the movie, as there's still the Anaconda to deal with. This anaconda seems to be about 50 feet tall and has a rather large appetite. While it would be kind of difficult to get a 50 foot snake to act on the set, the crew could have done a better job of making it look like the anaconda was, you know, actually chasing the characters down. Instead it was so obvious that the graphics were superimposed that it really took away from what little suspense the movie had.
- Danny Trejo is in this movie at the beginning. He's on a boat when it's attacked by what presumably is the anaconda, so he does the only thing he can do and shoots himself in the head. Also, the captain of the boat, a man named Mateo, got a raw deal in the movie. He doesn't get to say hardly anything, and is the first victim of the anaconda. What's more, he actually got left behind by Sarone and Danny, who were carrying treasure out of a sunken ship (What that was or why they brought it up on board is never explained, so don't worry about it). So nobody's even sure that Mateo is gone, and the only person that seems even halfway concerned was Denise.
- This movie gets rather ridicoulous in the last 20 minutes. For one, Ice Cube and Jon Voight can take a lot of punishment apparently, because Cube (or Danny, if you prefer) gets stabbed in the leg with a knife, thrown around by the anaconda, nearly squeezed to death by the anaconda, and yet by and large seems no worse for the wear. Meanwhile, Sarone falls into the ocean after getting shot with a tranqualizer dart, but not only survives, he's able to capture Danny and Terri and comes up with some overcomplicated plan to catch the anaconda. The Anaconda, meanwhile, can apparently survive being nearly chopped in half with a pickaxe, multiple gunshots to the head at close range, and even being in the middle of a gasoline explosion, being on fire for at least a full minute, than coming back up from the water a little burnt, but still ready to go.
Overall, this movie sucks. There, I said it. This movie would have been a lot better if either Voight's character or the anacondas go. With two mega villains, it seems a little convoluted. Personally, I'd vote for Voight to be removed, or at the very least not to be a villain, and then you can just have a straight up man vs. nature battle where a few people die, but ultimately the main stars prevail in the end and kill the Anaconda. You know, kind of like Jaws. It still might not have been a great movie, but it would have made more sense this way. As it is, it's not very good, so I'll give it a 3.1 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- Before I start to give this film the thrashing it so deserves, I will say that the cinematographers did a great job of showing the scenery and the beauty of the Amazon River. The lush jungle and rainforest around the Amazon is really captured and shown with great detail. Overall, Anaconda is actually a beautifully shot film, with a rich setting around the characters, even with the CGI snake thrown in.
- The acting in this film is a wide range, from the wooden (Kari Wuhrer as the production assistant) to the stereotypical (Ice Cube as a black man from Los Angeles, what a stretch that must have been), to just completly hamming it up (Voight, which will be dealt with later). Lopez is the star of the film as director Terri Flores. I wouldn't say she was awful, but it wasn't exactly DeNiro in Taxi Driver good either. Her scenes with her supposed love interest, Professor Steven Cale (Eric Stoltz), are just totally unbelievable. Also, it seems Lopez is totally unable to express any emotion other than anger, even though most of her crew end up dead or incapacitated, Flores doesn't seem to give a damn about any of them. Then again, if I was hanging out with guys like Owen Wilson, who plays, well, the same character he plays in every other movie, and the snobby British narrator Warren Westridge (Jonathan Hyde), I wouldn't necessarily be too broken up over their deaths either.
- Then there's Jon Voight, as Paraguayan ex-priest turned snake poacher Paul Sarone. While everyone else around are either playing themselves or acting with all the excitement of a three-pack of sponges, Voight takes it upon himself to steal the show with his overacting. Voight speaks with some sort of weird accent that makes him sound like a mixture of Christopher Walken and Marlon Brando. His performance of Sarone borders on the absurd, to be frank. There were quite a few times in the movie that I just couldn't help but laugh at the actions and words of Sarone, even though he's supposed to be some sort of evil version of Captain Ahab terrorizing these inexperienced film makers. If the director had just gotten Voight to turn it down a little, than the character may have been more sinister and therefore the movie would have been better. As it is, Voight almost singlehandedly turns Anaconda into a comedy, albiet an unintentional one.
- The scene below is probably my favorite scene of the movie. In this scene, Sarone is all tied up thanks to the actions of Flores, Danny the camera man (Ice Cube), and Westridge. The three then have to go out of the boat because Danny somehow got it stuck, so they have to tie some ropes to some trees in order to steer it back into water. Meanwhile, Denise (Wuhrer) is angry or sad or confused or something, I can't really tell, so she decided to kill Sarone with a knife, and well, this happens:
How exactly, did Sarone jump that high from a seated position with his hands tied around a post behind his back? I have no clue, maybe you can explain it better than I.
-Sarone wasn't the only ridiculous villain in the movie, as there's still the Anaconda to deal with. This anaconda seems to be about 50 feet tall and has a rather large appetite. While it would be kind of difficult to get a 50 foot snake to act on the set, the crew could have done a better job of making it look like the anaconda was, you know, actually chasing the characters down. Instead it was so obvious that the graphics were superimposed that it really took away from what little suspense the movie had.
- Danny Trejo is in this movie at the beginning. He's on a boat when it's attacked by what presumably is the anaconda, so he does the only thing he can do and shoots himself in the head. Also, the captain of the boat, a man named Mateo, got a raw deal in the movie. He doesn't get to say hardly anything, and is the first victim of the anaconda. What's more, he actually got left behind by Sarone and Danny, who were carrying treasure out of a sunken ship (What that was or why they brought it up on board is never explained, so don't worry about it). So nobody's even sure that Mateo is gone, and the only person that seems even halfway concerned was Denise.
- This movie gets rather ridicoulous in the last 20 minutes. For one, Ice Cube and Jon Voight can take a lot of punishment apparently, because Cube (or Danny, if you prefer) gets stabbed in the leg with a knife, thrown around by the anaconda, nearly squeezed to death by the anaconda, and yet by and large seems no worse for the wear. Meanwhile, Sarone falls into the ocean after getting shot with a tranqualizer dart, but not only survives, he's able to capture Danny and Terri and comes up with some overcomplicated plan to catch the anaconda. The Anaconda, meanwhile, can apparently survive being nearly chopped in half with a pickaxe, multiple gunshots to the head at close range, and even being in the middle of a gasoline explosion, being on fire for at least a full minute, than coming back up from the water a little burnt, but still ready to go.
Overall, this movie sucks. There, I said it. This movie would have been a lot better if either Voight's character or the anacondas go. With two mega villains, it seems a little convoluted. Personally, I'd vote for Voight to be removed, or at the very least not to be a villain, and then you can just have a straight up man vs. nature battle where a few people die, but ultimately the main stars prevail in the end and kill the Anaconda. You know, kind of like Jaws. It still might not have been a great movie, but it would have made more sense this way. As it is, it's not very good, so I'll give it a 3.1 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Canon Movie Review: Deliverance
Earlier today, I decided to watch the 1972 movie "Deliverance", partially because I had never seen it before, and partially because nothing else was on at the time. Deliverance stars Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, and Ned Beatty, and was directed by John Boorman. The film was nominated for three Academy Awards, including best picture, and in 2008 the Library of Congress selected the film for preservation in the National Film Registry. In Deliverance, four businessmen from Atlanta decide to canoe down the fictional Cahulawassee River in rural Georgia before the river valley is destroyed due to the construction of a dam and lake. The trip does not go well, to say the least. A few thoughts about this film and there are Spoilers, so be careful before reading any further.
- There are two scenes that this film is most remembered for. One is the 'Dueling Banjos' scene where Drew (Ronny Cox) plays his guitar alongside a rural kid with a banjo (Billy Redden). What's interesting about that scene is that while the two strangers from different worlds connect through music, the boy for some reason refuses to acknowledge Drew after the two are done playing, despite Drew's best efforts. The scene illustrates the disconnect between the four 'city-slickers' and the rural people in the movie.
- This movie centers around the four businessmen, Drew, Ed (Voight), Bobby (Beatty), and Lewis (Reynolds). Of the four, Lewis is by far the most experienced outdoorsman and seems to be the 'alpha male' of the group. At times, Lewis is almost overbearing with his macho ways, not only to me but to the rest of his party, particularly Bobby, who complains of Lewis yelling at him too much. Actually, it's hard to believe that any of these people are actually friends, as they are so different from each other that it's hard to see them liking each other. There's Lewis the wannabe survivalist, Drew the timid musician, Bobby the typical middle class salesmen, and Ed the family man. The fact that the movie hardly explains how they know each other (and in one scene, Bobby admits to not knowing Drew all that well) doesn't really help matters.
- The film's other famous scene is the 'squeal like a pig' scene, where Bobby and Ed have a confrontation with two mountain men, and things do not go well for Bobby, as one of his captors sodomizes him by force and makes him squeal like a pig in the process. It's often referred to as one of the most disturbing scenes in the history of cinema, and it definitely is hard to watch. Two other things about this film. One, this was Ned Beatty's first film role, which must have been quite a challenge for a neophyte actor, and two, for a man who suffered a traumatic experience like that, Bobby did not seem all that broken up about it. Sure he was upset right after it happened, but not long after he acted as if it had never again. Then again, the four had a whole lot of other problems to worry about after that, so that might be why.
- After Lewis saves Ed and Bobby by killing one of the rapists mountain men, their trip goes from bad to worse, as now they have to dispose of the body, avoid the other mountain man as well as any other men he could have gathered to get revenge on his friend, avoid the police and still get back to their cars by canoeing through a rough river. From there, the story seems to shift and Ed is made the main character, due to Lewis badly hurting his leg. It's up to Ed to lead the rest of his crew, which had already lost Drew, to safety and cover their tracks as well. It is here that Jon Voight starts to shine, as he does a tremendous job of portraying Ed's transformation from a happy-go-lucky family man from the city to a warrior type survivalist who will do anything it takes, even killing, in order to survive.
- One thing about this movie is that all of the actors due their own stunts. The main actors are actually rowing, even though only one of them, Beatty, actually knew how to row before shooting of the film began. When the men are falling down the river's rapids, Reynolds did his own stunt and actually broke his coccyx, and Voight actually has to scale a large rock wall without harnesses or much protection at all. If Hollywood ever did a remake of this movie (and I really hope they don't), you can bet that the actors of that film would not be doing their own stunts.
- The film was primarily shot along the Chattooga River in Clayton and Tallul,ah Gorge, Georgia, which is actually less than an hour away from my house. While the film did not help the perception of people in rural Georgia, the cinematography was just breathtaking at times, and really captures the beauty and ferocity of nature. Kudos to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond and his crew, who really did a great job in this movie.
Overall, this film was good and made an impact on me for sure, but there were a few slight flaws. For one, the ending seemed to be a little anti-climatic, as you keep thinking it's over and lo and behold, there's another scene. The main characters in this movie, outside of Ed, seemed to be one-dimensional and flat, and there are a couple of scenes that seem to drag on forever for no particular reason. Nevertheless, this is a very good movie, so I'll give it a 7.390 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- There are two scenes that this film is most remembered for. One is the 'Dueling Banjos' scene where Drew (Ronny Cox) plays his guitar alongside a rural kid with a banjo (Billy Redden). What's interesting about that scene is that while the two strangers from different worlds connect through music, the boy for some reason refuses to acknowledge Drew after the two are done playing, despite Drew's best efforts. The scene illustrates the disconnect between the four 'city-slickers' and the rural people in the movie.
- This movie centers around the four businessmen, Drew, Ed (Voight), Bobby (Beatty), and Lewis (Reynolds). Of the four, Lewis is by far the most experienced outdoorsman and seems to be the 'alpha male' of the group. At times, Lewis is almost overbearing with his macho ways, not only to me but to the rest of his party, particularly Bobby, who complains of Lewis yelling at him too much. Actually, it's hard to believe that any of these people are actually friends, as they are so different from each other that it's hard to see them liking each other. There's Lewis the wannabe survivalist, Drew the timid musician, Bobby the typical middle class salesmen, and Ed the family man. The fact that the movie hardly explains how they know each other (and in one scene, Bobby admits to not knowing Drew all that well) doesn't really help matters.
- The film's other famous scene is the 'squeal like a pig' scene, where Bobby and Ed have a confrontation with two mountain men, and things do not go well for Bobby, as one of his captors sodomizes him by force and makes him squeal like a pig in the process. It's often referred to as one of the most disturbing scenes in the history of cinema, and it definitely is hard to watch. Two other things about this film. One, this was Ned Beatty's first film role, which must have been quite a challenge for a neophyte actor, and two, for a man who suffered a traumatic experience like that, Bobby did not seem all that broken up about it. Sure he was upset right after it happened, but not long after he acted as if it had never again. Then again, the four had a whole lot of other problems to worry about after that, so that might be why.
- After Lewis saves Ed and Bobby by killing one of the rapists mountain men, their trip goes from bad to worse, as now they have to dispose of the body, avoid the other mountain man as well as any other men he could have gathered to get revenge on his friend, avoid the police and still get back to their cars by canoeing through a rough river. From there, the story seems to shift and Ed is made the main character, due to Lewis badly hurting his leg. It's up to Ed to lead the rest of his crew, which had already lost Drew, to safety and cover their tracks as well. It is here that Jon Voight starts to shine, as he does a tremendous job of portraying Ed's transformation from a happy-go-lucky family man from the city to a warrior type survivalist who will do anything it takes, even killing, in order to survive.
- One thing about this movie is that all of the actors due their own stunts. The main actors are actually rowing, even though only one of them, Beatty, actually knew how to row before shooting of the film began. When the men are falling down the river's rapids, Reynolds did his own stunt and actually broke his coccyx, and Voight actually has to scale a large rock wall without harnesses or much protection at all. If Hollywood ever did a remake of this movie (and I really hope they don't), you can bet that the actors of that film would not be doing their own stunts.
- The film was primarily shot along the Chattooga River in Clayton and Tallul,ah Gorge, Georgia, which is actually less than an hour away from my house. While the film did not help the perception of people in rural Georgia, the cinematography was just breathtaking at times, and really captures the beauty and ferocity of nature. Kudos to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond and his crew, who really did a great job in this movie.
Overall, this film was good and made an impact on me for sure, but there were a few slight flaws. For one, the ending seemed to be a little anti-climatic, as you keep thinking it's over and lo and behold, there's another scene. The main characters in this movie, outside of Ed, seemed to be one-dimensional and flat, and there are a couple of scenes that seem to drag on forever for no particular reason. Nevertheless, this is a very good movie, so I'll give it a 7.390 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post or other previous posts, or ideas for future posts, than share them either by leaving a comment or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Canon Movie Review: The Usual Suspects
Today I am going to review one of Roger Ebert's most hated movies and one of my favorite movies, The Usual Suspects. Yes, Roger Ebert dislikes this movie so much that he has it on his most hated list along with such movies as Battlefield Earth and Freddy Got Fingered. Anyway, The Usual Suspects was produced in 1995, was directed by Bryan Singer, and its screenplay was written by Christopher McQuarrie. The movie stars Kevin Spacey, Gabriel Byrne, Kevin Pollak, Benicio Del Toro, and Stephen Baldwin. The movie was nominated and won two Academy Awards, one for McQuarrie for best original screenplay, and one for Spacey for best supporting actor. A few thoughts about this movie, and yes there will be spoilers so if you haven't seen the movie, than stop reading now. Also, if you haven't seen the movie, than stop reading and watch it right now.
- You may find this hard to believe, considering he mainly shows up in reality shows like "Celebrity Apprentice" and "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", but Stephen Baldwin did an excellent job of playing the wise-cracking thief McManus in this film. Other than Spacey and Byrne, Baldwin had the strongest peformance in the film, and this film was full of strong performances.
- One of the more interesting performances was that of Benicio Del Toro, who played McManus's long time partner Finster. Del Toro decided to speak every line with a nearly unintelligible voice that made it hard to understand what he has saying. According to Del Toro, since Finster was ultimately a throwaway character, it wouldn't matter what he said, which is why he decided to portray Finster in that matter. The result is that viewers of this movie definitely remember Finster and his crazy accent, so what was a throwaway character, so to speak, becomes one of the more interesting aspects of the film.
- Even though Kevin Spacey won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, I find it hard to believe that he would even be considered a supporting actor. After all, Spacey's character, Verbal Kint, is the person narrating the story and the person who is the main focal point of the plot, so even though his performance was certainly Oscar Worthy, I wouldn't neccesarily call him a supporting actor. Just a thought.
- Spacey did an excellent job as Verbal, no doubt, but to me the strongest performance in the film was turned in by Gabriel Byrne, as Dean Keaton, a disgraced ex-cop who is trying to lead a straight and narrow life, but whose past always ends up catching up to him. Byrne played that role perfectly, and I could not imagine anyone playing that role any better, which I couldn't say about a lot of the other roles in this movie. And yet, Byrne actually turned this role down on more than one occasion, in part due to his feeling that the director couldn't pull off this type of movie, before finally agreeing to take the part. It's a good thing he did, because if nearly anybody else takes the role of Keaton, than this movie is not nearly as good as it is.
- More casting issues, the part of special agent Dave Kujan was written with Chazz Palminteri in mind. While Palminteri eventually took the part, at first he was unavailable due to schedule conflicts , and the part instead was offered to Robert DeNiro, Christopher Walken, and Al Pacino, who all turned it down. While Palminteri eventually found exactly one week to do the part and did an excellent job, it is interesting to wonder just how DeNiro, Walken, and Pacino would have portrayed the role of Kujan.
- Because of the huge twist at the end of the movie, there are a few people that have seen the movie that dislike the movie because it's kind of hard to tell just how much of the events portrayed in the movie really took place, so to speak. While I can see their point, as the twist does somewhat muddle things, to me the big twist in the end actually makes this a better film, as it brings things whole circle and the various actions and reactions in that final scene are done perfectly.
Overall, this is probably one of my five favorite films of all time. I could see this film once a week for the rest of my life and not tire of the film. The acting is top-notch, the script is just about perfect, the score of the film really adds a lot to the film, and the film held my interest from beginning to end. There were probably a couple of things that could have been improved, but overall it's as close to a perfect movie as you can get. I'll give it a 9.83 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
- You may find this hard to believe, considering he mainly shows up in reality shows like "Celebrity Apprentice" and "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", but Stephen Baldwin did an excellent job of playing the wise-cracking thief McManus in this film. Other than Spacey and Byrne, Baldwin had the strongest peformance in the film, and this film was full of strong performances.
- One of the more interesting performances was that of Benicio Del Toro, who played McManus's long time partner Finster. Del Toro decided to speak every line with a nearly unintelligible voice that made it hard to understand what he has saying. According to Del Toro, since Finster was ultimately a throwaway character, it wouldn't matter what he said, which is why he decided to portray Finster in that matter. The result is that viewers of this movie definitely remember Finster and his crazy accent, so what was a throwaway character, so to speak, becomes one of the more interesting aspects of the film.
- Even though Kevin Spacey won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, I find it hard to believe that he would even be considered a supporting actor. After all, Spacey's character, Verbal Kint, is the person narrating the story and the person who is the main focal point of the plot, so even though his performance was certainly Oscar Worthy, I wouldn't neccesarily call him a supporting actor. Just a thought.
- Spacey did an excellent job as Verbal, no doubt, but to me the strongest performance in the film was turned in by Gabriel Byrne, as Dean Keaton, a disgraced ex-cop who is trying to lead a straight and narrow life, but whose past always ends up catching up to him. Byrne played that role perfectly, and I could not imagine anyone playing that role any better, which I couldn't say about a lot of the other roles in this movie. And yet, Byrne actually turned this role down on more than one occasion, in part due to his feeling that the director couldn't pull off this type of movie, before finally agreeing to take the part. It's a good thing he did, because if nearly anybody else takes the role of Keaton, than this movie is not nearly as good as it is.
- More casting issues, the part of special agent Dave Kujan was written with Chazz Palminteri in mind. While Palminteri eventually took the part, at first he was unavailable due to schedule conflicts , and the part instead was offered to Robert DeNiro, Christopher Walken, and Al Pacino, who all turned it down. While Palminteri eventually found exactly one week to do the part and did an excellent job, it is interesting to wonder just how DeNiro, Walken, and Pacino would have portrayed the role of Kujan.
- Because of the huge twist at the end of the movie, there are a few people that have seen the movie that dislike the movie because it's kind of hard to tell just how much of the events portrayed in the movie really took place, so to speak. While I can see their point, as the twist does somewhat muddle things, to me the big twist in the end actually makes this a better film, as it brings things whole circle and the various actions and reactions in that final scene are done perfectly.
Overall, this is probably one of my five favorite films of all time. I could see this film once a week for the rest of my life and not tire of the film. The acting is top-notch, the script is just about perfect, the score of the film really adds a lot to the film, and the film held my interest from beginning to end. There were probably a couple of things that could have been improved, but overall it's as close to a perfect movie as you can get. I'll give it a 9.83 out of 10. Well, thanks for reading, and if you have any thoughts about this post, or ideas for future reviews, than share those thoughts and ideas either by leaving a comment on the blog or by sending me an e-mail at kthec2001@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)