Review: Peter Weir's "Gallipoli" (1981)

I recently watched Peter Weir's 'Gallipoli' starring Mel Gibson, and I thought I might be in for a slow and dull ride, I was wrong. Peter Weir is the one who shines in this piece, without a doubt. He took what would probably be a really lame story in the hands of the average director and turned this into something memorable. The styles that were present in the film were absolutely amazing, some scenes were just jaw dropping. While I rave about all of his style used in the film, there was a single large flaw. The flaw would and should be visible to almost anyone's, ears? Yes, ears. There are 2 sections of the film which plays an 80's style tune which really does date the film, where if that had not happened, would have possibly been a nearly perfect film for what he sought out to do. The rest of the film however, has a great score to it and combined with the imagery, its stellar.

I never knew or seemed to care about life in the outback, especially life in the outback during the early 1900's. Peter Weir however, changed that, even though we spend a significant amount of time away from the outback. We see what Australian personalities look like all throughout the film, in times of fun and times of war, and it is interesting. The film doesn't force anything, but accomplishes in making you believe this was a true story by true Australians, making me think Australia was truly depicted correctly.

My film viewing history is very short of World War I films, and it is something I am not excited about, but from what I have seen, very different than an American style and American filled war film which sings of American pride throughout most war films, this film was a genuine and powerful World War I film. This should easily be held as one of the better Australian films ever made, as I have only even heard of a handful. The film also introduced what will become a great American actor in Mel Gibson.

The film is nearly abscent of cliche story telling, its just executed so good. Peter Weir has given us 'Truman Show', which I thought was a good film, but nothing more. He also gave us 'The Mosquito Coast' which starred Harrison Ford in one of his best roles, in my opinion this character portrayal contends with my most cherished of roles in Han Solo in the Star Wars saga. 'The Mosquito Coast' however is definitely a film up for interpretation and is probably a film either loved or hated, depending on your style preference. If you see Gallipoli and liked it, you should see 'The Mosquito Coast' to fulfill a Peter Weir void that may be in your film viewing history.

The imagery will at times astound you, the acting is as as good as many of the greats, and shouldn't fail in delivering you a great 2 hours.

"Gallipoli"

8 /10

Malfire's Top Ten Comic Films...

1. The Dark Knight
2. Superman
3. Iron Man
4. Batman
5. The Iron Giant
6. Iron Man 2
7. Unbreakable
8. The Incredible Hulk
9. Spider-Man 2
10. Batman Begins

Review: Jon Favreau's "Iron Man 2" (2010)

"I'm not saying that from the ashes [end] of captivity [bondage] never has a greater phoenix [rebirth] metaphor been personified in human history." -Tony Stark

'Iron Man 2' is absolutely one of the most fun movies ever created. There may be contention for this movie to hold the record for most bullets shot, most lasers short, and most things flying in the air all at the same time. This movie will blow you away.

As I calm myself and begin to break down my thoughts about the film, I will say that it is rare to have seen a film 3 times within 40 hours of its official release. On top of that it is even more rare to watch a film 3 times without beginning to seriously critique a movie and give my review. I have been on cloud 9 as this week approached. I have experienced many emotions, including fear, fear of a lack of sleep due to the demands I have set for myself in seeing it at midnight on opening night, then driving to school at 3:30 A.M. to sleep in the parking lot. Secondly, excitement, excitement for the demands I made for this film before the first one came out. Well, lets just say it gave us what Jon Favreau wanted to give us.

Tony Downey Jr, Robert Stark Sr... Robert Downey Jr. rather, gave us additional character development, in which I feel that Tony Stark is indeed real. He is a man wealthy, making weapons, and has made himself into a rock star. The first film was that rock star story, where in the second it feels more like a man in denial. I predict the third installment will be his revelation.

We have been given solid villains. Each with their own satisfied personalities, along with some new additions on the "good side". I think the character James Rhodes, or War Machine, is exactly spot on. He is a dull, plain, boring, systematic thinker, like he is written in the comics. He is exactly what we want to see as a military man meets super hero. Black Widow on the other hand may be a small flaw. Scarlett Johansson's casting choice was perfect but Jon Favreau has taken her sex appeal for granted. Scarlett Johansson's character is written as to be a femme fatale attempting to seduce Tony Stark, but that is where the lines are drawn in the comics.

Another inconsistency would be Professor Vanko's role in the film. Vanko in the film is made into a bad guy, never revealing the truth or telling a true version from the comics. Vanko kills himself to save Iron Man, and Vanko's son Whiplash attempts to kill Iron Man because he assumed it was Iron Man who killed his father. The movie doesn't go that route, and I am not looking to spoil too much, the story which is told, although different, still works for its own.

Not too sure about what the main story line is in the movie, it is a bit sporadic, and so sporadic it looks intentional. The entire movie runs on the same pace with the same momentum. There are fight scenes in the film which may feel a bit short, but they are all within the same pace. Just giving a small spoiler, regarding the length of fighting of the main villain, it is short. The comics though, paint a similar point of view. Most eras of comics of Iron Man, make Iron Man his own villain even while fighting another. He is always battling himself as he battles the world. There is actually an interesting Christian contrast within his character. Christians believe they fight sin in their own lives, while avoiding and battling the sins of the world. When Iron Man is successful in his own battle, the world proves less a foe.

The overall story of the movie is about a billionaire coming to reality with his new toy and weapon, while others begin to covet and idolize it. His alter ego creates more trouble for him, in his fending off the world from greedily taking what is his. Even during all this they have time to focus Tony Stark dwelling on the shadow of his father. With witty dialogue, superb special effects, great cinematography and acting, all makes for an extremely fun ride.

The story, because it is focusing itself on so much, I find myself thinking about what the main plot is every 15 minutes. Jon Favreau may have tricked me, maybe not, but he gave me just the right fireworks to convince me it was money very well spent.

There were so many shots in the film that were so original, so creative, it just makes me more interested in what lies with Jon Favreau's future as a filmmaker. There is a difference between a director who can deliver "The Dark Knight" and one who can deliver "Iron Man 2", but you will enjoy both rides and Robert Downey Jr. will continue to astound.

Regarding the end, the after credits footage, I will simply say, I thought it would make a bigger crater. (Just some thought for those who haven't seen it yet...)

"Iron Man 2"
7.5 / 10

Greg Meyer, the man with a plan...

Where and what is going to happen to all the DVD rental businesses? Netflix and Redbox are all that will remain. That would have proved true if one man didn't come from the sky wearing a red cape. Greg Meyers, who was previously ignored by Blockbuster, just invested in a significant share of Blockbuster stock when at an all-time low. His goal: to save the chain.

Greg in 2005 advised Blockbuster to invest in rental kiosks which would remain outside of each business just like the Redbox currently operates which would save money on keeping the store hours limited to peak times while maintaining available rentals at all times. The company denied the idea and changed nothing. The lack of change ended up the downfall of the stock and made the stock low enough to purchase for Greg, which now is submitting to his desires. He has implemented a 28 day exclusive rental window, and plans to implement the kiosk in the future.

Too bad Hollywood video gave up a couple years ago, and has instead decided to allow their company to cave in on itself. Each store, one by one is turning into a "budget" store which sells the entire store inventory until it is completely sold out, then closes. The stores with better business stay open longer and sells the company's film inventory.

All in all, it looks like we will be able to make a last minute, Friday night decision to rent a movie from a library larger than the 20 movie library with limited stock from Redbox, or having to wait a few days for Netflix. As we will find Netflix more enjoyable and cost less, we still have options thanks to Greg Meyers, at least for now.

Blockbuster may be sneaking back into contention, but with what honor? We have seen images of advertising by Blockbuster which wages war against Netflix and Redbox by promoting the availability of the movie "The Blind Side" as it is appearing on their advertisement to be only available to Blockbuster. That is just dirty... I think it would be dumb to start a war with the upcoming and potential long running powerhouse that is, Netflix. Unlike Blockbuster, Netflix carries films from all over the world, from cult films, foreign films, to the latest films. If you want to find a rare film to rent, your best chance is Netflix. Who is actually limiting who? If I want a specific film which isn't a new release, I am surely not bound to find it at Blockbuster. Even if they carry it, it isn't likely to be in stock.

Time will tell what Greg Meyers brings to the table, but it wouldn't be a wise business decision to start war so early. When a boxer gets knocked down, he should gather himself up again before throwing another punch, but who am I to tell Blockbuster what to do...

Remaking Arnold's Classics

The reason Arnold's movies were successful was because Arnold was in them, not because of the stories. If you take a new face and match it up to the same story, it will fail horribly. It is a miracle Hollywood, or I should specify the more evil side of Hollywood, Fox, would decide to do something like this.

Watch, just watch, The Rock or John Cena will play the part. Oh boy! Can't wait for Hollywood to remake Star Wars starring the Jonas Brothers. Because a film has a big name, doesn't mean you should defile it. A big name can bring in more money than they could dream of if done right (as seen with "The Dark Knight"). Just do it right... With "Commando", we would need a star at least close to the caliber of Arnold before making it, otherwise it CANNOT be good. I know that most of the rights to Arnold's previous films have been snagged up and are either awaiting production or writing... just terrible. Does that picture posted remind you of anyone in Hollywood? It reminds me of no one.

Arnold as the header to the blog at least for a little while today just makes me laugh... where is all the news?

Review: Kevin Costner's "Dances With Wolves" (1990)

This review has been some time coming. I have required a bit of time to ponder the film after a recent revisit to the once considered 'great' film. The movie is about a man, who's interest in life has been shaken, frustrated he attempts to end it, but in trying to do so is made a hero in a failed act of would be suicide. Then uses his 'hero' status to get a pass to make his way out west to see the frontier...

The opening scene is a bit empty, the viewer has no reason to be invested in the "dramatic" act by Costner's character. Sometimes I believe we love a film until enough films of higher quality reveal to me the truth, the truth that so many "greats" don't last the test of time. I believe we are pushing out the 'once greats' with the current greats, and I also believe the caliber of these new greats are superior to most of our self chosen classics. The greater films hold strong, but nostalgia normally hangs on to films longer than we should allow. This film is victim to nostalgia.

"Dances With Wolves" was great. It truly was great each time I watched it, until now. It is falling into the Hollywood norm, the section that dies off after 10-15 years of shelf life. If something carried the film, it wouldn't be the performance, as it is bare minimum, missing any sign of award quality. The film has interest, but its an interest for what could be developing. Problem is, not much develops. If the story was better written and some casting changes were made, it might have held up for another 5 years, but unfortunately it is deeper. It is the vision, or the depth of the film. It is the very message the film is making that just echoes cliche. This story is the same as Disney's "Pocahontas" all the way to the current "Avatar". It is hard to create a story then transfer it to the screen and make it good no matter what content it is, but when it comes to a good Samaritan or reconciliation story, they can really be the worst kinds.

The director reveals that the only good in the film lies with the natives, and how just a single white man has come to realize this and change his ways to becoming like them.

The message in the end isn't even clear, there is no solid finishing statement. The film just abandons you on the side of the road.

The film did however have some exciting adventures. There were a lot of firsts in this film for me, different interactions or visuals that were fun when Costner was exploring the land, but when the film tried to get serious and start adding to what the story was leading up to, it felt forced and unbelievable.

The landscape, costumes, and the few adventures of the film where the film's more interesting elements.

"Dances With Wolves"
6 / 10

Hollywood Suicide

Money, money, money, and money is all Hollywood cares about today. The city is losing movie talented stars by the minute, and trading them for sexually appealing and marketable faces. Whether its Transformer's Megan Fox or just maintaining older sex icons like Angelina Jolie, we are losing out on the true talent and great films are becoming more and more scarce. Meryl Streep is dropping down the list of highest paid actresses, and there aren't many actresses worth mentioning in terms of talent, for that I blame the "sex sells" rationale.

The great actresses are departing, and they are being replaced by beautiful and talentless models. I just want to shine a light on the top paid actresses and try to see a trend of quality products flowing from them.

First on the list is Angelina Jolie, who at some points in her career it seemed she took things serious, but that is roughly once every 6 films. She is willing to show off her body in its entirety or just sign for obviously terrible movies for top dollar. Where is the honor? That is what makes Hollywood less and less attractive to serious film seekers, the lack of honor.

Second is Jennifer Aniston, the actress from 'Friends', which may be her only honorable mention. How is she anywhere near the top of the list? Was it her affiliation with another star in Brad Pitt? Who knows. What I do know is that she hasn't shown us the talent for which she is being paid. One chick flick after another, which is fine if that is where Hollywood wants to go. I think there will be a time in the near future of film that decides to place a fork in the road for Hollywood, either allow the current studios destroy what classy groups of men and women build for almost 100 years, or separate itself from the constant garbage pumped out weekly.

The award shows are slowly but surely being affected by this change, and is becoming more and more biased with each passing year. I am tired of these award shows and their inconsistencies. I don't want the Sandra Bullocks to be nominated and win for things that don't even meet cable quality films.

There are few filmmakers today that still operate on old school methods and even fewer who are choosing to build new methods which also separates them from Hollywood. By Hollywood, I mean the Fox "empire" and all of its other companions.

When a community, and primarily the only community who is responsible for bringing us most of our films every week, is limited to giving us constant remakes, reboots, and never ending sequels, it is hard to find originality, and originality is what made Hollywood in the first place.

I am tired of seeing films being scheduled for release before plans are made about it's production, like casting. Spider-Man sequels for example, have been scheduled in the secret books of Columbia Pictures for a long while now. When those dates were set it was assumed even by everyone involved in it's production that the original cast would be sought out, but then that all changed, and now nothing from he originals remain. This is just another sign of where Hollywood's priorities are, money first.

Money first proved wise for the movie Ava'tard', but that was one of the few exceptions. Normally it is originality that makes the money. For example, Star Wars, most Pixar films... just look at the top box office results and you will see the trend of success from the past being met with the current infiltration by the 100 Shrek movies, or the comic book movies, and everything else marketable. Although some comic book movies might be good, they don't always deserve the records. The Dark Knight was an exception on many levels. It was a very original set of ideas with a well acted cast and well learned director who made a great film. Normally you will have sensually terrific faces playing overly sexual roles of even children genres like Megan Fox in Transformers.

Most people don't think about it or care about it because they aren't avid film goers. If someone feels like going to the theater, they just check out what is currently playing and buy tickets for which ever one seems most interesting. Not me. I don't have money to waste on passionless art. I am not even a faithful tither in my church, don't think for a second I will shove money I don't have into Transformers XXVI.

I could go on and on down the list of actresses, or name evil production companies and make negative "shout outs", but I think my point is well out there now and I doubt rambling on will further anything new. There will be a shift in how things are done in film making, and it will not be limited to originating from Hollywood. It is time for Hollywood suicide, and the birth of something new, and maybe something original for the first time in decades.

For new, exciting, and original films, stay tuned, but pay close attention for key words, like Coen Brothers.

Review: The Edgerton's "The Square" (2008)

Are there a new set of brothers in town? Yes. The Coen brothers still hold the throne, but a new rising pair has emerged. Nash Edgerton is the director Joel Edgerton is the writer and also acted in the film.

"Some things can't be buried", 'The Square' is about a man who falls apart in lust. The film is led by David Roberts in a spectacular performance, fully convincing me this was a real man making real decisions and paying for it in real consequences.

The rest of the cast in the film were very well performed for what was needed of them as they convinced me of how naive they were in their own filth. I see some of the lines drawn to the Coen brothers' film 'Blood Simple' but I personally felt that this film was done better. These creators know exactly how to push and pull you emotionally at will.

If I were to make a complaint or two I would start with the forced and uninformed love between the main character and his mistress, and the second would be the deep theology which lies in most of the Coen brothers' films.

Imagine a roller coaster you ride and when it is over you think about what it would be like if more of those rides existed. This is exactly that, it is a ride just like some of the goods which the Coen brothers have provided, but instead of a corkscrew going left, they gave you a corkscrew going right. No matter the similarities, I think so far this is the years best to date.

"The Square"
8.5/10