Review: "The French Connection" (1971)

Well... Not sure where to start exactly. Part of me wants to say different things about this flick. When I review other people critiques of this film, I agree with some of it and disagree with even more. Overall I think the film was a success, but I do think of myself as picky, or at least having a magnifying glass when I watch films. The magnifying glass when placed in front of the screen while this plays I do see many flaws. I think the film is now dated and I wish I saw it a bit ago, or even had the privilege to watch it before I was born, when it peaked.

Many critics say the film was fast paced, and I just cannot figure out what they mean. When I think fast paced I don't first think about 'Peewees Big Adventure', and that had more fast paced moments than this. So if someone asked me if this film was fast paced, I would tell them no, it would be a drama with some action.

Now, having said that, when the action does happen, it is some of the best and more suspenseful action that can be found on any reel. I feel comfortable saying this film had the best car chase of all films I have seen to date, and the chase involved a car and train. The excitement taken from that scene is just astounding. The flaw however is how that sequence begins. *Spoiler warning* When the sniper rains bullets on Popeye, and Popeye eventually makes it to the roof, the suspect is gone. Popeye locates the suspect once up on the roof and the man is running toward and almost under the bridge of railroad tracks. The very next scene is Popeye popping out from the building hot in pursuit just 20 yards from the suspect, as if the man waited for Popeye to come after him. I thought that was just absurd, I cannot imagine how the storytelling could be so unrealistic at that point. It stole much of the mojo the scene could have had. So far at this point Popeye had barely kept up with all his pursuits by means of luck and I think it would have been much better if they continued that for his character's sake and just for the sake of realism.

*Spoiler warning* Another scene that drove me up a wall was when the police acquire the car containing drugs. The mechanics tore the car down to every single nut and bolt, dropping the engine, taking the tires off the rims, and completely stripping down the interior. Once they find what they were looking for, they have it completely rebuilt from head to toe in less than a single evening without a scratch. Even the hidden location of the drugs was back to perfection as if nothing had happened. Now, I tried to justify this to myself for the story's sake, maybe they found a duplicate car? No, I just don't buy it. To find a car that an owner would recognize as not being his is an extremely hard task, let alone doing it well after the sun is down, and finding it before the sun comes up and reinstalling the "goods". I just cannot let this by me.

So, with both of those particular flaws, and some sprinkled unrealistic moments throughout the film I leave it now to critique the acting and story itself. The acting was almost solely done by Gene Hackman, at least on a quality base. Chief Martin Brody, I mean Roy Scheider was just, average at best. I have only seen Scheider worth a nickel in 'Jaws', and here he abandons Hackman to fend for the film by himself. So many of Gene Hackman's films are solely acted by himself, and sometimes I wonder what and where Hackman's great films are. I know this is supposed to be one of the chief projects but, he seems to play the same character in all his films, making him obviously range-less. I am still excited about seeing Hackman, but it is clear 'The Conversation' is his best.

This film surprised me a little, but gave me a bit less than I wanted from it. I thought the police officers in the film were just made too average for me to care, they actually felt dumb. Even the villains in the film felt dumb, in fact I am not sure a wise man existed in the whole story.

I do want to make a quick note regarding the film 'We Own the Night', and it is that it ripped a ton of material from 'The French Connection'. I thought 'We Own the Night' was a decent film, but now is far less in my book having seen its predecessor. This film was shot a bit too slow to keep my on the edge of my seat and the edge of my seat was where I wanted to be.

I would say see the film if you haven't just because it is regarded as an essential action piece, but don't build it up too much.

"The French Connection"
7/10

Review: "Hard Candy" (2005)

Well this morning I was told my class was going to watch a film called 'Hard candy' as an assignment relating to sexual abuse. The thought of a sexual abuse themed film wasn't exciting. I know a film with this theme, or as one of the themes can be successful as seen in 'Gone, Baby, Gone'. This film stars the 'Juno' star Ellen Page as the young girl. Her performance in this film is indeed a good one. The film's problem is definitely not the acting, and the story was probably portrayed correctly on film. The problem for me was the interest in story and the coated man-hater theme. Maybe it wasn't man-hater, but it was definitely full of girl-power.

I don't need to be told how bad sexual abuse in any manner is, especially the justification for retribution in this film. This film easily bothered the heavy majority of males who saw it along with myself. It is really hard to give a non-bias critique after being so bothered by the film.

The suspense of the film was its biggest success, but it was just too intense. It was like trying to open a gift you know has a deadly snake inside. No matter how you open it, you just aren't comfortable doing it, and if you knew the end result of this film, you probably wouldn't have bothered.

Unlike some, this one just isn't aided by controversy. I read one review which said, "You can sense that it wants to be talked about more than it wants to actually say anything", and I fully agree.

Overall I would recommend passing on this pile.

"Hard Candy"

5/10

What in the world is 'Ready Player One'?

Well in a bidding war, Warner Bros. wins again, as if no one else cares about spending money on rights to films. Fox would rather buy cheap and make cheap to maximize their income, or rely on Avatar to pump out 100 sequels with James "sold my soul" Cameron.

I guess I can rant all day, so moving on to this strange titled project. 'Ready Player One' is a debut novel written by the screenwriter of 'Fanboys', Ernie Cline. 'Fanboys' was so good at doing what they did for those they did it for I am absolutely sold that this guy is capable of entertaining me, but time will tell with the releasing news of the story. So far its being meshed with 'Avatar', 'Matrix', and ...'Willie Wonka'?

The story focuses on a teen who enters a virtual world to get away from real life. It sounds like a gamers dream and nightmare. Dream in fact because that is the goal of most fanatic gamers, and a nightmare for them because they will probably be painted in a not so appealing light with a project like this. When I saw the first 2 comparisons I was excited, and then when I heard that it was also being compared with Willie Wonka, I got nervous. The story is connected to good old Willie because the story takes the dieing creator and lottery inheritor theme. It is like the 'Matrix' obviously because of the virtual reality world he enters into. Then last, and very least is 'Avatar', which in my opinion is going to be mocking the popular game "World of Warcraft". The world the teen will probably enter into will probably be a huge shout out to the "WoW" addicts as the world he enters into will probably look similar, thus looking like 'Avatar'.

Once you put all the puzzle peices together I don't think the project sounds like it would be a serious flick, or it may be rubbing off of 'Tron' a bit too much from what is floating in my mind, but more of a mockery, funny, exciting, visually stunning film. I am not sold on its greatness, but if my assumptions are right, it could be a genius idea done 5 years too late. The gaming world is shifting, but very slowly. The creators of World of Warcraft have come almost to a stand still on producing new games because of the existence and popularity of World of Warcraft itself. The product is still making record setting financial numbers and the fans are steady. So why make another game? They have been releasing news of games for over 8 years, promising releases, and still nothing. The problem with releasing a new game would be that it would take business away from themselves. They are waiting for the WoW movement to trickle off, and it is, very very slowly. The game was most popular about 5 years ago and the writer of this story may just be too late for a smash hit. I think it can produce old memories, or still be relatable to those affected by the gaming addictions but not as timely as it could have been.

Obviously much of this is based on assumptions, but it just reeks of truth. Still, we haven't received much good movie news as of late so, the news of this is a little easier to be excited about.

Review: Sydney Pollack's "The Firm" (1993)

The film has many familiar faces, led by Tom Cruise and Gene Hackman. Cruise's character is a lawyer, recently graduated from Harvard Law School and takes a job offer from a less than prestigious law firm promising him and gifting him with amazing things if he takes the job. He does. Cruise's character engages in a dramatic thrill ride when he finds himself in a undesirable situation.

This thriller keeps you entertained from beginning to end, but there is a noticable drop in consistency about half way through. I think the film had an identity problem after the first hour and it finds itself and re-loses itself every few minutes after that. The movie is over 2 1/2 hours long and I think the speed of the film should have been faster than it was, maybe they could have shrunk the film to make it better, cutting out all the unnecessary moments.

The acting is actually surprisingly good from everyone in the film. Tom Cruise makes you more interested and sure of his ability as an actor in this film than most of his more recent work but still has the very similar type of character as he plays in most of his films. Gene Hackman on the other hand just elevates the film when he is in the scene. Gene Hackman has failed less at making me interested in any of his characters less than almost anyone else in Hollywood. Gene Hackman proves again that a legendary actor can play any size role, in any shape of a role, and makes the whole project that much better. This is why those legends cost so much to be filmed. The problem comes when those legends sell themselves out, using their past glory to pull in current paychecks, and we all have examples in mind.

The camera work in this film is as plain and average as it gets. There wasn't a single seen I thought was interesting for the film. The story, as I have not read the book by John Grisham, appears to be a decent one told decently. Decent stories can be made into great films given the right directors but directors show their colors when they misuse or don't produce what could have been made from the story given to them. Sidney Pollack as this film's director just makes the near endless list of directors that are capable of satisfying their audience, but never amazing them.

Sidney Pollack's best work was in Michael Clayton, a George Clooney carried film. In 'The Firm' you can see the attempt by the director to make something epic, but it misses. In almost all his films which I have seen, they all appear to have the same cover, trying to appear good on the outside so people will buy it, but when they do, they realize quality isn't as high as it may have appeared. I think if he tried a little less, normally a fail method, would serve him better. But I will say, there isn't another director that comes to mind, which tries to make epic films out of non-epic stories, and if he couldn't manage to get all the big time actors in his films to carry them, he wouldn't have had a job for very long.

This ride was fun, regardless of all the slander I have given it. The only regret I have with watching it would be the place it was on the order on my list of "to see movies", I would have dropped it closer to the bottom. For anyoen considering to watch this film, I would tell them there are better and more influential films to see before you see this, guaranteed.

"The Firm"
6/10

Review: "Les Miserables" (1998)

'Les Miserables'. What in the world did I think of this film? First I will say I think I built this film up a tad bit too much having heard a couple Broadway performers sing a couple songs based on the story. The performers were absolutely amazing and brought real emotion into their voices, but did the film live up to the expectations I built? No. Am I saying it failed? No.

First I will dig into the lead performances. The film is carried by 2 men, Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. Liam Neeson proves again to be a superior actor in Hollywood and it is a wonder why and how he isn't in better films than those he stars in. Neeson really does take the workload of the film on his own back from start to finish. His emotional moments are shared with his viewers, his eyes provide enough emotional element to carry any scene without dialogue while we are fully aware of what he is enduring.

The one big problem with Neeson should probably have the blame cast onto the director, Bille August. The problem is that Neeson doesn't appear to age at all in the film, from the beginning to the end he remains to appear the same age while the film feels to have moved about 30 years or more.

The second, and only other better than good performer in the film is Geoffrey Rush, and again like Neeson, is able to reveal his passions in just his eyes while we also are aware of his mind. The performance by Rush is absolutely and fully satisfying. I wouldn't place him on the same categorical shelf as Neeson as an actor in this film, but he does indeed satisfy.

Just like Neeson, there is also a problem, and the problem is in the end. I do not want to give away the ending or reveal any spoilers because the film should be enjoyed by those who have not seen it without tampering or possibly ruining the build. I am unfamiliar with the story as it is written and am not sure how accurate the ending is portrayed in the film, but I didn't feel the actions of Rush's character were believable and understood by the story that was told specifically in the film. Maybe it was just me, but I didn't pull from it an obvious reason.

I really don't want to talk about Uma Thurman, like I don't want to talk about anyone else in the film. Thurman's performance can be summed up in 3 words, "mediocre at best". The other actress, who plays the young girl, Cosette, portrays a snobby teenager who I think we have all come in counter with in middle school. I really wasn't convinced in her performance than she was raised in the time which was claimed. The sets were good, sometimes great, but its too bad we rarely got 2 key elements accomplished well in the same scene. For example, it was either great imagery OR great performance.

The film had moments of good and great costumes, while others were just terrible. For a quick example of terrible, the guards who appear in all portions of the film have unrealistically clean and brand new outfits. I would like to see a Cohen brothers' take on this film as they have a much keener eye for realistic costume.

If I were to stop the film half way and rate the film based upon what i had been given so far, I would rate it about a 9/10. As the film continued, the second half dropped off and I would find myself rating it around a 6.5/10. As soon as Neeson arrives at the tavern (again, don't want to reveal key elements) after a confrontation with Rush, the story drops. The film had been up to that point carried almost entirely by both Neeson and Rush, but after this point, other actors start invading the screen with mild or worse performances. The closer to the ending of the film I got, the more disinterested I became.

Overall the story was phenomenal, but I just wasn't convinced the second half of this director's storytelling was correctly interpreted.

When the film really wants you to feel the emotions of the story, you feel them.

"Les Miserable"
7/10

Review: "The Blind Side" (2009)

Well, I have yet to review this film, although I have now seen it 1 + 1/2 times. I'm really not too sure where to start but the first thing that comes to mind is the fact the film was nominated for several awards. With the Academy now allotting 10 Best Picture slots, it is conceivable hwo this film was nominated, but just unrealistic in my perception of the film. This movie is filled to the brim, and then overflowing with cliche and cheesy failed attempts at accomplishing emotion. The first half of the film is obviously better than the second, creating an off the wall and unsteady story.

The character development is fine for the character Michael Oher, played by Quinton Aaron, but the acting is a bit underdeveloped. Sandra Bullock on the other hand, having seen the real character who she portrays in an interview, appears to have nailed the role. It is still upsetting however to see her nominated, solely because I seriously didn't enjoy a single moment of the character she played.

The movie felt like the quality of a Beethoven movie, and for it to even be nominated feels like I am watching Beethoven win awards. It is just upsetting. I have met very few people who have seen the film and enjoyed it, and I fear they may have been blinded and tricked into 2 hours of an American television movie. If this movie came out on a local network channel, and I happen to watch it, I just might have enjoyed myself more having the expectations drastically lowered. But unfortunately I watched the film after all the nominations and the bar was raised.

Films like these are responsible for "white" American cliches, which are really upsetting. Almost every scene feels exaggerated. If the story stuck with Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher, the film may have been 100 times better. Outside of his performance and intriguing character details, the film would be absolutely empty for me.

I really hope the director, John Lee Hancock doesn't show up again in Hollywood until it becomes more apparent he has learned how to make a film.

"The Blind Side"
4.5/10

Review: Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" (2006)

This movie just didn't affect me like it did for so many other people. I already owned "Donnie Brasco' and had watched it growing up, so when I saw 'The Departed', it was just too similar of an idea and done in lesser means. The story in 'The Departed' was just way too circumstantial and made it a bit unbelievable. The acting of the film is another portion I would call into question. Jack Nicholson provides a better performance in his big toe in this movie than everyone else around him. DiCaprio, Wahlberg, and Damon are also good at what they are doing but it is almost everybody else in the movie that drives me crazy. The worst portion of the film in terms of acting goes to a scene with Jack Nicholson and 15 Asian actors. The Asian actors here are some of the most amateur and worthless extras in Hollywood in my opinion, while none of them gives what they should.

Donnie Brasco is carried solely by Depp and Pacino while 'The Departed' has a cast that no Las Vegas hotel could contain. The character development in this film is a huge problem, they give you a couple facts and then throw you on the movie train, and the train isn't moving. I just don't believe DiCaprio's character or Damon's character for more than 10 minutes.

The imagery or cinematography in the film is awesome, but its just not supported with a near awesome performance. It would be like a broadway play having a set stage looking amazing and a couple of actors come out, urinate on stage and walk off. You could only say, "they urinated pretty good".

Jack Nicholson has me sold in almost everything he does, this film included. Every scene with him in it is far more interesting than all the other scenes. His hand and facial gestures are far superior to Damon and DiCaprio's, everything. So far the people I talk to who have seen 'The Departed' before 'Donnie Brasco' say 'The Departed' is superior, but it is the opposite for those who have seen 'Donnie Brasco' first. All in all Donnie Brasco was directed by Mike Newell who has made 'Harry Potter XXXVII', while 'The Departed' was accused of being a stolen story from a Japanese film made by Scorsese, who has lain claim to more great films than perhaps anyone else in Hollywood.

Do I think the film appears better because Scorsese made it? Yup. Award goes to Scorsese for "Scorsese", instead of to Scorsese for 'The Departed'.

RottenTomatoes.com:
Donnie Brasco = 7.8
The Departed = 8.2

"The Departed"
7/10

"Donnie Brasco"
TBD

Review: John Hillcoat's "The Road" (2009)

Watched 'The Road' yesterday for the second time in a week. This movie really does give me everything I want in this type of apocalyptic feature. The acting is superb, the imagery is stellar, and the story seems to carry all the way through on the same pace. There isn't a single scene that looks fake or out of place, and every scene of dialogue is perfect for what the intentions were. The only concern I would have is the paper to camera translation being loyal. I have not read the book, but from what I have been told by those who have all say this was an extremely great take and all the scenes were spot on with their own imagination. The problem they say, is that they cut out a lot of the story to fit it into a film, which I am not excited about. I wish people would make films that extend past the standard times of 2 hours if that is what it takes to do the most justice to the writers' work.
Even after seeing it 6 times now, I am still not fully sold on my theories of the film. They leave just enough open for interpretation that it fully satisfies my curiosity while I myself can play an imaginative role in the story.
Casting and score couldn't be more perfect. I am just absolutely amazed at this film every time I think about it. I think you know a film is great to you when you go out of your way to make other people watch it. There was just a lot in this film that astounded me. This film really does reveal a desolate world without God. This is a must see.

Entertainment Weekly's top 100... and my top 100.

Entertainment Weekly:
1. Homer Simpson
2. Harry Potter
3. Buffy
4. Tony Soprano
5. The Joker
6. Rachel (Friends t.v. show)
7. Edward Scissorhands
8. Hannibal Lecter
9. Carrie (Sex and the City)
10. Spongebob Squarepants
11. Kramer (Seinfeld)
12. Mulder + Scully (X-Files)
13. Jack Sparrow
14. The Dude (Big Lebowski)
15. Shrek
16. Bridget Jones
17. Lara Croft (Video game)
18. Sue Sylvester (Glee t.v. show)
19. Morpheus
20. Ally McBeal
21. Roseanne
22. Cartman (Southpark)
23. Austin Powers
24. Felicity (Felicity t.v. show)
25. Woody (Toy Story)
26. Kavalier and Clay (Book)
27. Frasier
28. Madea (Tyler Perry's comedy series)
29. Vincent + Jules (Pulp Fiction)
30. Stephen Colbert (Colbert Report t.v. show)
31. Forrest Gump
32. Beavis and Butt-Head
33. Sarah Connor (Terminator 2)
34. Cher (Clueless)
35. Dexter
36. Gollum (Lord of the Rings)
37. Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects)
38. Elmo
39. Gob (Arrested Development t.v. show)
40. Ron Burgundy
41. Harold and Kumar
42. Sydney (Alias t.v. show)
43. Cal Stephanides (Book)
44. Jack Bauer
45. Stewie Griffin
46. Jerry Maguire
47. Corky St. Clair (Waiting for Guffman)
48. Red (Shawshank's Redemption)
49. Vivian (Pretty Woman)
50. Pearl (The Landlord)
51. Omar Little (HBO's The Wire)
52. Annie Wilkes (Misery)
53. Edward (Twilight)
54. Juno
55. Tracy Jordan (30 Rock)
56. Barney (How I Met Your Mother)
57. Clayton Bigsby (Dave Chappelle)
58. Thelma + Louise
59. Master Chief (Video Game)
60. Mary Jones (Precious)
61. Vic (The Shield)
62. Jimmy Corrigan (Book)
63. John Locke (LOST t.v. show)
64. Maximus (Gladiator)
65. Lorelai + Rory (Gilmore Girls)
66. Allie + Noah (The Notebook)
67. Borat
68. Effie White (Dreamgirls)
69. Miranda (The Devil Wears Prada)
70. Marry (Saturday Night Live - Superstar)
71. Alonzo (Training Day)
72. Kara "Starbuck" (Battlestar Galactica)
73. Catherine (Basic Instinct)
74. Don Draper (Mad Men)
75. David Brent (U.K.'s The Office)
76. Tyler (Fight Club)
77. Mimi (RENT)
78. Patty (Damages)
79. Elphaba (Broadway Musical)
80. Gorillaz (Animated characters from the band)
81. Amanda (Melrose Place)
82. Tracy (Election)
83. Jen Yu (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
84. Dr. Gregory House (House)
85. Daniel Plainview (There Will be Blood)
86. Will + Grace
87. Tony Stark
88. Napoleon Dynamite
89. Wikus (District 9)
90. Marge (Fargo)
91. Hancock
92. Christopher Boone (Book)
93. Game Boys (3 Video Game characters)
94. Truman (Truman Show)
95. Wilhelmina (Ugly Betty)
96. Bernie Mac (Bernie Mac Show)
97. Violet (August: Osage County)
98. Lisbeth Salander (Book)
99. The Bride (Kill Bill)
100. Tim Riggins (Friday Night Lights)

This list is full of amazing negligence. When I saw some of these names, I didn't know who a lot of them were, and if one is going to make a case for being in the top 100 "greatest" list of the last 20 years, the chances of someone never having heard some of these names is remarkable. I would understand if it was a few that slipped by, but not as many as this just did. Another thing is that I feel they really jacked up the list, missing key players and adding sub-par ones in favor of popular actors or writers of the recent years, for example Hancock with Will Smith, why not just throw in the Fresh Prince? The Fresh Prince was way more effecting and popular than a lame film's character. When you look at the top 10, most of them make sense, as effective as these characters were on our culture throughout the years, but I might not agree with the arrangement, or even the presence on the top 10. I could sit here and keep arguing each character on the list, or I can just add my own to show where I feel there should have been differences. The magazine also broke some rules in my opinion, by adding some double characters in single slots when some should be singles, or adding characters which existed before 1990. Homer Simpson was created in 1989, but more effective in the years after, so I'll give it to them. Here is my list (50), counting down. (Note, I am note making a "greatest" list, but rather a biggest impact/most influential/and most iconic list as it appears to have been for Entertainment's list. Making a truly "greatest" list would take much more time to make.)
50. Juno
49. Dr. Greene + Dr. Carter (E.R.)
48. Thelma and Louise (Film)
47. Tommy Callahan (Tommy Boy)
46. Vivian (Pretty Woman)
45. Jules (Pulp Fiction)
44. Buffy (Show)
43. Jen Yu (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
42. Donnie Darko
41. Frasier (Show)
40. Mulder + Scully (X-Files)
39. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
38. Peter Parker (Movie[Spider-Man]/Comic/Show/Game)
37. Nicky Santoro + Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci in Goodfellas + Casino)
36. Kramer (Seinfeld)
35. Roseanne (Show)
34. Morpheus + Neo (Matrix)
33. Ron Burgundy (Anchorman)
32. Tony Stark (Movie[Iron Man]/Comic/Show/Game)
31. Beavis and Butt-Head (Show)
30. Rachel (Friends)
29. Edward Cullen (Twilight)
28. The Bride (Kill Bill)
27. Wolverine (Movie[X-Men]/Comic/Show/Game)
26. Mario (Game)
25. Napoleon Dynamite (Film)
24. James Bond (Movie/Game)
23. Cpt. Picard (Star Trek)
22. Jack + Rose (Titanic)
21. Ave Ventura (Film)
20. William Wallace (Braveheart)
19. Kevin McCallister (Home Alone)
18. Lloyd Christmas (Dumb and Dumber)
17. Forrest Gump (Film)
16. Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean)
15. Gollum (Lord of the Rings)
14. Elmo (Sesame Street)
13. Edward Scissorhands (Film)
12. Jack Bauer (24)
11. Tony Soprano (Sopranos)
10. The Terminator (T2)
9. Cartman (South Park)
8. Carrie (Sex and the City)
7. Harry Potter (Film/Book)
6. Buzz Lightyear (Pixar Film)
5. Spongebob (Show)
4. Shrek (Film)
3. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Show/Game/Movie)
2. George Bush (American Mascot)
1. Homer Simpson (The Simpsons)

It wasn't as hard to create a list as it was to put in order of "greatness". I am not sure how I like the order necessarily, but for the most part I think it is right. More important to note the names on the list that may not have been on the previous one. Maybe I missed some, maybe I didn't. I didn't want to add names to the list which I wasn't at ALL familiar with or heard of, like Battlestar Galactica. I know it was just one influential show for some people, but I never heard of it till just a couple years ago, and I don't have a single image that comes to mind when I hear the name. I wasn't excited about naming some names, especially in the order I did, and for the most part I don't care for most of the list but it was what i thought to be most iconic or influential. I will make a list sometime of the "greats" in MY last 20 years, but for now, this is it.

Till next time...

Spoon - Teaser Trailer - Sharlto Copley... the guy from 'District 9' made his directing debut..

"SPOON"
Directed by: Sharlto Copley

Robert Duvall...

I know Dennis Hopper has passed and I haven't acknowledged it much, but its probably because he never affected me, hardly at all. I remember him most as the bad guy in 'Speed'. Dennis made so many random films with such little critical acclaim I think that is what tainted his name. The film he may be known best for, 'Easy Rider' has gone unseen by me. It is on the long list of must-see films and I anticipate it to be one of his better performances, but so far as the films that I know him from go, it just isn't good. "Super Mario Bros." tops the embarrassing list, but the bad list goes on and on.

Even Heath Ledger's death made Charlton Heston a shadow at the award shows and in the media. Charlton Heston gave more to film than Heath's big toe. I am not one to celebrate or mourn deaths almost at all, especially from people in Hollywood, but what I am willing to do is honor the sweat of the men and women who paved the way for great cinema.

A name I would like to devote a moment to is Robert Duvall. In recent years I have watched countless films starring Duvall, and every time a camera captures a moment with him in it, the film becomes larger, and a more quality picture.

As an actor Duvall has taken part in well over a hundred characters on the screen. He is known as a late bloomer at the age of 31 in "To Kill a Mockingbird" (which has also gone unseen by me and on the long list as well). He has starred in "The Godfather" series, "Apocalypse Now", "The Apostle", the original "True Grit", "MASH", "THX 1138", "Joe Kidd" with Clint Eastwood, original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "The Natural", "Falling Down", "Open Range". He also appeared in recent work such as: "The Road" and "Crazy Heart". Every time I see Duvall on the screen I become more interested in what will be said. I believe he will go down in my book as one of the greatest ever, as the man has only aged twice, once as a middle aged man and second as an old man. He is great, I intend to take a closer look at his work which I have not had the pleasure of taking the time to see yet.

Review: David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" (2005)

This movie didn't give me what it did as an early film devourer a handful of years ago. Since I have engaged in more films, particularly more quality films, I have found myself not immune to bad acting. Bad acting didn't exist till about 5 years ago, just after I watched this for the first time.

I think this movie made it passed the radars of major critics. The reviews for the film I find very unjustified. The performance by Viggo Mortensen is extremely good as almost always, but the only other actor who provides an above decent to good performance is Ed Harris as the villain. Viggo's character, Tom Stall, has a family in a reclusive town and owns a small diner. When one day a group of people accuse him of being someone else.

Viggo was a great casting choice for the film, but unfortunately his son in the film was a dramatic over-actor with little displayed talent. There are a handful of scenes where the acting becomes broken glass, fully revealing what flaws there are.

The story is definitely an intriguing one, and it is Viggo's performance and the story which carries the film, but in order to be considered more than a successful outing at the movies, your whole ensemble needs to be together and on the same page, where this one wasn't. The sensuality in the film is also a huge speed bump. The director wants to build the relationship between Viggo and his wife but he only builds their relationship with sex. It is as if the only thing holding their love for each other together is exactly that, because that was all the director showed us. If the director decided to show us what a loving relationship might look like he might have taken his camera out from the bedroom and make the "strong" relationship believable.

In the end the speed bumps spilled my drink all over while I steered my car into an embankment. I just couldn't wait for the movie to be done, even though I didn't want to wave goodbye to Viggo's character. In a similar genre, Viggo shines much better in 'Eastern Promises', which is also sensual with scattered nudity. Viggo and nudity are something you must be aware of when you watch him perform in almost everything but Lord of the Rings. Boo to nudity and sensuality, directors just show themselves lacking skills in storytelling when they require to use it to tell a sensual story. So many more successful directors show their talent in giving us a loving and intimate relationships without having to force us to watch an overdose of sensuality.

"A History of Violence"
6.5 / 10

Review: "Crazy Heart" (2009)

Jeff Bridges to me has been a mystery for a long time. He is referred to as one of the legends in Hollywood, but I just haven't felt the same, till now. Before 'Crazy Heart', I knew him from 'The Big Lebowski', 'Iron Man', 'Tron', 'Starman', and a few others. The only film that I had seen him in and stood out was 'The Big Lebowski'. He is playing a role for the upcoming Cohen Brothers' film 'True Grit', my most anticipated film of the year.

Crazy Heart was truly a great character study done well by about everyone in the film, I don't want to say everyone because there might have been an extra somewhere in the midst that didn't fulfill the role. Really great acting throughout the piece. I have zero interest in country music or the life of a country musician but for 2 hours he made me desire it. The music itself in the film was good and performed even better.

The story of the movie was far above average and easily justifiable to add to the 10 nominations list at the Academy for 'Best Picture'. 'The Blind Side', 'Up', 'District 9', and 'Avatar' all polluted the 10 nominations which Crazy Heart deserved.

The film is carried by ridiculously good acting, with a good casting choice. There are just a couple sensual scenes, but no nudity. The film should still be avoided by anyone 17 and under.

There were several moments of the film that I had to pause the footage and just say "wow". There were so many scenes which screamed perfection in translating from paper to camera. The story will take you into a life of a drunken has been and all the glory that comes with it, to happy moments, and then take you to awkward old groupie moments.

There really isn't much to say negatively about the film other than some sensual scenes that could have been either cut or edited to be less sensual, but overall this appears to be a film with a prefect take on what was written. The film will not rock your socks, it probably won't reach the top 5 list of 2009, but it is surely a great investment of 2 hours to film.

"Crazy Heart"
8 / 10

Review: "Superman" (1978)

If someone said their favorite comic book movie was Superman (1978), I wouldn't argue with them. It is possibly the most influential comic book movie there has ever been, bringing the chief of superheros to the big screen. Flash Gordon in 1936 had just a fraction of the affect that Superman did in 1978.

The problem with being first is the unknown response from critics and fans alike. With the success came multiple movie deals with Christopher Reeves at the helm, but they soon destroyed the franchise which they made successful with each sequel becoming more and more silly.

The original Superman had much that was taken from the original comic material, but in the movie adaptation it seemed the director couldn't tell where comic books started and the funny pages ended. The movie was filled to the brim with unrealistic, or unbelievably dumb moments. Some moments were "just" cheesy, while others were outrageously terrible. The Gene Hackman performance was probably fine for what was asked of him, but it was the asking that was flawed. This version of Lex Luthor was from the funny pages, while Christopher Reeves' Superman was from the comic books. To break it down even further for those who may or may not add 1+1 and getting 2 for the answer, it looks like this: Superman vs. Samity Sam.

The Reeves performance was as stellar as I remembered it years and years ago. Reeves will always be the best Superman + Clark Kent combo we will ever see, now it is all about finding second best. Another feature that didn't fail with time was the score. The score did have its problems but I still think it reigns supreme as the best overall fantasy score ever. The problems with the score throughout the movie is that the same exact piece is used too often. For every step Superman takes, the score is queued. The opening sequence is only beat out by Star Wars.

I grew up in the age of Batman, but I think the champion of superheroes goes undeniably to Superman.

No actor outside of Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeves should be commended any more than a high-five. The entire city of Manhattan feels staged, and all of it flawed. The action in the film along with its CGI is aged, and sometimes even unenjoyable. There are just too many scenes that run through my mind as examples, but if you see the movie, they will each become more obvious than 'Avatar's terrible storytelling. The movie feels like a ride at Universal Studios, the strings and backdrops are just as obvious. The story needed a rewrite, as a fraction of what was written was any good. If anyone should recieve credit for the success it would have to be John Williams with his score and Christopher Reeves and his performance.

I purchased the movie on Blu-Ray and the quality difference between this and DVD aren't good enough for me to advertise or encourage someone to purchase. For some reason in purchasing the Blu-Ray, I was secretly hoping the movie was going to rid of all the cheese I knew that was in the film, it didn't. The movie is still made up of 50% Reeves and 50% nostalgia.

"Superman"
6.5 / 10

We are tired of so much in Hollywood...

Transformers shot itself in the foot, came back a couple years later and drowned, and is planning a recesitation next year to possibly strap themselves to a 100 foot metal rod in a lightning storm. Not sure how you can take what has been killed again and again then try and expect anything above decent from it.

Terminator 1, 2, 3, then a prequel... its too bad this storyline continued past the second film. Now with the franchise under new ownership, is considering a reboot. I think this should have been treated like Microsoft stock, and just hide it under a bed for at least 10 years before you bring it back into discussion. Currently nobody cares about the stupidity brought to the big screen the last couple times around, and could possibly have tainted it permanently.

Star Wars. I am sad to say it, because the franchise brought me what no other franchise has ever brought me before, but I am tired of all the new productions. I have been done with new Star Wars productions since Episode 1, although I had hoped for redemption in the second and third episodes. Star Wars is moving on to produce animated things, CG things, and it is all seeming more like a toy marketing move than a care about the franchise itself. If we do indeed see a new trilogy from Lucas, as rumored, I would feel like wasting all my money on fireworks, while puking my way to get them, and not stop puking until they deliver. If they don't deliver, it may tarnish the franchise I love that much more, and who knows, they might add another Jar Jar, and possibly enter him into the classics 4, 5, and 6.

Planet of the freaking Apes. I really have never met a single person who confesses a passion for this ... franchise? Lets just call it garbage. I have never met a single person who confesses a passion for this garbage. Now we are going to be fed a new one, not a reboot, but an addition to what exists, genius idea right? *snore*

'Ocean's 27', staring all of Angelina Jolie's adopted children, releases in 2025.

Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St., and Halloween. . . . . . . .

Godzilla XXXXIV ... the reboot (2013).

Remakes, redoes, reboots... Poseidon, yea that was obvious, but 'The Departed?' I had no idea that was a remake, how did that slip by me? It was based off of a Hong Kong thriller 'Infernal Affairs'. It is said the Scorsese version is scripted almost identically to the original and Scorsese is quoted saying that his was original and not a remake. That really comforts me since I didn't think it was that great in the first place, it is lucky Apocalypto got robbed. I Am Legend... etc.. remake lists go one endlessly and are increasing their frequency with every year.

Good news involving 2 of the 3 greatest fantasy franchises is that there is no news on an addition to the Matrix franchise and that the Hobbit has the same creative team with a new director as the Lord of the Rings trilogy did... although still no green light on filming.

Review: Wolfgang Petersen's "Das Boot" (1981)

I have experienced back to back one of a kind war films. Last was 'Gallipoli', set in WWI, and now 'Das Boot', set in WWII. 'Das Boot' is a story about a German U-boat (submarine) crew facing the British armadas in the Atlantic.

I have very limited film watching experience about stories focusing on the Nazi side, one film I didn't mind was 'Downfall', a story about Hitler. The stories about Hitler are normally monster movies, but that one made an attempt at a non-biased way of story telling. This film did the same.

The film focuses on about 4 characters throughout the movie, revealing their passions and struggles. The lives of each crew member is turned upside down a dozen times in this story, and each time, is devastating even for the viewer as we experience the same hardships with them. When watching this film you should feel an overwhelming sense of claustrophobia, sea sickness, starvation, and so much more. The director, Wolfgang Petersen truly has good instinct and insight on how to make you feel compassion even for the wrong side of a war. I panicked in every difficult situation, full of fear, and could not take my eyes off the screen. Easily the greatest submarine movie ever made.

Wolfgang Petersen is one of the most interesting directors I can think of, I am baffled at his work history. He is responsible for directing 'The Never Ending Story', 'Outbreak', 'Air Force One', 'Bicentenial Man', 'The Perfect Storm', 'Troy', and 'Poseidon'... Absolutely baffling at the inconsistency of the films he directed. This film is extremely consistent and delivers everything it wants. There are so few flaws, each scene is spectacular, each moment so real, each situation so breath-taking. Petersen's film history is almost as if he has made a terrible film after every short attempt at making something not even half as good as his very first film, this one. Just amazing, and sad to think that a director who appeared to be so talented could come up short in the rest of his career. If you haven't seen this film, you need to. The movie delivers everything you didn't know you wanted.

"Das Boot"

9 / 10

Big man on campus says 'No'...

Michael Douglas denied a request to sign a petition to support Roman Polanski, who is under house arrest in connection to a 33-year-old sex scandal. He is being accused of sexually abusing a 16 year old, and previously pleaded guilty in 1978 for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl. After that plea, he fled and has been a fugitive ever since. If he had not been a renown director, man in Hollywood, man with outreaching arms of support, he would have been illustratively hung for the accusations. I am happy to hear Michael Douglas saying 'no'. He also said it would be "unfair" to sign a petition for "somebody who did break the law." Sounds like a "good" man to me. Michael Douglas is a man with his head on his shoulders, aware of justice, without partiality. Good going M. Douglas, good going.

Roger Ebert's Memoir...

Roger Ebert is writing a memoir, and focuses highly on his medical conditions, which includes loss of speech, cancers, and multiple surgeries. He will also tell about his career and personal life, which includes a personal relationship with Gene Siskel his former fellow critic who died in 1999. The memoir is to release in 2011.

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