Thursday, April 4, 2013
R.I.P. Roger Ebert
Legendary movie critic Roger Ebert has passed away at the age of 70, following a recurrence of cancer. Roger Ebert (along with Leonard Maltin) inspired me to start reviewing movies, and for that, I thank him. My condolences go out to Mr. Ebert's family, friends, and colleagues.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Red Dawn (remake)
As Forrest Gump once said, "stupid is as stupid does." The remake of Red Dawn isn't stupid - it's completely effing retarded (and I do NOT use the "r-word" lightly).
Things I Liked About This Movie:
-The cast was awesome.
-The Korean-American Marine (I think his name was Smith) was basically a massive redneck.
Things I Hated About This Movie:
-Everything else.
The plot (North Korea invades the United States) isn't even halfway realistic (unless you count the video game Homefront, which was the idea of John Milius, the director of the original Red Dawn - Homefront actually offers up a reasonable scenario, at least). North Korea's military is entirely focused on attacking South Korea, and their entire strategy is, "let's throw as many men and tanks at the South Koreans and Americans and hope that we have more guys than they have bullets." North Korea's two major allies are Russia (which, in this film, has been taken over by ultra-nationalists [sort of like in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare]) and the People's Republic of China (which was the original enemy in the remake - the film had to be re-edited so as to allow it to be shown in that country, which would not have been possible with the Chinese as the invaders [at least China would have been a more plausible adversary than North Korea]), and even they don't like the North Koreans all that much. Let's look at some of the highlights of this movie's idiocy:
-An EMP wipes out the communications infrastructure, rendering the U.S. military unable to coordinate, yet allows iPhones to continue to operate. In reality, many of the computer-based systems in the military are hardened against EMPs, while iPhones are not, so the opposite should be true.
-As a large chunk of the military is deployed overseas, there aren't enough troops left to combat the threat at home. This actually makes sense. However, I highly doubt that the only initial defense against an invasion would be some local police officers and a single F-16.
-North Korea invades the west coast, while Russia takes the east coast. Because obviously, North Korean forces wouldn't be attacked by the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Australians as they launched an invasion of the U.S., while the Russians could just slip by NATO and France.
-North Korea's military SUCKS. Big time. Their equipment is shitty, their soldiers and even their officers are under-trained and underfed, their navy is a complete joke (compared to the rest of their military, which isn't that great, either), and their few allies don't even like them that much.
At least the original Red Dawn was at least halfway plausible - this one makes Harry Potter and Star Wars look like highly-realistic films. Hell, I bet that even the Lord of the Rings movies are more factual than this piece of crap.* Don't waste your time.
Rating: 15/100
*Yeah, I haven't seen any of the LOTR movies. Sue me.
Things I Liked About This Movie:
-The cast was awesome.
-The Korean-American Marine (I think his name was Smith) was basically a massive redneck.
Things I Hated About This Movie:
-Everything else.
The plot (North Korea invades the United States) isn't even halfway realistic (unless you count the video game Homefront, which was the idea of John Milius, the director of the original Red Dawn - Homefront actually offers up a reasonable scenario, at least). North Korea's military is entirely focused on attacking South Korea, and their entire strategy is, "let's throw as many men and tanks at the South Koreans and Americans and hope that we have more guys than they have bullets." North Korea's two major allies are Russia (which, in this film, has been taken over by ultra-nationalists [sort of like in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare]) and the People's Republic of China (which was the original enemy in the remake - the film had to be re-edited so as to allow it to be shown in that country, which would not have been possible with the Chinese as the invaders [at least China would have been a more plausible adversary than North Korea]), and even they don't like the North Koreans all that much. Let's look at some of the highlights of this movie's idiocy:
-An EMP wipes out the communications infrastructure, rendering the U.S. military unable to coordinate, yet allows iPhones to continue to operate. In reality, many of the computer-based systems in the military are hardened against EMPs, while iPhones are not, so the opposite should be true.
-As a large chunk of the military is deployed overseas, there aren't enough troops left to combat the threat at home. This actually makes sense. However, I highly doubt that the only initial defense against an invasion would be some local police officers and a single F-16.
-North Korea invades the west coast, while Russia takes the east coast. Because obviously, North Korean forces wouldn't be attacked by the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Australians as they launched an invasion of the U.S., while the Russians could just slip by NATO and France.
-North Korea's military SUCKS. Big time. Their equipment is shitty, their soldiers and even their officers are under-trained and underfed, their navy is a complete joke (compared to the rest of their military, which isn't that great, either), and their few allies don't even like them that much.
At least the original Red Dawn was at least halfway plausible - this one makes Harry Potter and Star Wars look like highly-realistic films. Hell, I bet that even the Lord of the Rings movies are more factual than this piece of crap.* Don't waste your time.
Rating: 15/100
*Yeah, I haven't seen any of the LOTR movies. Sue me.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Enemy at the Gates
A good cast, a good idea for a story, and good action sequences don't necessarily make for a great movie. Case in point: Enemy at the Gates. Based on the career of legendary Soviet sniper Vasily Zaitsev during the Battle of Stalingrad, what would otherwise be an excellent war movie dealing with two little-seen aspects of the war (the Russian Front as seen by the Russians, and the lives of snipers) is marred by a number of glaring historical accuracies and a love triangle. On the one hand, it was nice to see some recognition for the heroic women of the Soviet Union (which may have been the only country during the Second World War to allow women to serve in combat roles [albeit only in a few roles, such as snipers or fighter pilots, and, unofficially, as tankers]). On the other hand, having two snipers fall in love (and even have sex) during the middle of a desperate battle slowed the film down greatly (and was also very historically inaccurate). Oh, and Zaitsev's opponent in this movie? A legendary German sniper who may have not even EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! The Soviets distributing only one rifle for every two men (the idea being that the unarmed man would grab the rifle of the other man when he died) was completely ludicrous - the Russians may not have had enough rifles for everyone, but every man would at least have some sort of firearm by the time he was thrown into combat (if a soldier was not issued a Mosin-Nagant rifle, he would probably be given a submachine gun [most likely the widely-produced and widely-distributed PPSh-41]). Also, the Russians would not have distributed weapons to men just before combat - in fact, Zaitsev and his comrades were already armed by the time they boarded the trains to the front (according to Zaitsev's memoirs, he was not issued a rifle initially - he carried only a PPSh-41). And I don't think the Russians would have shot their own men if they retreated during battle (although I have heard of this happening at some points - just not during the Battle of Stalingrad, where every able man was needed to fight the Germans). There are also absolutely NO Russian tanks or planes to be seen anywhere - in fact, the Russians had many vehicles (including the excellent and widely-produced T-34, in addition to captured German tanks and Lend-Lease vehicles from the U.S. and Britain, such as the Sherman), as well as large numbers of planes (including a number of excellent domestic types, and craft received from the U.S. and Britain). You know what, I'm gonna stop listing the historical inaccuracies - there are just too many to count. Point is, if you like war films (and have actually read this entire overly-long paragraph), then you should give this a try. If you could care less about this genre, skip it.
Rating: 67/100
Rating: 67/100
None But the Brave
An interesting picture, None But the Brave is the only film ever directed by legendary actor/singer Frank Sinatra. A Japanese-American co-production, the film is intriguing in that it examines both the Americans and the Japanese fighting in World War II, with each group speaking their own language. There were no subtitles for the Japanese dialogue, so it was hard to understand what they were saying, but it seems like they were saying the same things as the Americans were.
The film begins with narration from a Japanese lieutenant, who, along with his platoon, are the only people left on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (the island was bypassed by the island-hopping Allied forces). Things change after a Skytrain transport is shot down over the sea, and crash-lands on the island. The pilot, his radio operator, about a dozen marines, and a Navy medic/corpsman (Sinatra) are the only survivors. After some initial fighting (which results in the destruction of the boat the Japanese were building), the two sides agree to a truce so that all may survive. In spite of continuing friction, friendships form, and the two groups work together. Eventually, the Americans get their radio working, and are able to send for a rescue - at which point everything falls apart.
None But the Brave is far from a masterpiece, but it is actually a pretty good movie. My only major complaint was casting Tommy Sands as the Marine commanding officer - it was painful to listen to him speak, and he made the character seem like a loud, buffoonish asshole. Frank Sinatra, on the other hand, was brilliant, and added some good humor to the mix. All in all, a very watchable picture.
Rating: 78/100
The film begins with narration from a Japanese lieutenant, who, along with his platoon, are the only people left on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (the island was bypassed by the island-hopping Allied forces). Things change after a Skytrain transport is shot down over the sea, and crash-lands on the island. The pilot, his radio operator, about a dozen marines, and a Navy medic/corpsman (Sinatra) are the only survivors. After some initial fighting (which results in the destruction of the boat the Japanese were building), the two sides agree to a truce so that all may survive. In spite of continuing friction, friendships form, and the two groups work together. Eventually, the Americans get their radio working, and are able to send for a rescue - at which point everything falls apart.
None But the Brave is far from a masterpiece, but it is actually a pretty good movie. My only major complaint was casting Tommy Sands as the Marine commanding officer - it was painful to listen to him speak, and he made the character seem like a loud, buffoonish asshole. Frank Sinatra, on the other hand, was brilliant, and added some good humor to the mix. All in all, a very watchable picture.
Rating: 78/100
Monday, December 31, 2012
Anzio
Anzio reminds me of being a junior in high school: I sort of knew what I wanted to do with my life, but I sort of didn't. I was at a crossroads, between being a teenager and being... an older teenager. Anzio is a lot like that. On the one hand, it wants to be a grand, epic war movie (sort of like the earlier Sands of Iwo Jima or The Longest Day or the later A Bridge Too Far and Saving Private Ryan), but seems like a smaller film (like Beach Red or The Big Red One). In most respects, it is a pretty conventional film for its era (it was released in 1968), but seems to be slightly more liberal/anti-war than other films (again, it came out in 1968, at the height of American involvement in the Vietnam War), to the extent that it is more like the rather unconventional The Dirty Dozen (released the year before) than the very conventional The Green Berets (released the same year as Anzio). The story is simple enough: during WWII, a large force of U.S. Army Rangers advancing towards Rome are wiped out and captured during the Battle of Cisterna, leaving only about half a dozen surviving, free men, including war correspondent Dick Ennis (Robert Mitchum). After the battle, the men must try to make it back to Allied lines safely. The acting here is reasonable (especially from Peter Falk), and the dialogue seems OK. The film can be a little weird at times (while many men are shot during the course of the movie, there is no blood - except for one shooting, which results in a fairly jarring spray of red from the wound). The color palette used for the film is refreshing - instead of the dull colors used in some war films, we get bright, vivid colors.
While by no means a bad movie, Anzio seems a little shabby. This is one of the few movies for which a remake seems like a pretty good idea.
Rating: 69/100
While by no means a bad movie, Anzio seems a little shabby. This is one of the few movies for which a remake seems like a pretty good idea.
Rating: 69/100
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Django Unchained
While Pulp Fiction will always be Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, his latest effort, Django Unchained, is certainly a close second - very, very close. It was only a matter of time before Tarantino turned his attention to the western, and, as always, Tarantino has managed to make the genre his own. More of a "Southern" than a western (after all, it does take place in the American South), Django Unchained may very well be the best western ever made.
Set in 1858, Django Unchained follows ex-slave Django (Jamie Foxx) and dentist-turned-bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they attempt to track down a trio of prime targets. That is not the main plot. The main plot is their quest to buy back Django's wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from her owner, plantation owner Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) - a task easier said than done. Tarantino's hallmarks of a strong story, excellent dialogue, and spot-on casting are all evident from the get-go. With Samuel L. Jackson co-starring, and Jonah Hill, Robert Carradine, Tarantino himself, and even Franco Nero (who starred in the mostly-unrelated 1966 spaghetti western Django) all making appearances, the film has everything going for it - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
One of the most notable things about this film is, as with all Tarantino films, the dialogue - it's eloquent, profane (although not as much as Tarantino's other films), and downright hilarious (the scene with the trackers, including Carradine and Hill, gets more laughs than many comedies have in their duration). The blood is red, and spurts out from wounds as if real squibs (as in, honest-to-God squibs using dynamite, like in the days of The Wild Bunch) were used, and not that crappy CGI blood seen in some more recent films.
Another thing I really liked about this film is Samuel L. Jackson. Now, I'm a pretty big Jackson fan, but his performance here is just something else. It reminds me heavily of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. He hits all the right notes at the right moments, and is just a massive delight to watch. It's a shame he doesn't get as much screen time as his fellow thespians, though - his character is deliciously evil and hilarious.
Okay, review's over. Get off your lazy ass and go to the nearest theater that's showing Django Unchained. Veet, veet!
Rating: 105/100 (it broke the rating scale)
Set in 1858, Django Unchained follows ex-slave Django (Jamie Foxx) and dentist-turned-bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as they attempt to track down a trio of prime targets. That is not the main plot. The main plot is their quest to buy back Django's wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), from her owner, plantation owner Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) - a task easier said than done. Tarantino's hallmarks of a strong story, excellent dialogue, and spot-on casting are all evident from the get-go. With Samuel L. Jackson co-starring, and Jonah Hill, Robert Carradine, Tarantino himself, and even Franco Nero (who starred in the mostly-unrelated 1966 spaghetti western Django) all making appearances, the film has everything going for it - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
One of the most notable things about this film is, as with all Tarantino films, the dialogue - it's eloquent, profane (although not as much as Tarantino's other films), and downright hilarious (the scene with the trackers, including Carradine and Hill, gets more laughs than many comedies have in their duration). The blood is red, and spurts out from wounds as if real squibs (as in, honest-to-God squibs using dynamite, like in the days of The Wild Bunch) were used, and not that crappy CGI blood seen in some more recent films.
Another thing I really liked about this film is Samuel L. Jackson. Now, I'm a pretty big Jackson fan, but his performance here is just something else. It reminds me heavily of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. He hits all the right notes at the right moments, and is just a massive delight to watch. It's a shame he doesn't get as much screen time as his fellow thespians, though - his character is deliciously evil and hilarious.
Okay, review's over. Get off your lazy ass and go to the nearest theater that's showing Django Unchained. Veet, veet!
Rating: 105/100 (it broke the rating scale)
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Seven Psychopaths
Martin McDonagh must be a huge Quentin Tarantino fan, because his movie Seven Psychopaths feels quite a lot like a Tarantino film. When I first saw the preview for it, I immediately thought of Pulp Fiction. The actual movie really shows its Tarantino roots, but McDonagh steers the movie in its own direction.
Marty (Colin Farrell) is a screenwriter trying to complete his latest script, titled Seven Psychopaths. His best friend, Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell), kidnaps dogs for a living with his friend Hans (Christopher Walken), and then return the dogs to their owners to collect the reward money. The Shih Tzu really hits the fan, however, when Billy and Hans kidnap Bonnie, the beloved dog of gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson), forcing Billy, Marty, and Hans to get the hell out of Dodge for a while. To pass time, they work on Marty's screenplay. The psychopaths include a man who used to be in the Viet Cong, a couple that murdered murderers, and even a Quaker (who probably has the best story of them all). Overall, the characters (both in the movie proper and Marty's screenplay) are very intriguing, and the film itself tends to be very self-referential. Walken is absolutely brilliant as Hans, while Rockwell as Billy is absolutely insane.
Offbeat, unpredictable, and very entertaining, Seven Psychopaths is a difficult movie to classify. It's like Pulp Fiction, but with a little more action/gunplay. The only other movie that I can really offer up for comparison is The Big Lebowski (you'd have to watch both Lebowski and Psychopaths to understand). This is definitely one movie that isn't to be missed.
Rating: 91/100
Marty (Colin Farrell) is a screenwriter trying to complete his latest script, titled Seven Psychopaths. His best friend, Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell), kidnaps dogs for a living with his friend Hans (Christopher Walken), and then return the dogs to their owners to collect the reward money. The Shih Tzu really hits the fan, however, when Billy and Hans kidnap Bonnie, the beloved dog of gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson), forcing Billy, Marty, and Hans to get the hell out of Dodge for a while. To pass time, they work on Marty's screenplay. The psychopaths include a man who used to be in the Viet Cong, a couple that murdered murderers, and even a Quaker (who probably has the best story of them all). Overall, the characters (both in the movie proper and Marty's screenplay) are very intriguing, and the film itself tends to be very self-referential. Walken is absolutely brilliant as Hans, while Rockwell as Billy is absolutely insane.
Offbeat, unpredictable, and very entertaining, Seven Psychopaths is a difficult movie to classify. It's like Pulp Fiction, but with a little more action/gunplay. The only other movie that I can really offer up for comparison is The Big Lebowski (you'd have to watch both Lebowski and Psychopaths to understand). This is definitely one movie that isn't to be missed.
Rating: 91/100
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)