Article ITT I attempt to review every movie I've seen.

The Unknown Specialist said:
I know this wouldn't fit with the whole horror theme of October, but just finished watching American Beauty and would love to see your opinion on that. Beautiful (no pun intended) movie if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's been long enough since I last saw American Beauty that I really need to sit down and watch it again before I review. Like I remember the beginning, the end, and a floating plastic bag...oh and at some point he becomes a fast food workers, and that's about it.

So yeah, when I get the chance.
 
The_Martian_film_poster.jpg


Title: The Martian
Year: 2015
Country of Origin: US
Director: Ridley Scott

Plot: During NASA's first mission to Mars, a massive storm forces the team to scrub the mission and fly back home. One issue, during the evac Matt Damon is struck and killed by a piece of flying communications equipment...well not actually totally kill, but enough to where he is left for dead on Mars.

Review: Normally I hate this kind of movie, the inspirational film. They tend to be formulaic, hokey, and incredibly predicable. While all of these completely apply to The Martian, the film still manages to be entertaining despite its faults. Seriously though, this film is shockingly predictable, in fact at one point in the film a character utters the words 'and that's if nothing goes wrong', which of course lets us know that something is about to happen. The film telegraphs pretty much every plot point well before it happens.

Guess what though, that really doesn't matter. See the film manages to make Matt Damon's character affable and humorous. Which in turn makes his fight for survival a thrill to watch. Same goes for the rest of the supporting cast, which is populated by some pretty solid actors. I mean we're talking about Jeff Daniels, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, and Chiwetel Ejiofor. All who make up NASA and their attempts to fulfill the film's tag line of 'bring [Matt Damon] home.' This is aided by the film's light tone, tight pacing, and solid direction from Ridley Scott. Actually, thinking about it, this is exactly the type of film that Scott needed to right his career trajectory. After the critical and commercial failures of The Counselor and Exodus: Gods and Kings; The Martian is the type of crowd pleasing hit that might just remind him that dower and heady drama's might not be the way to go.

So, here is what I am trying to say: The Martian is every bit the Hollywood film that you would expect it to be. Fortunately though, the film is enjoyable and likable enough that it's super easy to ignore its faults.

[8/10]
 
I still need to go see The Martian. The book is fantastic tho and worth a read, hoping the movie lives up to it.

Also no Sean Bean joke? When I heard who he was playing I chuckled.
 
Ok, stopped doing the Horror movie a day thing....because it got kinda boring and it turns out I have friends who like it when you save movies to watch with them. Like, don't watch the Babadook without me. Or Roman Polanski's The Tenant, or Rare Exports or A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night. It's kind of a pain in the butt. Still, we'll get a couple more horror reviews before October is out.

Anyway, in non-movie related recommendations...watch Fargo. Like seriously, the first episode of this season probably the best hour of television that I have come across. Heck, you don't even need to watch the first season to catch up since it's an anthology series. Just watch it.
 
Last edited:
TimeAfterTime79.jpg


Title: Time After Time
Year: 1979
Country of Origin: US
Director: Nicholas Meyer

Plot: On the evening that H.G. Wells unveils his latest invention, his famed time machine, the London police corner the infamous serial killer Jack the Ripper. Turns out, Jack the Ripper is actually Wells' friend John Stevenson who was present for the machine's unveiling. So of course, Jack the Ripper escapes the police in Wells' time machine and H.G. Wells chases after him to late 70s San Francisco.

Review: This is perhaps one of the crazier plots that I have come across for film produced by a major studio. Fortunately, for the most part, the film actually works quite well. I mean the plot is goofy as all hell, but manages to remain fun throughout. Malcolm McDowell, who plays Wells, does a fantastic job at playing a frazzled fish out of water. David Warner is great as the intimidating Jack the Ripper. The direction though is relatively uninspired. This is Nicholas Meyer's first film and it definitely shows. Though, come to think of it his next film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, wasn't particularly well directed either.

Anyway, what really makes the film tick is it's general disappointment with us. See, prior to the whole time travel malarkey, we learn that our protagonist hopes that the future will be a socialist utopia where all men and women are equal. The film doesn't actually talk up socialism nor does it espouse any real political view point. Wells was actually a self avowed socialist and a pacifist, so the film doesn't actually force any views onto Wells' character that he didn't already have. Actually on second thought, here is a scene perfectly encapsulates what I mean by general disappointment:


Skip to 1 minute 36 Seconds. The embedding on this site won't allow for the 'start at' option.​
[ame]https://youtu.be/PvYoTPlTwpE?t=1m36s[/ame]

So yeah, this is a fun movie. Sure, it is sort of your standard time travel fish out of water story, but there is enough happening below the surface to make it all worth while.

[7/10]
 
Maps_to_the_Stars_poster.jpg


Title: Maps to the Stars
Year: 2014
Country of Origin: US
Director: David Cronenberg

Plot: The estranged daughter of a Hollywood power family arrives back in LA at roughly the same time that a washed up actress is attempting to jump start her career.

Review: I did not like this one and I have been trying to figure out why. It's well acted and well directed, I mean it's a freakin Cronenberg film after all. But, that does not change the fact that I really didn't like this film. I don't if I would go so far as to say that I hated it, but it's definitely far from great.

The main issue that I have here is that the plot is way too familiar. I mean films about the destructive force of Hollywood have been floating since well before I was born. That wouldn't be a problem, if Maps to the Stars bought something new to the table. Let's start breaking down some of the plot points.

- Troubled washed up actress trying to jump start her career.
- Hollywood power couple with a dark secret
- Troubled child actor who is antagonistic to up and coming talent.

All of these have been elsewhere and better. Heck, Bojack Horseman...an cartoon with a talking horse has more depth and dramatic oomph than what you can get here. Actually, just watch Bojack Horseman. It starts off a little slow and not all that good, but around halfway through the first season the show become one of the best satires on Hollywood and probably the best comedy about depression that I have come across...wait, wasn't I just reviewing a Cronenberg film? Ehh...who cares, watch Bojack Horseman.

[4/10]
 
Last edited:
Catching-Fire_poster.jpg


Title: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Year: 2013
Country of Origin: US
Director: Francis Lawrence

Plot:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFvtMp7hRF8[/ame]


Review: So this is the second of...I honestly have no idea how many movies in the The Hunger Games series. Taking place a short time after the events of the first film. During this period our protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, has reluctantly become a figure of dissent among the districts* and has created situation that the Capital* is struggling to reign in. Catching Fire has the misfortune of being a 'middle film', it has a beginning of sorts, but it ends in an unsatisfying cliff hanger...which is a bit grating. Overall though the film is pretty decent. The direction is where it needs to be, the performances are alright, and the action is somewhat so-so. What really brings it all together though is the world building. From the Appalachian-esque environment of the districts to the grotesque Baroque like culture of the capital, the film has an imaginative world. It's a world that I was actually game to see change with the impending revolution, but instead the film told me to wait until the release of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 which I didn't see in theaters so I'll have to wait for it to pop up on some streaming service. But, hey I've already sat through 4+ hours of this series so far, I guess that I should be game for the wait.

[7/10]

* I don't even know how to explain this, just watch the movies.
 
Sicario_poster.jpg


Title: Sicario
Year: 2015
Country of Origin: US
Director: Denis Villeneuve

Plot: The war on drugs continues...

Review: For a good part of Sicario's runtime I would have almost considered it a horror film. The atmosphere is built on the foundations of ever increasing tension and dread almost to the point of it being suffocating. The only thing that the film was missing was its monster, hard to have a horror film without a monster or so I thought.

The film stars Emily Blunt as FBI agent Kate Macer, who is invited to join an inter-agency operation following an FBI raid that turned up the bodies of dozens of victims of a local cartel boss. The operation is run by Matt, played by Josh Brolin, who is quickly revealed to be CIA; and the enigmatic Alejandro Gillick, played by Benicio del Toro, whose actual role in the op could be best described as opaque. We see the events of the film mostly through Kate's eyes, which is a fantastic choice because she is mostly kept in the dark about most of the events of the film. We get the idea that she is there for bureaucratic reasons and nothing else, she is the outsider catching a glimpse of a larger and more secret war than what she had previously expect. Moreover she believes in the rule of law, which we are almost constantly reminded that it does not exist on the border. In this, the film can almost be considered a companion piece to No Country for Old Men where the idea law and order is a hilariously outmoded and quaint concept. This is a war, and not the one that can be fought by traditional law enforcement. No, in this film the war on drugs is treated as a real war, one that requires actual soldiers and hard responses that are unfettered by rules and regulations.

As the plot unfolds though and we begin to grasp the greater whole of the film's story we begin to see the film's real monster. I won't give it away, but the film is called sicario for a reason...it means hitman in Spanish, a fact that the film lets us in on from the outset. From a political the film takes an interesting stance. It makes the argument that fire must be fought with fire and that the only way to take down the cartels is to stoop to their level...to unleash the monster of the film. I don't know if I honestly agree with the film's stance, but as Kate Macer becomes increasingly marginalized as the film progresses so does her ideology.

While the plot succeeds on it's own right, the acting and the film's direction really bring it all together. Emily Blunt, who is quickly becoming on of my favorite actresses, knocks it out of the freaking park. Benicio del Toro also brings probably one of his best performances in quite some time. The supporting cast also does a magnificent job. Denis Villeneuve nails the direction. The film is composed in a very matter-of-fact sort of way, but manages both eerie and strangely beautiful. As mentioned before, the tone is almost that of dread as if no one is safe at anytime...especially our protagonist. Honestly, this film actually helps to reaffirm my hope for that Blade Runner sequel that will inevitably come...Villeneuve is set to direct and if this film is any indication, he is more than capable for the task.

In the end, Sicario was not really the film I was expecting...which is actually a good thing. Sicario is a taut thriller that raises some particularly interesting questions about the ever evolving nature of the war on drugs. It's also one of the best films of the year, so check it out.

[9/10]
 
MockingjayPart1Poster3.jpg


Title: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay ? Part 1
Year: 2014
Country of Origin: US
Director: Francis Lawrence

Plot: Let's focus test a revolution.

Review: Looking back on it now, I think my least favorite part of The Hunger Games series are the hunger games themselves. Beyond the titular tournament that pits children and young adults in a battle to the death is battle for hearts and minds. It's a PR war and as the series progresses this PR war becomes stronger and more apparent. In this film, which takes place a week or so after Catching Fire, we find our protagonist in the hands of the rebellious district 13. The district who is spearheading the rebellion against the capital. They see Katniss as the perfect face of the revolution and they literally go to the drawing board in order to find the most potent way to sell her to the masses. See, this is where The Hunger Games series distinguishes itself from your average Hollywood franchise...it understands the importance of symbolism and moreover that symbols need to be tweaked in order reach their full potential. It is a concept that is actually grounded in reality, anyone from the US Government all the way down to ISIS understands the importance of symbolism when it comes to propaganda.

c has been criticized for its relative lack of action. That is a valid criticism, while it really nails its underlying political message, the film doesn't really know what to do with the rest of its runtime. Outside of the story of Katniss and the District 13 propaganda machine, we are shown glimpses of the effects of that propaganda in actions taken by parts of the rebellion. Overall it's a film that is smart enough to tackle the behind the scenes of fighting a war, but is bound up by its own source material. I would have loved it if the film was just about producing Starship Troopers-esque propaganda videos...but that's just me and my tastes aren't the most profitable.

For more though, the biggest issue with the film is the studio's decision to split the book in half. The film clocks in at two hours and while it's definitely more profitable to release two movies instead of one...I would have loved it if they just gave us a four hour epic. Much like Catching Fire, this film suffers from the lack of an ending. It just sort of stops and tells us we'll have to wait till next year (or well next month now) to conclude the story. I can't help but look back on The Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers, both of which are middle films in a series and both gave us a definitive ending to their plots. Sure, they didn't wrap up the overarching story, but each film offered up its own self contained plot which by the end was resolved. Catching Fire sort of has its own plot that is wrap up, but it never felt as a movie that could stand on its own. Actually if they added like one more scene on to Catching Fire it could have had a stronger ending...but that's neither here nor there.

Do you know what, screw it let's discuss a good ending for a film that is in the middle of a franchise. In the falling action, after the film's immediate threat is taken care of, our main characters congregate together and take stock on what they have lost and the road ahead. Oh and spoilers ahead for one of the most popular films of all time and one that came out like 32 years ago. So with The Empire Strikes Back, everyone is on the the Millennium Falcon, Luke has lost an arm and they have lost Hans Solo, it's a somber mood; Luke and Leia hold hands, stare out into space and think about their next step. This is a great ending for a film that doesn't wrap up the overarching plot of the series. I would compare it to Mockingjay ? Part 1, but it only came out last year and honestly that it way to recent to be dropping spoilers.

Anyway, outside of the plot department, the film is well made. It roughly has the same quality of the previous two iterations of the series...which is a good thing. Jennifer Lawrence is great and her performance really sells the film...much like she did in the last two films. Listen, if you have gotten past the first two films...then chances are you've already seen this one of you're planning on seeing this one and that's fine. It's a decent film with a solid political message, but suffers from a meandering plot and a crap ending.

[7/10]
 
The_Man_from_U.N.C.L.E._poster.jpg


Title: The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Year: 2015
Country of Origin: UK/US
Director: Guy Ritchie

Plot: A CIA agent and a KGB agent team up to save the world from a nuclear themed McGuffin.

Review: So here's a question: is The Man from U.N.C.L.E. remembered well enough to warrant a film adaptation with the same name? I guess what I am really trying to ask is: Did the film take a financial hit from calling itself The Man from U.N.C.L.E.? It's no secret that this film under performed at the box office and any thought of spinning this into a franchise dried up pretty quickly after its release. So, once again: why the name? To further belabor this point, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is show from the 1960s. I guess it's fondly remembered by some, but not exactly a well remembered franchise. To further complicate things, U.N.C.L.E. the organization, doesn't exist at the start of the film. Nor is there one man, in fact we have two men and a woman by the end of the film making up the core group of main characters. So finally...why in the hell call it The Man from U.N.C.L.E.?

See, I'm asking because the film isn't actually all that bad. On the Guy Richie scale of quality, it's on par with the first Sherlock Holmes movie. The characters are fun, though at times their personality quirks feel a bit forced. The action set pieces are well thought out, stylistically realized and more importantly fun. The plot itself boilerplate, something to do with a easier way to enrich uranium and a group of Nazi sympathizers. It's all pretty standard stuff and a fun way to kill two hours. Unfortunately, it'll join RocknRolla as another failed attempt on Richie's part to start a franchise.

[7/10]
 
Last edited:
Theringpostere.jpg


Title: The Ring
Year: 2002
Country of Origin: US
Director: Gore Verbinski

Plot: So there is this video tape that if you watch, you'll die a horrible death in like 7 days.

Review: Can someone help me here, why is it called The Ring? I've been racking my brain trying to figure this out and outside of the amount of circular based imagery in the film...I can't quite see the reason for its name. Anyway, this was the first and probably most successful of the string of J-horror remakes that plagued the 2000s. I say successful, because beyond it's boxoffice returns it is an effective horror movie. A horror movie that is built upon an atmosphere of dread instead of simple jump scares. It does feel a little dated though, but that is mostly because it was influential enough to spawn its own derivatives and a lot of film have aped it's visual style and formula. The plot is all gobbledygook, especially near the end where any semblance of straightforward storytelling goes right out the window. It's also very long or at least it feels that way, the film could easily benefit from having 20 minutes or so shaved off.

As far as the plot goes, story centers around Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), an investigative reporter who gets roped into investigating he unexplained death of her friend's daughter. She eventually tracks down the cured video tape, watches it, and consequently has seven days to figure out it's mystery. The answer to that mystery sort of makes sense within the fractured logic of the film, but overall it doesn't really hold up to any real scrutiny. Still, if you're looking for a solid horror movie to watch today, The Ring will do just fine.

[7/10]
 
Sicario was a good movie.

I went with some dude friends, and at the last minute one of them calls up and says he's bringing a girl. I was like no big deal, just tell her it's dark. She was cool with that. Fast forward to the drive over. She says (spoilers ahead)
the only thing she can't handle in movies is kids getting killed.
I had to laugh. The movie deals with the cartel. I'm not sure what she was expecting.

Anyway, awesome film. Really inspires thought and conversation.
 
Martyr said:
Sicario was a good movie.

I went with some dude friends, and at the last minute one of them calls up and says he's bringing a girl. I was like no big deal, just tell her it's dark. She was cool with that. Fast forward to the drive over. She says (spoilers ahead)
the only thing she can't handle in movies is kids getting killed.
I had to laugh. The movie deals with the cartel. I'm not sure what she was expecting.

Anyway, awesome film. Really inspires thought and conversation.
Click to expand...

Spoilers:

I think the main thing about the film
is that they managed to hide the type of monster that Benicio del Toro was. Like we don't actually get to see him torture the cartel boss's brother. For most of the film, the only time we spend with him is through his interactions with Kate Macer...to whom he nothing but paternal. So for at least for the audience in my theater, they were excited at the prospect of him getting his revenge. Some people were even kind of laughing at the exchange between del Toro and the cartel boss. Of course that all changed when del Toro murders his whole family in front of him.

All in all it's a great piece of story telling. By giving us only Kate's perspective, we are given a narrow view of the whole...which when we finally get a glimpse of the larger picture we're surprised to see what should have been obvious all along.
 
Also, on a non-film related side note:

Ash vs Evil Dead is freaking amazing. Watch it
 
Sexy Beast said:
Also, on a non-film related side note:

Ash vs Evil Dead is freaking amazing. Watch it
Click to expand...

I was about to ask if you watched this. He showed his age a bit with some of the gags but the nostalgia was real seeing Campbell playing Ash again. The whole barroom scene had my sides hurting.
 
ChocolateVillain said:
I was about to ask if you watched this. He showed his age a bit with some of the gags but the nostalgia was real seeing Campbell playing Ash again. The whole barroom scene had my sides hurting.
Click to expand...

I had a big stupid grin on my face through the whole thing. The scene in the abandoned house with the cops was amazing. I forgot how much fun Sam Raimi style horror could be...unfortunately Raimi is only directing the first episode, so I'm a little worried about the rest of the series. Still Campbell has Ash down to a freakin science, so I guess I really shouldn't be all too worried about it.
 
Spectre_poster.jpg


Title: Spectre
Year: 2015
Country of Origin: UK/US
Director: Sam Mendes

Plot: Enter Spectre, stage left.

Review: This is the point that the franchise has been building to since Casino Royale or at least that is what the producers want you to think. See back in 2006, Eon and MGM didn't actually own the rights to the organization Spectre or any of the characters associated with it. This is the major reason why we haven't heard from them since Diamonds are Forever...outside of a weird sequence at the beginning of For Your Eyes Only. So that's why we got Quantum instead of Spectre in the first two Craig movies. In 2013, the producers finally managed to buy the right to Spectre so here we are...in the middle of a lot of retconning.

I mention all this because one of the major criticism levied against Spectre is its fumbled attempt to tie the last three Craig movies. together. I can honestly say, yes, it's poorly handled. Especially when they try to shoehorn Skyfall into this odd overarching plot. It all leads to a very backwards thinking film, which is the polar opposite of what we got with Skyfall. A film that is trying desperately to convince us that this was all part of the plan from the beginning. It's equally odd because that has never really been much of a concern of the Bond franchise before. Sure, we had SPECTRE in the past (Spectre used to be an acronym, now it doesn't really stand for anything), but they just seemed to be an on again off again antagonist...and not part of a serialized story. Which was great, it's the reason why we can have a fantastic one off films like Skyfall or Goldfinger and not worry about it connecting with a serialized plot. With Spectre, the attempt to jerry-rig a serialized plot out of last three films, worked as a detriment to this film.

Of course, attempting to build continuity out of thin air isn't the film's only problem. The plot itself is a crazy, confusing, and disjointed mess. The basic idea is that the film is a globetrotting mystery, one that is touched off after Bond receives a video message from
the now dearly departed Judi Dench
. He goes from country to country trying to pieces everything together...the issue is that we the audience are not really let on to how Bond figures out where to go next. At one point, Bond goes to an abandoned shack in the middle of Austria to track down the next piece of the puzzle...but for the life of me I honestly have no idea how he knew where to go. One moment he was in Rome talking to Moneypenny and the next he is in Austria. Like Moneypenny does say something about who he eventually meets next...but I don't think she mentioned to Bond where he needs to go. Anyway, this who mystery leads up to the reveal of Spectre and the reveal that Christoph Waltz is Blofeld...which seems like a spoiler, but much like Star Trek Into Darkness the reveal is so meaningless to the plot itself that I actually wonder why the screen writers even bothered. See in Star Trek Into Darkness, Benedict Cumberbatch is Kahn, but for most of the film he is called something else. The issue with keeping this a big mystery is that the characters in the film haven't met Kahn before so the big reveal is utterly meaningless. Same thing with Christoph Waltz as Blofeld, Bond nor anyone at MI6 has heard of Blofeld before so the 'big reveal' just leads to a massive shrug. I can only imagine the reason to obfuscating this fact is so some people in the audience will go 'oh I didn't see that one coming'...even though everyone had figured this out back when Waltz was first cast.

The film is littered with logical lapses and weird leaps. There's a scene that takes place at a health facility at the top of a mountain about half-way through the film that is so poorly established that I was confused for almost the entire sequence. Suddenly things just start happening with no real rhyme nor reason, like Bond is now in a plane chasing the bad guys down a mountain, but where did the plane come from? Or where did the cars come from, the scene established we we're at the top of a mountain...but we're not shown how it is accessible. Suddenly it looks like you can just drive up there and I guess there is an air strip up there, and it's also like a ski resort because there is a ski lift filled with skiers. Like I am trying to unravel this sequence in my head and I can't quite make sense of it. I guess it works if you don't think about it...but that's a bad thing. Not to mention the number of narrative dead-ends that are scattered throughout the film. A big deal was made of Bond being injected with nano-machines (smart blood) that could track his movement and his vitals...but guess what? This 'smart blood' malarkey amounts to nothing; it doesn't impact the plot in any way. Like it seemed that in some previous draft of the script, it might have amounted to something...but got written out at some point.

Everything just feels so ill conceived and over written and then rewritten like 20 times. It's a disjointed mess peppered with some entertaining action sequences. I honestly haven't been this annoyed with a film in quite some time. Like it's a Bond movie...and I really like Bond movies, even the bad ones, but this is just such a broken film that I honestly have a hard time recommending it even just for mindless entertainment. What really kills me though is that has some really fun moments. The action sequence at the beginning, the car chase in Rome, most of the sequence at the base in Africa are all great. They're the moments that remember that this is a Bond movie...unfortunately those moments are few and cannot make up for everything that's wrong with the movie.

[4/10]
 
Last edited:
Another thing to add to Spectre, my god the movie is long. You really start to notice a little past halfway though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top