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

Perfume_poster.jpg

Title: Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
Year: 2006
Country of Origin: Germany/France/Spain
Director: Tom Tykwer

Plot: A young man with an extraordinary sense of smell attepts to craft the perfect scent.

Review: This is a film about obsession and the extent that some people wll go through in order to quench that obsession. We follow the life of Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man who was left for dead as a baby and was raised as a ward of the state in an 18th century French orphanage...which by all accounts seems to be a terrible place to grow up. Jean-Baptiste posses an almost supernatural sense of smell and soon becomes obsessed with the intrinsic essence of smell. The plot seems to have thrown some for a loop since I have seen this film characterized as a horror film or even as a creepy thriller. This film is neither of those, it's a character study of a man whose obsession with smell has supplanted his own self worth and identity. It is a tricky concept to make a film about, but the film makers have by in large pulled it off.

The film itself is very well shot, and Tykwer does a great job at establishing the setting and visualizing what our protagonist smells. Ben Whishaw (who is the new 'Q' in the James Bond franchise) does a fantastic job here and it's kind of unfortunate that we really do not see him in many other leading roles. The supporting cast is stocked with some excellent actors including Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman. By in large, this is a film that has been somewhat forgotten and it a little bit too bad. This is an odd film, almost like a dark fantasy tale. It's not perfect, but you should check it out if you get the chance.

[7.5/10]
 
Sincitypostercast.jpg


Title: Sin City
Year: 2005
Country of Origin: US
Director: Frank Miller/Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino

Plot: Bad men, hard women, and extreme violence...

Review: When Sin City first came out it would have gotten an unmitigated recommendation from me. My 17 year old self loved this films sense of style, story structure, and extreme violence. 10 years on though, I look at this with weary eyes. There is no doubt that this is an exercise of style of substance, but it's style has not aged well. It now comes off as almost dumb and hackneyed these days. It's the type of over the top folderol that at one point made Robert Rodriguez the toast of the town, but has now condemned him to an endless cycle of mediocrity. It's not all bad though, there is still some fun to be had...though that fun feels less and less with each passing year. Maybe it's just me whose getting older, or maybe the action genre has evolved enough in the last decade that Sin City feels woefully dated.

[6/10]
 
Review # 1000​


SnakeEyesPoster.jpg


Title: Snake Eyes
Year: 1998
Country of Origin: US
Director: Brian De Palma

Plot: The Secretary of Defense is shot an killed during a boxing match. It's up to somewhat corrupt cop, Nic Cage, to pull apart a serpentine like conspiracy to get to the truth of the assassination.

Review: Let's talk about Brian De Palma for a second. Over the course of his career, he has crafted some of the most iconic films of the last 40 years. From Carrie to Scarface to Mission: Impossible, he has left an indelible impact on the American cinematic landscape. This is why his fall from prominence has sort of left a sour taste in my mouth. De Palma's artistic decline is something that should actually be mourned, he was at one point of America's premier filmmakers. Now, he is basically a hack.

Arguably, Snake Eyes is what marked the beginning of this decline. The thing is, it is not that bad of a film. The main complain is that the film solves its central mystery about half-way through its runtime...thus diffusing all its tension. The plot is told is a Rashomon-esque fashion, where Cage learns more and more about the incident from each of the witnesses he talks to. The real winner here though is De Palma's camera work and the main reason why this film is even remembered today is its opening shot.

[ame]https://vimeo.com/3235512[/ame]

This isn't De Palma's best work, nor is it his worst and it is actually worth watching just to see De Palma's trademark camera work at play. The acting is pretty decent and Cage does a pretty good job in his role. The plot itself is alright, it does lose some of its steam after the twist is revealed, but there is still enough going on to keep watching. I do think the ending is a tad bit contrived, is kind of brings down the whole experience a few pegs. Still, check it out, if only to see De Palma's direction.

[6.5/10]
 
1st off, congrats on your 1000th review. Even though I wish you couldve reviewed a much better film, this thread really is your baby.

2nd off, I just recently watched Capt America Winter Soldier for the 1st time. I have to agree with you on the rating. There were some things that you really have taught me to look out for & it was almost blatantly obvious some of the mistakes in the film that they left in there. Most of them were actually in the beginning scene on the ship (as sad as that might sound). I am curious to see what direction that they take the Capt America series tho.
 
pillar said:
1st off, congrats on your 1000th review. Even though I wish you couldve reviewed a much better film, this thread really is your baby.

2nd off, I just recently watched Capt America Winter Soldier for the 1st time. I have to agree with you on the rating. There were some things that you really have taught me to look out for & it was almost blatantly obvious some of the mistakes in the film that they left in there. Most of them were actually in the beginning scene on the ship (as sad as that might sound). I am curious to see what direction that they take the Capt America series tho.
Click to expand...

Thanks man. Yeah, I should have probably found a better film...but c'est la vi.

Yeah, Capt 2 wasn't perfect, but I consider it the best thing that Marvel has done so far. Most of that is due to the Russo Brothers who Marvel has entrusted both Capt 3 and the next two Avengers films...so I am looking forward to that.


ChocolateVillain said:
I think Pixels should of been your 1000th, if you seen it tho.
Click to expand...

Heh, yeah that would have been sort of poetic.
 
_Sushi said:
City of God?
Click to expand...

Hey, so I kind of abandoned you guys. Sorry about that, I should be updating somewhat regularly from here on out.

So I have a shameful secret....I have never seen City of God. It's one of those movies that I just tell people that I have seen just to avoid people telling me that I should see it over and over again. I know I should actually sit down and watch it one day, but I have no idea when that'll be.
 
p36502_d_v7_aa.jpg


Title: Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
Year: 2005
Country of Origin: UK
Director: Michael Winterbottom

Plot: This is a story that attempts to chronicle the life of Tristram Shandy and fails miserably at it.

Review: This film is based on the book Tristram Shandy, which by all accounts should be completely unfilmable. It is a fictional autobiography told in the first person by our titular character. It was considered unfilmable because it is a book where the narrative get diverted, waylayed, and sidelined. The narrative constantly goes off track on wild tangents and pointless asides. In fact the book doesn't even get to the birth of Tristram Shandy until roughly the half way mark. Thankfully the book is also quite funny and smartly written and as such pretty well regarded. As Steven Coogan states in the film the book is a classic work of post-modernist fiction written well before the modern period...or when I read it, I kind of felt it was a book about nothing...like an 18th century version of Seinfeld.

This film pulls of a mean feat, because they managed to capture the spirit of novel. The film is filled with the same types of wild tangents and pointless asides that are prevalent in the novel. Part of the movie does a 'film within a film' type thing and stops the whole narrative at points and switches to sort of a behind the scenes like view of the production...which of course affords the film to have a meta-discussion of the film itself while also analyzing the difficulty of adapting the novel. It's a film were staying on topic is antithetical to the film itself. I know, this sounds a tad bit pretentious...and it is, it's also a funny and interesting film to watch. So give it a chance if you can track it down.

[8.5/10]
 
Mission_Impossible_Rogue_Nation_poster.jpg


Title: Mission: Impossible ? Rogue Nation
Year: 2015
Country of Origin: US
Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Plot: Ethan Hunt and company have to deal with their most dangerous foe yet...the CIA?!?!? Or a group of rogue spies who seem hell bent on disrupting to world's power structure.

Review: It really had not hit me until this film that Mission: Impossible has essentially become the American equivalent of the James Bond franchise. Like if they manage to find a convincing replacement for Cruise...who has probably one more film left in him before he becomes too old...then this franchise can conceivable go on indefinitely. Which if they manage to keep up with the quality of this film and Ghost Protocol, I would be perfectly fine with them doing these the foreseeable future.

I guess you could probably tell by now that I enjoyed this latest iteration in the Mission: Impossible series. It's a lot of a fun and filled with some solid action set pieces. The film is noticeably more playful than previous films in the franchise, with a noticeable sense of humor. This is probably thanks to writer/director Christopher McQuarrie who, among other films, previously worked on the script for Edge of Tomorrow, which has somewhat similar sense of humor to this film. McQuarrie also directed the overtly serious, but occasionally entertaining Cruise vehicle Jack Reacher. McQuarrie's action chops has definitely improved since his work on Jack Reacher, the action scenes in this are well set up and fun to watch.

As far as the cast goes, Cruise does a great job as usual and continues to prove that he is one of the most affable actors working today. The supporting cast is a mishmash of familiar faces from previous films you know: Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and of course Ving Rhames. The film also includes Alec Baldwin who plays the head of the CIA who is keen on shuttering IMF and stopping Ethan Hunt. Baldwin is really good here, and seems like he'll be sticking around for the long haul. One of the really odd things though is that the franchise is still rotating out the female co-leads. I was honestly surprised to see that Paula Patton was rotated out for franchise newcomer Rebecca Ferguson. Nothing against Ferguson, she does a fine job here...but it just seems a bit odd to keep Renner from Ghost Protocol and to deep six Patton. Especially since they keep Renner on the sidelines in this film. Anyway, this is a fun continuation of a series approaching it's 20th birthday. If it weren't for Mad Max, this would probably be the best action film of the year...but you know...Mad Max.

[8/10]
 
Seconds_poster.jpg


Title: Seconds
Year: 1966
Country of Origin: US
Director: John Frankenheimer

Plot: A mysterious organization known only as the Company offers Arthur Hamilton a second chance at life.

Review: Seconds is an interesting paranoid thriller that asks about the nature of free will and its importance. Without spoiling anything, our protagonist is given a second chance at life, but it is not without its drawbacks. The film manages to tackle these heady issues with style and assuredness. Cinematography wise, the film creates a fever dream like state in which the audience is constantly on edge and allows us to get into the head space of our protagonist. Rock Hudson does a fantastic job here...also somehow the only movie of his that I have seen. Anyway, this film continues to prove my reverence for John Frankenheimer. This is a crazy odd film for the '60s and Frankenheimer for the most part manages to pull it off. There are a few issues with pacing and a really long and drawn out scene with hippies and dancing that doesn't add all that much to the film. Still, this is a solid sci-fi-psychological-thiller-type-thing that is worth checking out if you get the chance.

[8/10]
 
Here's an odd one. Next week will see the release of The Visit and Goodnight Mommy. The Visit is M. Night Shyamalan's most solid looking film in a while and I would actually like it to be a decent movie. The interesting thing is...The Visit and Goodnight Mommy have somewhat similar plots. This is not to say that one is ripping off the other, it's just really interesting timing.

Just look at the trailers:

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

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kXpUaQpXMA[/ame]

If I had to choose seeing one of the two, I'd probably go with Goodnight Mommy...just because it's not being shot in the found-footage style. Still though, both films feature siblings who are up against family members who are not who they appear to be. I can't really think of a reason why they would be getting releases at the same time. Sure, Goodnight Mommy is getting a substantially smaller release, but I guess September 11 of all dates has been decided as pretty good time to fear your close relatives.
 
Oh, and in other news. My friends and I are going to do a film/pop culture based podcast. We're recording the first episode on Monday and if it's not complete garbage I'll post it here.

So yay.
 
Hey im surprised by your review of both MI & Mad Max. I saw the trailer for Mad Max & it just looks way too CGI for my liking. Mind you of course that I havent watched the original in sometime, so ill have to go checkout the original to get an idea of what to think bout the remake. However, I believe that your wrong when it comes to Tom Cruise coming close to so-called retirement. I mean theres plenty of actors that are definitely in their "retirement" age that are still acting. Now mind you theyre not doing action based movies & I believe thats where Tom Cruise does excel.
 
The thing about Mad Max was they did turn down the CGI a lot from the standard of action movies now a days which is what I enjoyed the most about the movie.
 
pillar said:
Hey im surprised by your review of both MI & Mad Max. I saw the trailer for Mad Max & it just looks way too CGI for my liking. Mind you of course that I havent watched the original in sometime, so ill have to go checkout the original to get an idea of what to think bout the remake. However, I believe that your wrong when it comes to Tom Cruise coming close to so-called retirement. I mean theres plenty of actors that are definitely in their "retirement" age that are still acting. Now mind you theyre not doing action based movies & I believe thats where Tom Cruise does excel.
Click to expand...

I mind CGI, but usually when it's done poorly or used when it isn't necessary. In the case of Mad Max, there is a decent amount of CGI there, but it is either there to dope up existing practical effects or to help construct the films fictional setting.

Here is sort of a brief overview of what was done:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ent02yItm60[/ame]

On Cruise, I didn't mean to imply that he was going to retire from acting. I meant that he had about one or two Mission Impossible films left in him before he aged out of the role. That's not because he would not be believable at Ethan Hunt in his late 50s or even into his 60s, but that the role would become too physically taxing for him...especially when you remember that Cruise insists on doing much of his own stunt work. I'm guessing the reason why Cruise pushed MI:6 into pre-production even before Rouge Nation was released is because he wants to get as many done before he can no longer do the role. As an actor though, Cruise definitely has a decently long career ahead of him.
 
Pruitt-Igoe_Myth%2C_documentary_poster.jpg


Title: The Pruitt-Igoe Myth
Year: 2011
Country of Origin: US
Director: Chad Freidrichs

Plot: Pruitt-Igoe was a public housing project in St. Louis built during the 1950s. It was envisioned to be a step towards the future. Modern low cost housing for St. Louis' poorest citizens and a way to head off the oncoming population explosion that was being predicted for the city. Two decades later Pruitt-Igoe became the poster child for urban crime. So much so that it was eventually demoed by St. Louis in a very public fashion. The explanations for Pruitt-Igoe's failure were numerous; that public housing itself was a fools errand, or the people who had lived there were too poor and uneducated for the project to have worked, or even the architecture of the building was blamed. This film though tries to look for another explanation.

Review: I first came across Pruitt-Igoe through the narrativeless documentary Koyaanisqatsi, there is a particularly powerful scene where the film does a flyover of the dilapidated Pruitt-Igoe followed by film of its demolition. These are some haunting images and they left me wondering about what happened to this massive project. How did it go so wrong?

The Pruitt-Igoe Myth frames the failure of Pruitt-Igoe into a much large narrative than what I had come across previously. That narrative is that of the downfall of the American city, which started in the late 50s and accelerated in the 60s. The failure of the American city during this period could be blamed on two major trends. The first is the white flight, which saw much of America's middle class fleeing the cities for newly minted suburbs. This lead to both a massive population decline in many cities around the country and to a massive drop in tax revenue. The second trend was that of the downfall of America's industrial core, suddenly jobs which had managed to sustain the lower class in earlier periods began to disappear and left many in the inner city without any means of supporting themselves. What I am essentially getting at is that the story of Pruitt-Igoe is also the story of much of America's rust belt. Because of this, The Pruitt-Igoe Myth becomes an almost essential piece of filmmaking in order to understand both the America of the past and even the America of the present. Sure, the documentary has its own problems; such as everyone interviewed were former residents of Pruitt-Igoe...but we aren't able to gleam the larger workings of St. Louis' bureaucracy through their eyes. Still though, this is definitely an interesting documentary if you're interested in America's demographic and economic changes in the latter half of the 20th century. Also, this film might not be for all political tastes, but that goes without saying with a socially minded documentary.

[8/10]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_SpRBXRmE[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top