(Originally from Facebook – July 25, 2013)
Forgot to post last night’s entry. This was remade as an American effort (Nightwatch) with Ewan McGregor. It’s been a while since I’ve seen that one, but even knowing the ending, I feel like this one was a little better. A good old-fashioned suspense/thriller. I’d put it in the 6-6.5 range. IMDB gives it a 7.3. I think we both score this one higher than the remake, though, so see this one first, if you can. (running time 1:47)
(Originally from Facebook – July 26, 2013)
Tonight’s fare: Yet another incarnation of Donald E. Westlake’s Parker character. Although this one is based on a different novel than Point Break and Payback, there isn’t much noticeable difference here. A standard revenge film. Parker gets screwed over and left for dead, but he doesn’t stay that way long. Continue reading
I’ve been putting off the review for last night’s film because I’m expecting a little blowback. Let me just be blunt–I’m not a Tarantino fan. I think he peaked with Reservoir Dogs, and most of the rest of his films I feel are a collection of “things that Quentin thinks are cool.” I know, I know…I’m in the minority. Now, that said, I will say that I like Django Unchained as much as (actually more than) any of his other films. It was mostly devoid of the things that irritate me about his other work, and I really liked the two leads, Foxx and Waltz. I even found Leonardo DiCaprio, who usually takes me right out of a film, to be intriguing. In fact, I only had three significant complaints.
(Originally from Facebook – July 30, 2013)
I’ve been falling behind on my postings, but not on the movies. Got three for the last three days. Here’s #1
This got a 7.2 at IMDB. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen so many really good movies lately that I think that’s a little high. Not too much, though. Well acted all around, although Tatum stretches believability a little as the wealthy trader. It’s also a fairly smart film, so be sure to pay attention as you go. A good, old-fashioned psychological thriller. We’ve seen this sort of film before, but there’s enough new here, and the performances are interesting enough, that I’d give it a 6. Maybe even a 6.5. (running time 1:46)
(Originally from Facebook – July 30, 2013)
I really, really wanted to like this, once I heard the premise. Imagine “Scooby Doo, Where Are You?” done in a real-life, real-horror version. So much potential. I was imagining something along the lines of Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, which I thought was brilliant. Unfortunately, this film took itself too seriously. Other than the fact that you’ve got four kids (properly stereotyped), a van, and a dog, there’s little direct connection to the Scoobies, for copyright reasons, I’m sure. They tried, though, even including a version of the “hallway-door-opening” scene made famous by the cartoons. But all the jokes fell flat. There’s no Old Man So-and-So behind the haunting of the old carnival here, either. The horror is much more disturbing than that, but they’re hardly original baddies. The performances (all by unknowns) weren’t too bad, considering, but they just weren’t enough.
If you’ve always wanted to know what Fred and Daphne do when no one else is around, or wondered why the cops never caught Shaggy with any drugs, then maybe it’s worth a watch for you. I found it to be terribly sad that they wasted a great premise with kind of a dull film. IMDB says 4.7, which is probably about right, but I’m giving it a 4, just for getting my hopes up. (running time 1:23)
(Originally from Facebook – July 31, 2013
I’m going to end this trifecta on a good note. The #3 entry is the post-apocalyptic sci-fi film, Oblivion. Let me tell you, the Church of Scientology should just replace whatever holy document they have with a picture of Tom Cruise. Then, whenever someone makes fun of it, or wants to know why they should join, they could just hold up that picture. The guy is constantly impressing me, not only with his performances, but also with things such as his stunt work. Did you SEE him running around outside that building in MI: Ghost Protocol?? It’s got to be difficult to do that because of the great heights involved, and also because it’s got to be hard to move so fluidly with the giant set of balls he must have to do it in the first place. Add to that the fact that he seems to actually be aging in reverse, and it’s hard not to be impressed. But I digress…
(Originally from Facebook – December 26, 2013)
I really wanted to love this. I even thought, based on what I had read about it, that it might be a top 10 contender. Greta Gerwig is always good, and so appealing, and I think it was her performance that made the movie bearable for me. But I also think it has a very particular audience, and I’m not it. My feeling is that the people who will love this are, not surprisingly, the same sort of people that populate the film. It wasn’t horrible, just…disappointing. IMDB: 7.4. Me: 5.0. (running time 1:26)
(Originally from Facebook – December 26, 2013)
Another one that I thought from the buzz had a chance at my top 10 of the year. Let me tell you straight away–you will not like this movie. I did, but I don’t think I could recommend it to anybody. Or maybe I should say I was intrigued by it. I like films that really capture another time. I don’t mean digitally filmed period pieces, or films by Tarantino that want to have the best of both worlds; I mean films that feel like they were made in a different time; that have an almost slavish devotion to the period. It’s one of the reasons I really loved The House of the Devil (2009), even though most people I know hated it. This film feels for all the world like a documentary shot in the Eighties, from the black and white, artifact-ridden cinematography to the occasionally-out-of-sync sound. The story, though, is what will turn people off. It’s the story of a computer chess tournament, on the surface at least. But it becomes strangely surreal, and I’m not sure I mean that in a good way.
I guess it’s technically a mockumentary, but if you’re looking for something in the vein of This is Spinal Tap or Best of Show, you’ll want to look elsewhere. IMDB gives it a 6.3, and I gave it a 5. (running time 1:32)
(Originally from Facebook – December 28, 2013)
When does “homage” become plagiarism? Wentworth Miller (yes, from “Prison Break”) walks a very fine line, I think, with his script. It draws heavily from Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt and Shirley Jackson’s novel We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and then Director Chan-Wook Park throws in nods to other Hitch films, most notably Psycho. There’s also a little of a famous Showtime series, but I don’t want to reveal too much. It was hard to put all of that aside, but I did and found it to be a fairly well-done, if derivative, thriller. Continue reading
(originally from Facebook – July 27, 2013)
Two films tonight, and both of them were scored nearly the same by IMDB, but I’m scoring them quite differently. The first one was another mindless action film. It had potential, but there just wasn’t much beyond the action itself. I expected a little better from Renner and Arterton, but I realized at the end of the film that these parts could have been played by just about anyone, and very little would have changed, so maybe it isn’t their faults, but the writing. I think viewers with shorter attention spans might like this, but even with my own short attention span, I can only muster a 4.5. IMDB fans gave it a 6.1. (running time 1:28)
Who Cares What You Think? 