Throw Down(dir. Johnnie To)
REVIEW PENDING...
*** out of ****
Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Oh Amsterdam & Hong Kong & Cabo & Hong Kong Again...
Ocean's Twelve(dir. Steven Soderbergh)
I thought the first one was cool and suave and the third was dumb and clumsy. This is basically(and obviously) a stepping stone between those two films and essentially a combination of the two with more smugness and less fun. It's already convinced that it's bitching so why even bother to watch it? Ocean's Eleven was a near-masterpiece in my mind and Ocean's Thirteen was a fun albeit ridiculous movie, but this one fails to ooze the cool of the first one or be amusingly silly like the third one even when it has some ludicrous bits like Julia Robert's character posing as... wait for it... Julia Roberts. A bit like this is simply incomparable to the divine majesty of Casey Affleck's character heading a Zapata-esque revolution at a Mexican dice factory. It was ultimately watchable, but it was also incredibly disposable.
** out of ****
Election(dir. Johnnie To)
The comparisons to The Godfather are apt since this is a rather low-key film about Hong Kong mobsters or Triads. Those comparisons are not exactly what one might call flattering since this film does not contain a scene quite as memorable as the baptism found in that film, but it still has some inspired moments. All the killings are wonderfully intense yet light on the blood and gore, which is actually sort of refreshing. A gun is also never fired so Eastern Promises immediately came to mind while watching this film, but this came out before that film so no need to compare the two until I get to Triad Election. It's no PTU, but this film definitely oozes style. I recommend. NOTE: I didn't realize this was also released last year.
*** out of ****
The Heartbreak Kid(dir. The Farrelly Brothers)
I happen to consider Dumb and Dumber a comedy classic, but I can't say I was expecting much from this film. I was surprised to find it bearable given the negative critical reaction, but it's ultimately not worth the effort. The sex scenes and Ben Stiller's character illegally immigrating back in the country are easily the most inspired and funniest parts, but everything else is just basically dull. The film constant bending over to please it's audience becomes quickly tiresome since Stiller's character doesn't really deserve the happy ending he receives. It's not as bad or offensive as many critics will lead you to believe, but it's also not particularly good, either.
** out of ****
Triad Election(dir. Johnnie To)
Ultimate message to this film: a thirst for power and security makes you do some crazy and nasty shit. There's some Ms .45 style meat grinding up in this motherfucker. To takes who I essentially viewed as the moral center of Election and makes him probably the most depraved character in this film, making it perhaps a little bit less emotionally engaging in comparison. It's obvious with this, Election, and PTU that To is a master at mood lighting especially during a memorable scene where some of his characters are wearing masks too silly and innocent for their tough and dark demeanors. Since this film was released last year, comparisons to Eastern Promises must be made. If I had to pick between the two, I would probably pick Promises even if this is more aesthetically pleasing and moves at a quicker pace. None of characters are quite as interesting as Viggo's in Promises. I definitely prefer this ending over the one found in Election mainly because I dig satisfyingly inconclusive cuts to black and that ending was a little too cheery and maybe too tongue-in-cheek to be satisfying. Election, however, easily beats this and Promises in quality. I'm looking forward to the inevitable third film. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Double Take(or Reassessment):
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End(dir. Gore Verbinski)
I usually don't do this, but here's a film that has simply nagged at me and has refused to leave my mind. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a near-masterpiece of summer blockbuster film making and it's perhaps one of the few if not the only film from last year to have special effects that I actually consider to be special. Like I said in my original review, I mainly enjoyed the film because Keira Knightly was absolutely ravishing(perhaps too ravishing since she mysteriously never gets a smudge on her face throughout the whole film) and pirates are coolio, but there's a certain cinematic quality to the film that is seriously lacking in a lot of today's cinema. It's one of the few recent films to strive for spectacle and actually achieve it with it's breathtaking CGI-laden locales and set pieces. The plot is a complicated and incredibly fun mess with a sort of crazy logic to make the whole enterprise feel somehow painstakingly modulated. It's a film that clearly works in the realm of cinema instead of reality because , well, it's a movie based on an amusement park ride so when the film recalls the score from Once Upon a Time in the West, it does not come across as a smug referential gesture to cinema's past, but as an acknowledgment of it's own inherent cinematic-ness. I'd imagine watching this film again would lead me to lower my rating again since that grand sea battle really bogged down the pacing to practically a halt, but it's still intoxicating in it's borderline insane(ly fun) artistry.
***1/2 out of ****
I thought the first one was cool and suave and the third was dumb and clumsy. This is basically(and obviously) a stepping stone between those two films and essentially a combination of the two with more smugness and less fun. It's already convinced that it's bitching so why even bother to watch it? Ocean's Eleven was a near-masterpiece in my mind and Ocean's Thirteen was a fun albeit ridiculous movie, but this one fails to ooze the cool of the first one or be amusingly silly like the third one even when it has some ludicrous bits like Julia Robert's character posing as... wait for it... Julia Roberts. A bit like this is simply incomparable to the divine majesty of Casey Affleck's character heading a Zapata-esque revolution at a Mexican dice factory. It was ultimately watchable, but it was also incredibly disposable.
** out of ****
Election(dir. Johnnie To)
The comparisons to The Godfather are apt since this is a rather low-key film about Hong Kong mobsters or Triads. Those comparisons are not exactly what one might call flattering since this film does not contain a scene quite as memorable as the baptism found in that film, but it still has some inspired moments. All the killings are wonderfully intense yet light on the blood and gore, which is actually sort of refreshing. A gun is also never fired so Eastern Promises immediately came to mind while watching this film, but this came out before that film so no need to compare the two until I get to Triad Election. It's no PTU, but this film definitely oozes style. I recommend. NOTE: I didn't realize this was also released last year.
*** out of ****
The Heartbreak Kid(dir. The Farrelly Brothers)
I happen to consider Dumb and Dumber a comedy classic, but I can't say I was expecting much from this film. I was surprised to find it bearable given the negative critical reaction, but it's ultimately not worth the effort. The sex scenes and Ben Stiller's character illegally immigrating back in the country are easily the most inspired and funniest parts, but everything else is just basically dull. The film constant bending over to please it's audience becomes quickly tiresome since Stiller's character doesn't really deserve the happy ending he receives. It's not as bad or offensive as many critics will lead you to believe, but it's also not particularly good, either.
** out of ****
Triad Election(dir. Johnnie To)
Ultimate message to this film: a thirst for power and security makes you do some crazy and nasty shit. There's some Ms .45 style meat grinding up in this motherfucker. To takes who I essentially viewed as the moral center of Election and makes him probably the most depraved character in this film, making it perhaps a little bit less emotionally engaging in comparison. It's obvious with this, Election, and PTU that To is a master at mood lighting especially during a memorable scene where some of his characters are wearing masks too silly and innocent for their tough and dark demeanors. Since this film was released last year, comparisons to Eastern Promises must be made. If I had to pick between the two, I would probably pick Promises even if this is more aesthetically pleasing and moves at a quicker pace. None of characters are quite as interesting as Viggo's in Promises. I definitely prefer this ending over the one found in Election mainly because I dig satisfyingly inconclusive cuts to black and that ending was a little too cheery and maybe too tongue-in-cheek to be satisfying. Election, however, easily beats this and Promises in quality. I'm looking forward to the inevitable third film. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Double Take(or Reassessment):
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End(dir. Gore Verbinski)
I usually don't do this, but here's a film that has simply nagged at me and has refused to leave my mind. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a near-masterpiece of summer blockbuster film making and it's perhaps one of the few if not the only film from last year to have special effects that I actually consider to be special. Like I said in my original review, I mainly enjoyed the film because Keira Knightly was absolutely ravishing(perhaps too ravishing since she mysteriously never gets a smudge on her face throughout the whole film) and pirates are coolio, but there's a certain cinematic quality to the film that is seriously lacking in a lot of today's cinema. It's one of the few recent films to strive for spectacle and actually achieve it with it's breathtaking CGI-laden locales and set pieces. The plot is a complicated and incredibly fun mess with a sort of crazy logic to make the whole enterprise feel somehow painstakingly modulated. It's a film that clearly works in the realm of cinema instead of reality because , well, it's a movie based on an amusement park ride so when the film recalls the score from Once Upon a Time in the West, it does not come across as a smug referential gesture to cinema's past, but as an acknowledgment of it's own inherent cinematic-ness. I'd imagine watching this film again would lead me to lower my rating again since that grand sea battle really bogged down the pacing to practically a halt, but it's still intoxicating in it's borderline insane(ly fun) artistry.
***1/2 out of ****
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Oh Baby, You're Going to Miss Your Plane...
Before Sunset(dir. Richard Linklater)
The characters are much more likeable this time around due to their more realistic and less naive disposition. They still yearn for true romantic love, but they're more cynical and more experienced from simply living their lives since the last time they saw each other. It's refreshing to see that this film is purely focused on the couple's ongoing conversation and doesn't resort to colorful side characters to "spruce" up it's narrative. It's a better film than Before Sunrise, but I don't know if I would quite call it great. It's ending, while perfect in set-up, isn't all that emotionally satisfying due to a use of a fade to black instead of just cutting it off. Broken English, a film that "borrows" this film's last two lines, ended by simply cutting it off and it was pretty much perfect because of it. A fade to black just makes an end is too conclusive and doesn't create audience curiosity like a simple cut to black does. It's just that I'd imagine enjoying it more if it concluded better. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
The characters are much more likeable this time around due to their more realistic and less naive disposition. They still yearn for true romantic love, but they're more cynical and more experienced from simply living their lives since the last time they saw each other. It's refreshing to see that this film is purely focused on the couple's ongoing conversation and doesn't resort to colorful side characters to "spruce" up it's narrative. It's a better film than Before Sunrise, but I don't know if I would quite call it great. It's ending, while perfect in set-up, isn't all that emotionally satisfying due to a use of a fade to black instead of just cutting it off. Broken English, a film that "borrows" this film's last two lines, ended by simply cutting it off and it was pretty much perfect because of it. A fade to black just makes an end is too conclusive and doesn't create audience curiosity like a simple cut to black does. It's just that I'd imagine enjoying it more if it concluded better. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
Monday, November 19, 2007
Oh Ace of Bass...
The Hoax(dir. Lasse Hallström)
The film as a whole hovered around that fine line of being boring and entertaining. The film is pretty much fine all the way through until it tries to make itself seem more important and grandiose than it really is and starts looking as delusional as it's protagonist. It's easy to see how Richard Gere's character could cheat on his wife with Julie Delpy because she has a horrible accent. Marcia Gay Harden gave easily the weakest performance because you know, her accent was totally believable and didn't sound ridiculous at all. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
Spartan(dir. David Mamet)
What happened to Val Kilmer's career? I'm not saying this movie is bad, but it's a serious question that I think about especially while I was watching this. What happened to Batman? An even more serious question is what happened to Ed O'Neil's career? Al Bundy needs to be in more movies. Watching this, I realized or more like it reinforced my disinterest in most purely plot-driven films. If your movie is going to be plot-driven, it better be melodramatic as hell. There is one fairly outlandish and overly dramatic moment that I might label the peak of the film since it took it's low-key story to fairly high heights, but other than that, it seems rather routine. I've never seen a David Mamet film before this and I've heard all sorts of praise about his dialogue. While I'm pretty sure this isn't considered one of his best, his dialogue in this is not all that impressive. It's the type of hard-boiled dialogue found in most film noir and some of it is, frankly, laughable. Derek Luke's character says "I saw the sign" so much than I almost mistook him for an Ace of Bass fan(and I hope he is). Veronica Mars stating "I was raised by wolves" isn't exactly ingenious, either. Val Kilmer gives a fine performance as pretty much a bad ass spy dude. The actors all around, though, are not convincing enough as these macho professionals. Compared to the performances found in Michael Mann's films, you almost think these characters are playing dress-up and play-acting as crazy assassin agent-types. The film is definitely compelling, but if it contained more memorable characters, I could picture giving it a higher recommendation. I recommend.
*** out of ****
The film as a whole hovered around that fine line of being boring and entertaining. The film is pretty much fine all the way through until it tries to make itself seem more important and grandiose than it really is and starts looking as delusional as it's protagonist. It's easy to see how Richard Gere's character could cheat on his wife with Julie Delpy because she has a horrible accent. Marcia Gay Harden gave easily the weakest performance because you know, her accent was totally believable and didn't sound ridiculous at all. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
Spartan(dir. David Mamet)
What happened to Val Kilmer's career? I'm not saying this movie is bad, but it's a serious question that I think about especially while I was watching this. What happened to Batman? An even more serious question is what happened to Ed O'Neil's career? Al Bundy needs to be in more movies. Watching this, I realized or more like it reinforced my disinterest in most purely plot-driven films. If your movie is going to be plot-driven, it better be melodramatic as hell. There is one fairly outlandish and overly dramatic moment that I might label the peak of the film since it took it's low-key story to fairly high heights, but other than that, it seems rather routine. I've never seen a David Mamet film before this and I've heard all sorts of praise about his dialogue. While I'm pretty sure this isn't considered one of his best, his dialogue in this is not all that impressive. It's the type of hard-boiled dialogue found in most film noir and some of it is, frankly, laughable. Derek Luke's character says "I saw the sign" so much than I almost mistook him for an Ace of Bass fan(and I hope he is). Veronica Mars stating "I was raised by wolves" isn't exactly ingenious, either. Val Kilmer gives a fine performance as pretty much a bad ass spy dude. The actors all around, though, are not convincing enough as these macho professionals. Compared to the performances found in Michael Mann's films, you almost think these characters are playing dress-up and play-acting as crazy assassin agent-types. The film is definitely compelling, but if it contained more memorable characters, I could picture giving it a higher recommendation. I recommend.
*** out of ****
Monday, November 12, 2007
Oh Empathy...
Code 46(dir. Michael Winterbottom)
Wonderland and 24 Hour Party People were near-masterpieces in my mind so I was definitely taken aback with A Mighty Heart with it's excruciating blandness(I'm starting to feel I might have overrated it with my ** rating). This film, unfortunately, doesn't take me back to the esteem I had for him prior to seeing that Angelina Jolie Oscar baiting extravaganza. It is quite bland much like that film, but it's not nearly as painful to watch since it doesn't reek of being a vanity project for any of it's lead actors and doesn't strive to be "socially important" by being "topical." This film has some fleeting moments of brilliance, but as a whole, it's a pretty frustrating experience. The biggest problem lies with it's two lead actors, who aren't bad, they're just bad for each other. Since this story is a romance, chemistry is crucial and while there are some glimpses of it throughout, there's just not enough of it to make the film truly engaging. It's sci-finess wasn't really all that interesting and the story dwells on it consistently because if it didn't, you would start to wonder why it's even a sci-fi movie. It's story reminds us of Blade Runner with it's forbidden love in a futuristic society theme and if you compare the two, Blade Runner easily comes up on top with it's beautifully extravagant imagining of the future and a romance that actually has chemistry. I say it's better than average but not by much.
**1/2 out of ****
Wonderland and 24 Hour Party People were near-masterpieces in my mind so I was definitely taken aback with A Mighty Heart with it's excruciating blandness(I'm starting to feel I might have overrated it with my ** rating). This film, unfortunately, doesn't take me back to the esteem I had for him prior to seeing that Angelina Jolie Oscar baiting extravaganza. It is quite bland much like that film, but it's not nearly as painful to watch since it doesn't reek of being a vanity project for any of it's lead actors and doesn't strive to be "socially important" by being "topical." This film has some fleeting moments of brilliance, but as a whole, it's a pretty frustrating experience. The biggest problem lies with it's two lead actors, who aren't bad, they're just bad for each other. Since this story is a romance, chemistry is crucial and while there are some glimpses of it throughout, there's just not enough of it to make the film truly engaging. It's sci-finess wasn't really all that interesting and the story dwells on it consistently because if it didn't, you would start to wonder why it's even a sci-fi movie. It's story reminds us of Blade Runner with it's forbidden love in a futuristic society theme and if you compare the two, Blade Runner easily comes up on top with it's beautifully extravagant imagining of the future and a romance that actually has chemistry. I say it's better than average but not by much.
**1/2 out of ****
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Oh 2004...
Even more shaky.
2004
1. Goodbye, Dragon Inn(dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
2. Last Life in the Universe(dir. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang)
3. Springtime in a Small Town(dir. Tian Zhuangzhuang)
4. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou(dir. Wes Anderson)
5. Twentynine Palms(dir. Bruno Dumont)
6. Spider-Man 2(dir. Sam Raimi)
7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind(dir. Michel Gondry)
8. Collateral(dir. Michael Mann)
9. Kill Bill Vol. 2(dir. Quentin Tarantino)
10. Dogville(dir. Lars von Trier)
Honorable mentions: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Before Sunset, I <3 Huckabees, Hero, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Million Dollar Baby, Mean Creek, and more...
Need/want to see: Sideways, Crimson Gold, Blissfully Yours, Birth, The Aviator, Vera Drake, Moolaadé, Maria Full of Grace, The Incredibles, Bad Education, House of Flying Daggers, The Return, A Very Long Engagement, The Motorcycle Diaries(maybe?), Ray(maybe?), Hotel Rwanda(maybe?), Infernal Affairs, Closer, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, The Dreamers(maybe?), Finding Neverland(maybe?), [Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring], The Manchurian Candidate, The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi, Garden State(maybe?), Saddest Music in the World, Kinsey(maybe?), The Passion of the Christ(maybe?), Primer(maybe?), Shaun of the Dead, Undertow, Dawn of the Dead(maybe?), Coffee and Cigarettes, Baadasssss!, The Brown Bunny, and more...
Dishonorable mentions: Notre Musique(only movie I could think of that I didn't like) and more...
Moving on up....
2004
1. Goodbye, Dragon Inn(dir. Tsai Ming-liang)
2. Last Life in the Universe(dir. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang)
3. Springtime in a Small Town(dir. Tian Zhuangzhuang)
4. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou(dir. Wes Anderson)
5. Twentynine Palms(dir. Bruno Dumont)
6. Spider-Man 2(dir. Sam Raimi)
7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind(dir. Michel Gondry)
8. Collateral(dir. Michael Mann)
9. Kill Bill Vol. 2(dir. Quentin Tarantino)
10. Dogville(dir. Lars von Trier)
Honorable mentions: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Before Sunset, I <3 Huckabees, Hero, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Million Dollar Baby, Mean Creek, and more...
Need/want to see: Sideways, Crimson Gold, Blissfully Yours, Birth, The Aviator, Vera Drake, Moolaadé, Maria Full of Grace, The Incredibles, Bad Education, House of Flying Daggers, The Return, A Very Long Engagement, The Motorcycle Diaries(maybe?), Ray(maybe?), Hotel Rwanda(maybe?), Infernal Affairs, Closer, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, The Dreamers(maybe?), Finding Neverland(maybe?), [Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring], The Manchurian Candidate, The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi, Garden State(maybe?), Saddest Music in the World, Kinsey(maybe?), The Passion of the Christ(maybe?), Primer(maybe?), Shaun of the Dead, Undertow, Dawn of the Dead(maybe?), Coffee and Cigarettes, Baadasssss!, The Brown Bunny, and more...
Dishonorable mentions: Notre Musique(only movie I could think of that I didn't like) and more...
Moving on up....
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Oh Tommy & Elina & Bruno...
Mission: Impossible III(dir. J.J. Abrams)
It's an effective yet impersonal action thriller. The high tech gadgetry in the film has more personality than the characters. Some of the action set pieces were entertaining like the ones set in Vatican City and Shanghai at night, but they're simply no match to the set pieces in an action movie like Live Free or Die Hard. As a spy movie, it's quite cumbersome and dull especially when compared to a film like Casino Royale, which is infinitely more engaging due to it's non-paper-thin characters. That film also allows it's audience to view the action without the overly shaky camera work and cut cut cut nonsense that plagues this film. You could easily make the mistake of thinking that Michael Bay directed this. It's still decent in it's soulless machine-like nature.
**1/2 out of ****
Amateur(dir. Hal Hartley)
When Hal puts emphasis on story instead of characters, his films suffer. This is definitely one of those cases. It expects the audience to have interest in this film about an amnesiac by having them ponder who is he? At least, that's what it seems to suggest with how the narrative plays out. Since this mystery isn't very mysterious, it's hard to really get involved with it. It definitely has it's moments, but much like The Unbelievable Truth, it doesn't really register emotionally or intellectually. I still recommend checking it out, though.
*** out of ****
Twentynine Palms(dir. Bruno Dumont)
It's one of those movies that you're glad you watched but probably won't ever want to watch again. That's not to say it's bad despite what most people will say. It just becomes excruciating before it's climatic and terrifying conclusion. While it starts off fine, there's just so much one can take of basically watching a couple burn time in the middle of the Southern California desert doing nothing much. Most scenes start off relatively sweet and turn hideously sour much like the film itself. It's hard to really describe the film preceding the last 20 minutes as sweet, but compared to those last 20 minutes, sweet doesn't seem that horrible of a description. Those last 20 minutes, which could be dubbed the "pay off" even though that makes me sound like some sadistic freak, are some of the most horrifying last 20 minutes I've ever seen. It makes the "build-up" seem worth it in some sick and deranged way. This is definitely a film that's hard to embrace due to it's unlikeable characters and extremely slow pacing, but it's still a film worth watching if you have the patience and stomach for it. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
It's an effective yet impersonal action thriller. The high tech gadgetry in the film has more personality than the characters. Some of the action set pieces were entertaining like the ones set in Vatican City and Shanghai at night, but they're simply no match to the set pieces in an action movie like Live Free or Die Hard. As a spy movie, it's quite cumbersome and dull especially when compared to a film like Casino Royale, which is infinitely more engaging due to it's non-paper-thin characters. That film also allows it's audience to view the action without the overly shaky camera work and cut cut cut nonsense that plagues this film. You could easily make the mistake of thinking that Michael Bay directed this. It's still decent in it's soulless machine-like nature.
**1/2 out of ****
Amateur(dir. Hal Hartley)
When Hal puts emphasis on story instead of characters, his films suffer. This is definitely one of those cases. It expects the audience to have interest in this film about an amnesiac by having them ponder who is he? At least, that's what it seems to suggest with how the narrative plays out. Since this mystery isn't very mysterious, it's hard to really get involved with it. It definitely has it's moments, but much like The Unbelievable Truth, it doesn't really register emotionally or intellectually. I still recommend checking it out, though.
*** out of ****
Twentynine Palms(dir. Bruno Dumont)
It's one of those movies that you're glad you watched but probably won't ever want to watch again. That's not to say it's bad despite what most people will say. It just becomes excruciating before it's climatic and terrifying conclusion. While it starts off fine, there's just so much one can take of basically watching a couple burn time in the middle of the Southern California desert doing nothing much. Most scenes start off relatively sweet and turn hideously sour much like the film itself. It's hard to really describe the film preceding the last 20 minutes as sweet, but compared to those last 20 minutes, sweet doesn't seem that horrible of a description. Those last 20 minutes, which could be dubbed the "pay off" even though that makes me sound like some sadistic freak, are some of the most horrifying last 20 minutes I've ever seen. It makes the "build-up" seem worth it in some sick and deranged way. This is definitely a film that's hard to embrace due to it's unlikeable characters and extremely slow pacing, but it's still a film worth watching if you have the patience and stomach for it. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Oh Josh...
Mean Creek(dir. Jacob Aaron Estes)
I was reading Roger Ebert's review on this movie and he was talking about how the MPAA shouldn't have rated it R so people the characters' age could watch this movie and be educated on what peer pressure can do. I thought that seemed rather silly cuz it would basically write this movie off as some after-school special similar to Thirteen, which I still to this day utterly despise. This movie has moments of peer pressure that seem kind of preachy in some way with Josh Peck's character, but seem natural enough. It kind of explains why this movie got only *** from him if he's viewing it in that light and probably why he gave Thirteen ***1/2 because it definately tries to preach something, but the problem with Thirteen was just how it treated its audience and expected the audience to feel bad for this idiotic girl that did things that she didn't want to just out of peer pressure. The peer pressure is different and more believable. Probably my biggest complaint about this film was Josh Peck's character. He probably did as good of a job I could imagine an actor from Drake & Josh doing and I was probably most impressed with his performance because he was able to be an asshole and sympathetic, but the problem was that he felt like some kind of split-personality. For me, I couldn't feel sympathy for him when he was trying to piss off Marty about his father commiting suicide. Sure, kids can be decent and cruel, but that seems over the line. His shifts seemed natural, but somethings just felt off about his character. Everything after the "incident" was pretty much perfect. Rory Culkin isn't the greatest actor and everybody else pretty much steal the show especially the girl. I can't help being reminded of George Washington because it has a similar tone, treats its young characters as practically adults, and had a similar situation, but George Washington is a much more haunting and poetic because nobody ever reports the incident in the film and it just lingers in the audience's minds afterwards. Also, the character that died in that film was likeable and it just seemed to come out of nowhere when it happened. Other than my complaints, I liked this movie alot.
**** out of ****
I was reading Roger Ebert's review on this movie and he was talking about how the MPAA shouldn't have rated it R so people the characters' age could watch this movie and be educated on what peer pressure can do. I thought that seemed rather silly cuz it would basically write this movie off as some after-school special similar to Thirteen, which I still to this day utterly despise. This movie has moments of peer pressure that seem kind of preachy in some way with Josh Peck's character, but seem natural enough. It kind of explains why this movie got only *** from him if he's viewing it in that light and probably why he gave Thirteen ***1/2 because it definately tries to preach something, but the problem with Thirteen was just how it treated its audience and expected the audience to feel bad for this idiotic girl that did things that she didn't want to just out of peer pressure. The peer pressure is different and more believable. Probably my biggest complaint about this film was Josh Peck's character. He probably did as good of a job I could imagine an actor from Drake & Josh doing and I was probably most impressed with his performance because he was able to be an asshole and sympathetic, but the problem was that he felt like some kind of split-personality. For me, I couldn't feel sympathy for him when he was trying to piss off Marty about his father commiting suicide. Sure, kids can be decent and cruel, but that seems over the line. His shifts seemed natural, but somethings just felt off about his character. Everything after the "incident" was pretty much perfect. Rory Culkin isn't the greatest actor and everybody else pretty much steal the show especially the girl. I can't help being reminded of George Washington because it has a similar tone, treats its young characters as practically adults, and had a similar situation, but George Washington is a much more haunting and poetic because nobody ever reports the incident in the film and it just lingers in the audience's minds afterwards. Also, the character that died in that film was likeable and it just seemed to come out of nowhere when it happened. Other than my complaints, I liked this movie alot.
**** out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)