Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

The Long Good Friday

Published
by
Chalupa
on May 24, 2009
in Crime, Drama, England, Mob, Mystery, Thriller and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Bob Hoskins is an actor I have noticed in recent films the past 10 years.  He’s obviously somebody that is respected in the acting world.  Today I think I found out why - The Long Good Friday.

If you’re a fan of Guy Ritchie and his cockney gangster films, you have to watch this.  In this Hoskins plays a big-time gangster who is trying to capitalize on some prime real estate, but everything seems to be going wrong.  His friends and family are being targeted along with his businesses.  This is not looking good to the investors and the American mobsters are re-thinking their investment options.

I knew the film had to be good from the start because it had a catchy tune.  Movies these days seem to lack the kind of openings like this.  Then I realized both P.H. Moriarty (Hatchet Harry fromLock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) and Alan Ford (Brick Top from Snatch and Alan/Narrator from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) were in it.  Pretty soon I also started noticing phrases like, “This is like a bad night in Vietnam.” being very similar to “A minute ago this was the safest job in the world. Now it’s turning into a bad day in Bosnia.”  The similarities continue.  I would even suppose that both Moriarty and Ford took some inspiration for their parts in Ritchie’s films from Bob Hoskin’s portrayal of a gangster.

Seeing how great Guy Ritchie apparently thought of John Mackenzie, I’m now interested in seeing what else Mackenzie has directed.  Oh, and did I mention this is in the Criterion Collection? If you’re a fan of British film, you’re sure to recognize many actors from back in the day. Definitely worth renting!

Rating: ★★★★☆

The Tracey Fragments

Published
by
Chalupa
on January 8, 2009
in Based on a book, Based on a novel, Drama, Dysfunctional, Family, High School, Narrated and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

I must admit I added this to the queue because I saw that Ellen Page was in it.  And by in it, I mean she was once again the leading lady.  The first time I experienced a Page film was with Hard Candy so I was more than eager to see Juno.  She’s quite the amazing actress for her age.  The Tracey Fragments reminded me a lot of Pieces of April.  Both films are about a young girl/woman trying to make it on their own.  They have not so desirable families and are trying to work things out in their lives.  This film was even visually fragmented on screen.  There were often multiple camera shots and angles, of the same scene, being shown all at once.  Some were from different perspectives, some from a different vantage point, others just sped up or down.  It was kind of interesting and kind of hard to take it all in at the same time.  Almost like being visually overstimulated.

The timeline was a bit hard to follow.  I think the multiple camera shots helped with my confusion.  I had never seen something like this persist throughout a whole movie.  This kind of seemed like a gutsy, young director thing to do.  I checked out who did the directing and saw that Bruce McDonald did have 35 other projects to his name before this one.  So he’s definitely not a rookie.  A pretty interesting style.  The saving grace was the ending though.  Eventually everything came together and made a lot more sense.  In the end you realize what was real, what was imagined, and how all the fragments fit together.

This is definitely a sad story.  Tracey’s 9 year old brother has disappeared and she’s trying to find him.  She also happens to be a very unpopular 15 year old in high school.  I’m sure many of us can relate to that…trying to find our way in the world.

I could see a lot of people not being into this movie.  If you start watching it, please stick through to the end.  You won’t be sorry.  It totally redeems itself.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Grindhouse: Death Proof

Published
by
Chalupa
on January 8, 2009
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

This is the second installment I saw of Grindhouse and was directed by Quentin Tarantino.  See my review of Planet Terror if you need an intro to what the Grindhouse films are.

After seeing both of the Grindhouse films once, I’d have to say Death Proof was my favorite of the two.  Maybe it was just more of my style.  I’m not really into horror films anyways.  I’m also a huge fan of Tarantino and his films.  Just like some other heavily styled directors (Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers, P.T. Anderson, Kevin Smith, Hitchcock, etc) you should be able to easily spot this as a Tarantino film if you’re familiar with his previous works.  It really seemed like Quentin was trying to create his own version of Smith’s Askewniverse.  Kevin Smith has his own little universe he has created amongst a series of movies in which characters, timelines, places, and situations float between the films.  Tarantino, and this might just be because of the order I saw them, reuses characters and places from Planet Terror.  He also reuses some actors/character from his previous films.  If you’ve seen Kill Bill, you’ll recognize the Texas sherrif and his son.

At first I thought this was a real ripoff and I complained to Liz about it.  When I had first heard about these two films being made, my understanding was they were going to make “crappy” movies nostalgic of their childhoods.  I felt like Rodriguez had stuck to the agreement and Tarantino cheated.  The quality of Death Proof just seemed much better than the first film I saw.  In reality, and I didn’t take the time to look anything up, I have no idea what the agreement was.  So that probably doesn’t matter, and, if Tarantino wants to reuse any of his stuff he has every right.

So Death Proof is about a movie stunt actor who has a “death proof” car.  It’s reinforced and has the fancy seat belts so he can do crazy things with his car and not be killed.  This “crazy” man with his crazy car also happens to be a bit of a serial killer.  He likes to stalk women, terrorize them on the road and kill them with his car.  We see Stuntman Mike, played by Kurt Russell, in two different situations terrorizing two different groups of women.  I won’t tell you what happens because that’s half the fun of watching.

I highly suggest watching Death Proof over Planet Terror if you need to pick between the two.  As usual there is some amazing music/soundtrack to go along with interesting scenes and scenarios.  Tarantino has a great knack for doing this.  I believe the radio station everyone is listening to is the same station from Resevoir Dogs.  I also love the fake trailer for Machete.  It stars Danny Trejo’s character from El Mariachi.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Grindhouse: Planet Terror

Published
by
Chalupa
on January 8, 2009
in Action, Cult film, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller and Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

This is the first of the Grindhouse films I saw.  If you’re not familiar with what I’m talking about, directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino decided to make a couple of B-movie flicks.  The first that I saw, Planet Terror, was directed by Rodriguez and is about a biological outbreak of sorts.

I think the coolest thing about these films is the style.  It looks like something out of the 1970s - the scratchy film, the sound, the commercials, the trailers, etc.  I really wish the fake trailers would be made into real movies.  There are even random bits of the films missing due to a missing reel.  Before this whole digital age, films used to arrive in several reels that were loaded and lined up.  If you’ve seen Fight Club, Tyler Durden talks about the “cigarette mark, ” that little circle in the upper right corner, showing when a new reel has started.  This is something I had never even noticed until it was Tyler brought it to my attention.  Anyways, the style is really cool and the films are shot present day, just in this old style.

Planet Terror is about a military group, I assume rogue, has their hands on some biological weapon.  In a botched sale the chemical is released and starts wrecking havoc on the surronding area.  The only people immune are the soldiers who were trying to buy the weapon in the first place.  They have these gas masks of sorts on and are breathing in some type of antidote.

There is of course a group of heros who are trying to fight off the affected/infected people and these crazed soldiers at the same time.  Being true to the B-genre, there are some nifty little elements like Cherry, played by Rose McGowan, loses her leg and ends up with a stump.  A stump with a machine gun attached.  This proves quite useful later on.  While this film is a bit ridiculous, it’s definitely fun and entertaining.  Liz walked in and said, “gross.”  She happened to catch a couple scenes where the effects of the mysterious chemical was being seen on several townsfolk.

If you’ve seen a Rodriguez or Tarantino film before, you’ll probably recognize a lot of the actors.  This is definitely an ensemble cast effort.  If you get bored in the middle, just stick through to the end.  I’m sure you’ll enjoy it at least a little bit.

Rating: ★★★½☆

Milk

Published
by
Chalupa
on January 7, 2009
in Assassination, Based on a true story, Biography, Drama, Ensemble Cast, Government, Politics and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Not having any idea who Harvey Milk was, other than what I had learned from the trailer, Milk was a very interesting look at the life of the first openly gay man to be elected to a major public office in the US.  Directed by Gus Van Sant, I knew this had to be at least a little good.  Then I noticed the amazing ensemble cast consisting of Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco, Alison Pill, and Diego Luna.  Everyone did a great job.  I couldn’t really see a single character carrying the whole film with the exception of maybe Penn, but he was the central character.

Milk was a political activist in the 1970s who tried to rally the gay community on Castro street in San Francisco.  It was around this time that laws were being put into place giving employers, landlords, and communities the right to discriminate based on sexual preference.  This might sound a little crazy to you, but it was only about 50 years ago that the Civil Rights movement started in our nation.  I’ve heard some off-handed comments saying this movie is about “that gay guy.”  That’s only partially true.  I say this film is much more about civil rights than about gay rights.  Milk was someone who was able to rally people together of all races, religions and creeds.  This was even more evident after he was killed.

Don’t get mad cause I just gave the ending away.  This movie is about a real person, remember?  Penn was amazing.  I know there are a lot of you out there that just don’t like the guy, but he had an amazing performance in this one.  When people act, some mimic a person or character and others just melt into the person they are playing.  Sean Penn really melted into this one.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see him nominated for Best Actor on this one.

Also just saw Josh Brolin talking to James Lipton on The Actor’s Studio.  Brolin talked about auditioning for the part and working with Penn.  It was pretty interesting.  You should probably check it out if you get the chance.

Rating: ★★★★☆

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Published
by
Chalupa
on December 10, 2008
in Based on a book, Based on a novel, Based on a true story, Biography, Drama and Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

If you’re into movies I hope you’ve at least heard of this one.  There was a lot of Oscar buzz surrounding it.  Unfortunately the film didn’t win any of the four Oscars it was nominated for, but it did pick up some awards at other festivals and from other film groups.  Le Scaphandre et le papillon (French title) is based on the book and true story authored by Jean-Dominique Bauby.  Elle editor Jean-Do suffered a stroke in 1995 that left him almost completely paralyzed.  The one part of his body that he could move was his left eye.  Doctors and therapists at the hospital worked out a way to communicate with Mr. Bauby by blinking to spell words.  Later on, he was able to write a memoir with the help of a translator before his death in 1997.

This film reminded me of El Mar Adentro (The Sea Inside) starring Javier Bardem.  Both are stories about men who have an accident that leaves them physically disabled and they’re left trying to cope with the aftermath.  I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to feel trapped inside of my own body.  It gives you a new perspective on what people with physical disabilities go through.

Jean-Do Bauby is played by Mathieu Amalric.  You might recognize him from Munich or Marie Antoinette.  I know Jim Carrey was praised for his facial control in The Grinch, but I think Amalric most likely had a harder job contorting his face for this role.

Being a French film, you’ll definately need to pay attention to the subtitles unless you’re fluent at French.  I know some of you hate subtitles, but seriously, you need to get over that.  You might also find this a bit slow or depressing, but it’s a gem from 2007 that I think many missed.

Rating: ★★★★☆

My Take on the Oscars

Published
by
nathanshorb
on February 26, 2007
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Since I’m an anti-jock, I’m rarely the Monday-Morning Quarterback. On the other hand, being the artsy fart that I am, I’ll be glad to take the role of Monday-Morning Film Critic.

This doesn’t quite fit in in the lunchroom, though. When there was mention of the Oscars at the table of guys, one asked another, “You watch the Oscars?” The other scoffed, “Hell, no!” Others agreed in disgust, making the general consensus quite clear, complaining that everything else on TV was a rerun because of those damn Oscars. I, on the other hand, was disappointed that I wasn’t able to watch them due to lack of adequate reception with the rabbit ears, but I declined to express my interest at the table and kept my mouth shut.

So, instead of offering my opinions in the lunchroom to a bunch of people who could care less and who would be able to respond only with puzzled looks, I turn to you, dear Cyberspace. I confide in you, always there to lend a listening ear…

So here we go…

Alan Arkin as Best Supporting Actor…I love Little Miss Sunshine as much as (or probably more than) the next guy, and Alan Arkin was great. But honestly! How much screen time did he actually have?! And how demanding was that role?! I’m not necessarily upset that he got it, but is it really fair to, say, Jackie Earle Haley?

Was the makeup work in Pan’s Labyrinth really better than Click? Just kidding. But I DO want to watch Click just to see what in the world earned it a nomination. Actually, no, I can pass on that.

Inconvenient Truth winning Best Documentary…I know, I know, it’s an important movie and one of the most successful documentaries ever and blah blah blah. But there’s just something not quite right about a former Vice President making a PowerPoint presentation and getting an award for it. I mean, really…did the Academy even SEE Iraq in Fragments?!?

The Lives of Others winning Best Foreign Language Film…I have no idea what the Lives of Others is like, and I’m sure it’s a charming little movie, but if Pan’s Labyrinth isn’t going to win Best Picture, it should at least win Best Foreign Language Film.

Forest Whitaker winning Best Actor…I’m sure he’s good, but I was rooting for the underdog: the crack-addict inner-city teacher.

Little Miss Sunshine winning Best Original Screenplay…Out of the nominees, sure. But here’s what should have happened: Scorsese finally got his Oscar for directing, no need to give him Best Picture, too. So we give Best Picture to Little Miss Sunshine instead, then give Best Original Screenplay to Half Nelson, which wasn’t nominated, but darn well should have been, and deserved to win on top of it. Little Miss Sunshine is nice, but a wee bit contrived. Half Nelson isn’t, I don’t think, and the layers and layers of depth and meaning that surface in turn are indeed award-worthy.

And there’s my unasked-for two cents.

Wordplay (vs. Spellbound vs. Word Wars)

Published
by
nathanshorb
on July 27, 2006
in Uncategorized
. 3 Comments

Let’s make sure we’re all caught up to speed, first.

Wordplay is a documentary in theaters right now that’s getting quite a bit of buzz. Everyone seems to love it, and it’s about the world of crossword puzzles. The puzzlemakers, the puzzlesolvers, the New York Times editor Will Shortz, and the competition that ensues.

Spellbound is the immensely popular documentary about the National Spelling Bee. It follows several kids and their parents as they win all the competitions and fight for first place. This one was nominated for best documentary at the Oscars a few years back.

Word Wars is more of an underground documentary that never really rose to the surface. It’s about the game of Scrabble and introduces us to some very interesting competitive characters.

So, as you can already tell, the three movies are very closely related, and comparing the three is pretty much inevitable. It’s a lot of nerdy people playing with words and fighting for first place. That’s about all there is to it.

In the end, Wordplay leaves a little to be desired, and that could possibly be only because it has to live up to the success of Spellbound and Word Wars. Many times Wordplay feels like an inside joke, and if you enjoy crossword puzzles as much as everyone in the movie does, you’ll absolutely love the movie. But if you aren’t a crossword fanatic (I don’t think I’ve ever completed one in the newspaper), there’s not enough left in the movie to carry it all the way.

In Spellbound, you have cute kids, and that’s about all you need for a successful film (ie: Mad Hot Ballroom). As if cute kids weren’t enough, each one is full of life and personality, and between them and their parents, there are a lot of laughs to be had. Furthermore, everyone can relate to spelling. Even if you can’t remember the spelling bee in elementary school, we all deal with it every day; there’s some common ground there, which is important in a movie. There’s enough here for us to enjoy the movie even though it’s about something as boring and nerdy as spelling bees.

In Word Wars, we have freakishly eccentric characters. While the movie definitely has its flaws, its characters are beyond belief, and that’s enough to carry it.

But in Wordplay, the characters are odd, and not odd enough for us to laugh or find them endearing. They’re plain. Sure, you might find your favorite, but you won’t be cheering for them like you did in Spellbound. There’s not enough to laugh about, not enough to get excited about, not enough to talk about afterwards. It was fun while it lasted, but I was glad when it finished.

Seeing how these people’s minds work is fascinating, the film succeeds there. (”Move the D in Dunkin Donuts and you get Unkind Donuts. I’ve had a few of those before. Move the H in Noah’s Ark and you get No, A Shark!”) And it also makes you desperately wish you could play with words the way these people do, or at least finish one simple crossword puzzle. The film succeeds there, as well. (In fact, I plan on starting one in today’s paper right after I finish this post.)

Who would win in a fight? You’d be proud of all three in the end, as they all put forth a valiant effort, but first would go to Spellbound, second to Word Wars, and third to Wordplay.

Best Movies of 2005

Published
by
Chalupa
on January 21, 2006
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Chalupa’s Top 10 List
Liz’s Top 10 List
Neville’s Top 10 List
Shorb’s Top 10 List

Recent Viewings

Published
by
nathanshorb
on November 26, 2005
in Uncategorized
. 3 Comments

Hello. It’s been a while since I’ve posted. But something tells me you’d like to know what movies I’ve seen lately and what I thought about them. In that case, here you go:

A Very Long Engagement - Of course this movie was beautiful…could we expect anything but? I had a very hard time following it, as there were so many names and faces and twists and turns of which to keep track. But in the end, none of those things matter, as the whole story is simply about Matihlde finding Manech, hoping to be reunited. It’s a lovely film, and Jeunet does an incredible job in exploring a new genre. The look and feel and material is so different from Amelie, yet it is every bit as amazing. So, I enjoyed it.

The Corporation - This is probably one of the most well done and comprehensive documentaries I’ve seen. It is carefully thought out and put together, which is critical for making its point. Its all about corporations and the problems they present. It presents its case pretty fairly. A little long and laborious, but important and well done.

Capote - The film itself was good, though nothing earth shattering. Philip Seymour Hoffman, on the other hand, shattered the earth like it was nobody’s business. Hooooooly Philip Seymour Hoffman. Wow. I mean, he was good. Really good. Honestly, I spent the entire movie asking myself, “Is that really Philip Seymour Hoffman?”

Sideways - I finally was able to rent this one to see what the hype was all about. Granted, I fell asleep for the middle part of the movie, but I’m still wondering what all the hype was about.

Elizabethtown - Take it or leave it.

In Her Shoes - Leave it.

Junebug - I liked it. Strong character development and interesting material. Nothing new, though, as a movie like this one seems to be done every year, good but not great, simply about a bunch of people who cant talk about their problems.

I don’t remember seeing much else lately. That’s all. Thank you very much.