7.27.2007

I could've sworn I did a review for Zodiac back when I saw it in theaters, but apparently not.

I've been waiting for the DVD for a month, with a huge itch to watch it again. I also had this itch for about a week after my initial viewing.

The movie opened with fair-to-good reviews, clocking a 77 at MetaCritic and 78% CotC at RottenTomatoes.

I hate using the word 'fan,' but I've been a David Fincher 'fan' for years. Seven, Panic Room, Fight Club, and even The Game were all very well-made movies. Fincher has a very distinctive style, mixing traditional technique with an apparent love for personal flare. And this, with the cinematography, meshes well to give a fantastic feel of the 60s, and eventually spanning all the way until 1991.

There's also the overwhelming superscripts on every scene, which skips the step of inserting a timeline through subtle measures and just getting it up front. Four years or ten hours, it's all shown in a quick note (except for one great shot showing a skyscraper being constructed over a year). The feel of investigatory reminds me a lot of All the President's Men... though slightly different subject matter. Very different movies, but I just got that feel. And that's a good thing.

But the real thing is, what ties the movie together? This isn't a spoiler: the Zodiac murders were never solved. It takes a lot of talent to pull off closure when there's no certain evidence, no verdict. It's all circumstantial. There's no PROOF. Some say that's where the movie falls flat. That's why the movie thrives, is because the movie is about the Zodiac killer, but the real motif is addiction. Zodiac is just the string that holds the movie together.

We'll see how things go come Oscar time. I'm not holding my breath, but maybe a few tech nods will come up. I have a feeling, though, in five, maybe ten years, this movie will be looked upon as 'great.' We'll see.

Rating: 7/7

(And there is a reason I picked a 7 point rating system. Explaining it would just be a bunch of convoluted run-on sentences, so I won't, but just trust me that it makes sense.)

Continue reading...

7.25.2007

Skeptical upon seeing the original trailer, today I had an overwhelming urge to go see Hairspray.

Where to begin? Let's start with the bad. John Travolta. . . why? His lines were cheesy and his performance outlandish, yet I can't hate too much. It wasn't awful, just the weakest link.

The script takes plenty of opportunities to throw in some racist humor without actually being racist. It's one of those, they make the characters who say ignorant jokes look like complete morons, so apparently that makes it okay. Either way, it's hilarious because of the great:



I love me some Michelle Pfeiffer. Top-notch performance, and Brittany Snow plays her daughter with a look straight out of 'Mean Girls.' A perfect duo.

But then there's the ever-great Christopher Walken, and even people like Amanda Bynes deliver.

I'm no expert on choreography, all I can do is tell when something is 'good' and something is 'bad.' The song/dance mix in this flick is definitely in the 'good' category.

Rating: 6.5/7

(I think I'm switching to the seven-point rating system. Why? Because I like the number 7.)

Continue reading...

7.19.2007

'Fargo' goes out West.



Just kidding. But this movie looks great.

Continue reading...

7.12.2007

Tonight I went to Starbuck's to get a coffee, and it was about 8:15 or so. They close at 10:30. No one else is inside, and I go order a venti coffee. They say they're out of coffee and have to brew a fresh thing and it'll be a few minutes. I'm like, "It's okay. No problem."

But the lady kept apologizing, offered me a free pastry (I just ate, so I said no). I really didn't mind, I mean if it was busy I'd be waiting anyway. So ~5 minutes went by, I got my coffee, and she gave me a generic coupon that's for a free any drink I want next time I go in. Sa-weet.

But these generic coupons... at movie theaters (well, Regal ones) they have re-admission tickets that they give out if your movie screws up or something. They're on a huge roll of maybe a few hundred. Starbuck's has these little coupons. They don't have to be signed or anything. So I wonder what one has to do to get their hands on one of these rolls/packs. I mean, I don't want to work at these places, but how awesome would it be to have free coffee, or movies, for the next few years? I'd save so much money...

It wouldn't even be that hard to not get caught. There's enough Starbuck's around with enough employees. Movies theaters, a bit harder. Just make sure it's a different clerk. Hmm...

Continue reading...

I've watched a lot of movies since I last updated, but I'll just post about the ones people may be interested in.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

When a movie gets to the 5th part of a series, it becomes very easy for the audience to predict what will happen using a very, very simple formula that can be deduced from the previous four movies. In every movie, a new antagonist comes around, they give Harry (and friends) a hard time, we get a mild 'twist' ending, and Voldemort is one step closer to returning. This grows tiresome. The problem is that I'm sure there's more depth in the books, but J.K. Rowling makes them so long it would be impossible to fit it all into a movie -- however, it would be very possible to fit the small bit of plot from OotP (movie) into another frame and not have it drag on for 138 minutes. This problem stems from the new screenwriter and a director who only has TV experience. We get a big picture, and the movie lacks small quirks that made the other Harry Potter movies fun. Instead of tournaments, we get excessive CGI as the students lock themselves in a training room, practicing spells. Sure, it's important, but we don't need to waste twenty minutes on it. The time is better spent elsewhere, whether it's seeing something that was left out, or on my couch because I got out twenty minutes earlier.

When Alfonso Cuaron did the 'Prisoner of Azkaban' it ran for 141 minutes, but the series was still fresh after only three movies. But also, Cuaron is a great storyteller. That's why the third movie (and fourth, which is even longer) were better than the new OotP. It's not that OotP is a bad movie, but nothing new comes to risk for Harry, and it's just a stepping stone so the studio can make two more movies. There's nothing wrong with making a three hour movie as long as it's three hours worth of material.

The series seems to be getting darker, constantly looming Voldemort over our heads, but there's never a taste, especially in this movie, and there's nothing audience members hate more than cliffhangers and anti-climactic endings. But then again, it is Harry Potter, so even if the movie got one-star reviews from every critic in the United States, it would still open at the top of the box office.

6/10

Ratatouille

On a more positive note, this is easily the best movie of the summer as far as 'big' movies go.

After a long stretch of mediocre animated films (Surf's Up, Shrek 3, any number of others), finally Pixar has a release, and Pixar always means great movies. I think Cars is my least favorite, but it's still good.

Ratatouille is a film by Brad Bird (The Incredibles), and while I love The Incredibles, I think Ratatouille is a superior film.

The reason this film is so good, as with all Pixar movies, is it takes a simple concept that children can understand (doing what you love, loyalty to your family), and makes it universally appealing. There are two particular moments in the film that are so well crafted that it makes me realize how millions of people have experienced one of 'those things,' yet until now it's never been shown on screen. I don't want to spoil it, but if you've seen the movie, you probably know what I mean. These are the scenes that make a good movie great.

And, of course, Peter O'Toole doing the voice of Anton Ego is a highlight as well.

9.5/10

Continue reading...

7.06.2007

I'm going to revise my rating of The Apartment from this post.

I reacted prematurely in stating that some of the traditional elements seem dated by today's standards. Over the last year or so, I've watched a lot of Billy Wilder movies, and if asked who was my favorite writer/director, he would be it. What makes Billy Wilder so great is that his movies are timeless. Some Like It Hot is still hilarious. Sunset Blvd. is still a depressing story about clinging to lost dreams. Sabrina still tops any recent romantic comedies. The Apartment still holds up against the finest dramas.

Yes, I called The Apartment a 'drama.' See, that's the whole thing. Looking at The Apartment from a comedic perspective, it's funny, sure. But looking at it as a drama with comedic aspects is when the movie clicks.

This time around I focused a lot more on Shirley MacLaine, who plays Miss Kubelik so fantastically that it's impossible to not see how any man would want to take her home. But there's that other side, the side where she thinks, "I was jinxed from the word go. The first time I was ever kissed was in a cemetery." She's stuck in a place she doesn't want to be, and that in itself is depressing.

But then we see Jack Lemmon, fixed on his career. He loves Miss Kubelik, sure, but that comes a distant second to him willing to get pneumonia just for a chance at a promotion. It's very traditional: he wants a promotion, but he needs Miss Kubelik. Miss Kubelik makes him a better person -- she makes him be the one guy out of 31,000 who takes his hat off in the elevator. Not only do we sympathize with Jack Lemmon's character, but we're cheering for him to break the business shell and become a human being.

Billy Wilder may not be the most innovative director of all time, but he knows how to make a movie entertaining. In an interview he said, his first nine commandments were 'Thou Shalt Not Bore,' and his tenth was something like, 'Thou Shalt Have Rights to Final Cut.' That may explain why his movies are so good.

9.5/10

Continue reading...