So I just put in Roman Holiday for my nightly movie viewing. As I was watching the opening credits, I caught that it says, "and introducing Audrey Hepburn."
Now I know all the stories about this, that it was her first role, that she won an Oscar for this movie, that Gregory Peck called it, etc. etc. etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that now, almost 55 years later, I'm watching this movie, and while RH was her first real role, Audrey Hepburn has long since won her Oscar, played out her career, died, and become pretty much legendary. And this is where it started.
I think that's one reason why I like watching old movies so much, is because if you pay enough attention and put it together right, it's just like watching history.
8.20.2007
8.19.2007
Two movie notes, one on a movie that came out this week, one I just bought on DVD.
Last night I went and saw Superbad, which was a great experience. Normally I don't laugh at dick jokes, but they're met with some witty allusions from other characters, so it's just great. That probably made no sense. An example would be something like, Seth makes a joke about how he dated the hottest chick ever two years ago, and now his sex life is over, all down-hill from here. Then Evan says, 'Like Orson Welles.' Get it? If you do, congratulations. Out of the sold out theater, I think one of my friends and I were the only two people to laugh/get it.
But those jokes are definitely backseat to the vulgar, inappropriate, yet ultimately true statements made by the protagonists. And for once the 'lesson' at the end of the movie isn't done in cliche. Sure, the motif is a bit old-fashioned, but it plays out well.
My only real gripe with the movie is length. The scenes with the police officers for the first thirty minutes they had on screen were funny, but when the same two cops kept showing up it grew tiresome. While the rest of the movie stayed fresh, the cops became redundant, their jokes predictable. I guess, though, since Seth Rogan (who plays one of the cops) was a co-writer, he had to give himself as much screen time as possible.
Rating: 6/7
Now, seven months ago, because I was lazy, I gave Mulholland Dr. a 10/10 because Naomi Watts has lesbian scenes topless. Now, that's definitely a good reason for a perfect score, but there's a lot more to the movie than hot lesbian action.
I try to use the word 'masterpiece' sparingly. Mulholland Dr., if not a masterpiece, is very, very close. It is definitely David Lynch's best film. The movie clocks in at 145 minutes, with scenes ranging from music auditions to murders. There's quite a few storylines, and you can honestly double the count of however many characters you have, because the last forty or so minutes will fuck you over once you think you have the movie put together.
That's why this movie is so great. There are plenty (I've read a dozen, all of which could be valid) of theories, and am pretty stuck on my own. But still, every time I watch the movie, I question myself. To explain plot points would take pages, and it still would make no sense. Let's just say that there's a thin line between dream and reality, and nothing is really certain when it's all said and done.
I would type up my interpretation with a spoiler alert, but I know people would read it anyway without seeing the movie, so I won't. I'll leave it up to you, and if you're lucky you'll enjoy drawing your own conclusions.
Rating: 7/7
8.16.2007
So at this other site I'm doing weekly 'what's opening' glimpses. I figure, if I'm doing it anyway, might as well post here. Why am I doing this? Because no one wants to spend $7-$11 AND be forced to sit through a bad movie. Lose/lose. Of course, I'll be a little biased because I have better taste and have seen more movies than most people, but I'll keep some objectivity in mind. Modesty, not so much. Also, with the summer blockbuster season ending and the 'Oscar season' coming up, this will be a little guide.
First, and probably the most popular release this weekend is Superbad. IMDb. Trailer.
The trailer looks funny, which usually means the movie is mediocre. However, a surprising 82 on Metacritic and 89% CotC on RottenTomatoes make me think this is 114 minutes of good entertainment.
Second up in wide release is The Invasion IMDb. Trailer.
As much as I like Nicole Kidman, this looks trivial at best. Even the better reviews say it's predictable and, well, bad. Skip.
The last wide release this weekend is The Last Legion. IMDb. Trailer.
So aside from the terrible cheesy trailer and that the little kid is from Love Actually, the movie looks entertaining. But alas, I haven't heard anything about it before I watched the trailer just now, which usually means one thing: disaster.
This isn't really my thing, but since Leo DiCaprio is a pretty big star, here's The 11th Hour. IMDb. Trailer.
I mention this because I've heard more about this than both The Invasion and Last Legion, even though it's only in limited release. It's a documentary about Earth's climate, what people can do to save it, etc. If that's your thing you should check it out. If not, well... don't.
There's a few other limited releases, but they either won't attract any attention BO-wise, or aren't worth mentioning yet.
Jon's Choice
Go see Superbad.
8.11.2007
Since the movie I wanted to see this weekend was only in limited release (Rocket Science), instead I went to see 'Stardust.'
Surprisingly, though the movie is overly congested by the end with sub-plots and deus ex machinas, it's so fun that it doesn't matter.
Not straying far from the mold for romances, fantasies, or a combination of both, there's still a traditional sense of 'quest' and 'love' that has been around since, well, forever. What Stardust attempts to do is blend the realities, with a boy from real-world England going into a fantasy world where ghosts provide hilarious commentary, stars are incarnated as beautiful ladies (Claire Danes, whom I love forever), and witches need to eat hearts to survive.
The movie hits just the right amount of comedy, and though it's not overwhelming, it seems that the movie itself is just a tad too long. It breaks the two hour marker, which is almost a cardinal sin of rom-coms. Even though Robert DeNiro had some great moments, cutting out his plot line could've shortened the movie and not hurt it at all. I think it would've clocked in at about 90 minutes, which is close to perfect.
And why is Michelle Pfeiffer, even at (almost) 50, still the hottest chick in this movie? She's such a great actress and I'm glad she's back after a few years break. Between this and Hairspray I like her infinitely more.
If you're on the fence about seeing this, remember what one guy said to his group of 5 guy friends when the credits came up: "See, I told you it wasn't going to be as gay as you thought!"
Rating: 5.5/7
8.08.2007
I was at work tonight doing whatever, and these kids came up to me. Conversation went something like this:
Girls: What's your name?
Jon: Why, do I look like someone you know?
Girls: Yeah. What's your name?
Jon: What's your friend's name, and I'll tell you if it's the same as mine.
[at this point I think maybe they have me confused with my brother]
Girls: Warren, or _______, or ___________ (they said a few W names).
Jon: Nope. Does your friend live here?
Girls: No. We're from Tennessee.
Jon: Then why would I be, or know, him? I'm working here, so obviously I live here.
Girls: I don't know..........
Man, some people . . . .
8.01.2007
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.)
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.)
7.19.2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
