Conversations With Other Women, starring Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart, was one that I initially watched solely because of Helena. Being a huge Helena fan, I admit that the first time I watched it I think I was focused primarily on her. It wasn’t until I re-watched it recently that I saw that the movie as a whole was put together quite well. Helena and Aaron are essentially the only actors/physical in the film and they play the unnamed ‘man’ and ‘woman’. They meet at a wedding reception that they were both attending and engage in seemingly harmless small talk, which turns to flirting as the couple soon recall that they were lovers in the past. They seem to rekindle their past love as the night goes on, and despite the fact that they were both seriously attached to other people, a one night stand seems to be in consideration.
The very first thing you’ll notice about this film when watching it is the split screen. For the majority of the movie, one side of the screen is always focused on the woman and the other is focused on the man…except when they’re showing a flashback, which they can conveniently play at the same time as the present day due to the split screen. I thought originally that the split screen would be distracting, annoying, and get old after awhile, but you get used to it fairly quickly and it does add a certain intimacy to the movie.
The whole movie felt really honest to me…it was a small independent film with a budget less then half a million and I felt like that tight-knit feeling carried on into the movie. All the emotions that went into what happened that night felt so real, so developed, and so upsetting …
I really loved how the movie ended…the way it was filmed and the actual content of the scene both satisfied me. I don’t like when you can predict many film’s endings by just assuming that it was going to work out for the characters…you can’t do that for this movie, and that’s what I like…it’s different.
7.0/10
Friday, August 19, 2011
District 9
District 9 is a sci-fi type of movie in a unique setting, the slums of South Africa. It starts out as a spaceship sits hovering over South Africa for close to three months…Obviously, that is slightly concerning, so the government sends some military guys up to the spaceship to check that shit out. Upon breaking into the hovercraft they discover aliens in pretty rough physical shape. They bring them down to ground and set up an area called District 9 where the aliens are nourished and can live to recuperate. Years later (I think, I’m sorry I’m terrible with details…oops) they aliens nicknamed “prawns” are still living on earth and have created a slum in the middle of South Africa. Their presence is causing tension so the government decides to move the prawns to a newly build District 10 which is farther away from the African city. However, when this plan goes into action, shit kinda hits the fan and that’s when all the action begins to go down.
I really loved that it was set in South Africa…it’s not the typical setting for a sci-fi movie and I appreciate when a movie switches stuff up, especially when the plot isn’t entirely unique. The simple plot actually worked for this film though…it made it more believable…which is a benefit considering the subject matter. Even the aliens were more plausible because they were less animal-like then the stereotypical extraterrestrial. They have families and jobs and are intelligent…it allows us to feel and sympathize with them more.
Last thing I have to criticize, kinda, is the camera. I love the shaky camcorder feel, similar to movies like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, but the documentary type interviews at the beginning were just a tad bit too much. They were interesting to begin with, but they ran on for just a little too long into the movie.
Altogether, it was entertaining, different, and unique and an easy watch. It didn’t require a great amount of thought, it wasn’t confusing or anything…just a nice viewing.
7.8
I really loved that it was set in South Africa…it’s not the typical setting for a sci-fi movie and I appreciate when a movie switches stuff up, especially when the plot isn’t entirely unique. The simple plot actually worked for this film though…it made it more believable…which is a benefit considering the subject matter. Even the aliens were more plausible because they were less animal-like then the stereotypical extraterrestrial. They have families and jobs and are intelligent…it allows us to feel and sympathize with them more.
Last thing I have to criticize, kinda, is the camera. I love the shaky camcorder feel, similar to movies like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, but the documentary type interviews at the beginning were just a tad bit too much. They were interesting to begin with, but they ran on for just a little too long into the movie.
Altogether, it was entertaining, different, and unique and an easy watch. It didn’t require a great amount of thought, it wasn’t confusing or anything…just a nice viewing.
7.8
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Big Lebowski
Kinda a classic, made in 1998 establishing Jeff Bridges as "The Dude" :P
It starts off with Jeffrey Lebowski, who's Jeff Bridges' character, having his home broken into and being kinda verbally and physically abused by some random gangsters looking for money from him. He has no idea what they're talking about and eventually they leave...but not without violating his carpet, by urinating on it. Well, way to piss of the Dude right?
So, the Dude tries to hunt down the other Jeffrey Lebowski, whom the gangsters were looking for in the first place. I think it would be noteworthy to mention that "The Dude" Lebowski is pretty much a pathetic slacker while the other Lebowski is a millionaire. Upon finding the millionaire Lebowski he winds up involved with large sums of money and a task to find a kidnapped wife. From there on, it takes a feel similar to Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels...in the sense that you have no idea what the fuck is really going on. Money goes from hand to hand and people get pissed at each other but there's always an obvious presence of the easy going, carefree life that the Dude and his bowling buddies are dedicated too.
I really enjoyed watching this movie, a fantastic laugh that actually gave my brain a break...
I love the Coen brothers, and they continue to impress me with this one. I'm also a huge Jeff Bridges fan and this is officially my favourite movie and character he's done.
I've only seen the movie once, yet I feel like it's the kind of movie that only gets better the more times you watch it.
I'm actually now kind of having a hard time deciding whether I like it better than Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels now...initially it was no, then it was yes! However now, I'm thinking it may fall a bit short, I'm afraid.
They have very similar messes as plots. All over the place involving money, drugs, and guns...but where I have trouble is the cast. I like the Coen brothers directing better than I do with Guy Ritchie, and I'm a bigger fan of Jeff Bridges than I am for any of the actors in Lock Stock...however, Jeff Bridges, aside from the small role of Steve Buscemi, is pretty much the only character I found very very intriguing..and with Lock Stock, there was a good five British actors that just blew it out of the water.
Anyway, toss up as of now...so, it's getting...
8.6/10
It starts off with Jeffrey Lebowski, who's Jeff Bridges' character, having his home broken into and being kinda verbally and physically abused by some random gangsters looking for money from him. He has no idea what they're talking about and eventually they leave...but not without violating his carpet, by urinating on it. Well, way to piss of the Dude right?
So, the Dude tries to hunt down the other Jeffrey Lebowski, whom the gangsters were looking for in the first place. I think it would be noteworthy to mention that "The Dude" Lebowski is pretty much a pathetic slacker while the other Lebowski is a millionaire. Upon finding the millionaire Lebowski he winds up involved with large sums of money and a task to find a kidnapped wife. From there on, it takes a feel similar to Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels...in the sense that you have no idea what the fuck is really going on. Money goes from hand to hand and people get pissed at each other but there's always an obvious presence of the easy going, carefree life that the Dude and his bowling buddies are dedicated too.
I really enjoyed watching this movie, a fantastic laugh that actually gave my brain a break...
I love the Coen brothers, and they continue to impress me with this one. I'm also a huge Jeff Bridges fan and this is officially my favourite movie and character he's done.
I've only seen the movie once, yet I feel like it's the kind of movie that only gets better the more times you watch it.
I'm actually now kind of having a hard time deciding whether I like it better than Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels now...initially it was no, then it was yes! However now, I'm thinking it may fall a bit short, I'm afraid.
They have very similar messes as plots. All over the place involving money, drugs, and guns...but where I have trouble is the cast. I like the Coen brothers directing better than I do with Guy Ritchie, and I'm a bigger fan of Jeff Bridges than I am for any of the actors in Lock Stock...however, Jeff Bridges, aside from the small role of Steve Buscemi, is pretty much the only character I found very very intriguing..and with Lock Stock, there was a good five British actors that just blew it out of the water.
Anyway, toss up as of now...so, it's getting...
8.6/10
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Fighter
So, I have to say that The Fighter definitely exceeded my expectations. I had never heard of the director, David O. Russell, but when I looked him up I discovered he also directed I Heart Huckabees...which was a decent movie.
But even knowing that, this quality of movie I was not expecting from someone I had never heard/watched before.
The plot was relatively simple...based on a true story, the story of boxer Micky Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg. This boxer has potential...but he is surrounded by this crazy family and his ex-boxer crack addict brother, played by Christian Bale.
Once again, Christian Bale shows us how serious he is about roles...dropping weight and working out (although not as much as in The Machinist...I don't think ANY role I've seen has been as physically extreme as him in The Machinist)
The biggest surprise for me was Mark Wahlberg. I was really not a fan of him before I saw this movie. I thought he was a terrible actor, I never appreciated the roles he played, and just him as a person...kinda pissed me off. However, he really impressed me with his role as Micky Ward. I will admit, the quality of his acting still was not 100%, but the story and emotion in the character made up for it. He made me really feel for his character, I loved him!
I can't pinpoint exactly what I liked about this movie so much...it didn't stick with me on an philosophical level, I wasn't left wondering about the meaning or symbolism in the movie...but I WAS left wanting to watch it again. From the day after I saw it, up until today, I've thought a lot about seeing it again.
8.1/10
But even knowing that, this quality of movie I was not expecting from someone I had never heard/watched before.
The plot was relatively simple...based on a true story, the story of boxer Micky Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg. This boxer has potential...but he is surrounded by this crazy family and his ex-boxer crack addict brother, played by Christian Bale.
Once again, Christian Bale shows us how serious he is about roles...dropping weight and working out (although not as much as in The Machinist...I don't think ANY role I've seen has been as physically extreme as him in The Machinist)
The biggest surprise for me was Mark Wahlberg. I was really not a fan of him before I saw this movie. I thought he was a terrible actor, I never appreciated the roles he played, and just him as a person...kinda pissed me off. However, he really impressed me with his role as Micky Ward. I will admit, the quality of his acting still was not 100%, but the story and emotion in the character made up for it. He made me really feel for his character, I loved him!
I can't pinpoint exactly what I liked about this movie so much...it didn't stick with me on an philosophical level, I wasn't left wondering about the meaning or symbolism in the movie...but I WAS left wanting to watch it again. From the day after I saw it, up until today, I've thought a lot about seeing it again.
8.1/10
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
True Grit
I think this is awesome, so many good movies are actually coming out new now, and I'm loving it...so I saw this one in theatres the other day. Unfortunately I had not read the book before I saw the movie, I have read it now, so I can compare them both.
It's basically about this young girl (12...i think?) who needs to hunt down a man Tom Chaney who murdered her father. She seeks the help of U.S. marshal Rooster Cogburn, played by Jeff Bridges and this Laboeuf guy who ...is also looking for Chaney.
So...this old man Cogburn and this young girl Mattie go on this hunt for this guy...accompanied by Laboeuf at times, because he leaves the group halfway through. That is one of the things that stuck out to me as a difference between the book and the movie. In the book, Laboeuf doesn't leave, and obviously, the events that occur when Laboeuf returns to the group doesn't occur in the novel either. Other than that, I didn't pick out much that was different between the two. A little bit more different in the ending, but nothing major...at least I didn't think so. I seem to have a really bad habit of not accurately comparing books and movies. I always seem to think they do a fairly good job until other people point out really obvious flaws lmao.
Anyway, the plot is simple...but simplicity can be a good thing, and it does work in this movie. The only complaint I have with the simplicity of the movie was the climax. No matter how simple and slow a plot may be, the climax needs to be big...and the climax kindaa flopped, I have to admit. It was still good though it was only a minor dissapointent.
I love Jeff Bridges! I think he is one cool dude...that guy is like, a 'man'. He is just...amazingly awesome, that is all I have to say.
Matt Damon, not a huge fan :/ I kinda can't stand him...he was okay in this movie. I don't think it helped that I didn't think his character was fantastic, and I do blame a bit on him, but, I think the character himself could have been better coming from the Coen brothers.
My biggest complaint, which really doesn't have to do with film quality, was how much of an ass Mattie turned out to be. I loved Cogburn and the way Mattie treats him in the end just pisses me off so much...she shoulda lost the other arm, she deserved em both gone!
Good movie, not for everyone, slow but definitely cool.
8.4/10
It's basically about this young girl (12...i think?) who needs to hunt down a man Tom Chaney who murdered her father. She seeks the help of U.S. marshal Rooster Cogburn, played by Jeff Bridges and this Laboeuf guy who ...is also looking for Chaney.
So...this old man Cogburn and this young girl Mattie go on this hunt for this guy...accompanied by Laboeuf at times, because he leaves the group halfway through. That is one of the things that stuck out to me as a difference between the book and the movie. In the book, Laboeuf doesn't leave, and obviously, the events that occur when Laboeuf returns to the group doesn't occur in the novel either. Other than that, I didn't pick out much that was different between the two. A little bit more different in the ending, but nothing major...at least I didn't think so. I seem to have a really bad habit of not accurately comparing books and movies. I always seem to think they do a fairly good job until other people point out really obvious flaws lmao.
Anyway, the plot is simple...but simplicity can be a good thing, and it does work in this movie. The only complaint I have with the simplicity of the movie was the climax. No matter how simple and slow a plot may be, the climax needs to be big...and the climax kindaa flopped, I have to admit. It was still good though it was only a minor dissapointent.
I love Jeff Bridges! I think he is one cool dude...that guy is like, a 'man'. He is just...amazingly awesome, that is all I have to say.
Matt Damon, not a huge fan :/ I kinda can't stand him...he was okay in this movie. I don't think it helped that I didn't think his character was fantastic, and I do blame a bit on him, but, I think the character himself could have been better coming from the Coen brothers.
My biggest complaint, which really doesn't have to do with film quality, was how much of an ass Mattie turned out to be. I loved Cogburn and the way Mattie treats him in the end just pisses me off so much...she shoulda lost the other arm, she deserved em both gone!
Good movie, not for everyone, slow but definitely cool.
8.4/10
Black Swan
Well, I obviously had extremely high expectations for this film as Darren Aronofsky is one of my top absolute favourite directors! I love everything he does. I'll admit that I was the SLIGHTEST bit skeptical when I heard that he was doing a movie about a ballet dancer...cause, I just found it strange, I couldn't really picture it. But, I should have known better, because he puts an amazing spin on ballet, making it shocking for anyone expecting a typical 'ballet' movie (Heard a few stories from friends...was NOT what they were expecting :P )
The movie revolves around Nina, an extremely dedicated and quite good ballet dancer. She scores the role of swan queen in a ballet production put on by the studio she belongs to. The catch is...the role of the swan queen is a progressive one...in which the swan transforms from the elegant and confident white swan to a dark and depressed black swan...
She has trouble transforming into the black swan on the stage, as she is too uptight and controlled...until, slowly, she loses control and her mind as the transformation becomes very real.
Natalie Portman actually does a fantastic job...I'm not really a fan, as I don't fully agree with a lot of the acting roles she accepts...I don't really feel as though she has high standards...which makes me question if she really knew what a fantastic role she had from Aronofsky...BUT I'll leave it at that because I have no complaints about her performance in this particular film.
I read recently someone compared Darren Aronofsky to Nick Cave...and at first I was kinda like 'what the fuck' ...how....and then, the more I thought about it, the more it actually makes complete sense. They both produce work that is extremely raw, gritty, and real. It's the real shit! It's not going to come easy for the audience...it's gross, and disturbing, and ugly but SO intriguing...you cannot stop watching it no matter how uncomfortable it makes you (and it WILL make you uncomfortable).
This time, Aronofsky focused on the grit in the characters rather than the setting like with Requiem or Pi. So...I do see the resemblance between Cave's work and Aronofsky's and I am a HUGE fan of them both.
One last thing that I need to mention is the length of the film. It's an hour forty I believe, and within that hour forty there are very few 'slow' moments and even those are completely entertaining. I feel like so many movies now are like going for two and a half hours...and I don't know if they think that that somehow improves the quality of the movie, but it really doesn't. It's quality over quantity for sure. The length of the movie was ideal. It would have been so easy to drag it out and make it nice and long...but he didn't and I appreciate it. :P
Definitely a must see.
9.3/10
The movie revolves around Nina, an extremely dedicated and quite good ballet dancer. She scores the role of swan queen in a ballet production put on by the studio she belongs to. The catch is...the role of the swan queen is a progressive one...in which the swan transforms from the elegant and confident white swan to a dark and depressed black swan...
She has trouble transforming into the black swan on the stage, as she is too uptight and controlled...until, slowly, she loses control and her mind as the transformation becomes very real.
Natalie Portman actually does a fantastic job...I'm not really a fan, as I don't fully agree with a lot of the acting roles she accepts...I don't really feel as though she has high standards...which makes me question if she really knew what a fantastic role she had from Aronofsky...BUT I'll leave it at that because I have no complaints about her performance in this particular film.
I read recently someone compared Darren Aronofsky to Nick Cave...and at first I was kinda like 'what the fuck' ...how....and then, the more I thought about it, the more it actually makes complete sense. They both produce work that is extremely raw, gritty, and real. It's the real shit! It's not going to come easy for the audience...it's gross, and disturbing, and ugly but SO intriguing...you cannot stop watching it no matter how uncomfortable it makes you (and it WILL make you uncomfortable).
This time, Aronofsky focused on the grit in the characters rather than the setting like with Requiem or Pi. So...I do see the resemblance between Cave's work and Aronofsky's and I am a HUGE fan of them both.
One last thing that I need to mention is the length of the film. It's an hour forty I believe, and within that hour forty there are very few 'slow' moments and even those are completely entertaining. I feel like so many movies now are like going for two and a half hours...and I don't know if they think that that somehow improves the quality of the movie, but it really doesn't. It's quality over quantity for sure. The length of the movie was ideal. It would have been so easy to drag it out and make it nice and long...but he didn't and I appreciate it. :P
Definitely a must see.
9.3/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
