Rock of Ages 2/10
Holy crap that sucked! I seriously want that chunk of my life back. I was tempted to give it a 3-3 1/2 because I did laugh quite a bit. I chose the 2 because I was laughing at how bad the movie was instead of how funny it wasn't.
The FP
Do you like 80s gang/martial arts movies? Were you around/aware of the video game scene in the early 2000s? Do you have a taste for tongue-in-cheek schlock?
If so, then 10 out of 10.
Picture, say, The Last Dragon, but all the kung-fu replaced by Dance Dance Revolution. Definitely not for everyone, but if that sounds vaguely appealing to you, you'll love it. I did.
And I feel strangely compelled to make some really crappy rave techno!
The Master - 9/10 This movie had an incredible display of acting. That aspect alone had me memorized. The characters were hopelessly flawed, and the movie was well shot.
Looper - 8/10 Best "action" movie I have seen in quite a while. It had surprising depth, and I enjoyed the story as well as the acting that the leads provided. Good story as well.
The Twighlight Saga: Eclipse and Breaking Dawn Part 1.
Amazon Streaming currently has them each for just 99ยข.
Decent. 6 or 7-ish. Hey, I think the films are fair enough. I'm sure I'll never bother reading the books. But, the films are entertaining enough. I think that if a person can like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a person shouldn't have too much trouble liking the Twilight films. I will say that the they sure did quite a job making Bella
look ill
in Breaking Dawn. On the other hand, I think the
brawl scene between the vampires and the werewolves
in that same film showed the limitations of CGI somewhat. Not complaining, really. If not for CGI, such would not even be possible. Sings: It's a whole new worrrrrrrrld...
I can't say I noticed the soundtracks for any of the previous movies, but Breaking Dawn's soundtrack rather stood out. I might have to check it out. Might be my speed.
And besides...any film that has Michael Sheen in it...well, it has to be at least half good.
I liked it for the most part, but if it wasn't for the Batman theme, it'd be a weak film. Well, when I think about it... it isn't really a Batman movie.
I hated Catwomans "costume": Absolutely laughable.
Banes voice was annoying as hell, but maybe that's what it was supposed to be.
The whole
"let the rope go and your fear will come back"
part was sooooooo bad. Who the hell wrote this shit into the screenplay?!
Well, 7/10 for me, but just because of Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Without them it would just be a 6/10.
The second big disappointment from Nolan after "Inception" for me.
Liked it! The shaky camera work suits the story and the chemistry between Pena and Gyllenhaal is very good.
BUT I have a problem with the last 15 minutes.
First: WHY THE FUCK are they pursuing an asshole that's driving like hell and running into a big apartment building with just their sidearms? Every patrol has at least a shotgun in their car, so why the hell don't take it with them?
Second: They shoot the asshole in the hallway when leaving the apartment. The now dead asshole had an AK with him. WHY IN GODS NAME don't they take it?!
Third: WHY THE HELL do bad guys always have to die in slow motion?
8.5/10 for me without the last 15 minutes, that make no sense. With them in, 7/10.
The Master - Left feeling a bit ambivalent by it to be honest. Some beautiful cinematography and the acting was compelling but the characters didn't really shift or grow so I'm unsure as to whether it was truly great acting. They certainly did a great job of grimacing into the camera on close up.
I like how it didn't follow an obvious "Plot", but the lack of anything really significant happening means the whole thing is a bit pointless, you could probably watch the film backwards and it'd still make as much sense.
Anna Karenina. I'm having difficulty seeing the film without seeing it through the prism of having read the book recently.
Let me say this. Okay, I've also read The Brothers Karamazov recently, as well. That was my second Dostoyevsky. Anna Karenina was my first Tolstoy. My point is, that's enough for me. I've had it with those two. Especially Dostoyevsky. For Chri-- I mean, for cripes sake...reading Dostoyevsky is like listening to a contemporary evangelical preacher. That's his schtick.
You must believe in God. You must believe in the Church. You must not be an atheist. You must not be a secularist. You must not be a socialist. You must not be a positivist. Otherwise, you are mentally ill. Otherwise, you are morally retarded. Otherwise, you will steal and do murder because to not be a believer must mean to believe -and to act upon- his assumption that, in that case, your guiding light must be: all is permitted.
Bollocks.
(Forgive me. I'm very aware that I've happily borrowed "bollocks" from our British cousins. It's become a part of my vocabularly, for better or for worse. It's a good word.)
Anyway. Okay, Tolstoy is all right. At least he doesn't quite beat you over the head with his PTSD induced, rightwinger theism. And he's certainly the better writer. He's a pretty outstanding psychological writer, for lack of a better way of putting it. That's the primary strength and value of Anna Karenina. Without it, surely, I would have abandoned it before finishing.
But I have to wonder: do the literati, or the cultural elite, or the Illuminati (just kidding), or whoever determines these things choose what's to be classic or great literature based primarily upon what is terribly stodgy, stultifiying, and dully inane?
Okay, that's not fair...not fair to Tolstoy, anyway. That was mostly directed in Mr. Dostoypoopsky's direction.
So, Dostoypoopsky wrote novels about the clash between Christian religion and modernism. Ooooooooo. So, Dostoypoopsky wrote about about how nonreligious people are ill and are bad. Ooooooooo. So, Dostoypoopsky wrote about the transformative and saving grace of rediscovering religion. Oooooooooo.
That's so deep. So thoughtful. Damn, I think we have ourselves a classic, here, Beatrice!
So anyway, I was damn glad when I was finished reading Anna Karenina. That's not to say that I don't appreciate it it or see its value. I do. But, again, one of the things that seems to be a hallmark of the books that the smarty pantses choose to be "classics" seems to be that they each should -not- engross you, not take you away, not make you forget yourself, and certainly not transport you to another world. Oh, wait a minute, so their agenda is to choose pretty much, precisely what I'm -not- looking for in a novel. How 'bout that?!
I know. Aren't I the Philistine.
But despite all of that, that's not to say that I'm not tempted to try War and Peace. But surely, I'm not -that- much of a masochist.
Back to the film.
I mostly liked it-ish, sort of, I guess. Mmmmm. I thought that choosing to shoot much of it like it were a stage play was pretty brilliant, mostly because it helped to breath a little life, a little pep into a pretty stultifying story.
I like Keira Knightly, I really do. But, I just didn't feel that she was quite right for the role. I don't think that she's what my mind's eye pictured her to be, quite, and I think that's she's not quite how Tolstoy described her, either. Maybe I just didn't read him right. And, of course, a film adaptation cannot be a slave to the book it's adapting. I actually felt like the actor playing Dolly, Kelly MacDonald, would be more like how I imagined Anna to be. Probably just me, huh?
If you've read the book, and especially if you love the book, be warned, the film is much abridged, the "third act," especially. But, the fact is, I was about ready to start nodding off when Anna abruptly...you know. So, it was a bit of a mercy, all the same.
Another thing that the film lacked, I felt, was this: in the book it's pretty well established that Karenin is an insensitive jerk. No, he's not exactly a bad man. But, there is some reason for Anna to go casting her eyes for another. None of that, really, is in this film. So, Karenin, in this film, is pretty much a put-upon, saintly figure. I think that that's just not right for this tale. Anyway, it doesn't bear much resemblance to the story in the book, on that score. But of course, it's fair play for the film to be a different animal than the book it's adapting.
So, the filmmakers get points for bravery which turns out rather successfully, on the one hand. By the way, I love Matthew Macfayden as Oblonsky. On the other hand, I'm sorry to say that I feel Ms. Knightly was miscast as Anna, and I really doubt that any filmmaker is going to make a great success of a film adaptation of this book. I think maybe it's just not all that cinematic of a tale. Like I said, it's not all that thrilling of a tale in the first place!
Disaster Mondays--my friends and I drink good booze and watch bad movies. Last night was Metal Tornado with Lou Diamond Phillips. Pretty sure it was a SyFy original feature....
SIGHTSEERS- Really hope this gets a big US release because it's an excellent example of low-budget film making that we can all aspire towards. Also, if you haven't already, watch Kill List and Down Terrace.
I liked it for the most part, but if it wasn't for the Batman theme, it'd be a weak film. Well, when I think about it... it isn't really a Batman movie.
I hated Catwomans "costume": Absolutely laughable.
Banes voice was annoying as hell, but maybe that's what it was supposed to be.
The whole
"let the rope go and your fear will come back"
part was sooooooo bad. Who the hell wrote this shit into the screenplay?!
Well, 7/10 for me, but just because of Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Without them it would just be a 6/10.
The second big disappointment from Nolan after "Inception" for me.
Sorry but I have to butt in, I thought it was a great movie. Aside from a few plot holes, it was entertaining, filmed wonderfully, and I thought Tom Hardy did a fantastic job as Bane. Excellent villain.
Anyway, back to topic.
Killing Them Softly 8/10
Another movie this year with a grand display of fantastic acting. The movie itself was somewhat surprising; I expected an action movie, and that's really not what it was at all.
Rereading it, I see it sounds a bit skewed. I should add that there were bits in the book (A.K.) that left me thinking, yeah, wow, that's pretty brilliant writing, and, which, even left me feeling a little exhilarated, say true. Even so, those weren't enough to really get me into the novel as a whole. But I understand why some think it's one of the greatest novels, or even the greatest. =)
I think this is a pretty good one, at least if you're interested in Lovecraft.
Some audio problems. The music gets too loud at points, you know how that is, so that the interviewees' voices have to compete with it. That drives me up the wall. But overall, not a deal breaker.
Best of all, they did a fine job of getting a bunch of really interesting people in their own rights to talk about the subject. Like Neil Gaiman and Guillermo del Torro, for instance.
Rust and Bone - 9/10 - Honestly, I cried twice during the film. Jacques Audiards' directing and writing truly inspired me. That combined with brilliant acting from Marion Cotillard and Matthias Schoenaerts made me melt in the cinema seat. EDIT: Also, I saw it with two VFX artists and we were all blown away by the CG, for a non-blockbuster the CG was flawless.
Amour- 8/10 - Michael Haneke's controlled directing rattled me a little. It was quite eye opening how he tense he could make a scene feel. The story itself was quite heart wrenching, and the acting was superb. Again I may have shed a tear in one of the scenes, but that was due to how really quite emotional it was.
The Beat That My Heart Skipped - 7/10 - Another Jacques Audiard film I tried after being amazed by Rust and Bone. I wasn't as impressed, but I could see how he had developed. Inspired me to whip out my piano again and have a play
