Apocalypse Now (please log in to view the image)
Let's get a few of my opinions straight, "The Godfather" is recognized by many as Coppola's best work, and unfairly so. "The Godfather" is good for what it is, Coppola trying his hand at minimalist directing, and Brando's brilliance. But that's all you really get, leaving you a little underwhelmed. As a result, I was expecting little from Apocalypse Now.
"Apocalypse Now" has a whopping three hour long run time. At first, "Apocalypse Now" seemed to be a bit of a bore. Martin Sheen reminiscing on his past, and how much he missed the army. But the second, and I mean the second Martin Sheen starts traveling on the boat, the film takes a turn for the best. Every shot is very rich in detail, very fluorescent. The film is notorious for Marlon Brando's performance, and it is mesmerizing, I may dare to say that Brando gives the best performance of all time. Some what unnecessary, sure, but haunting. "Apocalypse Now" tells it's story not only through a fantastic script, but through amazing visuals.
It stands as not only the best war film of all time, but it's also one of the best films of all time.
I don't think it deserves to be considered the best war movie ever, because it's not about war. It was just a vehicle a filmmaker used to let everyone know he was against it, and it was loaded with self-opinionated propaganda. A few nice vignettes, a quotable line or two, and the rest is easily forgotten, IMO.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Jan 11th, 2007 at 09:11 PM
That's not true at all. "Apocalypse Now" was incredibly preachy. If it were about the war, it wouldn't have focused on Martin Sheen's character the whole time. Both this and "Full Metal Jacket" aren't war movies. They're character studies with social commentary.
There are plenty of "real" war movies out there. "Bridge On the River Kwai", "The Longest Day", "Paths of Glory", "Sands of Iwo Jima"..the list goes on. I've never liked "Apocalypse Now" namely because it bored me. It's war. It's fairly obvious after seeing so much inhumanity, it's going to get to you. And war is bad.
Last edited by Cory Chaos on Jan 11th, 2007 at 09:20 PM
Directed by Bruce A. Evans
Cast: Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger, Danielle Panabaker, Ruben Santiago-Hudson, Aisha Hinds, Lindsay Crouse, Jason Lewis, Reiko Aylesworth, Matt Schulze,
2007 – 120 minutes
Rated: R (for violence, some graphic sexual content, nudity and language)
One of the most interesting turns in the serial killer genre since 1995's genius "Seven". "Mr. Brooks" delivers the exact mystery that the single poster for the film holds. This movie goes on for a nearly two-hour time period, but moves faster than I could have possibly imagined. Each time when I checked the clock I saw that thirty minutes had passed without a sweat. Which means the script is nearly flawless until the end in which the last fatal scene made me question whether I was actually satisfied with it or not. To this point, I still don't like the ending because it felt like it was attached on during post-production like the ending to 2002's "Ghost Ship" or 2003's "Gothika". With me, "Mr. Brooks" head was laying on a pretty good two and a half stars until I came to realize that the ending wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad the aforementioned ones. Everything up to that was taut, tense, well-paced, and original.
Mr. Earl Brooks is a wealthy and successful Oregon-based businessman, a loving husband to wife Emma (Marg Helgenberger), and a doting father to college-aged daughter Jane (Danielle Panabaker). What no one knows is that he is also a brilliant sociopath and cold-blooded murderer known as "The Thumbprint Killer." After managing to keep his psychotic tendencies in check for a couple years, his increasing bloodlust leads him to claim the lives of two new victims. Meticulous in disposing of all possible evidence, he has continuously eluded and baffled the law. All of that is suddenly threatened by the appearance of Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), who snapped incriminating shots of Mr. Brooks at the crime scene from his apartment next door and is threatening to go to the police if his demands aren't met. Mr. Smith's blackmail isn't based on monetary desires, though; he wants Mr. Brooks to take him under his wing and show him the ropes of serial murder.
Though "Mr. Brooks" is first and foremost a psychological mystery it still has small but overall thrilling scenes. They star Demi Moore (2006's "Bobby") who is a powerhouse in her role playing detective Tracy Atwood. Her character interacts only three times within the other people who're even really related to the central doings of Mr. Brooks, and you'll wonder what her storyline has to do with anything. It will lead you to think that the movie is going to leave a whole load of lose ends, but the script is so beautifully layered that it will make itself clear. Dane Cook, (2006's "Employee of the Month") who I'm honestly not a big fan of, does astoundingly good in a role that doesn't rely any comedic talent whatsoever. Danielle Panabaker (2005's Yours, Mine & Ours) is mediocre at the start, but when one fact comes into the state of things, her Jane Brooks becomes a dangerous ally. Panabaker is in and out of the movie in moderation, her last scene softly and really shows what a range she can have as an actress. The simple movement of her body and the look that comes across her face has the viewer feeling exactly what she was thinking. Finally, Kevin Costner (2006's "The Guardian") is Mr. Brooks, making him a character who is a serial killer, but one that you actually like. His performance is solid but subtle, playing his schizophrenic tendencies quietly without obnoxiously overacting.
"Mr. Brooks" is smart, which can be alot to say for most attempts at physcological thrillers and you'll see this genre put little things into a movie to try and make itself clever. Here though, all the pieces fit together and can be rearanged to make predictibility almost impossible. Ends are tricky things, even for accomplished writers. I'm not saying they did a bad job, but before that last bit, I was seconds away from declaring it "The Greatest Ending Ever". Still, it's refreshing to see a bit of orginality and something that requires thought process.
Directed by Rupert Wainwright
Cast: Maggie Grace, Tom Welling, Selma Blair, DeRay Davis, Kenneth Welsh, Adrian Hough, Sara Botsford, Cole Heppell, Mary Black, Jonathon Young, R.
2005 – 100 minutes
Rated: PG-13 (for violence and brief sexuality).
Having not seen the original 1980's flick, I don't really have anything to compare it to. What I do have to say is that this movie takes stupid and blows it right out of the freaking water. To be honest, the beginning wasn't all that bad,it had a little going for it. Oh, but of course, it botched it. There were few suceeding jump scares, then none, but the film was still atleast forgivable. Then the script became so convoluted and such a dreary mess that you just wanted to get up and scream at the film for making a movie so bad that you felt your IQ drop during every second that passed.
With the anniversary of Oregon island community Antonio Bay fast approaching, so does a deadly fog, drifting against the wind and toward land as it takes the life of whoever it envelops. The ghostly apparitions within, who were robbed and murdered at the hands of the town's founding fathers, want revenge, plain and simple. Their targets: innocent present-day descendants of their killers, including studly fishing captain Nick Castle (Tom Welling); his girlfriend, on-hiatus college student Elizabeth Williams (Maggie Grace), just back in town as hell starts breaking loose; and local smooth-talking radio deejay Stevie Wayne (Selma Blair), who happens to be Nick's ex. Must be a really small town. Elizabeth, plagued by nightmares, is the first to suspect something is awry, and goes about trying to solve the mystery a 'la Nancy Drew and put a stop to their deadly plans.
One of the many oddities is that the only character that seems even relatively smart is that of Stevie's son, who is obviously younger than the rest of the cast by atleast twenty years. The intelligence of these characters is frustrating, they seem to forget eery happenings within seconds of seeing them and walk around in the cold in nothing but their underwear. It's so frustrating that by the end the script seems to be tweaked out with such befuddlement that it can't find anything better to do with its characters rather than randomly kill them off or leave them hanging on a loose end. It only gets better(sarcasm), the script and the characters aren't the only thing that exceed stupidity, the special effects do as well. It would have been more appropriate and even realistic to use a fog machine rather than CGI. The fog doesn't look like it's lurking its way through the island naturally, but in a forced and clunky manner. The special effects are working against everything in every way, there is a scene(I don't find this to be much of a spoiler, but this is your only warning against it.) where a hand shoots up out of the sink and grab Stevie's mother. After it lets go her hand starts on fire as she shrivels up into a steaming skeleton(which seems to resemble the glanced bodies from 1977's orginal "Star Wars"). As I watched that, I couldn't help but giggle as it looked so unreal and unintentionally hilarious.
All the actors have an amount of talent, but the audience is let down here, as are the actors, by the script. The only performance that leaves a good impression is that of Selma Blair (2004's "A Dirty Shame"). As Stevie Wayne, she fairs best, not as awkward when saying her lines as the other two actors are. Maggie Grace(TV's "Lost") is okay, but seems a little stale during the majority of her screen time. She only hits a fair note when she is supposed to express sarcasm, but I don't believe that the movie was made for that. Lets just hope that next time, she picks a better role to expand on her talents. Tom Welling (2003's "Cheaper by the Dozen") is boring as the lead the male protoganist. His character seems like a snot even when you can clearly see that he isn't. I'm not sure that's exactly the feat that Welling was trying to tackle, but he did a heck of a good job at it.
Filled over the edge with asisnine ideas, a faulty and outright confusing ending, "The Fog" fails at everything that it attempts. It's boring and nauseating, making everyone want the fog to take them before the movie can end just so they can escape the only horror thats been brought upon them, and thats having to watch the movie itself. If I didn't feel that I had the duty and the need to see the end, I probably would have shut it off, but thankfully for you I'm here to tell you to never ever watch this movie because you might be seeing yourself in Special Ed.
(please log in to view the image) Skinwalkers (2007)
(please log in to view the image)
Directed by James Isaac
Cast: Matthew Knight, Rhona Mitra, Jason Behr, Elias Koteas, Kim Coates, Natassia Malthe, Sarah Carter, Tom Jackson, Rogue Johnston, Barbara Gordon, Shawn Roberts, Lyriq Bent, Wendy Crewson, Julian Richings
2007 – 95 minutes
Rated: PG-13 (for violence, some sexual material and language).
Two werewolf movies in a year, that's an accomplishment. It's hopeful too, because werewolf and vampire movies can always be good or atleast mind-consuming. The movie wasn't huge and didn't open at all to good reviews, but in it's own right, opens the door to more theatrically released supernatural films. Some ideas, though not particulary original, work in a satisfying manner.
The movie, unsurprisingly, has many faults. One of them happen to be the actual look of the werewolves. In the right position and light, they do have a general creepiness to them, but still don't do justice. The inspiration, clearly from 80's B-movies, has you wishing for a more humanoid version. The have a rightful place, though, in being a step up from the regular wolves in 2007's "Blood and Chocolate." A small but other problem is a little scene near the beggining where two of the antagonists come together to have some weird, awkward, skinwalker, metamorphis, after sex. It has no nudity, which is should be farely obvious due to the PG-13 rating, but you wonder if nudity might have helped.
The "Skinwalkers" of the title are two warring groups of werewolves, one that wants to use their supernatural powers for good and one that wants to use them for evil. According to Native American lore, only a chosen young boy on his thirteenth birthday has the power to lift the curse. More specifically, that boy is Timothy (Matthew Knight), oblivious to his powerful destiny and swept up into a whirlwind of running and hiding with single mom Rachel (Rhona Mitra) after he is marked for death. Fighting on Timothy's and Rachel's side is Timothy's paternal family members, including Uncle Jonas (Elias Koteas) and cousin Katherine (Sarah Carter). Heading up the opposition is the scruffy, sexy Varek (Jason Behr); is there any other type in this genre of beastly prowlers of the night?
The action sequences aren't always thrilling, but have neat elements, some even unexpected. Such as the character of "Nana" (who must be in her late 70's or early 80's) randomly pulling out a gun and begins a shoot-out with the evil skinwalkers. It slightly resembles an very low-budget urban western thriller. Nana is never really developed, but hopefully makes a point in having older characters be just as strong as the younger heroes.The acting isn't great and normally overshadowed, but Sarah Carter eventually makes leap. She plays Katherine and is only fine at first, but her performance soon moves beyond the rest of the cast as her character becomes viscious. The acting is nuanced creating a better villian than the actual bad guys. Katherine has an early end, that's a horrible loss to the movies quality and she is sorely missed.
The separation of day and night is clearly defined, but seems rushed. That's the opposite of the rest of the film which is expertly paced and more involving. The last sequences are climatic enough, having werewolves really fighting, wich is entertaining to indulge upon. The ending is slow and runs on to much, but despite those problems the overall movie is plausible. My only advice to viewers is to turn off your DVD player as soon as the climax stops, before the film decides that it has more to wrap up.
__________________
-Halle Berry's Biggest Fan.:.Thanks Piggle Humsy-
Last edited by SkinWalker on Dec 26th, 2007 at 11:59 PM
With all of the 4 star reviews this film had been getting, saying it was "this year's Little Miss Sunshine," I expected a little more out of this year's feel-good movie, Juno. The film revolves around the title character Juno (played by Ellen Paige); a pretty cliche "independent" 16 year-old teenager. She is pregnant right from the get-go and we soon find out that it was her somewhat dorky friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) who impregnated her. After telling her best friend about the pregnancy and eventually her family (and Bleeker), she decides to get an abortion. While waiting in the lobby, filling out paperwork in the clinic, she snaps and decides that she can't do it. Her next plan of action is to look into couples seeking to adopt children in the newspaper. After finding one that she deems suitable, the rest of the film is about sorting out her life, be it her relationship with Bleeker/her parents, learning more about the couple she is giving the child to, etc.
Anyway, the movie left me feeling empty and actually a little bit angry. My first gripe is the dialogue in the film. Jesus, was it bad. All of the teenagers talk like they learned the English language from myspace... In short, nobody talks like the characters in this movie did and that really stopped me from relating to the movie. Secondly, the title character was pretty annoying. Juno was extremely monotone throughout the whole film and considered herself and elitist when it came to everything, when in reality it seemed as though she had just gotten out of "Independent Teenage Girl 101" and passed with a C-. Michael Cera and J.K. Simmons did fine jobs and they both made me chuckle a couple times. Other than that, the movie isn't anything special. All in all, it didn't even make me feel good like all of the 4 star reviews told me it would. Anyway, there you have it. Juno snags a 52% from the Tacomeister.
Well, I have been aching to post my thoughts on this movie in review format, though I'm sure those of you who have read some of my posts in the Cloverfield thread already know how I feel about this film.
The film opens with footage taken by Robert Hawkins (One of the films protagonists.) He has just awoke and we soon find out that he had apparently spent the night with a girl named Beth. The footage cuts into much more recent footage after Robert and Beth plan a trip to Coney Island. Throughout the film, bits and pieces of this trip our shown in between the footage. We next meet Jason Hawkins (who is now manning the camera) and his girlfriend Lily. They are planning a party for Robert who is apparently going to Tokyo for a job.
Jason is given the task of documenting Robert's last night before he leaves. Jason passes the task off to Hud and the next fifteen minutes or so of the movie consist Hud's footage from the party. Beth arrives to the party with a date and engages in a conflict with Robert. After Beth leaves, Jason and Hud try to cheer up Robert, only to be interupted by an earthquake. In order to investigate they go to the roof where they witness a large scale building exploding. Its not long before they find out that the city is being attacked by a mysterious giant monster and Robert puts his life on the line in order to rescue Beth from this threat.
The entire movie is shot from a first person camera view, much similar to that used in The Blair Witch Project. This was a brilliant move that set Cloverfield apart from all the monster movies that came before it. Using this style, Cloverfield lets you view these catastrophic events from the view points of its victims. Most monster films put the focus on the monster, however, Cloverfield takes interest in the people.
The acting in the film was not that bad in my oppinion. Though it really doesnt take much to scream "OH MY GOD!" every ten seconds. I have to give the actors even more credit for having to pretend that a giant monster is pursuing them, when in the shooting of the film they didnt have a reference whatsoever. The acting was not noticeably bad and therefore did not bother me. Characters in the film did not experience a great amount of development. But I dont think I would have much time to develop myself while running from a giant monster either.
The plot begins its development slowly, but then picks up almost instantly and never slows down until it comes to a crashing halt at the end of the movie. The first person view of the camera sometimes matches this intensity with the rapid shaking which is gaining a reputation for causing motion sickness to some who view it. I myself did not have this problem. But if you are someone thinking about viewing this movie, be aware that you may get motion sickness from the camera.
The sound of the film was one of the greatest points. It is by far the loudest movie I have seen in a cinema. The way explosions should sound has been redefined here. I was in awe at this amazing use of sound effects which lended themselves well to the visual chaos.
The CGI in the movie was fantastic, though the monster design was a bit unoriginal and to me feel reminiscent of designs used in the Resistance:Fall of Man video game. I believe these similarities can be written off as simple coincidence however.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I was entertained the whole way through. A lack of character development, monster originality, and a slow beggining are all things I did not mind whatsoever. However, these things would have made the movie appeal to a much wider audience. I have found that this movie is not for everyone. But as a giant monster enthusiast, I loved every minute of it.
Gender: Male Location: United States (of America... it's r
Nice summary of Chaplin (a little light on covering the movie itself). I would rank this movie second only the the magnificent City Lights in Chaplin's work. I must say though, as great as Chaplin's mastery of physical (ie- slapstick) humor is, I think he is surpassed by Harold Lloyd. Both are genius.
Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie
PG-13
1996
Television has become a large part of the human race. We are influenced by it, we are entertained by it, and we learn things from it. And for each year, hundreds and hundreds of new shows are made for broadcast. In 1988, "Mystery Science Theater 3000" was one of those shows. Created by inventive comedian Joel Hodgson, 'MST3K', as it is abbreviated, is a television series about a man stuck up in space by a pair of mad scientists, and is forced to forever watch and make fun of bad movies with his companion robots, Crow T. Robot, and Tom Servo.
I will seem a bit biased in this review, because I am a longtime MST3K fan. There's just something about the series itself that feels so funny, pure, and genuinely attractive to the viewer.
Time went by, and Joel Robinson(his name on the show) eventually left during season 5. Thus, a, at first controversial, but soon very popular, character named Mike Nelson(played by Michael J. Nelson, head writer of MST3K) appeared as the show's main character.
This leaves me to continue my little review. The movie begins with the evil Dr. Forrester briefing you on the synopsis of the show(in a wacky and silly manner). Afterwards, we get to see a cinematically improved version of the Satellite of Love(where Mike and the 'Bots are held).
The set designs for the movie are incredible. It takes the feeling of technical wow and rocket simplicity, but explores a bit more. For example, for the first time ever in the series, we are able to see the hull, the hallway(but only a deleted portion of the film), and the steering room(where Gypsy, a fellow robot, is located while the movie is running). This even gave the writers a chance to reintroduce the SOL Arms: a pair of mechanical arms used for grabbing objects that are outside of the ship. Before the film, these arms were last used about six or seven years prior. This arms even lead to a hilarious catastrophe that will leave you laughing.
As Forrester appears to the crew to torture them(with Crow calling him a Dickweed), he sends them what he calls 'The ultimate bad film'. With this film, he plans to take over the minds of the world. But, he first successfully needs his lab rat(Nelson) to be zombified by the film so he knows that it works.
The movie for the, um, movie, is the science fiction 'classic' "This Island Earth". To be honest, it isn't terrible, but it's good that it isn't. I say this because the crew has had movies like "Skydivers" that were so bad, that it was hard to even keep the crew's attention. Some are just that bad. This film, however, is completely filled with issues to be made fun of, but is still colorful and eye catching at certain points.
The commentary, or 'riffing', is incredible in this movie. The show has some hilarious jokes and episodes that leave you in stitches, and the movie somehow was able to stay on that level, if not exceed it. One of my favorite jokes from the film personally is when Crow calls a small and nerdy scientist 'Weeny Man', when he tries to be heroic and brave, when all he's basically doing is telling someone something.
The acting is surprisingly top notch material for any film in general. Dr. Forrester(played by the comedic genius Trace Beaulieu) is a show stopper, and is even funnier and zanier than he ever was on the show(most likely to appeal to the general public, and it worked). He also voices Crow T. Robot, who is most likely the funniest of the group with his snide comments and ridiculously silly quotes("Whadya know? Breach hull, all die. I even had it underlined!").
Tomy Servo(voiced by Kevin Murphy) is also a robot that joins Mike in the theater. His comments are more down to earth than Crow's and serves as a funny reality-check type of character. I loved Joel, but overall, I have preferred Mike on the show. He's just funnier, and much more understandable(a quit country boy just doing his job, whisked into a life of insanity, and learns that by going insane, he is becoming sane on such an odd ship). And as a bonus, Mike is just a much more lovable and happy character. That isn't to say I don't like Joel, though, because he too is a fantastic part of MST3K history.
But when it comes down to it, you really can't define these characters in a mere sentence or two(or even more). They are such lovable and whacky heroes that you just enjoy to watch.
The main problem with this movie is it's lack of exploration and depth. They really could have made the movie much larger, and more exciting than the average episode, but all in all it's really just a really funny episode that looks nicer. It would've felt more complete had they gone with a bigger plot, and a larger way to separate itself from its show(a good example of this is "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut"). Still, what we have is still a hilarious romp that you'll just love watching.
All in all, I recommend this film not only to MSTies, but anyone with a sense of humor in Hollywood's own silliness. The reissued DVDs of the film are coming to Amazon, so preorder yours today! I sure as heck know I am!
RATING
9/10
__________________
Last edited by Mr. Rhythmic on Mar 8th, 2008 at 04:15 PM
ew ewwww EEEEEWW, just watched isolation. I will return with an actual review when i am lucid and full with rest, but, i had to warn everyone to stay away. STAY, far away from the movie ISOLATION. It is complete and pure leaky shit bags. killer spinal cords. Like i said, i shall return, but if you are considering to pirate, rent or steal this movie from a dead old lady. THink twice...,its not worth it. Take a gun with a full clip and the safety on and beat yourself to death with the butt end before watching this movie. PUKE PISS GARBAGE
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
just watched Sweeney Todd and it made me vomit a little bit. The set and costume designs are beautiful. The actors did an acceptable job with the singing, but there was far to much singing. The music was awful, i felt as though i was listening to every song sung in the same tune. When i wasn't falling asleep i was hoping for a break in the music so that i could enjoy some dialogue between the fine actors. I watched this film with my mother and friend whom are fanatical for musicals. Even, they said there was to much music. I could not distinguish one song from the next. They all, simply, sounded the same. this movie gets 8 puke filled shirts out of 10 clean one's.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
KMC Community Forums
Nov 26th, 2006 07:35 PM
