Finally got round to watching this! I will be watching the original soon so can't possibly judge against the original. I had been worried that I would quickly lose the plot arc if I hadn't seen the original but this stands as a very good film on its own accord.
It takes a little while to get into it fully, but once in the visual affects and sounds really enhance the film. The soundtrack as well is absolutely incredible, Daft Punk really stamp their authority alongside the dramatic orchestra, rather than trying to take over the show.
The cast do a great job, especially Kevin Bridges for portraying the antagonist and one of the leading protagonists. Even though one is a clone of the other, you get a sense of individual characters. Garrett Hedlund suited the role but could have been better in places. I don't think it helped that throughout the film I kept imagining him to be Russell Howard! And Olivia Wilde, new found interest Very glad to see she will be in Rush as well!
The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy, 1973) -- A police sergeant is called to an island village in Summerisle in search of a missing girl whom the locals claim never existed. Stranger still, however, are the rituals that take place there, where religious paganism rules and everyone lives by a code of sex=prosperity. In his quest for the girl, he finds more and more mystery. The movie plays itself quite nicely and though it sometimes gets too hippy/free love/nuts and barley for my taste, the party mystery story, part horror movie blends well and is the highlight of the movie. The ending is surprising and hard to forget and I've seen the title on many Top Ten horror lists and was always curious about it. I thought it'd be different, and being a 70s horror movie, it lacks a bit of the surprise/scare factor, but makes up in psychological uncertainty. 8/10
Drive - Starring Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman. Yes, a lot of talent, so you know this movie is going to have great acting, and it does. The acting is awesome and everyone is believable and when considering everything, it's a great film. However, for me...it was long, and boring and contained a lot of pointless slow motion scenes, and for a movie about a stunt driver, there weren't a lot of stunts in it. I understand it was a crime drama...but there wasn't really that much crime in it until halfway through the movie.
And the criminals are kinda stupid, as in every crime movie, and their stupidity kinda leaves a few loopholes.
Like, if you want the other people in the dummy heist to not know they've just been set up, you might want to make it LESS OBVIOUS. I mean, a 4 year old with a detective set could tell that was a set up, and it didn't take much for the one guy that could kill them to track everyone down. Really, there's only one guy between you and the crazy driver? Really? One? You know what, you should be scared that the East Coast mafia's coming, because they would never be connected to anything by one guy. Not even most gang leaders are that stupid. Also, Albert, if you're going to kill someone, stab them somewhere besides the stomach, you idiot. I mean, you killed the other two guys easily and correctly, but the LAST GUY between you and not having to deal with the issue ever again, and you stab him in the stomach? Really?
So, it was a good movie with great acting, but it was slower than molasses in winter, and it has the most pointless romance in all of movie land. Seriously, you know from the premise of the movie that the stuntman's gonna get into trouble and will never see her again, so what's the point of even hinting at the romance?
In fact, there was a LOT of pointlessness in the movie...like...why did Cook half to work at a strip joint? Just to show naked women? But you had about a gazillion other scenes in the movie where you could've put those women and it wouldn't have been pointless. And the opening sequence....was half pointless. I understand they were setting up the whole "he moonlights as a getaway driver" thing, which would have made more sense if they showed him doing more of it. I mean, the next time we see him approached by a guy, he tells him to go away, with no real explanation why. Was he trying to go straight for the married woman down the hall? What?
And, if you're wondering, yes, Ryan's character did have rules like Jason Statham's character in the Transporter series. And to be honest, I think the story would have worked better if they had shown Ryan's character doing the stuntman thing and the driver thing and just have one of the heists go bad. No pointless romance, no pointless anything else. You could've still done a crime-drama that way, and it would've worked better. Because, when you find who the bad guys are, you just roll your eyes, because you kinda had guessed before hand, but you were hoping that wasn't the case because it's a cliche thing that's a little old by now. And if you didn't introduce those characters, it might still have been predictable, but not so much and it would've been more entertaining.
You really liked it? Oddly enough I haven't heard anything positive about it.
Harvey (Henry Koster, 1950) -- A classic stage hit getting the Hollywood treatment in the story of Elwood P. Dowd, a man who makes friends with a spirit only he can see, in the form of a 6-foot rabbit names Harvey. After his sister tries to commit him to a mental institution, a comedy of errors ensues. Elwood and Harvey become the catalysts for a family mending its wounds and for romance blossoming in unexpected places. The result is a very pleasant and heart-warming story which is awesomely acted by James Stewart, in a style that perfectly sums up his career as a pleasant and lovable character. A very recommendable movie as long as you're expecting this type. 8/10
The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy, 1973) -- A police sergeant is called to an island village in Summerisle in search of a missing girl whom the locals claim never existed. Stranger still, however, are the rituals that take place there, where religious paganism rules and everyone lives by a code of sex=prosperity. In his quest for the girl, he finds more and more mystery. The movie plays itself quite nicely and though it sometimes gets too hippy/free love/nuts and barley for my taste, the party mystery story, part horror movie blends well and is the highlight of the movie. The ending is surprising and hard to forget and I've seen the title on many Top Ten horror lists and was always curious about it. I thought it'd be different, and being a 70s horror movie, it lacks a bit of the surprise/scare factor, but makes up in psychological uncertainty. 8/10
Being There (Hal Ashby, 1979) -- A simple-minded gardener named Chance, who has spent all his life in the house of an old man, Chance is put out on the street when the old man dies; with no knowledge of the world except what he has learned from television. After a run in with a limousine, he ends up a guest of a woman and her husband, an influential but sick businessman. Now called Chauncey Gardner, Chance becomes an unlikely political consultant. Being one of the last movies by Peter Sellers, I've always had a soft spot for this movie, ever since I saw it as part of a class in college. The movie itself is an absolute masterpiece, where the character is very simple and unconscious to his surroundings, yet he radiates an image of compley self condifence. It's thje kidn of movie that has you thinking of it even after it's over, due to the different meta-meanings in each scene and how they relate to the whole. Really a movie made better thanks to thegenius that was Peter Sellers. 9/10
I've watched both of these recently too... I've only seen 'Being There' once, but I thought it was excellent (agree with the 9/10 rating!). I'm sure I've seen an interview with Peter Sellers where he claimed that he actually was Chance, which may shed some light on why the character was so convincing/brilliantly portrayed...
The Wicker Man is absolutely brilliant - downright bonkers from start to finish - but that's what makes it so great IMO. Christopher Lee steals the show for me, though, especially nearer the end and during the May Day parade! Something that is easy to overlook about The Wicker Man is that it's effectively a musical, and hence the soundtrack makes a big difference to the movie. 'Corn Rigs', 'Gently Johnny' and 'Willow's Song' are all great - the latter also features in the film 'Hostel', which is a knowing nod to The Wicker Man and the concept of the mega-conspiracy that both films employ.
Harvey (Henry Koster, 1950) -- A classic stage hit getting the Hollywood treatment in the story of Elwood P. Dowd, a man who makes friends with a spirit only he can see, in the form of a 6-foot rabbit names Harvey. After his sister tries to commit him to a mental institution, a comedy of errors ensues. Elwood and Harvey become the catalysts for a family mending its wounds and for romance blossoming in unexpected places. The result is a very pleasant and heart-warming story which is awesomely acted by James Stewart, in a style that perfectly sums up his career as a pleasant and lovable character. A very recommendable movie as long as you're expecting this type. 8/10
I'm very much into Stewart's movies, yet I didn't know much about it. I was pleasantly surprised about it, even if his roles usually are of pleasant people.
@Touring Mars: I can see The Wicker Man being a musical, but I'd have to put it up with Dancer in the Dark as one of the best moorish musicals. Being There is an absolute gem, though.
I bought this on Blu-ray when it released and I would definitely have to agree with you on a lot of that. I'd probably only give it a 2/5 though. I'm really not quite sure why people were raving about this movie and getting so mad about it not getting major awards. I've enjoyed a lot of artistic films and indie films, but I did not enjoy Drive after the opening scene. It turns into one of the most cliche, unoriginal crime/mafia dramas I've seen in a while, and the hyper-gorey scenes of violence seem to be the only thing that sets this movie apart from others in the genre (whether thats a plus or minus is up for debate). It really is a shame too because the opening getaway scene is one of the most tense driving scenes I've seen in a movie. It had a very realistic feel and it was refreshing to see that kind of scene that wasn't relying on ridiculous special effects, explosions, and 800 police cars magically coming out of every side street. This could have been a very cool movie if it had actually been about driving (or hey, maybe just an original story).
I saw Senna tonight, it was beyond excellent. I've never cried so long, and so hard in my life, if you haven't seen it yet, do it. Oh and don't be cheap and download a torrent, this is one movie that deserves to be purchased.
I bought this on Blu-ray when it released and I would definitely have to agree with you on a lot of that. I'd probably only give it a 2/5 though. I'm really not quite sure why people were raving about this movie and getting so mad about it not getting major awards. I've enjoyed a lot of artistic films and indie films, but I did not enjoy Drive after the opening scene. It turns into one of the most cliche, unoriginal crime/mafia dramas I've seen in a while, and the hyper-gorey scenes of violence seem to be the only thing that sets this movie apart from others in the genre (whether thats a plus or minus is up for debate). It really is a shame too because the opening getaway scene is one of the most tense driving scenes I've seen in a movie. It had a very realistic feel and it was refreshing to see that kind of scene that wasn't relying on ridiculous special effects, explosions, and 800 police cars magically coming out of every side street. This could have been a very cool movie if it had actually been about driving (or hey, maybe just an original story).
Agreed. I think the whole story would've worked better if he had just been a mechanic even. I mean, there's no point in saying he's a Stuntman/getaway driver if you're not going to show any of that. Sure there were two chase scenes, one of which was good and the other....for it being a Mustang GT vs. a 300C...it was pretty short and lame. There was just a bunch of dodging in and out of traffic and then the 300 randomly crashes like an idiot. There wasn't really a good reason why it crashed, the dude just swerved into a parked car because he's an idiot....and you only get to see the crash from the inside of the Mustang....yeah...exciting...except the camera guy is the only thing looking back.
I mean, the even showed the LA Canal and never used it in a car chase. Really? It's a movie about a stuntman and you DON'T use the Canal? The whole stuntman thing was kinda stupid in the end. I kinda wanna read the book just to see if it made more since there, which it probably does, but...the movie just wasn't good enough to make me run out and read it.
But, if it was really just about a mechanic doing odd jobs for a guy mixed up with the mafia who's trying to defend a woman from a group of thugs, it would've been fine. Why they had the "husband" befriending the hero, I don't know, either. It was obvious that he knew the stuntman was hitting on his wife, and was like "thanks for keeping my wife warm, for me. Let's be friends and maybe you can help my walk right into an obvious trap."
Drive suffers more from poor directing than anything else. It has potential to be a GREAT movie....but in the end it feels...half-hearted...like the directors got lazy and just relied on tired, old cliches that don't work anymore. Like the Italian mafia working at a pizza shop....Really? A pizza shop? Which, that might have worked a little bit better if ANYONE LOOKED ITALIAN. Ron Perlman, is NOT Italian. And he doesn't work as an Italian mafia person. He doesn't work as a mafia guy, either. I also don't think anyone was actually Italian, either. I think Ron's character just had a nickname of Nino. It never made it clear whether that was his real name or a nickname. And that's just some of the problems.
And I watched it because I heard it was good. Who ever thinks this mess is good hasn't seen a good movie in a LONG time and should go do so. And I'm sorry you bought it. That's why I rent movies before I buy them now. Yeah, it's a little more, but I've boughten crappy movies before and have regretted later.
Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer, 1949) -- A distant poor relative of the Duke of D'Ascoyne plots to inherit the title by murdering the eight other heirs who stand ahead of him in the line of succession, making this a very unorthodox movie, especially for the 1940s. Very well done and with Alec Guinness in it, playing about 8 different roles, making the little tidbits in it and siguises he wears more the reason to watch it over and over. The humor is not as dark as you'd imagine, though the overall ambient is a bit harsh. I'll have to say it's a classic and entertaining movie that seems to have been under the radar for a long time. 9/10
Just watched The Confession, starring Keifer Sutherland and John Hurt. It was a miniseries on Hulu I believe. It was very good and the ending was excellent. Highly recommend it if you are a Sutherland fan or are just looking to kill an hour on Netflix.
Watership Down - Directed by Martin Rosen and based off the classic book of the same name, this animated classic tries it's best to capture the spirit of the book, but instead ends up being a needlessly bloody film that doesn't at all capture the spirit or feel of the book. A couple of the major scenes in the book, while touched on in the film feel pointless and unneeded with the changes made to them, and more rabbits are killed in the movie than in the book. The pacing of the film is WAY too fast, which where the real problem lies. It's so fast, that it doesn't really have enough time to spend on some of the more important scenes from the book, and because of that, a lot of scenes loose their purpose and you never really have enough to really get to know any of the rabbits. To be honest, it's better to read the book before you watch the movie simply because, I don't think I would've known ANY of the rabbits simply by watching the movie. Heck, the only rabbit I remembered from the movie was Bigwig. But, after the book, I remember Hazel and Fiver and all the others.
I'm not sure what to rate this. It's not really a kids movie, that's for sure. The book would be fine to tell to kids, but the movie...not so much. But...it's not like it was a bad movie. Some of the bloodier scenes were rather stupid. I think it's going to get a 3/5. It's not a bad movie. It has good acting and what IS addressed is addressed well. I think this movie really suffers from the director trying to follow the book as much as possible on a limited runtime, while still trying to add his own creative flair, which, in this case, just seems to be a lot of dead rabbits. But it REALLY does feel like and abbreviated version of the book. And the book is great. This would be an animated film I wish they would remake and follow more closely along with the book. A good two hours of animation should be enough time to capture the feel of the book without all the death.
Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur, 1947) -- A private eye escapes his past to run a gas station in a small town, but his past catches up with him. Now he must return to the big city world of danger, corruption, double crosses and duplicitous dames. One of the great classic film-noir movies, loaded up with the usual voice-overs and the expected intricate plot, though this one mixes those classic elements with the serene surroundings of the central character. The black and white photography is a great example of the genre and it's used to a great advantage to show the character's character (pardon the redundancy). Robert Mitchum is the epitome of coolness and Jane Greer's role is excellent as the femme fatale, while Kirk Douglas lokks amazing as the big boss. It's been a while since I saw a film noir movie, and this one certainly made up for it. 8/10
Dawn of the Dead (George A. Romero, 1978) -- Following an ever-growing epidemic of zombies that have risen from the dead, two Philadelphia SWAT team members, a traffic reporter, and his television-executive girlfriend seek refuge in a secluded shopping mall. This is one of the great sequels of movie history, which is as much of a zombie movie as a very intellectual critique of materialism and urban sprawl, by showing that even after death, Americans still congregate at shopping malls, still it can be watched with or without this in mind and still enjoy it for what it is: a classic zombie movie. Despite having peculiar special effects, annoying library music and sub-par acting, the truth is that the low-budget-ness of the movie makes it very enjoyable and impressive when you take a look at how it was made. Great classic by one of the horror masters. 8.5/10
Had a couple of beers the other night, it was late so I was in the mood for some horror/sci-fi entertainment before bed. I was flicking through the movie channels and came across 'Priest' which was new(ish), came from a graphic novel, looked intriguing and I knew very little about it. Perfect.
PRIEST (2011)
Basic story revolves around a post-apocolyptic vampires vs humans scenario (within a pseudo-wild west world) and the legendary priests who had waged a war with the vampires and won. The story picks up in the 'present' where the vampires are kept away from the human cities and homesteads in reservations and the priests are now out of work highly trained killing machines with no purpose. Paul Bettany attempts an American accent as one of the most feared vampire-killing priests and is brought back into action following the resurgence of a renegade vampire horde. The ensuing action and storyline is then rather predictable and contrived - it's just too much like a cheap western.
A few comparisons spring to mind when you first start to watch this. Firstly is the overwhelming 'cowboys and indians' theme (vampires in reservations, really?) which works very well in films like 'Cowboys vs Aliens' but in a movie which takes itself too seriously, it sadly fails. Secondly there is a sense that the priests are based on late 19th century Samurai warriors in that they are wandering 'knights' without a cause or purpose. This theme can be very successful, but once again there is no depth to it or psychology and it all rather fizzles out. It all ends rather abruptly and feels unfinished which leads me to think there's the possibility a sequel.
So, all-in-all a movie that promises quite a bit, but fails on a number of levels. Even for a late night flight of fancy I found it all a bit dull and unimaginative, which I doubt the original novels were.
I award this a 4/10. Strictly one for fans of the non-romantic vampire genre, but even then be prepared not to be wow'd.
I actually saw the new one on TV a few months back and enjoyed it, Cage does a good job, and it's definatly one of his better roles since Matchstick Men. It's sticks to the formula of the original and is a very good copy. Well worth a watch just to compare.
I actually saw the new one on TV a few months back and enjoyed it, Cage does a good job, and it's definatly one of his better roles since Matchstick Men. It's sticks to the formula of the original and is a very good copy. Well worth a watch just to compare.
Matchstick Men I liked. Raising Arizona too. Probably The Rock as well, though it's not a Nic Cage movie per se. The rest are just Nic Cage playing Nic Cage. I'll give it a chance, eventually.
Yeah thats the one I saw then as well... Reading your review makes me want to see it again and the rest of the Romero Zombie movies as I've only seen this one from him.
My wife wanted to watch this so we rented it on Cinema Now tonight. Can someone stop Adam Sandler? I'm at a loss for words. I even knocked off a point while I was sitting here because I couldn't think of anything to say. It just wasn't funny. It had one character that was entertaining to watch, but I won't say too much about who it was because it is kind of spoilerish and I didn't know they were even in the film.
EDIT: Actually, just look at the official image from the film. Whatever just passed through your head will sum up how much you will enjoy this film.
seen Act of Valor and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance over the weekend
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Just ok, didn't think it was as good as the first one
Act of Valor - I wanted to like this movie, but there was a few things that stopped me from that, the main one was that a lot of the time it felt like I was watching a real life version of a campaign from a game like BF3/MW3 .
I watched 2011 film The Thing. John Carpenter's original 1982 re-imagining of The thing from another world is one of my all time favourite films. The 2011 prequel was not terrible, but was wholly unnecessary.
Stick with Carpenter's. If they really wanted to make another film based on the franchise, they should have based it on the excellent computer game that they drew inspiration from.
Matchstick Men I liked. Raising Arizona too. Probably The Rock as well, though it's not a Nic Cage movie per se. The rest are just Nic Cage playing Nic Cage. I'll give it a chance, eventually.
I would add Con Air to the list as well. There was a nice balance of screen time between Cage and John Cusack, and it properly introduced Cusack to the mainstream.
Anyways, over Sherman and Howe, TX's spring break vacation, I caught another Cage movie...
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence Most of this plot is in Romania(Dracula ironic), with Johnny Blaze on the run from the Devil(Ciarán Hinds). The Devil came to Europe to possess a boy named Danny, who was conceived after his mother, Nadya, made a deal with the Devil to save her life. To secure the boy, The Devil sent mercenary Ray Carrigan to obtain the boy while the boy is hidden away in a church.
You know what, why am I even bothering writing up this. This is a Nic Cage movie, and the effects will remind you of Star Wars Episode I plain and simple. Grade: Lulz!
My wife read the book and wanted to see the movie. So we checked it out yesterday. I didnt know anything at all about the movie. It started out a bit slow but ended up being good. Disturbing plot, but good. Concept kinda reminds me a little of "The Running Man" but instead of grown adults, these are all very young children trying to win for food. Unless you read the book, I would recommend just waiting to rent this.