Movie review Sundance Report # 2 (1999)
By Jose Palma | May 12, 2008
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Battlefield Earth (2000)
By Jose Palma | May 11, 2008
John Travolta has for sure hung in there end-to-end the course of his turbulent acting career. Since his big comeback as a likeable thug in Quentin Tarantinos Pulp Fable, his calling moves take ranged from strong (Stimulate Shorty, Face Off, Thin Red Line) to equal (Phenomenon, White Mans Gist) to downright dreadful (Michael, Generals Girl). With the astronomically expensive and painfully inept Battlefield Earth, Travolta has sunk to an all time low, making an even worse film than Perfect from the 80s.
This science fiction is based on the novel by the late? L. Ron Hubbard. In the year 3000, the human raceway has been virtually exterminated by a group of inner-galactic bullies known as Psychlos. As luck would have it, there still exists a small number of mankind whom, light-emitting diode by the energetic Barry Pepper (Saving Private Ryan), stage a revolt.
Battlefield Earth certainly does provide a shelling of special effects, but thats around it. Travolta seems to take infernal glee in playing the bad guy, but his over-the-top antics get on your nerves and stay there. As well turning up as a Psychlo is the dependable Forest Whitaker (Ghost Frump) who really is much more sport to watch in this overbloated muss. You may also want to watch for a fun cameo from Kelly Preston (Mrs. Travolta) if you decide to knock off your money on this picture.
Its been rumored that Travolta has had his eye on this project for years. Hubbard disciples make already vented their displeasure with the end solvent of this adaptation and its easy to learn why. Although I havent read the book, the movie seems rushed, very disjointed, and sorely deficient in vitality. In terms of ocular style, it blatantly borrows from far superior works including Blade Runner, Independence Day, and the Star Wars trilogy. It even has moments that seem to be taken from Braveheart and even goes so far to take up from The Postman.
Worst of all, the so called intellectual Psychlos dont come across as intelligent at all. Watching Travolta and his onslaught of evil henchmen do their thing, left field me speculative how they possibly could have taken over so many worlds? Perhaps the book could shed some light on this.
In Battlefield Earth, the Psychlos manage to wipe prohibited the Earth in 9 minutes. I was ready to walk out of this dismal, joyless catastrophe in basketball team.
Theres a reason why you rarely ever try or see jokes at the expense of Church of Scientology. If you dont transfer it, youll find extinct what that reason is. Mr. Jones.
You dont scare me. Someone o’er there must have a sense of humor?
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams (2002)
By Jose Palma | May 10, 2008
Ive been a bighearted fan of Robert Rodriguez for rather some time. With movies like the thrifty El Mariachi (shot for a mere $7000), its subsequence Desperado, and From Dusk Til Aurora (his collaboration with Quentin Tarantino), Rodriguez has proven that you dont hold to spend $100 billion on a film for it to look good. Last year, Rodriguez dazzled me again with the family well-disposed gem Spy Kids This was a film non so much for kids, but instead a photographic film that brings out the kid in all of us. I enjoyed it immensely, and with its success, a sequel was inevitable.
Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams, in one case again finds the Cortes spy family in action. This fourth dimension, the hazard involves competing spies (offspring and old), the Hernando Cortez grandparents and a strange island chalk full of weird creatures (inspired, no doubt, by the wonderful stop move creations of Ray Harryhausen).
Like the first Snoop Kids, this sequel is zany and full of creative push that is both innovative and visually stunning. And while the message in Spy Kids 2 isnt as heartfelt as it was in the number 1 film, this is still a story about folk and sticking together.
The cast actually seems to be enjoying themselves. Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara are punt as our young heroes. Vegas character is very much the way she was in the showtime film, but Sabaras use is slightly more developed and the young player seems much more well-fixed this time out. Antonio Banderas and Carla Gugino are back as the fearless parents/spies, while in a new twist, we meet yet an even older generation of agents in the form of Ricardo Montalban and Nederland Taylor (both are fantastic). Matt OLeary and Emily Osment (Haley Joels whitney Young sister) are a sidesplitter as rival spy kids, shadowing our heros every move.
Make no mistake–Robert Rodriguez is a lunatic. He non only wrote and directed this sequel, he likewise edited the picture and served as a television camera operator. The film was shot digitally, giving a crisp, vibrant image, and once once more, Rodriguez has made a good looking for film without spending an obscene sum of money.
While I really enjoyed this follow up, it lacks the consistency of the original. Spy Kids 2 was made somewhat quickly, and at times it does feel rush. Still, you can construe Rodriguezs creative thinker at work in most every frame of this movie.
This is sure enough one of the best family pictures of the year, and if Im going to hang knocked out with a spy, Id much rather spend an afternoon with Spy Kids or Capital of Texas Powers, than Xander Batting cage from 30. On a final musical note, Spy Kids 3 hits theaters following summer.
spy kids 2 is
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review
By Jose Palma | May 8, 2008
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Zoo - Sundance Screening (2007)
By Jose Palma | May 7, 2008
Zoo isnt a honest documentary. It has elements of a documentary to be sure, and a documentary trend, but because many of the manpower involved in the outlandish case pictured in the film, refused to be interviewed, theatre director Robinson Devor opted to pepper his movie with a number of re-creations. This vogue sort of reminded me of The Laramie Propose from a few years ago, only without prominent name stars. In the end it is this faux-documentary technique that actually dampens the overall effectiveness of the film. By sticking to a mostly documentary format with actors playing 80% of the parts, Zoological garden often became high-centered? And I was reminded of the old adage more or less locking the barn doorway after the horses have already been stolen. In retrospect its probably true that Devor would receive been better off simply filming a straight story using mostly unrecognizable actors in the same manner that Flight 93 did. Though any further comparisons to that film will come to a lurid conclusion right now.
Zoo is a film that focuses on a group of men who carry on a sexual kinship with a horse. Whatever you do, dont be fooled by the deed of the film, its not the sequel to Madagascar. Things get off to a puzzling take up when a man is rushed to a Pacific Northwest emergency room after experiencing inner bleeding. After working tirelessly to save this man, the doctors eventually lost the patient. Cause of death; a perforated colon.
Shortly thenceforth, an investigation was launched, and regime were pb to a ranch, where it was discovered that a group of hands were fundamentally having a love thing with a horse. On paper, it sounds like Zoo might be some sort of a half baked, consummate out Uncle Tom Green fomite, but this movie is anything only funny (come to guess of it, Tom Greens films arent that peculiar either, simply thats a different topic all together).
As authorities swarmed the ranch, the land proprietor was quick to qualify of evidence (numerous discs with hours of worrisome video), but some of these discs were cured and reviewed by local law enforcement, and some of the footage is actually shown in the film. Granted, Im non sure if this footage was recreated or actually evidence from the case. I was hoping person might ask that doubt during the Q & A following the flick. No one did. I can say this. The footage sure as shooting looked substantial and it was quite a disturbing. Observation a man being penetrated by cavalry isnt on the button my thought of entertainment, but I was intrigued by the notion that I mightiness get some insight into what kind of psychological factors power lead a man down such a twisted give chase.
Theres a lot going on in Zoo. Its an exhibit on Zoophilism. Its about animal rights. Its around our perception of whats right and whats amiss. And, of course, its a most unconventional love story. Alas though, the film is all over the map and it never satisfactorily focuses on any of these elements long sufficiency to offer up any sort of explanation or sixth sense into whatever of these specific issues.
I make the film makers props for non actually pickings a stance one way or some other. This isnt really a movie close to judgment. As I stated before, Zoo isnt real exploitive either. If anything, it humanizes these men and that may be hard for many consultation members to stomach.
Furthermore, the motion-picture photography is simply gorgeous (it was shot with a Sony HD camera), capturing the plain beauty of the breathless Washington area side, and I loved Paul Moores Philip Looking glass inspired score.
What left me moth-eaten was the writing and direction. The fusion of re-creation and documentary didnt work for me at all. I realize it would have been goddam near insufferable for the film makers to receive actual interviews with the real hands involved in this unusual case (really, there is one interview to be found in the film), but possibly this would have been more intriguing as a biography (in book form), or, as I declared before, a narrative.
As for the points raised by the movie, on that point are some interesting ones. What these men were doing is undoubtedly considered sick and immoral by society, just the unknown thing about the unhurt ordeal, is that it wasnt against the constabulary because bestiality was effectual in the state of Washington at the time (and in fact, bestiality is legal in eight states). Really, the cattle farm owner was initially arrested for homicide. He was being held accountable for the death of the man he dropped off at the emergency room. I believe he was later vindicated of these charges.
When this case broke, it stirred up quite a bit of controversy. It was argued that animals are wide-eyed in their thought-process import that these sexual acts couldnt be consensual. Withal, one newscaster (whose objet d’art is ran in the movie) suggests the playact was consensual. How could it non be. If it werent consensual, it wouldnt deliver happened. Having said that, this fussy newscaster wasnt suggesting that what these men were doing was moral. He didnt o.K. of it.
I had a few problems with Zoo. I was real bothered that ceertain things are revealed in the film and then completely ditched. Fill for case a paint scene in which a police policeman finds a disc in the william Claude Dukenfield of the ranch. The disc has the words-"Big Dick" written on it. If that isnt a testament to ones character and then I dont know what is. Throughout the video these workforce are portrayed as dim-witted human beings with a bizarre upset. They werent harming this horse in any manner. The buck was absolutely healthy. Merely to hint that these men didnt think they were doing anything wrong, is complete nonsense. First, if they felt they were innocent, why did they stress to hide what was going on. I imagine they didnt want to be frowned upon by society. OK, Ill give them that one. What I dont understand (in addition to the obvious) is why they were video tape this stuff. Were they selling footage on the internet? I just feel like theres much more than to this story than the photographic film makers were willing to explore. Stuff that power have put these so called "simple human beings" in a young light.
There are also scenes in the word picture that I found to be completely irrelevant. For instance, theres an interview with an actor world Health Organization plays a police military officer in the film. He gives a little monologue about his opinion of the shell. Quite candidly, I was completely uninterested in what he had to say. It didnt really have anything to do with what was going on. During the Q & A following the picture, an attendant addressed this particular scene, and the film makers stated that they felt up this actors thoughts lententide a tolerant of emotional weight to the proceeding. I didnt feel that at all. If anything, it was distracting. It felt completely unnecessary, and as far from literal as you could come.
In the end, I found Zoo to be well shaft, but as a flick, it isnt nearly as strange, compelling, or controversial as the real case that elysian it. No doubt, many will be most curious about this movie because of its disturbing sexual content (and thats how THINKfilm is selling it). After all, this isnt like that gross out sequence in Clerks II. This is the real deal and while Im sure this stuff has probably been going on for years in versatile parts of the domain, Ive ne’er seen it front and center in a film like this before.
Zoo was shot on super 16mm, non Sony HD.
The film-makers said otherwise at the Q & A and the Sundance catalog as well states it was snapshot with a Sony cam. Im but reporting what I heard.
There is more to the narrative as you say. Practically more. However, it is highly unlikely that those "involved" would be willing to risk farther exposure in divulging additional information. I would guess that the images interpreted and burnt-out to CD from the situation covered by this documentary could be considered unintended for public release. To direct contrast, the the great unwashed of general access porno sites are of a vastly unlike nature in all. I dont think these people were profiting from their actions. I would suggest Weinbergs recent study on the subject of zoophilia, if you rattling wanted to begin your understanding of such a persons motivations. Indeed, for every beast festishist out there, in that location would as well appear to be somebody who is actually orientated to such activity.
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Dirty Pretty Things (2003)
By Jose Palma | May 6, 2008
Leave it to film director Stephen Frears (Dangerous Liasons and High Fidelity) to come out of nowhere and deliver one of the very best movies of the year.
In this taut thriller/character study, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays a London Taxi Driver by day and hotel desk clerk by night, wHO stumbles across a baleful plot at his night job.
Dirty Pretty Things is a tough picture to review because I dont want to give the sinister plot away even though many other reviewers receive. I went into this picture not knowing what it was about, and this made it all the wagerer.
Frears and his screenwriters have minded me a glimpse into something I never knew existed, and they do so with incredible style and blessing. Frears directional style seems to drastically change with each picture, and this is i of the things I like around him so much. With Dirty Pretty Things, he lends a Hitchcockian disturb to a thriller around illegal immigrants who will do just about anything to escape their prisonlike lives.
Nothing here is sugar-coated, and every character in this movie is humanized, even the call girl whom we in truth come to care around by the end of the icon (by direct contrast, I was bothered by the goings-on in Gary Marshalls Pretty Woman).
Anchoring the film are two immigrants played by Audrie Tautou (Amelie) and Chiwetel Ejiofor, two sad souls with black Maria full of pain wHO seem to find solace in each other. Tautou is a beauty and its hard to seem at her and excite shades of Audrey Hepburn. While it may be hard for many to buy her as a Turkish immigrant, its still a well crafted performance. This is a sympathetic<br />woman and Tautou portrays her as pure and childlike. Ejiofor really carries the movie with a heavy dosage of sympathy and vulnerability. From<br />the moment we see him on screen, we can buoy feel his pain, and while we dont find out the cause of it until nearly the end of the movie, we never doubt that this human being has had a rugged life. What I like most about this performance is how internal it is. Ejiofor is very restrained, and as the story progressed I wanted him to fulfill his desires because I cared so a lot about him.
Dirty Pretty Things could have easily fallen apart. Many moments could Hold gone o’er the top, while others could have been goofy and drippage with sloppiness. Thankfully, Frears and his crew never let this happen. Dirty Pretty Things is thrilling, romantic, dark, and brimfull with humor (some of it rather black), and its all punctuated by an finish that, in many shipway, is old school Hollywood. In fact, the ending leaves quite an wallop, and while it whitethorn not be what everyone wants to see, it couldnt suffer rang more true.
Dirty Pretty Things is a beautifully crafted picture and I really had no idea where it was going. By the final stage, everything was perfectly resolved and I was left with a sense of sadness, simply more importantly, I was left with a sentiency of hope for these characters. This is an amazing plastic film. See it<br />before it leaves theaters.
Good job for furthering the causa of this brilliant film. Im new to this site, only if you guys are savvy sufficiency to pick out this gem then Im shot Ive found a web-spot Ill be back to again. Very good.
I live in a rural area thats about 35 minutes from any sort of civilizaton - Id really like to project this plastic film after the terrific things you said about it. Is it out on video yet 5/4
Is the woman visualised, really the same actress that was in Amelie?
Hi on that point,
Yes, that is Audrey Tautou from Amelie, and the picture show is now on DVD. Check it out. It really is an special film.
When is this film ever going to be released on video, or is it barely that I live in Utah and my Blockbuster isnt stocking it?
Dirty Pretty Things has been released on video for a piece now, power I hint you try a dissimilar video store.
Dirty Pretty Things is one of trhe most visceral and yet tender films Ive seen for a long time, this is manhood exposed its underbelly shown and still the lordliness is sthil there, great film everyone should assure this
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
By Jose Palma | May 5, 2008
Fantastic Four-spot: Rise of the Silver Surfer isnt a bad movie. Thats probably the best compliment this sequel can be paid, peculiarly given how truly atrocious the number 1 installment was. In this continuation, some things sure as shooting remain the same. The dialogue is still pretty inane, the gorgeous Jessica Alba tranquil cant move, and much of the humor is enough to make ones eyes roll back into their head for salutary.
Having aforesaid this though, Rise of the Silver Surfer emerges as much stronger entertainment than its predecessor. Why? Well, for me, a great deal of it boils down to expectation. You see, expectations are a 2 way street. If youre too excited for a film (as I was for Spider-Man 3) youre bound to be frustrated. However, if youre convinced that a film is going to be a steaming bundle of dog shit, quite often, its not as bad as you opinion it was going to be. Such is the case here.
In Wild Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, our unafraid heroes take now adjusted to a life of celebrity. Theyve accepted their place in this populace. As characters, theyre still pretty a great deal the same. Beautiful Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) is still deucedly in beloved with scientific discipline geek Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) spell cocky Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and bulky Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) noneffervescent very a lot enjoy contemptuous one another.
As Eugene Sue and Reed finally plan on pickings their vows, their large moment of happiness is cut short when an unexpected power outage puts a stop to their wedding. This outage is caused by a foreign alien life form that Reed in the end deems the Silver Surfer.
This silklike, silver colored humanoid (his appearance mightiness remind one of the T-1000 in Terminator 2) blazes from one major planet to the next, by means of a lightning quick silver flying setup that resembles a surf board. Hence the identify. His motivations are unknown, but his arrival causes havoc across the globe. The Fantastic Four immediately spring into action so that they might set a catch to the Silver Surfboarder, and during their charge, they ar brought aspect to cheek will old foe, Winner Von Doom (Julian McMahon).
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is hardly a masterpiece. It still doesnt meet the bar arrange by other recent ace hero epics (i.e. Batman Begins and Ubermensch Returns) just it is light on its feet and brimfull with heart popping personal effects. And in fact, the visuals ar much stronger this time around (write for Mr. Fantastics square stretchy effects). The Ag Surfer is a marvellous CG creation (performed by Pans Labyrinths Doug John Paul Jones and sonant by Laurence Fishburne).
Rise of the Silver Surfboarder clocks in at a minuscule 90 minutes, so dont expect much depth (the way Von Sentence is reintroduced is most nonsensical, and the Flatware Surfer, piece interesting, is certainly shortchanged in damage of character development). For whatever reason, most of this summers big tent pole releases cant seem to come up a happy medium. Theyre either overstuffed (Spider-Man 3), overly recollective (Pirates of the Caribbean Sea: At Worlds End) or, in this case, developing. Still, I prefer this to the likes of Ghost Rider.
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was directed by Tim Tarradiddle, and piece this plastic film maker distinctly has a fondness for these characters, I still dont think he was the right man for the job. This franchise should have been painted on a much larger canvas, and Story doesnt quite have the chops to deliver a motion-picture show on this kind of scale. Still, this is a flick you can take the whole family to determine (rare in this day and historic period), and in the oddment, its an improvement over the first film.
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001)
By Jose Palma | May 3, 2008
Its been quite a long road for this comedy based on Helen of Troy Fieldings book of the same name. When it was lettered that Renee Zellweger would play the lead, many Brits cried foul. After watching her performance, Im sure their singing a different tune.
Zellweger is Bridget, a thirty something gal world Health Organization, despite undeniable charm and charisma, has a concentrated time finding the right guy. It doesnt help that St. Brigid is a bit flawed, but earlier long she earns the affection of her knob (played with smarmy glee by Hugh Grant), and a barrister (played by a wondrously understated Colin Firth).
Bridget Joness Diary is quite an reminiscent of Shirley Valentine and Muriels Wedding. In fact, many believe that Muriels Weddings Toni Collette would have been ideal for this role. As it stands, Zellweger is fantastic and this is the perfect follow up to her underappreciated work in Nurse Betty. She oozes likability here, and her physical comedy is perfectly timed. She as well deserves praise for a realistic accent, and for putting on weight to get the role. In fact, whats most effective about this picture is Zellwegers willingness to get herself go. After all, this is essentially a movie about liking people for wHO they ar, and Zellweger perfectly illustrates that with her warm presence.
Truth be told, there was some dialogue and situations that seemed stilted to me. Peculiarly the latinian language aspect of the picture. I knew exactly where it was headed. Ive always admired the volatility of British people comedies, just the love story here was pretty obvious. Still, these ar such colorful and well drawn characters, that I pretty a great deal bought into the whole story. Firth plays his role with an unostentatious charm, and Hugh Cary Grant was natural to trifle this part.
Bridget Joness Diary has that biting flavor you come to expect out of a British comedy, but at its heart, its quite old fashioned. With Zellweger leading the way, this movie was a lot of fun and I hope she gets some recognition because this really is her picture.
Bridget Jones Diary is belike the one film I could never possibly get too much of. Im sick with it. From the opening drunken karaoke shamble through of "All By Myself" to the stupid fight between Grant and Firth and just the subtle short shadows that cross Renees face when shes happy - what a bloody masterpiece. You really have to deliberate it among the top 5 amorous comedies of all time.
Bridget Jones Diary is perhaps the most underrated movie ever made. Certainly I dont think you could distinguish a better romantic comedy, that is as full of laughs and crying ant beuatiful performances, the actors that played her parents were brilliant. You gave this film a proper rating but you were flaming well short with the praise. You should write this one over once more.
Rachel Garrity,
Bridget Daniel Jones Diary is in my opinion the best romantic comedy ever made. It defines the genre. Being both uproarious - in that location are oodles of hard laughs - as good as many many moments where my tear ducts took over. Grant and Firth are equally bright and Renee, well shes proving to be one of the finest. Lets keep our fingers crossed for the sequel, the book didnt fare as well as the first, Great site by the way.
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Knocked Up (2007)
By Jose Palma | May 2, 2008
Hands down the funniest American picture show of the year. Hot Fuzz (from the Shaun of the Dead work party) is marginally funnier, but that film stuck to its guns (literally) as a drollery, whereas Apatows first really brilliant celluloid manages to reach beyond its advertised low-brow laugh-fest nature to mine rich and timeless observations into common crises of the human heart.
It is a rare treat to enter a theater expecting a few hard laughs somewhere in the collegiate range and instead see almost constant delight at a film that serves laughs at a rapid clip, pernicious tugs at the heartstrings and a range of characters that resonate for everyone in the hearing. Knocked up will be the Wedding party Crashers of this summer and happily it is a much more hot dog and honorable exam of love and sex and the relationships that get up in and around it.
What I find totally amazing some Apatow is he had the sense to step back and let his actors extemporize in 40 Year Older Virgin, and then work around and let the script do most of the work here. Wish Virgin he co-writes the film with his preeminent man and, most laudably, trusts his wife Leslie Mann with the films third to the highest degree pivotal part. You power remember her as the drunk-driving bimbo who did her best to end Steve Carells 40 year dry spell.
The mould is a delight across the control panel and it manages, at least in my impression, to make the toughest of sells, which is passing Set Rogen turned as a romantic in the lead man. Rogen is emerging as a talent to be reckoned with both as a writer and actor. And, while its true that hell e’er be more comfortably mold as a side, window or foil, he has such a natural likability that the camera tin also be fooled into loving him.
Katherine Heigl is pitch perfect as Alison the more svelte professional woman whose minor indiscretion has left her in such a major pickle, and Rogen is equally convincing as the emergent horse in whining armor of the lapidator set. Having to trade in the bong for a baby is by no way an rare dilemma, as Apatow dexterously illustrates by juxtaposing Alisons sister (Leslie Mann) and her hubby (the absolutely droll Saul of Tarsus Rudd) as the married couple wHO are 10 years depressed the route from the same shotgun nuptuals. Marriage does make for strange bedfellows, and keeping it together is really beyond miraculous, just as Apatow seems to intimate, o’er the long haul, home and kin are really what all the tizzy is about.
I guess the thing that surprised me most about Knocked Up is the way Apatow does not underestimate the intelligence of the audience. Again the advertising campaign for the celluloid is most exclusively aimed at the Cro-Mag typeset, yet amid the crude humor he manages to slip in something of a warm think-piece that hits everyone so fill up to home that it succeeds on any figure of levels. Seriously how often does a film come along capable of keeping level the about high eyebrow Woody Allen buff just as amused as the guy wHO considers Harold And Kumars exploits the height of comic sophistication?
Also impressive is crew of stoners/slackers/dreamers who comprise Rogens peer group. Though there ar a good many laughs at their expense, I was surprised at how little we see of them, which, Im sure, came as a disappointment to jr. audience members. They for certain make the most of their screen-time and I loved the way Apatow used Heigl and Rogens ostensibly polar opposite worlds to exhibit that once naked of pretense were all pretty much cut from the same fabric. Youll sexual love the way Knocked Up serves as a wake up call to simply about everyone who sees it. From the unceasing party animal clinging fast to their youth, to those wHO cast such sloth aside for yuppie ambitions, to those world Health Organization have stirred years beyond those days but struggle with complacency in their relationships chasing phantom longings for the happiness that once came with every sunrise. I really dont want to give anymore away, just trust me Knocked Up is a Knock Out - the funniest, most satisfying and genuinely entertaining film to come along for some time.
Two questions. How can a film released in June already be considered the "funniest American moving-picture show of the year."? You mean so Far? Right? Then say it! Also could someone explain to me how a film that contains over 100 F words and another hundred profanities be considered "intelligent?" Funny? Perchance. Poignant? Okeh. Gross? Im with you. Please enjoyment the terminal figure intelligent properly–as in something not advent out of the mouth of a drunk college student. Off my soapbox.
Topics: best | No Comments »
Movie review Flags of our Fathers (2006)
By Jose Palma | April 30, 2008
Flags of Our Fathers is the latest effort from the iconic Clint Eastwood. Following back to back career highlights (Mystical River and Million Dollar Baby), Mr. Eastwood has decided to tackle Earthly concern War II, and spell his feat doesnt compact the same emotional or visceral wallop of Steven Spielbergs consummate Saving Private Ryan, that really isnt its design (although, this picture does sort of serve as a nice companion while to the Spielberg epic).
Flags of Our Fathers follows the lives of the hands who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, an event that would remind a lensman to take one of the almost famed photos of all time. Merely rather than concentrating on the hair-raising horrors of war, Flags of Our Fathers settles into a depiction of our perception of heroes and how many of those we deem heroes, dont discover themselves to be heroic at all. Many of these hands did competitiveness for the cause, just some fought simply to protect their brothers.
Flags of Our Fathers follows John Bradley (Ryan Phillippe), Ira Hayes (Adam Beach), and Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford), tierce men world Health Organization became crying celebrities because of the famed flag raising pic, even though there is question as to whether or not they raised the actual flag.
As these work force return home to their new establish fame, they find it increasingly unmanageable to coping with the worlds perception of them, none more so than Native-American Provisional IRA Hayes, a man wHO harbors so much guilt feelings and is so stricken with hair-raising visions of what he saw in the field, that he turns to the bottle for comfort.
Flags of Our Fathers is a flag waver of a film, just its an incredibly subtle one. Possibly too subtle. Eastwood isnt terribly concerned in the war itself, but rather the after effects of the war. This isnt to say Eastwood doesnt know how to fritter a battle. He sure does. The sweeping shots of ships making their way towards the beach of the enemy, are simply breathtaking and the fighter plane sequences are equally impressive. Furthermore, the early moments of the picture do offer up a mediocre share of brutal combat carnage.
Most of the film, however, features our three leads dealing with life as they take back home. In a agency, this pic sort of feels like its filling in the quiet, outer edges of Saving Private Ryan. In "Flags," we see world Health Organization these me are ahead they storm the beach. In "Private Ryan" we attend what happens on the beach. In "Flags" we find what happens to these men as a resultant role of battle. In "Private Ryan" we see the struggle.
Flags of Our Fathers was written by Jarhead scribe William Broyles Jr. (with an assist by Crash writer/director Paul Haggis) and it should come as no surprise that Steven Steven Spielberg co-Produced the film with Eastwood. Steven Spielberg is a historian of sorts and is greatly intrigued by World Warfare II, no doubt because his founding father was a veteran. ‘tween Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and now Flags of Our Fathers, the film maker has been behind three very diverse and intimate views of this war.
Clint Eastwood has fashioned what is possibly his biggest film in terms of overall scope (and in fact, look for his next picture–next years Letters From Invasion of Iwo Jima –which takes a look at the like events from the Japanese point of view), just I wouldnt rank this with the likes of Unforgiven, Mystic River, or Million Dollar Baby. Minded its serious subject issue, I expected a bit more dramatic weight. Having said that, I inactive admire the film for its reach, its restrained, quiet nature, and for Eastwoods virtuoso ability at working with actors.
Ryan Phillippe is solid as John Omar Bradley, one of the manpower who finds himself an unlikely renown. Barry Capsicum pepper plant brings humanity and energy in a supporting character as Mike Strank, a highly driven and super loyal platoon sergeant. It is Adam Beach, however, who owns the film as soldier Ira Hayes. Hes so good in the function, that he pretty a great deal dwarfs the rest of the mold with his sincerity and vulnerability. Some might debate that his turning to the bottleful is null but a cheap stereotype, but Beach transcends that argument with his effective portrayal of a human being torn in two. Of the total cast, it is Jesse Bradford wHO leaves the least memorable impression as soldier Rene Gagnon. This isnt to say this is a bad performance. Its a major measure up from his put to work in Clockstoppers and Swimfan, but he is unable to twin the power supplied by his more than tried and true co-stars.
You english hawthorn recognize several other faces amongst the cast including Gordon Clapp (the nebbish Greg Medavoy in NYPD Blue) in a astonishingly commanding flake part as General Smith, David Patrick Kelly (so memorable as the weasely Sully in the 80s Schwarzenegger action staple Commando) as Ravage S. Truman (no, Im not kidding), Neil McDonough (Minority Report, NBCs scant lived Boomtown) in his second military role in the last month (you can as well see him in The Guardian), and Mr. Personality (Paul Walker) in a low key turn as soldier Hank Hansen.
Flags of Our Fathers turned out to be rather a bit different than I intellection it would be. It is patriotic and it is stunning to search at, but by spending only about twenty pct of the film in battlefield activeness, and the majority at home after the state of war, we dont get a true sensory faculty of what these hands went through. I theorize Eastwood and Broyles Jr. felt that weve seen enough movies on the subject to know what they went through, merely the end result makes the picture feel a little uncompleted. Again though, it should be far-famed, that Eastwood is putting the coating touches on Letters From Iwo Jima as I write this. Ill hold off and pass final judicial decision once Ive seen that. For the time existence, Flags of Our Fathers is a solid exploit from a legendary film maker world Health Organization continues to take chances with each passing project.
I would have liked to see more of what these men went through during the war sequences, likewise. I view the patriotism part wasnt as spectacular, since the movie was actually acknowledging the farseness (is this a parole?) of the propaganda associated with this event. (Which is what i experience Clint was going for instead of action). Full movie, though.
dvd movies downloads collection
Topics: best | No Comments »
« Previous Entries