Change Your Image
lerxstwannabe
Reviews
Ip Man (2008)
I'm a convert
I've never been a "Kung Fu movie fan". I can appreciate and respect martial artists, especially of the various Kung Fu schools, but as far as their on-screen portrayal... not so much.
It wasn't until I started to develop an interest in Wing Chun, that all references pointed me to this film. Other than Ip Man, the real "character" in this movie is his fighting style, which is what the movie is all about.
To digress briefly: Wing Chun is an extreme close-range Kung Fu style that is used as a defensive means to counter an opponent's attack. It was developed by a female Shaolin Monk, as a more streamlined version of their traditional Kung Fu. It's a style intended to give the advantage to a smaller, weaker opponent in a fight, by being as efficient and direct as possible and as it's history shows, works exceedingly well. It's also a more meditative fighting form that takes pride in its spiritual roots and relies on senses, and tactics, over strength and height. People often liken it to playing a game of Chess, first, and fighting secondary.
I bring this all up because, Donnie Yen captures the essence of this style to near-perfection! Like the fighting style, Ip Man, the first open teacher of it, was the living embodiment. You can see in Yen's acting, the calm, peaceful, mindfulness that separates this fighting style from others. This also makes the scenes where he unleashes hell on his opponents, even more brutal and visceral than most other action movies are when they try to portray the same types of combat.
The other bonus that I'm a sucker for, is the genre. I would reluctantly call this a "Kung Fu" movie, since I feel it is more of a period drama, than an action movie. The scenery, the story, the history and the drama are all things that get layered into this movie better than any others I've seen in this same genre, and even better than many mainstream, Hollywood movies.
Watching this movie, I felt the same kind of underlying, tension and anxiety building that I saw while sitting through more well known movies like "Unforgiven", "The Patriot", "The Professional" and even to some degree "Master and Commander"; any movie where you follow a hero you know can beat the snot out of someone and are just waiting for them to open up a can of whoop-ass at the right moment after they get pushed to their limit.
This is far from the traditional (cheesy), over-the-top, Kung Fu action flicks from the 70's and 80's. This one actually has charisma for the characters (especially the lead role by Yen) and a strong underlying story. It's production value is also top-notch and you'd be hard-pressed to find any more flaws in it than you would with a Hollywood release.
And no... the subtitles do not detract from the movie in the least!
The Tick (2016)
And you don't fight destiny. No sir. And, you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future, or you get all... scratchy.
I think the words that can best describe this are
"Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God!"
The Tick HAS RETURNED. Unlike the lackluster and horribly feeble attempt at a series in the early 2000's, this, my friends is the true "The Tick"! (Wait
is that even proper grammar?)
In 1997, I was hanging on every single preview and commercial for the next Tick episode. Sadly, my hopes were crushed when I realized that the show which made my initial college years enjoyable, was cancelled due to
low ratings?
The Tick has always had a bit of an identity crisis, only, it knew full well what it's identity is. The problem is, Hollywood/Network TV has no clue what the hell to do with it! They aired it relatively early, placing it in the Saturday morning cartoon slot, when the majority of its fan base was still nursing the underage-party- hangover from the night before. It's a cartoon that had an art style that fit well with the morning cartoons, but humor that flew well above the average cartoon watcher's head.
Some friends and I used to spout out "Tickisms" randomly throughout the day. When you go to jump something and land wrong, or fall - "Gravity is a harsh mistress". When you're playing an online game and the other players start talking in another language? "I can't understand your crazy Moon Language!" Even after these years, I still remember a few of them!
The 2017 return of The Tick has kept those Ticksims in all their glory! "Destiny's on the line, Arthur, and she's calling collect
accept the charges" There. You see? Right there. THAT is a Tickism! This Amazon release of the series is rife with them and, my God, is it a glorious thing! Ben Edlund, the original creator of The Tick is also responsible for writing this series as well and it shows.
As for the specifics of this show, when I first heard Peter Serafinowicz's voice in the role, I did a tremendous double-take. "Is that? No
it can't be! But wait
is it?" Turns out, no, it is not Townsend Coleman, but holy hell, is it close!
So you have "the voice" of The Tick, reciting "the lines" of The Tick, being portrayed in the original writing style of The Tick. This is absolute gold!
If the cartoon had one issue, it was the lack of a plot that could span more than the typical episode. Characters and even their various situations would play out over a season or so, but the stories were all kept nicely in their allotted space. This makes it easy to watch an episode here or there, but after you know what to expect, you can miss a few and come back for some more quick entertainment here and there without needing to follow the whole thing. This may be good at times, but it can really affect the longevity of a series.
I was relieved to see that the entire story gets told along the Arthur lines, providing some real drive and purpose to the story over the episodes. The episodes, which can easily degrade into pure silliness, if not kept in check, are held together tightly with the "grounding" the Arthur story provides for them. Good move on their part.
Unlike the cartoon series and the short live-action, this one also starts to create a true "origins" story that it mildly delves into with the Tick and the entire backstory of superheroes and the city in general.
There is one divergence from the animated series that has to be noted: This is written like the comic book. The comic book was written for a more mature audience than the Saturday cartoon was. On Amazon, it has a TV-14 rating, which falls towards the more mature side of a PG-13 rating, possibly right on the "R" line. But they can get away with that on Amazon, so expect blood, frequent swearing (mildly) and an f-bomb here or there. But fear not, The Tick does not stoop to those levels
yet. They are primarily reserved for his villains.
So any Generation X-er, growing up in the 90's, definitely needs to watch this show! Trust me, this "The Tick", is the real deal!
Dunkirk (2017)
A Spielberg, Kubrick or Stone, Nolan is not.
The last truly bad WWII film I ever saw was The Thin Red Line. Dunkirk seems to want to compete for that spot, but still comes in slightly ahead.
I like Nolan, I really do. Interstellar was one of my favorite movies, Inception was great and I loved his recreation of Batman. I also love WWII movies, Band of Brothers being one of the best stories ever to grace the screen, in my opinion. The entire time watching this movie, though, there was one nagging question I had: What if Spielberg directed this?
Chris Nolan really isn't suited to take on a film like this. Dunkirk is a historical drama, about one of the greatest feats in WWII. This has two strikes against Nolan; one is that it's a historical drama, unlike the rest of his portfolio. The second is that WWII is, by its very nature an "R" rated period (so to speak) and Nolan seems to thrive in semi-tame PG-13 violence.
"War is Hell"... yet nowhere in this movie do we ever sense that. There's a huge difference between gratuitous violence and realism, mind you and I am not promoting the former. Steven Spielberg is the master of understanding this. Some of his movies are rather violent, yet they use that to drive home the plot and atmosphere of the film. Chris Nolan really, really, desperately needs to take some notes from Spielberg in this area if he wants to be a true master of his art. The desire to stick to this catch-all, watered down PG-13 cash- cow rating, almost seems forced, considering the time period and the topic covered.
Realistic "R" rating aside, the tedium of the movie sets in rather quickly. Had I not paid money to see it, and waited for its TV release, I would have changed the channel about 15 minutes in.
This story sets itself up for about half of the film. It takes that long just to understand the characters, their motivations, their situations
even their names. Once that's done, the movie starts to show us some promise and hopes to drops us into action, but ends up easing us down gently. Critics may commend Nolan for keeping an even momentum, not letting one part overpower the next - unfortunately it carries the momentum of a brick wall.
The history of Dunkirk is a fine example of human will and strength, it just doesn't make for a gripping story. The events that this movie cover, can be summed up in about 2 pages of a text book, not an entire novel
nevermind a 2 hour movie!
A book editor once told me that you should always focus on telling the most interesting moment of a character's life. While the evacuation is interesting, in this movie, it seems the most interesting moments took place just before the events it covers. How did 400,000 soldiers end up getting pushed back to the sea? What battles were fought that drove them so far? What tactics failed so catastrophically?
Dunkirk tells half a story, with the more interesting half taking place before the movie starts. The two hours of this movie could have easily been compressed into 1 hour, with another 2 hours telling the larger story of how the events transpired that led to this point.
Acting wise
it's hard to tell. Mark Rylance almost revisits his role as the Russian spy, Rudolf Able in (a much better film) Bridge of Spies. It works. His calm demeanor, yet screen presence is felt and you do make some connection with his character. Of course, that may also be because his character has one of the larger speaking roles throughout the entire film.
The rest of the actors are wasted, especially Kenneth Branagh, who has proved himself, time and time again, to be an "actor's actor", but has been almost sidelined for the duration of this movie.
I would recommend waiting for this film to reach a cable channel before you fork out the $12+ for a ticket
if I would recommend this movie at all. As it stands, do yourself a favor and binge watch Band of Brothers in order to get a much more rewarding WWII experience.
The Circle (2017)
110 minute infomercial?
This movie either feels like a shallow, late-night infomercial, a cheesy after-school special, or a movie that got "post-productioned" to death on the chopping block.
The characters make, seemingly abrupt, 180 turns in their judgment and opinions, without any explanation, or expository hints as to why. You almost have to try your mind-reading ability and then give your best guess a lot of times.
The pacing of the story moves at break-neck speeds, leaving you to wonder how and why the characters did what they did, as fast as they did and made leaps in logic as fast as they do.
The acting, while good, is not enough to save the shallow, incomplete feel the movie has to it either. As always though, Tm Hanks steals the show - it's just a shame he had to be in this movie!
After watching the movie, I can't figure out if it's trying to tell me the actions, events and opinions expressed by the main character(s) are good, bad, moral or immoral. I like to think the lead character is supposed to be a "good" person, but some of her decisions really leave me questioning her true motives. The end and her reaction to some key parts in the movie, leaves me wondering what kind of a heartless, *insert phrase here*, she really is.
On the more forgivable side, there are plenty of loose... err... sorta of poorly tied... ends. You're not really given much closure for a lot for elements and character stories.
Either there is a lot of this movie that never made it off the chopping block, and is littering the recycling bin on hard drive somewhere, or the movie was really made this hastily and exposes its flaws for all of us to see.
I know there was some larger message it was trying to relay and point to get across; it's obvious that it was trying, too hard, even. In order to appreciate that message though, there's just way too much clutter, poor writing, incomplete stories and unbelievable logic- gaps to get past.
Antitrust (2001) was actually a much better movie, from the storytelling aspect, with a similar message and equally talented acting. Couldn't help but wish I were watching that one again, instead of this one!
Equilibrium (2002)
105 minutes of your live never went by faster
This movie isn't perfect, by far. In a future where people are supposedly to be emotionless, you'll find yourself specifically paying attention to the emotions the characters express in each scene; a smirk of pride, a raised voice, a fit of anger. Despite this, the point of the movie is crystal clear and it hits the ball out of the proverbial park when it comes to driving that message home.
The set, as others have said, is minimalistic... but not "cheap". It does the job and does it very well. The monochrome and featureless backgrounds, buildings and rooms all fit with the story. The times you do see some color, it stands out for that reason alone and almost tells its own story without the need for dialog - like the famous "red dress" scene in Schindler's List.
Throughout the years, the story has been told over and over again, so you know the routine. However, I have one word for you - Zombies. You know what to picture and what to expect when somebody tells you of a zombie movie. Even if the premise is unique, you still know what a zombie is and how the whole thing works. The same for this movie. But, like a zombie movie, does it really lose anything by giving the audience the main foundation it's based on?
Like Zombie movies, Dystopian future movies have become their own meme. There's no need to dwell upon the whos, hows and whats since you already know the basics instinctively. This opens the doors wide for movies to add their own special flavors to the recipe and Equilibrium does that better than just about any other movie out there.
The acting is... well, it's kind of hard to mess up the acting in a movie whose story is based on being emotionless. Although, I did mention how you may find some smirks and pounding fists that the rest of the characters who are supposed to arrest people that express emotions, just pass off as nothing. In that sense, the acting isn't perfect, but you can also point fingers at the writing.
The gun play, though, is where this movie really, really.... and I mean REALLY shines! The idea that the technique may actually work is ridiculous, but it's fun as Hell to watch. The ending scenes really don't let you down in this respect. Although it may seem like it slows down a bit, believe me, it picks right back up, ten-fold! I still can't help but watch it with a huge grin on my face, even after the 100th time through.
If you're looking for a sci-fi movie that's aged very well, where CGI doesn't dominate the screen all the time, has some really nice pacing, a plot that sticks to your mind but doesn't make you think too hard about and some scenes that may even make you utter "daaaaaaamn!" a few times, then this is a good movie to pick up in you spare time.
And... Sean Bean. 'Nuff said.
Band of Brothers (2001)
Potato chips
First, let me get the spoiler out of the way: We win!
This show/movie/series is like a potato chip; you can't watch just one.
So you know where I'm coming from, let me tell you about my typical movie list:
I'm a peace-loving sort of guy; a pacifist, a hippie, etc. etc. etc. But... I absolutely love war stories. You will seldom get a better drama unfold before you then you do in a war movie. Add a hefty dose of "real story" to that and you have the makings of, not just a good movie, but a great movie. Band of Brothers is exactly that!
Other movies that have the honors of some of the top places on this list of mine would be Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge Over the River Kwai, and Letters from Iwo Jima. If any of those movies have struck a chord with you in the past, this is one that would definitely be worth your time to watch.
If you watch the first episode, nearly a movie in and of itself, you will be drawn to watching the next 9. It's rather dangerous actually. 11 hours later, you may end up forgetting the little things like eating, drinking and sleeping.
As for the cast:
Many of the actors in it are/were relatively unknown at the time. Damien Lewis, for instance was in very few movies prior to this, but his acting especially is superb! He played such a convincing role as Winters, that even the cast didn't realize he was British until the end of filming. After this, I saw Stephen King's Dreamcatcher (which also features Donnie Wahlberg) and and smiled a bit when I saw him in the lead role.
Scott Grimes (Malarkey) who has done a plethora of TV movies and shows also acts out a great role. The only thing I can honestly say I recall him being in before this was Critters 2, as a teenager. But thanks to our trusty IMDb database, you can see his roles for yourself.
Then there's Mark Wahlberg's brother, Donnie. He plays, perhaps, one of the most charismatic characters in the show and trust me, you will be hard-pressed to not feel something for Lipton throughout the series. You'll forget his New Kinds on the Block phase and totally be absorbed in his role in this show.
Then, if you're like me, you probably never heard of or say Neal Mcdonough prior to this, but you'll soon recognize him in his later roles in movies like The Hitcher, Captain America, Traitor and Walking Tall.
Last, but not least (for this abridged list at least) we have Ron Livingston. Despite being the brunt of a Family Guy joke, I actually did remember him from roles like Swingers and Office Space. I was thrilled to see him in this show and his Role and Nixon (not the President) was definitely one well worth remembering.
The show:
You have about 11 hours of pure bliss with this show as it follows the men from the 101st Airborne, focusing primarily on Easy Company.
At the start of each episode, you have the actual members of Easy being interviewed about the basic subject for that episode, which just adds even more atmosphere to the story. At the end, you get to see their names and make the connection with each of the characters you were following for the past 11 hours.
Speaking of characters... there's a lot! On my 20-sometingith viewing I'm still noticing characters in the earlier episodes that are given more focus in the later ones - "Doc" Roe for instance. You will only benefit from watching this show multiple times, as more of the story comes to light and the characters come alive with each viewing.
You can visually and emotionally watch each of the characters mature form young recruits to war-hardened veterans, and it happens in such a way that you don't actually realize it until you see it from the beginning again; you really do get that immersed in it!
I rarely agree with some of the IMDb ratings and hype, but this is one show that deserves every single bit of praise it's been given.
And even if you are one of those "macho" man's man kind of guys, don't worry, your buddies will understand if you shed a tear by the end of the series :)
Rush in Rio (2003)
Great effort, great show!
First I have to point out other comments about the editing/MTV quality of this video. Once you see the pains and heartache they went through in order to deliver this video to the general public, you will have a better appreciation of what they've done.
Through rain, bad weather, mechanical malfunctions and thousands of screaming fans, Rush was able to record and edit their first concert DVD ever! There's no sense commenting about the quality of the editing once you actually watch the documentary and realize what they were up against in filming this; just sit back and enjoy the show!
The show goes on for several hours, spanning just about every album of their 30 year career. There are songs for every type of Rush fan from every generation. They play some old, rarely heard classics (ByTor and the Snowdog) to some of their 80's hits (Tom Sawyer) and songs off their latest release, `Vapor Trails'. There's something for everyone as far as their music goes.
The documentary is one of the only video documentaries Rush has ever recorded. You get to see everything and everyone, from Neil warming up, Alex goofing off and Geddy stressing about his hair :) This is one of the only times the `boys' have provided this in-depth look into the band, and is worth the price of the DVD set alone in my opinion.
I will admit, the screaming fans get a bit much at times, but hey, when was the last time you've heard of Rush performing to an audience equivalent to the type the Beetles did in the mid 60's? It's truly awe inspiring.