Change Your Image
WhatsYourPoint
Reviews
WALL·E (2008)
The Family Film: An Artistic Statement?
The past decade of films have seen its fair share of fads; from big-budget fantasy movies and comic book adaptations to a multitude indie films, this era of cinema is rife with them.
However, maybe the biggest current one is the computer-animated movie. And as the undisputed king of this, Pixar constantly pushes the envelope for this young genre. Yet, even after stating this, no one could have expected what they did with their newest film.
They created art.
Pixar's 2008 contribution is "WALL-E," a fish out of water story about a cute and cuddly robot who finds himself in love, and unknowingly, carrying the torch for humanity's future. Sounds generic.
Well, that's why plot synopses never do the film justice! This is the case with "WALL-E." The plot's purpose is to bring us to a beautiful, yet ugly, world where humanity has lost its way. The film tackles such subjects as consumerism, environmentalism, America's fast-food culture, and our increasing dependence on technology. With this list of themes, I might as well be talking about an Oliver Stone movie.
Thank God I am not; Oliver Stone could never produce something as good as "WALL-E" ("Platoon," you don't stand a chance). Man, this catapults the kids movie into art. There are so many beautiful images, like WALL-E scraping Saturn's rings as if they were water or WALL-E and his mate flying in space locked in a romantic helix.
Furthermore, even the structure is somewhat unconventional. There is little dialog, especially in the first part. And there are really no overt villains, as the film tries to point out that humanity is really its own worst enemy (it's not cheesy like "Dawn of the Dead"'s take on this concept). Sure, there is a happy ending, and clichés show up once in awhile, but the movie is so awe-inspiring in its execution and its message that it doesn't matter.
If I told you my least favorite genre in moviedom, I might tell you that kids' movies are at the top of my list. "WALL-E" doesn't change my mind on this, but it does give me hope that the genre will actually try to become more than poor dialog, unbearable storytelling, and most of all, flagrant bathroom humor. Pixar's new outing not only gives one hope for the family film, but for all movies in general.
A pop film can be art.
Schindler's List (1993)
One of the only films to make me cry (well, almost).
One night after all my friends left my house at midnight, for some reason I thought it would be a good idea to plop Schindler's List into my DVD player. I knew it would end at 3, but I didn't care because I had wanted to see this so called "amazing" film. I wasn't disappointed.
Spielberg managed to create one of the most beautiful films ever. Even though the subject matter itself is depressing and morbid, the way humanity springs from such a destructive environment is beautiful. Oskar Schindler's transformation from a war profiteer to a humanitarian is subtle and realistic. Schindler is human, and feels it too, thanks to great writing and Liam Neeson's wonderful performance.
Spielberg's direction has never been better. The executions of the Jews are brutal because there are no cuts; almost every slaying is done in one shot. This adds to the realism and the sheer bestial nature of the Holocaust. The cinematography is amazing in black and white, creating a sense of melancholy in a stark world.
What else is there to say? I could go on about the acting and the writing. I didn't even mention John William's morose, but poignant score, which provides much of the emotion that stems from the film. However, all I can say is that Schindler's List is moving, touching, and altogether brilliant. The final scene almost made me cry, but I didn't because I'm an unemotional robot. But as an unemotional robot, I was still deeply moved by Spielberg's sentimental tribute to those who died in one of history's saddest periods.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Quite possibly the most ridiculous film I've ever seen...
Here it is, the motion picture event of our generation: "Snakes on a Plane." Every generation from the twentieth century onward had and will have a movie that they can call their own; some had "Gone with the Wind," while others had "Star Wars." We have "Snakes on a Plane." Not to say this is the best movie of my generation, not by a long shot. However, this is more than a movie, it's an experience. And that is what it will be remembered for. Who's going to see this not wanting creative deaths, sex, language, and badly computerized snakes? On those notes, "Snakes" delivers in bulk.
"Snakes" sports the dumbest plot line since "XXX," but unlike the formerly mentioned piece of crap, it knows that. This film hardly takes itself seriously with all of the cheesy dialog and numerous clichés (which do eventually bog down the film by the end). And don't get me started on the forced ironic final scene; it's groan-inducing.
What more can I say? Samuel L. Jackson combating snakes 30,000 feet in the air, while spouting off the greatest one liner this side of the Pacific! What we have here is the first "internet movie," and it is a rush. Absurd, stupid, corny, over-the-top, unbelievable, but ultimately amazing and completely unforgettable. Sadly, it's a movie for the ages!
Batman & Robin (1997)
Ad nauseam...
Do I have to remind anyone about how crappy Batman & Robin is? Good, I didn't think so, but I will anyway. This movie is ruined not only by its stupid ideas, but the sheer number of times they are put into practice! The Batman series declined ever since Batman Returns in 1992, but I didn't think that it would go this far!
Where to start? I guess the ludicrous script is the first stepping-stone in attacking this pure dreck. Akiva Goldsman (who won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, go figure) penned a screenplay that consists of the most one-liners in the history of cinema! Between Mr. Freeze's constant jokes about ice, freezing, cold, and winter, and Robin's ridiculous "witty" observations, there is no better movie that showcases the beauty of one-liners!
Next I'll tackle the story (or lack thereof). Batman & Robin is laden with plot holes and illogical plot points. Mr. Freeze turning a telescope into a giant freezing gun? Tell me more! Why doesn't anyone guard themselves from Poison Ivy's intoxicating mist? Don't you think Batman and Robin would realize this after the third time she's blown that "love-powder" in their faces? Freeze and Ivy's alliance makes no sense because they both have completely conflicting interests! Freeze wants to cause a new ice-age, while Ivy wants her plants to overthrow humanity and thrive in a new-world order. Last time I checked, plants don't survive to well in a harsh winter, but maybe I'm just an idiot.
The characters are campy and stupid. Poison Ivy is always talking and revealing her plans, even when someone (like a cop) is right beside her. Freeze (played "amiably" by Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a terrible villain who's only purpose is to annoy the audience. Bane: what in God's name is this? Robin is ungrateful and a nuisance, complaining to Bruce Wayne all the time (and this is the man who buys his things and takes care of him). Batman is corny because of George Clooney's delivery, but he is fine as Wayne. Batgirl is the "tough-as-nails" chick, but just comes off as a jerk.
I could go on about how bad this movie is: bad acting, directing, writing (especially), action, etc. If it's so bad, then why only a 2 rating and not a 1? Well, I must admit some sets are pretty and there are some good colors. Plus, Joel Schumacher's second Batman doesn't get boring because watching this "movie" dissolve into drivel provides some entertainment. And if nothing else, you'll be quoting the one-liners for days on end! Alas, Batman & Robin is a sad entry into the Batman anthology, but fortunately it is the last one (Begins is the first one in a hopefully much better saga).
Raging Bull (1980)
Never compromises it's beauty; never compromises its ferocity.
Most Martin Scorcese fans will remember him for his 1990 film Goodfellas. Others believe that his greatest achievement lies within the confines of Taxi Driver. And then there are other fans, who fall into another camp, one that will always remember the genius that he exuded on another film. That film is Raging Bull, his most poignant and beautiful, yet unrelenting, film.
Paul Schrader's superlative script gives us insight into the life of Jake La Motta, played by Robert De Niro. De Niro puts forth bestial nature of the boxer so brilliantly and puts forth so much effort to become him; he even gained sixty pounds for the later scenes! To only praise De Niro would be a crime, though. Joe Pesci holds his own against the titanic De Niro and provides an antagonistic camaraderie toward him. Cathy Moriarty, who plays La Motta's wife Vickie, is perfect and acts as a voice of reason against La Motta's paranoid delusions.
Raging Bull is violent and vicious, yet somehow there is a great beauty attached to it. The black and white cinematography is amazing, with its long takes and shots. The boxing matches are the best ever filmed, making the sport seem akin to ballet. The animal sounds thrown in to some of the fights reminds us of the brutality of the sport, and of La Motta. But some of the beauty would not be achieved without the music from Pietro Mascagni's opera Cavalleria Rusticana. This extends Bull to operatic heights.
I love Goodfellas, even though it is a little overrated; I like Taxi Driver, even though it is overrated too. However, Raging Bull exceeds all expectations and becomes Scrosese's best film. Bull is the best film of 1980, the best film of the 80s, and probably the best film of all time. Scorsese presented a masterpiece that has not been matched since its release. And to think that he didn't even want to direct it because it was a "boxing movie!" Thank God (or really thank Scorsese) that this extraordinary director managed to helm Raging Bull.
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot; don't talk."
I'm going to start this review by saying this: there is not western that can compare to this, hell, there may not even be any movie that can compare to this. Only a handful come to my mind, and it's a very small handful at that.
Sergio Leone's classic western provides the perfect ensemble of cinematography, direction, acting, story, and last, but not least, music. Leone's film about three greedy men in the search for 500,000 in gold exemplifies the dirty west. This is not your typical American western, where the sun-drenched west is romanticized. No, it's dirty and rough, just like the west was. If anyone wanted to watch the film that is the antithesis the "chick-flick," I would recommend The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Clint Eastwood reprises his iconic Man With No Name in this final film in the Dollars Trilogy. Lee Van Cleef returns from A Few Dollars More; however, he plays a different (much different) character. The actor who steals the show has to be Eli Wallach. Wallach, a western veteran, plays Tuco with great viciousness and humor, making him likable and unlikeable at the same time; he truly is "ugly." Leone and his cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli pack the film with great shots of the west, from the tired sands of the desert, to the endless graves of a cemetery (which was actually located in Spain). Ennio Morricone combines Colli's lush cinematography with the greatest score ever put onto film. From the easily recognizable theme, to the sad Story of a Soldier, to the excitement of Ecstacy of Gold, this soundtrack has it all.
What more can I say? If you haven't seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, see it now! I can not press you more. This is one of those films that could be considered perfect, or the closest to perfection. A classic that shall never be forgotten; a classic that shall always be admired.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Empire Strikes Back Redux
Here it is: the long awaited sequel to everyone's favorite pirate movie, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Was it worth the wait? In a lot of ways, yes it was. The movie delivers in many facets: humor, action, adventure, and of course, detestable villains. The actors stay consistent in their roles, never catering to over-the-top caricatures of their characters.
However, the movie suffers from overall plot structure. The first ludicrous twenty minutes is completely useless to the story (except if you consider the end at the credits). Dead Man's Chest feels a lot like Empire Strikes Back in plot, but that can be forgiven. What make me maddest about the plot though is the fact that it has to be told in two parts. This makes the first movie stand alone and the next two linked together as one self-contained story. Pirates is no longer a trilogy, but two films, much like a preceding "trilogy" like The Matrix.
Dead Man's Chest also guises itself as a rehash of the first movie. Many jokes are reused and the enemies are very similar (invincible). However, this one is different in the fact that it is more of a cartoon. Jack and Will should have died in a few places, but I guess they were suffering from "Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible III Syndrome" (it's impossible to die!).
Alas, these last trifles are minor and the movie is very entertaining for what it's worth. And it does make me excited for the third movie coming out in 2007. Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is an enjoyable sequel, even if it is shadowed by the greatness of its predecessor somewhat.
Irréversible (2002)
Time cannot be reversed, time cannot be changed.
"Time destroys everything." This is the second line spoken in the film Irreversible, and it sets the theme, and the tone, for this disturbing, harrowing journey into the dark reaches of humanity.
Irreversible begins with twisting camera work reminiscent of a roller-coaster ride from hell. The vomit-inducing cinematography matches well with the mind-set of the main character Marcus, who is obsessed with finding the man who brutally raped his girlfriend. Since the film is told in a backwards chronological order, we are thrown into the climax of the film, which includes the ferocious murder of a man with a fire extinguisher; however, the man who is killed is not the one who raped Marcus's girlfriend, Alex.
This begins the next theme of the film: revenge is not the best course of action. From the scene where Marcus searches vehemently in the gay club, the Rectum, the story is then whisked back in time to an earlier scene. Here the protagonist, and his friend Pierre, ask around for the location of the club, where the rapist, called Le Tenia, is bound to be.
During each consecutive scene, the spinning camera slows down, as to reflect the falling action. Eventually when the pivotal rape scene occurs, the camera no longer moves, but is stationary for most of the ten-minute long scene. The scene, which is notorious and infamous now, is disturbing and one of the most gut-wrenching scenes I've witnessed; yet, I was not injected with nightmares, but that is because I've become so desensitized to violence (quite sad right?). If you are sensitive to violence, however, then be extremely cautious when viewing Irreversible.
After, or before, the rape scene the story almost completely halts and show us the lives of Marcus, Alex, and Pierre before tragedy decided to inflict itself upon their lives. The movie does suffer some because of this as the scenes can become tedious at times, especially one of the last scenes where Alex and Marcus lie in bed for an extended period of time. Much of the film's dialogue was ad-libbed, which shows as the scenes meander, along with the camera, which provides long takes in the scenes. I can say I am a fan of long shots, yet because of these shots the movie can not be edited, for each scene must be shot in one take to keep with the precedent previous scenes have set.
If you are still wondering whether or not you should subject yourself to this agonizing visual experience, I suggest you do. The film will be imprinted into your cerebrum for a long time to come, and will actually make you think. As watching the film, I wondered whether the story was being told in reverse as a gimmick, or whether there was a deeper meaning to it all. Was time actually reversing, amending what had happened and returning the lives to the broken souls of the film? If this is the case, then the title itself presents another sense of irony, one that springs from the audiences desire that all of this could be changed, and everything could be returned back to normal.
Catch the Black Sunshine (1974)
The movie that makes Thomas Edison wish he'd never invented motion pictures! *SPOILERS INCLUDED (but do you really want to watch this?)*
After I saw "You Got Served," I felt like I had just witnessed the biggest train wreck that was ever committed in the art of film-making. But little did I know that there was a much worse movie lurking at the depths of the Walgreen's bargain bin. "Charcoal Black" was and is that movie.
Standing at an excruciating 91 minutes, "Charcoal Black" might test anyone's patience, even if you love bad movies (like me). Even though Chris Robinson's story (if it could even be called that) might have some entertaining parts, the movie ends up making you want to get up and leave your nice Lay-z-boy recliner. And I can't forget to mention the bitter taste the movie leaves in your mouth afterward.
The wonderfully written story (HA!) by Chris Robinson starts off with two slave brothers, one black (Levi, played by Anthony Scott) and, well, one white (Sunshine). But the movie insists that the white one is actually an albino negro, even though Sunshine, who is played by the amazing Chris Robinson, is so obviously a white man. Anyway, the two slave "brothers" find a treasure map with no directions or writing on it decide to embark on a quest to find the treasure. The two slaves easily escape the clutches of the evil taskmaster Striker (Ted Cassidy) in a riveting scene that keeps the audience (if there is one) on the edge of their seats.
The rest of the sorry excuse for a story consists of the slaves meeting various people on their journey, such as racist white trash(redundant, I know) or even randomly placed Native Americans in Florida swamps. The story also follows Striker as he rounds up a gang to find and capture the slaves.
The slaves end up at a shack on the swamp that belongs to a woman (Phyllis Robinson) and immediately the sparks between the woman and Sunshine start to fly! Eventually the woman's house, which has nothing flammable in it, explodes by a candle (or maybe it's those sparks!), and the three must abandon the house. The chemistry between the two Robinsons is unbearable, especially since Phyllis always seems to have such a pained expression on her face.
The slaves ditch the woman and head to the treasure. Striker meets up with them with his gang of hit men hicks and they kill Sunshine. Striker's gang gets killed, but Striker remains alive and he befriends Levi randomly. Then the credits roll.
We never find out what's in the treasure - well, like anyone cares anyway. I bet Chris Robinson just gave up on the script because that's how the movie looks. Chris probably gave up on directing and everything else. In one scene where the slaves are walking, with music in the background, the editor decided to cut in the middle of the scene. So the music stops and the slaves suddenly are face to face with some Native American. Then, they decide to kill the Native American, who has no weapons (oh, but he has a threatening loincloth on).
This movie is just so stupid, you feel like your IQ has dropped 90 points. This movie is so bad, your feel like you have to take a shower or five after watching it. The story is ridiculous, the acting is horrid, the characters are flat, the writing bites, and so on and so forth.
In short, "Charcoal Black" offers a one of a kind experience: after watching it, you'll feel like you have just committed a crime.