- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Quentin's Hot New Look Genre: Action War Drama... Western (USA, Germany) Starring: Brad Pitt ( Se7en • Kalifornia ), Christoph Waltz Directed By: Quentin Tarantino ( Grindhouse • Reservoir Dogs ) Overview: A team of American Jews are sent on a terror mission. A Jewish woman sets her sights on sabotage. Somewhere between them, the Nazis take a trip to the movies. Feel free to click here to skip the spoiler bit at the beginning. In my experience, WWII films that have missions in which Hitler himself becomes a potential target, the story always leans to either the historic accuracy side of the scale, as in Downfall where Hitler takes his own life or towards the more believable truth of history, namely never getting the chance of assassinating said Fuhrer. Simple twists like a change of plans, or Hitler as an unlikely secondary objective serve to give the characters an added touch of drive, yet knowing history, we as the viewer are quite aware of how that part of the story will end. What Quentin Tarantino did with Operation Kino was brilliant. In his own version of a mission that might add Hitler himself to the bodycount, Quentin fills a targeted theatre with high ranking Nazis, including men whose deaths could instantly end the war, such as Goebbels and Göring. As a viewer, the question of "Will they succeed?" was not as compelling as "How will Hitler escape and how many more shall go with him?" To see that final moment of Operation Kino unfold as it did, with all two and a half plans a perfect success, as well as watching an up close and graphic display of Hitler getting plugged over and over with machine gun fire… well kiddies, that shattered any expected outcome that I had of Inglourious Basterds. For some time I even thought to myself, "Wait, are you even allowed to kill Hitler?" The answer comes as clearly as the answer to Quentin's other inglourious monkey-wrench, "Are you allowed to make a Western out of a War movie?" The only question left in my mind is this: Did Tarantino intentionally break the fourth wall that poetically with his metaphor? Either way, the fact of the matter is that Quentin did what many other filmmakers could not do: kill Hitler with film. Quentin Tarantino 's Inglourious Basterds is primarily intense dialogue and close-ups of men sitting in close quarters dripping pleasantries with the grand subtext of foxes circling a chicken coop. I quickly grew fearful of whether Quentin had written a film with so much irrelevant dialogue that he was only talking to himself, as he had done in the overdrawn Kill Bill 2 . Quickly those fears were assuaged, and instead I looked forward to scenes filled with ardent questioning taking place in claustrophobic rooms. This is what makes Inglourious Basterds so worthy, and without a doubt one of Quentin's best scripts. Yes the streak of Quentin is present, with such off-putting moments as introducing a character in glorious musical fanfare while their name fills the screen in 70s porn font, but so many scenes show instead a poignancy of drama where the Nazis are not seen as fumbling idiots as they are in so many films, but as brave, intelligent and noble, as genuine foes to be feared, and their characterization in Inglorious Basterds is done in such a way that makes the Americans the ones in the lurch, fighting against a superior enemy, blunt as they are. I would even go as far as saying that the writing in Inglourious Basterds shows that Tarantino has evolved from the common in-your-face gangster-gore movies into bloody-yet-fun subtext-rich character studies with dramatic plots. In short, Tarantino's latest will certainly impress his fan base, and may very well create a few new ones. Le French... how you sey... Kaboom When Tarantino wrote his script for Inglourious Basterds, was he making constant inside jokes to the few cinephiles who'd get him, or was he genuinely thinking of creating a setting that had people talking, very naturally, about the pop culture that was relevant to them in 1944? Introducing Emil Jannings and screening a film of G.W. Pabst's may certainly be considered innocuous and culturally relevant for the era, however, film talk in Inglourious Basterds does submerge itself in the obscure. One scene compares Goebbels to Selznick, another shows Germans playing a game of Who Am I?, where one card reads Pola Negri. All this may seem like a deep immersion into the world of issues facing the cinema of occupied France in 1944, but Tarantino gives away his overzealous need to share his filmic knowledge of the era without remaining true to the other great cultural motivator, music. In fact Quentin goes so far to stray from it as to create a musical no-man's-land by having scenes riddled with modern music. Ah yes but there's the rub. Tarantino goes all out in making another display of his filmic appreciation, since the soundtrack itself is entirely comprised of movie music. I still can't decide if it adds or detracts… "I'm going to find a place that actually resembles, in one way or another, the Spanish locales they had in spaghetti westerns – a no man's land. With American soldiers and French peasants and the French resistance and Nazi occupiers, it was kind of a no man's land. That will really be my spaghetti Western but with World War II iconography. But the thing is, I won't be period specific about the movie. I'm not just gonna play a lot of Édith Piaf and Andrews Sisters. I can have rap, and I can do whatever I want. It's about filling in the viscera." - Quentin Tarantino Performance: 9 Cinematography: 9 Script: 10 Plot: 8 Mood: 9 Overall Rating: 90% (Trouly Glourious) Aftertaste: So for those of you who hope to get a leg up on the discussions had by these characters, I suggest some quick browsing of some of the names referenced in Inglorious Basterds. Here's a quick overview for you. Pola Negri | Emil Jannings | David O. Selznick Distinguished, but still likes a rousing game of Biiiiingo!
Notary Jean Lebel (Rémy Girard) has to read the testament of his late secretary, Nawal Marwan (Lubna Azabal), to her twins. In the reading they have unusual requests from their mother and two letters. One is for their father whom they thought was deceased and another one for their brother whom they never heard about. Jeanne (Mélissa Désormeaux-Poulin) and Simon (Maxim Gaudette), the twins, must deliver those two letters to whom it may concern. Simon doesn't want anything to do with his mother anymore. Jeanne, instead wants to accomplish the last will of his mother. She embarks on a trip in the Middle-East to discover the past of her mother. A while after, Simon decides to help his sister and unveil the truth on the life on their mother. This is a heavy film, there are not that many scenes of violence but it's the themes treated in /</gispan style="font-style: italic;"/>/giIncendies /span that makes it a difficult but madatory film. This is a film about humans/humanity in its best and moreover in its worst. span style="font-style: italic;" Incendies /span is a strong film and its director Denis Villeneuve is in complete control of his art. The opening sequence is probably a direct reference to Stanley Kubrick's span style="font-style: italic;" Full Metal Jacket /span where we see young recruits getting their head shaved on a sad slow song. It presents the film like Kubrick did, war has never done any good on humanity. On some level both films show how war is the worst thing, but span style="font-style: italic;" Incendies /span is a more human film and the angle taken here recreates the tragedy of one family among so many other. For once I can say that I am proud of the films made in my country, Canada, and even from my own province, Québec. From now on, I will try to see more films from my country. My problem is that I have a "the grass is always greener at the neighbor's" complex for films.
A film can be described by its advertisement: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze. Here you have the main characters of your movie, a war satire on the Koweit liberation from the power of Saddam's Irak. Quickly the story that was about four oportunists wanting to take the gold that has been stole from the hands of the Koweit and keep it for their own profit changes into a deeper human values centered plot in some kind of an excuse of being on the territory for petrol. David O. Russell doesn't try to dictate to Americans that they were the "bad" ones in that conflict neither did he wanted to do the opposite. He does something even better than dictate or criticizing the American acts on Irak grounds, he sets his story in the middle of all that. The different points of views are expressed by the moralistic journalist, the other side from the toturer once father, and the greed of the privates may represent how the petrol was the main issue of the war. A positive point from this view of Three Kings is how amusing the story is and how the message as moralist as it is passes well and doesn't seem too heavy on Americans. It's like a Trojan horse from the inside, a very American film tells to Americans how they behave in 1991 was not "nice" and how they should care more about the civilians and the people that are human beings just like them, fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, etc. The interesting thing about this film is that it came out in 1999 and George W. Bush decided to go back in Irak two years later in late 2001 after the sad day of september 11. With some retrospect Three Kings has its flaws but nonetheless tells an interesting point of view in a funny War satire format. If you enjoyed Three Kings I recommend an essential viewing of Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb , a personal favorite.
If there is one thing I like, that's a epic history movie, and Warlords is one of my favorites on that list. The movie stars Jet Li, Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro and was released recently, in 2007. Actually I ddn't even know it existed, but Shaft brought it to me and so I watched it. And damn it was good. It's 2 hours long, and story is complex, as well as character names (I forgot the names of half of them already), so I will just give the basics: The film is set in the 1860s, during the Taiping Rebellion in China. It tells the story of three sworn blood brothers—Ma Xinji, Cao Er-Hu, Zhang Wen-Xiang, who eventually turn against one another due to many reasons. Plot is really good, with good character development and some twists. But the thing I just love about this movie are battles. I' not some bloodthirsty freak, but I like when they show brutal, realistic fighting, unlike that you can see in other Chinese movie like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Here, Chinese guys can't fly through the air, shoot fireballs or walk on water. Here they act real, they cut throats, decapitate, stab, slash and punch each other, the way it really happens on the battlefield. And it's made good. Some scenes are so awesome that I will remember them for the rest of my life, like when Jet uses his ji (Chinese halberd, or something similar to it) to cut off legs from his 5-6 enemies in a row by slashing them at knee point. It was awesome. Or the last fight in real kung fu style. I can't describe it here, it must be seen. But it's damn good. I'm not an expet on Chinese history, but I think they really made an effort in that department. Weapons, armors, behavior and everything else remains true to the period. The movie has one or two flaws, for example I never got the love story between Jet and his lover Lian, she appears only for few minutes now and then, but it turns out that she is an important part of the story. The second part of the movie is also somewhat of a let down, it has almost no action, only character development and dialogue (usually, in most movies, it's other way around). But still, it's a fact that this movie is awesome, and totally underrated. Rating: 9/10
The owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban, and HDNet Films, gave $5 million to Brian de Palma and told him to do whatever he wants to do with them. The result was “Redacted”, a film doomed to fail at the box office and be panned by critics. Now, before I start the review I have to mention that whatever I say here is completely subjective and is my personal opinion – I am not going to be politically correct, I’m just gonna say what’s on my mind. If that offends you, too bad. “Redacted” is based on actual events that took place in Samarra in 2006. The story is about a 15 years old girl who was raped and murdered by American soldiers. Everyone knows that these things do happen, but most just won't admit it. While the actual event is real, the names and conversations between the characters are fictional. “Redacted” is filmed in a documentary form, combining footage from local and international TV reports, security cameras and personal footage shot by private Angel Salazar. The soldiers whose story we follow are, beside Salazar, Lawyer McCoy, Master Sergeant Sweet, Sergeant Jim Vasquez, Gabe Blix, B.B. Rush and Reno Flake. Personally, I don't think high of the Military. While the idea of serving you country and protecting the innocent is admirable, of course - it's the other aspect that I abhor. You know the old "When I say jump, you don't ask Why? , but How high? " My individuality and character is something I take pride in, and I don't look too keenly on becoming just a puppet of sorts and mindlessly follow orders. And yes, I think America has no business being in Iraq. And everyone who isn’t a brainwashed redneck retard knows the real reason why Americans are in Iraq is oil. I won’t go into this matter anymore, as it’s a subject for another topic. Then bottom line is – soldiers that do things like this are fucking idiots. I wish Frank Castle was real. He should pay a visit to every single one of them and blow their fucking heads off. And then burn and piss on their corpses. The same goes for the other side – the equally idiotic and fucked up religious extremists who wage their holy wars and kill innocent civilians in the name of whatever their shitty god is called. Fuck you and fuck religion – the greatest mass murderer in history of mankind. I liked how the card on the beginning stated - "This film is entirely fiction, inspired by an accident widely reported to have occurred in Iraq" - and then the word “fictional” gets erased. I think “Redacted” should’ve been more brutal, more graphic, and that’s the only thing that I found to be flaw. While the story itself is repulsive enough, the impact of the film would’ve been bigger if they really had shown all the atrocities. I know it’s a cheap way to gain attention, but it’s effective. The film has almost no soundtrack, except in the parts taken from a documentary (which is a fictional one) by a French filmmaker. The film shows, however, the terror the Iraqi people have to live with constantly, but I guess that’s just a very small part of what’s really going on. The same goes for the soldiers stationed there, in constant fear of being blown up by some suicide bomber ready to die for Allah. All I can say is, I pity the fools. While Dubya and his pals are counting their dollars, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians die in another pointless war. You may believe the story or not, it's your choice. I'll end this review with the film's awesome tagline: "Truth is the first casualty of war." Rating: 8/10
Mmm, baby guts sell films, yesiree Bob. Genre: War Horror Drama (Honk Kong) Starring: Hsu Gou, Tie Long Jin Directed By: Tun Fei Mou (Men Behind the Sun 4) Overview: Near the end of the Second World War, Japanese troops stationed in Manchuria subjected Chinese and Russian prisoners of war to biological weapons testing. This is the story of Squadron 731, the camp where those horrors took place. The first surprise that I encountered in my research was seeing that the Horror genre was nicely tacked onto this film by IMDb . Sure, Men Behind The Sun is a look into some pretty horrific events, but it's not the type of Horror that makes you laugh at the scary monsters. This is torture Horror, Japanese on Chinese death experimentation horror... in the way watching Hitler's doctors test on Jews would be Horror. Here's another cautionary tale for you kiddies. Plot wise, Men Behind the Sun doesn't stray far from the expected formula. A biological warfare camp in the last days of the war are Japan's last hope for victory. They rush through experiments in effective methods of death by doing them on human captives. What sets the film apart from merely a series of exploitation-style gory death after death is the children and their subplot. Part of the camp's personnel are young recruits, teens really, who are there to learn the ways of biological warfare. Clearly the intent of their superiors is to harden them for the task ahead, all while adding an element of psychological horror for the viewer. But I've been saving the best for last! What a wonderful array of death the viewer is subjected to! Decompression chambers, gassings, bombings while crucified and hypothermia tests, but that's just on the humans. The scene that really got people in an outrage had a cat thrown into a rat-filled room to be eaten alive. It's ok kids, the cute white, terrified cat wasn't killed, but the rats were immolated later, I'm sorry to say, in a tremendously beautiful shot. Let's hope at least they did it in one take. A small rat can beat a cat. Fleas and germs can defeat bombers and guns. This is... the basic theory behind Squadron 731. It is also my philosophy. - Dr. Shiro Ishii [quote][quote] [/quote][/quote] Juicy! Performance: 8 Cinematography: 8 Script: 8 Plot: 8 Mood: 8 Overall Rating: 80% (At Least A Couple Guys For Sure) Aftertaste: Again the question: What is the problem with this film? What makes it infamous? Firstly, the use of stock footage of an actual child's autopsy adds an element of the queasy to certain stomachs, then there's the plain old fact that sensational gore is the primary attractor to this fare, regardless of the occasional moments of High Drama. Three sequels have been made for this film. Part 2 and 3 were directed by Godfrey Ho, director of such poignant and history-documenting sinema as Robo-Kickboxer, Ninja Thunderbolt and Ninja Versus Zombie. Clearly a cash grab on something far more serious, and probably the most deplorable and gratuitous thing this film has to offer. Not sure you agree? How's this for a title: Shindler's List 3: Look Out For That Moustache!
Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock! There's still hope, there's still hope! Genre: War Drama Starring: Tallulah Bankhead, Hume Cronyn ( Shadow of a Doubt ; The Postman Always Rings Twice) Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock ( Jamaica Inn ; Frenzy ) Overview: The few survivors of a submarine attack try to work together as they await rescue aboard a lifeboat. Performance: If the acting isn't very good in a film that's all character studies in a hyper-dramatic situation, you've got a real piece of garbage to suffer through. When you've got interesting folk like high-society journalists, Germans, crazy mothers and all sorts of other about-to-crack souls all directed by a guy with 30 movies under his belt already, uh, yeah, good times. Rating: 8 Cinematography: At this stage you expect me to say, "well here's where the film suffers. There's really nothing to look at when it's one boat on the water and they're on it for the whole film." Well extreme-close ups and weather effects are photographed so well and with such brilliant timing that I was impressed to no end. How Hitchcock pulls off a mid-film cameo on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic... that the cherry on top. Rating: 8 Script: Alright, first of all we have a story written by John Steinbeck. You have got to be a complete moron to mess up any of his works. In fact, making a film from one of his books is almost like cheating, it's so easy. Second, this is set entirely in one place so anyone involved in the production of this film knows it's got to be well written. Add those up and the only thing at risk is too many clichés, of which there are none. Fantastically told. Rating: 9 Plot: Even though this is mildly predictable, there's a lot of very interesting elements that pop up. Not that I even like the show, but think of the television Series "Lost". Everyone has a secret, and survival is only half of the adventure. Interpersonal relationships build and collapse and twists and turns abound. It's a really immersive tale, pardon the pun. Rating: Mood: The best part about the whole film taking place on the lifeboat is that you can't get away from it. There's no flashback memories or scenes introducing the characters before they end up where they do (my biggest problem with The Incident ), just water, water everywhere and people getting stinkier, hungrier and thirstier by the day. From time to time it's simply innocuous, but there's some real heavy moments that are deeply dramatic and terribly moving. The best of human drama. Rating: 9 Yeah, no more hope. People are fickle. Overall Rating: 84% (Worth Sea-ing) Aftertaste: I'm a little surprised that I referenced "Lost" in this review, though I hope it will make fans of that mediocre show see this. Hitchcock's biggest gift was the ability of reaching out to the common man. That's what made his films so popular: simple stories told simply. This is one of the best examples I've seen. A total sleeper hit. I had no idea it would be this good.
Bombs Go Tick Genre: Drama Thematic Trilogy (Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland) Starring: Jean-Marc Barr ( Breaking The Waves ), Barbara Sukowa Directed By: Lars von Trier (Dogville; The Idiots) Overview: Soon after the Second World War, an American of German descent begins working for a railway, but finds that those around him use his particular situation for their own political machinations. Performance: In Epidemic , Lars might have been wise to choose better actors. Of course he was still in the 'proving himself' phase of his filmmaking career and I suspect it's the main reason why the performances suffered. In Europa however, it's clear that much of the talent remained in Lars' shortlist of call-backs for many other films (or mini-series) to come. From the Draconian conductor to the American Colonel, we have many people sitting just fine in the role of using others. Rating: 8 Cinematography: I've just come to realize, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Lars von Trier is not the type of director who has a signature look to his films, short of being pretty consistently Avant-Garde. Yes, that's a good thing, because as he learns and grows, so do we. Let it not be said that Lars is the sort of director who stagnates in a cinematographic style. In Europa, however, he might shine brightest, as the standard Black and White intermingles with moments of vivid colour. The frequent use of rear projection and other low-key special effects add a nice element on top of the already beautiful storyboards. Rating: 9 Script: What I failed to appreciate more than anything in this film was the narration. Spoken as instructions through hypnosis to our protagonist, I wouldn't say that this theme of being in a semi-conscious state is one that was ever maintained outside of narration. By that I mean, I don’t know what Lars was trying to pull, but I didn't like it. Besides that it's a story well told with the rare all too cliché moments of "So did you lie about loving me as well?", but given the theme it's quite possible this was done on purpose, cradling the films of the era. Rating: 7 Plot: I was following you there for quite a while, Lars. Then, all of a sudden you pull some high-art Euro-trashy ending that makes so little sense that I have to go look up its significance, but I won't because I care that little. I'd say "I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed." Rating: 6 Mood: The themes of making a film as it would have looked were it made in 1945 is a nice undercurrent to this tale of German war wounds slowly healing. Astute viewers will appreciate how Lars challenges and limits himself technically in this story of a character who ultimately is powerless, though happens to be a pawn in a game much bigger than himself. This is the sort of film that transports, even if it doesn't particularly take you anywhere. Rating: 8 Big Mean Prick Overall Rating: 76% (You're... Oh... Ah...) Aftertaste: Gorgeous, yet empty, I found this story very similar to Broken Flowers when it ended. You think there's a story being told, you learn lessons along the way, but in the last act, the last scene, you're left asking, "Wait a damn minute? You call that an ending? Why couldn't you finish it in a way that could be just a tad more rewarding, especially when everything else was so well done?!"
Twice this many and they'd equal one French Soldier... officially Genre: War Drama (France, Morocco, Algeria, Belgium) Starring: Jamel Debbouze (Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain), Sami Bouajila Directed By: Rachid Bouchareb Overview: A group of North Africans join the French Army to help liberate their motherland, finding their fight against discrimination may well be a harder battle. Performance: Sami Bouajila as the Corporal with a huge chip of injustice on his shoulder and Jamel Debbouze as the man who chooses the softer route for French acceptance are two well-represented sides of a black and white coin. These characters are offset by the more neutral Yassir and Messaoud whose problems with discrimination are far more personal, dealing with love and their invisibility in the corps. Rating: 8 Cinematography: Gore does not seem to be a French trait , so those of you who are worried about having a flashback to darker war days need not worry that you'll be submitted to an opening half-hour of death and destruction, Saving Private Ryan style. You will however appreciate the attempt at historical accuracy in costume and set design, and the occasional exciting action sequence that won't have you throwing up on your neighbour. Rating: 8 Script: When I heard the line "Why, God? WHY!" at the death of a secondary character, I flinched a little, but judging by the reaction of the audience, it seemed to have gone over fairly well, unless of course they were merely awed into submission by such a cliché attempted in this day and age. As expected, there is the occasional dramatic monologue about injustice and earning your place, but it's handled with originality. Rather than whining, these guys let their actions speak for them. In a scene where the North Africans aren't given the tomatoes their French counterparts are given, rather than turning the scene into a touching soapbox moment, it almost gets violent. This isn't about nobler men suffering injustice, it's about real people acting appropriately. Rating: 8 Plot: I couldn't help notice that the storytelling formula was so similar to the ever-important and successful Saving Private Ryan. In the beginning of the first act, we have the 'establishing battle scene'. The last act's final battle was almost identical in theme as the final 'Alamo' scene in Private Ryan, with the men facing staggering odds as they wait for reinforcements. In similar fashion we are also dragged through a closing 'and today, 60 years later' perspective that I much would have rather done without. A little too much borrowing if you ask me. Still, what sets this film apart from all others is the core tale, based on a true story, about men facing injustice in their own ranks. The way we see each one suffer in their own way is what's worth watching, definitely. Rating: 8 Mood: Overall, this took a more standard French film path, with character development taking a more important role than action, with inner demons being battled more than Nazis. What I took away from this, is how death seemed inconsequential to most of the characters. So many of them planned for a future, considered options, as though this was simply the first step in their quest as becoming true Frenchmen. It's an interesting angle but it invites the lack of combat perspective. After that one battle in Africa, a French officer orates to the North Africans about their blood and toil, their great sacrifice. I was left wondering what I missed. Did these men fight more than two battles? Not that I saw, or was made to infer... Rating: 8 It's so weird seeing Amélie's happy little grocer joining the army! Overall Rating: 80% (Story Before Gory) Aftertaste: First off, nothing beats getting free tickets to an advanced screening. No matter how many free screenings I go to, it still feels nice to be the first to see something you'd have paid for anyways. Unlike such wonderful experiences as Hostage and A Sound Of Thunder , this was indeed a memorable evening, and one film worthy of recommendation, even if you did have to pay.
She's Afraid! Of The FUTURE! Genre: Drama Romance War Starring: Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook ( Shanghai Express ) Directed By: Frank Lloyd ( Mutiny On The Bounty • Blood On The Sun) Overview: Based on Noel Coward's play, this story follows the lives and tribulations of wealthy Londoners from New Year's Eve, 1899 and through these fast-paced times until the present day (1933). Performance: The original was a play, so why not act this one out the same way? Because 'Film' and 'Theater' are different mediums, and just because a cactus is shaped like a chair doesn't mean you should sit in it. Maybe it was the whole haughty accents and "oh my, mummy, wouldn't going to war be grand, mummy?" Britishstocracy crap that turned me off early, but it gets worse as the film progresses. Maybe it's just that I couldn't take it anymore, like a dentist drilling in that nerve, there. Clive Brook tried, but sadly couldn't carry everyone. Rating: 5 Cinematography: There is far too little usage of the original and unique double exposure shots that are used to symbolise a quick passage of time. The best montage is when 1914 rolls around: soldiers march joyously while singing "It's A Long Way To Tipperary", approaching a battlefield, a church in the foreground. This is overlaid by double exposure shots of the occasional man falling from the line, clutching his chest. The years drift by, as the background of men marching get slower, become more haggard, and the church transforms itself into a bombed out husk of what it once was, with the field turning from verdant to wasteland. Sadly, most of the picture, though in different settings, are far too typical static shots. Rating: 7 Script: I suppose the plot elements were delivered appropriately as mother rambled on about how these crazy wild times are changing all too quickly. How dated. Perhaps in today's day and age a passage of time from 1889 to 1933 may seem trite, but I don't consider these present-day times all that crazy myself. I guess the point was lost on me. Those romantic declartions on the bow of the Titanic, how ridiculously sappy, urgh. Rating: 4 Plot: When reviewing Fanny and Alexander , I said "The fact that the scenes taking place are important life event moments to our players is the key." In this one it seems like all of it's too much. Oh, my you're in the Boer War! No! the Queen of England has died! Ack, you're on the Titanic! Wait a World War! Highlighting all the world's tragedies that take place over a lifetime and making them the cause of your 'my world interferes with my life' theory is weak. The best dramas are personal, not an inventory of the world's ills. I've seen far better 'span of a lifetime' films about a family that had far more intense worldly influences, like Sunshine for example. That was great, and it spanned THREE generations! Rating: 4 Mood: The mood was 'Early Talkie British Hoity-Toity'. Wow, am I ever sick of that. Why Hollywood made so many films about Londoners I don't know, but I can't say I've ever liked it. This is another example of suffering for the things you love, just to gain greater perspective. The mood is perfect if it is Hollywood's way of explaining how historically this was their worst era for filmmaking. But I don't think that's what they were going for, even with snooty little brats growing up to be snooty little dolts. Rating: 4 The best part of the film: a guy who doesn't have a visible pickle up 'is arse. Overall Rating: 48% (Don't Beckon The Cavalry) Aftertaste: Sometimes you can tell by the cover that something's just not all that great, but when you've vowed to watch every film in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die , it's a small price to pay. Geez, what will I do when it's done?! DAMN IT! I just discovered this wasn't even in the damn BOOK! How on earth did I end up adding this to my list?! Argh!
Hitchcock! Hitchcock! Hitchcock! You think that's a bad moustache, you should see the extreme close up. UGH *Shudder* Gross. Genre: War Drama Shorts (UK) Starring: Frenchmen Directed By: Alfred Hitchcock ( The Pleasure Garden ; Foreign Correspondant ) Overview: French people patting themselves on the back, in their tales of how they fought the Big Bad Krauts. Hey Kiddies, Rather than go down that list you all know and hate by now, telling you in my Performance category how the French act even haughtier than highborn Anglos, I thought I'd make this a shorter review, as these two films are worth about as much of my time as [something worthy of a witty quip except I don't want to waste any more of my time]. One day, as I have discovered Hitchcock is wont to do, our brilliant director featured so prominently in Blog-O-Squish, decided to take a little spill, fall off the wagon and go make garbage following the success of Saboteur and Shadow Of A Doubt . By now I'm no longer surprised that he'd go off slumming rather than build up a proper reputation for himself, but there was plenty of time to go and do that later. I digress. The British Ministry Of Information asked good ol' Hitch if he wouldn't mind making films about the French Resistance. He agreed and made Aventure Malgache, a 30-minute story about French resistance fighters in the colony of Madagascar. Huffy over-polite dialogue teaches us that there was a French military base in Madagascar, and that the French were hoping the British would come save their asses... again. Lesson learned: Madagascar was a French colony, news to me. The second film he made was Bon Voyage, a 26-minute film where a British pilot got shot down and now he's in league with French spies to get out. Wikipedia dares compare this to Kurosawa's Rashomon , a story told in five perspectives. In Bon Voyage, a soldier is asked what happened, then he's told what REALLY happened. I wouldn't even dream of comparing the two, please. Anyway, mild adventure, espionage and double-cross aside, I'm extremely glad this was a short. Lesson learned: 'debrief' is a fancy term for 'He Said, She Said'. Now my recommendation to you, fine Hitchcock fan, is to only see this if you're obsessed with knowing everything about a subject. Otherwise watch something good. For as much as the lighting work is superb in this, there's full features that do just as great a job of showing Hitch's penchant for German Expressionism. Ironic having German influence in a French Resistance short. Art seeps in where Armies fear to tread, I guess. *Unworthy of wit* Overall Rating: 65% (More Like Good Riddance) Aftertaste: I'm glad I squoze this in between features rather than making a night of it. I'm sure Girlfriend Of Squish appreciates the sparing of such a thing.
Every one of us has heard about James Cameron’s “Avatar”. But do you know of the story (also a novel by E. R. Borroughs) that, according to the makers, had inspired James Cameron’s “Avatar”? No? Neither did I. But here it is, called “Princess of Mars” and presented to us by The Asylum . If you aren’t familiar with their films, have a look at this list and have a laugh while you’re at it. John Carter, played by the buffed-up Antonio Sabato Jr., is a special operative carrying out one-man missions in unnamed country that could maybe be Afghanistan, but I’m not sure and it doesn’t matter. The nature of his mission(s) is also unclear, but he’s seen coming in and out of villages and looking through a sniper scope into the desert. After an encounter with some opium smugglers he’s deadly wounded and ends up on an operating table. There, an army official with an afro cut (I’m not joking), briefs him on the situation. He’s gonna die. “But, don’t worry”, they assure him. I quote: “We have this. The entire data to reconstruct you atom by atom lives on this 16GB flash memory stick.” It’s great to know a human can digitally fit onto a 16GB flash memory stick. Think about it. That means your whole family can fit on just one dual layer Blu-Ray disc. If you compress them with WinRAR you can save even more space. Awesome! Anyway, after they reconstruct John atom by atom from a 16GB flash memory stick they teleport him on Mars. Mars 216, to be more exact, which is a small planet in the Alpha Centauri system that has an atmosphere and therefore can contain life. And it does. Unfortunately, John rematerializes completely naked amidst the not so friendly ork-like barbaric species called Tharks. They capture him, of course, but after they give him a towel to cover his intimate parts. A short time passes before John earns their trust by choking – yes, choking – a giant spider to death. He soon learns that the Tharks co-exist with humans on Mars who are considered a ruling class and do not look too keen at them. By chance, after her aircraft is attacked, Dejah Thoris, played by Traci Lords - ex-porn star turned “real” actress, director, songwriter and singer – the scarcely clothed Princess of Mars herself falls captive to the Tharks. She was on an important mission, however. You see, there’s the Royal Pump, a single machine that prevents Mars’ atmosphere from “leaking out of the planet” and if they don’t get there quickly like planned, the whole planet’s gonna choke! Oh, boy… When you have money you can make a paradise like Pandora and the Na’Vi. When you’re broke you have to be satisfied with a barren wasteland called Mars 216 (probably located in Nevada) and the orkish Tharks whose “language” is a hilarious series of grunts and growls. Fortunately, they make John eat a mysterious worm that enables him to understand them, i.e. they switch to English. Objectively speaking, “Princess of Mars” is complete and utter crap. Subjectively, it’s still crap but has some comedy value at least. I mean, putting a human being on a 16GB memory stick? Choking a giant spider? Parading in a towel for a whole half an hour? Come on, you gotta at least chuckle at that. Heh heh. Yeah… But that’s all because everything else – the script, the acting, the ultra slow fights choreography from the 50’s, the “special effects”, etc. – it’s just awful. Plus, there were no boobies. This is, however, one of Asylum's worst films and they do tend to have decent ones from time to time. Rating: 2/10 - review by Ventilation Shaft
John (Tatum) is a young Soldier home on leave when he meets Savannah (Seyfried) who is home from college for the summer just by chance on the beach. They strike up a conversation and a very smitten John asks her out on a date. So begins an intense yet very short lived romance. When it's time for John to leave they decide that they will stay together and Savannah will wait for him to finish his military service. They exchange letters back and forth to stay in contact and keep their love alive. Can a two week love affair survive a one year military deployment? They certainly give it their best shot but find out that sometimes love isn't enough. This was such an intense heart felt movie. I immediately felt the chemistry between Savannah and John. Tatum is such a good looking guy. My, oh my! And it's good to see that not only does he look good and can dance as we have seen him do in his other dance centered films but he can really act and carry a movie too. Amanda Seyfried is just a delight in this movie-and I don't normally even use that word! She is so sweet, pretty, and kind hearted. She plays that kind of role perfectly and that character comes shining through her blue doe eyes. This movie pulled on my heart strings. I know what it's like to love, miss and worry about a deployed soldier and the pain that it brings. But even if you don't. Even if you just have a soft spot for love then this is the movie for you. Love is a tenuous thing. Not only does it takes two people but timing is key and sometimes timing really is everything. 5/5 STARS
I always have problems when I start to write a review, because I don't know how to begin. In this case this is also true, so I'll get straight to the point – Patton is one hell of a movie and one of the best war movies I have seen so far. Forget about Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down or any other newer war movies where you get to see mostly American soldiers screaming at each other and barking orders, while miraculously managing to kill masses of Nazis/terrorists/whoever the newest enemy is. First of all, Patton doesn't have that many action scenes, and the action that is present is realistic to say the least. Although there are no brutal killing scenes like in the new Rambo (what a shame...) it shows „unusual“ situations, which are rarely seen in war movies, for example Patton and his troops ambush and massacre Rommel's Afrika Korps on one occasion. You don't see Patton and 5 of his best men cornered by 2467 Nazis so they can break through their lines in hand to hand combat and earn their pay. No, they simply use artillery to decimate the enemy. Although the former would be more honorable and more fun to watch, the latter is more realistic. Let's talk about the movie itself and then I'll just say a few things about the man named Patton. It was filmed in 1970 for a budget of 12 million USD, and despite being almost 40 years old and cheap by today's standards I must say that I was impressed with the quality. Save a few times, I almost never noticed anything that could indicate that the movie was that old. It stars George C. Scott as General George Patton , Karl Malden as General Omar Bradley, Michael Bates as General Bernard Montgomery and Karl Michael Vogler As Field Marshal Rommel, among others. George C. Scott gave a magnificent performance and when I finished the movie I said to myself: „Goddamn, if this man didn't get an Oscar for this role there is something wrong with the world!“ And it turns out that he actually got a Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, but he refused to accept it because he didn't feel like taking it. Manly. It also turns out that there is something wrong with the world, but that's another story. The script was written by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North, based on a true story, of course. The script is awesome, and most people agree that it, as well as the movie, portrays Patton almost perfectly. The music was composed by Jerry Goldsmith, a master composer (Rambo, various Star Trek themes, Total recall etc.). That's enough to say that the music is awesome, it was nominated for the Oscar award. I won't get into story here, because it's a part of the larger series called World War II. Instead, if you want to read on Patton go either here or here . Now, since I have covered all the things concerning the movie itself I can't help but to say a few things about Patton. Like I said before, Patton was a major badass. Hell, I think he may be the last manly thing to come out of US (with the exception of Arnocorps). My manly US history goes like this: 1. American War of Independence 1775-1783 2. Wild West period (19-20th century) 3. Patton (1885-1945) 4. Arnocorps (2000-/) These are the manly things or people concerning America in my book. All others are mostly rubbish. Patton was a real son of a bitch, who was a devout Christian yet cursed like a stable boy and believed in reincarnation. Actually he believed that in one of the previous lives he was a Roman general who participated in the Punic Wars. I don't know if reincarnation exists or not, but he was probably right. Even if other people can't reincarnate he probably did. Other than being an excellent military commander, he was also a poet, proficient in French and other languages, but he wasn't a politician because of his strong personal opinions and stubbornness. Because of these opinions he was deemed controversial, on August 3rd 1943 he slapped a soldier suffering from battle fatigue and for that he was portrayed as a Nazi in American media. This is a good scene in the movie. We see a drawing of Patton with a swastika on his boot, and he says something in this manner: “Those sons-of-bitches! I put my life in danger everyday fighting damn Nazis, and they portray me as a Nazi!“ This is a common theme even today in US media and on the Internet – whenever someone shows superior discipline or harsh attitude he is proclaimed a Nazi. The mere term has become so mainstream that it is absurd. On most occasions we see Patton kicking asses and driving the Axis forces back to their homeland. After he, almost singlehandedly, liberated Europe and the war ended he immediately urged an attack on the Soviet Union, saying that war between USA and the Soviet Union will eventually break out, and why not start it right there when the whole army is already around? A good point. But we all know that it didn't happen. If it did, I wouldn't be surprised if Patton would've pushed the Russians to the eastern border and drowned them in the North Pacific Ocean and then invaded Japan just to make sure they are defeated. He even said that the US should arm the remains of the German Army and together with the other allies fight the commies. Another reason he was proclaimed controversial (although he was right about eventual conflict breaking out – the Cold War). On top of all that he made awesome speeches that captured his military tactic and warrior spirit: "I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!" Damn right. All in all, Patton is one the most hardcore badasses who ever lived. And the movie Patton is one of the best war movies ever made. Guaranteed to man you up. RATED PURE GENIUS Rating: 10/10 - review by Magnum
At the end of the Ice Age, the Machine came. It came from outside. It came from space. It came with one purpose… to change Man into Mutant. After much suffering and death, a warrior named Neachdainn united the ancient tribes of Man. Together they sealed the deadly Machine beneath the earth. In 2707 four corporations rule the world: Mishima in the East, Bauhaus and Imperial in Europe and Africa, and Capitol in the West, waging an endless war over the little natural resources left. In this war, the seal keeping the Machine dormant is broken and the Mutants are once again unleashed. Now, Major Mitch Hunter must lead an elite squad into the very depths of earth to destroy the Machine once and for all. Well, the story is not original, but I’ll go for anything involving mutants/zombies/vampires or hellish creatures in general. “The Mutant Chronicles” certainly sounded promising especially considering it’s cast: Thomas Jane, Ron Perlman, Devon Aoki, Benno Furmann and John Malkovich. I was looking forward to seeing Thomas Jane kick some mutant ass. He kicked it alright, but not nearly in the way it should’ve had. How this film failed is beyond me. It really takes some (anti)talent to fuck up a premise like this – awesome cast and sci-fi mutant action. At least, if you don’t know what to do – go by mindless mayhem. I would’ve gladly sat through an hour and a half of Thomas Jane spilling one-liners like: “Make my day, fucking mutant!” and shooting the hell out of everybody. But instead, “The Mutant Chronicles” is neither drama nor action. It just sort of is, right there in the middle – not bad, not good, but certainly leaning towards the bad side. It uses extensive CGI, which is not top notch but looks really OK. The acting was bad, from every single one of the actors. Why? Once again, I don’t have the slightest idea. The good thing is the music score, which has some pretty powerful tunes. The problem with “The Mutant Chronicles” is that I can’t recommend it no anyone – not toaction lovers, because there’s not much action, not to drama lovers, because there is certainly no drama here, not to horror lovers, because there is no horror in it. Should you see it? Yeah, just don’t expect too much out of it. That way you can’t be disappointed. Rating: 5/10 - review by Ventilation Shaft
» = New Post(s)