movies

Archived Posts from this Category

Sun 27 Sep 2009

Movie Review: The Informant

Posted by Emma under celebrities, movies
[2] Comments

Movie Review by Roger Ebert

The Informant!

BY ROGER EBERT / September 17, 2009

Cast & Credits
Mark Whitacre Matt Damon
Brian Shepard Scott Bakula
Robert Herndon Joel McHale
Ed Herbst Patton Oswalt
Ginger Whitacre Melanie Lynskey
Kirk Eddie Jemison

Warner Bros. presents a film directed by Steven Soderbergh. Written by Scott Z. Burns, based on the book by Kurt Eichenwald. Running time: 108 minutes. Rated R (for language). Opening today at local theaters.

By Roger Ebert
Mark Whitacre was the highest-ranking executive in U.S. history to blow the whistle in a case of corporate fraud. He ended up with a prison sentence three times longer than any of the criminal executives he exposed. To be sure, there was the detail of the $9 million that he embezzled along the way for his personal use. What we discover toward the end of “The Informant!” may help explain that theft, although he apparently didn’t want that used in his defense.

Whitacre, persuasively played by Matt Damon in Steven Soderbergh’s new thriller, was a top vice president of Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, one of the 50 largest corporations in America. Sprawling at the edge of the small central Illinois city, it is surrounded by miles of soybean fields, and if you buy Japanese tofu at Whole Foods, it probably passed through ADM on its way to Japan. It’s also involved in several other crops, produces sweeteners, sells ethanol.

Whitacre knew that ADM and its competitors were engaged in global price-fixing that cost consumers billions. This largess was passed on invisibly to executives and stockholders, yet created a surprisingly small footprint in central Illinois, Yes, executives lived in very nice houses (Soderbergh shot in Whitacre’s mansion in tiny Moweaqua, Ill.) but they were low-profile, compared to Manhattan high-rollers, and ate at the local restaurants just like ordinary folks.

The story unfolds as Whitacre is put under pressure to discover the source of contamination, possibly industrial sabotage, in one of ADM’s operations. He engages in unofficial conversations with key competitors overseas and thinks he may be onto something. Then FBI agents from Decatur swoop down as part of an espionage probe. He clears himself, but as the agents (Scott Bakula and Joel McHale) are leaving, he calls after them.

He has something he wants to say. They’re blindsided. He tells them ADM has been fixing prices for years, that he has been involved, that he has details and wants to clear his conscience. His wife Ginger (Melanie Lynskey) helped him arrive at the decision to do the right thing.

The FBI recruits him as an informant, taps phones, teaches him to wear a wire and even videotapes price-fixing meetings, building an airtight case. Eventually three officials, including vice chairman Michael Andreas, son of the founder, were found guilty; the company was fined $100 million and paid another $400 million in a class action lawsuit.

If only it were that simple, “The Informant!” might have been a corporate thriller like Michael Mann’s “The Insider” (1999), with Russell Crowe as a whistle blower in the tobacco industry. But during the investigation, Whitacre reveals himself as a man of bewildering contradictions. Who would think to attempt an embezzlement and phony check-cashing scheme while literally working under the noses and at the side of FBI accountants? What was the full story of the industrial espionage he halted? Did he really expect that by exposing those above him, it would clear the way for him, one of the key price-fixers, to take command of the company?

What did Whitacre think about anything? Not even his wife was sure. All is explained, sort of, in “The Informant!,” and as Soderbergh lovingly peels away veil after veil of deception, the film develops into an unexpected human comedy. Not that any of the characters are laughing.

“The Informant!” is fascinating in the way it reveals two levels of events, not always visible to each other or to the audience. A second viewing would be rewarding, knowing what we find out. Matt Damon’s performance is deceptively bland. Whitacre comes from a world of true-blue Downstate people, without affectations, surrounded by some of the richest farmland in the world. His determination to wear the wire leads to situations where discovery seems inevitable, but he’s seemingly so feckless that suspicion seems misplaced. What he’s up to, is in some ways, so very simple. Even if it has the FBI guys banging their heads against the wall.

Mark Whitacre, released a little early after FBI agents called him “an American hero,” is now an executive in a high-tech start-up in California and still married to Ginger. Looking back on his adventure, he recently told his hometown paper, the Decatur Herald and Review, “It’s like I was two people. I assume that’s why they chose Matt Damon for the movie, because he plays those roles that have such psychological intensity. In the ‘Bourne’ movies, he doesn’t even know who he is.”

My Review:
It’s based on a true story. It was comical at times. The character Matt Damon plays, Mark Whiteacre is rather funny. He says the most random things at times. It wasn’t an action movie. It was more drama/comedy. We were either going to see this or Bruce Willis’ “Surrogates.” This won more votes because Matt Damon was in it and well we like Matt better than Bruce. hehe. The film was a little dry. It was different to see Matt Damon playing this geeky Biochemist turned VP for ADM. I’m used to seeing him in the Bourne movies. I think Matt was hoping this could be an Oscar-nominated performance. But his acting was rather bland. The character is rather bland although sometimes witty and comical. As the movie progresses you discover that Mark Whitacre suffers from mental illness. I’ll stop there. It was an interesting movie based on a true story. I don’t know if I got my money’s worth, but I give it 3 stars out of five. You might be better off watching it on DVD or cable. It wasn’t spectacular. But it had it’s moments.

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Tue 15 Sep 2009

Gamer:Movie Review

Posted by Emma under celebrities, movies
[10] Comments

Review from DVDtown.com

GAMER is a 2009 science fiction action thriller film written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. The film stars Gerard Butler as an unwilling participant in an online game in which participants can control human beings as players.

After directing the frenzied CRANK, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor helm another adrenaline-fueled film with this thriller. 300′s Gerard Butler stars as Kable, a man living in a near-future dystopia driven by online games. Kable is the world’s best player at its biggest game, where players take control of real people, but the competition really begins when he tries to fight the system itself.

In 2034, mind-control technology has taken society by storm, and a multiplayer on-line game called “Slayers” allows gamers to control human death row prisoners in mass-scale deathmatches. Any inmate who lives through 30 matches wins his freedom. Simon (Logan Lerman) controls Kable (Gerard Butler), the on-line champion of the game, having won 27 matches and lived through them all. With his every move tracked by millions, his ultimate challenge becomes regaining his identity and independence by defeating the game’s mastermind (Michael C. Hall) through launching an attack on the system that has imprisoned him.

DreadCentral.com awarded Gamer four out of five, saying “Gamer is a top of the line action/terror trip with more exploding carcasses than the latest installment of Rambo.”

Theatrical Review by Tim David Raynor
Imagine if you will a plot that takes a male convict, places him in a violent shooter game, and if he survives he will receive freedom from incarceration. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn´t it? Well, any sci-fi, action enthusiast should be familiar with the 1987 Arnold Schwarzenegger film “The Running Man,” and in Mark Neveldine´s and Brian Taylor’s 2009 film “Gamer” we get the same basic plot. However, this fresh monster is equipped with new twists, turns, technology, and all the shallow substance and style we are all too familiar with in new-millennium action films. Yes, I´m sure you know what that means: Get ready for a good-old, handheld, shaky camera, high-speed film, and gritty dark contrasts. As if we have not seen enough of this particular style, “Gamer” goes so completely over the edge with it that you tend to forget there is a story in there somewhere.

What story line we do get unfolds in a unique mess of style over substance, yet it can never make up its mind what that substance is. There are times the film is outright corny and times it is trying to be something genuine and meaningful. Not to mention, the action is quick, brutal, intense, and downright disgusting (which ought to please the heart of any action lover). Nonetheless, I couldn´t help but notice how this film is geared at a younger, male-adult audience. There´s plenty there for the video gamer to enjoy, along with tangible connections to cyber porn just in case the action sequences are not enough. Therefore, what you have is a film that looks genuine enough to satisfy and entertain, yet is a mess poorly constructed and delivered.

“Gamer,” of course, is set in the near future where gaming itself has taken a new leap in technology. Instead of playing a game where you control a computer animation, as we are all used to, one human gets to control another human. You can choose to be the human inside the game being controlled or be the player controlling another real, live person. We learn quickly how it was created by its inventor, Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall), through the use of nanotechnology. As you can imagine, Ken Castle turns out to be the villain in the plot, much like Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) from “The Running Man.” Sure, one is a game-show host while the other is a mad scientist bent on mind control over the human race. What doesn´t work in comparison is that Ken Castle is horribly written and talks like white trailer trash, which I wasn´t buying for a second.

Our hero, Kabel (Gerard Butler of “300″), is a convicted murderer who is forced to play a game created by Ken Castle called “Slayer.” The game is a violent shooter that takes place in a rundown city grid that is overshadowed by a dark future. If Kabel can survive the allotted number of game sessions, he will be set free for life. However, Kabel is not alone in his survival as he is controlled by a seventeen year-old boy named Simon (Logan Lerman). Simon has all the virtual reality luxuries of any spoiled geek, and the mystery is how did he get them? I mean, you never see his parents, nor do you know if he has any. The problem is, if you think too much about it, you´ll probably want to walk out of the theater. And did I mention the action takes place in a city grid in a clichéd dark future? For some reason I kept thinking of a similar movie from 1987…could it be?…nah, forget I mentioned it.

Along the way, we run into other characters that add subtle interest to the shaky plot. Kabel does have a love interest, Angie (Amber Valletta), who works as a game character in a sim-type game known as “Society.” This is where the film plays into erotic, sexual fantasies, as sex is the only thing game players seem interested in doing. Well, I must admit, it does give a whole new meaning to cyber sex. We also get Kyra Sedgwick as a media whore named Gina Parker Smith. Her job is no more than window dressing to the storyline since she never seems to add much, other than to be somewhat annoying. She´s the star of her own popular talk show, but her acting chops are as predictable as they are hackneyed. It´s unfortunate because I do like Kyra, and I just can´t figure why she would commit to such a lowball movie.

My Review
It was a non-stop action movie that takes place in a futuristic setting of a world where people can control other people. It’s like the SIMS game, except you’re actually controlling real people. There are two games you can play. Society, which is very much like SIMS with a Rave theme and lots of sex and possibly drugs. Then there’s the game Slayers. That game is full of prisoners from penitentiaries in the USA. It’s a survival game. You control your player to stay alive while they all try to kill each other off. There are 30 game sessions in Slayers. If your player makes it through to the 30th game he’s fully pardoned and becomes a free man. Gerard Butler plays Kable in Slayers. He’s in there for first degree murder. His wife is in Society. Their daughter is with a foster family. Anyway, Kable is hugely popular when the movie starts because he’s made it to session 27. Most prisoners die much earlier than that. He’s controlled by a 17 year old boy. They can control people because of nanos. They implant them in your brain and that’s how people can link up to you through computer technology. Anyway, there’s a plot to make sure Kable never makes it free to 30. There’s a resistance group called Humans who are trying to take down these games and they try to help Kable. I’ll stop there.
We watched it because there wasn’t much of anything else to watch at the moment. It was the only movie we could all agree on. hehe. I remember Gerard Butler from 300 where he was amazing. Here he looked like Russell Crowe. Seriously. The action sequences were very good. If you like action you’ll like this film. There was a scene with Castle, the creator of the Nanex and the games where he was singing Frank Sinatra’s “I’ve got you under my skin” while controlling like six to eight warriors/fighters. It was rather strange. The whole concept was rather strange. I thought it was cultural commentary on the current gaming society today. Geeky gaming freaks basically. I do hope that this nano technology never develops in the future. Imagine a world of controlled slaves. *shudder*

I liked the film because it was action-packed and kept me riveted in my seat. The special effects were awesome. And I liked the ending. I give it 3 and a half stars out of five. I don’t know if I’d recommend going to the theater to see this film unless you want the big screen experience. You could wait until it goes to DVD or Cable. Gerard Butler could be Russell Crowe’s brother. hehe. Seriously. He’s totally badass. Kyra Sedgwick is in it playing a journalist. It was nice to see her around again. Amber Valetta plays Kable’s wife. I’m not too familiar with her.

To be honest I wouldn’t have watched that movie on my own. It’s just that my friends and I wanted to do something and that got the most votes. lol. The action scenes, which was absolutely throughout the film, were very good. And Gerard Butler is a cutie. hehe

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Fri 4 Sep 2009

The Time Traveler’s Wife: Movie Review

Posted by Emma under movies
No Comments

source

Movie Review by Roger Ebert:
/ / / August 13, 2009
New Line Cinema presents a film directed by Robert Schwentke. Screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin, based on the novel by Audrey Niffenegger. Running time: 107 minutes. Rated PG-13. At local theaters.

Clare is in love with a man who frequently disappears into thin air, leaving behind his clothing in a pile on the floor. “It can be a problem,” he observes. Henry is a time-traveler, and his trips are out of his control. Another problem is that whenever he arrives at another time, or even returns to the present (whenever that may be for him) he is naked. Well, that makes sense. You wouldn’t expect his clothes to travel.

The dilemma of Henry (Eric Bana) and Clare (Rachel McAdams) becomes, in “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” a bittersweet love story. The warmth of the actors makes it surprisingly tender, considering the premise that is blatantly absurd. If you allow yourself to think for one moment of the paradoxes, contradictions and logical difficulties involved, you will be lost. The movie supports no objective thought.

So, OK. It’s preposterous. Lots of movies are. What we’re given is a lifelong love story that begins when a little girl (Brooklynn Proulx) gives her blanket to a naked man who has appeared in the shrubbery of her family’s idyllic meadow. He tells her his name, that he’s her friend and that they’ll see each other again. And so they do. When she’s grown, she encounters him in a library and introduces herself, because at this point in his life he doesn’t know who she is. I know what you’re asking yourself. Don’t even go there.

They fall in love. They get married. Their wedding ceremony is threatened with disaster when he evaporates with minutes to go, but Henry is a stand-up guy and materializes from the future just in the nick of time to stand in for himself. His disappearances strike instantly, for example while he’s carrying the dishes to their dinner table, Clare finds herself cleaning up a lot of spills. Although she gets pregnant, if he ever disappears during sex, we don’t see it. From a strictly logical point of view, that would be the opposite of ejaculatio praecox.

Henry consults Dr. Kendrick (Stephen Tobolowsky), a genetics expert, who finds he has a genetic condition named Chrono-Impairment. Apparently since this trait is in all of his genes, they travel in time simultaneously, which is just as well, lest he be scattered hither and yon. One thing’s for sure: It’s hard to explain how a gene for time travel could develop in the Darwinian model, since it’s hard to see how an organism could ever find out that was an advantage.

You have to hand it to director Robert Schwentke and screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin (“Ghost”). They deal with these difficulties by not dealing with them at all. McAdams and Bana play their roles straight and seriously, have a pleasant chemistry, and sort of involved me in spite if myself. They’re just so … nice. She does get around to asking a logical question: Why did he appear in the first place to that little girl in the meadow, and set all of this in motion? Well, maybe he did for the simple reason that he already had, if you see what I mean.

What’s remarkable is how upbeat and romantic he’s able to remain, considering the difficulties of always rematerializing naked. You’d think he’d be worn down and demoralized. I guess he has some control over where that happens, as in the meadow. But in a crucial opening scene with himself as a child, how does he find two blankets by the side of a road?

He turns up regularly in Chicago — on bridges, on elevated platforms, in alleys — and always breaks and enters to grab clothes, or steals wallets (if a naked man asks you for your wallet, what do you do?). He keeps getting arrested, and disappearing from the backs of police cars. The cops should put out a bulletin with an artists’s rendition of his face: “If you catch this guy, don’t arrest him. It’s a waste of time.”

My Movie Review:
I read this book about two and half to three years ago. It was a gripping tale and I couldn’t keep the book down. I was disappointed by the ending. I think I cried. Anyway, it was good to finally see the movie version. I don’t remember the book that well except major parts. It stayed pretty true to the book as I remember it. Like Ebert said it’s a bittersweet love story and seems rather far-fetched. I remember Rachel McAdamas, who plays Claire, from the movie “The Notebook,” which was a beautiful film. She acted wonderfully. She’s very much in touch with her emotions. She was very believable. I remember Eric Bana from “Troy.” He did a good job of acting too. The story is basically about this girl who falls in love with a Time Traveler. She meets him when she’s like 8 years old and he’s 30 something. And they meet throughout her life by him time-traveling and appearing where she is waiting. He is able to tell her when she’ll see him again. How that works out, I don’t know. The entire theme of time-traveling is really absurd. But she meets him for the first time at a library. I mean she met him before then, but this was the first time she met him before he Time-traveled to her as a little girl. They fall in love and get married. I’ll stop there. The ending is sad. It’s supposed to be a love story. It is, but a sad one. It’s not a believable story, but it’s very intriguing. I liked the book well enough. And I liked the movie too. I give it three out of five stars. The chemistry between the star-crossed lovers was good, but “The Notebook” was a better film. I guess they were trying to recapture some of that “The Notebook” vibe. It was romantic, but nowhere near “The Notebook.” I wanted to see this movie because I read the book. I don’t know if I’d recommend going to the theater to see the movie. You might be better off waiting until it’s on DVD or cable. But I didn’t think it was a total waste of my money. There were previews before the film and one was for the book “The Lovely Bones.” Another book I read. And yes, I will see that movie too.

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Thu 3 Sep 2009

Final Destination 4 in 3D: Movie Review

Posted by Emma under movies
[6] Comments

Associated Content Movie Review:
source

August 28, 2009 by
Robert Dougherty

The Final Destination 4 review count is only going up tonight, as Final Destination 4 reviews were embargoed before today. Each Final Destination 4 review was held back before release, making The Final Destination 4 reviews just like that of another horror sequel, Halloween 2. But
Final Destination 4 Reviews Cannot Cheat Death
The Final Destination 4 review count is still barely larger than the body count for this third sequel, especially in 3D. Yet Final Destination 4 reviews aren’t pleased with the latest brush with death, in any dimension.

Like its predecessors, The Final Destination starts with a teen getting a flash forward about him and his friends dying in a horrible accident – then getting targeted by Death itself after they survive their destined demises. The big difference in this fourth film is that the cheated death takes place at a NASCAR race, and that the remainder of the elaborate deaths are in 3D.

To end summer, Final Destination 4 opens in the same weekend as Halloween 2. In the end, The Final Destination 4 reviews are only slightly worse than Halloween 2, at least early on. But lousy Final Destination reviews are no surprise, even though the series has tried to be different from other slasher films.

When the franchise began 10 years ago, it was like a predecessor to the Saw movies, in that the Final Destination franchise had overly-elaborate, gory, Rube Goldberg-like methods of death. The difference was that the killer was Death, not a masked maniac or a dying, moralizing psychopath.

Presenting such elaborate deaths, in even more gory fashion, in the 3D format looked like a good idea for the fourth installment. But each Final Destination 4 review isn’t all that impressed with the gruesome deaths in 3D, or in 2D.

Only 20 Final Destination 4 reviews are in Rotten Tomatoes thus far, with only three positive and 17 negative, for a 3.5 rating out of 10. This puts the Final Destination 4 review rating about six percentage points behind Halloween 2, which has a 21% positive review count.

My Movie Review:

This is the first Final Destination film I ever watched. I didn’t buy into the hype for the last three movies. Also I thought it was a teen flick;and it is. I don’t know why this is the number 1 box office hit at the moment. I thought it was rather lame. I mean the 3D effects were cool, but the plot was just lame. It was a relatively short film. Like an hour and 40 minutes. Not long at all. It’s supposed to be a thriller/horror. I wasn’t scared at all. It was gory in some parts, but I was un-phased. We should have went to see “Time Traveler’s Wife.” But this time we bought into the hype because it’s #1 in the box office and it was in 3D. I should have waited to watch it on cable or DVD. Really it’s not worth all that money. And it’s extra for 3D. I give it 2 stars out of 5. I wasn’t impressed. And I doubt I’ll see any more Final Destination films. It’s really for teens and college students. But then again I don’t think they’d rave about it either. No big name stars. Nobodys. Probably their only 15 minutes of fame. I was bored after the movie. Not scary at all. Save your money and wait for it to come out on DVD or cable. Unless you really want to see the cool 3D effects.

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Sat 22 Aug 2009

“Inglourious Basterds” directed by Quentin Tarantino

Posted by Emma under movies
[14] Comments

Review by Roger Ebert:

Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” is a big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others and demonstrate once again that he’s the real thing, a director of quixotic delights. For starters (and at this late stage after the premiere in May at Cannes, I don’t believe I’m spoiling anything), he provides World War II with a much-needed alternative ending. For once the basterds get what’s coming to them.

From the title, ripped off from a 1978 B-movie, to the Western sound of the Ennio Morricone opening music to the key location, a movie theater, the film embeds Tarantino’s love of the movies. The deep, rich colors of 35mm film provide tactile pleasure. A character at the beginning and end, not seen in between, brings the story full circle. The “basterds” themselves, savage fighters dropped behind Nazi lines, are an unmistakable nod to the Dirty Dozen.

And above all, there are three iconic characters, drawn broadly and with love: the Hero, the Nazi and the Girl. These three, played by Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent, are seen with that Tarantino knack of taking a character and making it a Character, definitive, larger than life, approaching satire in its intensity but not — quite — going that far. Let’s say they feel bigger than most of the people we meet in movies.

The story begins in Nazi-occupied France, early in the war, when the cruel, droll Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Waltz) arrives at an isolated dairy farm where he believes the farmer (Denis Menochet) is hiding Jews. He’s right, and a young woman named Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) flees into the woods. It is for this scene, and his performance throughout the movie, that Christoph Waltz deserves an Oscar nomination to go with his best actor award from Cannes. He creates a character unlike any Nazi — indeed, anyone at all — I’ve seen in a movie: evil, sardonic, ironic, mannered, absurd.

The Hero is Brad Pitt, as Lt. Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds. Tarantino probably wants us to hear “Aldo Ray,” star of countless war films and B pictures. Raine is played by Pitt as a broad caricature of a hard-talking Southern boy who wants each of his men to bring him 100 Nazi scalps. For years, his band improbably survives in France and massacres Nazis, and can turn out in formal eveningwear at a moment’s notice. Pitt’s version of Italian is worthy of a Marx brother.

The Girl is Shosanna, played by Laurent as a curvy siren with red lipstick and, at the film’s end, a slinky red dress. Tarantino photographs her with the absorption of a fetishist, with closeups of shoes, lips, a facial veil and details of body and dress. You can’t tell me he hasn’t seen the work of the Scottish artist Jack Vettriano, and his noir paintings of the cigarette-smoking ladies in red.

Shosanna calculatingly flirts with Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a Nazi war hero and now movie star; he persuades Joseph Goebbels to hold the premiere of his new war film in her theater. This sets up a plot that includes Tarantino breaking several rules in order to provide documentary footage about how flammable nitrate film prints are.

A Tarantino film resists categorization. “Inglourious Basterds” is no more about war than “Pulp Fiction” is about — what the hell is it about? Of course nothing in the movie is possible, except that it’s so bloody entertaining. His actors don’t chew the scenery, but they lick it. He’s a master at bringing performances as far as they can go toward iconographic exaggeration.

After I saw “Inglourious Basterds” at Cannes, although I was writing a daily blog, I resisted giving an immediate opinion about it. I knew Tarantino had made a considerable film, but I wanted it to settle, and to see it again. I’m glad I did. Like a lot of real movies, you relish it more the next time. Immediately after “Pulp Fiction” played at Cannes, QT asked me what I thought. “It’s either the best film of the year or the worst film,” I said. I hardly knew what the hell had happened to me. The answer was: the best film. Tarantino films have a way of growing on you. It’s not enough to see them once.

source

My Review:
I read the wiki entry about it. Don’t read it. It has spoilers. It’s supposed to be Tarantino’s Spaghetti Western, just happens to be in Nazi-occupied France during WWII. It was a typical Tarantino styled film. He said it reminds him of Pulp Fiction. I still think Pulp Fiction was better. Brad Pitt was awesome. A lot of the cast were awesome, especially Christoph Waltz who won best actor at the Cannes Film Festival. It’s a purely fictional film. Brad Pitt plays 1st Lieutenant Aldo Raine aka “Aldo the Apache.” He’s from Tennessee. He’s in charge of a group of American Jewish Nazi killers. They go to France to kill the Nazis. There are 8 of them. A lot have nicknames. Then in another subplot there’s this young Jewish woman who escapes from being killed by the Nazis. It was a long movie. Like two hours and a half. It’s gory in some parts. Comical in some parts. Yah, the audience was laughing often. It was a great film for Jewish people. To see these brave Jewish mercenaries kill the Nazis brazenly was awesome to see. To see the Jews get revenge was awesome. And they definitely got their revenge. A lot of Nazis die by their hands. The ending was particularly gory but sweet retribution. The Nazis are made into mincemeat by the Jews. I was reading about it’s release in Germany. They had to remove the swastika symbols. I thought politically this was Jewish retribution for what Nazi Germany did to millions of Jews. Any Nazi sympathizers will hate this film. I don’t know about the neo-nazi movement in Germany or even in America, but they would hate this film because they get destroyed. Although it was great to see the Jews in the dominant position and killing the Nazis, it still doesn’t fully make up for what Nazi Germany did with the Holocaust.

If you like Tarantino films, you won’t want to miss this one. And if you hate Nazis, you’d love it. =)

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Sat 15 Aug 2009

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Posted by Emma under movies
[10] Comments

Roger Ebert’s Review:

The climactic scene in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” takes place in one of those underground caverns with a lake and an ominous gondola as the means of transportation, popularized by “The Phantom of the Opera.” At first I thought — no gondola! But then, one appeared, dripping and hulking. In another movie I might have grinned, but you know what? By that point, I actually cared.

Yes, this sixth chapter is a darker, more ominous Harry Potter film, with a conclusion that suggests more alarmingly the deep dangers Harry and his friends have gotten themselves into. There was always a disconnect between Harry’s enchanting school days at Hogwarts and the looming threat of Voldemort. Presumably it would take more than skills at Quidditch to defeat the dreaded Dark Lord.

In one of the opening scenes, we find Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) late at night in a cafe of the London Underground, reading a copy of the Daily Prophet which poses the question: Is Harry Potter the Chosen One? By the film’s end, he acknowledges that he has, indeed, been chosen to face down Voldemort (whose name should properly rhyme with the French word for “death,” mort; also, since their word vol can have meanings such as “thief” and “steal,” Lord Voldemort is most ominously named).

Harry is distracted from his paper, however, by an instant flirtation with the young waitress, a saucy cutie who informs him, although he asked only with his eyes, that she gets off work at 11. She indeed waits for him on the platform, but the Chosen One must respond to his higher calling from Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), who either materializes, gets off a train, or has a pied-a-terre right there in the Underground. I for one will be disappointed if that waitress (I think her name is Elarica Gallagher) doesn’t turn up again in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” whose two parts will conclude the series in 2010 and 2011.

Dumbledore and Potter: In battle against the Dark Lord.

(Enlarge Image)
That will be none too soon if Harry doesn’t want to steal up on the “Twilight” franchise, since he and his friends, especially poor Ron Weasley, have definitively entered adolescence. Even now he seems to be entertaining thoughts of snoggling with Ron’s sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright). Yes, Harry, so recently a round-eyed little lad, will soon be one of Hogwarts’ Old Boys.

Director David Yates suggests the transition in subtle ways, one of them by making Hogwarts itself seem darker, emptier and more ominous than ever before. Its cheery corridors are now replaced by gloomy Gothic passages, and late in the film an unspeakable fate befalls the beloved Dining Hall at the hands of Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter), who seems to function principally as a destructive vixen, but no doubt has more ominous goals.

The mission for which Dumbledore summoned Harry at the outset was to visit the London home of Professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), who has become reclusive since his Hogwarts days, but is now urgently needed along with his memories of the young student Tom Riddle, who grew up to become the man whose name should rhyme with Death. Dumbledore hopes they can discover a secret vulnerability of Voldemort’s, and that is why they find themselves in the underground cavern. When this possible key is discovered, I promise you I’m not spoiling anything by observing that its basic message is “to be continued.”

There are really two story strands here. One involves the close working relationship of Dumbledore and Harry on the trail of Voldemort. The other involves everything else: romance and flirtation, Quidditch, a roll call of familiar characters (Hagrid, Snape, McGonagall, Wormtail, Lupin, Filch, Flitwick and Malfoy, whose name could be French for “bad faith”). With names like that, how do they get through Commencement without snickering?

Some of these characters are reprised just as reminders. The giant Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), for example, turns up primarily to allow us to observe, look who’s turned up! Snape, as played by Alan Rickman, is given much more dialogue, primarily I suspect because he invests it with such macabre pauses. Radcliffe’s Potter is sturdy and boring, as always; it’s not easy being the hero with a supporting cast like this. Michael Gambon steals the show as Dumbledore, who for a man his age certainly has some new tricks, so to speak, up his sleeve.

I admired this Harry Potter. It opens and closes well, and has wondrous art design and cinematography as always, only more so. “I’m just beginning to realize how beautiful this place is,” Harry sighs from a high turret. The middle passages spin their wheels somewhat, hurrying about to establish events and places not absolutely essential. But those scenes may be especially valued by devoted students of the Potter saga. They may also be the only ones who fully understand them; ordinary viewers may be excused for feeling baffled some of the time.

My Review:
It’s been a while since I’ve read the books, so I don’t know how true to the book it was. But watching the film, the plot was coming back to me. The special effects were great as usual. The casting director should get an award and a bonus for perfect casting. Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix was perfect. Although I usually don’t like movie adaptations of books I read, Harry Potter is one of those rare exceptions because the characters do look like the version I have in my head for the most part. It was a long movie. It had some comical moments. Some tragic moments. Can’t wait to see the final movie next year I suppose. It’s nice to see how they’re growing up. I mean in the first Harry Potter film they were just kids, but now they’re growing tall and getting mature. It’s nice to watch them grow up. I give it four out of five stars. I don’t give it a five because it’s really a film for young adults. If I were in High School I would have given it a five. hehe. But great film. Glad I finally got to see it.

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts

 

Sat 15 Aug 2009

Movie Review: District 9

Posted by Emma under movies
[8] Comments

Roger Ebert’s Review:

I suppose there’s no reason the first alien race to reach the Earth shouldn’t look like what the cat threw up. After all, they love to eat cat food. The alien beings in “District 9,” nicknamed “prawns” because they look like a cross between lobsters and grasshoppers, arrive in a space ship that hovers over Johannesburg. Found inside, huddled together and starving to death, are the aliens, who benefit from a humanitarian impulse to relocate them to a location on the ground.

Here they become not welcomed but feared, and their camp turns into a prison. Fearing alien attacks, humans demand they be resettled far from town, and a clueless bureaucrat named Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is placed in charge of this task. The creatures are not eager to move. A private security force, headed by van der Merwe, moves in with armored vehicles and flame-throwers to encourage them, and van der Merwe cheerfully destroys houses full of their young.

Who are these aliens? Where did they come from? How did their ship apparently run out of power (except what’s necessary to levitate its massive tonnage?). No one asks: They’re here, we don’t like them, get them out of town. There doesn’t seem to be a lot to like. In appearance, they’re loathsome, in behavior disgusting and evoke so little sympathy that killing one is like — why, like dropping a 7-foot lobster into boiling water.

This science-fiction fable, directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter (“The Lord of the Rings”) Jackson, takes the form of a mockumentary about van der Merwe’s relocation campaign, his infection by an alien virus, his own refuge in District 9 and his partnership with the only alien who behaves intelligently and reveals, dare we say, human emotions. This alien, named Christopher Johnson — yes, Christopher Johnson — has a secret workspace where he prepares to return to the mothership and help his people.

Much of the plot involves the obsession of the private security firm in learning the secret of the alien weapons, which humans cannot operate. Curiously, none of these weapons seem superior to those of the humans and aren’t used to much effect by the aliens in their own defense. Never mind. After van der Merwe grows a lobster claw in place of a hand, he can operate the weapons, and thus becomes the quarry of both the security company and the Nigerian gangsters, who exploit the aliens by selling them cat food. All of this is presented very seriously.

The film’s South African setting brings up inescapable parallels with its now-defunct apartheid system of racial segregation. Many of them are obvious, such as the action to move a race out of the city and to a remote location. Others will be more pointed in South Africa. The title “District 9” evokes Cape Town’s historic District 6, where Cape Coloureds (as they were called then) owned homes and businesses for many years before being bulldozed out and relocated. The hero’s name, van der Merwe, is not only a common name for Afrikaners, the white South Africans of Dutch descent, but also the name of the protagonist of van der Merwe jokes, of which the point is that the hero is stupid. Nor would it escape a South African ear that the alien language incorporates clicking sounds, just as Bantu, the language of a large group of African apartheid targets.

Certainly this van der Merwe isn’t the brightest bulb on the tree. Wearing a sweater vest over a short-sleeve shirt, he walks up to alien shanties and asks them to sign a relocation consent form. He has little sense of caution, which is why he finds himself in his eventual predicament. What Neill Blomkamp somehow does is make Christopher Johnson and his son, Little CJ, sympathetic despite appearances. This is achieved by giving them, but no other aliens, human body language, and little CJ even gets big wet eyes, like E.T.

“District 9” does a lot of things right, including giving us aliens to remind us not everyone who comes in a spaceship need be angelic, octopod or stainless steel. They are certainly alien, all right. It is also a seamless merger of the mockumentary and special effects (the aliens are CGI). And there’s a harsh parable here about the alienation and treatment of refugees.

But the third act is disappointing, involving standard shoot-out action. No attempt is made to resolve the situation, and if that’s a happy ending, I’ve seen happier. Despite its creativity, the movie remains space opera and avoids the higher realms of science-fiction.

I’ll be interested to see if general audiences go for these aliens. I said they’re loathsome and disgusting, and I don’t think that’s just me. The movie mentions Nigerian prostitutes servicing the aliens, but wisely refrains from entertaining us with this spectacle.

My Review:
It was bizarre. I mean not bizarre like Clockwork Orange or Brazil (two movies I thought were bizarre). It was about these aliens who get stuck on planet earth in Johannesburg, South Africa. About 1.8 million of them. Their mother ship was stuck above the town of Johannesburg. So they transported all 1.8 million of them to District 9. Sort of like internment camps. They were supposed to stay in that enclosed area district 9. But they were there for 20 years so they ended up mingling with humans sometimes and some humans went into their district to make profit off of them. Riots would break out when they enter human towns. They were in love with cat food. Anyway, the main character Wikus Van De Merwe was in charge of moving all the aliens to another area 240 Km away “District 10″ which was supposedly worse than District 9. They just wanted them to be as far away from humans as possible. He worked for MNU (Multi-national United). They were in charge of the aliens. Anyway Wikus and other MNU officials went to shanty to shanty serving the aliens with eviction notices. They were backed up by heavy security and firearms. These aliens can be very violent. Anyway, three aliens were working hard to get their mothership to work again so that they can leave the planet and return for the rest of their people. Wikus gets involved in this scheme because of an unfortunate event that occurred to him. And that’s all I’ll say. I don’t want to give the plot away. It wasn’t what I expected. I mean I saw trailers for it, but they really didn’t tell me what it was about. There are some cool special effects with the alien technology. I give it three out of five stars. I didn’t think it was a summer blockbuster. However, the movie was such that there could be a sequel. After watching it, I thought that the director/producer/writer etc. were trying to make a political statement about the conditions in South Africa. So I wikied it and it did indeed have a political message. Don’t wiki it all because of spoilers.

District 9 is a 2009 science fiction film directed by Neill Blomkamp, released August 13, 2009 internationally and August 14, 2009 in North America.[2] It takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa. District 9 is based on Alive in Joburg, a short film directed by Neill Blomkamp, Sharlto Copley, Simon Hansen and Shanon Worley. The title and plot elements are influenced by the real-life District 6 in Cape Town. Copley also portrayed one of the interviewed policemen. The short film is about aliens landing in South Africa and becoming confined to a specific area and forced to work.
-wikipedia

Sphere: Related Content

permalink
trackback

Tags: , , , ,

Related Posts

 

« Previous Page