This is CAKE TOWN!
Story: Not much to say. It's the classic story of the 300 Spartans, retold in the style of the Frank Miller graphic novel. It's perfectly adequate to showcase the awesome fights and visuals. Nothing earth shaking here, but it gets the job done. C
Acting: Gerard Butler is one of those truly great actors that disappears into a role to the point where you sometimes don't recognize that he's the same actor from movie to movie. He is great in this movie and deserves the lead role. David Wenham and Stephen McHattie are also really good in their roles. Overall, acting gets and A.
Direction: Zach Snyder is very quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. This one isn't as good as Watchmen but it's still very, very good. A friend of mine didn't like the movie, describing it as being “very, very gay.” She was using gay to mean that it showcased lots of very pretty, muscular men acting as masculine as possible, not gay as in a generic insult from the 90's. Now, as a man who identifies himself as being a 2 on Kinsey's scale of sexuality, I don't see this as being a bad thing. Besides, there have been quite a few movies lately in which the only positive thing going for them would be lots of hot women in skimpy, skin tight outfits, so I see the pendulum swinging the other way as a positive. B
Visuals: What can I say about the visuals beyond that they're truly awesome? This movie has some of the best sword play I've ever seen. The switches from slow motion to regular speed create an epic effect of showcasing just how fast these guys are moving but also allowing us to see the details of their movement. A
Overall: This movie is lots of fun. It's not realistic at all and doesn't try to be. See it, unless you're a history major who would be offended at how historically inaccurate it is. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
2012 - Roland Emmerich - 2009
The Feel Good Comedy of the Year!
Story: The movie starts in 2009 Platt and Ejofor informing a president of these United States who is curiously not Barack Obama in this world (weird... but at least he's a messianic black man right? Between this and Deep Impact, Hollywood is definitely telling America that we should be thankful to get through the Obama presidency in one piece, because the message is clearly the if you have a black president the world will try to kill you... not the political world... THE EARTH ITSELF WILL TURN ON YOU!!! If you liked that joke, it was mine. If you thought it was racist and offense, then my roommate Joseph came up with it.) that the apocalypse is about to begin and that like Noah, we need to build an ark.
Speaking of Noah's, did anyone else notice that Jon Cusack's son was named Noah? What do you mean it's not symbolic? Although I can't come up with any reason why the digital television conversion didn't happen in this universe, as there are analog TV's without converter boxes functioning. Maybe there's some hidden symbolism there that I'm not getting.
Some complaints with the storyline [SPOILER ALERT]: If the tectonic plates decided to shift and the continental US began to sink, then who thought that landing in Hawaii to refuel would be a good idea? I'm not an expert and even I recognize the stupidity of that idea. Then we get the laziest deus ex machina in the form of the plane crashing from lack of fuel conveniently in China because of the shifting poles.
[SPOILERS ALERT CONCLUDED, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES NOW]
All in all the story gets a B.
Acting: There really are some good performances here. Danny Glover does an awesome not Obamessiah president. Woody Harrelson surprised me by even being in this movie and doing crazy in a way that only Woody can do. I'm glad to see Oliver Platt in something big again, even if he is the “bad” guy (although if I had been in his shoes, I wouldn't have opened those doors either!) It's good to see John Billingsley on something other than Star Trek: Enterprise. Stephen McHattie was only on screen for a few scenes but completely stole those scenes. Oh, and the nuclear family plus the step dad aren't bad either. The acting department gets a solid A.
Direction: Roland Emmerich gets a lot of crap for his movies and I'm not sure why (except for Godzilla and to certain extent The Day After Tomorrow which I thought were lesser movies of his) but, as my friend Andrew pointed out in my original review of this movie, the fact that Emmerich keeps dealing with apocalyptic subject matter does technically make him an auteur. Overal, there are some scenes where the audience really has to suspend their disbelief, like when Jon Cusack outruns a volcanic eruption and catches up with a plane on foot, but they work from a suspense point of view. However, I do have to fault Emmerich for a few of the plane take off scenes feeling identical to the one that just preceded it in the scene before. Of course, the band Austrian Death Machine might say, “Of course they look and feel the same, because they all look BRUUUUUTAAAAAL!” B
Visuals: If you haven't watch the Escapist's Movie Bob's review of this movie, I recommend you do so. He assessed the visuals in this movie in a far superior way than I ever could, so I'm not even going to try. Suffice to say, the visuals get an A.
Overall: I laughed all the way through. . . and yes, I know this means that I should probably be seeking therapy. In my defense, everyone in my party was laughing too, so if there's something wrong with me, my friends have it too. This movie is close to A range, but really is more in the realm of B because of dumb things that drag it down, but regardless you should see this movie!
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The movie starts in 2009 Platt and Ejofor informing a president of these United States who is curiously not Barack Obama in this world (weird... but at least he's a messianic black man right? Between this and Deep Impact, Hollywood is definitely telling America that we should be thankful to get through the Obama presidency in one piece, because the message is clearly the if you have a black president the world will try to kill you... not the political world... THE EARTH ITSELF WILL TURN ON YOU!!! If you liked that joke, it was mine. If you thought it was racist and offense, then my roommate Joseph came up with it.) that the apocalypse is about to begin and that like Noah, we need to build an ark.
Speaking of Noah's, did anyone else notice that Jon Cusack's son was named Noah? What do you mean it's not symbolic? Although I can't come up with any reason why the digital television conversion didn't happen in this universe, as there are analog TV's without converter boxes functioning. Maybe there's some hidden symbolism there that I'm not getting.
Some complaints with the storyline [SPOILER ALERT]: If the tectonic plates decided to shift and the continental US began to sink, then who thought that landing in Hawaii to refuel would be a good idea? I'm not an expert and even I recognize the stupidity of that idea. Then we get the laziest deus ex machina in the form of the plane crashing from lack of fuel conveniently in China because of the shifting poles.
[SPOILERS ALERT CONCLUDED, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES NOW]
All in all the story gets a B.
Acting: There really are some good performances here. Danny Glover does an awesome not Obamessiah president. Woody Harrelson surprised me by even being in this movie and doing crazy in a way that only Woody can do. I'm glad to see Oliver Platt in something big again, even if he is the “bad” guy (although if I had been in his shoes, I wouldn't have opened those doors either!) It's good to see John Billingsley on something other than Star Trek: Enterprise. Stephen McHattie was only on screen for a few scenes but completely stole those scenes. Oh, and the nuclear family plus the step dad aren't bad either. The acting department gets a solid A.
Direction: Roland Emmerich gets a lot of crap for his movies and I'm not sure why (except for Godzilla and to certain extent The Day After Tomorrow which I thought were lesser movies of his) but, as my friend Andrew pointed out in my original review of this movie, the fact that Emmerich keeps dealing with apocalyptic subject matter does technically make him an auteur. Overal, there are some scenes where the audience really has to suspend their disbelief, like when Jon Cusack outruns a volcanic eruption and catches up with a plane on foot, but they work from a suspense point of view. However, I do have to fault Emmerich for a few of the plane take off scenes feeling identical to the one that just preceded it in the scene before. Of course, the band Austrian Death Machine might say, “Of course they look and feel the same, because they all look BRUUUUUTAAAAAL!” B
Visuals: If you haven't watch the Escapist's Movie Bob's review of this movie, I recommend you do so. He assessed the visuals in this movie in a far superior way than I ever could, so I'm not even going to try. Suffice to say, the visuals get an A.
Overall: I laughed all the way through. . . and yes, I know this means that I should probably be seeking therapy. In my defense, everyone in my party was laughing too, so if there's something wrong with me, my friends have it too. This movie is close to A range, but really is more in the realm of B because of dumb things that drag it down, but regardless you should see this movie!
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
2 Fast 2 Furious - John Singleton - 2003
It's a Fun Popcorn Movie
Story: There was a story? Oh, right, it's there. It holds the chase scenes and action sequences together. If you look at it wrong, it will crumble. I never saw the first one and didn't seem too terribly lost by it, suggesting that the narrative is not the most important thing here. It gets a D and we're moving on.
Acting: Paul Walker does pensive very well. Tyrese Gibson steals the show. Not much more to say here. C
Direction: The action sequences are lots of fun and really what this movie is about. It's a popcorn movie. Disengage your brain and have fun. C
Visuals: See direction. C
Overall: It's a fun dumb movie. Don't pay more than five dollars to see it, and I can't recommend buying it because it doesn't really stand up to subsequent viewings. Unless of course you're a Fast and (the?) Furious franchise fan and need this movie to complete your collection. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: There was a story? Oh, right, it's there. It holds the chase scenes and action sequences together. If you look at it wrong, it will crumble. I never saw the first one and didn't seem too terribly lost by it, suggesting that the narrative is not the most important thing here. It gets a D and we're moving on.
Acting: Paul Walker does pensive very well. Tyrese Gibson steals the show. Not much more to say here. C
Direction: The action sequences are lots of fun and really what this movie is about. It's a popcorn movie. Disengage your brain and have fun. C
Visuals: See direction. C
Overall: It's a fun dumb movie. Don't pay more than five dollars to see it, and I can't recommend buying it because it doesn't really stand up to subsequent viewings. Unless of course you're a Fast and (the?) Furious franchise fan and need this movie to complete your collection. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
16 Blocks - Richard Donner - 2006
Average Cop Movie is Average
Story: The story is fairly archetypal within the police procedural genre: A beat down cop defends an innocent on the run from the polished but corrupt police establishment. There are many, many cop movies that share this premise, and most of them are written so much better. I'm going to get crucified when I say this but even Street Kings had a more inspired version of the same story, and LA Confidential has no fears of this movie ever catching up to it either. The archetype works, so this story isn't bad, but it just feels adequate and lifeless. C
Acting: Mos Def's character annoyed me so badly that I kept hoping his character would die in this movie, and the worst part is that I know he can do better, like he did in Be Kind Rewind. Bruce Willis does an effective job of playing an alcoholic cop, but nothing terribly memorable here. The real show stealer was David Morse as one of the most likable villains in the history of movies. He's doing a horrible thing, but he just seems like such a nice guy while doing it, and he'd probably even invite Willis over for supper after the dust settled, assuming he got his way. He's good... and he bumps the acting category up to C level.
Direction: The atmosphere is very depressing, which was probably by design for this story. There are lots of awkward pauses, lots of Willis giving confused looks and looks of disdain for his life instead of a reply to of character's dialog. Again, this is perfectly acceptable, but not exceptional. It's average, and average direction gets a C.
Visuals: This is probably the strongest part of this movie. The visuals make use of lots of shadow, which assist the atmosphere of depression. The Godfather has no worries of losing it's title of best use of shadows in a movie, but this is really this movie's strong point. B
Overall: This movie is okay. Average. If it's on TV and you've got nothing better to do, watch it. If your local library has it, rent it. I wouldn't pay anymore than about five dollars to watch this one. And you certainly don't need to be searching this one out unless you're a huge fan of some member of the cast or crew. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The story is fairly archetypal within the police procedural genre: A beat down cop defends an innocent on the run from the polished but corrupt police establishment. There are many, many cop movies that share this premise, and most of them are written so much better. I'm going to get crucified when I say this but even Street Kings had a more inspired version of the same story, and LA Confidential has no fears of this movie ever catching up to it either. The archetype works, so this story isn't bad, but it just feels adequate and lifeless. C
Acting: Mos Def's character annoyed me so badly that I kept hoping his character would die in this movie, and the worst part is that I know he can do better, like he did in Be Kind Rewind. Bruce Willis does an effective job of playing an alcoholic cop, but nothing terribly memorable here. The real show stealer was David Morse as one of the most likable villains in the history of movies. He's doing a horrible thing, but he just seems like such a nice guy while doing it, and he'd probably even invite Willis over for supper after the dust settled, assuming he got his way. He's good... and he bumps the acting category up to C level.
Direction: The atmosphere is very depressing, which was probably by design for this story. There are lots of awkward pauses, lots of Willis giving confused looks and looks of disdain for his life instead of a reply to of character's dialog. Again, this is perfectly acceptable, but not exceptional. It's average, and average direction gets a C.
Visuals: This is probably the strongest part of this movie. The visuals make use of lots of shadow, which assist the atmosphere of depression. The Godfather has no worries of losing it's title of best use of shadows in a movie, but this is really this movie's strong point. B
Overall: This movie is okay. Average. If it's on TV and you've got nothing better to do, watch it. If your local library has it, rent it. I wouldn't pay anymore than about five dollars to watch this one. And you certainly don't need to be searching this one out unless you're a huge fan of some member of the cast or crew. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
1408 - Mikael Håfström - 2007
This movie actually scared me a few times!
Story: This movie does a perfect build of creating anticipation in the mind of the audience, mainly through Jackson's constant warnings about room 1408. We're caught between saying, “Don't go in there, stupid!” and, “But I'd really like to know what's in there, since it's been built up so well!” Sometimes, Cusack's character comes across as a bit dense, but if he didn't then we wouldn't have a movie. B
Acting: John Cusack does a great job of portraying a man who has given up on his life and is simply living and writing for a paycheck. He then convincingly grows as a character without being cliché about it. Samuel L.Jackson is Samuel L. Jackson and awesome because of it. A
Direction: This creates an atmosphere of anticipation in an expert fashion. In terms of quantity, there are very few scares in this movie, but those work and work well because of that atmosphere. A
Visuals: If the visuals hadn't worked, the direction would have failed in this movie. I think the best scene visually would have to be the scene of Cusack in the [SLIGHT SPOILER... BUT IT WAS IN THE TRAILER] snow filled room attempting to communicate with his wife through his laptop. The image is distorted and hard to make out when his avatar starts talking without his prompting, telling his wife to come to room 1408. The shot of his possessed avatar looking back at him though the LCD screen with a slight smirk on his shadowy face is probably one of the most effective visuals I've seen. A
Overall: I've read far too few Stephen King stories, something that I'm trying to rectify, but the most recent movies based on his stories have been absolute gold, and this one is near the top of the mountain along with The Mist. You should see this movie. A
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: This movie does a perfect build of creating anticipation in the mind of the audience, mainly through Jackson's constant warnings about room 1408. We're caught between saying, “Don't go in there, stupid!” and, “But I'd really like to know what's in there, since it's been built up so well!” Sometimes, Cusack's character comes across as a bit dense, but if he didn't then we wouldn't have a movie. B
Acting: John Cusack does a great job of portraying a man who has given up on his life and is simply living and writing for a paycheck. He then convincingly grows as a character without being cliché about it. Samuel L.Jackson is Samuel L. Jackson and awesome because of it. A
Direction: This creates an atmosphere of anticipation in an expert fashion. In terms of quantity, there are very few scares in this movie, but those work and work well because of that atmosphere. A
Visuals: If the visuals hadn't worked, the direction would have failed in this movie. I think the best scene visually would have to be the scene of Cusack in the [SLIGHT SPOILER... BUT IT WAS IN THE TRAILER] snow filled room attempting to communicate with his wife through his laptop. The image is distorted and hard to make out when his avatar starts talking without his prompting, telling his wife to come to room 1408. The shot of his possessed avatar looking back at him though the LCD screen with a slight smirk on his shadowy face is probably one of the most effective visuals I've seen. A
Overall: I've read far too few Stephen King stories, something that I'm trying to rectify, but the most recent movies based on his stories have been absolute gold, and this one is near the top of the mountain along with The Mist. You should see this movie. A
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
10 Things I Hate About You - Gil Junger - 1999
10 Things I Hate About You – Directed by Gil Junger – 1999
A Time Capsule of Stars
Story: When updating Shakespeare, a strong story is virtually guaranteed, and this one doesn't let us down. It remains true to The Taming of a Shrew but doesn't feel terribly locked into an era. It should still be enjoyable in 20 years. A
Acting: Everyone brings the goods. Ledger, Stiles, Gordon-Levitt, and Oleynik all give memorable performances. A
Direction: It's almost shot like live theater, in that the takes are long instead of the usual quick cuts that get associated with modern cinema, and it works, largely because the actors were strong enough to make it work. B
Visuals: Nothing terribly memorable here. The dialog was the star of the movie and the visuals weren't bad, but they also weren't awesome. C
Overall: This movie is a lot of fun and it captured many stars in their younger years. Julia Stiles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt have all gone on to make names for themselves, and this will be a testament to the fact that they've always been good. Heath Ledger fans should remember Heath as Joker and as Patrick Verona from this movie as I feel they are his best performances and they showcase his range as an actor, as Verona and Joker are so different that it takes a careful eye to notice that the same man portrayed them. You should see this movie and I give a B overall.
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
A Time Capsule of Stars
Story: When updating Shakespeare, a strong story is virtually guaranteed, and this one doesn't let us down. It remains true to The Taming of a Shrew but doesn't feel terribly locked into an era. It should still be enjoyable in 20 years. A
Acting: Everyone brings the goods. Ledger, Stiles, Gordon-Levitt, and Oleynik all give memorable performances. A
Direction: It's almost shot like live theater, in that the takes are long instead of the usual quick cuts that get associated with modern cinema, and it works, largely because the actors were strong enough to make it work. B
Visuals: Nothing terribly memorable here. The dialog was the star of the movie and the visuals weren't bad, but they also weren't awesome. C
Overall: This movie is a lot of fun and it captured many stars in their younger years. Julia Stiles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt have all gone on to make names for themselves, and this will be a testament to the fact that they've always been good. Heath Ledger fans should remember Heath as Joker and as Patrick Verona from this movie as I feel they are his best performances and they showcase his range as an actor, as Verona and Joker are so different that it takes a careful eye to notice that the same man portrayed them. You should see this movie and I give a B overall.
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
