Change Your Image
fat_dude_007
Reviews
Up in the Air (2009)
I'm here to be fired, Right?
Ryan walks into the classroom, sees Jim reading the Velveteen Rabbit. Ryan asks about Jim having second thoughts about marrying his sister Julie. Jim replies, " I started thinking about the wedding and the ceremony, and then us buying a house, having a kid, another kid, Christmas and Thanksgiving, spring break, football games, then they get jobs, get married, and now I'm a grandparent, retired, losing my hair, getting fat, and then I'm dead. What's the point? What's the Point?" Ryan stands there, doesn't know what to say. Ironically, he's a motivational speaker and preaches everything Jim just said. He tells people not to get married, but to live a more isolated and independent life.
The movie Up in the Air is a depressing comedy of sorts, I think their called dramedy's but I don't use words highlighted in red as soon as you type them. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a professional Terminator, who flies all around the country to fire people. He also works, as I mentioned, as a motivational speaker. He is Up in the Air (pun intended) for over 300 days a year. The airport terminals, the planes, the hotels, and even the employees who greet him with the same dull line every time he flies, has become Ryan's home. As he put it, to know Ryan one must fly with Ryan. However, for about 50 days a year, Ryan comes back to his other home in Omaha, Nebraska. It is here where his life is threatened when new employee Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) has a cost cutting idea of terminating people via web cam. Ryan points out the obvious flaws of the system, what if the employee walked out, he becomes violent, breaks the equipment, etc... but the boss (Jason Bateman) loves the cost cutting idea, and wants to give it a shot. He teams up Natalie with Ryan to educate her in the ways of Termination.
This is two learning experiences, as Natalie learns how deep and personal firing someone actually is, and about Ryan and his life of isolation, which she simply does not understand and does not want to even believe exists. Ryan, meanwhile, becomes more involved in Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fling who also flies around the country. Alex is, as she says, Ryan with a Vagina. Ryan begins to form a connection with these two, and begins to question his life of isolation.
The performances steal the show. George Clooney is charming as usual, but it's a deep performance. He is cold and distant, but through out the movie he learns that maybe his life of isolation isn't good for him, and there is this confused vulnerability to his character. Should he let these people in? Should he ignore them? Vera Farmiga is very strong as Alex, there was great chemistry between George and Vera throughout the whole movie, and Vera does not back down one bit. The repartee between the two was really something to behold, you just don't see it anymore. Anna Kendrick almost steals the movie. She is hilarious, but her character is not a joke. Natalie is determined, strong, smart, but the most vulnerable of all the characters. Just coming out of college with a psychology major, she had this grand plan and her life was going to be perfect, but life is never perfect. Anna plays the part beautifully, she hits all the notes. When Natalie is first there she has this peppy positive outlook, and then she gets kicked in the face by reality, but remains strong.
Jason Reitman, who wrote and directed this, deserves as much praise as the actors. These are his characters and he tuned the actors to play the parts perfectly, something I feel is forgotten about directing. The tone was, I thought, worked beautifully with the film. The very first scene, a man is getting fired, doesn't know what to do, and Ryan gives him packet, and says "Anybody who ever built an empire, or changed the world, sat where you are now. And it's because they sat there that they were able to do it." Immediately the guy feels optimistic about him being let go, doesn't know if everything will work out, but it has a chance to work out. This film takes us down the exact path, a dark tunnel with a light at the end, and this is where the film takes the most criticism, The end.
I won't give away to much, but you might be like a lot of other people, and feel as though you were fooled. I can understand where people are coming from, and I'd agree to a certain extent. The film does trick you, but I felt as though it gave me clues about the trick through out the entire film. The trick, works for some, and doesn't work for others.
You should see Up in the Air. You might be left with this bitter taste in your mouth, but it's still worth a taste, and you might really enjoy it.
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
How can so many people hate this movie?
"Described elsewhere as a 'quirky dark comedy', the director evidently forgot that quirky and dark do not on their own produce comedic elements. It is definitely quirky, but the 'quirkiness' feels forced, as though Anderson felt that to make up for tedious and virtually non-existent storyline he would have to inject another element into the film."
- dwblurb
What is this guy talking about? Non existent storyline? A bad father trying to make up for all his mistakes. That's one storyline. One son dealing with a tragedy, another son dealing with depression, a daughter not sure of who she is or who she loves, this is a true family comedy that deals with almost each family member and their struggles to forget the past. Some call it dark and some call it quirky and it's a little of both. I'd say that the story line makes this dark, not necessarily the humor of the movie. This movie is a film that is very serious while being funny at the same time, and give credit to Wes Anderson, who I greatly respect as a writer and director, along with Owen Wilson, these two really put together a great script which leads to a great movie.
Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) falls in love with Etheline (Anjelica Huston) and decides to marry her. Then they have 3 children: Chas Tenenbaum, Margot Tenenbaum who was adopted (her father would always mention this), and Richie Tenenbaum. After Royal and Etheline divorced, Etheline raised the kids to be child geniuses. Chas specializing in business, Margot a famous playwright, and Richie a famous athlete. Royal did not spend much time with the kids, with the exception of Richie who he would favor over everyone else. Royal to say the least, was not a good father. One of my favorite lines from the movie, Royal just watched his daughters first ever play. After the play is over, the kids sit with Royal and ask him what he thinks, Royal didn't think it was very good, Margot can't believe what he said. Richie asks if he thought the characters where well developed, and Royal dismisses that they were characters at all. Margot "I'm going to bed now" begins to walk away, Royal "Honey, it's just one man's opinion." Margot walks off. That's the kind of father Royal was, brutally honest and just seemed like he never gave a damn about them.
22 years go by, and the kids grow up, but none of them were they same. Richie (Luke Wilson) loses his ability to play tennis, Chas (Ben Stiller) lost his wife in an accident, and Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow), who has not written a play for many years, is clearly unhappy with her husband Raleigh St. Claire (Bill Murray). Royal learns that he is about to die, and realizes that the only people he actually loves absolutely hate him. So he decides to take on the task of reconnecting with his family. You know what's cool about all this, there is still more elements and story lines to this movie. Eli (Owen Wilson) is probably my favorite character in the movie, and he is best friends with Richie (Luke Wilson) which leads me to point out that when the Wilson brothers are in the same movie, they are flippin (stupid profanity rule) hilarious.
This movie was very well written, and in my opinion very well directed, but this is where I think a lot of people lose interest in the movie. Wes Anderson has a goofy, quirky style. That's really the only way to explain it, I mean, I could try to explain how all his shots are goofy, and how all his angles are unbelievably unique but boring and plain at the same time, but it's a lot to talk about. I think this is the best thing about Wes Anderson, he has his own style that no one can touch, but for some it's a turn off. Saying that...
The performances of the actors are great, some performances might be dull as many have stated, but it fits the characters and the direction of the movie. A lot of these characters are not all there emotionally, so their reactions are not going to be as intense as other characters would be. Danny Glover's character (Henry Sherman) has a great deal of pride, so when he is insulted he takes it very seriously and stands up for himself and gets loud and brutish, yet Margot when she finds out some disturbing news, doesn't even look like she cares, but she does, and you know she does, but she refuses to show it. These characters are different and unique, and the performances, each one of them fits the characters perfectly.
You should not skip this movie because of some really awful reviewers, in fact, this is a must at least try to watch movie. Don't listen to anybody who says that there is not a story line, cause they don't know what they are talking about. This movie is smart, this movie is serious, this movie is touching, and so much more could be said. Watch The Royal Tenenbaums.
Dead Air (2009)
Thief
Stealing is a crime, and these guys, Kenny Yakkel and Corbin Bernsen look like their going to get away with it. I haven't even seen this film, but not only do i know it sucks, but the fact that it steals the story of another film, or 2 films for that matter, is such bull crap (and if IMDb would allow profanity much more than just bull crap) that I become filled with rage and feel as though I should just throw myself out the window and just end it all. O.k that's a little much but stealing is worse.
Ever seen Pontypool? It was this awesome little zombie film made in 2008, this radio host goes into work, and then this zombie attack happens. We only see what's going on inside the radio station, and the only guess we have on what's happening on the outside are the occasional calls from their eye in the sky Ken Loney (easily the funniest moment in the film in my mind) and the BBC calling in for an update on the situation. From all the reviews I've read, and from the conversation I had with my friend (who has seen this film and Pontypool) this film was exactly like it in the story, with minor tweaks here and there. So throw originality and creativity out the window. As for the Zombies, or the infected, whatever you want to call them. They are the exact same thing, just because they got infected does not change the fact that they walk around mindlessly, and have a never ending quench for flesh. They are Zombies. ZOMBIES!!
ZOMBIES!!! Okay one to many, but back to this crappy movie. The Zombies from what I've heard are a lot like the ones in 28 Days Later, another better movie, with their insane rage and even more insane quench of flesh. This is where Zombie movies define themselves, story does not matter in a zombie movie (as long as your not taking the idea of another film). Sure a zombie movie can be enhanced by the story, as is the case with Pontypool, but the zombies have to be, in a way, original. 28 Days Later started the insane raging Zombie. Pontypool I can't even begin to explain those guys without ruining the film. The Evil Dead, I think all i have to do is just type the name again because, come on it's The Evil Dead. Romero is the master, and he went through all different types of zombies, from the painted face zombies in Dawn of the Dead to raging zombies in Diary of the Dead, and he did each one with his own unique style.
So, after talking about other great zombie movies, I think it's about time I explain why I hate this movie without even seeing it. This movie down right steals the original story outline to Pontypool which i think is called plagiarism and is illegal in this country and many people get kicked out of school for doing this very thing, yet in Hollywood it's allowed, and apparently approved of. This is not the only film that takes the outline of another movie, and just tries to tell it differently. The 90's is like the worst period for movies ever, sure it had some gems but what decade doesn't, and it's because all the movies were the exact same. My favorite, the crime movie with a twist so big that you'll never guess it till the very end. They force feed you one suspect, make it seem impossible that it's not anybody else but him, then, bam, all this time it was this guy, you just had to look at the scenes where he wasn't there and then when he would mysteriously show up out of the blue, say "hey guys, what did i miss?" OH! DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING DID YA! Well, I'll leave a cliché as my closing statement. This is one film you'll surely want to miss.
Memento (2000)
Not a Gimmick at All
The picture is clear, a man has just been killed. His killer is holding the picture, he shakes it, the picture get's dimmer, he shakes it again, the picture is almost white, he shakes it again, and there is no more picture. The killer proceeds to put the picture back into the camera. Confused? This first scene lays down the basic structure of this brilliant movie, and that brilliant structure is based off one question. How can an audience relate to a man with sever short term memory loss? The answer is to start from the end, end at the beginning.
Leonard Shelby, an insurance fraud agent who's last night of his regular life is seeing his wife dying in front of him, and he's helpless to do anything about it. He wakes up every day with that image, and he is determined to kill the man who put it there. With the help of his friend Teddy, he works to track down the killer. The only thing is, he has this condition, after a period of time, usually ranging around 7-10 minutes, he forgets everything. So how does one acquire a friend, when he can't even remember them meeting? It's a good question with one hell of an answer.
This is a wonderful movie with absolutely amazing performances all around. Joe Pantoliano, is wonderful as Teddy, always trying to push Leonard down one path, Carrie Anne Moss is phenomenal as Natalie, she seems to care for Leonard, but in this movie nothing is as it seems. The true appraise all goes to Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby.Every scene he is clueless, and usually has to immediately act on instinct, not quite sure how he got there, not quite sure who the guy in the closet is, not quite sure how to get out.
But about this "gimmick." This is not a cheap trick to confuse the audience, even though it is, but that's not the intention exactly. It's so we can relate to Leonard's state of mind. He has short term memory loss, would this be a better film if we saw it from the beginning, found out the surprise plot twist immediately, and just went down the classic road of a man who refuses to listen to reason and the results. I don't think so. In fact, that would be awful. I know a lot of people who say it wouldn't be a good film without the "gimmick," but that doesn't make a good movie. All of Tarantino's movies are non linear story lines, but everyone seems to accept that without question.
Chris Nolan does something brilliant here, and we can't get past the "gimmick" which is the worst reason to take credit from a movie. Get over it.
Brick (2005)
Noir Lives
Wow. This is a great film. Really should of got more attention than it did. First of all, let me give credit where credit is due. Rian Johnson, congratulations, you have written and directed an excellent film, thank you. This is a film noir set in a modern day high school. How Bold is That. To take such a film style that's golden days are back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's and resurrect it to a modern day audience. That's bold.
In the beginning, we see Brendan stare at the corpse of his ex girlfriend, who he loved, with a stone cold look. He doesn't want to believe it, but he knew it was going to happen. Go back two days, and we see the mystery begin with a cry of help from his ex Emily. The music in the back round begins to play, and you are lost in classic noir.
Brendan is the detective, and probably one of the best detectives in recent memory history. Joseph Gordon Levitt should be a house hold name after this, he was amazing. Played the tough detective character down to a tee. Brendan is tough, resilient, and witty as hell. He knows he can't trust anyone, and this sets up one of the best female characters i have seen in a long time.
Laura, the girl who wants to help, but for what reason, Brendan cannot figure out, and so he can't trust her. What's her angle in all this. She gives him reasons, but each one is shady. Then she reveals to him that no other guy would do this for a woman, and that maybe she's in love with him. Then Brendan definitely knows something is not right with her. Nora Zehetner does a good job. Watch it a second time, and i think people will appreciate the performance a little more than what they do now. Her character is well written, she is almost as big of a mystery as the movie.
Which reminds me, i gotta movie to review. My buddy's call the movie slow and draggy, which upon hearing, i threw my movie case, no movie inside, at the wall. This movie is not an action movie, it's not supposed to have the cool camera movements, which i actually find stupid if used too much, it's a mystery movie. It's slow, but each part leads to the solving of the crime. There are great moments, like when Dode is about to reveal Brendan's big secret, When we meet the pin, Brad Bramish needed to get hit in the mouth, and TUG. But it's not a modern day film, it does not need style when it has quality.
And the script is genius. One lead goes to another lead, which goes to another lead, which goes to local drug dealer, who tells the big time muscle, who doesn't like anyone asking questions, who then admires the toughness of Brendan, who brings him the the king pin, and I'll leave you hanging on that. Oh, trust me, i didn't reveal too much.
This movie was great, well rounded characters, Character development something not seen much, The most important part of a film noir mystery movie, a great mystery, great acting, and fantastic directing. Again Rian Johnson, you do a fantastic job, and this was your first movie, damn.
The Book of Eli (2010)
STOP! Please?
Let me start off by saying that i wanted to like this movie. I like post apocalyptic movies. I like the idea of a desolate wasteland full of raiders. I even liked the premise of this post apocalypse movie, man all alone on a mission from god and no one is going to stop him. The beginning of this movie was awesome. We get a great sense of Eli and the land he is living in. Eli is a lone wolf in this huge desolate world. He doesn't need anybody else, and he doesn't want anybody else. The only thing he wants is to get "the book" to the west.
As Eli is making his journey, we see the how crude this world has become. Raiders litter the place setting up around every corner waiting to take advantage of the weak. But Eli by no means is weak. The action scenes in this movie were very well done. Eli is an absolute 100 percent bad ass, and the movie does a good job showing this. The only criticizing thing I'll say about the action scenes, the camera does not need to be going around a loop to watch Eli kick ass, it's a little annoying.
As Eli continues his trip to the west, he walks through a small town, owned by Carnegie. Carnegie, as we find out, has employed many of the raiders to go around looking for "the book". None of the raiders have any idea what book he is talking about, probably has something to do with the fact that not one of the raiders can even read, and just go around pillaging and taking all the books they can find. Eli walks into Carnegie's bar and asks for a bottle of water, while the guy across the street fixes something very important for him. We see Mila Kunis (notice i did not use her characters name) go fetch the bottle of water. While she is doing that, a raider picks a fight with the bad ass known as Eli. Another great fight scene, followed by the most important line in the film. MILA KUNIS: STOP! please?
(NOTE: SORRY TO MILA KUNIS FANS)
Cue line to stop movie. Mila Kunis's character is just stupid, and to be honest, if you just left her out of the film, or at least in the spring, this film gets better. Her character felt like a joke. She creates her own plot hole by being this dumb. When Carnegie asks if she had talked to Eli in a later scene, she says no, and follows this line by asking for her mom's hands and starts a prayer. The plot hole? She has been living with Carnegie almost her entire life and has not once done a prayer! Why would she start now! Or after lying to the boss man, START PRAYING! IT'S SO STUPID!
Now, if you can get past Mila Kunis, which i could not, you would of probably enjoyed this film. "The book" has a great deeper meaning. It has the power to save, and destroy. I really like the reason Carnegie wanted "the book", so he can control everybody like his servants and claimed it was a weapon, it shows you the true power of religion. When Eli talks about what the older generations thought about "the book" is an even more powerful scene, if you ask me. He is referring to this generation, and we all have our say on "the book."
So by the end of the movie, i really have it on the teeter. it's not bad, but it's not that great. Not bad because of the interesting story, good acting by both Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman, Good directing by the Hughes Brothers, i really felt involved with the story. Not great because of Mila Kunis, yeah no other reason. Then came the end. I don't want to ruin it, but when you see it, COME ON. HE WAS SO NOT!