Shutter Island (and the Unhinged Goofy)

I'm back - surprise! But why? Why did I come back to this blog?! Well, I finally got bored of not being able to put my feelings about some films in words... Yeah, that sentence sucked, but you get it. Well, one of these films I couldn't describe properly was Shutter Island (dir. Martin Scorsese).

First of all, let me say that I enjoyed this film. I really did. In spite of everything about this that was wrong! Seriously, let's look at this way: the plot twist? Predictable. The score? Over the top. The cinematography? Over the top. The acting? Over the top... You get the idea. The whole thing feels blown out of proportion from the start. They approach the island, nothing is happening, and all of the sudden you get this epic, "DUH DUH DUUUUUUH!" from an entire orchestra. What. The. Hell? It's very obvious then and there that this movie is going to be a bit... well, a bit comical, really.

Then you've got this acting... I think the only performance that's tame in this movie comes from Ben Kingsley (and Mark Ruffalo, except for this one awesome scene, but never mind you that). let me say this: this film is 90% Leonardo DiCaprio. He does it all in this film: rage, scratch a pencil into paper to piss someone off, and of course, "NOOOOOOO!" I can't believe how overblown his performance is. It's fucking awesome! It's like Scorsese laced his food with cocaine and filmed it. He's flipping out every damn scene.

So wait! I'm on to something - Scorsese... He filmed this. It's over-the-top, ridiculous, kind of contrived... Oh my God - I have it! He was having fun! Yes, it happened. This is a film that you don't watch expecting a mind-blowing dramatic experience. It's unashamed. I love it when these make it to theaters. The film gave me a Sam-Raimi-esque sort of impression, where everything is kind of, "Derp," but it's meant to be. This is something right up my alley.

It's kind of bizarre, actually. The plot itself doesn't lend itself to this style. The script was probably penned by a serious man (not the Coens, though), and there's a flashback near the end that actually had a pretty serious tone. The last line? Definitely meant to be taken seriously. So what gives?... Frankly, I don't know and I don't care.

C'mon Get happpyyyyy!

One last thing - the dream sequences. Yes, DiCaprio and dreams again... Whoopidy-doo right? Well, they're probably the best part of the film. A complaint from Inception was that the dreams were filmed to cleanly, and resembled reality too much. This sort of has that same problem... but it kind of works here, I guess. They're supposed to double as hallucinations, which makes everything click a lot better. They also could be the creepiest part of the film (and the funniest simultaneously).

So, overall - this is a movie worth watching. It stretches on a bit too long (by about 20-30 min.) and it's far from perfect, but you'll probably be entertained. And fuck! Isn't that what we all want?

Overall - 7/10: Sweet, sweet madness!

King of Kong: Fistful of Documentary

I come back from the dead in what I'll consider a "Special Edition" of my blog. What makes this so special? Well, because it's a first for me (as has been most of my past reviews, but I don't care about those). I'm going to go down a road less traveled and talk about a documentary some of you may or may not know about: King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters.

Let me get this out of the way immediately: this is an awesome film. It could work as a piece of fiction its so fascinating Okay, now I've cleared that up, here's a rapid-fire version of what I mean:

-It has a set protagonist and antagonist (Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, respectively), a sort of anti-hero (Roy "Mr. Awesome" Schildt and no, I didn't just pull that nickname out of my ass), and a main character that largely wins over a group of people who are at first skeptical (pretty much every doubts poor Steve).

A documentary with a plot? Cool. In addition to the surprisingly compelling story (which should be laughable: a couple of dudes duking it out over an ancient arcade game record), director Seth Gordon let's us peer into the dwindling arcade game community. If that doesn't sound interesting, you don't understand their level of obsession. As someone who still plays and makes mods for a 16 year-old game, I do. These people are bizarre, and they hold grudges. I know them. I talk to them online. Trust me, you don't know weird until you've seen a guy talk about fingerless weight-lifting gloves and their usefulness pertaining to Marble Madness. That's not even the weird part: the guy goes for the record in the "foot division," which is exactly what it sounds like. (HOLY SHIT!).

In spite of all their weirdness, the main 2 guys sort of represent the 2 extremes: the normal, and the so-obsess-he's-a-total-dickhead. Billy Mitchell holds the record for Donkey Kong. He's also a raging egomaniac and an asshole who probably feels no human emotions (and I'm unbiased). Steve Wiebe is a family man and algebra teacher with a small history of staggering disappointment. He's the ultimate underdog, and against Billy Mitchell and his disciples (such as the "Billy is God" preaching dickweed Brian Kuh), you can't help but cheer for him. You're emotionally invested.

I keep saying Billy's an asshole, but you might asking, "Can you back that up?" Yes. Some of things he does, I honestly can't believe. Part of it is probably because he's got a virtual cheer-squad behind him, but there's something. He has to be misanthropic or something. Even after his best friend (if he even considers him that) compliments Steve Wiebe's character, all he can muster up is, "I don't know enough about the situation." Also, he never shows up to a promised competition that's about 10 minutes away from his house (Steve traveled cross-country from Seattle to Florida to be there). Goddamn.

If you've ever wondered what pure evil looks like next to good, here's a look:

<-----Asshole

Cool Guy ----->

By the end, Steve's gone through so much BS it's a wonder he's still kicking, but everyone comes around, just like you will. Even if you don't get attached to the story, there are great quotes to be heard along the way such as (though I can't remember these word-for-word):

Mr. Awesome:
"Doesn't let himself get chumpatized."

Steve and his daughter:
"I never knew the Guinness Book of World Records was so important."
"Yeah, a lot of people read that book."
"....Some people ruin their lives just to be in there."

Brian Kuh:
"Donkey Kong kill screen coming up, guys!" (OVER AND OVER AGAIN!)
Need I convince you more:

Overall: 10. I can't recommend this enough. My initial reaction was to just say 9, but seeing as this is a documentary that manages to capture my attention, I can't help but want to watch it over and over. It's funny, it's insightful, you'll actually start cheering halfway through the damn thing, and it shows you something that you may not even know existed.

It's the perfect documentary. Watch it, enjoy it, tell your friends. Also, sit through the credits.

Mean Streets

I know, I know. I've been slacking. Hell, I haven't updated this thing in.... what, 3 weeks? Well, guess what, I've been busy so BACK OFF, MAN!*... Mhm... sorry 'bout that. What I meant to say was: I decided to do an easier review today. What makes this so easy? Well, for one, it's Scorsese. That means most anyone will have a good idea what I mean when I use the phrase, "That Scorsese flare." Secondly, I think I know exactly what I want to say about this movie. It is still really fresh in my mind.

Mean Streets is, of course, the movie that made Scorsese so noteworthy. And why not? In a lot of ways, it marks the beginnings of a lot of Scorsese methods. Most notably, it includes his first pairing with the always-excellent Robert DeNiro. For those of you who don't know, these two guys have worked together roughly 800 times through their career. They really do great together, too. DeNiro is one of the greatest actors, Scorsese one of the greatest directors. Both of them have been in one movie you like. If that isn't true, you have bad taste and should GET AWAY FROM MY BLOG!!!!

Well, here's the thing about that: Mean Streets is definitely a performance-driven movie. DeNiro and Harvey Keitel both shine in their performances as the two buddies at the center of all the crap going on (and believe me, there is plenty of crap going on). They really feed off of each other's energy, delivering each well-written line with ease and in such a natural way that you think that Scorsese grabbed a camera and said, "Go." Really really good.

Also well done is Scorsese's ability to capture a certain feel in his films. His use of classic rock and soul music has always been a part of this, as has his knack for being able to edit appropriately. A really cool sequence has a camera stuck on Keitel's face as he walks around a bar, completely drunk. Scorsese just has that.. you know, that flare. Also, he manages to strike a fine balance between light-hearted and heavy-handed moments. Sometimes within seconds the film transitions between these feelings.

See? He's about to shoot someone, but he's smiling!

So what's the problem? What's not to like? Well, Scorsese was so wrapped up in getting the feeling of little Italy across, he totally forgot to put narrative in the film. Half the time, you might be wondering what exactly is going on. Sometimes, you'll probably wonder about the relevance of the scene. Certainly once or twice, you'll kind of wonder what the point of all of this is. If not, then you probably read more into than me, in which case, maybe you should start a blog! (DO IT!) I just found this to create an inconsistency that gave the movie an almost... er, disjointed(?) feel. Just really flimsy, you know what I mean?

Also, and maybe this is more of a personal gripe, but I foun myself really dissatisfied with the ending. I don't mind sudden, open-ended conclusions to movies, but this one really didn't do it for me. The story and the conflicts didn't feel as if they had come to a proper conclusion. No one really did anything of significance. As a result, this movie probably left me with a bad taste in my mouth that made me think it is worse than it actually is.

Overall - 6. Good for seeing the roots of Scorsese's trademark style, but he clearly is still not 100% familiar with what makes a great movie. It is a worthy view, though.

* - EDIT: Should have said, "Lazy." Oh darn.

Once Upon a Time in the West

One of the harder things for me to do when it comes to this blog (aside from actually remembering to update, of course) is to decide which movie I want to review. After all, at this point in time I've seen about 600 movies*, and I don't want to spoil all of the great ones out of the gate. On the other hand, I also can't review a bunch of shitty movies without coming off as some sort of angry RAAAH! INTERNETS! blogger that is associated with bitching. So what to do? What to do?

I said to myself, "Ah, fuck it." Then I chose to review one of the best damn movies I've ever seen: Once Upon a Time in the West.

This is, of course, another work from Sergio Leone (See: Fistful of Dollars), and unlike the original film of his that I reviewed, this is completely an original work. Oh, he also gets to work marquee names such as Charles Bronson, Henry Fonda, and Jason Robards, plus a sweet budget! Is this formula going to work?

Well, no shit! I mean, I knew I was going to see a great movie from the director alone, and a solid cast like that? Pleeeaaaase. What I wasn't aware of, though, and what still kind of sits with me today, was that I was about to witness the greatest western I've ever seen... Just ahead of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (ANOTHER Leone flick - srsly). How is this? What is it that sets this apart from other movies? I'll try a piece-by-piece sort of motion here by hitting on the keypoints of story, character, and well... I guess I already mentioned the directing, but I'll break it down for you as I get into the other 2.

Story-wise: this bad boy is a bit complex. In a strange way, we have 4 main characters in Cheyenne, Frank, Harmonica, and Jill. Each one has their own story, which of course relates to the charcter chunk, but more that later. This isn't just a movie about the west, really. It is about the changing times of the west, when the old code of the gunfighter was starting to fade, and the business era was kicking in. A quick piece of dialogue:

Frank: Nope, just a man....
Harmonica: An ancient race....

Whoa! Two lines to get an entire idea across? That's so awesome! AND THAT'S JUST A SMALL CHUNK! There's also the pure tradition itself: Bronson as the mysterious protaginist, after the dark, dark character that is Frank, with Robards providing an odd sort of narration: Narration within the story itself. The way you find out just why Harmonica is after Frank is so well-executed, so poignant... If your jaw doesn't drop either from revelation or from execution, then you just aren't human (or hate movies and should leave my blog immediately... fucker!). It is that damn good.

Yes, Sergio Leone IS cooler than you, and a better director, too!

Which, of course, brings us to the characters. Let's get one thing straight: they all have depth. On the surface, you have Harmonica as the hero, Frank as the evil, Cheyenne as the commentator of things, and Jill as the damsel caught in the middle. And yet, there is more to each character. Frank's desire to grow as a business man is what gets mixed up with Jill, Harmonica sees her as his ticket to Frank, and Cheyenne is just pissed off for being framed (best character ever, by the way). Each of them transforms in some way. They have their successes and their failures, and each of them comes off as remarkably... well, remarkably human. It is just amazing.

Leone just knew how to direct a great movie: end of story. I don't have to elaborate on that. His use of cinematography is remarkable. The contrast between the broad, landscape shots and the up-close, zoom-into-their-damn-face shots works in such a way that everything is functioning in this movie. And its all changing. And it is all that fucking railroad's fault. Leone gets this point across simply by use of the camera. Everything else is just the whipped cream on top of the icing that is even still on top of the cake that is this movie.

Oh, and one last special nod to two of my favorite scenes of all-time: the 10-minute opening scene, which uses all ambient noise for the most part, and Frank and Harmonica's duel. They're two of the greatest, most intense scenes I've ever watched. The former is somewhat comical before the shit hits the fan, too.

All of that, and I didn't even get to talk about the station, or the debut of Cheyenne... Guess y'all suckas just need to watch the movies for yourselfs!

Overall: 10. No questions asked. One of the greatest stories meets some of the greatest characters, and all in the hands of Leone. Wow.

* - Bragginininin', no?

Duel at Diablo - Thank God For Potier

I haven't been keeping up on this blog, I know... and I know that all 3 of you reading this right now are just biting your nails off in anticipation of my next review. So I decided to throw all y'alls a bone and review something a little more obscure... something a little easier to express my views on, something a little... um, you know... shitty.

Duel at Diablo. Where to start with this awesome piece of movie? How about on the good side, first of all: the ballinnest of ballin' actors, sire Sidney Potier. I'm sorry, but if you don't like this dude, you've probably got to get more comfortable with other races, cuz the dude's straight-mackin! I mean, he's been fed this flimsy script, co-starring with the decent James Garner, and being forced to listen to what has to be the worst fucking soundtrack in the history of film... and yet there he is, doin' his thang thang, making the movie sexy. I mean, manly! Shit...

Back to the film as a whole: this does not make sense! Let's run the numbers, shall we:

1) 1800's
2) Black man with white soldiers
3) Indians abusing white people, and that guy with the sun tan goin' along for the ride.

Okay, so that's the score. We've got this interesting little set-up don't we? With a combo like that, this film could be a great commentary on racial tensions and a statement about westerns, amirite? Parallels between black people and Native 'Murricans post war? They must be going somewhere with that premise... Or are they?

Why do you laugh, Sidney? Oh... Because he thought that was a joke.

Nope, this movie bucks convention by ignoring any racial tension... well, I mean, Sidney is a cool dude, but fuck those Indians.* James, Sidney, and the captain get along just swell, but they all have that one thing in common: this chief dude wants to kill them and take the white woman's baby!!! SAVE THE WHITE WOMAN!!!!!!!!!

Who is to blame for this whole fiasco? Well, I could start with director Ralph Nelson. Why? There are plenty of bad choices he made: the moments the composition is used, the lack of any real effective moments, the inability to make a bad script good... Then again, he made Lilies in the Field, which I haven't seen, but heard good things about it. So I'll just blame leading lady Bibi Anderson... why? Because she sucks so much, someone has to.

Bibi: So how am I doing, James?
James: Kiddo, you suck at acting.

I could go on and on, but fuck it, this isn't even funny anymore.

Overall - 2, for a couple of dudes who could act and the fact that it made me chuckle from time to time. I recommend skipping this and listening to some Funkadelic. Why? What a stupid question.2

* - Holy shit these aren't my personal views.

District 9 (HINT: Rating in Movie Title)

It's been a quiet streak from me of late, so I decided to come back with something relevant to the recently (terrible) aired Academy Awards. Everyone already knew my thoughts on Avatar, and reviewing The Hurt Locker will probably just make my blood boil, so why not review the most deserving Best Pic. nominee, eh?

Wait, most deserving? Did I just say that? That's right, bitches. D9 > all other 9 nominees (and Hurt Locker and Avatar combined for that matter)* How is that? It was probably the least likely movie to actually get the award, right?... Right?

Well, let's start off with of the awesomeness that is District 9, eh? We have all of the essentials of good film-making here: a good story, strong main character, good (though not really great) performances, and a message that doesn't come off as heavy-handed or pretentious. Not in the slightest. Corporations aren't all corporationy in this movie. All of this leads up to a climax that isn't the (now stereotypical/lazy) EVERYONE GRAB A SWORD fest that you might think it would turn out to be.

Aside from the all of that, let me talk about that camera work for a second there. It's sharp, crisp... just real clean. It gives off that kind of gimmicky "hand held" bullshit that people are feeding us, but it does the most important thing: practices restraint. Yes, there are moments of shakiness, and it can be a bit frustrating, but it's only done at appropriate moments, and manages to still remain somewhat steady so as not to induce unintentional vomit. Well-played, Neil Blomkamp... well-played indeed.

I think what makes this so great is that from both a technical aspect and emotional aspect, this movie is sharp. Sharlto Copley turns in probably the best performance of the movie. He manages to act out the character arc remarkably well. It starts off as a giddy, idiot promoted above his means, and for the longest time, even as the shit is going down, you can't quite sympathize with the guy because of his dickish view of the aliens.

Fucking Prawns!!!!!

Then you slowly see him change. It's remarkable how physical and emotional reflect each other so well in this process, and the character becomes progressively more sympathetic. Especially as the film reaches its last moments.

So, on the whole shot, this is a damn good movie with a big heart. What's keeping it from being perfect? I'd have to say it's the film's inability to capture any secondary characters with any amount of depth, or that much attention. Yes, this is very much the story of Wikus, but a large amount of side characters are not only kind of flat, but some even iredeemable. Of course, these are the antagonists, and they shouldn't be that likable... Still, some background/personality traits would have bee appreciated.

Other than that, though, District 9 is just a good fucking movie.

Overall - 9, and I'll stand by that rating, too. D9 is da shiznet, yo! (I immediately apologize for that statement). You should check it out for yourself sometime.


* - What's with me being all bitchy? Sorry 'bout that.

More Like GreatFellas! (I got nothing.)

So, I've been demanded on the spot to bust out a review tonight... I didn't know what to review, really. I also have no idea what I'm going to write ahead of time on this one, but I'll give it a whirl with Goodfellas. Why? No particular reason. I guess because it's pretty fresh on my mind from the last viewing, and I know what I like and dislike when it comes to this film.

For a lot of people. Goodfellas is Martin Scorsese's best work. That's entirely understandable, in a way. After all, it's one of his most accessible movies, and it has a story that a lot of people will latch on to. I mean, damn... who doesn't like a good gangster flick, after all? It has all of the great American values - violence, drugs, and sex. What? You thought we valued chastity? Psh... this ain't 500 A.D. This is 2010, an era of thriving porn industry. The post-video nasty era, the post-Requiem for a Dream era... I could've just summed tht up by saying, "It's the 80s again." If only there were still video-nasties...

I digress. GoodFellas is just a damn fine flick in general. There's a lot to like about it: the stylistic flare, the paranoid plot, Robert DeNiro being all deceptively nice-like, and of course, any movie's main attraction: Joe Pesci. Though I've never met the man in real life, it's easy to imagine that he carries a gun at all times and will shoot someone because they gripped his hand too tight when they shook it.

Pictured: Joe Pesci at In-N-Out Burger

Pesci won an academy award for his portrayal of the downright insane Tommy DeVito. Deservedly so, too. He just outshines the rest of the (still great) cast. You may have noticed something here: every character has some insane flaw. Each of them is facilitating the undermining of their own lives in a way. Liotta is too stubborn and ignorant to realize the trouble he's getting into, Pesci is ruffling too many feathers, DeNiro is a paranoid mess, and Chuck Low (playing Morrie) brings them all together in a way that's really not going to end smoothly. It's important for me to explain why I'm pointing all of this out: the film is leading towards a very tense ending, and the inevitble cluster-fuck that's going to pursue is a direct result of their lifestyle. They life of the gangster is glorious, sure... but everyone's ride is going to have it's end. It isn't all gratifying, as some have built it up to be. That's the Goodstuff.

What's wrong with this movie? Gosh, the biggest problem is something that would become worse 10-fold in Casino: the voiceover narration. I've always thought of the voiceover as the weakest form of storytelling, as it betrays one of my movie virtues: it tells, it doesn't show. So what we get are very compressed moments that are gone in a flash... it's tough to keep up. Not to mention some moments don't need the voiceover in any shape or form (Liotta's first date, e.g.). Super-frustrating.

Most people will be able to get past that, and I don't blame them. It's restrained enough that it doesn't become distracting. So as that is the main negative aspect, I can't complain too much. This is just a damn good movie, and one that deserves to be watched. Peep the Samuel L. Jackson bit part as Stacks. That's just sweet.

Also at In-N-Out Burger... Probably watching Joe Pesci

The movie actually made itself more gangster by total accident! That's the power of GoodFellas, and that's why you need to watch it for yourself.

Overall - 8. Voiceovers be damned, I wanna go shoot something now.... Lesson not learned? A great movie from a great director. No surprises there.