Reel Rave!
Aug 21, 2008
REVIEW: You Don't Mess With The Zohan
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Consider this for a moment: Is 'The Zohan' really a wannabe superhero of some kind? Maybe he's some kind of an Israeli science experiment gone wrong? 'The Zohan' (played by Adam Sandler), is part Plastic Man (kicking people like that must require lots of flexibility), part Aqua Man ('The Zohan' can swim, this he can do), part Ron Jeremy (you know what I mean).
Although Sandler's latest flick was a bit lame, it was good enough for a few laughs and even worth a lesson or two in tolerating people of different cultures. But come on, this is Adam Sandler we're talking about here. You're not going to watch this movie for any ethical or moral lessons. You (or some of you at least), are going to watch it because you know his movies are fairly predictable and you're sure to get a laugh or two, especially when his buddies appear and play quirky/strange/odd/stupid roles.
The Zohan is funny (and slightly different from his previous roles), but really not funny enough to be worth the expense of watching it on the big screen. Wait till it comes out on DVD, or tape, and rent it.
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Consider this for a moment: Is 'The Zohan' really a wannabe superhero of some kind? Maybe he's some kind of an Israeli science experiment gone wrong? 'The Zohan' (played by Adam Sandler), is part Plastic Man (kicking people like that must require lots of flexibility), part Aqua Man ('The Zohan' can swim, this he can do), part Ron Jeremy (you know what I mean).
Although Sandler's latest flick was a bit lame, it was good enough for a few laughs and even worth a lesson or two in tolerating people of different cultures. But come on, this is Adam Sandler we're talking about here. You're not going to watch this movie for any ethical or moral lessons. You (or some of you at least), are going to watch it because you know his movies are fairly predictable and you're sure to get a laugh or two, especially when his buddies appear and play quirky/strange/odd/stupid roles.
The Zohan is funny (and slightly different from his previous roles), but really not funny enough to be worth the expense of watching it on the big screen. Wait till it comes out on DVD, or tape, and rent it.
Labels: Adam Sandler, movies, review, You Don't Mess With The Zohan
Aug 1, 2008
NOT WAITING to see: Mamma Mia!
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Mamma, who? Mamma, what?
No thanks. I'll pass. I just Wiki'd it. What the heck are Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan thinking?
(Movie poster image from Wikipedia)
Mamma, who? Mamma, what?
No thanks. I'll pass. I just Wiki'd it. What the heck are Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan thinking?
Labels: Mamma Mia, movies, NOT WAITING to see
Jul 31, 2008
REVIEW: The Dark Knight
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
(Move poster image from Wikipedia)
I’ve heard folks complain about sequels before. Some of them worry that the sequel won’t be as good as the first movie. Those folks (and you know who you are), would’ve have been dead wrong about The Dark Knight. In fact, it was even better than Batman Begins (IMHO).
Once again Christian Bale owns the role of The Batman. Forget Val Kilmer (Batman Forever) and George Clooney (Batman & Robin). Although, Michael Keaton (Batman and Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton) did the job quite well. Still, comparing the old series with the new, the former are like kiddie versions with the latter being the proper grown-up stuff.
And what about Heath Ledger, huh? The man owned the role of The Joker. Jack Nicholson, eat your heart out. Maybe you can play The Joker at a kindergarden party or something. Comparing the two Jokers is like comparing apples and oranges, or chalk and cheese, if you prefer. Ledger wins hands down.
However, despite his amazing performance as a dark, mentally deranged, scary-ass-type sicko, that alone (I think) is not worthy enough of an Best Actor award (no, I’m not hating, Ledger’s body of work doesn’t appear to be that vast, nor that deep). Instead, maybe the ‘powers that be’ will award him the ‘Best Supporting Actor‘ award posthumously.
Good riddance, I say, to Katie Holmes and a quick hello-and-goodbye to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal should’ve played the role of Rachel Dawes from the get-go. She looks a lot more mature and graceful on the screen in comparison to Holmes. Sorry, but after her connection with Tom Cruise and his whole Scientology business (which he has a right to choose), I’m not interested in seeing much of her on the big screen. Tom, however, is another issue. I’d still watch a movie with him in it.
No big departure in acting from Morgan Freeman (always solid), Michael Caine (who, because of his accent, I think plays a better Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Gough from the earlier Batman movies) and Gary Oldman. Aaron Eckhart’s performance first as ‘The White Knight’ of Gotham and then as the revenge seeking ‘Two-Face’ was believable and contrasted well in some cases with ‘The Dark Knight’.
The movie could’ve done without the cameo by Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow). It did nothing. Nada. I’m not sure what Nolan & Co. where thinking of when they decided to put him back in there. Also, the scene where the kiddies are shooting at the cars with their make believe guns. Uh-uh. That was dumb and cheesy. Why would you want to put something like that in the middle of an action-type scene, what are you doing, trying to lighten up the mood or something?
The old Batman movies had an okay and somewhat exciting ‘theme’ music (for lack of a better word) to them. The Nolan movies flip them the bird and have a much darker, sinister sound which is way cooler than the old stuff (wonder if I can get it as ring tone on my mobile?)
If you're a fan of The Bat, run, don't walk to the cinema. If you've seen it already, go see it again! Yes, it's that good.
Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, movies, review, The Dark Knight
Jun 18, 2008
STUFF: J. J. Abrams to make movie about NY apartment
I can't remember seeing any movies recently that I considered weird, quirky, or strange. However, that may soon change. J. J. Abrams (Armageddon, Star Trek and more) has snapped up the rights to an NY Times article on a weird apartment complete with all sorts of hidden compartments and puzzles.
Sources:
J.J. Abrams To Make Movie About Fantastical New York Apartment (The Underwire from Wired.com)
J. J. Abrams (Filmography) (Wikipedia)
Sources:
J.J. Abrams To Make Movie About Fantastical New York Apartment (The Underwire from Wired.com)
J. J. Abrams (Filmography) (Wikipedia)
Labels: J. J. Adams, movies, stuff
Jun 4, 2008
STUFF: One side order of move credits please, extra long!
Movie credits. Some of you may have stayed in your seats until they scrolled off the screen, while others may have bailed as soon as it was obvious that the movie was wrapping-up.
But have you ever wondered how long a movie credit was? Not in terms of the time it took to scroll from start to finish, but its length when placed side-by-side with other credits. No? Well someone did.
This is what it looks like when you place the movie credits from 'Modern Times' (never heard of it), 'Casablanca,' 'On the Waterfront,' 'The Graduate,' and 'Star Wars,' next to the movie credits of 'LOTR: ROTK':
(Source: The New York Times)
But have you ever wondered how long a movie credit was? Not in terms of the time it took to scroll from start to finish, but its length when placed side-by-side with other credits. No? Well someone did.
This is what it looks like when you place the movie credits from 'Modern Times' (never heard of it), 'Casablanca,' 'On the Waterfront,' 'The Graduate,' and 'Star Wars,' next to the movie credits of 'LOTR: ROTK':
(Source: The New York Times)
Apr 17, 2008
STUFF: Watching movies, in or out?
Where do you watch your movies, in the privacy of your own home, or at the cinema with the rest of the masses?
(Image from Douglas County Georgia website)
I prefer watching movies at a drive-in (there's only one where I live). For me, it combines the privacy and intimacy of home viewing (you're in your own car with your own space), with the excitement and viewing pleasure of a typical big screen cinema (complete with decent audio via your car radio). There are other 'benefits' to be considered as well.
Specifically, certain levels of 'intimacy' and 'privacy' can be shared between you and a friend. No drive-in? No problem. A walk-in cinema will allow you to enjoy the pleasures of a big screen with big sound, but at the expense of intimacy and privacy. This might be a problem unless you and your friend are exhibitionists and are not bothered by people staring at you rather than the screen.
(Image from The World of Cornelia Funke website)
In both cases however, you have to contend with everyone else around you. For example, while at the drive-in and surrounded by a multitude of cars, owners may suddenly start honking away whenever an exciting moment occurs during the movie. The cinema is no different, in fact, it may be worse as you have zero privacy and are completely exposed. Thus, loud noises, hoots and hollers, the odd cellphone ringing and someone getting up to squeeze past you are all issues that may disrupt your movie viewing experience.
But at least you're protected from the elements. At a drive-in (well, the one that I go to anyway) a heavy downpour will force you to engage your windscreen wipers. As a consequence, you 'benefit' from the added 'visual effects' brought about by the to and fro swishing of the wipers (your ears are not left out either as you have to put with the noises the wipers make). In addition, with your windows almost completely rolled up (to avoid getting soaked), you now have a good idea as to how a dog stuck in a car feels like while waiting for its owner to return.
Maybe you're not one for venturing outside to see a movie. Maybe because it's a bit expensive. According to the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) website, the average (U.S.) price for a movie ticket in 2007 was $6.88. There's also the cost of food and drink to be considered, as well as the cost of getting there (unless you're within walking distance).
To be continued...
(Image from Douglas County Georgia website)
I prefer watching movies at a drive-in (there's only one where I live). For me, it combines the privacy and intimacy of home viewing (you're in your own car with your own space), with the excitement and viewing pleasure of a typical big screen cinema (complete with decent audio via your car radio). There are other 'benefits' to be considered as well.
Specifically, certain levels of 'intimacy' and 'privacy' can be shared between you and a friend. No drive-in? No problem. A walk-in cinema will allow you to enjoy the pleasures of a big screen with big sound, but at the expense of intimacy and privacy. This might be a problem unless you and your friend are exhibitionists and are not bothered by people staring at you rather than the screen.
(Image from The World of Cornelia Funke website)
In both cases however, you have to contend with everyone else around you. For example, while at the drive-in and surrounded by a multitude of cars, owners may suddenly start honking away whenever an exciting moment occurs during the movie. The cinema is no different, in fact, it may be worse as you have zero privacy and are completely exposed. Thus, loud noises, hoots and hollers, the odd cellphone ringing and someone getting up to squeeze past you are all issues that may disrupt your movie viewing experience.
But at least you're protected from the elements. At a drive-in (well, the one that I go to anyway) a heavy downpour will force you to engage your windscreen wipers. As a consequence, you 'benefit' from the added 'visual effects' brought about by the to and fro swishing of the wipers (your ears are not left out either as you have to put with the noises the wipers make). In addition, with your windows almost completely rolled up (to avoid getting soaked), you now have a good idea as to how a dog stuck in a car feels like while waiting for its owner to return.
Maybe you're not one for venturing outside to see a movie. Maybe because it's a bit expensive. According to the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) website, the average (U.S.) price for a movie ticket in 2007 was $6.88. There's also the cost of food and drink to be considered, as well as the cost of getting there (unless you're within walking distance).
To be continued...
Mar 22, 2008
STUFF: Yahoo's 10 Most Historically Innacurate Movies
Guess which movie made Yahoo's historically inaccurate movie list? 10,000 B.C. Hah! No big suprise there. Check out the rest of the 'winners' here.
I don't imagine it being an easy task to accurately condense history into a ninety minute or so film, and also to make it exciting and attractive enough for the average Joe (or Jane) to forego spending their money on other things and instead, head to the cinema. No. Not an easy task indeed.
What with the doom and gloom in today's world, does the typical moviegoer want to sit through anything that forces them to think about, or question what they see on the big screen? Meh. Highly unlikely.
Audiences today want and demand to see cheap thrills, violence, sex, high speed car chases and huge explosions, and why not? Hell, it's been a rough week, the price of oil is rising, the effects of the mortgage crisis haven't disappeared, global warming appears to be real, people are dying and we're not getting any younger.
Despite the above valid reasons for mindless entertainment for the masses, there must be some level of accuracy employed when portraying historical events, especially if these events form the central theme of the film. If not, we run the risk of learning our history lessons from Hollywood who may 'edit histroy' in order to sell a few more tickets and to fill a few more seats.
Maybe it's time for an additional type of film rating. Similar to 'R,' 'PG,' and the others, this new rating would indicate how accurately the historical events are portrayed. Or maybe we just need to forget the whole thing, leave the history lessons in the schools and just kick back, relax and enjoy a film where there's plenty o' violence, beautiful women, high speed car chases, explosions and ends with the good guy saving the day.
I don't imagine it being an easy task to accurately condense history into a ninety minute or so film, and also to make it exciting and attractive enough for the average Joe (or Jane) to forego spending their money on other things and instead, head to the cinema. No. Not an easy task indeed.
What with the doom and gloom in today's world, does the typical moviegoer want to sit through anything that forces them to think about, or question what they see on the big screen? Meh. Highly unlikely.
Audiences today want and demand to see cheap thrills, violence, sex, high speed car chases and huge explosions, and why not? Hell, it's been a rough week, the price of oil is rising, the effects of the mortgage crisis haven't disappeared, global warming appears to be real, people are dying and we're not getting any younger.
Despite the above valid reasons for mindless entertainment for the masses, there must be some level of accuracy employed when portraying historical events, especially if these events form the central theme of the film. If not, we run the risk of learning our history lessons from Hollywood who may 'edit histroy' in order to sell a few more tickets and to fill a few more seats.
Maybe it's time for an additional type of film rating. Similar to 'R,' 'PG,' and the others, this new rating would indicate how accurately the historical events are portrayed. Or maybe we just need to forget the whole thing, leave the history lessons in the schools and just kick back, relax and enjoy a film where there's plenty o' violence, beautiful women, high speed car chases, explosions and ends with the good guy saving the day.
Labels: 10000 BC, history, Hollywood, movies, stuff, world, Yahoo
