Whether it's Alien, Star Wars, or something more obscure like Dark Star, I always find something to like in a sci-fi movie. The fantasy of deep space travel is something I’ve always found intriguing. So naturally I was excited to see Planet of the Apes on the Top 250, albeit near the bottom. Planet of the Apes is one of those films that many find too cheesy or cornball to be considered ‘good’ sci-fi. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that it has one of the worst-kept-secret twist endings in movie history (to go along with The Sixth Sense and The Empire Strikes Back). This could also be the reason why it has a habit of bouncing from the 230-240’s range of the Top 250 to off of the list all together.
The film begins as four astronauts travel many light years into deep space. They awake from their sleep to find they have crashed on a mysterious planet. Upon exploring the planet, they find that talking apes, not humans, are the superior species. The apes treat humans the way that we currently treat apes, and in many cases worse. They hunt humans for sport, keep humans as slaves, and perform exploratory brain surgery on them in the name of “science.”
The story follows astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston) as he learns the ways of the ape life on the mysterious planet. Taylor eventually befriends a fellow human named Nova (played by the breath-taking Linda Harrison) and a couple of kind apes; Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter). With his new-found friends he explores the planet’s secrets. The driving force behind Planet of the Apes is the story; the role reversal for Taylor to see what an animal feels like in our world. There is also the typical sci-fi storyline involving corruption and cover-up in government (although this time it’s the ape’s government) that furthers the violence and misunderstanding of humans.
Although the movie has that weird 1960’s feel to it, it is still effective in its storytelling. The ape costumes are high-quality, especially for the cheesy sixties, and not distracting to the story. There is plenty of adventure and exploration at the beginning and end, with some ape society politics sandwiched in between. This is more of an adventure film than it is an action one (unlike the 2001 remake). Charlton Heston steals every scene as the over-the-top leading man. When he screams, “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” – You believe in the power behind his voice. I cannot think of anyone better to headline this movie. Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter both turn in good performances in supporting roles, and the rest of the cast is adequate in their roles.
As a science fiction film, Planet of the Apes is a must-see, and probably lands in the top 20 sci-fi movies of all time. Its story is classic, its lead actor legendary, and it’s a fun movie to watch. As a Top 250 film, it’s easy to see why it’s near the bottom; corny 60’s flair, reused story, recent remake. But in the end, the pros far outweigh the cons. 8/10
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
#19: Once Upon a Time in the West
If there is one genre of film that I need to brush up on it’s got to be westerns. I never watched them growing up (more of Star Wars/fantasy movies for me) and this has, unfortunately, continued into my adulthood. Sure, I’ve seen a few; ‘The Alamo’ and ‘McLintock!’ with John Wayne, ‘High Noon’ with Gary Cooper, and ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ with Clint Eastwood. But unless you count ‘The Shakiest Gun in the West’ or ‘The Apple Dumpling Gang’ true blue westerns, I haven’t watched many more. Since I’m attempting a rundown of the Top 250, however, I need to watch a few essential westerns. One of which is ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ from Sergio Leone, the man behind the “spaghetti western” subgenre.
The plot of ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is a classic tale of good-versus-evil and one-against-many with a woman thrown in the middle. The story follows a man who is never given a name (Charles Bronson) and plays a harmonica. He teams up with a notorious desperado named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to protect a woman, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), from a hired gun (Henry Fonda) working for the railroad. What starts out as a straight forward storyline, quickly changes into something more interesting once the film gains steam. While it is normally the action on-screen that keeps me interested, the story kept me watching this time around. I have to say that this is, by far, the most interested I’ve been in watching a western.
The cinematography and direction in this film is incredible, which is very typical of Sergio Leone. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is set at a very slow pace; every conversation is slow and deliberate, and just about every shot is a slow pan or zoom. There is plenty of close ups of leathery, sweaty faces to go along with the slow pans across the beautifully barren, desolate and wide American southwest. Leone was clearly a master director and it shows here. I like to think of it as almost a ‘The Godfather’-type film; one that takes its time and should. The interesting thing about this film is that it isn’t so much ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ as it is ‘The Godfather.’ The way the factions in the film are split up it plays more like a gangster film.
Performances in films such as this are difficult to gauge. There are not very many lines of dialog in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’, and those delivered are not exactly riveting. Combine that with the fact that the direction and cinematography practically steal the scenes and there’s a problem. Having said that, however, Bronson and Fonda are both good actors and both do well here. Fonda is in his element here in that he’s in a western, but he’s not usually the villain, so this is a nice change of pace for him and he pulls it off very well. Bronson, on the other hand, is basically playing a typical Clint Eastwood role. He is the tough guy of few words with no name, sound familiar? Then there’s Claudia Cardinale. Besides being completely drop-dead gorgeous, she also holds her own along side the bigger stars.
If you like westerns, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Some may not enjoy the slower pacing of the film, it is over two and a half hours long after all, but if you just sit back and take it in, I think you’ll find a lot to like here. It’s not a John Wayne western, but a beautifully shot, slow serenade to the Wild West. In the end, I believe the voters at IMDb got this one wrong. The fact that ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ is ranked higher than this masterpiece is really a shame. I loved it. 9/10
The plot of ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is a classic tale of good-versus-evil and one-against-many with a woman thrown in the middle. The story follows a man who is never given a name (Charles Bronson) and plays a harmonica. He teams up with a notorious desperado named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to protect a woman, Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), from a hired gun (Henry Fonda) working for the railroad. What starts out as a straight forward storyline, quickly changes into something more interesting once the film gains steam. While it is normally the action on-screen that keeps me interested, the story kept me watching this time around. I have to say that this is, by far, the most interested I’ve been in watching a western.
The cinematography and direction in this film is incredible, which is very typical of Sergio Leone. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is set at a very slow pace; every conversation is slow and deliberate, and just about every shot is a slow pan or zoom. There is plenty of close ups of leathery, sweaty faces to go along with the slow pans across the beautifully barren, desolate and wide American southwest. Leone was clearly a master director and it shows here. I like to think of it as almost a ‘The Godfather’-type film; one that takes its time and should. The interesting thing about this film is that it isn’t so much ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ as it is ‘The Godfather.’ The way the factions in the film are split up it plays more like a gangster film.
Performances in films such as this are difficult to gauge. There are not very many lines of dialog in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’, and those delivered are not exactly riveting. Combine that with the fact that the direction and cinematography practically steal the scenes and there’s a problem. Having said that, however, Bronson and Fonda are both good actors and both do well here. Fonda is in his element here in that he’s in a western, but he’s not usually the villain, so this is a nice change of pace for him and he pulls it off very well. Bronson, on the other hand, is basically playing a typical Clint Eastwood role. He is the tough guy of few words with no name, sound familiar? Then there’s Claudia Cardinale. Besides being completely drop-dead gorgeous, she also holds her own along side the bigger stars.
If you like westerns, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Some may not enjoy the slower pacing of the film, it is over two and a half hours long after all, but if you just sit back and take it in, I think you’ll find a lot to like here. It’s not a John Wayne western, but a beautifully shot, slow serenade to the Wild West. In the end, I believe the voters at IMDb got this one wrong. The fact that ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’ is ranked higher than this masterpiece is really a shame. I loved it. 9/10
Sunday, July 19, 2009
#21: Fight Club
Anti-corporation films are a dime a dozen in the science fiction realm, but rarely does a film of this subject matter become a commercial and underground success in a real world setting. Fight Club accomplishes this. It is one of only seven films made in the 1990's to grace the top 10% of IMDb's prestigious Top 250, ranking at #21.
The plot of Fight Club revolves around the Narrator (Edward Norton), who tells the story from his point of view. The Narrator leads a typical life; he holds down a steady, albeit boring, job full of traveling and owns an apartment stocked with Ikea furniture. Unfortunately, he develops a rather severe case of insomnia. This leads him to believe that he has a problem that needs a solution from his doctor, namely drugs to help him sleep. When his doctor practically laughs off his problem and tells him that the people with real problems, of the life-threatening variety, are all in support groups, The Narrator decides to give a group a try. Once he attends one of the groups, he quickly becomes addicted - traveling from group to group and releasing his pent-up emotions with others. It becomes clear that he is not a normal, healthy individual.
On one of his many business flights he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler intrigues The Narrator for many reasons, mainly because he is the polar opposite of himself. While The Narrator is meek and shy, Tyler is bold, daring, complete with fresh ideas on how to live life. As The Narrator increasingly conforms to Tyler's way of life they begin a club, Fight Club, which allows them to release their emotions with aggression. Once word gets out about the Club, however, it is no longer an exclusive bond between them, but an underground phenomenon that spreads like wildfire. As more and more people follow Tyler's lead, what will happen between Tyler and The Narrator and what will Fight Club become?
The direction and cinematography is dark and confused, matching the tone of the film to a 'T.' Just about every camera trick in the book is taken advantage of here, helping set the mood of panic during the many bloody fight scenes. The mood reminds me of The Matrix in the way that it portrays a regular joe character leading a bleak and boring life in a cookie-cutter world. Washed-out whites and very dark blacks and blues are key elements to the color palette.
Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are definitely the stars of the movie, but Helena Bonham Carter plays a big role herself and plays it beautifully. Norton's reserved, quiet character contrasts with Pitt's manic role very well, while Bonham Carter is caught in the middle as the twisted love interest. After watching this movie I realized that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Pitt play this sort of crazy character in multiple films (Snatch., to a greater degree Twelve Monkeys, and now this), he plays it so convincingly I'm surprised the man wasn't type-cast for this sort of role ala Anthony Perkins of Psycho fame. Norton plays narrator extremely well and really brings the movie together; whether he's on-screen or just speaking he holds your attention. His narration is a commentary on society, which comes in sarcastic, humorous, and cold flavors. In my opinion, I don't think anyone in the cast could have been better, they are all spot-on.
I do have a couple complaints with Fight Club, however. First, I felt it was a little on the long side. I don't know what I would cut, but to me I felt as if it could use less Tyler/Narrator scenes in the middle. I won't spoil the plot for you, but I understood what was going to happen early on and just wanted the movie to get to that point in the story. I hate it when that drag in the middle of a film happens, but sometimes it just does. Thts leads me to the second point, that this is a statement movie. With a statement film, most of the time, the director is spending time bringing the point across to the audience, which can lengthen the duration of the film sometimes to an unnecessary length. I feel as if this happens in Fight Club. More than a couple times I felt as if Tyler's ranting and raving about corporate America got a little old.
All in all, I must say that I enjoyed this movie. As with most films, there were parts I really enjoyed and others not so much. Norton and Pitt make Fight Club come to life and I feel that without them, there is no way this movie makes the Top 250. Unfortunately, Fight Club didn't rock my world the way I'd hoped it would. It is, however, a film I would recommend watching. 7/10
"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
The plot of Fight Club revolves around the Narrator (Edward Norton), who tells the story from his point of view. The Narrator leads a typical life; he holds down a steady, albeit boring, job full of traveling and owns an apartment stocked with Ikea furniture. Unfortunately, he develops a rather severe case of insomnia. This leads him to believe that he has a problem that needs a solution from his doctor, namely drugs to help him sleep. When his doctor practically laughs off his problem and tells him that the people with real problems, of the life-threatening variety, are all in support groups, The Narrator decides to give a group a try. Once he attends one of the groups, he quickly becomes addicted - traveling from group to group and releasing his pent-up emotions with others. It becomes clear that he is not a normal, healthy individual.
On one of his many business flights he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Tyler intrigues The Narrator for many reasons, mainly because he is the polar opposite of himself. While The Narrator is meek and shy, Tyler is bold, daring, complete with fresh ideas on how to live life. As The Narrator increasingly conforms to Tyler's way of life they begin a club, Fight Club, which allows them to release their emotions with aggression. Once word gets out about the Club, however, it is no longer an exclusive bond between them, but an underground phenomenon that spreads like wildfire. As more and more people follow Tyler's lead, what will happen between Tyler and The Narrator and what will Fight Club become?
The direction and cinematography is dark and confused, matching the tone of the film to a 'T.' Just about every camera trick in the book is taken advantage of here, helping set the mood of panic during the many bloody fight scenes. The mood reminds me of The Matrix in the way that it portrays a regular joe character leading a bleak and boring life in a cookie-cutter world. Washed-out whites and very dark blacks and blues are key elements to the color palette.
Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are definitely the stars of the movie, but Helena Bonham Carter plays a big role herself and plays it beautifully. Norton's reserved, quiet character contrasts with Pitt's manic role very well, while Bonham Carter is caught in the middle as the twisted love interest. After watching this movie I realized that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Pitt play this sort of crazy character in multiple films (Snatch., to a greater degree Twelve Monkeys, and now this), he plays it so convincingly I'm surprised the man wasn't type-cast for this sort of role ala Anthony Perkins of Psycho fame. Norton plays narrator extremely well and really brings the movie together; whether he's on-screen or just speaking he holds your attention. His narration is a commentary on society, which comes in sarcastic, humorous, and cold flavors. In my opinion, I don't think anyone in the cast could have been better, they are all spot-on.
I do have a couple complaints with Fight Club, however. First, I felt it was a little on the long side. I don't know what I would cut, but to me I felt as if it could use less Tyler/Narrator scenes in the middle. I won't spoil the plot for you, but I understood what was going to happen early on and just wanted the movie to get to that point in the story. I hate it when that drag in the middle of a film happens, but sometimes it just does. Thts leads me to the second point, that this is a statement movie. With a statement film, most of the time, the director is spending time bringing the point across to the audience, which can lengthen the duration of the film sometimes to an unnecessary length. I feel as if this happens in Fight Club. More than a couple times I felt as if Tyler's ranting and raving about corporate America got a little old.
All in all, I must say that I enjoyed this movie. As with most films, there were parts I really enjoyed and others not so much. Norton and Pitt make Fight Club come to life and I feel that without them, there is no way this movie makes the Top 250. Unfortunately, Fight Club didn't rock my world the way I'd hoped it would. It is, however, a film I would recommend watching. 7/10
"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
Thursday, June 4, 2009
#69: Reservoir Dogs
I’ve never been a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino. I’ve never caught any of his movies in the theaters or rented the videos upon their release. Upon looking at the Top 250, however, it becomes clear that the man cannot be ignored. Of the six films he has directed so far, that would be Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Kill Bill Vol. 2, and Grindhouse’s “Deathproof”, four of them are in the Top 250. Four out of six – that’s a 67% success rate if you want to get technical – not too shabby. He’s a director whose films are violent, crude, and most likely real (since I don’t hang out with the types of characters he creates, I don’t really know, do I?). What I do know is this; he does know how to make a particular type of movie. Reservoir Dogs was his first attempt at this type, and although it’s not the best movie in the world, it’s still pretty good.
The film follows a group of foul-mouthed crooks who got together to form a gang of sorts for a job. As the movie starts we are introduced to the characters, all named different colors to conceal their identities, at a diner for a meal arguing about the meaning of songs, specifically Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” It’s comedic, behind-the-scenes shots like this that set Tarantino apart, others have done it (Guy Ritchie, for one), but rarely as well.
After this relaxing scene, chaos ensues - there is a flash forward sequence after the job that shows two of the men speeding away from a job gone terribly wrong. Some believe there is a police spy among the survivors; we later come to find out in a series of flashbacks and storylines how the characters got where they are and who they are. The story and characters all tie in and are strong and entertaining.
This is Tarantino’s first film, and I personally don’t see how it could have been any better. The characters are all spot-on, with Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, and Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink being the highlights. It’s not hard to see why the Coen Brothers chose Buscemi to be their villain in Fargo just a few years later – he’s the perfect frantic foul-mouthed little guy. The way Tarantino sets up the dialog is great too, and you can see where he is coming from in Pulp Fiction, which is better than this film, in my humble opinion.
There are a couple things to be wary of when you’re watching one of Tarantino’s films, especially this one. They make you squirm with discomfort. There is a lot of blood in this movie, along with high doses of violence in general – including a torture scene, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, you may want to sit this one out. And as a side note, the choice of music for the soundtrack is quirky, weird, and in some instances creepy. Let’s just say you’ll never think of Bob Dylan’s “Stuck in the Middle with You” the same way again. It’s not exactly a feel-good movie.
All in all, while this isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s best work (Pulp Fiction), it is one heck of a debut. As much as I may seem to praise it, however, I feel a little let-down. Maybe it’s just that his films aren’t my favorites, but I felt like although this was a solid product, I don’t know if it’s deserving of being in the Top 250 movies of all time. There are other similar movies (Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch”) that I would recommend before this one. 7/10
The film follows a group of foul-mouthed crooks who got together to form a gang of sorts for a job. As the movie starts we are introduced to the characters, all named different colors to conceal their identities, at a diner for a meal arguing about the meaning of songs, specifically Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” It’s comedic, behind-the-scenes shots like this that set Tarantino apart, others have done it (Guy Ritchie, for one), but rarely as well.
After this relaxing scene, chaos ensues - there is a flash forward sequence after the job that shows two of the men speeding away from a job gone terribly wrong. Some believe there is a police spy among the survivors; we later come to find out in a series of flashbacks and storylines how the characters got where they are and who they are. The story and characters all tie in and are strong and entertaining.
This is Tarantino’s first film, and I personally don’t see how it could have been any better. The characters are all spot-on, with Tim Roth as Mr. Orange, Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde, and Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink being the highlights. It’s not hard to see why the Coen Brothers chose Buscemi to be their villain in Fargo just a few years later – he’s the perfect frantic foul-mouthed little guy. The way Tarantino sets up the dialog is great too, and you can see where he is coming from in Pulp Fiction, which is better than this film, in my humble opinion.
There are a couple things to be wary of when you’re watching one of Tarantino’s films, especially this one. They make you squirm with discomfort. There is a lot of blood in this movie, along with high doses of violence in general – including a torture scene, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing, you may want to sit this one out. And as a side note, the choice of music for the soundtrack is quirky, weird, and in some instances creepy. Let’s just say you’ll never think of Bob Dylan’s “Stuck in the Middle with You” the same way again. It’s not exactly a feel-good movie.
All in all, while this isn’t Quentin Tarantino’s best work (Pulp Fiction), it is one heck of a debut. As much as I may seem to praise it, however, I feel a little let-down. Maybe it’s just that his films aren’t my favorites, but I felt like although this was a solid product, I don’t know if it’s deserving of being in the Top 250 movies of all time. There are other similar movies (Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch”) that I would recommend before this one. 7/10
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
#62: Aliens
After returning safely to base, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is called upon to return to the planet where her old crew discovered the alien. It turns out that a nearby colony on the planet was ordered to investigate the outrageous claims from Ripley that she and her crew had found an advanced race on the planet’s surface. After following orders, however, the colony was never heard from again. Now, with Ripley as their reluctant guide, a rough and tough troop of marines is being sent in to investigate the disappearance of the colony. Once the team gets there, things get complicated.
A new director is at the helm this time around. The now-famous James Cameron, fresh off the success of The Terminator in 1984, directs in much the same intense style. He deviates from Ridley Scott’s slower, impending-doom pacing and goes for a quick, action-oriented style. This works perfectly with the sequel since there are now more aliens to fight and plenty of marines (with big, loud guns) to battle them. The battles are fierce and frantic as the aliens come in waves to attack the marines, and while the majority of the movie feels like it belongs in the action genre, there is still plenty of Ripley fleeing from the aliens that invokes memories of the previous movie.
Even though the pacing has changed, the atmosphere and style remains the same. The planet is still as eerie as anything on film, the aliens are still powerful and dominating, and the additional knowledge of their birth cycle and spawning (queen alien, anyone?) is a huge creepy bonus.
What amazes me about these Alien films is the impact they had on the entire science-fiction world. Other movies attempt to imitate, but never duplicate, the creepy horror/sci-fi feel these two films bring. Video games like Halo and especially StarCraft, which even quotes the movie ‘Aliens’ on several occasions (the Dropship unit for the Terrans), were heavily influenced by these movies.
Both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are terrific movies in their own right, but having both in the same series of films makes them that much stronger. While the first film may be the more revolutionary and recognized of the two, I enjoyed the second film the most. The action is great, the acting good for an action flick, and the enemy is strong and intimidating. However, without the first film, this one isn’t nearly as fun. The first lays the creepy foundation, while the second takes this foundation and builds an incredible structure of action, suspense, and drama that is hard to find in any other film to date. 9/10
A new director is at the helm this time around. The now-famous James Cameron, fresh off the success of The Terminator in 1984, directs in much the same intense style. He deviates from Ridley Scott’s slower, impending-doom pacing and goes for a quick, action-oriented style. This works perfectly with the sequel since there are now more aliens to fight and plenty of marines (with big, loud guns) to battle them. The battles are fierce and frantic as the aliens come in waves to attack the marines, and while the majority of the movie feels like it belongs in the action genre, there is still plenty of Ripley fleeing from the aliens that invokes memories of the previous movie.
Even though the pacing has changed, the atmosphere and style remains the same. The planet is still as eerie as anything on film, the aliens are still powerful and dominating, and the additional knowledge of their birth cycle and spawning (queen alien, anyone?) is a huge creepy bonus.
What amazes me about these Alien films is the impact they had on the entire science-fiction world. Other movies attempt to imitate, but never duplicate, the creepy horror/sci-fi feel these two films bring. Video games like Halo and especially StarCraft, which even quotes the movie ‘Aliens’ on several occasions (the Dropship unit for the Terrans), were heavily influenced by these movies.
Both ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ are terrific movies in their own right, but having both in the same series of films makes them that much stronger. While the first film may be the more revolutionary and recognized of the two, I enjoyed the second film the most. The action is great, the acting good for an action flick, and the enemy is strong and intimidating. However, without the first film, this one isn’t nearly as fun. The first lays the creepy foundation, while the second takes this foundation and builds an incredible structure of action, suspense, and drama that is hard to find in any other film to date. 9/10
Saturday, April 18, 2009
#49: Alien
When considering the science fiction genre or movies about outer space in general, you have to consider a few classics- 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, and Alien. All three of these films had an impact on the way in which we viewed outer space. In 2001 took a more realistic approach and concerned itself with technology going haywire, Star Wars is more fun, fantasy, and imaginative than realistic, and Alien is just plain horrifying.
The now-legendary Ridley Scott, who at the time only had one major motion picture and a few TV episodes under his belt, directed this space adventure about the crew of a mining ship that investigates an SOS coming from a nearby planet. Once on the surface of the planet, the crew soon discovers a mysterious species. Some of the crew is interested in the study of this new creature, but others sense danger surrounding this new-found alien. Basically, Alien takes the “what-if” question that science fiction is based on and uses it to tell a terrifying story that, if one day we do find life on another planet, could very well come true. The heroine of the crew, Ripley, is played wonderfully by Sigourney Weaver. I doubt that anyone could play her character any better. She is a hard-nosed woman that means business and isn’t interested in studying the alien and its unique physical characteristics while the crew is in potentially mortal danger. Ian Holm, of Lord of the Rings (Bilbo) fame, also turns in a great performance as the scientist on-board the ship that goes by the name of Ash. He and Ripley don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on what to do with the alien.
What I really enjoyed about the movie is that it creates tension from different directions; that of the alien versus the crew and that of Ash versus Ripley, and does both so well. The scenes between the alien and the crew are suspenseful and frightening despite the film being 30 years old, and unlike The Terminator (1984), climactic scenes are not spoiled by dated special effects. As far as style goes, I loved the fact that the crew of this spaceship is not some over-stylized, ultra-futuristic crew that knows everything and can do anything. All of them are just blue-collar types doing the jobs they were hired to do when this crisis came to them. This adds a different dimension to the film that wouldn’t be there had this been a spacecraft armed to the teeth with space-age weaponry and high tech gadgets. It brings the terror the film delivers to a different level since the crew doesn’t know what is going on and is relatively un-armed and completely out-matched against an advanced alien race. There is a certain feeling of doom surrounding the crew after their first encounter, which only escalates as the movie progresses.
Overall, I have to say that Alien has to be one of the best sci-fi and horror movies of all time. The acting is good, the story compelling, effects are top notch, suspense extreme, the execution is nearly flawless, and that tagline is infamous.
In Space No One Can Hear You Scream – 8/10
The now-legendary Ridley Scott, who at the time only had one major motion picture and a few TV episodes under his belt, directed this space adventure about the crew of a mining ship that investigates an SOS coming from a nearby planet. Once on the surface of the planet, the crew soon discovers a mysterious species. Some of the crew is interested in the study of this new creature, but others sense danger surrounding this new-found alien. Basically, Alien takes the “what-if” question that science fiction is based on and uses it to tell a terrifying story that, if one day we do find life on another planet, could very well come true. The heroine of the crew, Ripley, is played wonderfully by Sigourney Weaver. I doubt that anyone could play her character any better. She is a hard-nosed woman that means business and isn’t interested in studying the alien and its unique physical characteristics while the crew is in potentially mortal danger. Ian Holm, of Lord of the Rings (Bilbo) fame, also turns in a great performance as the scientist on-board the ship that goes by the name of Ash. He and Ripley don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on what to do with the alien.
What I really enjoyed about the movie is that it creates tension from different directions; that of the alien versus the crew and that of Ash versus Ripley, and does both so well. The scenes between the alien and the crew are suspenseful and frightening despite the film being 30 years old, and unlike The Terminator (1984), climactic scenes are not spoiled by dated special effects. As far as style goes, I loved the fact that the crew of this spaceship is not some over-stylized, ultra-futuristic crew that knows everything and can do anything. All of them are just blue-collar types doing the jobs they were hired to do when this crisis came to them. This adds a different dimension to the film that wouldn’t be there had this been a spacecraft armed to the teeth with space-age weaponry and high tech gadgets. It brings the terror the film delivers to a different level since the crew doesn’t know what is going on and is relatively un-armed and completely out-matched against an advanced alien race. There is a certain feeling of doom surrounding the crew after their first encounter, which only escalates as the movie progresses.
Overall, I have to say that Alien has to be one of the best sci-fi and horror movies of all time. The acting is good, the story compelling, effects are top notch, suspense extreme, the execution is nearly flawless, and that tagline is infamous.
In Space No One Can Hear You Scream – 8/10
Saturday, April 4, 2009
#81: Rebecca
Let me just start off by saying that I am a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock. I love his classic films like Psycho, Vertigo, The Birds, Rear Window, and some of his lesser-known films such as The Man Who Knew Too Much and Strangers on a Train. As far as the Top 250 goes, he is the most decorated director and yet he never won an Oscar for his efforts. I hope to one day own all of his films, but for now I’ll just settle for watching them. One of his movies I hadn’t watched in a very long time is Rebecca, which I fortunately recorded via DVR when it came on TCM a few weeks ago.
Unlike some of Hitch’s other films, Rebecca is much more dramatic, relationship- oriented, and dialog-based. It’s more of a psychological thriller than it is a “wrong man” thriller as so many of Hitchcock’s movies are. This doesn’t mean it isn’t excellent, however. Hitchcock injects his trademark suspense into this story based on Daphne Du Maurier’s novel of the same name.
The story follows a woman played by the beautiful Joan Fontaine, who interestingly is not given a name either in the book or the movie, who falls in love with a wealthy upper class widower named Maxim de Winter (played by Laurence Olivier). As their relationship becomes more involved, Joan finds out that Maxim has never truly gotten over his exotic and popular former wife Rebecca, who was very well-received and loved by the upper-class community. As Joan struggles to fit into her new surroundings and the upper class society, Maxim’s behavior becomes more suspicious. Is Maxim hiding something? Will the absurd expectations surrounding Maxim’s new love drive her to insanity? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out.
One of the highlights of the movie is the head maid of the de Winter manor, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson). She was the former personal assistant to Rebecca, who continually compares Maxim’s new love to his old one. Hitchcock uses her character to provide a spooky undertone to all her scenes and quietly become a thorn in Joan’s side throughout the film. This is one of Hitchcock’s better qualities; to create suspense and tension out of conflict between characters. The result is that the audience cares about Joan Fontaine’s character and comes to loathe Mrs. Danvers.
Most of the scenes in the movie are pretty tame by Hitchcock standards. The camera work is typical of the drama genre and there’s nothing too exciting or ground-breaking here, since there isn’t really any action. There’s nothing of Rear Window, Psycho, or North by Northwest caliber anyway.
Overall, I have to say that this film surprised me. I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I did have some reservations. The plot doesn’t sound all that interesting and the pacing is fairly slow thanks to the fast-paced dialog, it is a drama after all. That having been said, I still found Rebecca to be a good change of pace from other Hitchcock films, such as North by Northwest. Like most of his films, he manages to wrap it up in his typical fashion. It is a little slow at times and there is lot of dialog, so you need to pay attention, but it is the entertaining and witty dialog that carries the characters and makes this film enjoyable. If you’re not expecting an action-packed movie and you enjoy older films, especially of the drama variety, there is a whole lot to like here. Rebecca is deserving of a spot in the Top 250. 8/10
Unlike some of Hitch’s other films, Rebecca is much more dramatic, relationship- oriented, and dialog-based. It’s more of a psychological thriller than it is a “wrong man” thriller as so many of Hitchcock’s movies are. This doesn’t mean it isn’t excellent, however. Hitchcock injects his trademark suspense into this story based on Daphne Du Maurier’s novel of the same name.
The story follows a woman played by the beautiful Joan Fontaine, who interestingly is not given a name either in the book or the movie, who falls in love with a wealthy upper class widower named Maxim de Winter (played by Laurence Olivier). As their relationship becomes more involved, Joan finds out that Maxim has never truly gotten over his exotic and popular former wife Rebecca, who was very well-received and loved by the upper-class community. As Joan struggles to fit into her new surroundings and the upper class society, Maxim’s behavior becomes more suspicious. Is Maxim hiding something? Will the absurd expectations surrounding Maxim’s new love drive her to insanity? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out.
One of the highlights of the movie is the head maid of the de Winter manor, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson). She was the former personal assistant to Rebecca, who continually compares Maxim’s new love to his old one. Hitchcock uses her character to provide a spooky undertone to all her scenes and quietly become a thorn in Joan’s side throughout the film. This is one of Hitchcock’s better qualities; to create suspense and tension out of conflict between characters. The result is that the audience cares about Joan Fontaine’s character and comes to loathe Mrs. Danvers.
Most of the scenes in the movie are pretty tame by Hitchcock standards. The camera work is typical of the drama genre and there’s nothing too exciting or ground-breaking here, since there isn’t really any action. There’s nothing of Rear Window, Psycho, or North by Northwest caliber anyway.
Overall, I have to say that this film surprised me. I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I did have some reservations. The plot doesn’t sound all that interesting and the pacing is fairly slow thanks to the fast-paced dialog, it is a drama after all. That having been said, I still found Rebecca to be a good change of pace from other Hitchcock films, such as North by Northwest. Like most of his films, he manages to wrap it up in his typical fashion. It is a little slow at times and there is lot of dialog, so you need to pay attention, but it is the entertaining and witty dialog that carries the characters and makes this film enjoyable. If you’re not expecting an action-packed movie and you enjoy older films, especially of the drama variety, there is a whole lot to like here. Rebecca is deserving of a spot in the Top 250. 8/10
Idiocracy
I wasn't expecting anything brilliant when I watched Idiocracy, but I was hoping for something at least a little clever and interesting. The plot gave me some hope; a story about the future, time travel, and the decay of society sounds like a promising sci-fi premise, which I almost always enjoy. Add on top of it that an average Joe of present-day is, in the future, the most intelligent man on earth and there are comedic opportunities aplenty. Not to mention, it’s directed by Mike Judge, a man who brought King of the Hill, Beavis and Butthead, and Office Space into the world. The man knows his comedy.
Unfortunately, Idiocracy never lives up to its potential. There is so much that goes wrong here that it is hard to put it into words. The word “disappointing” fits, so I'll use that.
Where Idiocracy really disappoints is in the style of comedy. Fart jokes and stupid sexual innuendo abound in this movie, along with plenty of dirty words and dumb situations. I think I understand what Mike Judge was shooting for here; that the future is stupid. The tricky part is the message he’s trying to convey; that this is where we are headed as a society and if you laugh at this stuff you are no better than the stupid people of the future. Now, I realize that this is looking really deep into this seemingly simple movie, but I do think this is what Judge was doing. So, in the “smart” people’s minds there will be two kinds of viewers of this movie; those who get it (and love the social statement) and those who don’t and are stupid for enjoying it for the fart jokes.
Well, the smart people would be wrong. I’ve got a third opinion; that the movie stinks. I understand the social statement, but it doesn’t matter. The plot is simple and too drawn out just to show how stupid people are in the future. As the viewer, you see society is dumbed-down immediately after Joe’s time-travel. We don’t need to see how stupid they are for an hour, we know. The problem is that if the situations were funnier, it would be enjoyable. For example, there is one scene at a hospital where Joe goes to find out if he has any side effects from the time-travel. This segment is hilarious and easily the best part of the movie, it has awkward situations with the stupid people, but it still manages to be funny.
The movie isn’t all bad. Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph are fine as comedic actors (although Dax Shepard is not) and some of the visuals in the movie are good, such as the Costco and Carl’s Jr. scenes.
In the end, this movie can’t live up to a TV series with a similar premise: Futurama. That may not be a fair comparison, but I’m making it. Both have the frozen time-travel going for them, the simple-minded hero, the love interest, and trying to understand the future. It’s just that one of them does it a whole lot better.
5/10
Unfortunately, Idiocracy never lives up to its potential. There is so much that goes wrong here that it is hard to put it into words. The word “disappointing” fits, so I'll use that.
Where Idiocracy really disappoints is in the style of comedy. Fart jokes and stupid sexual innuendo abound in this movie, along with plenty of dirty words and dumb situations. I think I understand what Mike Judge was shooting for here; that the future is stupid. The tricky part is the message he’s trying to convey; that this is where we are headed as a society and if you laugh at this stuff you are no better than the stupid people of the future. Now, I realize that this is looking really deep into this seemingly simple movie, but I do think this is what Judge was doing. So, in the “smart” people’s minds there will be two kinds of viewers of this movie; those who get it (and love the social statement) and those who don’t and are stupid for enjoying it for the fart jokes.
Well, the smart people would be wrong. I’ve got a third opinion; that the movie stinks. I understand the social statement, but it doesn’t matter. The plot is simple and too drawn out just to show how stupid people are in the future. As the viewer, you see society is dumbed-down immediately after Joe’s time-travel. We don’t need to see how stupid they are for an hour, we know. The problem is that if the situations were funnier, it would be enjoyable. For example, there is one scene at a hospital where Joe goes to find out if he has any side effects from the time-travel. This segment is hilarious and easily the best part of the movie, it has awkward situations with the stupid people, but it still manages to be funny.
The movie isn’t all bad. Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph are fine as comedic actors (although Dax Shepard is not) and some of the visuals in the movie are good, such as the Costco and Carl’s Jr. scenes.
In the end, this movie can’t live up to a TV series with a similar premise: Futurama. That may not be a fair comparison, but I’m making it. Both have the frozen time-travel going for them, the simple-minded hero, the love interest, and trying to understand the future. It’s just that one of them does it a whole lot better.
5/10
Thursday, April 2, 2009
#42: Slumdog Millionaire
My first foray into IMDb’s Top 250 is (drum roll, please): #42 on the list, Slumdog Millionaire. It is one of the newest additions to the list, having been released in 2008, and is the latest winner of the Best Picture Oscar. This was a surprise to me, since the typical award winners and nominees over the past few years all seem to have agendas; Brokeback Mountain, that movie about the transsexual, and Crash to name a few, which are all kind of preachy, politically correct dribble to put it bluntly.
Slumdog Millionaire is none of those unkind words, however. It is a stylistic, dramatic, tragic, happy, and very likable love story about a couple of poor young boys and a girl in the slums of
Slumdog’s presentation caught me a little off-guard. It is very stylish and slick, with interesting filters and other camera effects that really help to bring out some of the colors in some scenes and set the mood for the shot, which brings me to particular point of interest about this film. The beginning of the film is cute and funny, with little Indian children running around causing mischief. As the film progresses, however, the mood swings to a kind of gritty, sometimes violent, and real-world approach. I really liked this about the movie. As in real life, there are good times and bad; sometimes the good comes out of the bad, sometimes vice versa. Having the story progress along this path is an interesting choice and I feel as if it succeeds in both tickling the funny bone and tugging at the heart stings.
That’s why I think audiences enjoyed this movie so much, because it delivers the whole package. You get the rags to (possibly) riches story of our heroes, the love story between a couple of characters, the cute kids story, and the real world drama story. There is something here for everyone and it is all done so well. If I had to choice one word to describe it I would have to choose “enjoyable”, because that’s what it is. Well done
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wecome!
Welcome to my new movie blog! Basically, this blog is going to be a journal of my trek through motion pictures. In other words, a review blog. My main goal for this blog is to document the titles from IMDb.com's infamous Top 250 list; a smorgasbord of movies from the 1920's until now.
There are some issues in taking up such a courageous task as tackling the 250, however. One of these is which list to use. After all, the top movies change week to week all year round; recent releases storm the list (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire), and older films slip into the 240's of the list (i.e. Planet of the Apes). The majority of the list stays put, however, with a little shifting around. The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, and The Shawshank Redemption have all stayed strong in the top 3 spots, with a minor knock coming last year with the arrival of The Dark Knight, and before it with the Lord of the Rings movies.
So, I've decided that I will stick with the most recent Top 250 list, 3/29/09. The reason behind this decision is that the vast majority of films, at least in the few years I've observed it, have stayed put. The list doesn't change much. Slumdog Millionaire may not be on it at this time next year, but by that point something else will have made the jump. In short, it just doesn't matter which version I pick.
Some trivia...
Of this list, there are 11 films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, 5 by Steven Spielberg, 9 by Stanley Kubrick, and 5 by Martin Scorsese.
Along the way through this extensive list, I will be making some detours; sometimes for movies I am curious in, other times for movies reccommended to me (if you have a reccommendation, let me know!). But I will try to stay on course, for my goal is to see all of the Top 250.
There are some issues in taking up such a courageous task as tackling the 250, however. One of these is which list to use. After all, the top movies change week to week all year round; recent releases storm the list (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire), and older films slip into the 240's of the list (i.e. Planet of the Apes). The majority of the list stays put, however, with a little shifting around. The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, and The Shawshank Redemption have all stayed strong in the top 3 spots, with a minor knock coming last year with the arrival of The Dark Knight, and before it with the Lord of the Rings movies.
So, I've decided that I will stick with the most recent Top 250 list, 3/29/09. The reason behind this decision is that the vast majority of films, at least in the few years I've observed it, have stayed put. The list doesn't change much. Slumdog Millionaire may not be on it at this time next year, but by that point something else will have made the jump. In short, it just doesn't matter which version I pick.
Some trivia...
Of this list, there are 11 films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, 5 by Steven Spielberg, 9 by Stanley Kubrick, and 5 by Martin Scorsese.
Along the way through this extensive list, I will be making some detours; sometimes for movies I am curious in, other times for movies reccommended to me (if you have a reccommendation, let me know!). But I will try to stay on course, for my goal is to see all of the Top 250.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)