(no subject)
so i watched three movies this morning that i wanted to talk about for a minute. i have actually been anticipating all three of these films, but have not had the chance to watch them yet. my roommate brought them home from work, so i figured it would be a nice saturday. the reason i want to mention these three, is they all triggered a response from me that i did not expect.
the first movie i watched was public enemies, you know the johnny depp vehicle that came out last summer about dillinger. there is something exotic about bank heist movies, i have always enjoyed them. maybe it is the dude in me, i dont know. i also, for the most part, have nothing against johnny depp, he is alright in my book. i thought jack sparrow was overplayed, and i dont always need him riding tim burtons vision, but him in once upon time in mexico was brilliant. i was excited to finally see this movie, is what i am saying. let me be forthright, the movie was not that good. i think i went into it expecting road to perdition, an exciting period piece about the criminal underworld. the fact of the matter is, i was bored for the better part of the movie. in response to most of his roles, i feel like depp purposely underacted this part, which in theory i think was what i and most people were asking of him. the problem was, he never seemed to find the pocket on who the character actually was. that awkwardness translated pretty well to the screen, so you never actually knew what you were watching. the character accents seemed contrived, the manuerisms were too flamboyant. i am outspoken about not enjoying christian bale... ever. okay thats not true, he was fine in the machinist and equilibrium, but how long ago was that. it also took storytelling to make those films. public enemies had an idea, but was never fueled by a story. i hate to bring up road to perdition again as a reference point, but tom hanks did not make that movie. the film found his abilities as an actor and used them. guys like johnny depp, and now christian blae, seem to think they are bigger than the films they are in. i want to live in that world where actors are mere tools for the films progression. we are looking for modern day deniros and pacinos, and we are not finding them, because there seems to be no pride in acting tradition. i mention those names, and i know, there is no comparison, but why not? why cant there be films today equal to raging bull and ...judgement for all, why is there no carlitos way or godfather? public enemies should have been a pure drama film, something you got lost in, but the acting was meagre, the storytelling was shallow.
the second movie i watched this morning was surrogates with bruce willis. it seems to be a semi-tired story in the science fiction world, but it is still fresh enough to keep me interested. im not hardcore into science fintion, i enjoy the writings of phillip k. dick and asimov, but that is the extent, so do not take my word as bond, but as ramblings i assume. in my belief, there seems to be a fork in the road at the root of science fiction. what i have noticed is it either praises technology or villafies it, i tend to gravitate towards the ladder. my science fiction repitoire and praises seem to be limited to a scanner darkly, blade runner and minority report. the last of those seems to be subject to a great deal of criticism, but i enjoy it, so whatever. surrogates seems to be better compared to a movie like i, robot or the matrix. it is the idea that we have allowed technology to become the most major part of our lives, and it has corrupted us. i will try not to spoil this movie, so i will keep it as basic as possible. the film has a strong basis, as overused as it is, because in this day and age it is still believable. bruce willis as the lead is strong, because he is not out of his comfort zone, he plays a protagonist somewhere in the realm btween hero and anti-hero, a dark knight writhe with confusion towards the correct response to the current problem. willis will always be perfect for that "ill guess ill save the day, but only because i am here" character, and this is no different. the movie was strong, compelling... or as compelling as a moderate funded film can be. there is one major problem i have with it, there seems to be a theme in todays not quite blockbuster, not quite academy award movies that has really bothered me as of late. there seems to be this crank-esque, youtube generation filmmaking technique that there needs to be ultra-weird, ultra-unnecessary scenes in the movie to that do not drive story progression whatsoever. it is the kind of writing that should be saved for the worst troma films, leaving it only to be found in the most hidden cult shelves. i saw this in gamer, i saw this in wanted, and i am sure it is in a ton of other movies, but i have tried to protect myself from it. i dont mind going to the movie theatre to see things that dont matter, but i dont want to see things that are unneeded. there should be some respect garnered towards making a feature film, and it is almost rude to assume that people want what they can find on youtube to get a momentary fixation of the weird. otherwise, surrogates was pretty good, and i recommend for fans of whodunit scifi.
the last movie i watched, which was probably the better of three, and the one i was most excited to watch, was the informant!. matt damon jokes be damned, he is an incredible actor, and proves it everytime he is on the screen. the informant was ironic, intense, and compelling. the character that damon plays is pretty much batshit insane, and it is enjoyable ride to see where he takes you. acting from each player in the movie is well crafted, there are some pretty stunning performances from scott bakula and melanie lynskey. there is a major bone i need to pick with this movie, what is the point in casting several comedians to not be funny? matt damon is hilarious, but no one else is, and they shouldnt be, but... why cast joel mchale? why cast patton oswalt? why cast paul f. tompkins? why cast andy daly? these are some of the most brilliant technicians of comedy, and they play straight throughout the entire movie. for a student of standup, it is an event to see these people in the same film, and... nothing. still a great film, but come on
this is why i stick to playing mahjohng and watching smallville, bleh
the first movie i watched was public enemies, you know the johnny depp vehicle that came out last summer about dillinger. there is something exotic about bank heist movies, i have always enjoyed them. maybe it is the dude in me, i dont know. i also, for the most part, have nothing against johnny depp, he is alright in my book. i thought jack sparrow was overplayed, and i dont always need him riding tim burtons vision, but him in once upon time in mexico was brilliant. i was excited to finally see this movie, is what i am saying. let me be forthright, the movie was not that good. i think i went into it expecting road to perdition, an exciting period piece about the criminal underworld. the fact of the matter is, i was bored for the better part of the movie. in response to most of his roles, i feel like depp purposely underacted this part, which in theory i think was what i and most people were asking of him. the problem was, he never seemed to find the pocket on who the character actually was. that awkwardness translated pretty well to the screen, so you never actually knew what you were watching. the character accents seemed contrived, the manuerisms were too flamboyant. i am outspoken about not enjoying christian bale... ever. okay thats not true, he was fine in the machinist and equilibrium, but how long ago was that. it also took storytelling to make those films. public enemies had an idea, but was never fueled by a story. i hate to bring up road to perdition again as a reference point, but tom hanks did not make that movie. the film found his abilities as an actor and used them. guys like johnny depp, and now christian blae, seem to think they are bigger than the films they are in. i want to live in that world where actors are mere tools for the films progression. we are looking for modern day deniros and pacinos, and we are not finding them, because there seems to be no pride in acting tradition. i mention those names, and i know, there is no comparison, but why not? why cant there be films today equal to raging bull and ...judgement for all, why is there no carlitos way or godfather? public enemies should have been a pure drama film, something you got lost in, but the acting was meagre, the storytelling was shallow.
the second movie i watched this morning was surrogates with bruce willis. it seems to be a semi-tired story in the science fiction world, but it is still fresh enough to keep me interested. im not hardcore into science fintion, i enjoy the writings of phillip k. dick and asimov, but that is the extent, so do not take my word as bond, but as ramblings i assume. in my belief, there seems to be a fork in the road at the root of science fiction. what i have noticed is it either praises technology or villafies it, i tend to gravitate towards the ladder. my science fiction repitoire and praises seem to be limited to a scanner darkly, blade runner and minority report. the last of those seems to be subject to a great deal of criticism, but i enjoy it, so whatever. surrogates seems to be better compared to a movie like i, robot or the matrix. it is the idea that we have allowed technology to become the most major part of our lives, and it has corrupted us. i will try not to spoil this movie, so i will keep it as basic as possible. the film has a strong basis, as overused as it is, because in this day and age it is still believable. bruce willis as the lead is strong, because he is not out of his comfort zone, he plays a protagonist somewhere in the realm btween hero and anti-hero, a dark knight writhe with confusion towards the correct response to the current problem. willis will always be perfect for that "ill guess ill save the day, but only because i am here" character, and this is no different. the movie was strong, compelling... or as compelling as a moderate funded film can be. there is one major problem i have with it, there seems to be a theme in todays not quite blockbuster, not quite academy award movies that has really bothered me as of late. there seems to be this crank-esque, youtube generation filmmaking technique that there needs to be ultra-weird, ultra-unnecessary scenes in the movie to that do not drive story progression whatsoever. it is the kind of writing that should be saved for the worst troma films, leaving it only to be found in the most hidden cult shelves. i saw this in gamer, i saw this in wanted, and i am sure it is in a ton of other movies, but i have tried to protect myself from it. i dont mind going to the movie theatre to see things that dont matter, but i dont want to see things that are unneeded. there should be some respect garnered towards making a feature film, and it is almost rude to assume that people want what they can find on youtube to get a momentary fixation of the weird. otherwise, surrogates was pretty good, and i recommend for fans of whodunit scifi.
the last movie i watched, which was probably the better of three, and the one i was most excited to watch, was the informant!. matt damon jokes be damned, he is an incredible actor, and proves it everytime he is on the screen. the informant was ironic, intense, and compelling. the character that damon plays is pretty much batshit insane, and it is enjoyable ride to see where he takes you. acting from each player in the movie is well crafted, there are some pretty stunning performances from scott bakula and melanie lynskey. there is a major bone i need to pick with this movie, what is the point in casting several comedians to not be funny? matt damon is hilarious, but no one else is, and they shouldnt be, but... why cast joel mchale? why cast patton oswalt? why cast paul f. tompkins? why cast andy daly? these are some of the most brilliant technicians of comedy, and they play straight throughout the entire movie. for a student of standup, it is an event to see these people in the same film, and... nothing. still a great film, but come on
this is why i stick to playing mahjohng and watching smallville, bleh